Mike Bloomberg is trying to buy the Democratic presidential nomination. He has plenty of money to spend as Bloomberg is worth 60 billion. Rumors swirled that Bloomberg was considering a former “First Lady”, namely Hillary Clinton, for his VP slot. Of course, Hillary denied it. Which really means nothing as Hillary is a known liar. Do you think Hillary wouldn’t JUMP at the chance to get back in the White House as Vice President? Of course she would! Isn’t it sad that President Mike, a spry 78, suddenly collapsed from a massive heart attack? And just like that, BINGO! President Hillary. Call it fate, call it karma, but Madame President will not be denied! Just keep an eye on Clinton because our republic is not safe until Hillary and her ilk are behind bars!
Lots to unpack here. Maggie Haberman is warning resistance allies in the Senate to prepare all defensive weapons against a possible Trump appointment of Ric Grenell as Director of the Office of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Grenell currently serves as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. He can serve as “acting” ODNI, but to become permanent ODNI he would need to survive confirmation railroading by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), Chairman Richard Burr and Vice Chair Mark Warner. The SSCI is deep swamp and and participated in the coup effort against the office of the president. The SSCI has a vested interest in controlling the ODNI position; hence their prior blocking of Representative John Ratcliffe.
[Via New York Times] … Mr. Grenell, whose outspokenness throughout his career as a political operative and then as ambassador has prompted criticism, is a vocal Trump loyalist who will lead a group of national security agencies often viewed skeptically by the White House.
He would take over from Joseph Maguire, who has served as the acting director of national intelligence since the resignation last summer of Dan Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana. Mr. Grenell, who has pushed to advance gay rights in his current post, would apparently also be the first openly gay cabinet member.
Mr. Grenell did not respond to a request for comment, nor did a White House spokesman. The people familiar with the move cautioned that the president had a history of changing his mind on personnel decisions after they were revealed in the news media.
[…] Under American law, Mr. Maguire had to give up his temporary role before March 12. He could return to his old job as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, but he might choose to step down from government.
Mr. Trump can choose any Senate-confirmed official to replace Mr. Maguire as the acting head of the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies.
[…] [Grenell’s] confirmation by the Senate is not assured, one reason the president intents to name him acting director, rather than formally nominating him for the job. (read more)
On May 23, 2019, President Trump granted current U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr with essentially the same intelligence review capabilities as the ODNI in an effort to empower the AG to bring sunlight upon intelligence community corruption. Unfortunately, AG Barr did nothing with the power granted by the president.
The appointment of Grenell can be looked at as President Trump trying to cut the Gordian knot that exists due to a myriad of self-interests deep inside the intelligence apparatus.
The SSCI will not allow any ODNI office member to expose their corrupt intelligence operations. Recently Oklahoma Senator James Lankford quietly quit the SSCI. It has been speculated that Lankford left the committee due to rank corruption and their ongoing plans to hide prior abuses. Mitch McConnell selected Senator Ben Sasse to replace Lankford to retain and achieve the continued objectives of the committee.
The *tell* will be to watch how members of the SSCI respond to the Grenell appointment.
If you stay out of the weeds and look at the bigger picture it is clear to see the media are all-in, desperate to retain the Big Lie that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC servers and releasing the DNC emails. The reason is simple: the ‘Russia hack of the DNC’ is the foundation for the Russia election interference narrative.
Any review, discussion or investigation (Durham) that starts to question the fraudulent foundation is immediately controversialized. Today is no different.
(Via NBC) It is being reported that lawyers for Julian Assange noted in court arguments that U.S. officials had offered a potential pardon in exchange for Assange telling the truth about how he obtained the DNC emails. Immediately the media goes bananas.
President Donald Trump offered a pardon through an intermediary to Julian Assange if the WikiLeaks chief agreed to say that Russia was not involved in hacking emails from Democrats during the 2016 presidential election, a lawyer for Assange reportedly told a court in London on Wednesday.
Assange’s lawyer Edward Fitzgerald made that claim during a hearing related to the U.S. request to extradite Assange from the United Kingdom to face more than a dozen criminal charges in the United States, according to The Daily Beast news site.
[…] The formal extradition hearing for Assange, an Australian national, is due to begin Monday. At Wednesday’s court session, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser reportedly said the evidence about a purported pardon offer is admissible at that hearing.
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, when asked about the claim of a pardon offer by Trump, said, “The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman.”
“He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject. It is a complete fabrication and a total lie,” Grisham said. “This is probably another never ending hoax and total lie from the DNC.” (read more)
The media outrage is somewhat silly. Julian Assange said from the outset he did not receive the DNC emails from Russia; and the emails did not come to him by way of a hack.
It is well known the DNC emails came from a “leak” from inside the DNC.
The Podesta emails, another source of wide disinformation, came from John Podesta falling for an ordinary phishing effort. Neither John Podesta nor the DNC emails came from a “hack”.
However, because the “Russia hacked the 2016 election” was/is needed in order to perpetrate the Trump-Russia collusion and election interference narrative, the media are determined to attack, ridicule and marginalize anyone or anything that starts to expose the original (fraudulent) narrative.
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 byDecember 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.
First, the “report” comes from the pathetic beltway crowd of journolist narrative engineers; so there’s likely little-to-no substance to the construct. However, that said, if Bill Barr is so weak, pathetic and incapable of doing his job, that he needs to threaten to resign if President Trump tweets his opinion, then Barr is in the wrong profession.
…Unless, of course, President Trump’s pressure on Bill Barr is actually forcing the Attorney General to do something the AG is predisposed not to undertake. Which, given the background history of Bill Barr, is also entirely possible.
Right around this moment-in-time is where a multitude of mutually aligned beltway quisling pundits will declare that Bill Barr’s delicate sensibilities are being wounded by a President who demands forceful accountability; ie. traditional DC republican pundits [insert Laura Ingraham and Max Boot here].
The bottom line is President Trump is doing absolutely nothing to impede Bill Barr from doing his job; if the U.S. Attorney General is factually intent on doing that job.
Ever since he assumed office the Attorney General has been praising the likes of Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and Christopher Wray. Given the nature of what is widely available in review, that level of logical disconnect is not representative of an individual who possesses reasonable judgement in the quest for deliberate justice…. just sayin’.
So until Bill Barr actually man’s-up and does something with the authority he has requested, the image of Bondo Barr attempting to cover-up the rot and wrongdoing while surrounded by visible and overwhelming corruption; and pontificating about “constitutional norms”; is a more apt descriptive.
President Trump has been victimized by the same institutions AG Bill Barr is now in charge of. So forgive me if I don’t impart sympathy upon a person who is in charge of those institutions, whining about background noise, and seemingly incapable of addressing the abuse unless all of the planets are aligned to provide him the quiet atmosphere he requires while thumbing through the final chapters of his indulgent memoirs over a glass of chardonnay.
Suck it up cupcake.
When you get all done with that, there’s still a job to do.
The WaPo: -Attorney General William P. Barr has told people close to President Trump — both inside and outside the White House — that he is considering quitting over Trump’s tweets about Justice Department investigations, three administration officials said, foreshadowing a possible confrontation between the president and his attorney general over the independence of the Justice Department.
So far, Trump has defied Barr’s requests, both public and private, to keep quiet on matters of federal law enforcement. It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether Barr had made his posture known directly to Trump. The administration officials said Barr seemed to be sharing his position with advisers in hopes the president would get the message that he should stop weighing in publicly on the Justice Department’s ongoing criminal investigations.
“He has his limits,” said one person familiar with Barr’s thinking. (read more)
The problem facing Bill Barr is his own inability to deal with the issues within his own authority.
It was not President Trump that caused four underlings to defy Barr’s authority and set-up the attorney general with the image of a rogue DOJ lacking leadership and direction. That issue was the direct result of Barr’s own inability to cut-out political corruption on his first days, weeks, months and year as the head of the agency.
No doubt several Bush-Republicans will stand quickly in defense of the psychologically wounded soldier sitting in the tent crying he just can’t take the sound of the thunder any longer. And yes, President Trump is likely to be Pattonesque in removing his helmet, slapping the feeble-minded fool and demanding he get back in the fight…. after all:
TRUMP […] …yeah, I do make his job harder. I do agree with that. I think that’s true. He’s a very straight shooter. We have a great Attorney General, and he’s working very hard. And he’s working against a lot of people that don’t want to see good things happen, in my opinion. That’s my opinion, not his opinion. That’s my opinion. You’ll have to ask what his opinion is.
But I will say this: Social media, for me, has been very important because it gives me a voice, because I don’t get that voice in the press. In the media, I don’t get that voice. So I’m allowed to have a voice…. (more)
Now, go make me a sandwich – and tell the Attorney General to bring me a Diet Coke.
President Trump is an apex predator. A genuine titan; not a politician.
President Trumps’ frames of reference are far larger than the irrelevant opinion of politicians who have never accomplished anything in their lives beyond self-indulgence.
This is the first time a seemingly larger predator has survived the piranha biting and small-minded scheming amid the swamp; and then stood up to squish them in the aftermath…. What we are seeing now is fear; genuine DC fear.
When Bill Barr said on ABC that President Trump’s tweets were difficult for him, in essence he showcased just how weak, pathetic and politically-minded he is.
Barr’s job is the same with or without President Trump expressing opinion on the visible DOJ and FBI corruption. The president is simply reflecting outrage felt by a significant portion of the electorate. It was a mistake for Barr to start whining about the issue, not because of anything Trump, but more specifically because Barr showed weakness within the same fishbowl he is supposed to control.
In the aftermath of a failed coup, powerful interests in DC now understand President Trump is strong; he’s dangerous. And those same voices in DC now see Bill Barr publicly admitting how weak and pathetic he is.
Those who dispatch and coordinate the narrative engineering, the piranhas per se’, know that once they can identify weakness they will exploit it to achieve their beltway objectives.
If the reporting is accurate, Bill Barr is pathetic; and that weakness simply highlights a likelihood his purpose was never to deal with corrupt issues in the first place. Let us hope the reporting is inaccurate.
PS. Here’s the DOJ journolists writing the simultaneously fired articles:
Oh this is sketchy as hell. The notorious activist DC Judge Amy Berman Jackson announced today she will deliver the sentence for Roger Stone on Thursday; however, she will immediately postpone execution of that sentence until the issues around the request for a new trial are resolved. Here’s what appears to be happening….
Judge Amy Berman-Jackson doesn’t want to deal with; and doesn’t want the optics of; the serious issue surrounding the activist jury foreperson, Tomeka Hart, prior to delivering her sentence.
Within the process to deal with Stone’s motion for a new trial, judge Berman-Jackson knows the petition would involve bringing in Tomeka Hart to her courtroom for questioning. The judge doesn’t want that damaging political optic prior to delivering her sentence. Obviously, such an appearance begs the question of how poorly Judge Berman-Jackson handled jury selection. This CYA is a seriously political and sketchy decision.
Judge Amy Berman-Jackson will pass her sentence on Stone, and then take up the issue of a new trial *AFTER* the sentence is announced. As a consequence the judge will not carry out execution of the sentence until the Tomeka Hart issues are addressed. FUBAR.
WASHINGTON – […] In a 12-minute conference call with the defense and prosecution teams on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said she will still hand down Stone’s sentence at Thursday’s hearing, but indicated she plans to defer the execution of the sentence until the court addresses Stone’s request for a new trial.
[…] Prosecutors told Jackson they were in favor of moving forward with Thursday’s sentencing as planned. But Seth Ginsburg, a lawyer for Stone, argued they should hold off until the motions before the court are fully addressed.
“This issue goes to the heart of this case,” Ginsburg said. “It should be resolved before any further proceedings are had.”
[…] Two newly assigned prosecutors on the case — John Crabb Jr. and J.P. Cooney — made their debuts on behalf of the government on Tuesday. (read more)
And what is “J.P. Cooney’s most recent claim to public fame?…
Lawyers representing Michael Flynn presented a strong argument today (pdf below) in reply to the governments’ continued efforts to refute prosecutorial wrongdoing.
Within the reply motion Sidney Powell highlights the conduct of prosecutor Brandon Van Grack and hypocrisy within the government arguments: “Mr. Van Grack’s contention that he satisfied the government’s obligations by providing this information before Mr. Flynn’s sentencing now proves the point that he suppressed it when it was most important to Mr. Flynn: before his guilty plea on December 1, 2017, and before what was scheduled to be his sentencing on December 18, 2018.”
Prosecutor Van Grack suppressed evidence to protect… “the prosecutors, his team, and the cadre of malfeasant FBI agents from the discovery of their negligence, crimes, and wrongs.”
The tone of the reply motion reads like the Flynn defense is chomping at the bit to take this case to trial. Perhaps that is a strategy to add weight to their dismissal argument; or perhaps that is a reflection of defense confidence they can highlight all of the abuses at trial.
The entire briefing is worth a good read and it includes some good timeline information to emphasize the abuses.
When the FISA Court responded to the DOJ Inspector General report in December and January 2020 they requested an action plan from the DOJ and FBI to respond to the issues raised about misrepresentations to the court.
The DOJ/FBI replied to the FISA Court admitting the last two FISA renewals (April, June ’17) used against Carter Page were insufficiency predicated while withholding opinion on the original application (Oct ’16) and first renewal (Jan ’17).
To address the consequences of fraudulently obtained FISA warrants the DOJ and FBI informed the court they would begin a process to “sequester” all collected evidence from all four FISA warrants. [FISA COURT LINK]
Sequestering the evidence is essentially a search for what investigative material the FISA warrants were used to obtain; ie. the search for the fruit of the poisoned tree; and then a review of all DOJ/FBI cases that may have utilized that investigative material.
In late January the DOJ contacted the FISA court and asked for an extension to the deadline. The FISA court granted an extension until February 5th [LINK] The response from the DOJ has not yet been declassified or released by the FISC for public review.
However, with recent media reporting of AG Barr using “outside prosecutors” to review current, former and ongoing cases, it simply makes sense this ‘outsider’ effort is part of the DOJ/FBI sequestration review.
If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The Washington DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.
Additionally, all of the various FBI field offices who may have used the FISA authorizations as the underpinning evidence to gain separate Title-1 and/or Title-3 warrants, wiretaps or National Security Letters, in their various investigative cases would also need to be reviewed. This is an aspect the media is not discussing while they write opinions about AG Bill Barr bringing in outside DOJ attorneys.
The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions. However, understanding the FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary.
The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein. It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest.
Additionally, the Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection. Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested renewals of the FISA warrant.
If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed. Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).
Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.
Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework. Ignored in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place. Likely more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.
There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ Attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review. Imagine that?
New York Times – Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said. The team includes at least one prosecutor from the office of the United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, as well as prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen. (more)
Lastly, perhaps within this process we can finally get an answer as to what legal justification Robert Mueller and the Special Counsel team used in order to gain access to all of the Trump transition team communications; which included attorney-client privileged material.
This issue from late 2017 was ignored by the mainstream media at the height of their willful blindness toward any corruption within the Mueller team:
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham has submitted a list of people he wishes to call as FISA-gate witnesses to Attorney General Bill Barr. Tonight Sean Hannity invites Senator Graham to his Fox television show to listen to Hannity talk about it.
Lou Dobbs doesn’t suffer fools easily; he prefers to cut through the filibuster and get to the heart of the matter. That approach is one reason his show is highly successful.
Within a similar outlook… Where we are now is the direct result of bad decisions where we came from. Going forward on the same corrupt path only takes us further in the wrong direction. This natural truism is the current dilemma for AG Bill Barr.
During his show tonight Lou Dobbs takes the audience back to a very specific decision by the DOJ; a fork-in-the-road decision that put the department on path traveling further and further away from justice. The specific moment outlined was the DOJ decision to bury the intelligence leak by SSCI Security Director James Wolfe.
However, amid all the chaff and countermeasures there is good news. When you realize that continuing forward on a path initiated by corrupt decisions only takes you further and further from the truth; you realize there are signs showing the DOJ is indeed reversing course back to the moment when the wrong path was selected.
♦ U.S. Attorney John Durham is reported to be going back to the origination of the Russian Collusion conspiracy. The reversal of a corrupt path taken.
♦ The FISA Court has asked the DOJ to identify and sequester all of the downstream consequences to the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants. A reversal of a corrupt path taken.
♦ And, importantly, there are reports AG Bill Barr has asked a Saint Louis U.S. Attorney to go back through everything surrounding the prosecution of Michael Flynn and re-evaluate the path taken.
I would be remiss if I did not point out the reporting about AG Barr bringing in outside prosecutors to review conduct in prior investigations, happened almost immediately after the FISC deadline for the DOJ to inform the court of their sequestration efforts….
…A subtle (as a brick through a window) connection not identified in media…. Yet.
Perhaps the connection between the FISC required DOJ “sequester” efforts and the DOJ “outside prosecutors” should be just kept between us, ok.
FEBRUARY 14, 2020 WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to scrutinize the criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, according to people familiar with the matter.
The review is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors.
Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said. The team includes at least one prosecutor from the office of the United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, as well as prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen. (more)
Corrupt Radical Dems: @TomFitton says the DOJ takes an aggressive approach towards Republicans and people associated with @POTUS, while giving special treatment to the Dems. #AmericaFirst#MAGA#Dobbs
Radical Dem McCarthyism says @RudyGiuliani: “They trash our Constitutional rights & liberals have lost all their moral compass.” #AmericaFirst#MAGA#Dobbs
The media PR firm for the FBI and DOJ objectives is the New York Times. The media PR firm for the State Department is CNN. The media PR firm for the CIA is The Washington Post. This pattern has existed for several years.
The Washington Post is very concerned about a growing possibility the investigation into the origin of intelligence community work may expose the fraudulent nature of the entire ‘Russian Election Interference Collusion-Conspiracy‘ narrative. Very concerned.
The WaPo/CIA express concern by stating that President Trump is attempting to “rewrite history”; disingenuously skipping the part where Trump isn’t attempting anything. For more than three years President Trump has simply pointed out the obvious. It is is the media and the intelligence apparatus that set up a fictitious narrative for political needs.
WASHINGTON POST – […] As his reelection campaign intensifies, Trump is using the powers of his office to manipulate the facts and settle the score. Advisers say the president is determined to protect his associates ensnared in the expansive Russia investigation, punish the prosecutors and investigators he believes betrayed him, and convince the public that the probe was exactly as he sees it: an illegal witch hunt.
[…] Last week alone, Trump called the Russia investigation “tainted,” “dirty,” “rotten,” “illegal,” “phony,” a “disgrace,” a “shakedown,” a “scam,” “a fixed hoax” and “the biggest political crime in American History, by far.”
He argued that the probe into Russian election interference was based on false pretenses, despite a recent report from the Justice Department’s inspector general stating the opposite even as it criticized the FBI’s surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide. And he claimed, again without evidence, that Mueller, a former FBI director regarded for his precision with facts, lied to Congress — which happens to be one of the charges Stone was convicted of by a jury last November. (read more)
The Washington Post/CIA are very worried about where John Durham’s investigation is going. Simultaneously they are worried about President Trump being proven right (he was); and by extension the entirety of the media narrative around Russia will be shown as a political effort by the U.S. intelligence apparatus (it was). This is the real motive for their current defensive narrative.
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking; assembled in the aftermath of the November election to undermine the incoming administration.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump. In its most essential form the ICA was the justification for “Spygate” ie. Crossfire Hurricane and all of the preceding intelligence surveillance upon the Trump campaign. Intel ass-covering on steroids.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.
During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)
Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a Durham review or investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, Durham could cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.
Apparently, if media reports are to be believed, John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?
The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.
If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?
Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]
When you understand this operation, you understand exactly why actors within the DOJ, FBI and Intelligence Community needed to throw a bag over Julian Assange.
Assange would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and a host of political interests who created a fraudulent Russia-collusion conspiracy with the central component of Russia “hacking” the DNC.
If Assange were not controlled he might show he received the DNC emails from a leaker, and not from a hack, the central component of the Russia interference narrative would collapse. The DOJ decision to target Assange protected multiple U.S. agencies and Robert Mueller.
As soon as Robert Mueller was going to release his Russia report, the EDVA shut down Assange with the DOJ indictment; in a similar way the same DOJ shut down James Wolfe with a weak plea agreement.
What took place then, and where we are now, is all connected to the original decisions by corrupt government officials.
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
Centinel2012 