|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 17, 2020 18:42:53 GMT -6
Well, this will leave a mark big time lol..... www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-16/judge-slams-u-s-prosecutors-in-manhattan-over-sanctions-caseA judge sharply criticized federal prosecutors for failing to turn over important evidence to a businessman accused of violating U.S. sanctions on Iran — and then ordered the whole high-powered Manhattan office to read her 34-page opinion on the botched case.
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan found “serious and pervasive issues related to disclosure failures and misleading statements to the court,” detailing problems with the government’s handling of the case against Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad.
“The cost of such government misconduct is high,” Nathan wrote. “With each misstep, the public faith in the criminal-justice system further erodes. With each document wrongfully withheld, an innocent person faces the chance of wrongful conviction. And with each unforced government error, the likelihood grows that a reviewing court will be forced to reverse a conviction or even dismiss an indictment, resulting in wasted resources, delayed justice, and individuals guilty of crimes potentially going unpunished.”
The case is a significant black eye for the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, one of the most prestigious and powerful in the country. The judge called for a “full investigation” by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 17, 2020 18:44:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 19, 2020 1:17:58 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/political/absolutely-terrified-democrats-demand-emergency-investigation-durham-probe"Absolutely Terrified" Democrats Demand Emergency Investigation Into Durham Probe In August, Attorney General William Barr refused to commit to withholding any report by DOJ watchdog John Durham before the November election - causing Congressional Democrats to froth at the mouth over an "October surprise" meant to hurt Joe Biden. Durham was appointed by Barr to investigate the Russia investigators - including members of the Obama-Biden administration, the FBI and the DOJ. Now, days after a top prosecutor on the Durham team resigned - reportedly over what she thought was "pressure from Barr to produce results before the November election," the Democratic chairs of four House committees have demanded an "emergency investigation" into Durham's probe, according to the Daily Caller. 00:06 / 00:30 "We write to ask that you open an emergency investigation into whether U.S. Attorney General William Barr, U.S. Attorney John Durham, and other Department of Justice political appointees are following DOJ’s longstanding policy to avoid taking official actions or other steps that could improperly influence the upcoming presidential election," wrote Democrats Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) in a letter to DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz. "Absolutely Terrified" Democrats Demand Emergency Investigation Into Durham Probe The letter follows a similar demand on Thursday from 10 Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats are questioning the legal authority of the investigation, and whether Durham is allowed to release a public report of the probe before the election. “Attorney General Barr has signaled repeatedly that he is likely to allow DOJ to take prosecutorial actions, make public disclosures, and even issue reports before the presidential election in November. Such actions clearly appear intended to benefit President Trump politically,” the Democrats wrote. -Daily Caller House Judiciary Republicans suggested that the Democrats are "absolutely terrified" of the Durham probe, as "They know Barr and Durham are cleaning up the what the Obama/Biden DOJ left behind," adding "And the results won't be pretty for them." As part of his investigation, Durham has interviewed former CIA Director John Brennan and others, allegedly regarding the CIA's assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin was behind interference in the 2016 US election in order to help President Trump. In an August 13th interview, Barr said he expects "significant" developments to come out of the investigation before the election. Days later, former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to fabricating evidence used to obtain surveillance warrants on former Trump adviser Carter Page. Clinesmith -who worked on both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia probe, was part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, and interviewed Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos. Meanwhile, earlier this month White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows suggested that former FBI agent Peter Strzok and other officials involved in the operation against Trump could be in trouble. “And I use the word unlawful at best, it broke all kinds of protocols and at worst people should go to jail as I mentioned previously,” Meadows said during a virtual appearance on Fox Business’ “Mornings With Maria” on Monday. -via The Epoch Times If the Obama-Biden DOJ did nothing wrong, what do Democrats have to worry about?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 6:54:45 GMT -6
John Solomon discussed the expected findings in the Burisma report that is expected to be released Wednesday.
Should Hunter Biden be in jail? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Gateway Pundit news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. John Solomon: Here is what the report is likely to reveal. First — The State Department under Joe Biden and Obama believed Joe Biden was engaging in a conflict of interest. Second — The State Department detected a $7 million bribe being paid by Burisma, the company that hired Hunter Biden on its board. Third — There was a pressure campaign inside the Obama State Department and inside the White House invoking Hunter Biden’s name in trying to pressure the US government to make the Burisma corruption allegations go away. Finally — It wasn’t just the State Department, the Treasury Department flagged several transactions, foreign money flowing into companies connected to Hunter Biden as suspicious transactions.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 7:00:30 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-hunter-biden-received-millions-from-wife-of-ex-moscow-mayor-paid-suspects-allegedly-tied-to-trafficking-had-contacts-with-chinese-military-senate-report-allegesBREAKING: Hunter Biden Received Millions From Wife Of Ex-Moscow Mayor, Paid Suspects Allegedly Tied To Trafficking, Had Contacts With Individuals Linked To Chinese Military, Senate Report Alleges A bombshell report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) and the Committee on Finance makes a series of damning new allegations against Hunter Biden, the son of Democrat presidential nominee. The investigation launched after Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) publicly raised conflict-of-interest concerns about the sale of a U.S. company to a Chinese firm with ties to Hunter Biden a month before Congress was notified about a whistleblower complaint that was the catalyst for Democrats’ impeachment of President Donald Trump. The Senate’s investigation relied on records from the U.S. government, Democrat lobbying groups, and interviews of numerous current and former officials. The report outlined the following key findings from the investigation: In early 2015 the former Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent’s concerns went unaddressed, and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine. Although Kent believed that Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board was awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine, the Committees are only aware of two individuals — Kent and former U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein — who raised concerns to Vice President Joe Biden (Hochstein) or his staff (Kent). The awkwardness for Obama administration officials continued well past his presidency. Former Secretary of State John Kerry had knowledge of Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board, but when asked about it at a town hall event in Nashua, N.H. on Dec. 8, 2019, Kerry falsely said, “I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No.” Evidence to the contrary is detailed in Section V. Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testified that confronting oligarchs would send an anticorruption message in Ukraine. Kent told the Committees that Zlochevsky was an “odious oligarch.” However, in December 2015, instead of following U.S. objectives of confronting oligarchs, Vice President Biden’s staff advised him to avoid commenting on Zlochevsky and recommended he say, “I’m not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals.” Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the Resident Legal Advisor reported this allegation to the FBI. Hunter Biden was a U.S. Secret Service protectee from Jan. 29, 2009 to July 8, 2014. A day before his last trip as a protectee, Time published an article describing Burisma’s ramped up lobbying efforts to U.S. officials and Hunter’s involvement in Burisma’s board. Before ending his protective detail, Hunter Biden received Secret Service protection on trips to multiple foreign locations, including Moscow, Beijing, Doha, Paris, Seoul, Manila, Tokyo, Mexico City, Milan, Florence, Shanghai, Geneva, London, Dublin, Munich, Berlin, Bogota, Abu Dhabi, Nairobi, Hong Kong, Taipei, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Johannesburg, Brussels, Madrid, Mumbai and Lake Como. Andrii Telizhenko, the Democrats’ personification of Russian disinformation, met with Obama administration officials, including Elisabeth Zentos, a member of Obama’s National Security Council, at least 10 times. A Democrat lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies, contracted with Telizhenko from 2016 to 2017 and continued to request his assistance as recent as the summer of 2019. A recent news article detailed other extensive contacts between Telizhenko and Obama administration officials. In addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds. Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea. Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden. Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow. Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an “Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.” The report also stated that the investigation found that the Obama administration “knew that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 7:08:36 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/23/records-show-john-kerry-lied-about-ignorance-of-hunter-bidens-lucrative-position-in-ukraine/Records Show John Kerry Lied About Ignorance Of Hunter Biden’s Lucrative Position In Ukraine SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 By Tristan Justice New documents unveiled in an explosive Senate report Wednesday show former Secretary of State John Kerry lied to reporters when asked whether he was aware of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving in a lucrative board position for a Ukrainian energy company. “I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No,” Kerry said in December last year at the height of President Donald Trump’s impeachment process, which shed light on the Biden family’s conflicts of interest in Ukraine. The new joint report out from the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee with the Senate Treasury Committee, however, shows otherwise. According to congressional investigators, Kerry’s Chief of Staff David Wade briefed Kerry on press inquiries specifically related to Hunter Biden’s arrangement of recently joining the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Records show Hunter Biden raked in upwards of $50,000 a month from serving on the board despite no prior experience in the industry. A Federalist analysis shows Hunter Biden was being compensated far higher than board members on the leadership of larger corporations in the same field. Wade told the committee investigators that he relayed to Kerry that the secretary’s stepson, Christopher Heinz’s, business partners Hunter Biden and Devon Archer both joined the board of Burisma but that Heinz had refrained from getting involved with the company. Below is a transcript of Wade’s interview with the Senate probe, emphasis theirs: Question: What was Secretary Kerry’s reaction to you informing him of these news inquiries about Mr. Heinz and the additional information regarding Mr. Archer’s [and] Mr. Hunter Biden’s connection and involvement with Burisma? Wade: He knew nothing about it. Question: So he learned about this information from you? Wade: I believe so, yeah.
Separately, Senate officials noted, State Department officials forwarded articles to the secretary with headlines, “Biden’s son joins Ukrainian gas company’s board,” “Biden’s son joins Ukrainian gas producer board,” and “White House says no issue with Biden’s son, Ukrainian gas company.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 7:09:51 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/23/senate-report-hunter-bidens-chinese-payments-raise-criminal-concerns-extend-to-james-biden/Senate Report: Hunter Biden’s Chinese Payments Raise Criminal Concerns, Extend To James Biden SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 By Tristan Justice Senate investigators released an earth-shattering report Wednesday outlining a long list of the Biden family’s conflicts of interest conducting shady overseas business activity with foreign adversaries while serving at the upper echelons of government, raising significant national security concerns with potentially criminal conduct and threats of extortion. According to the joint report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee with the Senate Treasury Committee, Hunter Biden, along with business partner Devon Archer, “engaged in numerous financial transactions with Chinese nationals who had deep connections to the Communist Chinese government.” These connections, investigators wrote, include Ye Jianming, the founder of CEFC China Energy Co. Ltd (CEFC), and his associate, Gongwen Dong, who reportedly carried out transactions for Jianming’s companies. Ye, the report noted, who formerly held positions with the People’s Liberation Army, also possessed financial connections to former Vice President Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden. For years, according to the Senate report, Hunter Biden leveraged his vast network of connections to ultimately create the investment firm Bohai Harvest RST (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Co. (BHR), which prioritized investing Chinese capital in overseas projects. The financial group received its approval for a Chinese business license after a series of meetings arranged by Hunter Biden on a government 2013 government trip to China with his vice president father, both flying aboard Air Force Two. The firm, according to the Wall Street Journal, “is controlled and funded primarily by large Chinese government-owned shareholders” and channeled at least $2.5 billion into automotive, energy, mining, and technology deals on behalf of these investors. “BHR’s extensive connections to Chinese government intertwined its existence with the decision-making of Communist party leaders,” wrote investigators in the Senate report, highlighting the presence of a consortium that includes the China Development Bank tied to Ye, which controls 30 percent of BHR as an example. Once Ye fell from Chinese President Xi Jinping’s good graces, the Chinese bank pulled lines of credit from Ye’s CEFC. The Senate’s report outlined a number of other projects Ye and Hunter Biden cooperatively worked on, including Biden’s assistance to help Ye execute a $40 million investment for a natural gas project in Louisiana that ultimately fell through. James Biden is named in the report, along with his wife Sara Biden and Hunter Biden, as an authorized user for a line of credit opened by Gongwen. The family then went on a more than $100,000 shopping spree purchasing extravagant items that included airplane tickets and high-tech products from Apple. “The transaction was identified for potential financial criminal activity,” Senate investigators wrote.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 7:11:10 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/23/senate-report-burisma-bribed-officials-to-shut-down-investigation-7-months-after-hunter-biden-joined-board/Senate Report: Burisma Bribed Officials To Shut Down Investigation 7 Months After Hunter Biden Joined Board Tristan Justice By Tristan Justice SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee released the first part of its long-awaited report with the Senate Treasury Committee Wednesday detailing a wide array of Hunter Biden’s conflicts of interest, including potentially criminal overseas business activity while his father Joe Biden served as vice president. Among the key findings in the report are substantial allegations that Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, from which Hunter Biden raked in upwards of $50,000 a month for serving the board, paid a $7 million bribe to the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to close an investigation seven months following Hunter Biden’s addition to its leadership. According to the report, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the State Department’s top official on Ukraine, told congressional investigators that he learned of the bribe from First Deputy Prosecutor General Anatoliy Danylenko during a Kyiv meeting on Feb. 3., 2015. The bribe was meant to close Ukrainian investigations and release $23 million of Zlochevsky’s frozen assets by British officials. At the time, Daylenko was the country’s number two prosecutor serving under Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Vitaly Yarema. One week after Kent confrontation with Danylenko, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fired Yarema and other members of his team. Kent testified that he learned shortly after the meeting with Danylenko that Hunter Biden was sitting on the board of the Ukrainian energy company owned by Zlochevsky. Biden’s role was supposedly to consult on corporate governance and transparency. Hunter Biden joined the firm and raked in excess compensation despite no prior experience in the industry just weeks after his business partner, Devon Archer, met with Joe Biden at the White House. Joe Biden had just recently been described by the press as the Obama administration’s “public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.” Kent reportedly told lawmakers that the Department of Justice official at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv relayed the allegation of Zlochevsky’s $7 million bribe to the FBI. The Senate committees are still awaiting answers on what actions the federal law enforcement agency took, if any. Kent also told lawmakers that upon learning of Hunter Biden’s lucrative role on Burisma’s board, he raised his concerns with the vice president’s office. The top State Department official testified over the course of President Donald Trump’s impeachment hearings that his discomfort about the situation was brushed off by the administration. “I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent told House members during a private deposition in October last year. “The message that I recall hearing back was that the vice president’s son Beau was dying of cancer and that there was no further bandwidth to deal with family-related issues at that time… That was the end of that conversation.” State Department officials, according to the Senate report, widely viewed Zlochevsky as a corrupt, “odious oligarch” who Kent described as “a poster child for corrupt behavior.” “I would have advised any American not to get on the board of Zlochevsky’s company,” Kent said, telling colleagues in 2016 Zlochevsky “almost certainly paid off the [prosecutors] in December 2014.” Vice President Joe Biden however, refused to launch accusations of corruption against Zlochevsky. “The committees were not able to locate any public statements Vice President Biden gave from 2014 to 2016 in which he called Zlochevsky corrupt,” Senate investigators wrote in the joint report. Instead, a Biden spokesperson told reporters, “the vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company.” The Senate’s report marks the first phase of revelations to emerge from the probe launched in 2017, long before Joe Biden jumped into the crowded presidential race in the spring of 2019. In a desperate bid to shut down the investigation out of concern that its findings could harm their attempt at the White House in November, Democrats, true to form, repeatedly attacked the ongoing probe as an instrument of Russian interference in the upcoming U.S. election, accusing Republican senators of being Kremlin agents. Even Democrats on the committees attempted to undermine the Republican-led probe by leaking selected material to the same press that suddenly began re-characterizing the ongoing three-year investigation as a political weapon being wielded against the Biden campaign once it was clear that the former vice president was going to capture the Democratic nomination. Multiple letter requests prior to Biden’s March Super Tuesday victories show, however, that the probe aimed to wrap up much sooner before the pandemic-related shutdowns and a partisan impeachment distracted the government from its oversight work and the coronavirus brewing overseas.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 7:12:09 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/23/senate-report-accuses-hunter-biden-of-paying-for-hookers-who-may-have-been-trafficked/Senate Report Accuses Hunter Biden Of Paying For Hookers Who May Have Been Trafficked SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 By Tristan Justice An earthshattering report released by Senate investigators Wednesday outlining the Biden family’s long list of conflicts of interest at the upper echelons of government unearthed new allegations of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son making multiple payments to Eastern European prostitutes. According to the joint report out by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee with the Senate Treasury Committee, Hunter Biden made a number of payments to foreign nationals with “questionable backgrounds” consistent with “organized prostitution and/or human trafficking.” Records on file with the committee, the report says, “confirm that Hunter Biden sent thousands of dollars to individuals who have either: 1) been involved in transactions consistent with possible human trafficking; 2) an association with the adult entertainment industry; or 3) potential association with prostitution.” The report continued, detailing that some transactions were Russian- and Ukrainian-linked to what “appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.” This is not the first time Hunter Biden’s infidelity has promised headaches for his father’s 2020 presidential campaign. In November last year, Page Six reported that an Arkansas woman who successfully sued the former vice president’s son for monthly child support was a stripper at a club Hunter Biden frequented. Hunter Biden, according to the paper, was a regular guest at the Mpire Club in Washington D.C.’s Dupont Circle, where Lunden Alexis Roberts, the mother of Biden’s baby, went by the name “Dallas” on stage. “He was well-known,” one source told Page Six. Since President Donald Trump’s sham impeachment proceedings last fall highlighted Hunter Biden’s questionable and possibly criminal overseas business activities, the notorious member of the Biden clan has maintained a low profile after intense scrutiny of the family’s conflicts of interest has plagued the Democratic nominee’s campaign. Hunter Biden’s absence has sparked the internet meme, “Where’s Hunter?” It was briefly answered with a rare appearance at the Democratic Party’s virtual convention in August.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 24, 2020 13:08:55 GMT -6
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/trump-team-suspected-mueller-cognitive-declineTrump team suspected Mueller cognitive decline by Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent | | September 23, 2020 08:45 PM The political world was stunned on July 24, 2019, when Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House and Senate. It was not anything Mueller said that shocked observers — it was his demeanor. The 74-year-old special counsel appeared confused at times. He sometimes had difficulty answering the most basic questions. He had difficulty forming complex sentences. The Mueller at the witness table was a far cry from the Mueller who took over the FBI 18 years earlier. Colleagues remembered a man who was super sharp, on top of everything, a micromanager. Now, many of those watching were concerned. "This is delicate to say," former Obama aide David Axelrod tweeted, "but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years. And he does not appear as sharp as he was then." Fox News's Chris Wallace was more blunt: "I think it's been a disaster for the Democrats," he said, "and I think it's been a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller." Twitter buzzed with talk about Mueller. But President Trump's legal team was not surprised. More than a year earlier, at a meeting in April 2018, the president's lawyers had gotten a disturbing look at Mueller's condition. And even before that, they had cause to be concerned about Mueller's possible cognitive issues and what those problems might mean for the special counsel investigation. The meeting took place on April 24, 2018. Rudy Giuliani had just joined Trump's defense team. Attorney John Dowd had left the team, and two other white-collar defense lawyers, Jane and Marty Raskin, had joined. Given all those changes, it was decided that the new lineup should have a get-acquainted meeting with the Mueller team. After opening niceties, the conversation turned to a number of legal topics and specifically to the longstanding opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president cannot be indicted. It was not an obscure or arcane issue. It was, in fact, perhaps the key legal question in the entire special counsel investigation. But Mueller could not recall it. The old Mueller, of course, would have known all about it. But on that day in April, the Mueller at the meeting could not remember. It was, to say the least, extraordinary that he could not discuss something so basic to the case. "Bob said, 'I'll have to get back to you on that,'" recalled Giuliani, "and it was apparent that he didn't know what we were talking about." A Mueller staffer stepped in to cover for the special counsel, assuring the Trump team that the prosecutors knew about the issue and would get back to them. "There were a couple of other little facts that came up — it didn't seem like he knew about them," Giuliani remembered, "and [Mueller’s staff] would lean over and tell him." That was the only time Giuliani ever met with Mueller face-to-face. Afterward, "I had no more contact with him," Giuliani said. "None of us did until it was over." Lawyer Jane Raskin, who was also in the meeting, had the same experience. "After that, we never met with Mueller, and we never spoke with him on the phone," Raskin recalled. "It was all Jim Quarles and Andrew Goldstein" — two of Mueller's senior prosecutors. Throughout this time, Giuliani kept in touch with Dowd, the former Trump defense lawyer. The two sometimes discussed Mueller's demeanor. "I said, 'John, I'm really surprised about how little he knows about the case,'" Giuliani recalled. The issues weren't really that complicated, and Mueller had been in it for a year. Giuliani thought Mueller was perhaps just not giving it his all. "John said, 'I had the same impression,'" Giuliani remembered. "He said, 'I think he sort of retired, he came back to do this, and now, he probably regrets it.' I said, 'OK' — and that's what I would have told you the day before he testified." The day Mueller appeared on Capitol Hill, Giuliani saw without any doubt that something was wrong. Mueller's staff built a protective wall around him. After that April 2018 meeting, no one from the Trump team could see Mueller or talk to him on the phone. When Trump lawyers called with some concern they wanted to address with Mueller, a top aide would listen, make some notes, and say, "We'll take it to Bob." A few months earlier, in February 2018, a former Trump defense team member, communications adviser Mark Corallo, was questioned by Mueller's prosecutors. (They were interested in learning about Trump's July 8, 2017, response to the New York Times's reporting of the infamous Trump Tower meeting.) Corallo, who had worked with Mueller in the George W. Bush Justice Department, was a Mueller admirer. The questioning, by Mueller aides, was professionally done and unremarkable. Afterward, Mueller himself appeared. "At the end of the interview, Mueller came in and shook my hand and put his hand around my shoulder and said, 'It's good to see you,'" Corallo recalled. "He said, 'I'm sorry you got dragged into this.' When he left the room, and they were waiting to put me in a car to leave, I said to Andrew Goldstein, 'Hey, how's he doing?' They said great. I said, 'Well, he looks a little gaunt. Is he eating? Is he tired?' They said, 'No, he's running circles around us.' This was the first time I noticed that he was not physically robust." Nearly a year and a half later, watching Mueller testify on television, Corallo was shaken. "When I saw him testifying, it was significantly more apparent," he recalled. "And trust me, I was not the only one. Those of us who worked with Bob at the Justice Department after 9/11 and watched his testimony — the phone calls were flying. 'Holy crap, what's wrong with Bob? Is he sick?'" In 2019, as the release of the Mueller report neared, others saw reason for concern. Attorney General William Barr, an old friend of Mueller's, knew there was a problem. On March 5, 2019, Mueller and a few top aides went to the Justice Department to preview the report. Seeing Mueller, whose hands were trembling and voice was weak, Barr and his top aides were "taken aback," wrote the Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig in their book A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America. "Barr would later ask his colleagues, 'Did he seem off to you?' Later, close friends would say they noticed Mueller had changed dramatically, but a member of Mueller's team would insist he had no medical problems." After the report was released, Democrats demanded that Mueller testify on Capitol Hill. Mueller and his office hesitated; Mueller clearly did not want to appear. With his difficulties, the prospect of spending hours in the spotlight was decidedly unappealing. Barr offered Mueller a way out. On a trip to South Carolina on July 8, 2019, the attorney general was asked about the question of testimony and said he was "disappointed" to see that Mueller had been subpoenaed. "It seems to me, the only reason for doing that [to have Mueller testify] is to create some kind of public spectacle," Barr said. "If he decides he doesn't want to be subjected to that, the DOJ will certainly back that." Barr was sending a signal to Mueller: You don't have to put yourself through this. But Democrats, still hoping to impeach Trump on the basis of the Mueller report, demanded a televised Watergate moment. So Mueller testified. And it was a disaster. Afterward, as Corallo said, the phone calls were flying: What's wrong with Bob? These and other aspects of the story are reported in my new book, Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment's Never-Ending War on Trump. Questions about Mueller's fitness came up repeatedly in interviews with key players in the Trump defense and on Capitol Hill. It quickly became apparent, during the reporting, that Mueller's condition had been a problem. (The book also contains an account from a former FBI official who had worked with Mueller and who noticed signs of problems several months before Mueller was appointed special counsel.) Now, three other books have been published on the Mueller investigation. One of them, True Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Investigation of Donald Trump, by the New Yorker's and CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, does not mention Mueller's cognitive issues. Another, Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President, is by the New York Times's Michael Schmidt, who reports that, in May 2019, after the Mueller report was released and as Hill Democrats were agitating to have Mueller testify, he, Schmidt, began to hear private concerns that Mueller was not mentally up to it. Schmidt made inquiries. No one on Mueller's staff would even discuss it. Finally, Schmidt writes, he sent a note to key Mueller aide Aaron Zebley. "Through our reporting, we've learned that there are deep concerns among those close to Mr. Mueller that he lacks the mental acuity to do this," Schmidt wrote in the note. "Mr. Mueller, we're told, has good days and bad days and there's a risk that a public hearing could undermine the public's view of his fitness." Schmidt quickly got a message back saying that he was "flat wrong." Mueller was fine, he was told. "Then, a day later, Mueller's spokesman reached out to me to say that what I had heard was wrong and that it was almost offensive that I asked the question," Schmidt wrote. In the end, Schmidt and the Times never reported the concerns about Mueller's fitness. Next week, a third book, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation, will be published by former top Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann. Though his book is not yet out, it appears Weissmann does not engage the issue of Mueller's cognitive health. "Mr. Weissmann acknowledged, but did not clearly address, concerns that the aging Mr. Mueller had lost a step," wrote the New York Times, which had a copy of the book, "both declaring that he was capable of making the tough decisions despite 'speculative concerns' about his health but also describing him in one scene as looking drained and worn down by his years of grueling public service." For the Trump defense team, the state of Mueller's mental acuity had an importance far beyond understandable concerns about a man struggling to do his job. Remember that when Mueller was appointed, he hired a number of prosecutors who had contributed lots of money to Democratic political candidates. One, Weissmann, had actually attended Hillary Clinton's 2016 election night event in New York. When Trump complained that the special counsel had hired a bunch of partisan Democrats, Mueller's defenders immediately stepped in. Mueller is straight down the middle, they said. He will keep those prosecutors in line. He, not they, will be in charge. But then came the suspicions that Mueller wasn't really in charge, or at least wasn't fully in charge. Mueller's prosecutors pushed back hard on any suggestion that he wasn't up to the job. To admit the problem would be to raise fundamental questions about the leadership of the investigation. Meanwhile, after the July 24, 2019, hearing, Trump defenders looked back over the course of the investigation. "What's galling to me in hindsight, knowing what we know, is that they dragged it out as long as they did," said Corallo, "which says to me that people other than Bob Mueller were running that investigation." Another Trump lawyer, Michael Bowe, looked at the Mueller report and said, of Mueller, "I don't believe for a moment he actually wrote or understood [it]." Giuliani recalled the trust John Dowd and the first legal team put in Mueller. "Dowd had a lot of faith in Mueller and felt that Mueller was telling him the truth," Giuliani said. "I don't think he calculated the fact that Mueller was working with half a deck and a bunch of scumbags were running the operation." On the day Mueller testified, Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the hearing "sheds a lot of light on what happened the last two years. He wasn't in charge." Finally, Jay Sekulow, a Trump lawyer who was with the defense from the start of the Russia investigation all the way through impeachment, saw Mueller's condition affecting the critical last months of the inquiry. "Bob at the end was AWOL," Sekulow recalled. "That was the great con. He showed up for cameo appearances. He was the Wizard of Oz. He was back behind the big curtain, pulling some strings here and there, but when you pulled the curtain away, he wasn't even really the one pulling the strings."
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 6:04:24 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/09/24/dossier-source-russian-spy-igor-danchenko-steele/FBI Investigated Steele Dossier Source As A Possible Russian Spy Years Before Trump ProbeA bombshell FBI memo released Thursday says that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the primary source for dossier author Christopher Steele. The memo says that investigators pursued a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against the source, Igor Danchenko, in 2010. Investigators on the Crossfire Hurricane team became aware of the previous investigation in December 2016, when they were investigating members of the Trump campaign. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who released the document, called it “the most stunning and damning revelation” his committee has uncovered in its review of Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation on the primary source for dossier author Christopher Steele, and considered obtaining a warrant to wiretap him in 2010, according to a document released Thursday. The FBI was also aware of the information about the source, identified elsewhere as Igor Danchenko, by December 2016, according to the document. “This is the most stunning and damning revelation the committee has uncovered,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said in a statement after releasing an FBI memo about the dossier source. The document shows that the FBI considered a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant of Danchenko years before the bureau relied heavily on information that he had provided Steele, a former British spy, to obtain FISAs against Carter Page. Danchenko is not named in the memo, though is attorney has confirmed to reporters that the Russian national was Steele’s source. The information also could increase concerns that Russian disinformation was fed to Steele, a former MI6 officer who investigated the Trump campaign on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC. A Justice Department inspector general’s report released Dec. 9 said that the FBI received evidence in January and February 2017 that Russian intelligence officers may have fed false information into Steele’s network of sources. Footnotes from the IG report say that two Russian intelligence officers knew in July 2016 that Steele was investigating the Trump campaign. According to the FBI document, Danchenko had contact with suspected Russian intelligence officers in Washington, D.C. in 2005 and 2006. The document says that the FBI had an investigation into Danchenko open from May 2009 to March 2011, based on an interaction he allegedly had with three employees of an American think tank. (RELATED: Steele Source Had Meeting In Russia At Crucial Point In Dossier Saga) Danchenko worked at the time as a Russia analyst for the Brookings Institution, a prominent liberal foreign policy think tank. An employee of the think tank said that another employee, seemingly Danchenko, told others that if they got jobs in the government and obtained classified security clearances, they might be put them in touch with people so they could “make a little extra money.” “The coworker did express suspicion of the employee and had questioned the possibility that the employee might actually be a Russian spy,” the FBI memo says. The FBI opened a full counterintelligence investigation on Danchenko after discovering that he was an associate of two other subjects of FBI counterintelligence probes, the FBI assessment says. FBI databases also showed that Danchenko had contact in September 2006 with a Russian intelligence officer. The memo says that the intelligence officer invited Danchenko to his office at the Russian embassy. There, Danchenko allegedly told the officer that he was interested in entering the Russian diplomatic corps. The intelligence officer contacted Danchenko four days later to work “on the documents and then think about future plans,” the memo says. The following month, Danchenko contacted the Russian intelligence officer, and mentioned finding out whether “the documents can be placed in tomorrow’s diplomatic mail pouch.” Danchenko also had contact in 2005 with a Russian intelligence officer based in Washington, according to the memo. The FBI interviewed several of Danchenko’s associates, according to the memo. One said that while Danchenko was not anti-American, he often presented pro-Russian viewpoints. Two interview subjects said that Danchenko “persistently” asked them about their knowledge of a U.S. military vessel. The memo says that an FBI field office initiated the process for applying for a FISA on Danchenko in July 2010. The bureau dropped the issue after Danchenko left the country in September 2010. “Because the Primary Sub-source had apparently left the United States, the FBI withdrew the FISA application request and closed the investigation,” the memo says. Documents showing that the inquiry was closed say that the FBI would consider reopening an investigation of Danchenko if he returned to the U.S. The FBI memo says that an investigation of Danchenko was never reopened, even after he returned to the U.S. Danchenko told the FBI in January 2017 that he began working for Steele’s firm, Orbis Business International, at some point after he left the Brookings Institution in 2010. Steele began investigating the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia in June 2016, after he was hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS. Danchenko also worked for a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm called Sidar Global Ventures. Cenk Sidar, the owner of Sidar Global, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in August that while he never met Danchenko, he believed he was a good analyst on Russia issues. “I don’t know him personally or don’t have anything to say about his work quality as there were other people who managed him but in general, he is a smart guy and knows well about Russia,” Sidar said. Two FBI employees and two Justice Department prosecutors interviewed Danchenko over the course of three days in January 2017. According to a declassified memo of the interviews, Danchenko said that Steele overstated some of the information that ended up in the dossier. He said that Steele portrayed allegations in the dossier as having more confirmation than they actually did. Danchenko also denied during the interviews that he had contacts with Russian intelligence operatives; a claim which appears to be inconsistent with the new FBI memo. Danchenko described six sub-sources he used for various allegations in the dossier. The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in August that Danchenko met with two Russian associates in Russia on June 15, 2016, five days before Steele wrote the first memo in the dossier. Danchenko met with Ivan Vorontsov, the editor of a financial journal, and Sergey Abyshev, who then served as an official in the Russian ministry of energy. Danchenko’s main sub-source, a woman he said he had known since childhood, provided one piece of information that the FBI has said is inaccurate. Danchenko said the woman told him that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin insiders. The IG report and special counsel’s report said that Cohen never visited Prague. Danchenko said the woman was also the source for claims in the dossier that Carter Page met in Moscow in July 2016 with Igor Diveykin, a Kremlin insider. Page has vehemently denied the claim. Danchenko’s attorney, Mark Schamel, did not respond to a phone call seeking comment. Attorney General William Barr, who declassified the document, said that he consulted with U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating aspects of Crossfire Hurricane. Barr told Graham that Durham said releasing the document would not interfere with his investigation.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 6:09:01 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/its-a-mad-house-fbi-texts-show-crossfire-hurricane-agents-sought-insurance-protection-for-potential-lawsuits‘It’s A Mad House’: FBI Texts Show Crossfire Hurricane Agents Sought Insurance Protection For Potential Lawsuits FBI agents working on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump campaign and administration officials allegedly bought liability insurance protection against potential lawsuits. The text messages, dating back to late 2016 after the election of President Trump, were revealed on Thursday in federal court filings from Sidney Powell, the attorney of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn is currently facing prosecution for making alleged false statements to the FBI. The court documents were first reported by The Federalist. The 13-page court filing reveals a trove of messages between unnamed FBI agents involved in the agency’s investigation of Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. Some of the messages give insight into the state of the FBI after former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, acting on orders from FBI leadership, propped open an investigation into Flynn on Jan. 4, 2017, after agents working the case moved to close it. The next day, former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden met with then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice in the Oval Office and discussed aspects of the FBI investigation into Flynn. Unnamed FBI agents discussed Strzok’s interference in the Flynn investigation as well as the Oval Office meeting later that day, according to messages made public in the court filing. As The Federalist reports: “So razor is going to stay open???” an agent wrote on Jan. 5. “[Y]ep,” another FBI agent responded. “[C]rimes report being drafted.” “F,” the first agent wrote back. “[W]hat’s the word on how [Obama’s] briefing went?” one agent asked, referring to the Jan. 5 meeting. “Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad house,” an FBI agent responded. “[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with people[?]?
The unnamed agent mentioning Trump was likely referring to a Jan. 3, 2017, tweet from the president: “The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!”
On Jan. 10, days after the exchange in which one FBI agent admitted that FBI officials were “scrambling,” an unnamed FBI agent said that many in the bureau involved in Crossfire Hurricane had purchased liability insurance to protect themselves against potential lawsuits.
“[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent said, according to the filing.
The conversation continued. As The Federalist reports:
“Holy crap,” an agent responded. “All the analysts too?”
“Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency as well.”
“[C]an I ask who are the most likely litigators?” an agent responded. “s far as potentially suing y’all[?]”
“[H]aha, who knows….I think [t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece,” the first agent said.
After years of pursuing Flynn over alleged false statements to the FBI, the Department of Justice dropped its case on May 7 after U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen uncovered exculpatory evidence in the case. Jensen was handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to review the DOJ case against Flynn.
The case is ongoing as federal trial Judge Emmet Sullivan has refused to dismiss the case against Flynn, even going to the extent of appointing another prosecutor to the case.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 6:12:45 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/trump-was-right-explosive-new-fbi-texts-detail-internal-furor-over-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/‘Trump Was Right’: Explosive New FBI Texts Detail Internal Furor Over Handling Of ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ InvestigationNewly disclosed internal FBI notes and text messages detail the extent of the FBI's desire to take down Trump and his associates at any cost.
By Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team. “[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch. “Holy crap,” an agent responded. “All the analysts too?” “Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency as well.” “[C]an I ask who are the most likely litigators?” an agent responded. “ s far as potentially suing y’all[?]”
“[H]aha, who knows….I think [t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece,” the first agent said.
While the names of the agents responsible for the texts are redacted, the legal filing from Powell, quoting communications from the Department of Justice (DOJ), states that the latest document production included handwritten notes and texts from Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and FBI analysts who worked on the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.
Agents also said they were worried about how a new attorney general might view the actions taken against Trump during the investigation. Shortly after then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was confirmed to be Trump’s new attorney general, congressional Democrats, media, and Obama holdovers within DOJ immediately moved to force Sessions to recuse himself from overseeing the department’s investigations against Trump.
“[T]he new AG might have some questions….then yada yada yada…we all get screwed,” one agent wrote.
The FBI agents also discussed how the investigation’s leadership was consumed with conspiracy theories rather than evidence.
“I’m tellying [sic] man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked,” one agent wrote. “nd a great deal of those will be related to Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic[.]”
“[REDACTED] is one of the worst offenders of the rabbit holes and conspiracy theories,” an agent texted. “This guy traveled with that guy, who put down 3rd guy as his visa sponsor. 3rd guy lives near a navy base, therefore…[.]”
Several texts show that the order to close the criminal investigation against Flynn came as early as Nov. 8, 2016, the same day as the 2016 presidential election. It was later re-opened in early January of 2017.
“We have some loose ends to tie up, and we all need to meet to discuss what to do with each case (he said shut down Razor),” one agent texted, referring to Crossfire Razor, the FBI’s internal code name for the investigation of Flynn.
“o glad they’re closing Razor,” an agent responded.
The new disclosures made by DOJ also show that the FBI used so-called national security letters (NSLs) to spy on Flynn’s finances. Unlike traditional subpoenas, which require judicial review and approval before authorities can seize an innocent person’s property and information, NSLs are never independently reviewed by courts. One of the agents noted in a text message that the NSLs were just being used as a pretext by FBI leadership to buy time to find dirt on Flynn after the first investigation of him yielded no derogatory information.
“[T]he decision to NSL finances for Razor bought him time,” one agent said nearly two weeks after the initial order to shut down the anti-Flynn case. It is not known to whom the agent was referring in that text.
“What do we expect to get from an NSL[?]” an agent texted on Dec. 5, 2016. “We put out traces, tripwires to community and nothing.”
“ingo,” another FBI agent responded. “o what’s an NSL going to do – no content.”
“Hahah this is a nightmare,” an agent said.
“If we’re working to close down the cases, I’m not sure what NSL results would do to help,” one agent wrote.
“[E]xactly that makes no sense,” an agent wrote back.
The explosive new text messages also show agents believed the investigation was being run by FBI officials who were in the tank for Hillary Clinton.
“[D]oing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a [C]linton presidency,” one agent wrote on Aug. 11, shortly after the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation against Trump.
In one series of texts sent the same day as the infamous Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting between Obama, Biden, Comey, Sally Yates, and Susan Rice, one agent admits that “Trump was right” when he tweeted that the FBI was delaying his briefings as incoming president so they could cook up evidence against him. As The Federalist first reported last May, that Jan. 5 meeting was the key to understanding the entire anti-Trump operation run out of Obama’s FBI.
“The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case,” Trump tweeted on January 3. “Very strange!”
“So razor is going to stay open???” an agent wrote on Jan. 5.
“[Y]ep,” another FBI agent responded. “[C]rimes report being drafted.”
“F,” the first agent wrote back.
“[W]hat’s the word on how [Obama’s] briefing went?” one agent asked, referring to the Jan. 5 meeting.
“Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad house,” an FBI agent responded.
“[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with these people[?]?
A week later, the FBI agents also wrote that they suspected that the illegal leak of top secret information about Flynn’s phone calls with Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak to the news media came directly from the White House.
“FYI – someone leaked the Flynn calls with Kislyak to the WSJ,” the agent wrote.
“I’m sorry to hear that,” another FBI agent responded sarcastically. “I’ll resume my duties as Chief Morale Officer and rectify that.”
“Published this morning by Ignatius,” an agent said, referencing the Jan. 12 column from Washington Post writer David Ignatius that included leaked top-secret information about Flynn’s calls with Kislyak.
“It’s got to be someone on staff,” an agent wrote. “[Presidential Daily Briefing] staff. Or WH seniors.”
To date, not a single person has been charged with illegally leaking that information to the Washington Post as a way of damaging Flynn and the incoming Trump administration.
Following a review of the federal government’s investigation by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, which was ordered by Attorney General William Barr, the government moved to dismiss all charges against Flynn that had been previously brought by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Documents unearthed during Jensen’s review showed that before the FBI was tasked by the Obama White House in early 2017 with re-targeting Flynn, the agency closed a previous investigation against him because there was no proof of any criminal wrongdoing. Jensen’s review also uncovered evidence that the FBI’s interview of Flynn, which later led to charges that he lied to FBI investigators, had no legal basis and that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he had lied.
Contrary to claims by Mueller’s office that Flynn had lied about discussing financial sanctions against Russia during post-election phone calls with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, declassified transcripts of those conversations confirmed that Flynn spoke to Kislyak only about expulsions of Russian diplomats and that the two men never discussed financial sanctions against Russia that had previously been levied by the Obama administration. Jensen’s review of Flynn’s case file also revealed handwritten notes from the FBI’s top counterintelligence official that admitted a primary goal of the FBI’s anti-Flynn operation was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
Despite the overwhelming evidence that Flynn did not lie to agents, the FBI had no legal basis to interview him, that the FBI later hid exculpatory documents from Flynn’s defense team, Flynn did not discuss financial sanctions during his phone calls with Kislyak, and the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied, federal trial Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has refused to dismiss the case against Flynn.
Instead, Sullivan personally appointed a left-wing shadow prosecutor, whose partners represent former DOJ official Yates, to smear Flynn and attempt to continue the baseless criminal case against him. At one point last April, Sullivan even tried to order the DOJ to stop producing and publicly filing exculpatory evidence for Flynn or evidence of FBI misbehavior during its investigation of Flynn.
Sullivan, who called Flynn a traitor during court proceedings and suggested that Flynn — a decorated Army combat veteran — be charged with treason, has refused to recuse himself from the case despite his obvious personal animosity toward Flynn.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 9:02:00 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/09/25/michael-flynn-william-barnett-fbi-mueller/FBI Agent Who Led Flynn Probe Said Mueller’s Team Had A ‘Get Trump’ Attitude A government memo released Thursday shows that the FBI special agent who oversaw the investigation of Michael Flynn harbored doubts about the basis for the probe. William Barnett also criticized the special counsel’s investigation, which he said was set up to “get Trump.” Barnett was interviewed last week by a U.S. attorney who is reviewing the FBI’s investigation of Flynn. Barnett told the prosecutor that he “did not understand the point” of the investigation of Flynn. He also said that he did not believe that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. An FBI special agent who worked on Crossfire Hurricane told prosecutors last week that he saw little reason to investigate Michael Flynn and that he believed that members of the special counsel’s team prosecuted the former national security adviser in order to “get Trump,” according to a memo released late Thursday. William Barnett, an FBI special agent, was interviewed on Sept. 17 by Jeffrey Jensen, a U.S. attorney in Missouri who is leading a Justice Department review of the case against Flynn. Barnett, who worked out of the FBI’s Washington field office, was the lead investigator on the Flynn component of Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, and began investigating four Trump campaign aides, including Flynn, as possible agents of the Russian government. The Flynn investigation was dubbed Crossfire Razor. According to the memo, which offers a rare glimpse of an FBI’s assessment of his own investigation, Barnett saw little evidence to support an investigation of Flynn. Barnett also doubted that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to influence the election. (RELATED: FBI Investigated Steele Dossier Source As Possible Russian Spy) “BARNETT thought the TRUMP Campaign may have been aware the Russians were attempting to impact the election, but that was far different from the TRUMP Campaign and the Russians having a deal and/or working together ‘quid pro quo,'” says the memo. Barnett told Jensen and his team that he believed the collusion theory was “opaque,” with little to no evidence of criminal activity. He also said that the predication for the investigation of Flynn was “not great,” the memo says. He said that one basis for the investigation was a speech that Flynn gave in Moscow hosted by the Russia propaganda outlet, RT, in December 2015. Flynn sat next to Vladimir Putin at the gala. Barnett said he thought the RT trip was “ill-advised” on Flynn’s part, but that he did not see any evidence of criminal activity. “BARNETT did not understand the point of the investigation,” the memo says. Barnett said that little was being done at the FBI on the Flynn aspect of the probe from September 2016 through November 2016. As the election rolled around, Barnett was eager for Crossfire Razor to be closed, according to internal FBI messages that were also released on Thursday. Barnett wrote in a message at 5:42 p.m. on Nov. 8, 2016, that FBI officials had ordered Crossfire Razor to be shut down. The agent wrote to a colleague that he was “glad” the probe was ending given that there was nothing more to investigate. Hours later, Donald Trump pulled a surprise win over Hillary Clinton for the presidency, and the Flynn investigation remained open. The next decision in the probe came after Christmas 2016, when Barnett said that Peter Strzok, the deputy chief of FBI counterintelligence, directed agents to close Crossfire Razor. Barnett drafted a memo from the FBI’s Washington Field Office on Jan. 4, 2017 that recommended closing the counterintelligence investigation on Flynn due to a lack of evidence that he was working with Russia. Strzok intervened at the last minute to keep the investigation open after the FBI obtained a transcript of Flynn’s phone calls on Dec. 29, 2016, with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. Barnett told investigators that the transcript did not change his view that Flynn “was not compromised by the Russians.” Strzok and another FBI agent, Joseph Pientka, interviewed Flynn at the White House about the Kislyak calls on Jan. 24, 2017. Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying during the interview about his discussions with Kislyak about the U.S. decision to expel Russian diplomats because of the Kremlin’s meddling in the U.S. election. Flynn has retracted his guilty plea. Attorney General William Barr tapped Jensen, the prosecutor, in January to review the FBI’s investigation of Flynn. The Justice Department has filed a motion to withdraw charges against Flynn, though the outcome is still pending a judicial review. Barnett told Jensen that he was “cut out” of the interview with Flynn, and that top FBI officials, including then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, were leading Crossfire Razor. Barnett said that he believed Flynn did lie during the White House interview, but that he did so in order to save his job rather than to cover up his links to Kislyak. Flynn had denied to Vice President Mike Pence in mid-January 2017 that he discussed U.S. sanctions with Kislyak. According to the memo, Barnett asked an FBI unit chief on Feb. 7, 2017, to be removed from the Flynn investigation, saying he believed Crossfire Razor was “problematic” and could result in an inspector general’s investigation. Barnett remained on the case, and would eventually join the special counsel’s team, which was formed on May 17, 2017 in the wake of James Comey’s firing as FBI director. Barnett offered a jaundiced assessment of the special counsel’s team, which was led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. He described butting heads with Jeannie Rhee, who led the cases into possible conspiracy with Russia. Barnett described a briefing he gave the Mueller team about the Flynn investigation in which he said he had not seen evidence of a crime committed by the retired general. “RHEE seemed to dismiss BARNETT’s assessment,” the memo says. Barnett told Jensen that he thought Rhee “was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.” The agent also said he believed that some on Mueller’s team harbored a “get TRUMP attitude,” both because of anti-Trump feelings and because the structure of the special counsel’s probe meant they were brought in to find crimes specifically linked to the president. “BARNETT said it was not necessarily ‘get TRUMP’ but more the conviction there was ‘something criminal there’ and a competition as to which attorney was going to find it,” the memo says. “There was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more the attitude of ‘the evidence is there we just have to find it.'” “BARNETT believed the prosecution of FLYNN by SCO was used as a means to ‘get TRUMP,'” the memo says. Barnett also criticized Andrew Weissmann, a Mueller prosecutor who led the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. He recalled one incident in which Weissmann said that someone had met on a yacht near Greece and “that was going to be the proof of collusion.” “BARNETT said within a day or two the information was not substantiated.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 9:09:25 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/25/primary-source-for-bogus-steele-dossier-was-deemed-a-national-security-threat/Primary Source For Bogus Steele Dossier Was Deemed A National Security Threat SEPTEMBER 25, 2020 By Tristan Justice Newly declassified information reveals that the primary source used for the discredited, DNC-funded Steele dossier was a suspected Russian agent who had been the subject of an earlier FBI investigation. The investigators running the Crossfire Hurricane team knew this by December 2016 but withheld that information from the court that authorized using the dossier as a basis to go after President Donald Trump and spy on his affiliates. According to documents released by Attorney General William Barr to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., declassified Thursday, a previously redacted but now-unveiled footnote in Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s December report shows the primary sub-source “was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.” In other words, the primary sub-source, now known to be Igor Danchenko, who is a Russian national with a checkered past, was investigated for being a Russian agent. The documents further show that those running the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which relied on the fake Steele dossier deriving its information from the sub-source, knew that Danchenko had been under a counterintelligence investigation. Federal officials pushed forward with their deep-state operations anyway as part of the conspiracy theory that the president was serving as an undercover agent for the Russian government. “[F]ailure of the FBI to inform the court that the Primary Sub-source was suspected of being a Russian agent is a breach of every duty owed by law enforcement to the judicial system,” Graham said in a statement. A more than two-year investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller would later conclude in the spring of 2019, finding no evidence at all that the president or any other American colluded with the Russian government to capture the 2016 election. The Kremlin did, however, attempt to interfere in the U.S. election, purchasing between $200,000 and $300,000 worth of Facebook ads with the primary goal of sowing division and “undermin[ing] public faith in the U.S. democratic process.” The Democratic witch hunt, orchestrated by deep-state operatives using the Steele dossier, which in turn collected its information from a suspected Russian agent, appears to have done just that, with Democrats now raising hysterical Post Office conspiracies and dystopian fantasies just weeks from the November election, which they claim Trump might refuse to concede. In fact, Democrats are now gaming how to steal the election again if Trump wins, even after launching an impeachment over a phone call and perpetuating a four-year Russia hoax still ongoing. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee faced no investigation for the use of the dossier, which was authored by the unregistered agent of a Russian oligarch and sourced to the Russian national who had been investigated as a Russian agent. The news that Crossfire Hurricane officials weaponized the FBI to accuse Trump of being a Russian asset — by using a suspected Russian asset — comes on the heels of another major revelation to emerge from The Federalist Thursday. Agents on the Russia collusion probes were so concerned that what they were doing was illegal that they purchased liability insurance just before Trump’s inauguration.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 9:11:24 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/05/19/breaking-declassified-susan-rice-email-confirms-michael-flynn-was-personally-targeted-in-oval-office-meeting/BREAKING: Declassified Susan Rice Email Confirms Michael Flynn Was Personally Targeted In Oval Office MeetingNewly declassified portions of a key Susan Rice email confirm that Michael Flynn was personally targeted during a January 5 Oval Office meeting with Obama.MAY 19, 2020 By Sean Davis Michael Flynn was personally targeted during a crucial Jan. 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting arranged by then-President Barack Obama, a newly declassified document shows. On Jan. 20, 2017, as President Donald Trump was being inaugurated, former White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent herself a bizarre email detailing the Jan. 5 meeting between her, Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and fired former Federal Bureau of Investigations Director James Comey. In the email, portions of which were not declassified until recently, Rice recorded that Flynn, who at the time was the incoming national security adviser for Trump, was personally discussed and targeted during the meeting with Obama. Declassified Susan Rice E-M… by The Federalist on Scribd “From a national security perspective, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.” At the time, the Obama administration was actively spying on members of the Trump team as part of its Crossfire Hurricane investigation against Trump. “Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak,” Rice wrote in a portion of the email that was only recently declassified. “Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information.” “President Obama asked if Comey was saying the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn,” Rice continued. “Comey replied ‘potentially.'” “[Comey] added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.'” The email did not explain how it would be “unusual” for an incoming national security adviser to converse with foreign leaders ahead of a new president’s inauguration. Many observers believe the calls between Flynn and Kislyak were little more than pretext to hide the Obama administration’s spy campaign against Trump from the newly elected president’s team and to justify a continued inquisition against Flynn. The newly declassified portions of the Jan. 5 Rice email confirm that the targeting of Flynn was coordinated within the inner sanctum of the White House and that both Obama and Biden were deeply involved in the campaign to take down Flynn. Documents previously released and declassified showed that the FBI never possessed any evidence that Flynn was a secret Russian agent or that he had broken any laws. An FBI electronic communication closing the agency’s counterintelligence investigation against him, which was dated Jan. 4, made clear that “no derogatory information” about Flynn had been obtained during the months-long investigation of Flynn. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently determined that an ambush FBI interview of Flynn, which later formed the foundation of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s single charge against Flynn, had no legal basis. Contemporaneous handwritten notes from the FBI’s top counterintelligence official at the time show that the FBI’s goal in targeting Flynn in early 2017 was to “prosecute him or get him fired.” DOJ is currently in the process of dismissing all charges against Flynn, citing rank corruption and abuse of power in the FBI’s campaign against Flynn. thefederalist.com/2020/05/07/doj-dropping-case-against-flynn-following-blockbuster-revelations-of-fbi-corruption/You can read the full email, including the newly declassified portions, here. www.scribd.com/document/462170596/Declassified-Susan-Rice-E-Mail-Targeting-Michael-Flynn
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 9:21:31 GMT -6
FBI Agent William Barnett believed the prosecution of General Flynn by the Mueller gang was used as a means to ‘get Trump’:
Barnett worked on both General Flynn’s investigation before the election and then for the Mueller gang after the election. Barnett thought the rationale for Crossfire Razor (the investigation of General Flynn before the 2016 election and during the campaign while he was working with candidate Trump to win the election) “was not great”. (Of course it wasn’t. Razor allowed the Obama and Hillary gangs to spy on President Trump up through the election.)
General Flynn was accused of leaving an event in 2014 with an undisclosed person. This no doubt is in reference to Svetlana Lokhova who was accused of this lie by Stefan Halper who was paid handsomely for making it.
Project Razor continued in a holding pattern, no doubt to justify spying on the Trump campaign. Agent Barnett didn’t understand why and suggested closing the case since there was “nothing left to do”.
In late December corrupt agent Peter Strzok ordered the Flynn case closed. But then on January 4, 2017, Strzok tells Barnett to keep the case open. This was the day before the infamous meeting in the White House with Obama, Biden, Yates, Comey, Susan Rice, Brennan and a few others. They kept the Flynn case open based on the Logan Act which Barnett thought was questionable.
Barnett states the Flynn case was “top down”. Meaning it came from the top. Certainly this means Comey but likely it means Obama as well.
Barnett was on the case from the beginning but was not notified of the ambush interview of General Flynn in the White House on January 24, 2017. He thought the case was so abusive that he asked to be taken off the case.
Corrupt FBI Agent Kevin Clinesmith was involved in the case along with Jean Rhee, the corrupt Mueller attorney on the case. He told Rhee there was no evidence of a crime.
Barnett noted Mueller crook Weissmann thought there was going to be proof of collusion related to a yacht in Greece. This fizzled out two days later.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 15:08:14 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/25/get-trump-fbi-whistleblower-on-mueller-team-details-real-reason-flynn-was-targeted/‘Get Trump’: FBI Whistleblower On Mueller Team Details Real Reason Flynn Was TargetedThe case agent managing the FBI's investigation of Flynn told Department of Justice attorneys that a desire to "get Trump" was a major factor underlying the case against Flynn.By Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway SEPTEMBER 25, 2020 In a stunning and detailed interview conducted September 17 by U.S. attorney Jeff Jensen, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case agent for the original investigation of former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and who later worked on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel blew the whistle on myriad problems that plagued those investigations from the very beginning. FBI Special Agent William Barnett told Department of Justice (DOJ) investigators that the handling of the probes troubled him so much that he threatened to quit working on it in one case, and threatened to go to the Inspector General in another. According to the summary of Barnett’s interview, he said there was never any basis for the bizarre “collusion” theory the agency and the special counsel relentlessly pursued, to the point that agents made jokes about how they could take any piece of information and claim it was evidence of collusion. He said the Special Counsel Office (SCO) pursued Flynn simply as a means to “get Trump” and viewed FBI investigators as a “speed bump” slowing down the work of the attorneys leading the inquisition. The broader Trump investigation was “opaque,” the case theory was “supposition on supposition,” the Flynn probe in particular was “unclear and disorganized,” and its predicate was “not great,” Barnett told investigators. According to the interview notes, he felt there was “little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.” When Barnett was first placed on the case in 2016, he said he assumed he’d have a better understanding of why the investigation into the Trump campaign was launched as he read through the evidence. But “after being involved in the investigation for six weeks, Barnett was still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump Campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation.” Much was made over the Republican National Convention platform amending a proposed change in support of “lethal assistance” to Ukraine to “appropriate assistance.” While some at the FBI attempted to claim this was a sign of collusion with Russia, he characterized the theory as “groping.” After moving in 2016 to close the Flynn investigation for complete lack of any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, Barnett was instructed in early 2017 to keep it open and investigate Flynn for a Logan Act violation. The FBI didn’t even have a code for the Logan Act, a never-used, centuries-old law prohibiting private citizens from corresponding with foreign governments. Flynn was not a private citizen, but the incoming National Security Advisor for President Trump when he made phone calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, so even if the law were deemed constitutional, it would not have applied to Flynn. Barnett had to research the Logan Act, as he was unfamiliar with it, but “did not see the Logan Act as a serious stand-alone charge.” When Barnett pushed for a closing interview with Flynn in 2016, as part of the normal procedure for closing cases that were going nowhere, he was rebuffed. But when the FBI later interviewed Flynn, falsely conveying to Flynn that he was not a target of an investigation and not in danger of walking into a perjury trap, Barnett was “cut out” of the January 24, 2017, ambush interview of Flynn, and was not informed of its existence until it had already been conducted. “Typically a line agent/case agent would do the interview with a senior FBI official present in cases concerning high ranking political officials,” the summary of Barnett’s interview noted. While Barnett at first thought the unusual move was part of an effort to close the investigation, he later realized otherwise. It was not the only time the case agent was cut out of the unusual activity going on in the probe to target Flynn. “[N]either Barnett nor any other line agents were invited to attend” meetings about the Flynn investigation, which was changed to being conducted from the “‘top down,’ meaning direction concerning the investigation was coming from senior officials,” Barnett said. He noted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was personally directing the Flynn investigation. McCabe was later fired for repeatedly lying under oath about his leaks to the media. McCabe was referred for criminal investigation by the department’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz. “Barnett was willing to follow instructions being given by the Deputy Director as long as it was not a violation of law,” the summary of Barnett’s interview stated. During the interview, Barnett also revealed how the FBI used high-level criminal leaks to advance the agency’s investigation into Trump-related targets. Texts released yesterday showed FBI employees sarcastically pretending to care about the criminal leak of phone calls between Flynn and Kislyak to David Ignatius of the Washington Post and a reporter at the Wall Street Journal. The employees surmised that the leaks came from high-level officials at the White House. “The FBI was reacting to articles being reported in the news, most notably an article written by Ignatius concerning [REDACTED] involving Flynn to a Russian Ambassador,” Barnett told investigators, saying “the investigative tempo increased” following the article. By February 2017, Barnett told his unit chief that he wanted to be removed from the case. According to the document detailing his interview, Barnett told investigators the Flynn investigation “was problematic and could result in an IG investigation.” Barnett relayed how uncomfortable he was with aspects of the case but said that its oversight by FBI attorneys and top FBI officials led him to assume at the time that the investigation was not illegal. “While Barnett questioned the investigative theory, he did not think at the time the investigation was illegal, particularly due to the oversight by attorneys (i.e., CLINESMITH) and the direction being given by top FBI officials,” the interview summary noted. Kevin Clinesmith, an attorney who assured Barnett that the case was being properly handled, has since pleaded guilty to fabricating evidence to support a spy warrant against Carter Page, a separate target in the FBI’s anti-Trump probes. An analyst who was “very skeptical of the Flynn collusion investigation” was removed from the Flynn investigation, Barnett said. Referring to the factual and legal basis for the ongoing Flynn investigation, Barnett added that he “also thought it was a ‘dumb theory’ that did not make sense,” according to the report of his interview. The Flynn investigation was folded into the Special Counsel probe when it was launched in May of 2017. Upon its formation, Barnett informed the Special Counsel’s team, including attorney Jeannie Rhee, that there was “no evidence of a crime” committed by Flynn. Rhee, a former outside counsel representing the Clinton Foundation as well as former Obama national security official Ben Rhodes, had been picked by Robert Mueller to be part of the investigation into Donald Trump. When Barnett attempted to brief Rhee on a separate investigative matter, she stopped him and demanded that he “drill down” on the fees Flynn was paid for giving a public speech in Russia. When he explained those fees, she dismissed his assessment. “Barnett thought Rhee was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda,” the summary of Barnett’s interview stated. “Rhee told Barnett she looked forward to working together. Barnett told Rhee they would not be working together.” Following the briefing of the Special Counsel team, Barnett once again sought to avoid any participation in the anti-Flynn probe. It was Peter Strzok, the fired former FBI counterintelligence official, who urged Barnett to move over to the Special Counsel’s operation. Barnett said he “did not wish to pursue the collusion investigation as it was ‘not there'” but decided to work at the Special Counsel office in the hope his perspective would keep them from “group think.” Rather than allowing Special Counsel agents to build cases from the bottom up by following leads and evidence, investigative steps were ordered from the top-down, according to Barnett. He characterized the situation as upside down, with attorneys drafting search warrants and asking agents to do little more than sign off on the attorneys’ demands. Barnett repeatedly said there was a “get TRUMP” attitude by officials running the Special Counsel probe. Barnett relayed how investigators interpreted a Trump request to “get to the bottom” of something as an attempt to obstruct an investigation and “cover it up.” Barnett had to point out that Trump’s literal words contradicted that theory. Special Counsel leaders were convinced that Trump fired disgraced former FBI Director James Comey in order to obstruct investigations of him. Barnett pointed out it was possible that Trump simply didn’t like Comey and wanted him replaced. The Special Counsel’s leadership was so certain that Trump had directed Flynn to call Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., that they assumed all testimony to the contrary was false. Special Counsel attorneys were frustrated that K.T. McFarland, the incoming deputy National Security Advisor, didn’t support their theory. “Mueller described McFarland as the ‘key to everything’ because McFarland was the link between Trump, who was at Mar-a-Lago with McFarland, and Flynn, who was in the Dominican Republic on vacation, when [REDACTED] were made,” the report of Barnett’s interview says. Because of Barnett’s contrary views, members of Mueller’s team even tried to prevent him from participating in interviews with McFarland, leading Barnett to threaten to go to the Inspector General. Barnett said he believed the Special Counsel was “trying to get McFarland to change her story to fit the Trump collusion theory.” During a proffer interview with McFarland, the special counsel team asked no follow-up or clarifying questions, which “perplexed” Barnett. He began asking direct questions, trying to “cut to the chase” and get facts directly from the subject of the interview. He asked if she knew things for a fact or if she was merely speculating. He asked if she passed information from Trump to Flynn. These direct questions and their clear answers that undercut their theory of the case led Special Counsel Attorney Andrew Goldstein to call a time-out and caution Barnett against asking them. “If you keep asking these questions, we will be here all day,” Goldstein reportedly told Barnett. When Flynn, under pressure from the Special Counsel, answered a question that could have been interpreted as saying Trump was aware of his calls with Kislyak, Barnett drilled down and got a clear answer to the contrary. “There was always someone at SCO who claimed to have a lead on information that would prove the collusion only to have the information be a dead end,” Barnett told investigators about the “numerous attempts” that were made to obtain evidence against Trump. The efforts always ended “with no such evidence being obtained,” Barnett said. He said the assumptions about such direction were just “astro projection,” and the “ground just kept being retreaded.” At one point, for example, Andrew Weissman reportedly got excited about “a meeting on a yacht near Greece that was going to be proof of collusion, ‘quid pro quo,'” according to the report. Like the other claims, it went nowhere. Barnett painted a picture of a Special Counsel that was run the opposite of the way a typical FBI investigation would be. “Typically investigators push for legal process and have to explain the need for the request to the attorneys. Barnett said the SCO attorneys were pushing for legal process and just wanted investigators to sign affidavits they prepared,” he said, according to the report. He said every request was “green-lighted” and that seasoned FBI agents were viewed as a “speed bump” to the attorneys leading the investigations. The situation was so extreme that Barnett and others joked about how it was like a game, which they referred to as Collusion Clue. “In the hypothetical game, investigators are able to choose any character conducting any activity, in any location, and pair this individual with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion,” Barnett said, according to the report of his interview. Barnett also referenced recent revelations that SCO members regularly wiped their phones and electronic devices to prevent examinations of their communications. According to records released earlier this month, more than a dozen top members of Mueller’s team wiped their phones by entering the wrong password or other means. Barnett told investigators that he did not wipe his phone, although he did recall hearing other members of Mueller’s team joking about wiping their phones. “Barnett believed the prosecution of Flynn by SCO was used as a means to ‘get TRUMP,'” the report of his interview concluded. The interview was conducted as part of a larger probe into the sprawling investigation into President Donald Trump and his affiliates.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 15:34:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 15:36:42 GMT -6
www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/09/24/secret_report_how_cias_brennan_overruled_dissenting_analysts_who_thought_russia_favored_hillary_125315.htmlSecret Report: How CIA's Brennan Overruled Dissenting Analysts Who Concluded Russia Favored Hillary By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations September 24, 2020 Former CIA Director John Brennan personally edited a crucial section of the intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and assigned a political ally to take a lead role in writing it after career analysts disputed Brennan's take that Russian leader Vladimir Putin intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump clinch the White House, according to two senior U.S. intelligence officials who have seen classified materials detailing Brennan’s role in drafting the document. John Brennan, left, with Robert Mueller in 2013: The CIA director's explosive conclusion in the ICA helped justify continuing Trump-Russia “collusion” investigations, notably Mueller's probe as special counsel. AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify continuing the Trump-Russia “collusion” investigation, which had been launched by the FBI in 2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in the end found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow. The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report — known as the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent Elections (ICA)” — just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of suspicion over his presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to suggest Russia influenced the 2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again to reelect Trump. The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing investigation into the origins of the “collusion” probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were juiced for political purposes. RealClearInvestigations has learned that one of the CIA operatives who helped Brennan draft the ICA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, financially supported Hillary Clinton during the campaign and is a close colleague of Eric Ciaramella, identified last year by RCI as the Democratic national security “whistleblower" whose complaint led to Trump’s impeachment, ending in Senate acquittal in January. John Durham: He is said to be using the long-hidden report on the drafting of the ICA as a road map in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence. Department of Justice via AP The two officials said Brennan, who openly supported Clinton during the campaign, excluded conflicting evidence about Putin’s motives from the report, despite objections from some intelligence analysts who argued Putin counted on Clinton winning the election and viewed Trump as a “wild card.” The dissenting analysts found that Moscow preferred Clinton because it judged she would work with its leaders, whereas it worried Trump would be too unpredictable. As secretary of state, Clinton tried to “reset” relations with Moscow to move them to a more positive and cooperative stage, while Trump campaigned on expanding the U.S. military, which Moscow perceived as a threat. These same analysts argued the Kremlin was generally trying to sow discord and disrupt the American democratic process during the 2016 election cycle. They also noted that Russia tried to interfere in the 2008 and 2012 races, many years before Trump threw his hat in the ring. “They complained Brennan took a thesis [that Putin supported Trump] and decided he was going to ignore dissenting data and exaggerate the importance of that conclusion, even though they said it didn’t have any real substance behind it,” said a senior U.S intelligence official who participated in a 2018 review of the spycraft behind the assessment, which President Obama ordered after the 2016 election. He elaborated that the analysts said they also came under political pressure to back Brennan’s judgment that Putin personally ordered "active measures” against the Clinton campaign to throw the election to Trump, even though the underlying intelligence was “weak." Adam Schiff: Soon after the Democrat took control of the House Intelligence Committee, its review of the drafting of the intelligence community assessment was classified and locked in a Capitol basement safe. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite The review, conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, culminated in a lengthy report that was classified and locked in a Capitol basement safe soon after Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff took control of the committee in January 2019. The official said the committee spent more than 1,200 hours reviewing the ICA and interviewing analysts involved in crafting it, including the chief of Brennan’s so-called “fusion cell,” which was the interagency analytical group Obama's top spook stood up to look into Russian influence operations during the 2016 election. Durham is said to be using the long-hidden report, which runs 50-plus pages, as a road map in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence while targeting the Trump campaign and presidential transition in an unprecedented investigation involving wiretapping and other secret surveillance. The special prosecutor recently interviewed Brennan for several hours at CIA headquarters after obtaining his emails, call logs and other documents from the agency. Durham has also quizzed analysts and supervisors who worked on the ICA. A spokesman for Brennan said that, according to Durham, he is not the target of a criminal investigation and “only a witness to events that are under review.” Durham’s office did not respond to requests for comment. The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said former senior CIA political analyst Kendall-Taylor was a key member of the team that worked on the ICA. A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of dollars to Clinton’s 2016 campaign, federal records show. In June, she gave $250 to the Biden Victory Fund. Andrea Kendall-Taylor: A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and recently defended the ICA in a “60 Minutes” interview. "60 Minutes"/YouTube Kendall-Taylor and Ciaramella entered the CIA as junior analysts around the same time and worked the Russia beat together at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. From 2015 to 2018, Kendall-Taylor was detailed to the National Intelligence Council, where she was deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Ciaramella succeeded her in that position at NIC, a unit of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that oversees the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. It’s not clear if Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017 assessment. He was working in the White House as a CIA detailee at the time. The CIA declined comment. Kendall-Taylor did not respond to requests for comment, but she recently defended the ICA as a national security expert in a CBS “60 Minutes” interview on Russia’s election activities, arguing it was a slam-dunk case “based on a large body of evidence that demonstrated not only what Russia was doing, but also its intent. And it's based on a number of different sources, collected human intelligence, technical intelligence.” But the secret congressional review details how the ICA, which was hastily put together over 30 days at the direction of Obama intelligence czar James Clapper, did not follow longstanding rules for crafting such assessments. It was not farmed out to other key intelligence agencies for their input, and did not include an annex for dissent, among other extraordinary departures from past tradecraft. Eric Ciaramella: The Democratic national security “whistleblower," whose complaint led to President Trump’s impeachment, was a close colleague of Kendall-Taylor. It’s not clear if Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017 assessment. whitehouse.gov It did, however, include a two-page annex summarizing allegations from a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. His claim that Putin had personally ordered cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign to help Trump win happened to echo the key finding of the ICA that Brennan supported. Brennan had briefed Democratic senators about allegations from the dossier on Capitol Hill. “Some of the FBI source’s [Steele’s] reporting is consistent with the judgment in the assessment,” stated the appended summary, which the two intelligence sources say was written by Brennan loyalists. “The FBI source claimed, for example, that Putin ordered the influence effort with the aim of defeating Secretary Clinton, whom Putin ‘feared and hated.’ “ Steele's reporting has since been discredited by the Justice Department’s inspector general as rumor-based opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. Several allegations have been debunked, even by Steele’s own primary source, who confessed to the FBI that he ginned the rumors up with some of his Russian drinking buddies to earn money from Steele. Former FBI Director James Comey told the Justice Department’s watchdog that the Steele material, which he referred to as the “Crown material,” was incorporated with the ICA because it was “corroborative of the central thesis of the assessment “The IC analysts found it credible on its face,” Comey said. Christopher Steele: His dossier allegations were summarized in a two-page annex to the ICA, but dissenting views about the Kremlin's favoring Hillary Clinton over Trump were excluded. Victoria Jones/PA via AP The officials who have read the secret congressional report on the ICA dispute that. They say a number of analysts objected to including the dossier, arguing it was political innuendo and not sound intelligence. “The staff report makes it fairly clear the assessment was politicized and skewed to discredit Trump’s election,” said the second U.S. intelligence source, who also requested anonymity. Kendall-Taylor denied any political bias factored into the intelligence. “To suggest that there was political interference in that process is ridiculous,” she recently told NBC News. Her boss during the ICA’s drafting was CIA officer Julia Gurganus. Clapper tasked Gurganus, then detailed to NIC as its national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, with coordinating the production of the ICA with Kendall-Taylor. They, in turn, worked closely with NIC’s cybersecurity expert Vinh Nguyen, who had been consulting with Democratic National Committee cybersecurity contractor CrowdStrike to gather intelligence on the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer system. (CrowdStrike’s president has testified he couldn’t say for sure Russian intelligence stole DNC emails, according to recently declassified transcripts.) Durham’s investigators have focused on people who worked at NIC during the drafting of the ICA, according to recent published reports. No Input From CIA's 'Russia House' The senior official who identified Kendall-Taylor said Brennan did not seek input from experts from CIA’s so-called Russia House, a department within Langley officially called the Center for Europe and Eurasia, before arriving at the conclusion that Putin meddled in the election to benefit Trump. “It was not an intelligence assessment. It was not coordinated in the [intelligence] community or even with experts in Russia House,” the official said. "It was just a small group of people selected and driven by Brennan himself … and Brennan did the editing.” The official noted that National Security Agency analysts also dissented from the conclusion that Putin personally sought to tilt the scale for Trump. One of only three agencies from the 17-agency intelligence community invited to participate in the ICA, the NSA had a lower level of confidence than the CIA and FBI, specifically on that bombshell conclusion. The official said the NSA’s departure was significant because the agency monitors the communications of Russian officials overseas. Yet it could not corroborate Brennan’s preferred conclusion through its signals intelligence. Former NSA Director Michael Rogers, who has testified that the conclusion about Putin and Trump “didn’t have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources,” reportedly has been cooperating with Durham’s probe. The second senior intelligence official, who has read a draft of the still-classified House Intelligence Committee review, confirmed that career intelligence analysts complained that the ICA was tightly controlled and manipulated by Brennan, who previously worked in the Obama White House. “It wasn’t 17 agencies and it wasn’t even a dozen analysts from the three agencies who wrote the assessment," as has been widely reported in the media, he said. "It was just five officers of the CIA who wrote it, and Brennan hand-picked all five. And the lead writer was a good friend of Brennan’s.” Brennan's tight control over the process of drafting the ICA belies public claims the assessment reflected the “consensus of the entire intelligence community.” His unilateral role also raises doubts about the objectivity of the intelligence. In his defense, Brennan has pointed to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report that found "no reason to dispute the Intelligence Community’s conclusions.” "The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump,” argued committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va. “Our review of the highly classified ICA and underlying intelligence found that this and other conclusions were well-supported,” Warner added. "There is certainly no reason to doubt that the Russians’ success in 2016 is leading them to try again in 2020, and we must not be caught unprepared.” Brennan, ex-Obama homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco and ex-national intelligence director James Clapper, interviewed by Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC, right, at a 2018 Aspen Instutute event. Aspen Institute However, the report completely blacks out a review of the underlying evidence to support the Brennan-inserted conclusion, including an entire section labeled “Putin Ordered Campaign to Influence U.S. Election.” Still, it suggests elsewhere that conclusions are supported by intelligence with “varying substantiation” and with “differing confidence levels.” It also notes “concerns about the use of specific sources.” Adding to doubts, the committee relied heavily on the closed-door testimony of former Obama homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, a close Brennan ally who met with Brennan and his "fusion team" at the White House before and after the election. The extent of Monaco’s role in the ICA is unclear. Brennan last week pledged he would cooperate with two other Senate committees investigating the origins of the Russia “collusion” investigation. The Senate judiciary and governmental affairs panels recently gained authority to subpoena Brennan and other witnesses to testify. Several Republican lawmakers and former Trump officials are clamoring for the declassification and release of the secret House staff report on the ICA. “It’s dynamite,” said former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who reviewed the staff report while serving as chief of staff to then-National Security Adviser John Bolton. "There are things in there that people don’t know,” he told RCI. “It will change the dynamic of our understanding of Russian meddling in the election.” However, according to the intelligence official who worked on the ICA review, Brennan ensured that it would be next to impossible to declassify his sourcing for the key judgment on Putin. He said Brennan hid all sources and references to the underlying intelligence behind a highly sensitive and compartmented wall of classification. He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a highly restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the sourcing, and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the sourcing. Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to Brennan’s questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying evidence conveniently opaque, the official said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 15:37:28 GMT -6
thehill.com/homenews/senate/518138-steele-dossier-sub-source-was-subject-of-fbi-counterintelligence-probeSteele Dossier sub-source was subject of FBI counterintelligence probe BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 09/24/20 10:29 PM EDT A sub-source used to compile the so-called Steele Dossier, a controversial opposition research document against then-candidate Donald Trump, was previously the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation, Attorney General William Barr disclosed in a letter released on Thursday. The detail was previously redacted from a footnote in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz's 2019 report on four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant applications. But U.S. Attorney John Durham, tapped by Barr to review the origins of the FBI's Russia probe, signed off on Barr releasing the detail to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is doing his own investigation into the FBI's probe into Russia's 2016 election meddling and the Trump campaign. "I have consulted with Mr. Durham, who originally brought this information to my attention in the course of his investigation, and he has informed me that disclosure of the information will not interfere with his criminal investigation," Barr wrote in the letter to Graham. Durham allowing the detail to be publicly released is a signal that he is unlikely to be planning criminal indictments related to this part of his investigation. The declassified footnote states that the "primary sub-source was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian counterintelligence officers." A two-page document compiled by the FBI and Barr and sent to Graham along with the declassified footnote adds that the investigation was opened "based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security." The investigation was closed in 2011 and not reopened. The letter to Graham comes as Trump and his allies have lashed out at the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation, the name for the probe into Russia's election meddling and the 2016 campaign, as a "witch hunt." Administration officials, including Barr, have aided GOP senators in releasing new information as they've sought to use their committees to dig into the FBI's previous probe heading into the November election. Graham is expected to have former FBI Director James Comey before his committee next Wednesday, and has vowed to release a report next month on his investigation into the FBI and subsequent former special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. Graham said on Thursday that he would be forwarding the information to the FISA court, arguing that it was the latest example of the FBI not including exculpatory material from its warrant applications. “To me, failure of the FBI to inform the court that the Primary Sub-source was suspected of being a Russian agent is a breach of every duty owed by law enforcement to the judicial system," Graham said. Barr has also come under scrutiny from top congressional Democrats because of his public remarks about Durham's probe. Barr has teased that he could release some findings from the investigation before the November election. “We’ll develop this case to the extent we can before the election, and we’ll use our prudent judgment to decide what’s appropriate before the election and what should wait until after the election,” Barr said. Federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy, a top aide to Durham, resigned from the Justice Department probe earlier this month with sources telling the Hartford Courant she was concerned about political pressure from Barr. --Updated at 11:58 p.m.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 4:16:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 7:49:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 8:24:16 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/25/110-disturbing-revelations-from-fbi-special-agent-william-barnett-on-the-fbis-michael-flynn-probe/10 Disturbing Revelations from FBI Special Agent William Barnett on the FBI’s Michael Flynn Probe The Justice Department on Thursday released a summary of its interview of a former FBI special agent who revealed damaging information on the initial FBI counterintelligence and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations into Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Michael Flynn. The summary, known as a “302,” reveals that the special agent, William Barnett, listed a number of disturbing things that he found while working on both investigations. Here are the top 10: #1: Barnett believed the predication for the overarching Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign and the Crossfire Razor investigation into Flynn were both unclear and unconvincing.Barnett said after he was brought on to Crossfire Razor, he was briefed on the overarching investigation, Crossfire Hurricane. According to the 302, Barnett thought the investigation was “‘opaque’ with very little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.” He thought the case theory was “supposition on supposition.” Additionally, Barnett thought the predication for Crossfire Razor was “not great.” He said one fact used for predication was a speech Flynn gave in Russia several years prior, and that he believed the speech may have been ill-advised but not illegal. He said it was not clear what the persons opening the case wanted to “look for or at.” Even after six weeks of being involved in the Crossfire Razor investigation, he was still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation. He called at least one theory “groping.” #2: Barnett was in the process of closing the Flynn investigation on January 4, 2017, when Peter Strzok intervened on or around the date of an Oval Office meeting where the Flynn investigation was discussed.On election day, November 8, 2016, Barnett said he and another analyst had a “very frank discussion” on closing the Flynn investigation. The analyst believed it was an “exercise in futility.” Barnett said he did not understand the point of the investigation. However, only Strzok was in position to close it. Between Christmas and New Year’s Eve in 2016, a supervisory special agent called Barnett and said Strzok told them to close the Flynn investigation. Barnett then started working on a document to close it on January 3 and 4, 2017. However, on January 4, 2017, he then got a message from a special agent telling them that he not close the investigation, as Strzok had information to add. January 4, 2017, was the same date of Strzok’s notes from a White House Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama, where Vice President Joe Biden suggested that Flynn might have violated the obscure Logan Act by speaking with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. Barnett said after reading the new information — possibly a transcript of Flynn’s call with Kislyak — a couple of times, he did not see what the significant issue or “rub” was and that it did not change his view that Flynn was not compromised by the Russians. Barnett also said he did not see a potential Logan Act violation as a “major issue” concerning the Flynn investigation or a “serious stand-alone charge.” #3: Barnett believed he was “cut out” of an FBI interview with Flynn on January 24, 2017.Barnett said he was not part of any further discussions on the Flynn investigation until January 25, 2017 — the day after FBI agents Strzok and Pientka interviewed Flynn at the White House. Barnett was not consulted or asked to participate. He was told it was a “last minute” decision. The 302 said: “In hindsight, BARNETT believed he was was ‘cut out’ of the interview.” #4: Barnett says after the Flynn interview, the investigation became “top down,” directed by Andrew McCabe.After Flynn’s interview, there was a “reorganization” of the investigation, with Strzok supervising it, along with someone else from the FBI headquarters. Barnett said that the Justice Department and the FBI HQs were having meetings on the investigation that he was not invited to attend. He said the investigation was “top down” — meaning direction on the investigation was coming from senior officials. He said that the FBI was reacting to news articles, most notably one that featured a leak that Flynn had talked to Kislyak, and that after that article, the “investigative tempo increased” as well as the issuance of national security letters, which are similar to subpoenas. Barnett said he believed that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was directing the investigation. #5: Barnett said he requested to be removed from the Flynn investigation because he believed it was problematic.Barnett had requested to be removed from the Flynn investigation in or about early February 2017, citing the DOJ Inspector General looking at the FBI’s handling of the investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server case and believing that the Flynn investigation could also result in an IG investigation. By then, he still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, or that the Flynn investigation was leading or headed toward prosecution. #6: The same FBI lawyer who falsified evidence on a surveillance warrant application on Carter Page also signed off on predication for national security letters on the Flynn investigation.Barnett said he sent his national security letters for the Flynn investigation for FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to review and approve. Clinesmith is the same lawyer who doctored an email to say that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was “not” a source for the CIA, when the original email said that Page in fact had been a source. (The information could have made it more difficult for the FBI to obtain another surveillance warrant on Page). Clinesmith recently plead guilty to one count of making a false statement. When Barnett was asked specific questions concerning the predication for investigation information provided in the request for a national security letter, Barnett said he sent an email to Clinesmith asking whether the predication was acceptable. Clinesmith said that it was and could be used for additional national security letters. Barnett said that the information received through the national security letters did not change his mind that Flynn was not working with the Russian government. #7: Barnett thought Clinton campaign-donor and Special Counsel Office (SCO) attorney Jeannie Rhee was “obsessed” with Flynn and Russia, and that she had an “agenda.” Barnett was told to brief on the Flynn investigation to a group including Rhee. He said he went over the investigation, including the assessment that there was no evidence of a crime. Barnett said when he tried to move on to what he thought was a more significant investigation, Rhee stopped him and asked more questions about Flynn. Barnett said he thought she was “obsessed with” Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda. Barnett talked about Rhee to an SCO attorney and said he wanted nothing to do with the Flynn investigation. Strzok then contacted him and said he really wanted Barnett to work with the SCO. Barnett said he told Strzook that he “did not wish to pursue the collusion investigation, as it was ‘not there.'” After getting assurances that he would not work with Rhee, Barnett agreed to work at the SCO, hoping his perspective would keep them from “group think.” #8: The appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller “changed everything.”Barnett said Crossfire Hurricane seemed to be winding down, but President Trump firing Comey and the appointment of Mueller “triggered a significant amount of activity” and “changed everything.” He said “search warrants were being drafted and executed on a regular basis” and SCO attorneys “were very aggressive and were directing things.” #9: Barnett thought there was a “get TRUMP” attitude by some at the Special Counsel Office.Barnett said incidents involving Trump were interpreted in the most negative manner or in some cases — misinterpreted, and some statements were discounted because they did not already fit the opinions of some at the SCO. One example was Trump said that investigators needed to “get to the bottom” of a matter, and one SCO attorney said Trump wanted to “cover it up.” Another example was Trump firing Comey being interpreted as obstruction, when it could have been interpreted as Trump not liking Comey and wanting him replaced. Barnett said some individuals in the SCO “assumed” Flynn was lying to cover up collusion between Trump and Russia, when Barnett said he believed Flynn lied in an interview to save his job. Barnett also said Mueller’s “all stars” had a conviction that there was “something criminal there” and there was a competition as to which attorney was going to find it. He said there was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more of an attitude of “the evidence is there we just have to find it.” Barnett said SCO attorneys asked witnesses generic questions and did not seem interested in following up to clarify, and when he did so, he was scolded by another attorney for wasting time. #10: SCO agents joked about wiping their cell phones — which actually happened to at least several dozen phones, purportedly by accident. Barnett said he was issued a cell phone by the SCO which he did not “wipe” like some of his colleagues. He said he heard other agents “comically” talk about wiping their phones, but was not aware of anyone doing it. As revealed last month by Judicial Watch, senior members of SCO repeatedly and “accidentally” wiped data off at least 27 phones assigned to them. Barnett said he and others on the SCO would actually mock the investigation into collusion, calling it “Collusion Clue.” They joked about how the investigation into collusion could be made into a game where investigators are able to choose any character conducting any activity, in any location, and pair that individual with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion. In summary, Barnett believed the prosecution into Flynn by the SCO was used as a means to “get Trump.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 9:00:55 GMT -6
FBI sent a blond bombshell to meet Trump aide Papadopoulos: report
The “sexy bottle blonde” woman whom a former Trump campaign adviser says came on to him in a London bar was sent there by the FBI to investigate suspected campaign collusion with Russia, according to a new report Thursday.
The woman, who used the name Azra Turk, was working for the feds when she posed as a research assistant who wanted to discuss foreign policy with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, the New York Times said.
Turk, whose real name is unknown, traveled to London to work with Cambridge University professor Stefan Halper, a longtime FBI informant whom the feds had told to set up a meeting with Papadopoulos, according to the Times.
But the feds learned nothing of value when Papadopoulos and Turk had drinks on Sept. 15, 2016, or when Papadopoulos later met with Halper at the Sofitel hotel in London’s West End, and Turk returned to the US, the Times said.
The revelation of the FBI’s role in arranging the meetings came amid claims by Trump and his supporters that US officials under then-President Barack Obama spied on his campaign.
Last month, Attorney General William Barr told a Congressional committee that he thought “spying did occur” and that he’d be looking into the “genesis” of the FBI probe that was later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Justice Department Inspector Gen. Michael Horowitz is conducting an internal investigation of the FBI’s activities that could wrap up as early as this month.
In a statement, Trump re-election campaign manager Brad Parscale said: “There is a word for this in the English language: Spying. Democrats and their media friends have expressed horror at the term, but there is no other way to describe it: The FBI spied on the Trump campaign in 2016.”
“As President Trump has said, it is high time to investigate the investigators,” he added.
During a closed-door interview with members of Congress last year, Papadopoulos described Turk as a “beautiful young lady” who seemed willing to trade sex for information.
Turk “never explicitly said I will sleep with you for this, but her mannerisms and her behavior suggested that she was flirtatious, and she was very open to something like that if I ended up providing what she wanted, whatever that was,” Papadopoulos told the lawmakers.
Papadopoulos — who later served 12 days in prison for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian intermediaries during the campaign — also expanded on his encounter with Turk in his memoir, “Deep State Target,” published in March.
In the book, Papadopoulos recounts how Turk contacted him shortly after he arrived in London by sending a text message that said, “Let’s meet for a drink. I’m looking forward to meeting you.”
Papadopoulos said he wasn’t sure if the message was “suggestive” until he arrived at the bar Turk had picked out for them.
“It was definitely suggestive. Azra Turk is a vision right out of central casting for a spy flick. She’s a sexy bottle blonde in her thirties, and she isn’t shy about showing her curves—as if anyone could miss them. She’s a fantasy’s fantasy,” he wrote.
But within five minutes, the book says, Turk began grilling Papadopoulos about the Trump campaign.
“She wants to know: are we working with Russia? ‘I don’t know what you are talking about,’ I say with a nervous laugh — her question is creepy,” he wrote.
SEE ALSO
Trump aide who lied to FBI plans to run for office But Turk “keeps pushing” and puts her hand on Papadopoulos” arm, telling him he’s more attractive than his pictures suggest and that he’s “doing important work,” Papadopoulos wrote.
“I’d love to hear more about the campaign. It is such a fascinating subject. How is Trump going to win? How can he beat Hillary Clinton?” he recalls her saying.
Convinced she’s not really a research assistant, Papadopoulos waited until they finished their drinks and said goodbye, he wrote.
Shortly after the Times story was posted online Thursday, Papadopoulos re-tweeted a link to it.
“I agree with everything in this superb article except ‘Azra Turk’ clearly was not FBI,” he wrote.
“She was CIA and affiliated with Turkish intel. She could hardly speak English and was tasked to meet me about my work in the energy sector offshore Israel/Cyprus which Turkey was competing with.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 9:09:51 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/steeles-dossier-source-was-a-suspected-russian-spy/Steele’s Dossier Source Was a Suspected Russian Spy By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY September 26, 2020 6:30 AM On the newly declassified FBI documents. See if you can follow this: In an effort to depict Donald Trump as if he were in an espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin, the Obama administration used bogus information, from a man the FBI suspected was an actual Russian spy, to brand as a suspected Russian spy a former U.S. naval intelligence officer who had actually been a CIA informant.
Your head spinning? Mine too.And that’s just the beginning. It turns out that Igor Danchenko, the man the FBI suspected of being an actual Russian spy, initially provided the bogus information about the American, Carter Page, through a former British spy, Christopher Steele. Through a couple of cut-outs, Steele had been retained by the Clinton campaign to dig up — or, alas, to make up — Russian dirt on Trump. Through his private intelligence business in London, Steele was known to be working for Russian oligarchs, while Danchenko was on Steele’s payroll. That is, the Clinton campaign, and ultimately the Obama administration, colluded with Russians for the purpose of accusing Donald Trump of . . . yes . . . colluding with Russians.Danchenko, who in 2005 reportedly told a Russian intelligence officer that he hoped someday to work for the Russian government, became Steele’s source on Trump. Even before October 2016, when the FBI and the Obama Justice Department first sought a surveillance warrant against Page based on the information Steele was compiling, it was obvious that the information was unreliable — some of it laughably so. But the story was just too good. Nobody bothered to check the information or press Steele about its sourcing. For months, Steele had been logged on bureau records as an official FBI informant. Nevertheless, in the most significant investigation in its modern history, the FBI did not identify Steele’s “primary sub-source,” Danchenko, until December 2016 — two months after the bureau, under oath, used the uncorroborated Steele/Danchenko information in what the FBI and Obama Justice Department labeled a “VERIFIED” application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Wait, there’s more. The FBI could easily have figured out Danchenko was Steele’s source months earlier. So why do it in December 2016? Because by then, they had no choice. It had become necessary a few weeks earlier to boot Steele out of the investigation — at least ostensibly. That’s because he had been outed publicly as a media source for information about his investigation of Trump. The public outing of Steele (in a Mother Jones article by David Corn, shortly before the 2016 election) should have come as no surprise. It had been obvious since at least September, when information from Steele was published in a Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, that Steele had been leaking to the media in order to help the Clinton campaign. Yet, the bureau repeatedly represented under oath to the FISC — four times between October 2016 through June 2017 — that “the FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information [in the Isikoff article] to the press.” To the contrary, as the Justice Department Inspector General (IG) found, there was considerable FBI suspicion that Steele was Isikoff’s source. Moreover, the FBI had continuous access to Steele. Note: I said (above) that Steele was ostensibly kicked out of the investigation. In reality, the bureau continued to get information from Steele through Justice Department official Bruce Ohr (though neither the FBI nor the Justice Department revealed that fact to the FISC). Still, as the IG concluded, no one at the FBI ever asked Steele if he was the source for the Isikoff article. Obviously, they didn’t want to know the answer — that way, they could just keep insisting to the court that they didn’t believe he was the source. That doesn’t even scratch the surface of deceit. When FBI agents interviewed Danchenko for three days in January 2017, they learned, undeniably, that Steele’s story about his source “network” — the story the bureau and the Justice Department told the FISC again and again — was a risible distortion. Steele did not have a network of sources; he had Danchenko. In turn, Danchenko had a motley collection of drinking buddies, a grifter, a girlfriend, and an anonymous source Danchenko cannot identify. And, as Eric Felton recounts in infuriatingly hilarious detail, none of these sub-sources could actually vouch for anything they heard, or wildly speculated, about Trump and Russia. The “Well-Developed Conspiracy of Cooperation”On this score, we can’t let pass the opportunity to describe what Steele and, ultimately, the FBI portentously describe as a “close associate” of Trump’s who asserted that the candidate-turned-president was in a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” with the regime of Vladimir Putin. Danchenko told FBI agents that a man he labeled “Source 6” was “this guy” whom he thinks — but is not sure — he once talked to on the phone for “about 10 minutes.” In a Thai restaurant, you see, Danchenko ran into a U.S. journalist he managed to chat up about Trump and Russia. The journalist told Danchenko he was “skeptical” because “nothing substantive had turned up” tying the two together. But the journalist referred Danchenko to a “colleague,” who advised Danchenko to talk to “this guy” via email. Danchenko took the email address and tried to reach “this guy” but didn’t get a reply. Weeks later, though, Danchenko got a call from an anonymous Russian who never identified himself. Danchenko assumed it was “this guy” . . . but he can’t say for sure. So, Danchenko simply labeled the presumed “this guy” as “Source 6,” with whom he had a brief “general discussion about Trump and the Kremlin” supposedly having “an ongoing relationship.” It was left to Steele, the old intel pro, to turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. By the time the craftsman was done “summarizing” Danchenko’s unverifiable, anonymously sourced gossip, “this guy” had evolved from Danchenko’s “Source 6” to Steele’s “Source E,” depicted as “an ethnic Russian and close associate of . . . Donald TRUMP,” who had “admitted” that “there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump campaign and Russian leadership (emphasis added). Indeed, according to Steele, “Source E” had even “acknowledged” that Russia was “behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks platform” — a storyline that just happened to be all over the media at that point. As the IG has found, Steele’s allegation that Page was part of a “well-developed conspiracy” of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, as well as the claim that Russia released the DNC emails in an effort to swing the 2016 election to Trump, were central to the surveillance application by the FBI and Obama Justice Department, and to the FISC’s issuance of surveillance warrants. And now we know, the liberal inflation of unsubstantiated — indeed, unattributable — rumor into purported probable cause that the now-president of the United States was a Kremlin mole is not the half of it. Why Are We Just Hearing This Now?Once the FBI identified Danchenko as Steele’s source, agents soon realized he was the same man the FBI had investigated as a suspected Russian spy six years earlier. You can’t even make this up, so I’m not — it is in a letter and accompanying FBI report, transmitted on Thursday from Attorney General Bill Barr to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.). It is mind-boggling that this information has been withheld from the public for years, despite congressional efforts to pry it from the FBI and Justice Department since 2017 (when Republicans controlled the House). In December 2019, when the IG’s report on FBI FISA abuse was released, many critical parts of it were redacted. These included Footnote 334 on page 186, which tantalizingly stated, “When interviewed by the FBI, the Primary Sub-source [i.e., Danchenko] stated that” — with remaining lines blacked out. After some complaints from Capitol Hill about the redactions, the Justice Department showed a bit more leg. As to Footnote 334, we were now told that Danchenko had “stated that [he] did not view [his] contacts as a network of sources, but rather as friends with whom [he] has conversations about current events and government relations.” That was vital information, but it wasn’t the whole story — a passage in the footnote remained blacked out. Finally on Thursday, we were told the rest of the astonishing story. The now-unredacted portion states that Danchenko “was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed [his] documented contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers” (emphasis added). Apparently, the information has been concealed from the public for the sake of the Durham investigation. (When information becomes public, that complicates the ability of investigators to question people about what they know and how they know it.) But John Durham, the Connecticut U.S. attorney who is investigating “Russiagate” irregularities, informed Barr that disclosure of the information would not interfere with his investigation at this point. 2005-2010: Danchenko’s Suspected Spying for RussiaIn any event, what remarkable irony. Recall (from my recent three-part series regarding the guilty plea of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith) that the period between 2009 and 2011 is part of the time-frame during which Carter Page was an official CIA informant. He was providing the agency with intelligence about Russians with whom he was in contact — a fact the FBI did not disclose to the FISC when it framed those contacts as evidence that Page was a spy for Russia, even though the FBI had been told, by both Page and the CIA, that Page had in fact been a CIA informant. Well, now we know that, in framing Page as a Russian spy, the FBI relied on nonsense provided by Danchenko, a man the bureau actually believed was a Russian spy, though this inconvenient detail, too, was concealed from the FISC. As has been publicly reported, Danchenko worked for the Brookings Institution, a prominent center-left Washington think-tank, specializing in foreign affairs. Brookings feeds experts, mainly to Democratic administrations when they are in power, and serves as a Democratic administration in waiting when they are not. When Danchenko worked at Brookings from 2005 through 2010, it was directed by Strobe Talbot, a close friend of, and later deputy secretary of state under, President Bill Clinton. Susan Rice worked at Brookings during the Bush years before becoming Obama’s national-security adviser, and career diplomat Victoria Nuland, who became a prominent assistant secretary in the Obama State Department, also worked at Brookings (she is married to Robert Kagan, a top Brookings scholar). Small world that it is, Nuland green-lighted Steele’s provision of intelligence to the State Department, was briefed on the Steele dossier during the 2016 campaign, and has acknowledged that Steele was invited to the State Department to give a personal briefing about his anti-Trump research (though she says she did not attend it). While at Brookings, Danchenko worked closely with Fiona Hill, with whom he co-wrote a research paper in 2010, shortly before leaving the country. Hill, of course, gained notoriety as an important Trump impeachment witness, owing to her time at the Trump National Security Council, to which she came from Brookings, after a stint on the National Intelligence Council under Bush-43 and Obama. The Brookings angle is relevant because of events in late 2008 that triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation of Danchenko. At that time, it was clear that there would soon be new Obama administration. The FBI received a tip that, at a Brookings function, Danchenko approached two of his co-workers. One was a research fellow for a person the bureau describes as “an influential foreign policy advisor in the Obama Administration.” Danchenko expressed interest in whether the research fellow would join this influential principal in the new administration. Danchenko was said to have made an offer to the two Brookings employees: If they “did get a job in the government and had access to classified information,” and wanted “to make extra money,” he could put them in touch with the right people for that sort of thing. There is no indication that the Brookings employees acted on the offer, but at least one of them suspected that Danchenko was a Russian spy. Naturally, this tip caused the FBI to do more digging. Agents quickly realized that Danchenko was associated with two other subjects of counterintelligence investigations. In 2005, he had been in contact with a Washington-based Russian officer, with whom Danchenko seemed “very familiar.” In 2006, he been in contact “with the Russian embassy and known Russian intelligence officers.” In fact, the FBI learned that Danchenko had visited one of these intelligence officers in his Russian embassy office. He allegedly told the officer that he hoped one day to enter the Russian diplomatic service. They went so far as to discuss future plans and Danchenko’s completing some documents for the Russian government — which, in October 2006, the intelligence officer discussed transmitting via diplomatic pouch, presumably to Moscow. The FBI also interviewed associates of Danchenko’s, who described him as pro-Russian and hopeful to return to Russia. One person recalled being pressed by Danchenko for information about “a particular military vessel.” The bureau was sufficiently alarmed that, in July 2010, agents began the process of seeking a FISA surveillance warrant for Danchenko. But he left the country two months later, so the investigation was closed without an application to the FISC having been made, but with the understanding that the investigation could be re-opened if Danchenko ever came back to the U.S. 2017: Danchenko Is Interviewed by the FBI as Steele’s SourceHe did eventually come back, and sat for those three days of interviews in January 2017. During this questioning, he utterly discredited the Steele dossier, the underlying basis for the FBI court-authorized surveillance of Page. Yet, there is no indication in the extensive FBI report of these interviews that the bureau grilled Danchenko about the 2005 to 2010 activities that had sprouted suspicion that Danchenko was a Russian spy. Subsequently, the FBI did not tell the FISC that Danchenko had been the subject of a counterintelligence probe on suspicion that he was a clandestine agent of Russia. To the contrary, the bureau told the FISC that Danchenko seemed credible — which would be funny if it were not so outrageous, since what Danchenko was supposedly credible about was the fact that the Steele dossier was incredible. Despite Danchenko’s testimony, the bureau continued standing behind the dossier. Far from correcting the deceptive claims made to the FISC, and notwithstanding all they knew about Steele and Danchenko, the FBI doubled and tripled down: In January, April and June 2017, the Justice Department submitted 90-day renewal applications, representing to the FISC that the FBI believed Steele and his information were credible. On that basis, the court kept reauthorizing the warrants, enabling the FBI to continue monitoring Page . . . even though the investigation was turning up nothing. ConclusionLet’s summarize, shall we? At the very time Carter Page, a former U.S. naval intelligence officer, was an informant providing the CIA with information about Russians who might be a threat to U.S. interests, the FBI was investigating Igor Danchenko, a Russian national, on suspicion that he was a Russian agent potentially threatening to U.S. interests. Danchenko became a contractor for Christopher Steele’s intelligence firm, whose clients included Russian oligarchs. That fact, the IG report explains, raised concerns about Steele in the FBI’s Transnational Organized Crime Unit — concerns which, Eric Felten has reported, were shared by State Department intelligence officials. In 2016, Steele accepted a Clinton campaign-commissioned assignment to dig up Russian dirt on Clinton’s opponent for the presidency, Donald Trump. To carry out this work, Steele relied on Danchenko to gather the information. Danchenko used what he now says was a group of dubious social acquaintances, and at least one source he never identified, to provide unsubstantiated and salacious rumors and innuendo about Trump. Steele took this information, portrayed it as sensitive intelligence from reliable sources, and presented it to the FBI — vouching that it had come from an intelligence “network.” The FBI, several of whose investigators were found by the IG to be overtly anti-Trump, failed to corroborate Steele’s information. Yet, the bureau represented that it was “verified” to the FISC, which thus proceeded to issue warrants against Page on the theory that the Trump campaign — even, perhaps, the nascent Trump administration — was in a corrupt conspiracy with the Kremlin. That is, a suspected Russian spy was used by our government to frame an American as a suspected Russian spy. A good friend of mine likes to say, “It’s always worse than you think.” That’s a fine epitaph for the Trump-Russia investigation.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 28, 2020 18:02:21 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-was-trying-hurt-trump-impending-declassification-flip-collusion-theory-its-headRussia Was Trying To Hurt Trump? Impending Declassification To 'Flip Collusion Theory On Its Head': Solomon New declassifications expected as soon as this week could flip the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory on its head, according to Just The News' John Solomon. justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/next-declassification-could-flip-russia-collusionAccording to multiple officials familiar with the planned declassification, "new evidence will raise the specter that Russian President Vladimir Putin was actually trying to hurt President Trump, not help his election in 2016, as the Obama administration claimed." The rumored release comes on the heels of revelations that former UK spy Christopher Steele's primary dossier source was tied to Russian intelligence - suggesting that the Kremlin was in fact working with Trump's enemies to harm his chances of winning the 2016 US election. And while the Mueller investigation found no 'collusion' between Trump and Russia, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-SC) brought up the notion of Putin working against Trump.
"Everything Russia-Trump was looked at. You had $25 million, 60 agents. You had subpoenas, you had people’s lives turned upside down," Graham told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday. "The question is, 'Did they look at Russia coming after Trump?'"?
"We’ve got a Russian spy on the payroll of the Democratic Party putting together a document that details the FBI was not reliable," he added.We recommend clicking into this tweet and reading the entire thing:
As Solomon notes: The possibility that the FBI and CIA had reason to suspect Russia was trying to hurt Trump and help rival Hillary Clinton first emerged in a Just the News article last month that revealed a House Intelligence Committee secret report accused the U.S Intelligence Community Assessment of ignoring credible evidence that the Russians tried to help Clinton in 2016.
"When I was briefed on the House Intelligence Committee report on the January 2017 ICA, I was told that John Brennan politicized this assessment by excluding credible intelligence that the Russians wanted Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election and ordered weak intelligence included that Russia wanted Trump to win," former CIA and National Security Council official Fred Fleitz told the outlet last month - which noted that Brennan was CIA director at the time. "I also was told that Brennan took both actions over the objections of CIA analysts. I am concerned about what happened to these analysts and worry that they may have been subjected to retaliation by CIA management," Fleitz added. "These analysts are true whistleblowers, and they should come to the congressional intelligence committees to tell their stories and set the record straight on the ICA." To that end, the impending document release will show that the intelligence community "cherry-picked pebbles of evidence" to help support the case that Russia was trying to help Trump win the 2016 election, when 'there was similar evidence to the contrary.'
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 28, 2020 19:41:55 GMT -6
justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/next-declassification-could-flip-russia-collusionThe Trump administration is preparing one of its biggest declassifications yet in the Russia case, a super-secret document that could flip the collusion theory on its head four years after the FBI first started its investigation.
Multiple officials familiar with the planned declassification, which could happen as early as this week, told Just the News that the new evidence will raise the specter that Russian President Vladimir Putin was actually trying to hurt President Trump, not help his election in 2016, as the Obama administration claimed.
An official familiar with the document said it will show the intelligence community “cherry-picked pebbles of evidence” to make the case Russia sought to help Trump win in 2016 when there was similar evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 28, 2020 19:47:03 GMT -6
theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/28/oblique-but-big-release-oig-horowitz-outlines-notification-of-fbi-for-contractor-database-abuse/Oblique but BIG Release – OIG Horowitz Outlines Notification of FBI for Contractor Database Abuse… Posted on September 28, 2020 by sundance A very interesting release from the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Michael Horowitz, [SEE HERE] outlines some very interesting information especially for those who have followed the arc of the NSA database exploitation for several years. On its face the OIG release outlines a review and finding, actually a warning, by Horowitz’s office about FBI contractor access to “a certain national security database.” The release is titled: “Management Advisory: Notification of Concerns Identified in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Contract Administration of a Certain Classified National Security Program”, and the advisory part is particularly interesting when absorbed through the prism of prior information. oig.justice.gov/reports/management-advisory-notification-concerns-identified-federal-bureau-investigations-contractNotice the date of the first notification from the OIG to the FBI, January 22nd 2020, this is a detail within the report that will be missed by most. It was little discussed on January 19, 2019, when the OIG revealed “Misconduct by Two Current Senior FBI Officials and One Retired FBI Official While Providing Oversight on an FBI Contract” Indeed we know the OIG was reviewing FBI contractor access to the NSA database as a result of both FISA judge Rosemary Collyer and FISA judge James Boasberg reports.
On the surface of the current release the OIG is noting concerns and a warning shared with the FBI about ongoing contractor access to the NSA database; thus, a “classified national security program” becomes defined. However, in the background of this current release it appears the OIG is using this public notification as a CYA of sorts. Meaning the OIG is saying publicly they have advised the FBI of “concerns” with this database being abused.
REPORT THIS AD
As specifically, and in my opinion intentionally, noted by the OIG the FBI used their intelligence authority to “classify” their response to IG Horowitz warning; and now Horowitz is informing the public of that opaque FBI approach.
Essentially, this can be looked at as Horowitz calling out the FBI for hiding information, yet the IG is using carefully worded public information to do so.
Read this next paragraph carefully…. EMPHASIS MINE:
[…] The classification marking of the working draft report, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on official government travel, and the unavailability to the OIG of secure video conferencing capability have contributed to the delays in finalizing this review.
So that we can begin the process of resolving issues that we identified during the review in a timely manner, we have determined that it would be in the OIG’s and the FBI’s interests to conclude our review by treating the OIG’s working draft report and its 11 recommendations as a management advisory.
Further, based on the oral and written feedback previously provided by the FBI on the working draft report, we consider the 11 recommendations contained within the working draft report to be final and their status “resolved.”
Consistent with the ordinary recommendation resolution process, we ask that the FBI please provide us within 90 days your response concerning specific actions completed or alternative corrective actions proposed or taken to address the recommendations.
So the FBI hid their response to the IG warning behind the cloud of “classification”, leaving the IG with no alternative except to say the classified response has to be accepted as the final FBI response to the IG warning. The IG is then saying to the FBI you have 90 days to tell us what you did to address the contractor access abuses.
The OIG is covering his ass, and telling us why.
Keep in mind this contractor access to the bulk NSA metadata is a big deal. All of the FISA audits in the past six years have pointed out how FBI contractors abuse their access to the database and unlawfully extract information without minimization efforts required by fourth amendment protections. The scale of the abuse is actually stunning; and now the OIG has reviewed the same process and found the same issues uncorrected.
The FBI is attempting to retain an unlawful process. Former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers said: the system itself is too easy to exploit and too difficult to manage, as he tried to shut down part of the search function (“about queries”) within the database itself.
Here’s the full IG “Management Advisory”:
View this document on Scribd .
To understand what specifically is being addressed within this IG review, it is worthwhile revisiting an interview by Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell as she shares information that CTH readers are very knowledgeable about; as well as a reminder of the backstory.
Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell hits it out of the park as she connects the dots within the surveillance state and the use of FBI contractors to mine the NSA database.
Must Watch:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 28, 2020 23:28:49 GMT -6
Today General Flynn’s legal team received more documentation that not only further exonerates Flynn, but indicates the Deep State FBI had no legal authorization to spy on Flynn in 2017. Sidney Powell recommended to followers to look into an article online about the release of the Barnett 302 last week:
Today more documents were released and they further show that Flynn was set up illegally by Obama’s Deep State FBI. Techno Fog shares highlights from the release.
The FBI in December 2016 stated that no further NSL’s (subpeona’s to spy on General Flynn) were authorized. But then in February more NSL’s were authorized by crooked cop Peter Strzok.
The FBI requested all of General Flynn’s email and phone records from July 2015 to March 2017 in March 2017:
So now we know the FBI spied on General Flynn from at least 2015 going forward. We know they had authorization to spy on Flynn up through December 2016. We don’t know why they had the original authorization to spy on Flynn or for what reason. We don’t have any evidence that the FBI had authorization to spy on Flynn after December 2016. We don’t know if any crimes have been identified or if anyone has been indicted (other than Clinesmith).
|
|