Peter Strzok Statements About Weiner/Abedin Laptop Conflict With DOJ Inspector General Claims About Weiner/Abedin Laptop…


Former DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page testified to a closed joint-committee on July 13th and July 16th. Has anyone else noticed how democrats are not demanding a release of the Page transcript?

With the exceptional help of John Spiropoulos we investigate a conflict completely ignored by media and congress. Peter Strzok, the FBI’s lead Investigator in the Clinton email investigation, never intended to investigate the laptop before the election. The evidence, in his own words, is in the report by the Inspector General. In addition, the IG report includes a jaw dropping contradiction regarding the investigation of the laptop. Strozk says one thing; the FBI’s computer experts say another. It calls into question the entirety of the laptop investigation.  WATCH:

.

There is a great deal of inconsistent application of law surrounding the DOJ/FBI investigative authority during 2015 and 2016. There is also a great deal of fatigue surrounding discussion of those inconsistent applications. Contradictions, inconsistency and obtuse justifications are as rampant in our midst as the political narratives shaping them. Perhaps that’s by design.

Reading Chapter 11 of the IG Report reinforces an acceptance that not only is there a need for a special counsel, but there is a brutally obvious need for multiple special counsels; each given a specific carve-out investigation that comes directly from the content of the Inspector General report. This issue of the handling of the Weiner/Abedin laptop screams for a special counsel investigation on that facet alone. Why?

Well, consider this from page #388 (emphasis mine):

Midyear agents obtained a copy of the Weiner laptop from NYO immediately after the search warrant was signed on October 30.

The laptop was taken directly to Quantico where the FBI’s Operational Technology Division (OTD) began processing the laptop. The Lead Analyst told us that given the volume of emails on the laptop and the difficulty with de-duplicating the emails that “at least for the first few days, the scale of what we’re doing seem[ed] really, really big.”

Strzok told us that OTD was able “to do some amazing things” to “rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that the Midyear team would have to individually review. Strzok stated that only after that technological breakthrough did he begin to think it was “possible we might wrap up before the election.” (pg 388)

The key takeaway here is two-fold. First, the laptop is in the custody of the FBI; that’s important moving forward (I’ll explain later). Also, specifically important, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, the lead investigative authority in the Hillary Clinton MYE (Mid-Year-Exam), is explaining to the IG how they were able to process an exhaustive volume of emails (350,000) and Blackberry communications (344,000) in a few days; [Oct 30 to Nov 5]

Note: “OTD was able “to do some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop.

OK, you got that?

Now lets look at the very next page, #389 (again, emphasis mine):

[…] The FBI determined that Abedin forwarded two of the confirmed classified emails to Weiner. The FBI reviewed 6,827 emails that were either to or from Clinton and assessed 3,077 of those emails to be “potentially work-related.”

The FBI analysis of the review noted that “[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation” and therefore the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear investigation. (pg 389)

See the problem? See the contradiction?

Strzok is saying due to some amazing wizardry the FBI forensics team was able to de-duplicate the emails. However, FBI forensics is saying they were NOT able to de-duplicate the emails.

Both of these statements cannot be true. And therein lies the underlying evidence to support a belief the laptop content was never actually reviewed. But it gets worse, much worse….

To show how it’s FBI Agent Peter Strzok that is lying; go back to chapter #9 and re-read what the New York case agent was saying about the content of the laptop.

The New York FBI analysis supports the FBI forensic statement in that no de-duplication was possible because the metadata was not consistent. The New York FBI Weiner case agent ran into this metadata issue when using extraction software on the laptop.

CHAPTER 9: The case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation was certified as a Digital Extraction Technician and, as such, had the training and skills to extract digital evidence from electronic devices.

The case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices upon receipt on September 26. The case agent stated that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”

The case agent told us that on either the evening of September 26 or the morning of September 27, he noticed the software program on his workstation was having trouble processing the data on the laptop. (pg 274)

The New York Case Agent then describes how inconsistent metadata within the computer files for the emails and Blackberry communications, made it impossible for successful extraction. The FBI NY case agent and the Quantico FBI forensics agent agree on the metadata issue and the inability to use their software programs for extraction and layered comparison for the purposes of de-duplication.

Both NY and Quantico contradict the statement to the IG by FBI Agent Peter Strzok. However, that contradiction, while presented in a factual assertion by the IG, is entirely overlooked and never reconciled within the inspector general report. That irreconcilable statement also sheds more sunlight on the motives of Strzok.

Next up, there were only three FBI people undertaking the October Clinton email review. To learn who they are we jump back to Chapter #11, page #389.

The Midyear team flagged all potentially work-related emails encountered during the review process and compared those to emails that they had previously reviewed in other datasets. Any work-related emails that were unique, meaning that they did not appear in any other dataset, were individually reviewed by the Lead Analyst, [Peter] Strzok, and FBI Attorney 1 [Tashina Gauhar] for evidentiary value. (pg 389)

Pete Strzok, Tash Gauhar and the formerly unknown lead analyst we now know to be Sally Moyer. That’s it. Three people.

This is the crew that created the “wizardry” that FBI Director James Comey says allowed him to tell congress with confidence that 1,355,980 electronic files (pg 389), containing 350,000 emails and 344,000 Blackberry communications were reviewed between October 30th and the morning of November 6th, 2016.

Three people.

Pete, Tash, and Sally the lead analyst. Uh huh.

Sure.

The Inspector General just presents the facts; that’s obviously what he did. Then it’s up to FBI and DOJ leadership to accept the facts, interpret them, and apply their meaning.

No bias?

But FBI is committed to bias training?

FUBAR.

There is an actual hero in all of this though. It’s that unnamed FBI Case Agent in New York who wouldn’t drop the laptop issue and forced the FBI in DC to take action on the laptop. Even the IG points this out (chapter #9, page 331):

We found that what changed between September 29 and October 27 that finally prompted the FBI to take action was not new information about what was on the Weiner laptop but rather the inquiries from the SDNY prosecutors and then from the Department. The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop. (pg 331)

Those SDNY prosecutors only called Main Justice in DC because the New York case agent went in to see them and said he wasn’t going to be the scape goat for a buried investigation (chapter #9, pg 303) “The case agent told us that he scheduled a meeting on October 19 with the two SDNY AUSAs assigned to the Weiner investigation because he felt like he had nowhere else to turn.” … “The AUSAs both told us that the case agent appeared to be very stressed and worried that somehow he would be blamed in the end if no action was taken.”

On October 20, 2016, the AUSAs met with their supervisors at SDNY and informed them of their conversation with the Weiner case agent. The AUSAs stated that they told their supervisors the substantive information reported by the case agent, the case agent’s concerns that no one at the FBI had expressed interest in this information, and their concern that the case agent was stressed out and might act out in some way. (pg 304)

Why would the New York Case Agent be worried?

Consider Page 274, footnote #165:

fn 165: No electronic record exists of the case agent’s initial review of the Weiner laptop. The case agent told us that at some point in mid-October 2016 the NYO ASAC instructed the case agent to wipe his work station. The case agent explained that the ASAC was concerned about the presence of potentially classified information on the case agent’s work station, which was not authorized to process classified information.

The case agent told us that he followed the ASAC’s instructions, but that this request concerned him because the audit trail of his initial processing of the laptop would no longer be available. The case agent clarified that none of the evidence on the Weiner laptop was impacted by this, explaining that the FBI retained the Weiner laptop and only the image that had been copied onto his work station was deleted. The ASAC recalled that the case agent “worked through the security department to address the concern” of classified information on an unclassified system. He told us that he did not recall how the issue was resolved.

Now watch embed tweet video:

.

Summary:

  • There were only three people in the Mid-Year-Event team granted authority to physically do the Clinton email review.
  • They were: FBI Agent Peter Strzok, FBI Attorney-1 Tashina “Tash” Gauhar, and an Sally Moyer, the lead analyst.
  • FBI Agent Peter Strzok says they were able to cull the number of emails through the use of “some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails.
  • The New York FBI case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation, a certified Digital Extraction Technician, as well as the FBI forensics team in Quantico say it was impossible to use the conflicted metadata to “de-duplicate” the emails.
  • Someone is lying.
  • FBI Director James Comey said his investigative unit used some form of “wizardry” to review the content of the Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner laptop.
  • The Inspector General makes no determination as to who is telling the truth; and never asked the question of whether an actual review of the laptop emails took place.
  • The FBI still has possession of the Abedin/Weiner laptop.

.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/381806566/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-4WfKaOih0Xm7EA7gdK93

.

⇑ These Cannot Both Be True ⇓

.

The Media Complete Ignores Putin’s Request to Interrogate US Officials About Interfering in Russia


What is interesting about the Trump & Putin press conference is how the Western Media focuses on the claims of Russian interference in the US election and refuse to report any involvement of the New York Banks attempt to take over Russia by blackmailing Yeltsin. Putin says very clearly that Mueller can go to Russia and interrogate who he wants, provided that Russia is allowed to go to the US and interrogate those who were involved in Hermitage Capital including Bill Browder.

 

The entire subject of the Documentary film with additional footage is available on Amazon. This film on my case was all about the attempt to take over Russia by blackmailing Yeltsin and to stick in a puppet of the New York Bankers. The film was banned in the USA yet it has appeared on TV in Europe, Asia and even in Canada. Why did NetFlix refuse to show it? Because there was the entire question of Hermitage Capital which Safra controlled the majority and tried to get me to invest $10 billion. This is the entire center of Bill Browder’s political involvement behind Hermitage Capital for which he managed to get Congress to create the Maginsky Act to try to get his money back.

It is interesting how one-sided this election interference has been staged. Now we have Democrats demanding to interrogate Trump’s translator to see what he said privately. Perhaps it is time for Trump to take Putin at his word and let him interrogate Americans in the USA and Mueller to go to Russia and let it all come out once and for all. To produce the Forecaster, they had to have INSURANCE against libel and slander. Before Loyd’s of London would write the insurance for the film, documentary proof of ALL ALLEGATIONS had to be submitted. You cannot make a documentary film without the proof these days, yet it was banned in the USA

Tucker Carlson: Robert Mueller Seeking Immunity for Tony Podesta to Testify Against Paul Manafort….


When it was first discovered Tuesday that Robert Mueller had filed a motion (full pdf below) to grant limited immunity to five witnesses; and simultaneously seal the court records -protecting them- therein; the benefactors of that immunity request were predictably expected to include: Tony Podesta, and/or John Podesta, and/or Kimberley Fritts and/or Rick Gates; in exchange for their testimony against Paul Manafort.

The reason is simple, Paul Manafort was a business associate working with Tony Podesta lobbying on behalf of Ukraine; Kimberley Fritts was Podesta’s CEO.  Paul Manafort was not a registered lobbyist, violating FARA rules; however, neither was Tony or John Podesta.  Manafort and the Podesta brothers were all guilty of the same crime.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller only prosecuted Paul Manafort, he did not prosecute Tony Podesta.  That is an example of bias…. but wait, it gets worse.  According to the motion, Tony Podesta was refusing to give testimony to Mueller and invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.  So what does Mueller do?

Well, according to Tucker Carlson exclusive reporting tonight, Robert Mueller is giving Tony Podesta immunity…. yeah, go figure.

WASHINGTON DC – […] According to Tucker Carlson, speaking Thursday evening on his Fox News program, Mr. Mueller has offered immunity to Tony Podesta, founder of the Podesta Group and brother of former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Mr. Carlson cited “two sources” whom he did not name.

Both Mr. Manafort and the Podesta Group worked on a campaign named the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, and most of the charges against Mr. Manafort relate to his work there and whether he laundered money for Russian oligarchs, worked as a foreign agent, disclosed his income and status, and related issues.  (read more)

.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/384048391/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-0zWpFU5tFKXHg38IviYG

.

The immunity is limited to testimony; however, essentially it means that Tony Podesta and the unknown four others are in the clear on anything they testify about.

(Via Daily Caller) […]  Mueller and his team of prosecutors revealed the use of the “limited immunity” offers in papers filed in federal court on Tuesday. Mueller is asking a federal judge to file the immunity records under seal in order to prevent the identities of the five witnesses from being made public.

The court filing says that the five witnesses, who have not been publicly identified, have so far invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

“The motions indicate that the named individuals will not testify or provide other information on the basis of their privilege against self-incrimination, and that the government is requesting that the Court compel them to testify at the upcoming trial,” reads the filing.  (read more)

FBI Director Christopher Wray Outlines China is Biggest Intelligence Threat….


FBI director Chrisopher Wray says Moscow continues to engage in ‘malign influence operations‘; however, China is the biggest current counterintelligence threat. Fox correspondent Catherine Herridge reports from the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.

.

It is becoming increasingly obvious there are two larger motives for the Obama IC officials current disposition; two parallel operations which present a risk if exposed:

♦ 1. The entire construct of how the intelligence community was used for political purposes to advance the interests of the Clinton campaign.

  • Using FBI/NSA databases and political operatives posing as “FBI Contractors” to search for political opposition research.
  • Weaponizing the results from their unlawful and unauthorized search results to create a fraudulently lawful premise for active surveillance (via FISA Title-1 warrants).
  • Using the illicit and fraudulently gained surveillance authority to create an “insurance policy” against President Trump.

♦ 2. The unauthorized use of a private server likely led to Chinese hackers having access to all of the content of Hillary Clinton’s email and electronic communication. [As confirmed by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community]

Violence from the Left is Starting – It will be Their Way or No Way


There are groups of Democratic Socialists that are stalking Trump’s staff and Republicans. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service in the Red Hen Restaurant which is really no different than discriminating against someone because of their race. If it were over race, that action would be criminally prosecuted. Other angry protesters are chasing Republicans demanding only their vision should be applied in society. They pursued Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) through a restaurant parking lot yelling at him with a mixture of immigration rhetoric and personal insults according to the MSN. They even threaten to camp out at his home.

This is by no means legal. What they are engaging in is harassment. If someone you knew was doing this to you, a judge would issue a restraining order and if they violated it, they would spend some time in jail. Just because someone is a politician or works in government does not give someone permission to act in this manner that would land them in jail in any other context. This is NOT projected by the First Amendment. They have the right to vote or start a blog. They do not have the right to chase people or camp-out at their house until they vote the way you like. That is not how a Democracy or Republic is supposed to function.

Louie Gohmert Discussing Lisa Page Testimony: “The guilty dogs are barking pretty loud”…


Representative Louie Gohmert appeared on Fox News to discuss the second day of closed-door testimony delivered by former DOJ/FBI Lawyer Lisa Page.  Mrs. Page was the special counsel assigned to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.  Lisa Page resigned from the DOJ on May 4th of this year.

.

One of the more interesting aspects of Lisa Page congressional appearances is the current FBI sending lawyers to control her testimony. Mrs. Page is not an employee of the DOJ or FBI, yet current officials consider her remarks a risk.  We know from the insufferable press conference given by current FBI Director Christopher Wray (following the IG Report on the Clinton investigation), that current FBI officials are working to protect the former FBI leadership.  As a consequence the institution of the FBI is corrupt, not just the officials.

Paranoia May Destroy Ya’ – The Collective Response From the Co-Conspirators…


At first glance saying: yesterday was a very good day, might sound like spin. However, for those who have been frustrated about the lack of righteous push-back from the executive office; the attacks from the former “spygate” co-conspirators might be just what is needed to trigger President Trump to declassify the underlying material.

Consider the tweets from James Comey (former FBI), John Brennan (former CIA), Sally Yates (former DOJ), and statement from Ash Carter (former DoD).

Think about the bigger questions: Why would former administration officials feel the need to engage in such discourse? What exactly does their response say about their personal attachment to current events?  …and more importantly, what do they all have in common?

If you note they are all connected to the intelligence apparatus, and more specifically the well documented FISA abuse, well, yeah, things start making a lot of sense.  After all, at the center of all the intelligence corruption in 2015/2016 is the exploitation of FBI/NSA databases for political opposition research and weaponization.

The over-the-top responses to a meeting and press conference between President Trump and Russian President Putin highlights the extent to which the prior officials have formed all of their defenses around the Russian conspiracy narrative.  They are all-in.

The Russian conspiracy narrative was formed as both their insurance policy against a Trump administration; and a necessary collective defense -passed on to Robert Mueller inc- to ensure an offense was always present to insure their activity never surfaced.

However, in a rather unusual way, an elevated urgency in attack formation by the Scheme Team; their UniParty allies in the DC swamp; and their media advocates writ large; might end up pushing Trump toward a position where he decides to unleash the atomic sledgehammer of truth and declassify material that will finally outline the plot publicly.

One thing is sure, Trump won’t quit the fight; I’m not sure they realize that… yet.  So in an odd way, and specifically because there’s an abundant amount of material available for declassification that can highlight the fraud, I find myself happy to see the increased vitriol.   Example: Think about what would happen if Trump took away the redactions from the April 2017 FISA Court Order/Ruling on the 2015/2016 FISA abuse.

As President Trump noted in his interview with Maria Bartiromo recently, his ‘advisers’ have all recommended he stay away from the ongoing congressional battles against current FBI and DOJ officials.   The one thing that can change the geography of that dynamic is if the schemers (being protected by the career officials) begin taking ground.

One thing is sure, amid the timely coordination between Team Mueller and the former officials the desperation is more visible.  And when an increased desperation is visible, that generally means there’s something closer to the surface that needs to be hidden.

With that in mind a picture is emerging that might begin to reconcile some of the events noted in the past several weeks.

Crowdstrike was an “FBI contractor” in 2015 and 2016.  Crowdstrike was also hired by the DNC, DCCC and Clinton campaign.  The FBI never had access to the servers and equipment they claim was probed/hacked/infiltrated by Russians.  Instead, the FBI relied upon third-hand forensic reports from Crowdstrike to formulate their sketchy conclusions.

If Crowdstrike was one of the ’15/’16 “FBI contractors” abusing the NSA/FBI database for 702, 704, 705(b) (Pages 82, 84) intelligence searches (which were clearly being done for political opposition research), and passing that unlawfully extracted FISA intelligence to the DNC, DCCC and/or Clinton Campaigns, then suddenly a series of events surrounding the mysteriously missing servers begins to make more sense.

The April/May 2016 timeline points to a connection.

Additionally, if Crowdstrike was doing political opposition research via their contractor access to the NSA/FBI database, it would also explain the Awan issue(s) and the motive for the FBI/DOJ to throw a bag over the Awan case.

Remember, access to the DNC and DCCC electronic records was part of the Awan story.  If Crowdstrike was a contractor doing the database searches, and sharing the results with the DNC/DCCC, the Awan brothers would also have access to that information.  This would explain the DOJ/FBI (officials therein) motive to quickly get rid of the Awan investigation, and it would explain why the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC/DCCC servers.  Indeed the sketchy “Russia hacking story” becomes a convenient cover for a multitude of issues.

Again we go back to the single-most-important FISA document that was declassified by ODNI Dan Coats on April 26th, 2017:

(Page #85)

(Page #82)

Just consider those two segments for a moment.  From the spacing of the redactions we can tell the number of queries is in the four digits, ie. “thousands”.  We can also see that 85% of those search queries were “non compliant” from November 1, 2015, through May 1, 2016. [Coincidentally the exact dates later described by the DNC for their hacking issues]

That means 850 out of each 1,000 searches was for unauthorized purposes.  Later, on Page #82, the NSA reports they have no way to know where the information went based on these non-compliant queries.

At this point there’s every reason to believe that Fusion-GPS and/or Crowdstrike are  government contractor names behind these redactions; both organizations using their access to the NSA/FBI database to conduct political opposition research using non-compliant search queries.  Both Fusion-GPS and Crowdstrike were also formally working with the DNC and Clinton campaign.

[It has been reasonably suspected some of the information contained within the Steele Dossier came from these searches; including the wrong Michael Cohen visiting Prague.]

These FISA Court documents are the types of items President Trump can request to have declassified.  However, there is a ‘catch-22’ scenario where a large group of people would not want the FISA abuse uncovered because they would be running the risk of losing a “critical national security tool” if the public becomes outraged.

President Trump would be sympathetic to those concerns and views…. AND, not surprisingly we see evidence of the struggle within former NSA Director Mike Rogers, current DNI Dan Coats, and current HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes.

Connected to the big picture CTH finds it particularly interesting that John Brennan and Ash Carter are railing against the Trump-Putin meeting:

You might remember it was John Brennan, Ash Carter and DNI James Clapper who were demanding that NSA Director Mike Rogers be fired after he informed the FISA court of the abuses and then informed President-Elect Trump of the likely motive for it:

October 2016: On Friday November 18th, 2016, The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.

The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

[…] In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters. (link)

To ensure the NSA/FBI data was not weaponized against U.S. Persons, Admiral Mike Rogers final act as NSA director was to move Cyber Command into the unified combatant command structure of the U.S. military.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/349542716/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-72P5FzpI44KMOuOPZrt1

Sean Hannity Interviews President Trump Following Meeting With Russian President Putin…


Fox News Sean Hannity sits down with the president shortly after the meeting in Helsinki, Finland, between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin…

The interview is in two segments. Here is part I

.

Part II below:

Swamp Guardian Chris Wallace Interviews Russian President Vladimir Putin…


The primary guardian and gatekeeper of the DC Swamp, Chris Wallace, sits down for an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mamet’s Girl Personified: “A Brain-Dead Liberal”, A Cliche’, Cue The Audio Visual…


Almost exactly a decade ago, David Mamet wrote a rather controversial op-ed for the Village Voice titled: “Why I am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal“.    A few years later Mamet followed up with an excellent book titled: “The Secret Knowledge“.

After a life amid a tribe of toxic liberalism, Mamet began to choke on the inherent hypocrisy of it all.  He began to point out that hypocrisy, causing his tribe to go bananas and dispatch him as if he were spreading Ebola.  Later in his evolution he connected the hypocritical dots to the natural outcomes.  Here is the 2018 version of what he describes:

We should help the Palestine; humanitarian condition; because houses, occupation and stuff. Such as the Palestine, everywhere, like, such as…