Representatives Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows and Ron Desantis sent a letter today to President Trump asking him to release records being withheld by the DOJ and FBI.  Additionally, it appears the congressman are requesting President Trump utilize his executive authority to declassify the documents if needed.

U.S. intelligence officials who participated in the 2016 Russian interference narrative/scheme are now attempting to justify their conspiratorial conduct with leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post.  Their leaks are a transparent effort to justify prior conduct. This cover-up endeavor has been their primary focus since congress started demanding documentary evidence from the DOJ, FBI, State Department and intelligence participants in the scheme.

Before breaking-down and explaining the recent obfuscations allow me to posit one simple but central example that highlights the gross intelligence misconduct.

On October 21st, 2016, the DOJ and FBI used the Steele Dossier as the foundation for their FISA Title-1 Surveillance application against Carter Page.  Surveillance was a key part of the FBI counterintelligence operation to investigate Russian interferance in the 2016 election.  However, almost three months later, on January 4th, 2017, when John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey produced their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), the same individuals who created the FISA application did not include the Steele Dossier in their ICA report.

Think about the contradiction in this example. It is within this contradiction, and many more, where we discover the origin of the feces. If the Dossier was valid enough to present to a FISA court as evidence of Russian involvement; then why wouldn’t that same Dossier be valid enough evidence to include in their January Intelligence Community Assessment?

When you start asking these irreconcilable common sense questions, you begin to realize -and expose- how insufferably corrupt the entire intelligence scheme really was.  The entire scheme was an assembly of individual lies; each lie a thread rolled into a bigger ball of entwined nonsense.  Look at it from a distance and it looks like a vast Russian conspiracy ball; however, pull any single strand out, look at it, and there’s no truth to it.

It’s all an illusion.

This illusion was on full display today when the Senate Intelligence Committee asked John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), and Mike Rogers (NSA) to come to a closed door hearing so the corrupt senate politicians -who were also involved in the scheme- could coordinate talking points and generate synergy in their excuses and justifications. Not surprisingly former FBI Director James Comey refused to attend.

Today’s motive for the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing was exactly that: coordinate talking points, circle the wagons and reach a consensus on justification.  As we have outlined exhaustively the Senate Intel Committee is the second most corrupt deep-state assembly in Washington DC.

Another example of fraudulent threads is the 2018 indictments of Russian entities by Robert Mueller.  This week, as specific threads are pulled out for legal challenge, we discover that Mueller indicted Russian organizations that didn’t even exist during the time they were supposed to have been engaged in election trouble.  Another corrupt thread example is Robert Mueller having to lean on 2006 and 2009 tax avoidance schemes (financial crimes) of Paul Manafort in order to justify a Special Counsel indictment of Paul Manafort for involvement in… (?)… well, no-one really knows, except it’s NOT 2016 Russian election interference?…

Where did Mueller get his collapsing foundational intelligence for his Russian indictments?… Well, from the Russian investigative evidence inside the ICA… DUH.  An ICA that was based on false and thin threads.

Look deeper at the Russian use of Twitter… OK, but wait, when they do, there’s no ‘there’ there either.  Social media? Same/Same…  Look at Russian spending on campaign events…. OK, but wait, when they do, the same outcome… Comrade nothingburger.

Which leads to all of these Special Counsel endeavors simply trying to justify the existence of an investigation into something that never existed. And it should be noted many of the same players attempting to create the current justification are the same players who participated in the scheme to create the illusion.  It’s all nuts…. and as each thread is removed and reviewed, the illusion is collapsing.

The more the Russian Conspiracy Collusion-illusion collapses, the harder those corrupt officials are having to work in an impossible effort to retain it. There are so many holes appearing in their dam, they’ve run out of fingers and toes to plug ’em.   James Comey, skipping out on today’s meeting, appears to have invested in scuba gear.

This backdrop is the reason for the corrupt intelligence operators turned to the New York Times for help.  However, their leaked excuses/justifications are so ridiculous they are transparently desperate.  Consider:

New York Times –  Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.

Ha, ha, ha…. stop. Just stop.  Now you’re being silly… Ooooh, so secret FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page were text messaging each other about it?

…Their assignment, which has not been previously reported,..

Yes it has.

Sorry NYT, no exclusive here.  Anyone who read the actual text messages six months ago read all about the U.K. assignment. There are dozens of reports; just not from The Times or Washington Post.

…was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.

Oh, see the motive here?

We already knew about all this – but the leakers are trying to frame justification for the upcoming released name of apparatchik Stefan Halper, and how he participated in organizing all of these “unofficial” meet-ups.

The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.

THIS –right.flippin’.here– is why I’ve been yelling at people to read the damned Page/Strzok text messages.  This paragraph is written by the New York Times because Andrew McCarthy finally broke down and read the darned messages and wrote about this specific meeting and what the FBI did upon Strzok’s return from London. {SEE HERE}

[…] Agents considered, then rejected, interviewing key Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation but risked revealing the existence of the case. Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not solve the case before Election Day, which made them only more hesitant to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy.

Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department. Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent, explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it too “tasty” to resist sharing. “I’m not worried about our side,” he wrote.

Only about five Justice Department officials knew the full scope of the case, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be briefed on a major national security case.

See what they’re doing here?  Political spin.  Attempted justification etc.

Mr. Comey was briefed regularly on the Russia investigation, but one official said those briefings focused mostly on hacking and election interference. The Crossfire Hurricane team did not present many crucial decisions for Mr. Comey to make.

Top officials became convinced that there was almost no chance they would answer the question of collusion before Election Day. And that made agents even more cautious.

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.  (read more)

D’oh, there it is again… keeping Comey in the ‘willfully blind’ dark again.

I can’t go on – it’s one thing to read propaganda, it’s another thing entirely to submerge yourself in the parseltongue obtuse obfuscations and lies.

The leaky obfuscation goes on to say in retrospect the FBI and DOJ couldn’t tell President Trump about their spying, wire-tapping and campaign surveillance…. because it would reinforce Trump’s impressions of the FBI and DOJ wire-tapping, spying and surveillance upon him…..  Seriously, that’s their excuse.

I’m done with this nonsense.  The third-phase of IG Horowitz looking into the FISA court abuse will reveal much of this; and I prefer to outline bite-sized portions of corruption one thread at a time.

The Obama Intelligence Community is screwed.

They know it, and their justifications in the New York Times proves they know it.

Mark the date.

The tide has turned.

They, all of them, are now left attempting to control the severity of their exposure.

“Muh Russia” is dead.

Political operatives, contractors, used deep-state access to FBI and NSA databases for campaign opposition research.  Then they needed justification… then came the sketchy counterintelligence operation…. Then they needed justification…. then came the use of the sketchy Dossier to get a FISA warrant….. Then they needed cover…. then came the Russian Conspiracy…. Then they needed cover…. Then came the Special Counsel….

THREAD LINK

There is a massive amount of breaking news today. The reasoning behind the breaking news releases is that all participants are positioning.

In advance of DOJ and FBI declassification releases to congress, which will outline how the IC went around official channels for their political efforts against Donald Trump, the corrupt internal agents within the U.S. intelligence community are rabidly leaking to the New York Times and Washington Post.  The IC now admit to the use of politically motivated National Security Letters from corrupt foreign officials.  More on that later.

Additionally, President Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani reveals a conversation with the Robert Mueller team where the Special Counsel admit they have no legal jurisdiction to indict a sitting president.  This is not new to those of us who have followed closely, but it will cause massive ‘splodey heads amid the left-wing moonbats who were kept clueless by an entrenched ideological media:

(Via CNN) Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has informed President Donald Trump’s attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President’s lawyer. “All they get to do is write a report,” Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. “They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”

That conclusion is likely based on longstanding Justice Department guidelines. It is not about any assessment of the evidence Mueller’s team has compiled. A lack of an indictment would not necessarily mean the President is in the clear. Mueller could issue a report making referrals or recommendations to the House of Representatives.

The inability to indict a sitting president has been the position of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department since the Nixon administration and reaffirmed in the Clinton administration, but it has never been tested in court. (read more)

Inspector General Michael Horowitz has submitted the “Draft Report” of his OIG investigation to the principals involved. The IG investigation encompasses the FBI and DOJ conduct during the 2015/2016 Hillary Clinton investigation. The Draft Report encompasses the findings.

The Draft Report review is the last review phase prior to the Final report being released. The Draft Report review allows the principals to provide input on the facts identified and outlined within the draft.

Responses from the principals about the facts outlined in the draft report are then reviewed, cleared for addition if appropriate, and included in the Final Report. The Draft Report is the first time the DOJ and FBI Principals (only those officials who remain inside the DOJ and FBI) get to see the underlying documentary evidenced gathered in the 17-month-long investigation.

Wall Street Journal – Multiple subjects of a report on the Justice Department’s handling of a 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use have been notified that they can privately review the report by week’s end, signaling t he long-awaited document is nearing release.

The report is likely to reignite the volatile debate over the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton probe, and it will put Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, in a familiar place—taking aim at members of the law enforcement community.

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it, people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks. (more)

♦Expanding on The Process. The Final IG Report is a statement of fact. The Draft Review contains all of the statements of facts and allows investigated parties an opportunity to provide input toward any fact statement within the draft.

Prior to the Draft Review there is a massively exhaustive reference check undertaken by the IG “referencer”.

The referencer could be a person or a group of people depending on the size of the report.

The referencer has the responsibility for going through every statement of fact and providing the citation or footnote for the assertion. The person(s) doing the reference review have the most arduous of tasks.

The referencer checks every sentence, every assertion, and ensures only provable facts with citations are part of the report. Every assertion of fact must be cited (or footnoted) to include the investigative material that proves the fact.

Remember, the final IG report is an assembled outline of facts. The final IG report will not include opinion, motive, or intent from the report author. All outlined opinions, motives and intentions within the IG report are those drawn from the statements of the people and groups investigated. All opinions expressed are those of the individuals inside the report.

The person(s) doing the reference checks, go through the report line-by-line and reference the supporting investigative documentation. A massively time consuming part of the report generation.

When the referencing process is completed, the draft report is sent out to the principals for comment on the draft report findings and recommendations. This is where the process is RIGHT NOW. If the principals return comments on the “draft”, their comments must be cleared by the person(s) who are doing the reference check, and may be included in the final draft.

Then the report goes to print.

More Key Points:

♦First, the draft report is reviewed internally. Only the principal officers who are currently inside the investigated agency get to see it. Those officials must sign comprehensive Non Disclosure Agreements, subject to criminal prosecution if they violate the NDA.

Former Officials, or employees who have left the agency: ex. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, James Baker, Jim Rybicki, Michael Kortan and all of the officials who have left the FBI will not get to see the draft report. [Now you know why Lisa Page and James Baker were dispatched last week.]

The same IG rules of Draft Report distribution apply on the Main Justice side of the DOJ and (DOJ-NSD) (DOJ-National Security Division).  Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, David Laufman, etc. do not get to see the report. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein will review the draft report and control who they allow to review.

On the FBI side, Director Christopher Wray will review the draft report along with Asst FBI Director David Bowditch (if approved). Likely FBI Chief Legal Counsel Dana Boente, the former head of the DOJ-NSD, will also review. [*note* now you know why Boente was brought back inside in January ’18] Two more principals who could review would be FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap; and we must remember – FBI Agent Peter Strzok was not kicked out, he also remains inside.

♦ Secondly, the IG report does not include criminal referrals. The final IG report is a statement of facts. The IG report only provides the facts to decision-making leadership, who then decide what to do with those facts. However, if the IG discovers evidence of unlawful or illegal activity during the course of his/her investigation, the IG has a legal and ethical responsibility to tell the head of the DOJ immediately.

The IG cannot keep evidence of unlawful conduct hidden until the release of the report.

This is important because Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber to join IG Horowitz toward the end of last year (2017).

The federal attorney (Huber)  then constructs a parallel investigation based on the evidence the IG has discovered.

However, as with all criminal investigations, Prosecutor John Huber would then fire-wall the IG from his own expanded criminal investigative inquiry.

It is critical to understand what happens when a U.S. Attorney joins with the OIG. The evidence flow only goes one-way. The IG is not participating in a criminal investigation. The IG is only looking at facts within his investigation and shares any pertinent investigative findings with the U.S. Attorney. The U.S. attorney does not provide the IG with findings from his criminal investigation.

IG Horowitz and U.S Attorney Huber might interview the same subjects. [In rare instances they might even interview the same subject simultaneously] However, Huber would not share his criminal investigative interview content/evidence with Horowitz. Therefore the content of a final IG report may contain outlines/evidence of criminal behavior, but there could be -likely is- much more evidence in addition to the IG report.

How the criminal prosecutions might proceed after the final IG report is released involves prosecutor strategy.

U.S. Attorney John Huber may wish to wait and see how the participants react to the facts outlined in the report; or he may use the IG report to expand his criminal investigation and conduct additional interviews of people who are outside government, and as a consequence outside of the IG investigative reach.

Huber may -likely does- already have this process, and a seated grand jury, well underway.

As a result this additional line of investigation was announced in March:

They should go on a tour together.  Finally someone goes back and connects the dots from the hundreds of illegal FBI FISA-702(16)(17) searches where they were allowing ‘contractors’ to do opposition research in NSA and FBI databases.  Part of the dirtying up of their opposition required the digging of dirt for use therein. Thank You Sidney Powell.

That righteous notation triggered Joe diGenova’s memory… and Laura Ingraham was left nodding her head (she was lost) as details began surfacing that only a few have yet grasped.  Quite a good segment.  WATCH:

.

Heads up. Big News Coming Tomorrow!

• Thousands of pages of documents about to be released.
• Nunes/Gowdy meeting with Rosenstein cancelled.

(Graphic and website Link)

Some major reporting today from Paul Sperry includes very interesting details about how President Obama’s intelligence community structured their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russian interference in the 2016 election – SEE HERE –

In essence by following-up with various people involved in the construct of the ICA, journalist Paul Sperry outlines how CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, subverted their own intelligence guidelines in assembling the intelligence report.

While much of the background parallels our prior research, there are two very interesting aspects outlined by those with direct knowledge of the construct. First, that Brennan positioned FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the contact between the CIA analysis and the information flow to FBI Director James Comey:

[…]  A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source. (link)

This structure is interesting because it highlights an increasingly obvious intention of the participating group to control the content of intelligence, and the information flow therein.  There are several instances which highlight the level of a strategic effort  undertaken to keep James Comey out of the loop on details within the 2016 operation(s).

Their approach creates the “I don’t know” and “that was not my understanding” defense as deployed heavily by James Comey during his book tour and media interviews.

This approach also creates an unusual set of contradictions.

Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly says the work on the Clinton and Trump investigations was kept inside a very “tight group” of DOJ and FBI people; yet Comey repeatedly claims to have no knowledge of their activity when questioned about specific events.

Deputy Director Andrew McCabe keeping Director Comey in the dark on the Huma Abedin laptop issues for four weeks (Sept. 28th through October 26th) is a clear example of Comey’s ‘willful blindness’.

There are also numerous examples in the Page/Strzok text messaging or working around Comey within the FBI small group (Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Michael Kortan), as Andrew McCarthy finally realized when he sat down to read the content last weekend: “I am bleary-eyed from a weekend of reading about half of them. Even in their heavily redacted form, they are a goldmine of insight.”  I digress.

A second interesting aspect revealed in Paul Sperry’s reporting is something we discussed at great length surrounding the President Obama daily briefing material (PDB):

[…] “Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from a ‘credible source,’ which is how they viewed Steele,” said the source familiar with the House investigation. “But they never corroborated his sources.”  (read more)

So with another confirmation that Brennan was putting FBI Counterintelligence Investigation findings into President Obama’s PDB, let’s revisit the statements in April 2017 from President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice.  As relayed in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrew Mitchell:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

The interview goes much further. There was a lot of news in that interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.

Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers). And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review.

However, right there Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB).  This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.

Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration.  Regarding the Obama PDB:

[…]  But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part.  According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”, and his speechwriter, Ben Rhodes.

Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”….

So under Obama’s watch Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense, via their connection to their immediate supervisor, had likely daily access to the content within the PDB.  And who was an Obama Deputy Secretary of Defense?

“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.  We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.  … That’s why you had the leaking”.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]

Funny how that happens…

Hindsight is 20/20, but many people were tracking close to the bulls-eye back when this entire sordid affair initially became visible.

CNN political pundit and journalist Chris Cillizza posts a graphic (gif) to his twitter account moments ago attacking President Trump through his remarks during the National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service earlier today. 

What makes Cillizza’s tweet particularly disturbing is it depicts President Trump as viewed through a gun sight, and shows the President as an assassination target against the backdrop of being “killed in the line of duty”:

(Link to Tweet)

John Solomon’s report on the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 for help to structure a narrative of Russian involvement in the Trump Campaign via Paul Manafort has multiple ramifications.   (Article Here) Here’s some preliminary thoughts on the issue.

♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier.  The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support.  Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.

♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help.  This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin.  Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd.  He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”

Several issues make this interesting:

#1.  Was the DOJ/FBI trying to use Deripaska to frame candidate Donald Trump?  Was this part of their 2016 insurance policy?

-or-

Was the FBI (Deputy Director McCabe) looking to duplicate the use of Deripaska for financing a covert FBI operation in 2016, just like Andrew McCabe did in 2009?

#2.  John Solomon reports that Deripaska wanted to testify to congress last year (2017), without any immunity request, but was rebuked.    Who blocked his testimony?

#3.  In 2017 Oleg Deripaska was represented in the U.S. by Adam Waldman.  Mr. Waldman was also representing Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier.  Waldman was the liaison Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele. {Text Messages}

As you can see from the text messages (more here), the House Intelligence Committee wanted to interview Deripaska.  However, based on their ongoing contact and relationship Deripaska’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, asks Senator Mark Warner for feedback.

If Deripaska was blocked from testifying to congress, it was obviously not from the HPSCI (Nunes Committee), but rather by the Senate Intel Committee, Mark Warner.   Why?

#4.  Why would Adam Waldman and Oleg Deripaska (personally) be reaching out to John Solomon now to share the story of the FBI conduct in 2016?   Why now?  There were sanctions levied against Derispaska’s business interests by the Trump administration in 2017.  Does his hope to get sanctions removed/lessened lie behind a current motive?

#5.  Attorney and Lobbyist Adam Waldman represented both Oleg Deripaska and Christopher Steele.  This does not seem accidental.  Was Deripaska part of Steele’s network?  Or, more alarmingly, was Christopher Steele working for Oleg Deripaska?

Watch the first minute of this video. February 13th, 2018 Hearing:

.

Another question:  Was Deripaska willing to finance or facilitate the Steele Dossier, or some aspect therein, to the extent that it dirtied-up Paul Manafort – from a distance.  Yet when asked directly to participate he didn’t want personal attachment on dubious endeavors?

#6.  Did Robert Mueller omit any mention of Oleg Deripaska from his 2017 Manafort indictment purposefully?  Is some evidence against Manafort related to a Deripaska vendetta? Or, was Robert Mueller hoping to hide his prior professional work relationship with Deripaska?

#7.   On February 9th, 2018, Senator Chuck Grassley asked Deripaska’s London Lawyer, Paul Hauser, questions about Deripaska and his connections to Christopher Steele:

(Link to Grassley Letters)

Oleg Deripaska’s British lawyer, Paul Hauser, responded with the following letter:

A very lawyer-ish response.  However, based on the 2017 text messages unknown at the time Grassley made the inquiry, it would appear Chairman Grassley asked the wrong lawyer:

Senator Grassley should have asked Adam Waldman who was obviously representing Deripaska’s interests in the U.S.  {text message links}

♦Summary, there’s obviously a great deal that could be learned from testimony of Oleg Deripaska as to the nature of his engagements in/around 2016 and the network of known characters engaged in contact within the U.S. intelligence apparatus, both inside the U.S. and abroad.

The fact that Deripaska is openly willing to engage with journalists on this story and his involvement therein, could open a new line of inquiry about the validity and origination of the Mueller investigation.

Then again, a seemingly incurious media might find their Russian Collusion/Conspiracy narrative was built upon a fraudulent CIA/DOJ/FBI foundation…..

So…

If the usual suspects, New York Times, Washington Post and CNN, avoid the Oleg Deripaska revelations, well, we’ll have our answer.