From The Alpha and the Omega - Chapter Eight
by Jim A. Cornwell, Copyright © 1995, all rights reserved
"FISA - Under Surveillance 2019 July-September"

FISA - Under Surveillance 2019 July-September
To return to FISA- Under Surveillance in 2019 April-June or continue to FISA- Under Surveillance in 2019 October-December

    The following was found on
7/10/2019 Devin Nunes: DOJ inspector general may know the truth about when Christopher Steele first briefed FBI on dossier by Daniel Chaitin, Washington Examiner
    Rep. Devin Nunes said the Justice Department inspector general may now be able to find out when British ex-spy Christopher Steele first briefed the FBI about his anti-Trump research as part of an investigation into alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    The California Republican reacted to news Tuesday that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's team conducted a two-day interview with Steele, the author of the unsubstantiated and salacious dossier attacking President Trump that was used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants to surveil onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
    Although Nunes called this a "good development," he also said there is one significant caveat that stands in the way of a potential breakthrough considering he believes Steele's sources are dubious at best.
    "[Horowitz is] looking at the origins of the investigation but at least by talking to Christopher Steele, if Steele is being honest, which is a big if, he may know when it was that Steele was first briefing FBI agents," Nunes said on Fox News @ Night.

    Four FISA warrant applications and renewals were filed from October 2016 through June 2017 against Page.    The applications relied heavily on the unverified dossier compiled by Steele, who was hired by Fusion GPS.    The opposition research firm was hired by Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm at the behest of the Clinton presidential campaign.    Steele and Fusion GPS shopped the research around to various government figures, including one skeptical State Department official, as well as the media in the run-up to the 2016 election.
    Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has long been skeptical of the FBI's assertion that its counterintelligence investigation, called Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 following a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer that he heard from Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that the Russians had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.     He singled out Downer and Joseph Mifsud, a mysterious Maltese academic who first told Papadopoulos that the Russians had "dirt" on Clinton and who Nunes suspects is a Western intelligence plant, played in the series of events that effectively set in motion what would become the Russia investigation.     "It's just highly improbable that they didn't have pieces of Steele's phony work before that," Nunes told host Shannon Bream, noting how the dossier was actually a series of installments that could have been shared piecemeal.    Steele met reportedly with an FBI official in Rome in the summer of 2016, but, as noted in a Democratic rebuttal memo to GOP's House Intelligence Committee memo on alleged government surveillance abuses, Steele's reporting did not reach the counterintelligence team at FBI headquarters until mid-September.
    Nunes said if Steele wants to clear his name, he needs to testify before Congress.
    Nunes said in an interview late last month that he wants to ask Robert Mueller how far the counterintelligence investigation into Trump's campaign goes when the former special counsel of the Russia investigation testifies on July 17.    Democrats have dismissed the GOP's excitement about Horowitz's inquiry and Steele's role in it as "whataboutism" run amok.
    A second development related to Horowitz's inquiry on Tuesday was the revelation of a letter the watchdog sent to Congress last month that said his team has “received and reviewed over one million records” and has “conducted over 100 interviews, including [with] current and former DOJ and FBI personnel” during its inquiry.    Horowitz also said his team has “made substantial progress towards completing the review" and that he would provide another update about the timeline for the release of the final report “in the coming weeks.”
    Last week House Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe of Texas said that he had met with Horowitz in late June and the inspector general said his investigation had concluded.    This was followed by a Fox News report that said at least one key witness who is not part of the DOJ or the FBI came forward only after Attorney General William Barr tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut to lead a review of the origins of the Russia investigation.    It now appears Steele was the subject of this "breakthrough."
    The DOJ's review of the early stages of the Russia investigation is not a criminal inquiry, but should Durham find criminal activity, he can take prosecutorial action.

    The following was found on
7/11/2019 Lawyer: Flynn will keep cooperating after co-conspirator revelations by Jacqueline Thomsen, The Hill.
    Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell said Thursday that her client doesn’t plan on ending his cooperation with the government, as federal prosecutors say they intend to argue he was a co-conspirator in charges filed against Flynn’s former business partner.
    Powell told The Hill that Flynn is “continuing to cooperate.”
    “We're doing everything we possibly can,” she added.
    When asked if that could change in the future, Powell replied, “I don’t think so.”
    Flynn’s case was roiled earlier this week when unsealed court documents showed that federal prosecutors plan to argue that the former national security adviser is a co-conspirator in the case against his former business associate Bijan Kian.
    Government attorneys had previously stated that they wanted to call Flynn as a witness in Kian’s trial, scheduled for next week.
    But they suggested in one of the court filings that they may no longer be fully confident in Flynn’s testimony and will seek to submit statements he made to investigators as evidence in the trial rather than putting Flynn on the stand.
    The court document pointed to a July 2 email from federal prosecutors that says they “do not necessarily agree” with Flynn’s characterizations on how he made a Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filing that included false information about ties between his company’s lobbying and the Turkish government.
    The email states that Flynn’s new attorneys maintain that their client didn’t give his previous lawyers false information, didn’t knowing the FARA filing had false information and that he didn’t read the document.
    Kian was charged in federal court in Virginia last year, alongside Turkish national Kamil Ekim Alptekin, with acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey in relation to the now-shuttered Flynn Intel Group’s lobbying campaign against Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen
    Flynn is also set to be sentenced in D.C. after he pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador.    The former Trump official agreed to cooperate with former special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe as part of the deal.
    Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is overseeing the D.C. case, ordered the parties in the case to make filings on how they expect the developments in Kian’s case to impact Flynn’s sentencing.
    Government attorneys said in a filing Wednesday that they don’t know at this point whether the case would impact the sentencing, and that they would “reassess” after Kian’s trial.
    Powell also told reporters on Thursday that she didn’t know whether the latest developments would impact the government’s prior recommendation that Flynn face little to no prison time.
    “That’s purely up to the Department of Justice and what stance they want to take,” Powell said.    “Our position is that he is continuing to cooperate.    We have done everything humanly possible to do so.    And we're going to continue to do that.”
    Powell is also set to make a filing in D.C. later Thursday afternoon responding to the court documents unsealed in Kian’s case. She declined to provide details, but characterized the upcoming filing as being “another little truth bomb.”
    Powell recently joined Flynn's legal team after he unexpectedly fired his attorneys last month.
    She was on Capitol Hill on Thursday to deliver a lecture titled "What it Really Means to be a Federal Prosecutor.”    The event was sponsored by The Fund for American Studies and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who attended the talk.
[ Bijan R. Kian, sometimes written Bijan Rafiekian, is an Iranian-American businessman, who has been an executive or board member of many businesses and organizations.
Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish Islamic scholar, preacher, and de facto leader of the Gülen movement – an international, faith-based civil society organization presently outlawed in Turkey as an alleged "armed terrorist group."
    Here is all the recent articles associated with him and Turkey.
5/15/2019 Turkey says it is discussing S-400 working group with U.S., postponing not on agenda by Ece Toksabay
FILE PHOTO: Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu attends a news conference in
Ankara, Turkey, April 1, 2019. REUTERS/Umit Bektas/File Photo
    ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey is discussing with the United States setting up a working group to assess the impact of its purchase of Russian missile defences systems, but will not delay their delivery, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Wednesday.
    Tensions between Turkey and the United States are running high over Ankara’s decision to buy the S-400 missile defences, which are not compatible with NATO systems.
    U.S. officials say Turkey’s planned purchase would jeopardise its role in building F-35 fighter jets as well as its purchase of the aircraft, which Washington says would be compromised by the presence of the S-400s.
    The United States and other NATO allies that own F-35s fear the radar on the system will learn how to spot and track the jet, making it less able to evade Russian weapons.
    Ankara says U.S. concerns are overstated and has been pushing Washington to establish a working group to assess the risks the system would be posing to the F-35 jet.
    “We are exchanging opinions on how this could work, we will continue to share our views.    Once we agree on that, we will decide if there will be a working group or not,” Cavusoglu told reporters in Ankara.    “The discussions are ongoing, there is nothing certain yet,” he added.
    On Monday, a source familiar with the matter said the United States had asked Turkey to delay taking delivery of the S-400 system, currently scheduled for July, in return for potentially approving the formation of the working group.
    “There is no such thing as postponing or cancelling at this stage,” Cavusoglu said.    “It’s not on the agenda either.”
    The disagreement is the latest in a series of diplomatic disputes between the United States and Turkey.    They include Turkish demands that Washington extradite cleric Fethullah Gulen, differences over Middle East policy and the war in Syria, and sanctions on Iran.
    A Turkish court on Wednesday remanded in jail U.S. consulate employee Metin Topuz and set the next session of his trial on espionage charges for June 28, a lawyer for Topuz said.
(Additional reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu; Editing by Dominic Evans and Alison Williams)

    And at 5/17/2019 Turkey says U.S. scrapping trade deal contradicts goals by Ece Toksabay and Tuvan Gumrukcu
Turkey and U.S. flags are seen in this picture illustration taken August 25, 2018. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
    ANKARA (Reuters) – The U.S. decision to end its preferential trade agreement with Turkey contradicts their $75 billion bilateral trade target, Trade Minister Ruhsar Pekcan said on Friday, but welcomed Washington’s move to halve tariffs on steel imports.
    The White House said on Thursday it was terminating Turkey’s eligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, given its level of economic development.    It also halved tariffs on Turkish steel imports to 25%.
    “Lowering the tariffs to 25% from 50% is positive, but we expect the lifting of all obstacles to bilateral trade,”     Pekcan wrote on Twitter, saying they affected U.S. companies, too.    She said she work would continue to boost the trade volume
    The United States imported $1.66 billion worth of goods in 2017 from Turkey under the GSP, or 17.7 percent of total imports from Turkey, the U.S. Trade Representative website said.    Imports include vehicles, vehicle parts, jewelry and precious metals.
    The United States had begun reviewing the NATO ally’s status in the program last August when the two countries were embroiled in a diplomatic row.    Ankara had been hopeful that Washington would not go ahead with the move, saying it ran contrary to the two countries’ trade goals.
    Turkey was one of 120 countries that participate in the GSP, the oldest and largest U.S. trade preference program.    It aims to promote economic development in beneficiary countries and territories by eliminating duties on thousands of products.
    During last year’s spat, President Donald Trump imposed higher steel tariffs to put pressure on Turkey to release an American pastor detained on terrorism charges.
    The pastor was released last October, but the friction in part sparked a currency crisis that tipped Turkey’s economy into recession last year, knocking nearly 30 percent off the lira’s value over the year as a whole.
    The lira has weakened as much as 15 percent further this year, partly from concerns about a re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election and the risk of U.S. sanctions.    It fell again on Friday after the latest U.S. moves.
    The currency stood at 6.0600 against the dollar at 1000 GMT, easing from a close of 6.0475 on Thursday.
    “The U.S. decisions were negatively priced, but the decisions do not have a clear economic impact,” said a treasury desk trader at one bank.    “Markets will monitor political statements regarding relations between the two countries, given the risks that they have recently entailed.”
    Ties between Ankara and Washington remain tense over disagreements ranging from Turkey’s planned purchase of a Russian S-400 missile defense system, which could trigger sanctions, to diverging interests in Syria.
    U.S. officials say Turkey’s planned purchase of the S-400s would jeopardize its role in building F-35 fighter jets as well as its purchase of the aircraft, which Washington says would be compromised by the Russian system.
    Turkey wants the United States to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a Pennsylvania-based Muslim cleric who Turkish authorities say masterminded the 2016 coup attempt against Erdogan in which 250 people were killed.    Gulen denies the allegation.
(Additional reporting by Nevzat Devranoglu; writing by Daren Butler; editing by Jonathan Spicer, Larry King)

    And also 6/18/2019 Turkey orders arrest of 128 military personnel over suspected Gulen links: Anadolu
FILE PHOTO: U.S. based cleric Fethullah Gulen at his home in
Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S. July 29, 2016. REUTERS/Charles Mostoller/File Photo
    ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey has ordered the arrest of 128 military personnel over suspected links to the network accused by Ankara of orchestrating an attempted coup in 2016, state-run Anadolu news agency said on Tuesday.
    Police were looking for just over half of the suspects in the western coastal province of Izmir and the rest across 30 other provinces, Anadolu said.
    They were suspected of being supporters of U.S.-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, who is accused by Turkish authorities of masterminding the failed putsch three years ago. Gulen has denied any role.
    More than 77,000 people have been jailed pending trial, while about 150,000 people from the civil service, military, and elsewhere have been sacked or suspended from their jobs under crackdowns since the attempted coup.
    Rights groups and Turkey’s Western allies have criticized the scope of the crackdown, saying Erdogan has used the abortive coup as a pretext to quash dissent.
    The government has said the security measures are necessary due to the gravity of the threat Turkey faces, and has vowed to eradicate Gulen’s network in the country.
(Reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

    And at 6/18/2019 Erdogan attacks Istanbul’s ousted mayor days before poll re-run by Ezgi Erkoyun and Humeyra Pamuk
FILE PHOTO - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan attends the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures
in Asia (CICA) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan June 15, 2019. Sputnik/Alexei Druzhinin/Kremlin via REUTERS
    ISTANBUL (Reuters) – Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan attacked Istanbul’s ousted mayor on Tuesday, days before a crucial re-run of the municipal vote, accusing him of being aligned with a U.S.-based cleric blamed by Ankara for orchestrating a 2016 failed coup.
    Ekrem Imamoglu, from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), narrowly beat the candidate of Erdogan’s AK Party in a March mayoral contest.    After AK Party appeals, the election commission annulled the result and ordered a re-run on June 23.
    That decision has brought international criticism and accusations from Turkey’s opposition of eroding democracy.    It has also unnerved financial markets and thrown a spotlight on the AKP’s management of Turkey’s largest city and commercial hub during its long years in power.
    After staying relatively quiet on the mayoral race in recent weeks, Erdogan said on Tuesday Imamoglu was in cahoots with the network of Fethullah Gulen, the Muslim cleric accused by Turkey of masterminding the July 15, 2016 failed coup.
    “Where does he stand? He is with the Gulenists,” said Erdogan, speaking on top of a bus in the working class Istanbul district of Sultangazi, referring to followers of Gulen
    Erdogan cited tweets sent by Imamoglu on the day of the coup but offered no other evidence.
    Imamoglu has denied any links with the group. In one tweet posted on July 16, 2016, Imamoglu said Turkey should overcome the attempted coup by pursuing democracy and peace. It was not immediately clear which tweet Erdogan alluded to.
    A spokeswoman for Imamoglu was not immediately available on Tuesday for comment.
    The AKP’s loss of Istanbul in the March 31 local elections was one of the biggest setbacks for Erdogan since his Islamist-rooted party swept to national power in 2002.    The AKP also lost control of the capital Ankara.
    Some commentators said Erdogan had ratcheted up his rhetoric after a televised debate on Sunday between Imamoglu and the AKP’s mayoral candidate, Binali Yildirim, a former prime minister and close ally of the president.
    Polling company Mak Danismanlik said Imamoglu had bested his rival in the debate, earning a lead ahead of Sunday’s vote.
(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk; Editing by Gareth Jones)

    And seen at 6/19/2019 Erdogan says opposition candidate’s alleged insult could bar him from Istanbul mayoralty
FILE PHOTO: Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan greets supporters during a ceremony
in Istanbul, Turkey, June 19, 2019. REUTERS/Murad Sezer/File Photo
    ISTANBUL (Reuters) – Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan intensified pressure on the opposition candidate in a re-run election for mayor of Istanbul by saying he would be barred from taking office if found guilty of insulting a provincial governor.
    Ekrem Imamoglu, from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), narrowly beat the candidate of Erdogan’s AK Party in a March mayoral contest.    After AKP appeals, the election commission annulled the result and ordered a re-run on June 23.
    The AKP’s loss of Istanbul in the March 31 local elections was one of the worst setbacks for Erdogan since his Islamist-rooted party swept to national power in 2002.    The AKP also lost control of the capital Ankara.
    After keeping quiet on the mayoral race in recent weeks, Erdogan accused Imamoglu of being in cahoots with the network of Fethullah Gulen, the U.S.-based Muslim cleric accused by Turkish authorities of masterminding a failed military coup in July 2016.
    Erdogan also said Imamoglu would face consequences for allegedly insulting the governor of Ordu, a Black Sea province north of Istanbul, while campaigning there.
    In a radio show on Wednesday, Erdogan said the governor, Seddar Yavuz, was set to take the matter to court.
    “I cannot know right now what decision the judiciary will make. But the decision by the judiciary could block (Imamoglu’s) path in this (election),” he said.
    Turkish media said Imamoglu got into a row earlier this month at Ordu airport after being barred from using the VIP lounge. AKP supporters said that in a heated exchange with airport officials Imamoglu called Yavuz “a dog.”    Imamoglu denied this, saying he used a different word that sounded similar.
    “This is a plot to pull the arguments on this issue to another level.    He’s not the governor of the state, but rather of the ruling party, and that is how this should be seen,” CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu said on Wednesday.
    Erdogan previously said Imamoglu could not serve as mayor unless he apologized for the alleged insult, but Kilicdaroglu rejected this position, saying Istanbul’s mayor would be elected by the people, not appointed by Erdogan.
    The decision to re-run the Istanbul mayoral election has drawn international ire and accusations from Turkey’s opposition that Erdogan is gradually dismantling democracy.
    It has also unnerved financial markets and thrown a spotlight on the AKP’s management of Turkey’s largest city and commercial hub during its long years in power.
(Reporting by Ali Kucukgocmen with additional reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu Editing by Humeyra Pamuk and Mark Heinrich)]

[In the following information was past information that I inputted from various sources on Manafort and Konstantin V. Kilimnik, which seems to not be true now as at the end of this is a new article that refutes the following claims.]
2/18/2019 Andrew McCabe, Ex-FBI Deputy, Describes 'Remarkable' Number Of Trump-Russia Contacts by Carrie Johnson, NPR
    Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe condemned what he called the "relentless attack" that President Trump has waged against the FBI even as it continues scrutinizing whether Americans in Trump's campaign may have conspired with the Russians who attacked the 2016 election.
    "I don't know that we have ever seen in all of history an example of the number, the volume and the significance of the contacts between people in and around the president, his campaign, with our most serious, our existential international enemy: the government of Russia," McCabe told NPR's Morning Edition.    "That's just remarkable to me."
    McCabe left the FBI after 21 years last March, when he was dismissed for an alleged "lack of candor" in a media leak probe unrelated to the special counsel investigation.
    While he declined to conclude that Trump or his advisers colluded with Russia, McCabe said the evidence special counsel Robert Mueller has made public to date — including new disclosures about an August 2016 meeting between former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the FBI has linked to Russian intelligence — "is incredibly persuasive."
    As mentioned above the name Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant, and in the United States, he has become a person of interest in the 2017 Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016, particularly due to his ties with Paul Manafort, a political consultant, who served as a campaign chairman for Donald Trump.
    I did not see his name on the Netyksho indictment, but there were only names, so I assume Kilimnik may be the 12th.
    Kilimnik who is believed by CNN and The New York Times to be "Person A" listed, who has denied any intelligence ties, but court documents filed by the Special Counsel against Manafort, which allege that Person A has ties to Russian intelligence agencies, or is a Russian intelligence operative, believed to be Person A in court documents filed in the criminal indictment of Alex van der Zwaan.
Kilimnik above left ----- Zwaan above right
    Now back to Kilimnik who was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury on June 8, 2018 on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by attempting to tamper with a witness on behalf of Manafort.    According to anonymous sources, when applying for his position with the IRI, he responded to the question about how he learned English by stating that the "Russian military intelligence" taught him and he became known among Moscow political operatives as "Kostya, the guy from the GRU," where he claimed was dismissed in the early 2000s after the Federal Security Service's chief gave a speech discussing internal private meetings at the Institute.
    Recruited by Philip M. Griffin as a translator for pro-Russia Ukrainian Rinat Akhmetov and seeking better pay than at IRI, Kilimnik met Paul Manafort in 2005 and became an employee of Manafort's consulting firm.    After leaving IRI in April 2005, he lived and worked in Kiev and Moscow while his wife and two children remained in Moscow living in a modest house near the Sheremetyevo International Airport.    Some reports say Kilimnik ran the Kiev office of Manafort's firm and was Manafort's right-hand man in Kiev.    They began working for Viktor Yanukovych after the 2004 Orange Revolution cost him the Presidency.    With help from Manafort and Kilimnik, the Russian backed Yanukovych became President in 2010.    Kilimnik then spent 90% of his time inside the Presidential administration.    From 2011 to 2013 with liaison to Viktor Yanukovych's chief of staff Serhiy Lyovochkin, Kilimnik, Manafort, Alan Friedman, Eckart Sager, who was a one time CNN producer, and Rick Gates devised a strategy to discredit Yulia Tymoshenko along with Hillary Clinton.    This effort supported the pro-Russia administration of then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.    Yanukovvych hired Paul Manafort's company Global Endeavour, a St. Vincent and Grenadines based consulting and lobbying company, which during the end of Yanukovych's presidency transferred $750,000 out of Ukraine and also paid Kilimnik $53,000 during November and December 2013.    When Yanukovych fled the country, Manafort and Kilimnik gained employment with the pro-Russia Ukrainian party Opposition Bloc which is backed by the same oligarchs who backed Yanukovych.    At some point Opposition Bloc stopped paying Manafort's firm but even though the non-payment forced Manafort's firm to shut down their Kiev office, Kilimnik continued to advise the party while working to collect unpaid fees for Manafort's firm.
    Around 2010, Kilimnik collaborated with Rinat Akhmetshin when the Washington-based lobbyist was trying to sell a book disparaging one of Yanukovych's opponents.
    In 2017 Kilimnik helped Manafort write an op-ed for a Kiev newspaper, and a journalist in Ukraine, Oleg Voloshyn, has disputed this, stating that he and Manafort wrote the op-ed and that he e-mailed the rough draft to Kilimnik.    The op-ed may have violated a gag order issued against Manafort by a US court and may have been a breach of Manafort's bail conditions.
    In 2018, media reported Kilimnik to be variously "described as a fixer, translator or office manager to President Donald Trump’s ex-campaign chairman Paul Manafort."
    Kilimnik has been reported by The New York Times to be the "Person A" in Court filings in December 2017 against Manafort and Rick Gates.
    Court filings in late March 2018 allege that he knew that Kilimnik was a former officer with the Russian military intelligence service.    These came after Gates reached a plea deal in exchange for cooperation in the investigation.    The sentencing memo for Alex van der Zwaan filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller states that Gates told van der Zwaan that Person A, believed to be Kilimnik, was a former intelligence officer with the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU).
    Kilimnik also featured in the documents filed by Special Counsel Mueller in early December 2018 that explained why he believed Paul Manafort had lied to investigators during the investigation conducted by Mueller's team.
    On June 8, 2018, Kilimnik was indicted by Special Counsel to the United States Robert Mueller on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, in conjunction with Paul Manafort regarding unregistered lobbying work.
    So is there a connection to Trump campaign which was in 2016?
    Through numerous regular email exchanges, Kilimnik conferred with Manafort after Manafort became Donald Trump's campaign manager in April 2016 and requested that Manafort give "private briefings" about the Trump campaign to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire and close ally to Vladimir Putin.    On August 2, 2016, Kilimnik met with Manafort and Rick Gates at the Grand Havana Room at 666 Fifth Avenue.    The encounter which, according to prosecutor Andrew Weissmann goes “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating,” included a handoff by Manafort of internal polling data from Trump’s presidential campaign to Kilimnik.    Gates later testified the three left the premises separately, each using different exits.
    Kilimnik was still working for Russian intelligence when, during September and October 2016, he was known to be communicating with the Trump campaign.    Both Rick Gates and Paul Manafort were in contact with him at the time.
    Manafort has said that he and Kilimnik discussed the Democratic National Committee cyber attack and release of emails, now known to be undertaken by Russian hacker groups known as Cozy Bear [classified as advanced persistent threat APT29, a Russian hacker group believed to be associated with Russian intelligence, the Dutch AIVD deduced from security camera footage that it is led by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service] and Fancy Bear [a cyber espionage group, Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has said with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU].
    Kilimnik and Manafort had been involved in the Pericles Fund together, an unsuccessful business venture financed by Oleg Deripaska.    In July 2016, Manafort told Kilimnik to offer Deripaska private information in exchange for resolving multimillion-dollar disputes about the venture.
    The New York Times reported on August 31, 2018 that an unnamed Russian political operative and a Ukrainian businessman had illegally purchased four tickets to the inauguration of Donald Trump on behalf of Kilimnik.    The tickets, valued at $50,000, were purchased with funds that had flowed through a Cypriot bank account.    The transaction was facilitated by Sam Patten, an American lobbyist who had related work with Paul Manafort and pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign agent.    Kilimnik attended Trump's inauguration.
    In January 2019, Manafort's lawyers submitted a filing to the court, in response to the Special Counsel's accusation that he had lied to investigators while supposedly co-operating with them.    Through an error in redacting, the document accidentally revealed that while he was campaign chairman, Manafort met with Kilimnik, gave him polling data related to the 2016 campaign, and discussed a Ukranian peace plan with him.    Most of the polling data was reportedly public, although some was private Trump campaign polling data.    Manafort asked Kilimnik to pass the data to Ukrainians Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov.
    Manafort’s partner in the Ukraine work, Russian national Konstantin Kilimnik, also faces conspiracy charges in the D.C. case.

    So to follow up on the above article the following information has already been mentioned in this file but everyone thinks that Robert Mueller is putting new disclosures about an August 2016 meeting between former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik is the basis for the FBI for a link to Russian intelligence.
    As mentioned above the name Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant, became a person of interest in the 2017 Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 because Paul Manafort, served as a campaign chairman for Donald Trump.
    Kilimnik's name was not on the Netyksho indictment, and the press assumed he is "Person A" a Russian intelligence operative, in court documents filed in the criminal indictment of Alex van der Zwaan.
Kilimnik above left ----- Zwaan above right
    In an interview with special counsel prosecutors and FBI agents Van der Zwaan said that his last communication with Gates was an innocuous text in mid-August 2016 and that his last contact with Person A was a 2014 discussion of Person A's family; prosecutors determined instead that he had discussed the 2012 Skadden Arps report with Gates and Person A in September 2016 during phone calls that he surreptitiously recorded.    Van der Zwaan acknowledged to special counsel investigators in an interview that Gates had told him of Person A's ties to the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a Russian military intelligence agency.
    Now back to Kilimnik who was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury on June 8, 2018 on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by attempting to tamper with a witness on behalf of Manafort.    According to anonymous sources, when applying for his position with the IRI, he responded to the question about how he learned English by stating that the "Russian military intelligence" taught him and he became known among Moscow political operatives as "Kostya, the guy from the GRU," where he claimed was dismissed in the early 2000s after the Federal Security Service's chief gave a speech discussing internal private meetings at the Institute.
    Recruited by Philip M. Griffin as a translator for pro-Russia Ukrainian Rinat Akhmetov and seeking better pay than at IRI, Kilimnik met Paul Manafort in 2005 and became an employee of Manafort's consulting firm.    After leaving IRI in April 2005, he lived and worked in Kiev and Moscow while his wife and two children remained in Moscow living in a modest house near the Sheremetyevo International Airport.    Some reports say Kilimnik ran the Kiev office of Manafort's firm and was Manafort's right-hand man in Kiev.    They began working for Viktor Yanukovych after the 2004 Orange Revolution cost him the Presidency.    With help from Manafort and Kilimnik, the Russian backed Yanukovych became President in 2010.    Kilimnik then spent 90% of his time inside the Presidential administration.    From 2011 to 2013 with liaison to Viktor Yanukovych's chief of staff Serhiy Lyovochkin, Kilimnik, Manafort, Alan Friedman, Eckart Sager, who was a one time CNN producer, and Rick Gates devised a strategy to discredit Yulia Tymoshenko along with Hillary Clinton.    This effort supported the pro-Russia administration of then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.    Yanukovvych hired Paul Manafort's company Global Endeavour, a St. Vincent and Grenadines based consulting and lobbying company, which during the end of Yanukovych's presidency transferred $750,000 out of Ukraine and also paid Kilimnik $53,000 during November and December 2013.    When Yanukovych fled the country, Manafort and Kilimnik gained employment with the pro-Russia Ukrainian party Opposition Bloc which is backed by the same oligarchs who backed Yanukovych.    At some point Opposition Bloc stopped paying Manafort's firm but even though the non-payment forced Manafort's firm to shut down their Kiev office, Kilimnik continued to advise the party while working to collect unpaid fees for Manafort's firm.
    Around 2010, Kilimnik collaborated with Rinat Akhmetshin when the Washington-based lobbyist was trying to sell a book disparaging one of Yanukovych's opponents.
    In 2017 Kilimnik helped Manafort write an op-ed for a Kiev newspaper, and a journalist in Ukraine, Oleg Voloshyn, has disputed this, stating that he and Manafort wrote the op-ed and that he e-mailed the rough draft to Kilimnik.    The op-ed may have violated a gag order issued against Manafort by a US court and may have been a breach of Manafort's bail conditions.
    In 2018, media reported Kilimnik to be variously "described as a fixer, translator or office manager to President Donald Trump’s ex-campaign chairman Paul Manafort."
    Kilimnik has been reported by The New York Times to be the "Person A" in Court filings in December 2017 against Manafort and Rick Gates.
    Court filings in late March 2018 allege that he knew that Kilimnik was a former officer with the Russian military intelligence service.    These came after Gates reached a plea deal in exchange for cooperation in the investigation.    The sentencing memo for Alex van der Zwaan filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller states that Gates told van der Zwaan that Person A, believed to be Kilimnik, was a former intelligence officer with the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU).
    Kilimnik also featured in the documents filed by Special Counsel Mueller in early December 2018 that explained why he believed Paul Manafort had lied to investigators during the investigation conducted by Mueller's team.
    On June 8, 2018, Kilimnik was indicted by Special Counsel to the United States Robert Mueller on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, in conjunction with Paul Manafort regarding unregistered lobbying work.
    So is there a connection to Trump campaign which was in 2016?
    Through numerous regular email exchanges, Kilimnik conferred with Manafort after Manafort became Donald Trump's campaign manager in April 2016 and requested that Manafort give "private briefings" about the Trump campaign to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire and close ally to Vladimir Putin.    On August 2, 2016, Kilimnik met with Manafort and Rick Gates at the Grand Havana Room at 666 Fifth Avenue.    The encounter which, according to prosecutor Andrew Weissmann goes very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating,” included a .    Gates later testified the three left the premises separately, each using different exits.
    Kilimnik was still working for Russian intelligence when, during September and October 2016, he was known to be communicating with the Trump campaign.    Both Rick Gates and Paul Manafort were in contact with him at the time.
    Manafort has said that he and Kilimnik discussed the Democratic National Committee cyber attack and release of emails, now known to be undertaken by Russian hacker groups known as Cozy Bear [classified as advanced persistent threat APT29, a Russian hacker group believed to be associated with Russian intelligence, the Dutch AIVD deduced from security camera footage that it is led by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service] and Fancy Bear [a cyber espionage group, Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has said with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU].
    Kilimnik and Manafort had been involved in the Pericles Fund together, an unsuccessful business venture financed by Oleg Deripaska.    In July 2016, Manafort told Kilimnik to offer Deripaska private information in exchange for resolving multi-million-dollar disputes about the venture.
    The New York Times reported on August 31, 2018 that an unnamed Russian political operative and a Ukrainian businessman had illegally purchased four tickets to the inauguration of Donald Trump on behalf of Kilimnik.    The tickets, valued at $50,000, were purchased with funds that had flowed through a Cypriot bank account.    The transaction was facilitated by Sam Patten, an American lobbyist who had related work with Paul Manafort and pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign agent.    Kilimnik attended Trump's inauguration.
    In January 2019, Manafort's lawyers submitted a filing to the court, in response to the Special Counsel's accusation that he had lied to investigators while supposedly co-operating with them.    Through an error in redacting, the document accidentally revealed that while he was campaign chairman, Manafort met with Kilimnik, gave him polling data related to the 2016 campaign, and discussed a Ukranian peace plan with him.    Most of the polling data was reportedly public, although some was private Trump campaign polling data.    Manafort asked Kilimnik to pass the data to Ukrainians Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov.

    So that is why Manafort was a key figure in Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.     So if that is what Adam Schiff thinks that is in plain sight, then there is no connection of collusion to Donald Trump since he is not mentioned as being involved in any of the transactions mentioned above.].
    Stone was charged with lying to Congress about his efforts to coordinate with WikiLeaks to aid Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and Manafort has been accused of repeatedly lying to investigators, including about his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, a business associate who the U.S. said has ties to Russian intelligence.
    In January 2019, Manafort's lawyers submitted a filing to the court in response to the allegation that Manafort had lied to investigators.    Through an error in redacting, the document accidentally revealed that while he was campaign chairman, Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik, who is believed to be linked to Russian intelligence.    The filing says Manafort gave him polling data related to the 2016 campaign and discussed a Ukranian peace plan with him.    Most of the polling data was reportedly public, although some was private Trump campaign polling data.    Manafort asked Kilimnik to pass the data to Ukrainians Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov.
    During a February 4, 2019 closed-door court hearing regarding false statements Manafort had made to investigators about his communications with Kilimnik, special co/unsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told judge Amy Berman Jackson that "This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating," suggesting that Mueller's office continued to examine a possible agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign.

[So the article below is confirming about all the false statements in the above information that shows the above individual, Kilimnik, is a intelligence source for the U.S. State Department.]
    Found at
6/6/2019 Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source by John Solomon, opinion contributor for — The Hill
    In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukranian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.
    But hundreds of pages of government documents -- which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 -- describe Kilimnik as a "sensitive" intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
    Why Mueller's team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known.    But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller's Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.
    The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller's overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report.    "The FBI assesses" Kilimnik "to have ties to Russian intelligence," Mueller's team wrote on Page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.
    What it doesn't state is that Kilimnik was a "sensitive" intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013, while he was working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.
    Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source either.
    He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government.    He relayed messages back to Ukraine's leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.
    The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.
    Alan Purcell, the chief political officer at the Kiev embassy from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that State officials, including senior embassy officials Alexander Kasanof and Eric Schultz, deeemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset that they kept his name out of cables for fear he would be compromised by leaks to WikiLeaks.
    "Purcell describe what he considered an unusual level of discretion that was taken with handling Kilimnik," states one FBI interview report that I reviewed.    "Normally the head of the political section would not handle sources, but Kasanof informed Purcell that KILIMNIK was a sensitive source."
    Purcell told FBI that Kilimnik provided "detailed information about OB (Ukraine's opposition bloc) inner workings" that sometimes was so valuable it was forwarded immediately to the ambassador.    Purcell learned that other Western governments relied on Kilimnik as source, too.
    "One time, in a meeting with the Italian embassy, Purcell heard the Italian ambassador echo a talking point that was strikingly familiar to thepoint Kilimnik had shared with Purcell," the FBI report states.
    Kasanof, who preceded Purcell as the U.S. Embassy political officer, told the FBI he knew Kilimnik worked for Manafort's lobbying firm and the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whose Party of Regions hired Manafort's firm.
    Kasanof describe Kilimnik as one of the few reliable insiders the U.S. Embassy had informing on Yanukovych.    Kilimnik began his relationship as an informant with the U.S. deputy chief of mission in 2012-13., before being handed off to the embassy's political office, the record suggest.
    "Kilimnik was one of the only people within the administration who was willing to talk to USEMB," referring to the U.S. Embassy, and he "provided information about the inner workings of Yanukovych's administration," Kasanof told FBI agents.
    "Kasanof met with Kilimnik at least bi-weekly and occasionally multiple times in the same week," always outside of the embassy to avoid detection, the FBI wrote.    "Kasanof allowed Kilimnik to take the lead on operational secureity" for their meetings.
    State officials told the FBI that although Kilimnik had Ukrainian and Russian residences, he did not appear to hold any allegiance to Moscow and was criticl of Russia's invasion of the Crimea territory of Ukraine.
    "Most sources of information in Ukraine were slanted in one direction or another," Kasanof told agents.    "Kilimnik came across as less slanted than others."
    "Kilimnik was flabbergasted at the Russian invasion of Crimea," the FBI added, summarizing Kasanof;s interview with agents.
    Three sources with direct knowledge of the inner working of Mueller's office confirmed to me that the special prosecutor's team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well as Kilimnik's intelligence reports to the U.S. Embassy, well before they portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.
[My comment: Did Mueller know this or did Weismann hide it from him, and pushed Kilimnik as a Russian spy to get to Manafort?].
    Kasanof's and Purcell's interviews are corborated by scores of State Department emails I reviewed that contain regular intelligence from Kilimnik on happenings inside Yanukovych administration, the Crimea conflict and Ukrainian and Russia politics.    For example, the memos show Kilimnik provided real-time intellignece on everything from whose star in the administration was rising or flling to efforts at stuffing ballot boxes in Ukrainian elections.
    Those emails raise further doubt about Mueller report's portrayal of Kilimnik as a Russian agent.    They show Kilimnik was allowed to visit the United States twice in 2016 to meet with State officials, a clear sign he wasn't flagged in visa databases as a foreign intelligent threat.
    The emails also show how misleading, by omission, the Mueller report's public portrayal of Kilimnik turn out to be.
    For instaance, the report makes a big deal about Kilimnik's meeting with Manafort in August 2016 at the Trump Tower in New York.
    By that time, Manafort had served as Trump's campaign chairman for several months but was about to resign because of a growing controversy about the millions of dollars Manafort accepted as a foreign lobbyist for Yanukovych's party.
    Specifically, the Mueller report flagged Kilimnik's delivery of a peace plan to the Trump campaign for settling the two-year-old Crimea conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
    "Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a 'backdoor' way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine," the Mueller report stated.
    But State emails showed Kilimnik first delivered a version of his peace plan in May 2016 to the Obama administration during a visit to Washington.    Kasanof, his former handler at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, had been promoted to a top policy position at State, and the two met for dinner on May 5, 2016.
    The day after the dinner, Kilimnik sent an email to Kasanof's official State email address recounting the peace plan they had discussed the night before.
    Russia wanted "a quick settlement" to get "Ukraine out of the way and get rid of sanctions and move to economic stuff they are interested in," Kilimnik wrote Kasanof.    The email offered eight bullet points for the peace plan -- starting with a ceasefire, a law creating economic recovery zones to rebuild war-torn Ukrainian regions, and a "presidential decree on amnesty> for anyone involved in the conflict on both sides.
    Kilimnik also provided a valuable piece of intelligence, stating that the old Yanukovych political party aligned with Russia was dead.    "Party of Regions cannot be reincarnated.    It is over," he wrote, deriding as "stupid a Russian-backed politician who wanted to restart the party.
    Kasnof replied the next day that, although he was skeptical of some of the intelligence on Russian intentions, it was "very important for us ot know."
    He thanked Kilimnik for the detailed plan and added, "I passed the info to my bosses, who are chewing it over" Kasanof told the FBI that he believed he sent Kilimnik's peace plan to two senior State officials, including Victoria Nuland, President Obama's assistant secretary of State for European and eRuasian affairs.
    So Kilimnik's delivery of the peace plan to the Trump campaign in August 2016 was flagged by Mueller as potentially nefarious, but its earlier delivery to the Obama administration wasn't mentioned.    That's what many in the intelligence world might call "deception by omission."
    Lest you wonder, the documents I reviewed included evidence that Kasanof's interview with the FBI and Kilimnik's emails to State about the peace plan were in Mueller's possession by early 2018, more than a year before the final report.
    Officials for the State Department, the FBI, the Justice Department and Mueller's office did not respond to requests for comment.    Kilimnik did not respond to an email seeking comment but, in an email last month to The washington Post, he slammed the Mueller report's "made-up narrative" about him.    "I have no ties to Russian or, for that matter, any intelligence operation, he wrote.
    Kilimnik holds Ukranian and Russian citizenship, served in the Soviet military, attended a prestigious Russian language academy and had contacts with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.    So it is likely he had contacts over the years with Russian intgelligence figures.    There also is evidence Kilimnik left the U.S.-funded Internationaal Republican Institue (IRI) in 2005 because of concerns about his past connections to Russia, though at least one IRI witness disputed that evidence to the FBIm the memos show.
    Yet omitting his extensive, trusted assistance to the State Department seems inexplicable.
    If Mueller's team can cast such a misleading portrayal of Kilimnik, however, it begs the question of what else might be incorrect or omitted in the report.
    Attorney General William Barr has said some of the Mueller report's legal reasoning conflicts with Justice Department policies.    And former Trump attorney John Dowd made a compelling case that Mueller's report wrongly portrayed a phone message he left for a witness.
    A few more such errors and omissions, and Americans may begin to wonder if the Mueller report is worth the paper in which it was printed.
[We all know now that the report was sanctioned by the biased Democratic Obama administration and has been skewed by 18 Democrat lawyers, and FBI, DOJ, NSA, CIA before Trump could clear "THE SWAMP" and I think that Mueller himself realized in the later days, how his report had been biased and that is why he retired when he did.].

7/13/2019 Pres. Trump retweets report Mueller deleted Strzok, page text messages by OAN Newsroom
    The president takes a jab at Robert Mueller, after a Judicial Watch report revealed he may have deleted text messages between former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
    On Twitter Saturday, the president called the move “one of the most horrible abuses of all.”
    He went on to say “those texts would have told the whole story,” and blasted Mueller for “illegally” deleting them.
    One America’s John Hines recently sat down with Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton for an exclusive interview, on how the Obama administration helped cover for Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of her email server.
We already knew that Mueller stated that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page cellphones were erased according to some FBI policy before
anyone could get the information off of them, I smell a rat, and of course this goes all the way to the top, Obama

7/13/2019 Rep. Nunes: Russia investigation an ‘obstruction of justice trap’ by OAN Newsroom
    GOP Congressman Devin Nunes says there will be “massive consequences, for the conduct of DOJ official’s during the Russia investigation.”
The outlet, run by volunteers for Devin Nunes’ re-election campaign, has aggregated stories
from other organizations since about June. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
    In an interview this week, Nunes called the investigation an “obstruction of justice trap,” that started without evidence of collusion and ended in an “awful situation.”
    He said this could only be fixed by jailing the people responsible for the so-called hoax.
    Nunes added he plans on asking Robert Mueller if he knew a member of his team was briefed on the notorious Steele Dossier, which should have disqualified him from participating in the investigation.
    Mueller is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee later this month.

7/13/2019 President Trump slams former FBI deputy director as a ‘major sleazebag’ by OAN Newsroom
    President Trump drags former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as a “major sleazebag.”
    In a tweet Saturday, the president said Andy McCabe, “among many other things, took massive amounts of money from crooked Hillary representatives.”
FILE PHOTO: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill
in Washington, DC, U.S., June 7, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein/File Photo – RC12347EEEF0
    The president claims McCabe took the money for his “wife’s campaign” while Hillary Clinton was under investigation by the FBI.
    Trump tweet: “Andy McCabe is a major sleazebag. Among many other things, he took massive amounts of money from Crooked Hillary reps, for wife’s campaign, while Hillary was under 'investigation” by FBI!…'
    Judicial Watch “JW announced that it filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ for records of communications between the FBI & former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe related to his book, The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump.
    The remarks come after judicial watch announced they have filed a lawsuit against the DOJ to obtain records of communication surrounding McCabe and claims he made in his recent book.

7/15/2019 Trial begins with high stakes for U.S.-Turkey ties, ex-Trump adviser Flynn by Humeyra Pamuk and Sarah N. Lynch
FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn departs after his sentencing was delayed at
U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a court case that could further strain American relations with Turkey and weigh on the sentencing of former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn, a criminal trial began on Monday involving a former Iranian-American business partner of Flynn.
    Bijan Rafiekian’s trial in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, turns on whether he conspired to lobby on Turkey’s behalf to try to persuade the U.S. government to extradite Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, blamed by Turkey for a failed coup in July 2016.
    “During the summer and fall of 2016, the defendant has acted as an agent to advance one of Turkey’s most important foreign policy goals,” one U.S. prosecutor said in his opening statement, adding that was to help support Ankara’s goal in seeking the extradition of Gulen from the United States.
    Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general whose brief tenure in 2017 as part of President Donald Trump’s inner circle is still causing legal aftershocks, is not charged as a co-conspirator with Rafiekian.    But the case could influence how U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan sentences Flynn later this year in Washington.
    Flynn had previously agreed to cooperate with U.S. prosecutors and testify against Rafiekian, known as “Kian,” in hopes of getting a lighter sentence after he pleaded guilty in December 2017 to having lied to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators about his contacts with Russian officials.
    In a reversal earlier this month, Flynn and prosecutors had a falling out and Flynn backed away from earlier admissions of making false statements to the U.S. Justice Department in paperwork that disclosed his work as a Turkish government lobbyist.
    Flynn now contends he relied on attorneys’ advice when filing the lobbying paperwork with the Justice Department and that he did not knowingly file false information.
    Rafiekian faces two criminal counts of conspiring to act as an agent of a foreign government, making false statements to the Justice Department and acting as a foreign agent.    His former client, Turkish-Dutch national Ekim Alptekin, is also charged.
    The trial, which began on the third anniversary of Turkey’s failed coup that killed 251 people and wounded more than 1,500, has implications for already strained ties between Ankara and Washington.
    U.S. prosecutors are aiming to build a case showing Rafiekian and Alptekin acted with direction from the Turkish government and did not disclose their lobbying campaign to return Gulen, a shadowy figure who lives in a fortified compound in Pennsylvania, to Turkey.
    The Turkish government has denied engaging in a conspiracy to evade U.S. regulations requiring foreign government lobbyists to register with the Justice Department.
    “The idea that we would conspire against the United States is preposterous. … We categorically reject any accusation of wrongdoing or illegal conduct in the United States,” Fahrettin Altun, spokesman for the Turkish presidency, said in a statement over the weekend.
    Lawyers for Rafiekian denied the allegations.    “Bijan never conspired with anyone, never ever sought to avoid U.S. regulations, never conspired to serve as an agent of a foreign government,” his attorney, Bob Trout, said in his opening statements.
    Government lawyers now no longer plan to call Flynn as a star witness in the Rafiekian case, although they may end up calling Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn, who worked for Flynn’s lobbying firm, known as the Flynn Intel Group. Defense lawyers for Rafiekian have listed the elder Flynn as a possible star witness in the case.
    The U.S. government is expected to call five witnesses on Tuesday, prosecutors said.    Michael G. Flynn was not one of them.     Flynn was due to be sentenced in December 2018, but his sentence was delayed after Judge Sullivan lambasted him for selling his country out to Russia and urged him to complete his cooperation with government prosecutors.
(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Tom Brown and Jonathan Oatis)
[The question is did Flynn get a ringer for a judge when this all started as you will read below?
Emmet Gael Sullivan, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, undergraduate and law degrees from Howard University.    He was appointed to the bench of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as an Associate Judge in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and to the federal bench in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.
    In 2015 Sullivan presided over a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuit involving the matter (or crime) of Hillary Clinton's private email use while Secretary of State.
    During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using her family's private email server for official communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on secure federal servers.    An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret," none with classification markings.    An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.
    Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private messaging system and a private server violated State Department protocols and procedures, as well as federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping.    Clinton responded that her use complied with federal laws and State Department regulations, and that former secretaries of state had also maintained personal email accounts.    News reports indicated that the emails discussed "innocuous" matters already available in the public domain.    For example, the CIA drone program has been widely discussed in the public domain since the early 2000s; however, the very existence of the program is technically classified, so even sharing a newspaper article that mentions it would constitute a security breach as far as the CIA is concerned.
    The controversy was a major point of discussion during the 2016 presidential election, in which Clinton was the Democratic nominee.    In May, the State Department's Office of the Inspector General released a report about the State Department's email practices, including Clinton's.    In July, FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI investigation had concluded that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed.    Clinton's opponent, presidential candidate Donald Trump, used the nickname "Crooked Hillary" to criticize Clinton primarily for the email controversy.    Trump supporters adopted the chant "lock her up" to imply Clinton had committed a crime, and this was not a "withch hunt" this was a 'bitch hunt," who was being protected by the FBI and DOJ.]

    This was found at
7/6/20219 Why We're Still Waiting On The DOJ Inspector General Report On Alleged Obama FISA Abuses by Matt Vespa at @mvespa1
It is not hard to figure out where all this got started from the individual who used the intelligence system
for 8 years to control the press in that we had no idea what was going on in this country and other countries,
and he had placed his appointed Czars in all the regulatory functions to control everything and it was not until his 6th year of office
that we realize what his Progressive Liberal and anti-christian policies were doing to us and this should be a warning
what it would be like if we let these new Progressive Liberal Socialist Democrats take control of the U.S.A.
    Well, we’re still waiting on the report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz on alleged FISA abuses.    It’s said to be scorching.    It could air out all the dirty laundry the Obama DOJ and intelligence chiefs were trying to keep hidden during the 2016 election.    They’re nervous.    Why do you think there have been more leaks than the Iraqi Navy regarding this story in the past few months?    Oh, and this coming after Attorney General William Barr said he’s looking into the origins of the whole Russia probe.
    The core of this controversy concerns the spy warrant obtained for former Trump campaign official Carter Page.    Page served briefly as Trump’s foreign policy adviser and the FBI reportedly cited the Steele dossier, which was a piece of political opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign, to obtain that FISA warrant.    It was listed as credible evidence, despite what appears to be zero effort to verify any of its ludicrous claims.    A mere Google search could have debunked some of the claims at face value.    With the Mueller report debunking Russian collusion, the whole document is actually straight trash.    The report is said to be stopping this summer, but two events will undoubtedly cause delays.    The most recent of which is that key witnesses who were reluctant at first have now agreed to answer questions (via Fox News):
    Key witnesses sought for questioning by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz early in his investigation into alleged government surveillance abuse have come forward at the 11th hour, Fox News has learned.
    Sources familiar with the matter said at least one witness outside the Justice Department and FBI started cooperating -- a breakthrough that came after Attorney General William Barr ordered U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead a separate investigation into the origins of the bureau’s 2016 Russia case that laid the foundation for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.
    While the investigative phase of the inspector general’s long-running probe is said to be complete, the sources said recent developments required some witnesses to be reinterviewed.    And while Barr testified that he expected the report into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse to be ready in May or last month, multiple sources said the timeline has slipped.
    "The wheels of inspector general investigations move very, very slowly," former senior DOJ official Tom Dupree told Fox News.
    Well, that’s an understatement.    And it’s not just IG investigations - that’s government work in general for better or worse.    The second development was ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier (aka the Trump dossier), agreeing to cooperate in this investigation.    If the investigative part of the report was indeed done with all preparations set for sometime in June, this threw a wrench into that timeline.    Though let’s be honest, the DOJ IG office probably wasn’t done—but Steele agreeing to answer some questions certainly nuked any hope of a May-June release.    He agreed to the terms in June, with DOJ investigators said to be meeting with him in London “in the coming weeks” (via The Hill):
    Christopher Steele, the former MI6 operative infamous for collecting a dossier alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow, among other sordid details, has agreed to be questioned by U.S. officials about his relationship with the FBI.
    A source close to Steele told The Times he will meet with investigators in London in the coming weeks.    Republicans have long alleged it was Steele’s dossier that improperly led to an FBI inquiry, which ultimately morphed into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible coordination between the Trump and campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.
    The Justice Department’s internal watchdog is investigating aspects of the Mueller probe, including whether officials abused their power when they ordered surveillance of a former campaign aide partially based on information from Steele’s dossier.
    The source told The Times that while Steele was initially reluctant to be questioned as part of the Justice Department’s inquiry, he reconsidered after reports said the investigation could ultimately criticize him and throw his credibility into question.
    And while the DOJ inspector general can only question witnesses who have agreed to come forward, there have been other developments that make this whole Carter Page saga look even worse for those who ran the DOJ under Obama.    Page was an intelligence asset for the FBI, CIA, and State for years.    And there appears to be a lot of omissions in the Mueller report, which adds to the charge that the special counsel’s two-year investigation was nothing more than a political hit job that once again missed the mark.    The Hill’s John Solomon noted this omission about former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort's connection to Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik that feed into the Russian collusion hysteria; Kilimnik was actually a State Department source as well who also worked with the Obama White House.    The FBI knew this throughout the whole Russian collusion probe:
    In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.
    But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
    Why Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known.    But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny
    Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.
    He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government.    He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.
    The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.
    Alan Purcell, the chief political officer at the Kiev embassy from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that State officials, including senior embassy officials Alexander Kasanof and Eric Schultz, deemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset that they kept his name out of cables for fear he would be compromised by leaks to WikiLeaks.
    Three sources with direct knowledge of the inner workings of Mueller’s office confirmed to me that the special prosecutor’s team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well as Kilimnik’s intelligence reports to the U.S. Embassy, well before they portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.
    Kasanof’s and Purcell’s interviews are corroborated by scores of State Department emails I reviewed that contain regular intelligence from Kilimnik on happenings inside the Yanukovych administration, the Crimea conflict and Ukrainian and Russian politics.    For example, the memos show Kilimnik provided real-time intelligence on everything from whose star in the administration was rising or falling to efforts at stuffing ballot boxes in Ukrainian elections.
    Those emails raise further doubt about the Mueller report’s portrayal of Kilimnik as a Russian agent.    They show Kilimnik was allowed to visit the United States twice in 2016 to meet with State officials, a clear sign he wasn’t flagged in visa databases as a foreign intelligence threat.
    The emails also show how misleading, by omission, the Mueller report’s public portrayal of Kilimnik turns out to be.
    For instance, the report makes a big deal about Kilimnik’s meeting with Manafort in August 2016 at the Trump Tower in New York.
    By that time, Manafort had served as Trump’s campaign chairman for several months but was about to resign because of a growing controversy about the millions of dollars Manafort accepted as a foreign lobbyist for Yanukovych’s party.
    Specifically, the Mueller report flagged Kilimnik’s delivery of a peace plan to the Trump campaign for settling the two-year-old Crimea conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
    “Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine,” the Mueller report stated.
    But State emails showed Kilimnik first delivered a version of his peace plan in May 2016 to the Obama administration during a visit to Washington.
    What appears to have happened is that the Obama presidency decided to use shoddy political opposition research that wasn’t vetted by the FBI to secure spy warrants on members of a presidential campaign team of the opposing party.    The DOJ appears to have been weaponized.    And we haven’t even touched upon the attempted spy attempts the FBI took to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

    The following found at
7/16/2019 FBI's spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of Steele's dossier by John Solomon, opinion contributor, The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.
Jim Jordan has been an asset from the beginning to find out and promote many of the issues
    Some in the news media have tried in recent days to rekindle their long-lost love affair with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his now infamous dossier.
    The main trigger was a lengthy interview in June with the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, which some news outlets suggested meant U.S. officials have found Steele, the former Hillary Clinton-backed political muckraker, to be believable.
    “Investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising,” Politico crowed.    The Washington Post went even further, suggesting Steele’s assistance to the inspector general might “undermine Trumpworld’s alt-narrative” that the Russia-collusion investigation was flawed.
    For sure, Steele may have valuable information to aid Justice’s internal affairs probe into misconduct during the 2016 Russia election probe.    His dossier alleging a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow ultimately was disproven, but not before his intelligence was used to secure a surveillance warrant targeting the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election.
    Investigators are trying to ascertain what the British intelligence operative told the FBI about his sources, his relation to the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign, his hatred for Donald Trump, his Election Day deadline to get his information public and his leaking to media outlets before agents used his dossier to justify a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
    There is evidence Steele told the DOJ in July, and the State Department in October, about all of these flaws in his work, and that State officials even detected blatant inaccuracies in his intelligence.    If so, all of that information should have been flagged by the FBI as potentially derogatory information weighing against Steele’s use as a source for the FISA warrant.
    But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.
    The over-under isn’t flattering to Steele.
    Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community.    One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.
    In other words, it was mostly useless.
    “The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn’t be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele’s intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims,” one source told me.
    The FBI declined comment when asked about the spreadsheet.
    The FBI’s final assessment was driven by many findings contained in classified footnotes at the bottom of the spreadsheet.    But it was also informed by an agent’s interview, in early 2017, with a Russian that Steele claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence, according to my sources.
    The FBI came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele, either intentionally or through exaggeration, the sources said.
    The spreadsheet and a subsequent report by special prosecutor Robert Mueller show just how far off the seminal claims in the Steele dossier turned out to be.
    For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir Putin — Rosneft oil executive Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin — as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, as Steele reported.
    Page did meet with a lower-level Rosneft official, and shook hands with a Russian deputy prime minister, the FBI found, but it was a far cry from the tale that Steele’s dossier spun.
    Likewise, Steele claimed that Sechin had offered Page a hefty finder’s fee if he could get Trump to help lift sanctions on Moscow: “a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return.”
    That offer, worth billions of dollars, was never substantiated and was deemed by some in U.S. intelligence to be preposterous
    The inaccuracy of Steele’s intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general investigation specifically because the FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong enough to support the FISA warrant.    It was, in the end, not verified.
    Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election, the sources said.
    Steele’s theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.    None of those theories checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.
    Again, Steele’s intelligence was wrong or unverifiable.
    The salacious, headline-grabbing claim that Russians had incriminating sex tapes showing Trump engaged in depraved acts with prostitutes also met a factual dead end when the FBI interviewed the Georgian-American businessman who claimed to know about them.    Giorgi Rtskhiladze told investigators “he was told the tapes were fake,” according to a footnote in the Mueller report.    Rtskhiladze’s lawyer subsequently issued a letter taking issue with some of Mueller’s characterizations.
    Steele had some general things right, of course, including that the Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails.    Of course, there were public reports saying so when Steele reported this.
    But even then, his dossier’s theory of how the hackers worked, who paid them and how they communicated with Trump was determined in the FBI spreadsheet and subsequent Mueller investigation to be far from accurate.
    Even State officials, who listened to Steele’s theories in October 2016 — less than two weeks before his dossier was used to support the FISA request — instantly determined he was grossly wrong on some points.
    Any effort to use Steele’s belated cooperation with the inspector general's investigation to prop up the credibility of his 2016 anti-Trump dossier or the FBI’s reliance on it for the FISA warrant is deeply misguided.
    Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a key defender of Trump, said he talked with DOJ officials after the most recent stories surfaced about Steele and was told the reporting is wrong.    “Based on my conversations with DOJ officials, recent reports which suggest Christopher Steele’s dossier and allegations are somehow deemed credible by DOJ, are simply false and not based on any confirmation from sources with direct knowledge of ongoing investigations,” Meadows told me.
    The FBI’s own spreadsheet was so conclusive that it prompted then-FBI Director James Comey (no fan of Trump, mind you) to dismiss the document as “salacious and unverified” and for lead FBI agent Peter Strzok to text, “There’s no big there there.”    FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified that nine months into reviewing Steele’s dossier they had not found evidence of the collusion that Steele alleged.
    Two years later, Mueller came to the same conclusion: Steele’s intelligence alleging a conspiracy was never verified.
    The next time you hear a pundit suggesting Steele’s dossier is credible or that the FBI’s reliance on it as FISA evidence was justified, just picture all those blanks in that FBI spreadsheet.
    They speak volumes as to what went wrong in the Russia investigation.
    John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.    Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports.

    The following found at
7/16/2019 'What am I supposed to do with you?'    Judge bars Roger Stone from social media for breaking gag order by Kristine Phillips, USA TODAYPublished
Roger Stone, a former political operative for the Trump campaign, arrives for a federal court
hearing on Jan. 29, 2019 in Washington. (Photo: Jack Gruber, USA TODAY NETWORK)
    WASHINGTON — A federal judge Tuesday ordered Roger Stone to stop using social media "in any way, on any subject," while he is awaiting trial, saying the adviser to President Donald Trump has repeatedly tested the limits of a gag order prohibiting him from speaking publicly about the case.
    "I’ve twice given you the benefit of the doubt," U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said at a hearing Tuesday.
    Jackson told Stone that he had repeatedly failed to act responsibly while awaiting trial on charges including obstruction and witness tampering, and compared his behavior to that of a middle-schooler.    "Your lawyer had to twist the facts … and twist himself into a pretzel to argue that these posts don’t cross the line," she said.
    Stone, a longtime Republican operative, was charged in January with making false statements about his interactions with the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign.    He was the last Trump adviser to be indicted as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's wide-ranging investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
    Jackson said Stone has used his social media platforms to "gin up" more public comment and controversy about the legitimacy of the Russia investigation and, in turn, his own prosecution.
    "It seems he’s determined on making himself the subject of a story," Jackson said.
    The judge, however, declined to send Stone to jail, saying that finding him in contempt "would be wasteful, unnecessary and counterproductive" and would only lead to more pretrial publicity.
    "So what am I supposed to do with you?" Jackson asked.
    The social media restrictions – which prohibit Stone from using Facebook, Twitter and Instagram – are in addition to earlier limits imposed by the gag order prohibiting Stone from speaking publicly about the case, the investigation, or anyone involved.    The judge added those restrictions following recent Instagram posts that the government's attorneys said violated the order.
    Jackson imposed a gag order in February after a series of social media posts, including a picture of her next to what appeared to be a gun's crosshairs.    Stone, who said on Instagram that his post had been "widely misinterpreted," apologized, saying the image was "improper."
    In June, prosecutors alerted the court about new social media posts that they say violated the gag order.    One Instagram post showed what appears to be an screenshot image of an article claiming the Russia investigation was a hoax and the intelligence community's "betrayal of their responsibilities."    Another post is an image saying former CIA director John Brennan must be "hung for treason."
    During a testy exchange at the hearing Tuesday, Jackson went through several social media posts going as far back as March, including an image.
    "The ones that you've presented to me are not in violation of the court order, unless the court order is saying he cannot say anything," defense attorney Bruce Rogow told the judge.    "Apparently, you may think that he has crossed the line."
    Rogow said that Stone's Instagram posts are broad comments about his situation, the media and public filings in the case that "don't pose a threat to a fair trial."    By raising "overblown and exaggerated" concerns about Stone's social media activity, the government attorneys are "only creating more publicity," Rogow said.    He also said he'll consult with Stone in the future and will review posts Stone wants to share online.     "I am sorry that the court is offended by these ... I understand how one can look at them and come to the conclusion that they are either at the line or crossed the line," Rogow said.
    But Jackson was unpersuaded, saying that to suggest the posts are not statements about the case "ignores the essence of social media."    Stone, the judge said, took someone else's statements and spread it, often adding his own rhetorical and provocative comments.
    Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis said "there's no ambiguity" that Stone's posts have crossed the line and that the defense attorneys are taking a "very narrow." view of the court order.    Although some of the posts are not related to someone who's directly involved in the case, they are based on "factual misrepresentations" that could prejudice a jury pool.
    Stone had previously been warned that statements he'd made in public could violate the gag order.    One of which was his book, "The Myth of Russian Collusion," which was being sold online with a new introduction critical of the Russia investigation.
    Stone's defense attorneys said the book had already been published and offered for sale before Jackson issued the gag order on Feb. 21.    But the judge faulted them for failing to mention the existence of the book during a hearing on the order and suggested that revealing it belatedly was intended to generate publicity.
Contributing: Bart Jansen
[Stone has the right to speak what he wants to, but Mueller seems to be able to get judges that are suspect as you will read below and this one was connected to Stone and Manafort:
Amy Berman Jackson, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to give you some history.
    In December 2013, in the case of Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, Jackson ruled against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Washington in its challenge to the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act as applied to its employees.    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies made accommodations for religious organizations, under which such organizations do not have to "provide, pay for, or facilitate access to contraception" if they certify their objection to doing so.    Jackson rejected the archdiocese's argument that the act of "self-certifying" in itself constitutes a substantial burden on the archdiocese's right to freely exercise religion.
    In May 2017, Jackson dismissed a wrongful death suit filed against Hillary Clinton by the parents of two of the Americans killed in the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, on the basis of the Westfall Act.
    In October 2017, Jackson was assigned to preside over the criminal case that Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates as part of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.    She accepted their "not guilty" pleas, granted bail, confiscated their passports, and ordered them to be held under house arrest.    She also warned defense lawyers not to discuss the case outside of court.    On June 15, 2018, after the prosecution accused him of attempted witness tampering, Jackson revoked Manafort's bail and sent him to jail until his upcoming federal trials to prevent him from having contact with people.    On February 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty to one count of false statements and one count of conspiracy against the United States.    The plea bargain included an agreement to cooperate with the Mueller investigation.    On September 14, 2018, Manafort pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy against the United States.    The plea bargain included an agreement to cooperate with the Mueller investigation.].

7/19/2019 FBI: Trump took part in payoff talks - Documents unsealed after hush-money inquiry by Kristine Phillips, Kevin Johnson and Nicholas Wu, USA TODAY
    WASHINGTON – A day after the public heard Donald Trump boasting about grabbing women’s genitals in a leaked “Access Hollywood” outtake in 2016, the presidential candidate and some of his top aides began an urgent effort to silence a pornographic actress, according to court records unsealed Thursday.
    The documents, part of the FBI’s investigation of a hush-money scheme, show agents gathered evidence that Trump participated in an effort to pay off Stormy Daniels, the adult-film actress who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with him years earlier.    Authorities laid out a timeline of emails, text messages and phone calls – some involving Trump himself – that “concerned the need to prevent” Daniels from going public with her story.
    Trump denied knowledge of the payments after they became public.    The FBI told a judge it obtained telephone records showing he participated in some of the first conversations about the scheme, which prosecutors said violated federal campaign finance laws.
    Federal prosecutors said in court filings last year that Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, orchestrated payments to Daniels and another woman, Karen McDougal, “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.    The documents unsealed Thursday offer an account of the extent of Trump’s involvement in that effort, which came at a particularly sensitive moment weeks before the 2016 presidential election.
    The Justice Department told a judge Monday that it “effectively concluded” its investigation of the payoffs, signaling the end of one of the criminal inquiries that shadowed Trump’s presidency.
    Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow said Wednesday that he’s pleased the investigation is closed and said Trump “never engaged in any campaign finance violation.”
    Cohen called Sekulow’s comments “completely distorted and dishonest.”    He said in a statement Thursday that Trump directed him and members of the Trump Organization to “handle the Stormy Daniels matter.”
    “The conclusion of the investigation exonerating The Trump Organization’s role should be of great concern to the American people and investigated by Congress and The Department of Justice,” Cohen said.
    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
    The documents do not describe the conclusions of the hush-money investigation but offer a window into what FBI agents learned in the first months of their work.    They include copies of applications for search warrants laying out evidence that Cohen had broken the law.     Cohen pleaded guilty to two felony violations of campaign finance laws and a series of other crimes, for which he is serving a three-year prison sentence.
    The timeline of communication began Oct. 8, 2016, the day after The Washington Post published the infamous “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump talks in vulgar terms about women.    Around this time, Daniels planned to talk to “Good Morning America” and Slate about her alleged relationship with Trump in 2006, the same year that his wife, Melania, gave birth to their son.
    Hope Hicks, spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, called Cohen the evening of Oct. 8, 2016.    Trump joined the call briefly. Hicks, Cohen and Trump continued to talk that night, and Cohen also communicated with David Pecker and Dylan Howard, heads of American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer.
    Howard texted Cohen and Keith Davidson, an attorney for Daniels and McDougal, on Oct. 10, 2016, to connect them regarding “that business opportunity.”    Davidson texted Cohen shortly after, telling him that they needed to “close this deal.”

    Following found at
7/19/2019 Fitton: The center of the FISA abuse storm by Hieu Hoang
    It was more Judicial Watch: president Tom fitton to meet this is a breakthrough.    We’ve been asking the question how high up we know that the Deep State actors are now turning on each other.
    Page and Strzok are pointing the finger at then attorney general Loretta Lynch that we’ve got, of course, James Baker, saying "I knew from the beginning.    This was a bad idea."
    Then, of course you got the deputy FBI director McCabe sang, "We wouldn’t have got a fisa warrant without the dossier," and you have Brennan and Clapper hitting Comey and Comey and McCabe going at each other.
    So I would assume between all that in-fighting and all the finger-pointing and what is now a Civil War in circular firing squad, I think we’re going to get to the truth.    Finally, well certainly now we need to expand the investigation to the Obama State Department, Jonathan Winer, who was close to Christopher Steele, the Russian, I mean Olivia expert for a John Kerry state department with Shepherd steal and use and actually helping him write the dossier or part of it that was laundered into the FBI and justice department.    As the Steele dossier was written in part according to Winer.    He admitted this in the iPad Washington Post I hit.    Did he help write a summary of other material?    He was getting from the Clinton gang and then wanted it through Steele to the DOJ and FBI.    These new email show that he was in communication with Victoria Nuland and they wanted to meet in New York, over the Russia matter.    We were suing for Russia, for the Gate documents related to Steele.
    So we know it’s about that, and this meeting took place almost simultaneously with a meeting that Glenn Simpson had with the state department about are cicadas. Well, remember: Victoria nuland had blessed that the meetings between the FBI and with Christopher Steele in the UK in the summer of 2016 and then other documents show that she was working with Steny Hoyer’s office about to get this Russian material through and then pushing classified information to make Trump look bad and just before the inauguration, the state department is at the center of the storm in terms of the abuses of the Obama operation against then candidate Trump and then the incoming president, Mr. Trump.
    So we know this, we know that Bruce Ohr, warned all about the Steele dossier, which was bought and paid fory the DNC, and verifiable Steeles agenda before the first fisa warrant application in which, at the top of it I am told it says, verified and called me to sign it anyway, then, which of course is the FBI.    Even they knew that 90 % of it was garbage.    So then, on top of this now we’re seeing just how high up it goes.
    Do you think we get to the question of what did Obama know?    When did he know it?    Well, the big meeting occurred just before the ambushed then-candidate Trump with a dossier.
    In January 2017, there was an oval office meeting with Comey and Obama, Biden, and Susan Rice.    It was there and I think, Brennan was there, so they all discuss the dossier, so Susan Rice and Obama knew about the dossier in the text.
    Messages between Strzok and Page and the White House wanted to know about this as it came to go after Trump with the dossier in the Obama Administration, it was all hands on deck and was orchestrated it out of the White House, and I think the big issue is for the media and investigators.    Why isn’t President Obama been asking Siri questions about this out?    One-Time very interesting?    I know sleepy creepy crazy Uncle Joe Biden is going to be asked at some point: Tom fitton Judicial Watch.

7/19/2019 House Judiciary chairman says there are ‘inconsistencies’ in Hicks testimony by OAN Newsroom
    The House Judiciary Committee is asking former White House aide Hope Hicks to clarify remarks she made during last month’s closed-door testimony.    In a letter Thursday evening, committee chairman Jerry Nadler stated there were “inconsistencies” in the testimony she gave back in June.
    Nadler specifically pointed to claims she was not present for discussions between then-candidate Donald Trump and his former attorney Michael Cohen regarding payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016.    However, a New York federal judge revealed Hicks was involved in a phone call with Cohen and the president.
Former White House communications director Hope Hicks is seen behind closed doors during an interview with the House
Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, June 19, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
    After that testimony back in June, One America News spoke with Republican lawmakers who came to the defense of Hicks:
    “When you look at the extent to which the administration is being harassed by every angle of the Congress without legitimate oversight…I think the assertions of privilege are inappropriate.” — Rep. Matt Gaetz (R.-Fla.).
    “Everything that she has been allowed to answer, she has answered.    She’s been a very cooperative witness, she’s a compelling witness because she’s believable and likable.” — Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas)
    The House Judiciary Committee chairman is now asking her to clarify her statements by no later than August 15th.

    Found at
Congressional investigators seeking Nellie Ohr’s opposition research records on Trump family by Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson, Fox News
Source: Nellie Ohr conducted opposition research on Melania Trump, Trump's children
    A source familiar with the closed-door testimony confirmed to Fox News that Nellie Ohr told House investigators that she was tasked with doing opposition research during the 2016 campaign on Melania Trump as well as on the president's children; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports from Washington.
    Republican House investigators are working to obtain records from Russia probe figure Nellie Ohr containing opposition research on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, his wife and children, two sources familiar with the matter told Fox News.
    Ohr has long been of interest to those looking into the genesis of the FBI’s probe into Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.    She worked for the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was behind the infamous, Democratic-funded dossier of salacious claims about Trump.    She is also married to Bruce Ohr, a Justice Department official whose connection to Fusion GPS led to his eventual demotion.

    During her December 2018 closed-door deposition on Capitol Hill, Nellie Ohr told investigators she did the opposition research on the Trump family for Fusion GPS.    Sources said her project predated the hiring of former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier.
    “I was asked to research Trump’s family broadly in connection with any – any Russian connections,” she said.
    Bruce Ohr shared details from anti-Trump dossier author with prosecutors now on Mueller team.
    Nellie Ohr confirmed to investigators that she explored family members' foreign travel, among other issues.    “I did some research on all of them, but not in much depth,” she said.
    She also said the purpose was to “see whether they were involved in dealings and transactions with people who had suspicious pasts, or suspicious types of dealings.”
    At the time of her testimony, Nellie Ohr said she was still in possession of the research but was unclear whether it was hers to share, or whether it was owned by her former employer, Fusion GPS.
    “Do you still possess the research that you performed?” a Republican investigator asked her during the interview.
    “Yes,” she responded.
    “Would you be willing to share that with the committee?
    “I guess so,” Nellie Ohr said.
    Fox News has reached out to Nellie Ohr's lawyer asking if she remains willing to provide the records, if turning over the documents requires a subpoena and what has accounted for the six-month delay.
    It is not publicly known whether any of her research was reflected in the dossier, which also looked at the travel history of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, among others.
    Bruce Ohr’s actions during that time have been of interest to investigators, as it is believed he was the back channel between Steele, the Trump dossier author, and the FBI.
    Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

    Following found at
7/22/2019 Grassley Pressures DOD For More Information On FBI Spy Stephan Halper by Sara Carter
    Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter this month to Department of Defense Acting Secretary Mark Esper, urging him for more information regarding contracts awarded by its Office of Net Assessment to FBI informant Stefan Halper.    Halper was used by the bureau as an informant to gather information on Trump campaign volunteers during the 2016 election.    Grassely stated that the information be provided no later than July 25 and he requested a full in person briefing with his committee staff on all of Halper’s contracts with the DoD.
    Grassley, R-Iowa asked for the information after an audit was released by the DoD’s Inspector General’s showed that there was failure to conduct appropriate oversight of contracts awarded under the DOD.    Halper had long career in the U.S. government under several GOP administrations.    His connections to the CIA and FBI are extensive and he had been awarded multiple contracts with the DOD totaling $411,000 by Washington Headquarters Services on Sept. 26, 2016, for a contract that ran until this March, 2018, according to
    “Shockingly, the audit found that these types of discrepancies were not unique to contracts with Professor Halper, which indicates ONA must take immediate steps to shore up its management and oversight of the contracting process,” stated Grassley.
    “Accordingly, no later than July 25, 2019, please explain to the Committee the steps DoD has taken to address the recommendations that DoD IG made with respect to ONA’s contracting procedures and produce to the Committee all records related to Professor Halper’s contracts with DoD,” Grassley’s letter states.    “In addition, I request that ONA provide a briefing to my Committee staff regarding the Halper contracts.”
    The 74-year old professor, has rarely spoken out publicly since being outed by The Washington Post, and other news organizations, as one of the informants for the bureau who spied on the Trump campaign.    He spent a career developing top-level government connections–not just through academia, as he did in Great Britain through the Cambridge Security Initiative, but through his connections in both the CIA and British MI-6.    He is expected to be speaking this month at the seminar, he helped found, according to The Daily Caller.
    “The results of this audit are disappointing and illustrate a systemic failure to manage and oversee the contracting process,” said Grassley, in a letter sent July, 12 to the DOD.    “Time and again, DoD’s challenges with contract management and oversight are put on display.    It is far past time the largest, most critical agency in this country steps up and takes immediate action to increase its efforts to stop waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.”
    According to the DoD Inspector General’s report the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) “did not maintain documentation of the work performed by Professor Halper or any communication that ONA personnel had with Professor Halper; therefore, ONA CORs could not provide sufficient documentation that Professor Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.    We determined that while the ONA CORs established a file to maintain documents, they did not maintain sufficient documentation to comply with all the FAR requirements related to having a complete COR.”
    Grassley had requested the audit in January, as part of his oversight and continuing investigation into the bureau’s handling of the investigation into the Trump campaign.
    According to a press release issued by Grassley’s office the “letter highlights potential problems in relation to ONA’s contracts with Professor Stefan Halper, including a finding that ONA could not provide sufficient documentation that Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.”
    Further, the IG report “also notes significant flaws in ONA’s (Office of Net Assessment) contract management and oversight processes.”
    In 2016, Halper was an integral part of the FBI’s investigation into short-term Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page and George Papadopolous.    Halper first made contact with Page at his seminar in July 2016.    Page, who was already on the FBI’s radar, was accused at the time of being sympathetic to Russia.    Halper stayed in contact with Page until September 2017.
    During that time, the FBI sought and obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to spy on Page and used Halper to collect information on him, according to sources.
    The House Intelligence Committee Russia report and documents obtained by this outlet revealed that the bulk of the warrant against Page relied heavily on the unverified and now debunked dossier compiled by Former British Spy Christopher Steele.
    Dear Acting Secretary Esper:
    On January 16, 2019, I requested that the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD IG) review whether Department of Defense Office of Net Assessment (ONA) contracts with Professor Stefan Halper were used to support potential partisan political or other improper or wasteful activities.    On July 2, 2019, DoD IG provided a summary of its audit of those contracts with Professor Halper between 2012 and 2018.    The DoD IG’s audit revealed significant flaws in ONA’s contract management and oversight process that clearly indicate ONA’s internal controls over taxpayer-funded work are weak or non-existent.    This is just one example of why DoD is unable to earn clean opinions on its annual financial audits.
    The audit of Professor Halper’s contracts noted all four of his contracts with ONA “did not require Professor Halper to submit justification or obtain prior approval before traveling.”[1]    The audit further stated that Professor Halper’s travel to Japan for one contract was paid for by a third-party, who is not identified in the audit.[2]    Additionally, ONA “did not require Professor Halper to submit any evidence that he interviewed personnel cited in his proposals and statements of work,” which includes former Russian diplomats and intelligence officers.[3]    In conclusion, the audit found that ONA “could not provide sufficient documentation that Professor Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” “did not identify whether Professor Halper’s work while traveling to different countries and conducting interviews with individuals was conducted in accordance with the FAR” and that ONA “could not be certain” that payments related to his travel complied with OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C.[4]
    Shockingly, the audit found that these types of discrepancies were not unique to contracts with Professor Halper, which indicates ONA must take immediate steps to shore up its management and oversight of the contracting process.    Accordingly, no later than July 25, 2019, please explain to the Committee the steps DoD has taken to address the recommendations that DoD IG made with respect to ONA’s contracting procedures and produce to the Committee all records related to Professor Halper’s contracts with DoD.[5]    In addition, I request that ONA provide a briefing to my Committee staff regarding the Halper contracts.
    I anticipate that your written reply and most responsive documents will be unclassified.    Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee.    In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security.    Although the Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information, it is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions.

    Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic, with claims that he has high level connections to the Russian government.
    In 2016, he became involved with George Papadopoulos, an advisor to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, and was later accused of being a link between that campaign and Russia.
    In 2018, he was described as missing, and an Italian court listed his location as "residence unknown."    According to media reports he was in Rome as of April 2019.
    At least as early as 2010, he began making numerous trips to Russia.    He was a professorial teaching fellow at the University of Stirling in Scotland, as well as director of the London Academy of Diplomacy, where he served as director from 2012 until it closed in 2016.    The academy was partnered with the University of Stirling.    He has also served as president of the University Consortium of the Province of Agrigento in Sicily; in September 2018, an Italian court ordered him to repay the Consortium 49,000 euros ($56,700) in overpayments.
    In a 2017 interview, he claimed to be a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), although the ECFR website in 2018 did not list him as a member.    He regularly attended meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Russia, backed by the Kremlin and attended by Vladimir Putin.    According to a BBC report, Mifsud was in Moscow in April 2016 to speak on a panel run by the Valdai Club alongside Dr. Stephan Roh, a German multimillionaire lawyer and investor described as a "wheeler-dealer" by the BBC Newsnight program.    Roh, Mifsud's former employer, could not be reached for comment by the BBC and has since attempted to erase links between the two men on his company website.    Another speaker at the Valdai Club was Ivan Timofeev, who works for a think tank close to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whom Mifsud subsequently introduced to Papadopoulos via email.    Mifsud reportedly claimed to his former girlfriend that he was friends with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.    Mifsud himself denied having any contact with the Russian government, saying "I am an academic, I do not even speak Russian."
    The Mueller Report, released in 2019, said that Mifsud "maintained various Russian contacts while living in London," including an unnamed person (name redacted), who was a former staff member of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll farm based in Saint Petersburg.
    In March 2016, shortly after Papadopoulos was named as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, Mifsud met Papadopoulos in Rome.    They later met again in London, where Mifsud allegedly introduced Papadopoulos to a Russian woman that he falsely claimed was Putin's niece; Mifsud has denied the report.    At a meeting in April, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had learned that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
    Papadopoulos allegedly repeated the information to the Australian High Commissioner in London, Alexander Downer, who later reported to American authorities that Papadopoulos had apparently known about Russia's theft of emails from Democratic sources before it was publicly reported.    Papadopoulos has since publicly declared that he did tell Downer about the fact that he was offered "dirt" on Clinton but he has denied any recollection of communicating this theft of emails with Downer.
    The FBI then launched an investigation into possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.
    Volume 1 of the Mueller Report states that Mifsud travelled to Moscow in April 2016, and upon his return told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.    It also mentions that Papadopoulos "suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton."    This would appear to corroborate the contact with Downer.
    According to Mifsud, he was interviewed by the FBI in February 2017 while visiting the United States to speak at a conference.    The FBI has not confirmed that they interviewed him, but he is listed as a featured speaker at the February 2017 national meeting of Global Ties, an event sponsored by the U.S. Department of State.    Mifsud left the United States on 11 February 2017.    Prosecutors with the investigation into Russian interference in the election suggested, in a 17 August 2018 sentencing memorandum for Papadopoulos, that they might have wanted to challenge, detain, or arrest Mifsud if Papadopoulos had told the truth about their interactions.
    Stephan Roh, a Russian-speaking German lawyer and multimillionaire with close ties to Russia, has worked alongside Mifsud for years.    Papadopoulos's wife, who briefly worked for Mifsud, has described Roh as Mifsud's lawyer, best friend, and funder.    Roh owns multiple businesses, many headquartered in Moscow or Cyprus; he also co-owns Link Campus University, a university also known for its diplomatic, intelligence and analytical studies, such as the School of Analysis - Security and Intelligence section, and the place where Mifsud taught.    The fact that Mifsud taught at the Link Campus University has been denied by the current president of this university, Vincenzo Scotti.    Roh was detained and questioned by investigators on Robert Mueller's Special Counsel team in October 2017.
    According to a filing in a U.S. federal court in the case Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation in September 2018, Mifsud "is missing and may be deceased."    Mifsud's whereabouts were unknown and he could not be served with the complaint.    He spoke to his girlfriend on 31 October 2017.    The next day an Italian newspaper revealed that the "professor" referred to in news reports about Papadopoulos was Mifsud, and she has not heard from him since then.    According to CNN, he has "gone to ground" and was last seen on 6 November 2017 at Link University, a private university in Rome where he was teaching at the time.    In September 2018, an Italian court described his location as "residence unknown."
    In September 2018, a few days after the DNC filing, his associate Stephan Roh told The Daily Caller that he had gotten an indirect message from "really good sources" indicating that Mifsud is alive and living under a new identity.    According to media reports he was in Rome as of April 2019
    The big question is who is hiding him, could it be those who are guilty in the former Obama administration who sent Mifsud to start this "witch hunt?"

    Obama and his staff used the NSA to spy on Americans illegally and if you did not know Benjamin J. Rhodes, he was an American political advisor and White House staff member who served as the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications for U.S. President Barack Obama and adviser on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran was involved in this cover up also.
    And definitely these two suspects who were involved: Gen. James R. Clapper National Intelligence and John O. Brennen CIA Director both under Obama.
    Sidney Stone Blumenthal, an American journalist, activist, writer, and political aide and former aide to President Bill Clinton; a long-time confidant of Hillary Clinton, formerly employed by the Clinton Foundation; and a journalist, especially on American politics and foreign policy, along with Cody Shearer, and Estate Department Johnaton Winer originally gave the information to Christopher Steele.
    James Brien Comey Jr., an American lawyer who was the 7th Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2013 until his dismissal in May 2017.    And of course, there was this illegal handling of classified documents and FBI director James Comey got involved somehow.
    Hillary Clinton was hit on about a private server with classified files on it.    Of course, she went in DENY, DENY mode which sounds like her husband, Bill Clinton.
    Christopher David Steele, a former British intelligence officer with the Secret Intelligence Service MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009.    He ran the Russia desk at MI6 headquarters in London between 2006 and 2009.    In 2009 he co-founded Orbis Business Intelligence, a London-based private intelligence firm.    Christopher David Steele, was the creator of the Trump dossier.
    Can anyone figure out how the creation of a secret wiretap warrant that the FBI used to do a Russia Investigation from a Trump dossier, became breaking news?    I can guess who leaked that to the "fake news."
    I thought that the above was amusing since he is the one covering it up now, and is on Trump on the Russian collusion “witch hunt.”    Of course Adam Schiff was involved to egg everything on to impeach Trump now.
    Adam Schiff, the leaker said Christopher Steele's dossier was "evidence beyond a shadow of doubt of Trump's collusion."
    The Trump dossier was paid for by the Clinton-Kaine 2016 Democratic Party.    Christopher Steele was fired because he leaked files to the media.
    Bruce Genesoke Ohr, a United States Department of Justice official, former associate deputy attorney general and former director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, as of February 2018, and working in the Justice Department's Criminal Division.    His wife Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, who ordered it, and when she got the dossier, she gave it to Bruce, who then gave it to the FBI.
    It was Michael Isikoff who did a Yahoo article over Carter Page and his Russian connection, which is where Rep. Nunes got involved who wondered why the court did not know about that.
    Sidney Stone Blumenthal, an American journalist, activist, writer, and political aide and former aide to President Bill Clinton; a long-time confidant of Hillary Clinton, formerly employed by the Clinton Foundation; and a journalist, especially on American politics and foreign policy, along with Cody Shearer, and Estate Department Johnaton Winer originally gave the information to Christopher Steele.
    Surveillance on Carter Page and anyone associated with him were being spied on.    So this was a SMEAR job for Hillary clinton to win the election, which we know did not happen.
    Nunes sent Rep. Trey Gowdy and Rep. John Ratcliffe to review the FISA document.    The review showed that FBI Comey and McCabe did not verify it.    Comey signed it 3 times, McCabe signed it once, and then to Loretta Lynch in charge of the DOJ, knew that the following signed the FISA warrant: Salley Yates, Dana Boente (Virginia Judge) and Rod Rosestein and sent it through by October 21, 2016, less than a month after Michael Isikoff's article was released.    Does anyone smell six dishonest lying FBI and DOJ officials?
    Rosemary Mayers Collyer, a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and currently the Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.    Collyer was one of four FISA Court judges who approved a FISA warrant (issued in October 2016 and renewed several times) authorizing the wiretapping of Carter Page.    So now it is found out that there was illegal activity by the FBI, with contractors doing improper disclosures on Americans.
    FBI lawyer James Baker was under criminal investigation for leaking to media, Republican lawmakers revealed, closed-door interview, Baker’s lawyer, Daniel Levin, instructed him to not talk about his contacts with journalists.
    Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) addressed the Jan. 15 letter to John Durham, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, who, according to Levin, handles the investigation of Baker.
    The following three individuals have been mentioned recently to have some issues with these events.
Joseph Mifsud, allegedly told Papadopoulos this in April 2016, and Papadopoulos allegedly told Downer what Mifsud had said in early May.    It is entirely possible that Papadopoulos was set up by Mifsud, who has now disappeared and is hopefully just in hiding and not at the bottom of some body of water.
    This chain of events became important when the FBI began using the Papadopoulos tip as an excuse for its “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the Trump campaign, in order to say why they didn’t rely on the Clinton-funded dossier.
    But the FBI didn’t open Crossfire Hurricane until several months after the Dibble-Downer tip was received, and that tip, if it ever even occurred, didn’t go through the normal and proper chain of intelligence (others have claimed that the tip wasn’t taken seriously until the Democratic National Committee hack was made public).
    More damning for the FBI’s Papadopoulos excuse was that they didn’t interview Papadopolous until after the 2016 election, and went after Carter Page for FISA surveillance instead.    This was no damning piece of firsthand information, or emergency.    It was hearsay, and what Papadopoulos said to Downer, and what Mifsud said to Papadopoulos, is still disputed.
    The reality is that the Clinton-funded dossier started the FBI’s investigation into Trump, at least the official Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Kathleen Kavalec, was the Deputy Assistant Secretary – Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs serving under Victoria Nuland.
    Kavalec sent Bruce Ohr “information on Simon Kukes, a Russian-born executive who contributed more than $250,000 to Trump-supporting organizations after Trump won the Republican nomination.”    In follow-up email, Kavalec references connections between Kukes and Sergei Millian.
    As of 2018, Kavalec was President Trump's nominee to be ambassador to Albania.    Kavalec is on Devin Nunes' interview list.
Sidney Blumenthal, is an even more infamous Clinton stooge.    “Sid” is so infamous that Obama told Hillary that he didn’t want Blumenthal associated with the Obama administration.    Blumenthal got the Trump-Russia conspiracies written by Shearer into the Obama State Department, when only the Clinton campaign was talking about Trump-Russia collusion.
    So as seen below is that group who will be under investigation for some time until they get the real story out to the public.

    The following found at
7/23/2019 Robert Mueller soon may be exposed as the 'magician of omission' on Russia by John Solomon, opinion contributor, The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.
    While most of the political world focused its attention elsewhere, special prosecutor John Durham’s team quietly reached out this summer to a lawyer representing European academic Joseph Mifsud, one of the earliest and most mysterious figures in the now closed Russia-collusion case.
    An investigator told Swiss attorney that Durham’s team wanted to interview Mifsud, or at the very least review a recorded deposition the professor gave in summer 2018 about his role in the drama involving Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election.
    The contact, confirmed by multiple sources and contemporaneous email, sent an unmistakable message: Durham, the U.S. attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI committed abuses during the Russia investigation, is taking a second look at one of the noteworthy figures and the conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.
    The evidence I reviewed suggests Mueller’s handiwork may be exposed for glaring omissions that, when brought to public light, leave key questions unanswered, especially about how the FBI’s unprecedented probe of the Trump campaign started.
    Durham is focused on determining whether any government or private figures who came in contact with the Trump campaign in 2016 “were engaged in improper surveillance,” a U.S. official told me when asked about the Mifsud overture.
    For those who don’t remember, Mifsud is a Maltese-born academic with a VIP Rolodex who frequented Rome and London for years and engaged at the highest levels of Western diplomatic and intelligence circles.
    Mueller’s team alleges that Mifsud is the person who fed a story in spring 2016 to Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos about Moscow possessing purloined emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It was the earliest known contact in the now-debunked collusion narrative and the seminal event that the FBI says prompted it on July 31, 2016, to open its probe into the Trump campaign.
    Mueller concluded that Mifsud was a person with extensive Russia ties who planted the story about the Clinton emails in Moscow and then lied about his dealings with Papadopoulos when interviewed by the FBI in 2017.    Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Mifsud.
    But unlike others accused of misleading Mueller — including Papadopoulos, former Trump adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — Mifsud was not charged with a crime.
    Conservative defenders of President Trump, including former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have raised recent concerns that Mueller’s portrayal of the Mifsud-Papadopoulos contacts doesn’t add up.
    Roh told me the information he is preparing to share with Durham’s team from his client will accentuate those concerns.     Mifsud was a “longtime cooperator of western intel” who was asked specifically by his contacts at Link University in Rome and the London Center of International Law Practice (LCILP) — two academic groups with ties to Western diplomacy and intelligence — to meet with Papadopoulos at a dinner in Rome in mid-March 2016, Roh told me.
    A May 2019 letter from Nunes to U.S. intelligence officials corroborates some of Roh’s account, revealing photos showing that the FBI conducted training at Link in fall 2016 and that Mifsud and other Link officials met regularly with world leaders, including Boris Johnson, elected today as Britain’s new prime minister.
    A few days after the March dinner, Roh added, Mifsud received instructions from Link superiors to “put Papadopoulos in contact with Russians,” including a think tank figure named Ivan Timofeev and a woman he was instructed to identify to Papadopoulos as Vladimir Putin’s niece.
    Mifsud knew the woman was not the Russian president’s niece but, rather, a student who was involved with both the Link and LCILP campuses, and the professor believed there was an effort underway to determine whether Papadopoulos was an “agent provocateur” seeking foreign contacts, Roh said.
    The evidence, he told me, “clearly indicates that this was not only a surveillance op but a more sophisticated intel operation” in which Mifsud became involved.
    Roh has defended Mifsud in the media against various allegations, steadfastly denying Mueller’s claim that his client ever told Papadopoulos about Clinton emails in Russia.    Roh wrote a book last year that first floated the idea of Mifsud as a Western intelligence op.
    If the FBI’s and Mueller’s portrayals are correct, Mifsud’s current story could be simply a Russian disinformation campaign or an exaggeration by a lawyer who seeks media attention and book promotion.    Thus, everything Mifsud says must be given careful scrutiny.
    But a close examination of the Mueller report identifies significant gaps and omissions, and occasional inaccuracies, that pose troubling questions.
    For example, the report never mentions the FBI’s ties to Link.    If the bureau feared Mifsud had unsavory ties to Russia, why would it provide training to his academic group?
    Likewise, the Mueller report portrays Papadopoulos as the instigator who initiated contact with Mifsud and his Russian contacts.    “Campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016,” the report said.
    In fact, the contemporaneous evidence shows Mifsud was directed to seek out Papadopoulos at the March 14, 2016, dinner arranged by the LCILP and Link.    Papadopoulos didn’t know who Mifsud was when he arrived for the dinner.
    A month later, in mid-April 2016, Mifsud initiated introductions to Russian figures, including an email chain with Timofeev.
    “Dear George, Ivan: As promised I had a long conversation today in Moscow with my dear friend Ivan from RIAC,”     Mifsud wrote in an April 16, 2016, email to Papadopoulos that I authenticated with U.S. officials.    “Ivan is ready to meet with you in London (or USA or Moscow).”
    Roh said the idea for introducing the Trump adviser to Russians did not come from Papadopoulos or Russia but from Mifsud’s contacts at Link and LCILP.    Likewise, Papadopoulos told me he didn’t initially ask to be introduced to Russians, though he eventually engaged in Mifsud’s offer.
    To back his story, Roh provided me a page from Mifsud’s 2018 deposition — the one he plans to provide Durham’s team — in which the professor suggested the woman he introduced in April 2016 to Papadopoulos as Putin’s niece was a setup taken from his campus.
    “Are you joking?” the deposition quotes Mifsud when Roh asked about Putin’s niece.    "The question is not Putin’s niece, in any way or form.    She is a student who had just finished the, an MBA program and was like many others, given the possibility of being a stagiaire,” a European term for “trainee” or “apprentice.”
    One other Mifsud portrayal in the Mueller report and in court filings has raised eyebrows in intelligence and congressional circles.    Mueller portrayed the FBI as being victimized during the Russia probe because Papadopoulos originally lied about Mifsud tipping him to the Clinton emails — and that somehow impeded the Mueller team from adequately questioning the professor in February 2017.
    But new documents I obtained show Mifsud was anything but elusive and easily could have been interviewed, before and after Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying.
    Mifsud was in Europe in summer 2018 for his deposition, routinely corresponded and met with European political and diplomatic officials for much of 2017, and even was interviewed by media outlets during the Mueller probe, according to email correspondence I reviewed.    He also exchanged emails directly with FBI agents.
    Multiple American officials confirm — as do contemporaneous emails — that Mifsud was in Washington in December 2016 at the height of the FBI’s Russia probe for a meeting with a State Department-backed group, Global Ties USA.
    Mifsud’s contacts that month with senior executives of the group never were revealed to congressional intelligence investigators or mentioned in the Mueller report.    Nor was Mifsud’s email thanking Global Ties for meeting with him about a “collaboration.”
    An American directly familiar with Mifsud’s contacts with Global Ties said they began in May 2016 and involved arranging diplomatic introductions and meetings around the globe.    No one from U.S. intelligence ever warned the group or suggested that Mifsud had improper ties to Russia.    The FBI never interviewed the executive who met Mifsud in December 2016, the source said.
    ****There is now compelling evidence Mueller omitted or misrepresented important facts about Mifsud and Papadopoulos that could change the public’s understanding of events.    And those aren’t the only omissions and factual errors to emerge.****
    Mueller never disclosed in his report that Manafort business partner Konstantin Kilimnik, identified in the final report as having ties to Russian intelligence, actually was a regular informer for the State Department from 2012-2017.    The report also incorrectly identifies an American citizen from the former Soviet republic of Georgia as a Russian.
    Such omissions and mistakes add to the mistrust of the final product.    And as the Durham team’s overture to Roh makes clear, Mueller’s testimony before Congress may not be the final verdict for his findings.
    There are too many questions still unanswered, starting with an enigmatic professor named Mifsud.

    The following found at
7/26/2019 Robert Mueller refuses to say why Clinton 'dirt' tipster Joseph Mifsud wasn’t charged for lying by Daniel Chaitin & Jerry Dunleavy, Wahington Examiner.
    Robert Mueller refused to answer questions during his testimony Wednesday about why he never filed charges against Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud, a mysterious figure integral to the initiation of the Trump-Russia investigation in 2016.
    Over the course of two hearings Wednesday, Mueller fended off multiple lines of inquiry from Republican lawmakers who seized on how the special counsel's own report stated Mifsud lied to investigators, demanding answers for why Mifsud escaped indictment while other individuals were charged for making false statements.
    Dedicating the balance of his five minutes of questions during the House Judiciary Committee hearing in the morning, Rep. Jim Jordan recited Mueller's report, which listed three times Mifsud misled the FBI in an interview in February 2017 (before Mueller was appointed special counsel), and asked him point blank why he did not charge Mifsud with a crime.
    "I can't get into internal deliberations with regard to who or who would not be charged," Mueller told the Ohio congressman.
    Jordan attempted a different avenue, noting how the FBI "did something they probably haven’t done before, they spied on two American citizens associated with a presidential campaign."    He was referring to the surveillance of Trump campaign advisers Carter Page, through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and George Papadopoulos, using human sources.
    This took Jordan to Mifsud.    The congressman asked Mueller who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had damaging information about Hillary Clinton, which kicked off a series of events that effectively sparked the counterintelligence investigation into Trump's campaign in July 2016.    After Mueller declined to answer because he "can’t get into the evidentiary filings," Jordan shot back saying he could because it appeared in his report.
    "He’s the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don’t charge him with a crime," Jordan said, before listing off all the Trump associates Mueller's team did charge for false statements, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, lawyer Michael Cohen, and ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn.
    "But the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it all for three years we’ve lived this now, he lies and you guys don’t charge him," Jordan said, adding, "And I’m curious as to why."

    Mueller remained unmoved.    "Well, I can’t get into it, and it’s obvious I think that we can’t get into charging decisions," he said.

7/26/2019 DOJ investigation of Russia probe focusing on ‘smoking gun’ tapes of Papadopoulous by OAN Newsroom
    Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe is reportedly honing in on secret recordings of former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulous
    A pair of Department of Justice reportedly said the recordings may exonerate Papadopoulos.    Attorney General Barr and U.S. attorney John Durham are looking at why the evidence was not included in surveillance warrant applications.
    One source said the tapes are a “smoking gun,” while another alleges the recordings have Papadopoulos saying he did not have any contacts with Russia to obtain “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.    The former campaign aide has repeatedly stated he was not working with the Russians.
Former Donald Trump presidential campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos leaves federal court after he was
sentenced to fourteen days in prison, Friday, Sept. 7, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
    “All my work was actually dedicated to undermining Russian influence and interests throughout the world yet I find myself somehow as Patient Zero of a Russian conspiracy, and that was the moment when I realized how dominant and how manipulative PSYOPs ( psychological operation) are and unfortunately the media, in many ways, was complicit in this media disinformation campaign and that’s a travesty,” Papadopoulos stated.
    Barr and Durham are reportedly also trying to figure out the actual start date of the Russia probe after many reported discrepancies over the years.

7/26/2019 Speaker Pelosi: I’m not running out the clock on impeachment by OAN Newsroom
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be more open to an impeachment inquiry, following Robert Mueller’s” testimony on Capitol Hill.
    On Friday, reporters grilled Pelosi on whether she is running out the clock on impeachment ahead of the six-week August recess after her party failed to obtain a game-changing soundbite from the former special counsel.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill
in Washington, Friday, July 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
    Pelosi denied the speculation and claimed she knows what she is doing handling the matter:
    “No, I’m not trying to run out the clock.    Let’s get sophisticated about this.    Okay?    We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed, not one day sooner.    And everybody has the liberty and the luxury to espouse their own position and to criticize me for trying to go down the path in the most determined, positive way.    Again, their advocacy for impeachment only gives me leverage.    I have no complaint with what they are doing.”
    Democrats have faced mounting criticism from within the party due to Pelosi’s slow yet measured approach to move on impeachment.
[Pelosi seems to be the only one in Congress on the Democrat side that understands without proof of a crime you cannot impeach president Trump and even if they make a crime which is I assume what they will have to do, they still would not be able to impeach Trump because they could possibly not have enough votes in Congress, and if they did it would have to go to the Senate where they do not have enough votes to pass that, and even if it did it would have to go through another committee which would be doubtful also, as they are waisting their time and taxpayers dollars.].

7/26/2019 House Democrats vote to subpoena senior White House officials by OAN Newsroom
    House Democrats have authorized subpoenas for multiple senior White House officials.    On Thursday, the House Oversight Committee voted along party lines to allow chairman Elijah Cummings to issue subpoenas into official White House records.
    Specifically, Democrats want to probe whether Trump administration officials used their personal emails and text messages to handle classified information.    However, Republicans are blasting the decision by saying Democrats are unfairly targeting the president’s administration.
    “The issuance of this subpoena is purely for politics…I can’t think of a single reason for this request, this broad aside from wanting to pursue the emails of the president’s daughter and son-in-law,” stated Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).    “This subpoena is completely inappropriate and, frankly, an abuse of the committee’s authority.”
    The investigation into those documents was originally opened in 2017, and was accelerated as soon as Democrats took control of the House last year. This comes just before lawmakers go on August recess.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, listens as former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies to the House Judiciary Committee about his investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 election, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
[It is obvious that the Aerticle 1 House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings are desparate by issuing subpoenas for White House records and I expect the Article 2 will not provide them with what they request to force them to go to the court system Article 3 which will drag that on into past the 2020 elections and things will change to better or worse.].
    Despite Jordan's continued efforts to pry information from Mueller, he would not budge when asked if his team ever interviewed Mifsud and whether Mifsud worked for Western intelligence or Russian intelligence.
    Mueller's 448-page report, released in April with redactions, stated Mifsud traveled to Moscow in April 2016, after which he met Papadopoulos in London.    Mueller's report said that during this meeting, Mifsud informed Papadopoulos that he learned that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails."    Papadopoulos later repeated this claim to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who informed the U.S. government and prompted the original counterintelligence investigation into Trump's campaign in July 2016, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.
    Mifsud has denied that he told Papadopoulos the Russians had Clinton's emails, and his laywer Stephan Roh claims his client has cooperated with Western intelligence, not Russian intelligence, aligning with what GOP investigators, such as Rep. Devin Nunes, have said.
    Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, attempted a last-ditch effort to get Mueller to open up about Mifsud, with similar results.
    "Mr. Mueller I wanted to go back to, we started off with Joseph Misfud who was at the center of your investigation, he appears in your report a dozen times or more," Nunes said in the second hearing of the day.    "He really is the epicenter, he’s at the origin of this, he’s the man who supposedly knows about Clinton’s emails.    You've see on the screen, the Democrats in the committee have put up all the prosecutions that you made against Trump campaign officials and others.    But I’m struggling to understand why you didn’t indict Joseph Mifsud, who seems to be in the middle of all of this."
    Mueller replied, "I think you understand, you cannot get into classified or law enforcement information without a rationale for doing it, and I have said all I am going to be able to say with regard to Mr. Mifsud."
    A visibly frustrated Nunes took a deep breath and moved on.
    Although Mueller refused to share details about the elusive Mifsud on Wednesday, who Democratic National Committee lawyers said last year may even be dead, Republicans are now pinning their hopes on another figure: U.S. Attorney John Durham.
    Durham, who hails from Connecticut, has been tasked by Attorney General William Barr to review the origins of the Russia investigation.    A report published by The Hill on the eve of Mueller's testimony said Durham's investigators have reached out to Mifsud's attorney Roh to set up an interview with Mifsud.
    At the tale end of his line of questioning of Mueller, Jordan said it is "good news" that Barr and Durham are "going to find out why we went through this three-year saga and get to the bottom of it."

7/29/2019 Trump’s top intel aide Dan Coats will step down by John Fritze, David Jackson and Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY
    WASHINGTON – Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats is stepping down soon after a tenure that featured clashes with President Donald Trump over Russia, North Korea, and other national security issues.
    Trump confirmed the departure Sunday.    The president also announced he will replace Coats with Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas. Trump said Coats will leave office on Aug. 15.     “I would like to thank Dan for his great service to our Country,” Trump said.     As for his new nominee to the post, Trump noted on Twitter that Ratcliffe is a former U.S. attorney who “will lead and inspire greatness for the Country he loves.”     The Senate must still confirm Ratcliffe as the new director of national intelligence.     Coats has clashed with Trump, and the former Indiana senator has widely been considered among the most vulnerable members of the president’s administration – even as both have downplayed talk of tension.     At a time when Trump was repeatedly describing the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border as a national security crisis, Coats declined to include immigration as a major threat facing the country when he spoke to lawmakers in January.    Coats also appeared to break with the White House on North Korea, asserting that Pyongyang was unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons program.     Coats, a Republican who served in the Senate in the 1990s and again in 2010, was appointed in 2017, to serve as the director of national intelligence, succeeding James Clapper.
[This is previous information of how Coats took this position:
    So if you go back and read my FISA - Under Surveillance information for 2018 you will find the following:

Michael S. Rogers.
    11/19/2016 that Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James R. Clapper, Jr. had sometime earlier in the year recommended to President Obama that Rogers be terminated as director of the National Security Agency.    Carter reportedly recommended he be terminated due to poor performance, whereas Clapper considered it wise that the position be held by a civilian.    Both Clapper and Carter had put Rogers on notice for poor performance in internal security and leadership style.    Others have contended that the real reason Clapper and Carter wanted Rogers fired is because he was a whistleblower, having initiated an Inspector General (IG) investigation and subsequent report to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court about a sustained pattern during the Obama Administration of illegally performed searches on U.S. Persons by improperly using FISA Section 702 authorities.    This belief is buttressed by the IG report and by the April 26, 2017 U.S. FISA Court "Memorandum Opinion and Order."    The declassified version of that document states "The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review and report and NSA Office of Compliance for Operations (OCO) verification activities indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of Internet 'upstream' collection, even though NSA's Section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries.    To understand why such queries were prohibited, and why this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern, some historical background is necessary."    The report goes on to state "At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government's failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an institutional 'lack of candor' on NSA's part and emphasized that 'this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue'" (page 19).    As a result of these transgressions, there were "changes in the scope of NSA collection under Section 702, as reflected in the March 30, 2017 Amendments" (page 14).    These changes were designed to prevent recurrence of the illegal collection discussed in the Court filing.    Other sources contend that Admiral Rogers' termination was delayed due to stalled changes to the bureaucratic structure of the intelligence community.    Before the recommendation of firing was made, Rogers met with then President-elect Donald Trump without notifying his superiors.    Some sources contend that the reason he did not notify Mr. Clapper was the fact he was alerting President Elect Trump about Mr. Clapper's allegedly illegal actions with respect to FISA Section 702.    Trump was reportedly considering replacing Clapper with Rogers as DNI, however that position went to former Senator Dan Coats, with Rogers remaining NSA director.    So two of the swamp were busted.
    In January 2018, Rogers announced he would be retiring from the NSA in the spring.    Rogers still has his US Gov't Security Clearance and as of December 9, 2018 works for Israel's Team8 helping them with new venture (Globe, Israel's Business Arena.
Daniel Ray Coats, an American politician and former diplomat serving as the current Director of National Intelligence since 2017 under the Trump Administration.    A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a United States Senator from Indiana from 1989 to 1999 and again from 2011 to 2017.
    On July 16, 2018, Coats released a statement affirming the consensus of the United States Intelligence Community (IC) that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a day after the 2018 Russia–United States summit where President Trump recanted his endorsement of the IC's assessment.
    On September 6, 2018 Director Coats denied that he had authored the anonymous New York Times Op/Ed piece from a Senior Trump Administration official that berated the President.    The day before, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell had speculated that Coats was the author of the controversial anonymous piece.    Can Trump trust anyone?]
    On 2/18/2019 DNI Dan Coats’ job may be in danger, according to Trump ally by OAN Newsroom
    One of President Trump’s closest allies is suggesting the president may be considering firing Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.
    In an interview Monday, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy said he spent the weekend with the president at Mar-a-Lago and spoke with a number of White House aides on several topics.
    Ruddy said sources told him how disappointed the president was about Coats’ threat assessment of North Korea during a hearing with lawmakers last month.    He said it appears Coats is trying to make his own policy with his intelligence instead of following the president’s diplomacy.
Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee
on Capitol Hill in Washington Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2019. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
    Ruddy then suggested North Korea may be looking for new leadership ahead of his next summit with Kim Jong Un.
    “He doesn’t tell me whose he’s going to dismiss or not,” stated Ruddy.    “I have talked to various people, not him, that are very close in the White House with the security positions the president is taking, and I think generally there is a concern that on the eve of the North Korea, to have your director of National Intelligence in open hearings under-cutting your position was very bad form.”
    Coats’ report said that North Korea was not giving up their ballistic missile program or its ambitions for a nuclear weapon.
    President Trump has continued to say Pyongyang has ceased its provocative actions, and is complying with the agreement made in Pyongyang last year.
[Maybe we need to put a wire on Coats to see who comes up out of the mire?
    On 5/14/2019 Meanwhile, the attorney general has continued to keep his promise to investigate the investigators.    According to reports, Barr has begun a multi-agency investigation into possible surveillance on the Trump campaign.    He is reportedly working closely with CIA Director Gina Haspel, National Intelligence Director Daniel Coats, and FBI Director Christopher Wray to uncover the origins of the Mueller probe.
    This comes after the Trump Justice Department appointed a career Department of Justice lawyer — John Durham — to assist Barr into looking into those allegations.    Durham has reportedly been on the case for months now.].

7/29/2019 Rep. John Ratcliffe named DNI, replacing Dan Coats who will step down on August 15th by OAN Newsroom
    There’s another shake-up in the Trump administration, with the latest move likely having a trickle-effect throughout the rest of the government.
    On Sunday, President Trump announced Republican Representative John Ratcliffe will take over as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Ratcliffe has long been considered to be a Trump ally, but apparently made an impression during his interrogation of Robert Mueller. He had this to say during the hearing:
    Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?    …You can’t find it because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist.”
Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas., asks questions to former special counsel Robert Mueller, as he testifies
before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference,
on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
    The Texas congressman was already a rising star in the Republican Party after winning his election with more than 70-percent of the vote in the 2018 midterms.    Ratcliffe was facing off against other high profile officials for the job, including chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford.    He also challenged Fred Fleitz, the former Chief of Staff for National Security Adviser John Bolton.
    Ratcliffe will now be elevated to a post where the current official, Dan Coats, has often been at odds with the president and his administration.    Perhaps the most memorable event during his tenure was his response after learning President Trump invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to the White House.    When asked about the invitation he laughed and acted as if it were a joke.    Coats later said he meant no disrespect to the White House and admitted the exchange was somewhat awkward.
    Nonetheless, the incident was used to highlight a lack of coordination between the White House and the intelligence community with Coats often being the bearer of bad news.    President Trump was vocal about his disagreements with Coats, reportedly telling him behind the scenes to stay quiet about threats of Russian meddling and even calling him out publicly in certain settings.
    The latest change at the DNI could be a sign that the president is looking to downsize the department altogether in order to concentrate information sharing efforts.    Coats is expected to leave the department on Thursday, August 15th with the president saying an active director will be named in the near future.

7/29/2019 Papadopoulos heads to Greece to return $10K used in alleged set-up by OAN Newsroom
    Former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos is going to Greece to return $10,000 given to him for reasons he believes constitute as entrapment.    Papadopoulos claims the money is marked bills, and was given to him in a plot by the Obama-era FBI and CIA to charge him with a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.    The money aroused suspicion with Papadopoulos, prompting him to turn it into his lawyer where it has been stored in a safe.
    “They were looking to make a conspiracy case, using me with this fake information to then hurt Trump…what they were trying to do is fabricate a conspiracy among the Trump campaign and President Trump using their own people,” he explained.
    Papadopoulos specifically requested the Department of Justice look at the dollar bills given to him due to the department’s probe into the origins of the Russia probe, with Papadopoulos being used as a reason to start an investigation.    The money is believed to be supplemental evidence as the Justice Department is getting closer to acquiring transcripts of recorded conversations between Papadopoulos and an alleged informant of the FBI — Stefan Halper.
George Papadopoulos, a former member of the foreign policy panel to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, poses
for a photo before a TV interview in New York, New York, U.S., March 26, 2019. REUTERS/Carlo Allegr
    All my work was actually dedicated to undermining Russian influence and interests throughout the world yet I find myself somehow as Patient Zero of a Russian conspiracy, and that was the moment when I realized how dominant and how manipulative PSYOPs (psychological operations) are,” said the former Trump campaign aide.
    Papadopoulos was approached by a man named Joseph Mifsud in 2016, who told him about Russian knowledge of dirt on Clinton.    Papadopoulos then urged a Department of Justice investigation into the Obama-era FBI’s role in starting the Russia probe and fueling the “collusion hoax.”

7/29/2019 Rep. Nadler refuses to provide impeachment timetable by OAN Newsroom
    House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said the goal of impeaching President Trump is still on the table.    In a recent interview, Nadler said his committee has several drafts of an impeachment resolution.
    “We are conducting investigations to determine whether we should report those impeachment resolutions to the House or direct our own and report those to the House,” he stated.    “We’re considering those resolutions, we’ll make a determination after we get more evidence as to the president’s crimes that we had from the Mueller report and also from other things.”
    However, the New York Democrat declined to provide a timetable for an official impeachment inquiry and didn’t say if his panel would pursue such a path.
    Rep. Nadler “Today, @HouseJudiciary is filing a petition for 6e grand jury materials where we made clear to the court that we are considering impeachment, along with other options, under our Article I powers.    Congress must hold this President accountable. [ …]”
    Nadler reiterated that he believes President Trump must be impeached regardless of the mounting criticism of such efforts.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is pictured. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

7/29/2019 Former President Obama supports anti-Trump op-ed, admin. spying on Trump campaign by OAN Newsroom
    Former President Obama and his administration have continued seemingly hypocritical attacks on President Trump despite new scrutiny over his illegal oversight of the Trump campaign.
    In an interview Sunday, RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called on attorney general William Barr to “get to the bottom” of the Obama administration’s spying on then-candidate Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.    In discussing Barr’s investigation, she pointed to the Democrat-funded Steele dossier and hypocrisy within the left for failing to address spying on the Trump campaign.
    “President Obama’s administration — under his FBI — they deployed spies to the Trump campaign, they put FISA warrants on campaign operatives — I mean, this is horrific.    Think if President Trump did this right now to any Democrat candidate through his administration?    We need to find why they did that, how they would have the authority to spy on his campaign, and why didn’t they just go to candidate Trump and say we’re afraid that foreign actors are trying to infiltrate your campaign, can you work with us to make sure that doesn’t happen?” — Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman – RNC
Former Democrat President Barack Obama is pictured. (AP Photo)
    Obama recently seemed to up the ante on his criticism of the president as he took to Twitter to promote an anti-Trump op-ed by the Washington Post over the weekend.    In the piece, 149 of Obama’s former White House aides accused President Trump of “poisoning American democracy.”    It also took aim at the president’s supporters by calling them “racist, xenophobic and homophobic.”
    The authors also cite “relentless attacks” on the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, but their attacks on President Trump seem to rebuke Obama’s call for caution on labeling people.
    The Obama-endorsed op-ed ends by telling readers to “expect more.”    In the meantime, it remains unclear whether or not an investigation will be launched.
[Your time is coming Obama since you are no longer a president you can be indicted for criminal activity in the office and I hope it brings to life all the crimes committed by you using the Intelligence systems against Americans and individuals in foreign countries and the race card is not going to save you.].

    Found at
7/31/2019 Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims 'entirely divorced from the facts' by Gregg ReBy, Fox News
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defends himself from criticism for blocking election security bills
Speaking on the Senate floor, Mitch McConnell vows not to be intimidated by liars and bullies.
    A federal judge in frank terms Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against key members of the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over hacked DNC documents, saying they "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information.
    The ruling came as Democrats increasingly have sought to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia, in spite of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings that the campaign in fact refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.
    President Trump, in a tweet late Tuesday, noted that the judge in the case, John Koeltl, was appointed by Bill Clinton.    The president called Koeltl's decision "really big 'stuff'" and "yet another total & complete vindication and exoneration."
    The DNC had asserted in court filings that the Trump team's meetings "with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that the Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC's information" were "circumstantial evidence" that they were conspiring with the Russians to "steal and disseminate the DNC's materials."

    The suit did not allege that the stolen materials were false or defamatory but rather sought to hold the Trump team and other defendants liable for the theft of the DNC's information under various Virginia and federal statutes, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and laws protecting trade secrets.
    However, Judge Koeltl, sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced" from the factual record in the case.
    The DNC first filed its suit in April 2018, and the defendants responded that the First Amendment legally protected the dissemination of stolen materials.
    "In short, the DNC raises a number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected to the Russian Federation, but at no point does the DNC allege any facts ... to show that any of the defendants -- other than the Russian Federation -- participated in the theft of the DNC's information," Koeltl said.
    "Nor does the DNC allege that the defendants ever agreed to help the Russian Federation steal the DNC's documents," he added.
    The DNC claimed the defendants illegally compromised their trade secrets contained in some of the stolen documents -- including donor lists and strategies.    But, the judge said, any such claim to trade secrecy was lost when the documents became public in the first place, and in any event, the newsworthiness of the matter trumped the trade secrecy issue.

    "If Wikileaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC's political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them 'secret' and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet," the judge wrote.    That, he said, would elevate a privacy interest impermissibly over the First Amendment rights of people and media outlets to disseminate matters of "the highest public concern."
    Koeltl went on to describe multiple hacking efforts directed by Russians at the DNC, in which Russians "hacked into the DNC's computers, penetrated its phone systems, and stole tens of thousands of documents."
Gregg Jarrett breaks down the Russia narratives debunked by the Mueller testimony
Author of 'The Russia Hoax' Gregg Jarrett says the president's lawyers flagged Mueller's lack of understanding of the Russia report months ago.
    But, even if the Russians had provided the hacked documents to the Trump team directly, the judge wrote, it would not be criminal for the campaign to then publish those documents, as long as they did not contribute to the hacking itself.    Similarly, the judge said, it is not criminal to merely solicit or "welcome" stolen documents.
    Koeltl cited the infamous Pentagon Papers case in which the Supreme Court held that The New York Times and The Washington Post were protected by the First Amendment when they published articles concerning the government's public justification for the Vietnam War.
    "At first glance, this opinion raises serious concerns about our protections from foreign election interference and the theft of private property to advance the interests of our enemies," DNC spokesperson Adrienne Watson said.
    The suit also named the Russian government, but Koeltl noted that federal law prohibited suits against foreign governments except in highly specific circumstances.    Koeltl nevertheless acknowledged that the Russian government "undoubtedly" was involved in the hacking.
    Koeltl denied the Trump team's motion for sanctions but dismissed the suit with prejudice -- meaning it had a substantive legal defect and could not be refiled. An appeal remained possible.

    In addition to the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia, the DNC's suit named Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, George Papadopoulos, Richard Gates (whose connections with Russia were especially "threadbare," the judge wrote), Roger Stone, Joseph Mifsud and Julian Assange.
    The DNC in its complaint mentioned, among other contacts, Papadopoulos' meeting with Mifsud in Italy in March 2016, as well as the claim Mifsud told Papadopoulos on April 26, 2016, that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.
    The FBI probe into the Trump team came after the bureau learned Papadopoulos then allegedly told an Australian diplomat about his contacts with Russians.
    Mifsud had ties to both western and Russian intelligence, and Papadopoulos relayed to his superiors on the Trump campaign that there were "interesting messages coming in from Moscow."    There has been no evidence Papadopoulos told the Trump team specifically about the stolen emails.
    The DNC also focused on statements from Stone that may have suggested he had advance warning of pending email hacks or dissemination, as well as Trump Jr.'s statement that he would "love" to receive potentially damaging information on Clinton.
    Several other communications from Trump officials to Russians or people tied to Russia were mentioned throughout the DNC's complaint.
    None of these alleged episodes, the judge ruled, established a criminal conspiracy.
    Republicans, meanwhile, have focused increasingly on the DNC's own apparent role in the origins of the FBI's probe into the Trump campaign, which began in the summer of 2016 -- after British ex-spy Christopher Steele, a longtime FBI informant funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, began work on his now-discredited dossier.
    The dossier was used in secret surveillance warrants to monitor members of the Trump team, and later fueled media reports that kept the investigation going, despite many apparent problems with its reliability.    Multiple DOJ reviews into the dossier's use, and related matters, were ongoing.
    The chances of the FBI securing a secret 2016 surveillance warrant for a Trump campaign aide were “50/50” without the controversial anti-Trump “dossier,” according to testimony in recently confirmed congressional transcripts from senior FBI lawyer Sally Moyer to House investigators.
    Image seen above at /2018/06/sally-moyer-fbi-agent-who-was-critical-of-trump-in-text-messages-with-fellow-fbi-employee-seen-for-first-time-after-her-identity-was-revealed-in-justice-dept-report/ seen at the end of this article.
    And, Papadopoulos on Sunday told Fox News he was heading back to Greece to retrieve $10,000 that he suspected was dropped in his lap during the campaign as part of an entrapment scheme by the CIA or FBI.    Federal investigators want to see the marked bills, which he said were stored in a safe.
    Papadopoulos said on "Sunday Morning Futures" he was "very happy" to see House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., grill Mueller about the summer 2017 payment during last week's hearings -- even though Mueller maintained, without explanation, that the matter was outside the scope of his investigation.
    "I was very happy to see that Devin Nunes brought that up," Papadopoulos said.    "A man named Charles Tawil gave me this money [in Israel] under very suspicious circumstances.    A simple Google search about this individual will reveal he was a CIA or State Department asset in South Africa during the '90s and 2000s.    I think around the time when Bob Mueller was the director of the FBI."
    Fox News' Bill Mears and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

6/22/2019 Sally Moyer, FBI Agent Who Was Critical of Trump in Text Messages With Fellow FBI Employee, Seen for First Time After her Identity Was Revealed in Justice Dept. Report
    The FBI agent on the Hillary Clinton email investigation who traded anti-Trump texts with her FBI colleague lover is pictured here for the first time since her name was revealed by congress.
    Sally Moyer, 44, who texted ‘f**k Trump,’ called President Trump’s voters ‘retarded’ and vowed to quit ‘on the spot’ if he won the election, was seen leaving her home early Friday morning wearing a floral top and dark pants.
    She shook her head and declined to discuss the controversy with a reporter, and ducked quickly into her nearby car in the rain without an umbrella before driving off.
    Moyer’s texts and instant messages from her FBI devices were included in a 568-page inspector general report released last Friday, which said those messages and others ‘raised concerns about potential bias in the Clinton investigation.’
    Moyer was identified only as ‘Agent 5’ in the report, but her name was released by Rep. Mark Meadows during a congressional hearing this week.
    Moyer, an attorney and registered Democrat appears to have worked at the FBI since at least September of 2006. She previously worked for law firm Crowell & Moring.    Moyer graduated from Allegheny College in 1996 with a degree in political science.
    At the time of the texts, Moyer was on the ‘filter team’ for the Clinton probe – a small team of government officials that determines whether information obtained by the FBI is considered ‘privileged’ or if it can be used in the investigation.
    Moyer exchanged most of the messages with another FBI agent who worked on the Clinton investigation, identified as ‘Agent 1’ in the report.
    Moyer and Agent 1 were in a romantic relationship at the time, and the two have since married, according the report.    Agent 1’s name is being withheld.
    The inspector general report said it found no ‘documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions.’
    However, the report said the messages ‘cast a cloud over the FBI [Clinton] investigation and sowed doubt the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the [Clinton] investigation.’
    ‘Moreover, the damage caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral fact-finding and political independence,’ said the report.
    In the conversations, Moyer and Agent 1 discuss their support for Clinton and opposition to Trump as well as their frustration with the probe into whether Clinton improperly stored classified information on her private email server.
    Agent 1 referred to the investigation as a ‘waste of resources and time and focus’ shortly after he was assigned to the case.
    ‘Its just so obvious how pointless this exercise is.    And everyone is so into it,’ Agent 1 texted Moyer on Oct. 26, 2015.
    Many of the texts directly referenced Trump and the election.

    The following was found at and
7/30/2019 John Solomon: Christopher Wray’s FBI is Fighting in Court to Cover For Team Comey’s Russia Hoax by Cristina Laila, The Gateway Pundit
    Christopher Wray Wray needs to go.
    Christopher Wray’s FBI is fighting like hell in court to stop the public release of a number of documents the State Department sent to FBI agents from dossier ... author Christopher Steele.
    The FBI argued in court that giving up the small number of documents will give up sources and methods to our enemies and terrorists.
    “We know that terrorist organizations and other hostile or foreign intelligence groups have the capacity and ability to gather information from myriad sources, analyze it and deduce means and methods from disparate details to defeat the U.S. government’s collection efforts,” an FBI official swore in an affidavit supporting the request to keep the documents secret.
    The FBI official argued against the conservative watchdog group Citizens United’s request to release the Kavalec memos and asserted, the FBI can’t afford to “jeopardize the fragile relationships that exist between the United States and certain foreign governments.”
    In May, award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon obtained memos from a high-ranking government official who met with former British spy Christopher Steele in October of 2016, who determined that Steele’s ‘dirt’ on Trump was inaccurate and likely leaked to the media.
    State Department official Kathleen Kavalec flagged this in memos and handwritten notes just 10 days before the first FISA warrant on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was granted.
    Multiple sources confirmed to John Solomon that Kavalec’s red flag on Steele was immediately sent to a senior FBI official.
    The email from State Department official Kathleen Kavalec was sent to Special Agent Stephen Laycock (his name was initially redacted), then the FBI’s section chief for Eurasian counterintelligence, 8 days before the first FISA warrant was granted on Carter Page.
    In November of 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray named Stephen Laycock Assistant Director for the Directorate of Intelligence.
    And now Wray’s FBI is fighting to keep these documents under wraps.
    One of the documents Kavalec downloaded is about the conspiracy theory spread by the liberal media (and Hillary Clinton) that pings between Trump Tower server and Alfa Bank in Russia might be secret communications between Trump and Putin — of course this has been thoroughly debunked and even Mueller poured cold water on this story.
    This story is not classified and has been discussed in a hearing by Mueller so why is the FBI hiding the documents?
    Via John Solomon of The Hill:
    And if that wasn’t enough, the bureau actually claimed that “FBI special agents have privacy interests from unnecessary, unofficial questioning as to the conduct of investigations and other FBI business.”
    In other words, agents don’t want to have to answer to the public, which pays their salary, when questions arise about the investigative work, as has happened in the Russia case.
    The FBI’s July 10 court filing speaks volumes about Director Christopher Wray’s efforts to thwart the public understanding of what really happened in the FBI’s now-debunked Russia collusion probe.
    On its face, the FBI’s behavior in the Citizens United case isn’t about protecting national security secrets.    It’s about protecting the bureau’s reputation from revelations its agents knew derogatory information about Steele and his work before they used his dossier to support a surveillance warrant targeting the Trump campaign and failed to disclose that information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
[So as seen above is that group who will be under investigation for some time until they get the real story out to the public but did you notice who was in the image below, who mysteriously was picked to come in to take over..
    On June 7, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Wray to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, replacing James Comey, who was dismissed by Trump on May 9, 2017, as Trump was still fighting the corruption that was mounting to attack him.
1/16/2019 Former Top FBI Lawyer James Baker Investigated for Leaking to Media by Petr Svab, The Epoch Times.
    Cracking down on leakers has been one of the priorities of President Trump.
    In December 2017, Baker was being “reassigned” by incoming FBI Director Christopher Wray, The Washington Post reported, using unnamed sources.    “Baker had been caught up in a strange interagency dispute that led to a leak probe and attracted the attention of senior lawmakers, but people familiar with the matter said the probe had recently ended with a decision not to charge anyone,” the paper wrote.
    The question now is, do the current FISC judges and Justice Department supervisors — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray among them — care the same about the integrity of the FISA process?
    If they do, the first step (as 2002 showed us) is to acknowledge the wrongdoing and put corrective action into place.
    Silence and hiding behind classified information don’t serve the American interest, just the interests of an intelligence bureaucracy that wrongly allowed itself to be used for a political dirty trick.
5/14/2019 President Trump speaks out against Mueller probe as Barr assigns investigator by OAN Newsroom
    Meanwhile, the attorney general has continued to keep his promise to investigate the investigators.    According to reports, Barr has begun a multi-agency investigation into possible surveillance on the Trump campaign.    He is reportedly working closely with CIA Director Gina Haspel, National Intelligence Director Daniel Coats, and FBI Director Christopher Wray to uncover the origins of the Mueller probe.
    This comes after the Trump Justice Department appointed a career Department of Justice lawyer — John Durham — to assist Barr into looking into those allegations.    Durham has reportedly been on the case for months now.
5/15/2019 Durham to review Russia probe by Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
    Last week, FBI Director Christopher Wray said he was unaware of any evidence indicating the FBI abused its authority, distancing himself from the attorney general.    “That’s not the term I would use,” Wray told the same Senate panel, referring to the “spying” reference.
    I was suspicious of Wray when he first came into the position as Rosestein and him were doing their thing and I felt they were picked to come in and cover up anything that the DOJ, FBI and CIA was doing, and as you can see we never know if Wray and even Coats were doing that.    But their actions now will tells us if so if Attorney General Barr and Durham cannot access the materials and persons they need to investigate the investigators.
    So Wray stop stonewalling to help cover up Democrats crimes or you will become part of that Comey corruption and release the unclassified documents or else.]

    The following found at
7/31/2019 Judicial Watch: New Docs Show FBI Agents Went To Comey’s Home to Retrieve Memos by Judicial Watch
Documents also show Comey’s claim that two memos he wrote documenting conversations with President Trump were ‘missing’
    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received six pages of records from the FBI showing that in June, 2017, a month after FBI Director James Comey was fired by President Donald Trump, FBI agents visited his home and collected “as evidence” four memos that allegedly detail conversations he had with President Trump.    One of his memos was written on June 6, a month after he was fired.
    Comey was fired by Trump on May 9, 2017. The memos obtained by Judicial Watch were collected from Comey by the FBI on June 7, a month later, and are dated February 14, 2017; March 30, 2017; April 11, 2017; and one is dated “last night at 6:30 pm.”
    The FBI documents also revealed that Comey recalled writing two other memos after conversations with Trump that he claimed were “missing.”    The FBI visit and interview took place on June 7, the day before Comey admitted leaking the memos in testimony to Congress.
    The new FBI documents include a June 9, 2017, FBI Collected Item Log which states:
    On June 7, 2017, at approximately 10:15 A.M., Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agents (SA) [redacted] and [redacted] collected memorandums (memos) as evidence from James Comey at his residence at [redacted]. The memos collected described as follows:     Judicial Watch also received a newly declassified FBI document dated June 16, 2017, in which FBI agents describe Comey telling them that he had written two additional Trump meeting memos that he could no longer find:
    Former FBI Director James Comey was interviewed at his residence at [redacted].    This interview was scheduled in advance, for the purpose of providing certain classified memoranda (memos) to Comey for review.    After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, Comey provided the following information:
    After reviewing the memos, Comey spontaneously stated, to the best of his recollection, two were missing:
    In the first occurrence, Comey said at an unknown date and time, between January 7, 2017, which Comey believed was the date of his briefing at Trump Tower, and Trump’s inauguration on January 20th, 2017, Comey received a phone call from President Elect Donald J. Trump.    The originating telephone number may have had a New York area code.    Following the telephone conversation, Comey drafted and e-mailed a memo to James Rybicki and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
    In the second instance, Comey was on his way to a FBI leadership conference in Leesburg, Virginia (March 9, 2017) when he was diverted to Liberty Crossing to respond to a request from Trump to contact him. Comey contacted Trump from Liberty Crossing on a Top Secret telephone line.    The conversation was “all business” and related to [redacted].    Comey is less sure he drafted a memo for his conversation but if he did, he may have sent it on the FBI’s Top Secret network.
    Judicial Watch obtained the records in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department that sought all records of communications relating to Comey’s providing memoranda of his conversations with President Trump to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00932)).
    “These extraordinary FBI docs further confirm that James Comey should never have had FBI files on President Trump at his home and that the FBI failed to secure and protect these private and classified files,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.    “Mr. Comey’s illegal leaking these FBI files as part of his vendetta against President Trump (directly resulting in the corrupt appointment of Robert Mueller) ought to be the subject of a criminal investigation.”
    On June 8, 2017, Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he leaked memos of his conversations with President Trump “because (he) thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”    Columbia University Law professor Daniel Richman, a friend of Comey’s, reportedly “turned over copies of the former FBI director’s explosive memos … to the FBI, sidestepping a request by congressional committees to deliver the materials to Capitol Hill.”
    The Justice Department previously argued to the court in a separate case that Comey’s leak of the memo regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was unauthorized and compared it to WikiLeaks.    Comey admitted to Congress regarding the “Flynn” memo, “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times] … I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”    The New York Times published a report about the memo on May 16, 2017.    Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the following day.
    The Hill noted in a July 9, 2017 report that, “More than half of the memos former FBI Director James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.”
    In a memo documenting his March 30, 2017, phone conversation with Trump on about how to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation from the White House, Comey wrote, “I called the acting attorney general and relayed the substance of the above and said I was telling him so he could decide what guidance to give me, if any.”
    Tom Fitton: The President is the Victim of Comey's Crimes August 01, 2019 |Judicial Watch
    July 31, 2019- Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton appeared on “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel to discuss Comey’s memoes and the FBI handling of the investigat...

    Following found at
8/1/2019 Here’s Why The DOJ Declined To Charge James Comey For Leaking Classified Information by Elizabeth Vaughn, Redstate.
On Oct. 28, 2013, President Barack Obama and James Comey participate in the installation ceremony for
Mr. Comey as FBI director at the bureau’s Washington headquarters. PHOTO: CHARLES DHARAPAK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Investigative reporter John Solomon broke the news on Wednesday night that fired FBI Director James Comey was referred to the DOJ for possible criminal prosecution under classified information protection laws.    My colleague, Bonchie, posted on that story here.
    The DOJ, however, has declined to prosecute which has many conservatives scratching their heads.    I believe there is a method to their madness.    From the sounds of it, the DOJ has bigger fish to fry.
    Sources have told Solomon that DOJ IG Michael Horowitz’ report will be “damning” especially where it concerns Comey’s conduct.    It is said to “conclude he leaked classified information and showed a lack of candor after his own agency began looking into his feud” with the President.    Apparently, those “reluctant” witnesses who showed up at the 11th hour had an interesting story to tell.
    Multiple sources have indicated that, although DOJ prosecutors believed the evidence was compelling, they didn’t consider it sufficient to prove that Comey “intentionally” violated the law.
    For example, one of the memos Comey gave to his lawyer/friend to leak to the NY Times was classified retroactively, and even then, only at the lowest level of classification which is “confidential.”
    According to Solomon’s sources, this was a technical violation, but the DOJ “did not want to make its first case against the Russia investigators with such thin margins and look petty and vindictive.”     The bigger legal issues for Comey and countless other Obama administration intelligence agency officials, and this is a very big tent, concern the origins of the Trump/Russia collusion investigation which prosecutor John Durham is focusing on.    Why did they decide to open an investigation into Trump campaign members?    Why would they use a dossier they knew to be unverified and unverifiable to substantiate an application to the FISA court?    Comey signed off on an application to the FISA Court in October 2016 claiming that the dossier was “VERIFIED.”    Three months later, Comey presented a two-page summary of the dossier to then President-elect Trump in January 2017 and told him it was “unverified” and “salacious.”
    One source told Solomon, “There are significant issues emerging with how the FISA was handled and other conduct in the investigation, and everyone involved remains under scrutiny.”
    The testimony of then State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Kathleen Kavalec will be crucial here.    She was one of the “11th hour” witnesses who provided information to IG Horowitz’ that caused them to delay the completion of their report for three months.
    Kavalec had met with Christopher Steele ten days before the FBI submitted their application for the warrant to spy on Carter Page and immediately determined that parts of it were untrue and also that Steele had a political agenda.    He hated Donald Trump and wanted to prevent him from winning the election.    He also made it clear that those who had commissioned him to write the dossier wanted to make sure it became public before Election Day.    She emailed the FBI two days later with her suspicions.
    The recipient of this email we learned only yesterday was FBI agent Stephen Laycock.    Conservative group Citizens United filed a FOIA request to obtain copies of the email plus all documents attached to it and received a highly redacted copy several months ago.    They filed a second FOIA request for an unredacted or at least less redacted version of it and current FBI Director, Christopher Wray, has actually gone to court to prevent that from happening.    I wrote about this story on Wednesday.
    Regarding the IG report, Solomon reported:
    It is expected to conclude that the former FBI director improperly took with him memos that were FBI property when he was fired, transmitted classified information via an insecure email account, and shared some of the memos with his private lawyers.    Some of the Comey memos were classified up to the “secret” level, but the FBI has not disclosed whether those were shared with his lawyers like the classified confidential memo was.
    The memos, which mostly recount Comey’s interactions with Trump in the Russia case and include information about foreign leaders, were sensitive enough to require government officials to send a professional “scrub team” to a Comey lawyer’s office to ensure all classified information was deleted, sources previously told me.
    In addition, the IG is likely to find that Comey engaged in a lack of candor when FBI agents came to retrieve the classified memos in his possession, failing to tell the interviewing agent that he had forwarded some of the sensitive memos by email, according to sources familiar with the probe.
    Judicial Watch released documents yesterday which support these conclusions.    Bonchie will be covering this later today.
    John Solomon, investigative reporter Sara Carter and Fox News’ legal analyst Greg Jarrett appeared on Hannity to discuss this new information.    Generally, they were disappointed that the DOJ declined to prosecute.    They pointed out a long list of Americans including General David Petraeus who were convicted for lesser offenses.
    Additionally, Comey’s leak to the NY Times worked precisely as he intended.    It triggered the appointment of a special counsel which has undermined the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency and his ability to govern.    Comey’s stunt literally changed the coarse of history.
    Putting that aside, all agreed that Attorney General William Barr has set his sights on Comey’s larger crimes, those which are now being uncovered by John Durham.    The evidence of wrongdoing by Comey and many other officials is vast, less subject to interpretation and easier to prosecute.
    Here are some of the highlights of their discussion:
    Solomon: He’s got a day of reckoning coming, but there is more coming ahead…The more important thing to watch is the ongoing investigation by Bill Barr and what we know about the FISA [application].    They are learning some very troubling information about the FISA process and everyone involved remains under significant scrutiny…The AG is looking at the possibilities.    Can I win this case in New York and if I lose this case in New York, what message does it send that a leaking FBI director got off?    If there’s a better case to be made against James Comey, patience is sometimes the better part of prudence.
    I think AG Barr and John Durham will be judged on the final product.    When Barr, Durham and Horowitz get done, what’s the final outcome?
    Hannity: I suspect there are bigger issues in play that we don’t know about yet…I know there are bigger issues about to come down and I am giving him [Barr] the benefit of the doubt and you know more than I do and you seem to agree with me.
    Solomon: I do agree with you.    The sources are telling me to stay tuned.    There’s a lot more to come down the pike on Jim Comey.    He signed the first FISA agreement and that’s going to turn out to be a fraudulent or misleading document.
    Hannity speaks to Carter and Jarrett.    He tells them he suspects that Solomon is right.    Why would the AG take the most insignificant, the lowest hanging fruit, to make their first prosecution or indictment on when they know they’ve got something bigger.
    Jarrett: I think the AG might feel that his bigger hammer against Comey is FISA abuse and lying to a court…but now we know why he fessed up to Congress that he leaked government documents to trigger the special counsel because the night before, the FBI had shown up at his house and he had been forced to hand over these classified documents…
    Carter: FISA is what they’re looking at.
    In other words, the AG is passing up the hors d’oeuvres to save room for dinner.    As Solomon says, stay tuned.

    Found at
8/2/2019 DOJ To Release Bruce Ohr’s FBI Documents by Chuck Ross, Daily Caller News Service.
Former associate deputy U.S. attorney general Bruce Ohr enters an elevator after testifying behind closed doors
before the House Judiciary and House Oversight and Government Reform Committees on his alleged contacts with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson
and former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled a 'dossier' of allegations linking Donald Trump to Russia,
on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., August 28, 2018. REUTERS/Chris Wattie
    The Justice Department will release FBI documents early next week that are related to Bruce Ohr, the Justice Department official who met with dossier author Christopher Steele.
    In a court filing submitted last Thursday, Justice Department lawyers said the agency will provide FBI notes of interviews conducted with Ohr to Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that sued for the records last year.
    Justice Department lawyers said the agency had initially determined that the Ohr transcripts, known as 302s, should be withheld in full.    But “after further review in conjunction with DOJ’s preparation of its motion for summary judgment, DOJ has decided to release the requested records in part to Plaintiff,” the lawyers said.
    “DOJ will make this release to Plaintiff by August 5, 2019.”
    It is not clear what documents will be released and which might be withheld.    Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton announced Thursday night that the documents would be released “imminently.”
    Judicial Watch sued on Sept. 10 for a dozen 302s the FBI compiled between Nov. 22, 2016, and May 15, 2017.    FBI agents interviewed Ohr after meetings and conversations with Steele, a former British spy who investigated the Trump campaign on behalf of the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. (RELATED: DOJ Official Bruce Ohr Acknowledged His Contacts With Christopher Steele Looked Suspicious)
Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr, October 19, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
    FBI investigators had tasked Ohr to serve as an unofficial backchannel to Steele as part of the bureau’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia.    The FBI cut ties with Steele on Nov. 1, 2016, after learning that he had unauthorized contacts with the media about his work as an FBI informant.
    Steele and Fusion GPS, the firm that hired him, provided information from the dossier to numerous reporters during the 2016 campaign.
    Congressional Republicans had pushed President Trump to declassify and release the Ohr 302s along with other documents related to the Russia probe.    Trump said for months that he would declassify the documents, but on May 23, he outsourced declassification authority to Attorney General William Barr.
    Republicans have hinted that the 302s contain information that could undercut Steele’s credibility, as well as the dossier’s.
    Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is investigating whether the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court in applications for spy warrants on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.    The bureau relied heavily on Steele’s reporting to obtain the wiretaps.
    Ohr, whose wife worked as a contractor for Fusion GPS, has told Congress that Steele said to him during one meeting that he was desperate to see Trump lose the 2016 election.    Republicans say that the FBI did not disclose that fact in applications to wiretap Page.
    The FBI also did not disclose that the Clinton campaign and DNC had funded Steele’s dossier.
    Ohr and Steele had known each other for years before the began meeting to discuss the Trump investigation.    They first met on that topic on July 30, 2016, in Washington, D.C.    After the meeting, Ohr briefed then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe about Steele’s work.
    Steele met on Aug. 22, 2016, with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS.    Republican investigators have wondered why Steele and Simpson passed information to Ohr, when Steele already had a contact at the FBI.    Steele gave some of his early dossier memos to FBI agent Michael Gaeta during a meeting in Rome on July 5, 2016.

    Found at
8/1/2019 John Solomon: Durham has Interviewed Professor Who Fed Papadopoulos “Russia” Narrative
by Sharon Rondeau
    (Aug. 1, 2019) — On Thursday night’s “Hannity,” John Solomon of “The Hill” said he can report with certainty that U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham has interviewed Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious Maltese professor who in spring 2016 approached then-Trump volunteer campaign aide George Papadopoulos with allegations that “Russians” had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
    Earlier this year, Durham was tasked by Attorney General William Barr with investigating the origins of the Russia “collusion” investigation which clouded the first 2+ years of the Trump administration and encompassed surveillance of at least one Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.
    For more than two years, Solomon has been exposing corruption within the FBI and Justice Department stemming from the collusion probe.    Launched by the FBI during the last presidential campaign, the investigation was assumed by now-former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in May 2017.    Mueller concluded the probe in March without charges of “conspiracy” against any member of the Trump campaign.
    In April 2016, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that unnamed “Russians” possessed incriminating information on Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, likely in the form of emails from her private server.    According to President Trump and other sources, Clinton discarded or removed from the server 33,000 emails which she said were personal in nature.
    Papadopoulos has alleged that he, too, was the subject of a “FISA” warrant or another form of surveillance by the U.S. and foreign intelligence services.
    Solomon told Hannity that Mifsud told Durham in a deposition “why he set that entire process of introducing George Papadopolous to Russia in motion in March of 2016, which is really the flash point, the starting point of this whole Russia collusion narrative.”
    “I can also confirm that the Senate Judiciary Committee has also obtained the same deposition,” Solomon continued.
    Solomon referenced “transcripts” which Hannity and Papadopoulos claim exist from a meeting Papadopoulos had in May 2016 with then-Australian Ambassador to the UK Alexander Downer, in which Downer intensely questioned him over his knowledge of “Russia” and Hillary Clinton.    Solomon suggested that Papadopoulos’s responses to Downer at the time demonstrate that crucial information was withheld by the FBI when it alleged that Papadopoulos was dishonest during his interviews with agents.
    In numerous interviews over the last nine months, Papadopoulos, who accepted a plea deal with the Justice Department for lying to the FBI and served 12 days in federal prison, that suggested that if the “exculpatory information” of which he is now aware had been presented to his legal team, he would likely have rejected the plea agreement.
    For his part, Hannity has stated that such exculpatory evidence is about to be released through the first documents Barr is expected to declassify in the coming days and weeks.
    In his report, Mueller described Mifsud as having ties to Russian operatives, but House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes has said, citing photographic evidence appearing in The Guardian, that Mifsud is a Western intelligence agent.
    In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday, Mueller did not dispute that Mifsud “lied” to his investigators and refused to elaborate as to why his team declined to recommend Mifsud for criminal prosecution.

8/2/2019 Comey hits back at Rep. Meadows by OAN Newsroom
    Former FBI Director James Comey recently responded to criticisms from one of his more vocal critics.    Comey took to Twitter on Thursday, where he stated that he’s waiting for the facts before discussing them.    He was responding to a tweet by Representative Mark Meadows, who pointed out the former FBI director’s silence in the wake of a report from the Department of Justice inspector general.
    James Comey: “I love transparency.    I just wait for facts before I talk about them.    I’m confident the results of all IG reports will show honest public servants worked hard to protect this country from a threat this president and his enablers won’t acknowledge.    And @ me next time, bruh. …

FILE – Former FBI Director James Comey speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill Washington. The Justice Department has declined to prosecute
Comey over his handling of memos he wrote documenting personal interactions with President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
    Michael Horowitz reportedly made a criminal referral against Comey for his leaking of a memo containing confidential information to reporters.    However, the Justice Department decided against bringing charges against Comey, which is something President Trump said he knows nothing about.
    “I know that there is a lot of things going on, that’s a piece of it I guess, but I really don’t know,” the president told reporters outside the White House.    “I would, frankly, be surprised because what James Comey did was illegal, so I would be surprised, but I don’t know anything about that.”
    Nonetheless, the leaked memo was only part of the Horowitz investigation.    He’s expected to complete his full review of the agency’s actions in about a month.

8/3/2019 Trump pick for intelligence director is withdrawing
    WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said his pick for national intelligence director has decided to withdraw from the running, citing unfair media coverage.    In a tweet Friday, Trump said Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas had decided to stay in Congress.    Questions about Ratcliffe’s experience have dogged him since Trump announced his candidacy five days ago.    Trump didn’t cite any specific media reports, but tweeted that “rather than going through months of slander and libel,” he would be returning to Capitol Hill.

8/7/2019 Brazil’s top court denies extradition of Erdogan opponent
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan greets his supporters during the opening ceremony of a highway in Bursa, Turkey, August 4, 2019. Cem Oksuz/Presidential
    BRASILIA (Reuters) – Brazil’s Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request for the extradition of an opponent of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan saying there was no guarantee he would get a fair trial in Turkey.
    Ali Sipahi, a businessman and owner of restaurants in Sao Paulo, is a member of Hizmet, a moderate Islamic movement inspired by U.S.-based Turkish preacher Fethullah Gulen.    It is considered a terrorist group by the Erdogan government.
    “There is no assurance that the extradited person would be ensured an impartial trial by an independent judge,” Justice Edson Fachin said in his ruling unanimously backed by the five-member second chamber of the Supreme Court.
    Brazil’s chief prosecutor’s office argued before the court against the extradition of Sipahi, who has lived in Brazil for 12 years, saying it had no evidence of terrorist acts committed by Hizmet.
    The Estado de S.Paulo newspaper reported that there are about 300 Turkish citizens linked to Hizmet living in Brazil and Turkey’s government is seeking the extradition of at least 10 of them.
    The Brazilian Justice Ministry did not immediately reply to a request to confirm the other extradition requests.
(Reporting by Anthony Boadle; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

    Following found at
8/6/2019 On Same Day Peter Strzok Sues for His Termination, Judicial Watch Releases Mostly Redacted List of FBI Leakers by emptywheel
    Peter Strzok is suing the Attorney General, FBI Director, and DOJ for his termination, arguing two key things.    First, the government overrode the decision of OPR Assistant Director Candice Will, who should have been the “deciding official.”    He’a also arguing that the decision came as a result of relentless pressure from the President and with evidence of bias.
    To demonstrate bias, Strzok notes that Trump has not responded even when people — he points to Kellyanne Conway but notes she’s just one of numerous examples — who has been found to violate the Hatch Act.
    The Trump Administration has consistently tolerated and even encouraged partisan political speech by federal employees, as long as this speech praises President Trump and attacks his political adversaries.    For example, President Trump rejected the recommendation of his own Office of Special Counsel that advisor Kellyanne Conway be removed from her job for repeatedly violating the Hatch Act by attacking former Vice President Biden and publicly advocating for and against various U.S. Senate candidates.    When asked about the OSC’s recommendation, Mrs. Conway responded “blah, blah, blah…If you’re trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it’s not going to work.    Let me know when the jail sentence starts.”
    But he also claims that “no actions have been taken” against the FBI Agents who showed bias against Hillary Clinton during the election, not even those who leaked negative information about her.
    During the Trump Administration this viewpoint discrimination has infected the FBI as well.    While Special Agent Strzok and others who expressed negative opinions of President Trump have been subject to administrative punishments of various degrees of severity, no actions have been taken against agents who expressed harsh criticism of Secretary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, or those in the New York Field Office who leaked negative information about Secretary Clinton to the Trump campaign in the weeks before the election.
    I’ve long noted that if Democrats asked DOJ Inspector General for an investigation specifically focused on bias against Hillary Clinton, it would elicit a specific report, which would make it very clear Trump was — if anything — treated better by the FBI than Hillary was.
    That’s a failure of the Democrats in Congress.
    That said, today Judicial Watch released the results of a FOIA (they often sit on releasing FOIAs for political gain) into the results of FBI OPR investigations of Agents who leak information, hoping to focus attention on Andrew McCabe’s termination.
    The FOIA makes it clear that Jeff Sessions made the decision to fire McCabe. (Strzok’s suit notes that Deputy Director David Bowdich — McCabe’s replacement — made the decision to fire Strzok.)
    The FOIA shows there were just 14 referrals to OPR for leaking, a number of which would be too early for anything coming out of an investigation into NY Field Office leaking.    Those referrals include the leaking of Grand Jury, law enforcement sensitive, or classified information (4.9) and leaking of sensitive information, which is what McCabe got fired for (4.10).
    The only other people who were fired like McCabe were also referred for lack of candor, not under oath and/or under oath.
    That says, even if any of the behavior parallel to Strzok’s did get referred, no one was fired unless they lied (and he did not lie).
    At the very least, Strzok’s claim that no one from NY Field Office has been similarly treated as he has may get him to discovery.    And that may, in turn, do what the Democrats have not done: show that there was far more bias and leaking against Hillary, but that none of those people have been chased out of the FBI.

8/7/2019 Strzok sues FBI for firing him over anti-Trump text messages
    WASHINGTON – An FBI agent who wrote derogatory text messages about Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Tuesday charging that the bureau caved to “unrelenting pressure” from the president when it fired him.    The suit from Peter Strzok also alleges he was unfairly punished for expressing his political opinions, and that the Justice Department violated his privacy when it shared hundreds of his text messages with reporters.    The lawsuit seeks reinstatement to the FBI, back pay and a declaration that the government violated his rights.

8/7/2019 Rep. Nadler requests Kavanaugh documents from National Archives by OAN Newsroom
    House Democrats are demanding access to records from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s time in the George W. Bush administration.    House Judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler sent a letter to the National Archives and Records Administration Tuesday, citing his authority with oversight of the judicial committee.
    The request asks for emails and office files between 2001 and 2006 when Kavanaugh served in the White House Counsel’s office and as staff secretary.    In the letter, Nadler admitted he was motivated to make his request before the Supreme Court starts addressing hot-button topics like abortion and the limits of executive authority.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., gives his opening statement as former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies
before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, July 24, 2019 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
    Meanwhile, top Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are speaking out against the continued scrutiny of Kavanaugh.    Representative Doug Collins took aim at Nadler Tuesday, saying the judiciary chairman’s false accusations are intended to harass the Supreme Court justice.
    “When the FBI was asked to investigate, there was not a complete investigation for the reasons I stated then,” Nadler claimed.    “A lot of witnesses who volunteered to come forward weren’t interviewed and so forth, but we have to look into that with a view towards making sure that future FBI investigations are not subject to the same White House interference and can be relied upon.”
    Collins said Kavanaugh has already been thoroughly vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, Nadler said the Senate only reviewed a fraction of the documents during the confirmation process.

    The following found at
8/8/2019 Fighting Back - Ex-FBI Head Andrew McCabe Sues, Says Trump Ordered His Firing
McCabe was ousted barely a day before he would have become eligible for his retirement pension in a move widely seen as payback
by Betsy Woodruff, Political Reporter and Tracy ConnorExecutive, Editor
    Andrew McCabe, the former head of the FBI, is suing the bureau and the Justice Department for his abrupt firing last year.    McCabe alleges in the suit filed Thursday that he was ousted “for his refusal to pledge allegiance to a single man” —President Donald Trump.
    “It was Trump’s unconstitutional plan and scheme to discredit and remove DOJ and FBI employees who were deemed to be his partisan opponents because they were not politically loyal to him,” the complaint alleges.    “Plaintiff’s termination was a critical element of Trump’s plan and scheme.”
    McCabe goes on to charge that “Trump demanded Plaintiff’s personal allegiance, he sought retaliation when Plaintiff refused to give it, and [former Attorney General Jeff] Sessions, [FBI Director Christopher] Wray, and others served as Trump’s personal enforcers rather than the nation’s highest law enforcement officials, catering to Trump’s unlawful whims instead of honoring their oaths to uphold the Constitution.”
    Wray and Attorney General William Barr are named as co-defendants in the 48-page federal suit, which describes a chaotic, rushed effort to oust McCabe before he was eligible to collect his pension—as Trump blasted him across social media.
    Just days before he was fired, a Justice Department official allegedly admitted to McCabe that the agency was not following established practices and procedures in connection with the disciplinary process, saying, “We’re making it up as we go along.”
    McCabe has long been one of the president’s top targets and clashed with him soon after Trump took office.
    According to the suit, in February 2017, Trump had his then chief of staff, Reince Priebus, ask McCabe—then the deputy director—to publicly refute a news story that made the new president look bad.    When McCabe declined, “Priebus said that Plaintiff and the FBI were ‘not being good partners’ to Trump,” the suit says.
    After Trump fired James Comey as FBI director several months later, McCabe temporarily took his post, and the FBI’s investigation into how the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 presidential election continued unhindered—much to the president’s chagrin.    Trump homed in on McCabe as a bad actor, claiming that support from Clinton allies for his wife’s unsuccessful bid for state office meant McCabe needed to recuse himself from the investigation.
    McCabe didn’t step back, though, and the president began sending dozens of tweets castigating him.
    The situation only got worse. Barely a day before McCabe would have become eligible for his retirement pension, and late on a Friday, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired him from the post.    Sessions said he did so because the FBI’s inspector general found he shared information with the media without authorization and lacked candor when speaking under oath to internal investigators.
    But among veterans of federal law enforcement community, the move was broadly seen as a political attack designed to punish McCabe for the FBI’s investigation of the president.    Trump’s personal lawyer, meanwhile, praised the firing and said he hoped Special Counsel Robert Mueller would be ousted next.
    A month later, the inspector general released a report saying McCabe engaged in misconduct and misled investigators—findings McCabe strongly denied.
[Do you see a strange pattern occuring in that two former FBI agents who were fired are coming back with lawsuits to claim they were framed and trying to get their pensions and I doubt their jobs back, but it is obvious that they saw Comey get busted for his issue and will become an issue when the Attorney General releases the reports from Durhan and Horowitz that will convict all three of them, and the three blind mice will be cutting a deal with information to save their own hides.].

    Following found at
8/9/2019 Bruce Ohr ~ 302s Release by daughnworks247
    Here we go.    It’s here.    We will add info and edit at will.    Have at it Treepers.
    Here is the Scribed link: Link
    Courtesy of RealSauce (thank you), here is RosieMemos breakdown, you can follow her thread.

    Found at
8/8/2019 Judicial Watch: FBI 302 Interviews with Bruce Ohr on Spygate Released To Judicial Watch
    (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch today released 34 pages of “302” report material from FBI interviews with Bruce Ohr, who was removed from his position as U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General in December 2017.    The newly declassified documents were produced to Judicial Watch this evening.
    These documents were obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department for failing to respond to an August 6, 2018 FOIA request seeking Form 302s for a number of interviews with Ohr concerning his interactions with Steele (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02107)).    A Form 302 is used by FBI agents to summarize the interviews that they conduct and contains information from the notes taken during the interview.
  • On November 22, 2016, Bruce Ohr said that “reporting on Trump’s ties to Russia were going to the Clinton Campaign, Jon Winer at the U.S. State Department and the FBI.”
    In late September 2016, Ohr describes a person (likely Christopher Steele) as “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President.”
    “Ohr knew that [Fusion GPS’s] Glen Simpson and others talking to Victoria Nuland at the U.S. State Department.”
  • Glenn Simpson directed a person whose is redacted to speak to the press.    It appears as if the press that person went to was the far left leaning Mother Jones.
    On December 5, 2016, Ohr promised to “voluntarily” give his wife Nellie Ohr’s Fusion GPS research to the FBI.    He also provided the FBI with a report on Paul Manafort titled, “Manafort Chronology.”
  • On December 12, 2016 Simpson gave Ohr a thumb drive with Fusion GPS research on it.    Ohr claims to not know what is on that drive.    During the meeting Simpson, based evidently on a meeting with Glenn Simpson, identified Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer as having “many Russian clients.”    Simpson also told Ohr that Cohen, “may have” attended a meeting in Prague.    Ohr describes Simpson directing someone to talk to the Mother Jones reporter “as it was Simpson’s Hail Mary attempt.”
  • On December 20, 2016, Ohr provided the FBI with his wife’s Nellie Ohr’s Fusion GPS research, “which contained the totality” of her work “but the Fusion GPS header was stripped.”
  • On January 23, 2017, Ohr tells the FBI that Steele told him that Steele “spoke with a staff member of Senator John McCain’s office sometime prior to October 2016.”
  • The FBI interviews show that Ohr texted and talked to Christopher Steele using the WhatsApp application.
  • On February 2, 2014, the FBI tells Ohr to see if Steele would be “comfortable getting the name of an FBI agent” as a contact.    Ohr tells the agents that State Department official Katheen Kavalec spoke with “Steele several times prior to the U.S. Presidential election and believed Steele’s reporting to have [been] generated mainly from [REDACTED]."
  • On Feb. 14, 2017, Ohr tells the FBI that Steele communicated with him via Facetime that Steele was “beginning to worry about his business.”    Steele discussed brokering new business with the FBI and told Ohr, "You may see me re-emerge in a couple of weeks.”
  • On May 3, 2017, Steele called Ohr to tell him that he “had been worried about Director Comey’s upcoming testimony to Congress, especially his response to questions that would be raised by (Senator) Grassley.”    Although what he was specifically worried about is redacted, Steele was “happy with Director Comey’s response.”
        Steele also stated that he was limited in “his ability to testify before Congress” because of disclosure laws in the UK being more narrow than the United States.
  • On May 12, 2017, Steele called Ohr to discuss a letter the Senate Intelligence Committee sent him.    According to Ohr, “The letter requested answers to the following questions:
    • Had Steele provided information to the US Government?
    • What was the scope of Steele’s investigation?
    • Did Steele have any additional information to provide?    In May, 2017, Ohr was asked by the FBI to ask “Steele if he would be willing to have a conversation with FBI agents in the UK.”    Steele responded that he would, but he would need to check with a redacted name.
    “These new Bruce Ohr FBI 302s show an unprecedented and irregular effort by the FBI, DOJ, and State Department to dig up dirt on President Trump using the conflicted Bruce Ohr, his wife, and the Clinton/DNC spies at Fusion GPS,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.    “The FISA courts weren’t informed of this corrupted process when they were asked to approve and reapprove extraordinary spy warrants targeting President Trump.”
    In June, Judicial Watch uncovered documents showing the removal of Bruce Ohr November 13, 2016, Ohr was given a performance award of $28,000.    This was during the time of his deep involvement in the highly controversial Justice Department surveillance of the Trump presidential campaign.    The bonus was nearly double the $14,250 performance award he was given on November 29, 2015.
    Bruce Ohr was married to Nellie Ohr of Fusion GPS and was removed because of his conflict of interest and role as conduit for Fusion GPS material.    Ohr was removed from his position as Associate Deputy Attorney General on December 6, 2017.    On January 7, 2018, Ohr was reassigned from his position of director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) and shifted to Counselor for International Affairs in the Department of Justice Criminal Division.    Ohr received a $2,600 pay increase.
    One of Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits recently produced information from the DOJ showing a conversation between former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Kathleen Kavalec and Bruce Ohr, discussing the targeting of Donald Trump with Steele dossier material.    In discussing a meeting with the potential source for a Mother Jones article accusing the Trump campaign of taking money from a Russian-American oil magnate, as well as Christopher Steele’s connection to that source, Kavalec emails Ohr citing the accusatory Mother Jones article.    Ohr says, “I really hope we can get something going here.”
    Also, Judicial Watch obtained an email revealing that Nellie Ohr, wife of Bruce Ohr, informed him that she was deleting emails sent from his DOJ email account.    The full email exchange is between Bruce Ohr, Lisa Holtyn, Nellie Ohr, and Stefan Bress, a first secretary at the German Embassy, and is part of 339 pages of heavily redacted records from the U.S. Department of Justice.
    Judicial Watch uncovered emails from Ohr showing that he remained in regular contact with former British spy and Fusion GPS contractor Christopher Steele after Steele was terminated by the FBI in November 2016 for revealing to the media his position as an FBI confidential informant.    The records show that Ohr served as a go-between for Steele by passing along information to “his colleagues” on matters relating to Steele’s activities.    Ohr also set up meetings with Steele, regularly talked to him on the telephone and provided him assistance in dealing with situations Steele was confronting with the media.
    Judicial Watch is suing the DOJ for communications between two of the pivotal players in the Deep State, anti-Trump collusion – former FBI official Peter Strzok and Ohr (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-01082)).    Judicial Watch is challenging the Justice Department’s extraordinary claim that there are no records of communications between Strzok and Ohr in light of the preeminent role both individuals played in the Deep State effort to undermine the Trump campaign and administration.    In addition, Ohr himself testified before Congress that he did, in fact, meet and communicate with Strzok.
    Judicial Watch also seeks records about the agency’s involvement in persuading President Trump to defer his September 2018 decision to declassify DOJ documents related to the Russia investigation (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00507)).    Judicial Watch’s lawsuit is also seeking DOJ official Ohr’s records of communications around the time of Trump’s declassification announcement.

8/8/2019 Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: FISA investigation will lead to criminal indictments by OAN Newsroom
    Attorney General William Barr is in the midst of conducing his investigation into alleged FISA abuse by former national security officials.    There have been new developments in the investigation, which is being led by U.S. attorney John Durham.
    One America’s Jack Posobiec sat with with Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer for the latest.
[What was said in this interview should scare all FBI and DOJ persons who may have committed a crime associated with the
FISA corruption abuse better start lawyering up as your D-Day is coming, which is what McCabe and Strzok have already done

    Found at
8/7/2019 Top FBI Deputy Assistant Director Who Leaked To Media Revealed: DOJ Declined Prosecution by Sara Carter
    Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a harsh summary report in May revealing that an FBI Deputy Assistant Director had numerous unauthorized contacts with the media, accepted gifts from journalists and disclosed the ‘existence’ of sensitive information under court seal to the media.
    Several officials confirmed to this week that the unknown senior FBI official is Bryan Paarmann.    Paarmann, who began his career with the bureau in 1996, was shuffled by FBI Director Christopher Wray in August, 2017 from his position as FBI Deputy Assistant Director of the International Operations Division to special agent in charge of the Counterterrorism Division for the New York field office.    He is currently on leave and his security clearance has been suspended, sources stated.
    Horowitz did not name Paarmann in the investigative summary released in May, but instead referred to him as a Deputy Assistant Director. Horowitz’s investigation focused on the time Paarmann was working at the FBI’s Washington D.C. headquarters as the Deputy Assistant Director of the International Operations Division.
    Horowitz stated in his summary that the Department of Justice declined to prosecute.
    A senior DOJ official confirmed that the decision by the Department of Justice to decline prosecution was made before William Barr was Attorney General.”
    Paarmann could not be reached for comment.    FBI officials declined comment.
Judicial Watch Docs Show 14 referrals of FBI employees to OPR For Leaking
    The information comes on the heels of records obtained by Judicial Watch last week that it “received records of 14 referrals of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees to the organization’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or classified information.”
    Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, said the extent of referrals and recent information that Attorney General William Barr’s DOJ is declining to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey is concerning.    The decision not to prosecute Comey was first reported by The Hill’s John Solomon.
    Fitton noted that Comey kept FBI documents, memoirs of his meetings with President Trump at his house, and admitted to leaking these documents to a friend.    The documents were leaked with the purpose of giving the information to the New York Times to push for a special counsel investigation into Trump, Comey had told Congress.
    The IG report focusing on Comey could be released anytime and federal law enforcement officials are anticipating more bad news, as Horowitz’s investigators are preparing another report on the origins of the FBI’s probe into President Trump’s campaign and Russia.    Alongside Horowitz, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham has been tasked by Barr to fully investigate the bureau’s handling of the Trump Russia investigation.
    “I would say that the decision made by the DOJ to not pursue prosecution of Paarmaan is reflecting of DOJ’s current M.O. of sweeping things under the rug to prevent further discredit being brought onto the FBI,” said a former FBI official, with knowledge of Paarmann’s situation.    “This dismissal is an affront to all other leak cases that have been prosecuted.”
Horowitz May Summary Report
    Horowitz’s investigation concluded that Paarmann engaged in misconduct when he was the Deputy Assistant Director of International Operations Division.
(1) disclosed to the media the existence of information that had been filed under seal in federal court, in violation of 18 USC 401, Contempt of Court;
(2) provided without authorization FBI law enforcement sensitive information to reporters on multiple occasions; and
(3) had dozens of official contacts with the media without authorization, in violation of FBI policy.

    “The OIG also found that the DAD engaged in misconduct when the DAD accepted a ticket, valued at approximately $225, to attend a media-sponsored dinner, as a gift from a member of the media, in violation of federal regulations and FBI policy,” according to the report.
    As for Paarmann, Horowitz’s investigators found that he “had numerous contacts with members of the media in violation of FBI policy.    Additionally, it was alleged that the DAD may have disclosed law enforcement or other sensitive information to the media without authorization.”
    Horowitz also referenced the OIG’s Review of Allegations Regarding Various Actions by the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Advance of the 2016 Election report, specifically referencing his June, 2018 report, page 430.

According to Horowitz’s June, 2018 report:
    We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters.    The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks.    For example, during the periods we reviewed, we identified dozens of FBI employees that had contact with members of the media.    Attached to this report as Attachments G and H are link charts that reflects the volume of communications that we identified between FBI employees and media representatives in April/May and October 2016.
    In addition to the significant number of communications between FBI employees and journalists, we identified social interactions between FBI employees and journalists that were, at a minimum, inconsistent with FBI policy and Department ethics rules.    For example, we identified instances where FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events
[Bryan Paarmann:
    Special Agent in Charge, Counterterrorism Division and NY JTTF, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    Senior Law Enforcement and Security Executive with over 30 years of experience between the military and FBI.    I have extensive experience in conducting, managing and supervising major Investigations, Intelligence Operations and Crisis Incident Response with both national and international implications.    I currently direct the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force which is the largest and oldest JTTF in the nation and is comprised of over 53 different law enforcement and intelligence agencies with a 24/7 investigative and response mission covering portions of three different continents.    I have led and held executive positions both in the Field and at FBI Headquarters and have served not only domestically but internationally as well.
    He was transferred to the New York office by FBI Director Christpher Wray?    This makes you wonder if he was put there to clean up the corruption by who after the firing of McCabe and Jeff sessions leaving which seems to me is why Attorney General Barr, Durham and Horowitz have to move to get the information in strides but I think they will get it straightened out by September and fix the corruption that prevailed from the 8 years of the Obama administration and would have continued if it was not for the election of Donald J. Trump, which interfered in their plans and we are still fighting it today.]

8/9/2019 Rep. Nadler: Formal impeachment proceedings are underway by OAN Newsroom
    House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler says formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump are underway.
    In an interview with CNN Thursday, Nadler said his committee has officially launched the proceedings into allegations of misconduct under the president.    He added, the committee will decide by the end of the year whether to bring articles of impeachment to the House floor.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, speaks during
a news conference, May 29, 2019, in New York. (Richard Drew/AP Photo)
    “We are investigating all the evidence and we will at the conclusion of this hopefully by the end of the year vote to vote articles of impeachment to the House floor or we won’t,” said Nadler.
    The Judiciary Committee chairman went on to say he isn’t waiting for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to make a decision despite her public reluctance to launch impeachment proceedings.
[First they tried to prove Russia collusion against Trump's administration, Second they violated a fake FISA warrant investigation with surveilance on all of Trump's personnel, Third they had an investigation through the Mueller Report for obstruction of justice, and 3 times is a charm, but after all that is falling apart they are dumb enough to do a Fourth attempt to try to prove they have enough to Impeach Trump, which will have no affect.    Give up Democrats since Trump has been blessed by God for moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and promoting the Golan Heights for Israel, that is why all your attempts have failed.    God is watching you and if you continue you will go down in flames in this fourth attempt.].

8/10/2019 Trump chooses new intel director by Deb Riechmann, ASSOCIATED PRESS
    WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Thursday named Joseph Maguire, the nation’s top counterterrorism official, as acting national intelligence director, part of a leadership shake-up at the agency that oversees 17 U.S. spy agencies.
    Maguire will become acting director on Aug. 15, the same day that National Intelligence Director Dan Coats’ resignation takes effect.    It’s also the same day that deputy national intelligence director Sue Gordon will retire.    Democrats accused Trump of pushing out two dedicated professionals.
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has been in upheaval since Coats, who had bumped heads with Trump, announced late last month that he was stepping down as of Aug. 15.
    Then Thursday, Gordon, who has worked in the intelligence field for three decades, announced she was leaving the same day with Coats.
    On Thursday, Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called Coats’ and Gordon’s retirements a “devastating loss” to the intelligence community.
    “These losses of leadership, coupled with a president determined to weed out anyone who may dare disagree, represent one of the most challenging moments for the intelligence community,” he said.
[ Joseph Maguire , current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.    He retired from the United States Navy as a Vice Admiral in 2010 after 36 years of military service.    Prior to retiring from active duty, he was the Deputy Director for Strategic Operational Planning at National Counterterrorism Center.
    Trump has to make sure he is cleaning the SWAMP and that is what he will do to get this country back on the right track.]

    The following found at
8/12/2019 Judicial Watch: Bruce Ohr gave FBI false information on Trump by Staff, Washington Time
    Hillary Clinton operatives fed the FBI false information on President Trump and his aides in the months following his election, according to an analysis of an FBI agent’s interview with a key conduit.
    The agent’s interview notes (known as 302s) of Bruce Ohr, then an associate deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice, were obtained by the conservative investigative group Judicial Watch.
    “These new Bruce Ohr FBI 302s show an unprecedented and irregular effort by the FBI, DOJ, and State Department to dig up dirt on President Trump using the conflicted Bruce Ohr, his wife, and the Clinton/DNC spies at Fusion GPS,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
    The 302s show Mr. Ohr regularly funneled material from Fusion GPS and its agent, ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, directly to the heart of FBI headquarters, which was investigating Trump associates.    Both Fusion GPS and Mr. Steele were paid with money from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
    The final report of former special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t delve into the roles of Fusion GPS and Mr. Steele in framing the FBI investigation into a supposed Trump-Russia election conspiracy.    Mr. Mueller said in March that his 22-month probe he didn’t uncover a conspiracy.
    A Washington Times review of the Mueller report compared with Mr. Ohr’s 302s showed he was peddling false information.    The FBI notes say that agents accepted Fusion material as official evidence.
    For example, Mr. Ohr, conveying information from Mr. Steele and Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson, told of a secret dedicated server at Trump Tower connected to Alfa Bank.    Alfa is Russia’s largest commercial bank, run by an oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin.
    The existence of such a server would be possible evidence of collusion.    Mr. Mueller’s Justice Department written mandate told him to investigate “any links” between a Trump ally and Russia.
    But Mr. Mueller’s report, while discussing Alfa Bank post-election efforts, makes no mention of a dedicated server.    Mr. Mueller debunked the server tale during testimony last month before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
    Mr. Ohr also told his FBI handler that Sergei Millian, a Belarus-born U.S. citizen, used the server to communicate with the Kremlin.
    “Millian may have overseen many financial transfers from Russia to assist the Trump campaign,” Mr. Ohr quoted Mr. Simpson as saying.
    The Mueller report mentions Mr. Millian’s efforts to form professional ties with Trump campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos.    But there the narrative ends.    There is no description of any Millian-Trump-Russia financial ties.
    Mr. Ohr also told the FBI that Michael Cohen, then Mr. Trump’s attorney, had become the messenger for a conspiracy with the Kremlin.    He said Cohen replaced campaign adviser Carter Page and campaign manager Paul Manafort.
    There is no evidence in the Mueller report that Manafort or Mr. Page knew each other or worked as election collusion conspirators.
    Likewise, Cohen isn’t described as someone in a Kremlin election conspiracy, for which no Trump colleague was ever charged.
    Some of Mr. Ohr’s actions were known through his testimony to a House task force last year.
    But the 34 pages of 302s underscore how Mr. Ohr, an agent for Fusion and thus a Clinton operative, gained access to FBI decision-makers in 2016-17.    He fed the bureau a steady diet of conspiracies as agents surveilled Trump allies.    Mr. Ohr said he knew that Fusion allegations were being delivered to the Clinton campaign.
    He delivered two tranches of anti-Trump data to the FBI via thumb drives.    One was Mr. Steele’s numerous allegations against Mr. Trump, whom he was “desperate” to destroy.    The other came from Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, who worked at Fusion as a Russia expert.    Both databases became official FBI evidence.
    The 302s, acquired by Judicial Watch through an open records lawsuits, are heavily redacted.    There appears to be a discussion about Mr. Steele’s sources.
    In his infamous and discredited dossier, Mr. Steele says his information came from Kremlin intelligence sources.    Republicans argue that the dossier amounts to foreign interference by the Clinton campaign into a U.S. election.
    Mr. Ohr continued to speak with Mr. Steele, via phone calls, emails and Whatsapp, even though the FBI fired the intelligence contractor in October 2016 for talking to the press.    At one point, the FBI had decided to pay Mr. Steele $50,000 to continue investigating Mr. Trump and his presidency.
    Mr. Steele had not given up on reviving a deal.
    By February 2017, as the Ohr-FBI relationship continued, Mr. Ohr said Mr. Steele worried about his private investigative business.    He was preparing some type of proposal “to broker a business relationship with the FBI,” the 302 said.
    “You may see me re-emerge in a couple of weeks,” he told Mr. Ohr.
    Mr. Steele was “pleased about” a CNN article that said “U.S. government investigation had confirmed some of the reporting on his dossier.”
    CNN regularly pushed the Trump-Russian conspiracy story for months.
    But the government didn’t confirm any of Mr. Steele’s conspiracy allegations.
    A month earlier, in a blow to Mr. Steele’s desire to shroud his work in secrecy, BuzzFeed posted his entire dossier.    The press, with whom he was working so closely as a confidential source, outed him as the author.
    Mr. Steele did gain new employment.    According to a separate FBI document, he was hired by a former staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, to keep investigating Mr. Trump.
    By May, Mr. Ohr was negotiating to bring the FBI and Mr. Steele back together.
    In early July 2016, an FBI agent visited Mr. Steele at his England home.    The agent received a briefing on Mr. Steele’s shocking Trump-Russia allegations.    The agent said he was taking them directly to headquarters.
    Later, agents met with Mr. Steele in Rome.
    Mr. Steele also briefed State Department officials during the Obama presidency.    Other surrogates briefed the White House.
© Copyright (c) 2019 News World Communications, Inc.
    This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.

    The following found at
8/15/2019 Suspected FBI informant linked to Russia 'smears' claims immunity afforded to government agents by Gregg Re, Catherine Herridge, Fox News
Scholar sues Stefan Halper over reports on Michael Flynn ties
    Attorneys Emily Compagno and David Bruno weigh in on the validity of the defamation case.
    Cambridge professor and reported FBI informant Stefan Halper, who is being sued by a Russian-born academic for allegedly smearing her and former national security adviser Michael Flynn as part of a government conspiracy to bring down the Trump administration, declared in a recent court filing that he is entitled to legal immunity ordinarily afforded to federal agents – even if the lawsuit's allegations are true.
    Halper did not explicitly admit to being an FBI informant in asking an Alexandria, Va. federal judge to throw out the case, and his filing followed legal rules that require defendants to assume that plaintiffs' factual allegations are true in the initial stages of litigation.
    "Private individuals who participate in FBI investigations are subject to the federal common law qualified immunity applicable to government agents," as well as constitutional protections, Halper's motion to dismiss asserted.
    The qualified immunity privilege exempts federal agents from litigation unless their violation of the law was so extreme that it broke an established statutory or constitutional duty of which a reasonable person would have been aware.
    Nevertheless, Halper's motion to dismiss raised the prospect that the academic, Svetlana Lokhova, would have no recourse if the court accepted Halper’s claim.    In her fiery complaint, Lokhova claimed that “Stefan Halper is a ratf---er and a spy, who embroiled an innocent woman in a conspiracy to undo the 2016 Presidential election and topple the President of the United States of America" by leaking false information to willing news reporters.
Michael Flynn is pictured at a 2014 dinner at the University of Cambridge. (Courtesy of Svetlana Lokhova)
    According to Lokhova, Halper worked to spread false stories that she had an affair with Flynn on the orders of Russian intelligence services.
    Lokhova's complaint said that Halper had "confederates" who distributed "propaganda" at media outlets, including The New York Times, and named national security reporter Adam Goldman.    Goldman has co-bylined a variety of stories favorable to the FBI, including a May 18, 2018 piece entitled, "FBI Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims."
    But Halper's response dismissed Lokhova's allegations as inaccurate and implausible, and a mere publicity stunt attempting to turn the court into a "political blog."    Purportedly because legal procedures require that courts "can, and sometimes must, credit a complaint's allegations" as true "solely for purposes" of adjudicating motions to dismiss, Halper's filing then outlined a slew of head-turning immunity defenses.
    Halper's filing noted that he was alleged to have been paid "in amounts exceeding $500,000" for his counterintelligence efforts.
    "Assuming these admissions to be accurate [for motion to dismiss] purposes, any communications made by Mr. Halper in fulfillment of his alleged agreements with the FBI are subject to the absolute federal common law privilege of federal contractors," the document said.
    And Halper is "also entitled to federal immunity under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution," Halper's motion continued, because state defamation law cannot supersede or interfere with the conduct of an FBI investigation.
    Halper's filing also asserted that Lokhova had not suffered reputational harm because of Halper's supposed work with the FBI, that there was no substantive evidence Halper was the source for media articles unfavorable to her, and that the statute of limitations rendered some of her claims untimely.
Svetlana Lokhova
    Conservative commentators, however, speculated that Halper's lawyers were working to hide an explosive paper trail.
    "Stefan Halper’s lawyers claim that he can’t be sued for defamation because government agents and contractors, under sovereign immunity, have carte blanch authority to lie to reporters about people whose reputations they wish to destroy," said Sean Davis, the co-founder of The Federalist.
    "I can’t wait to see the FBI/CIA/DoD contract which required Stefan Halper to spread blatant lies about the Obama administration’s political opponents in exchange for taxpayer money," he added.
    Lokhova said in her complaint that Special Counsel Robert Mueller "never interviewed" her, and "never subpoenaed a single record from her" during his extensive investigation into Russian election interference.    Lokhova also claimed she "lives in constant fear" and has "contemplated suicide to end the suffering caused by the enormous weight and stress of being collateral damage in Halper's international conspiracy and scandal."
    Speaking exclusively to Fox News in April, Lokhova made clear that whatever the outcome of the litigation, the matter should be thoroughly probed.
    "I think there's a high chance that it was coordinated, and I believe it needs to be properly investigated,” Lokhova said.
    Lokhova entered the political firestorm in early 2017 as Flynn was forced out of the Trump administration over lying about his contact with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak.    At the time, Lokhova said she was contacted by three American media outlets over a four-day period – and was promptly hit with claims in the press and on social media that she was a Russian operative for Moscow.
Sir Richard Dearlove (left), Christopher Andrew (center), then-DIA Director Michael Flynn (right), at Cambridge University, Feb. 28, 2014. (Svetlana Lokhova)
    The allegations involved her contact with Flynn at a 2014 dinner held at the University of Cambridge in England.    At the time, Flynn was the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
    "I'm not a Russian spy and I have never worked for the Russian government," the 38-year old historian and academic said in an interview first broadcast on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”    "I believe that General Flynn was targeted and I was used to do it."
    Lokhova said the U.K. academic group behind the Cambridge dinner included Halper.    The professor, who did not return emails from Fox News seeking comment, was widely reported in 2018 to be a confidential source in the FBI's original probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Halper also reached out to Trump campaign aides including Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Sam Clovis.
    Halper is also at the center of a whistleblower complaint filed last summer that alleges government contractor abuses, as well as excessive payments with taxpayer dollars.
    Lokhova said the 2014 Cambridge event was attended by about a dozen people.    According to an event flyer, the dinner was organized by Halper and others including Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of British intelligence service MI6.
    "General Flynn was the guest of honor and he sat on one side of the table in the middle," she said.    "I sat on the opposite side of the table to Flynn next to Richard Dearlove because I was the only woman at dinner, and it's a British custom that the only woman gets to sit next to the host.”
    When asked if she was ever alone with Flynn, Lokhova told Fox News, "I have never been alone with General Flynn, before, during or after the dinner."
    Documents reviewed by Fox News appear to back up Lokhova’s timeline of events -- and raise questions about subsequent unsolicited outreach to Lokhova on Halper’s behalf.
    In the months following the 2014 dinner, Lokhova said there was no sign of concern about her background.    She provided Fox News with a May 2015 email indicating the U.S. government tried to set up a similar event with the Cambridge group, including Lokhova, to host a new senior intelligence agency head.
    Then in December 2015, Flynn traveled to Moscow as a private citizen and was paid $45,000 to speak at a Russia Today event where he shared a table with President Vladimir Putin.    Allegations later emerged that Lokhova -- who said she emailed with Flynn a few times after the Cambridge dinner -- discussed traveling to Moscow to act as a translator.    She flatly denies the allegations, saying, "There was absolutely no discussion of going to Moscow with General Flynn."
    Soon after, Halper re-entered the picture. In early 2016, as Flynn's role advising the Trump campaign became known, Lokhova said she received an invitation out of the blue to a private dinner party with Halper.    Lokhova shared the email with Fox News.
    “It was very, very unusual because Stefan Halper and I, despite being part of the same group, and meeting pretty much in a public forum, we've had no personal contact at all. [Halper] to me was an obnoxious academic who absolutely hated all Russians," she said.
    Then in early 2017, as Flynn was fired, Lokhova said the allegations surfaced about suspicious contact with Flynn three years earlier.    The former national security adviser has since pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI and is awaiting sentencing.
    Lokhova said she has spent a lot of time over the last two years "connecting the dots" and is now speaking out for personal and professional reasons.
    "I'm an academic and I'm an author and my very career depends on my reputation.    On a personal level, I'm a mother of a young child and I don't want my child when she grows up to think her mom is a w---e and a traitor."
    Gregg Re is a lawyer and editor based in Los Angeles.    Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.
[ Svetlana Lokhova is a By-Fellow of Churchill College, University of Cambridge, and was until recently a Fellow of the Cambridge Security Initiative jointly chaired by the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, and Professor Christopher Andrew, former Official Historian of the MI5.].

[The following two articles are regarding Papadopoulos' new book "Deep State Target"].
    The follwoing found at
5/2/2019 FBI informant's assistant who met George Papadopoulos was undercover by Daniel Chaitin, Washington Examiner
    A woman who asked George Papadopoulos point blank if President Trump's campaign was working with the Russians at a bar in London in September 2016 was reportedly working undercover for the FBI.
    The woman who said her name was Azra Turk posed as an assistant to Stefan Halper, an American professor at Cambridge University, sources told the New York Times.    Halper served as an informant to the FBI to collect information for the bureau's Russia investigation during the 2016 election cycle.
    Papadopoulos, who was a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, discussed this woman in his book, Deep State Target.    He described her as attractive and doubted she was being forthcoming about her identity after she asked whether the Trump campaign was working for Russia.
    “There is no way this is a Cambridge professor’s research assistant,” he wrote.
    In reaction to the article by the Times, Papadopoulos insisted that Turk was not working for the FBI.    "I agree with everything in this superb article except 'Azra Turk' clearly was not FBI.    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," he wrote in a tweet.
    Turk attended a second of Papadopoulos and Halper's meetings, and it was at a third Papadopoulos wrote in his book that he cut the meeting short after Halper pressed him on hacked emails.
    After meeting Papadopoulos, Turk exchanged emails with him, calling their meeting the “highlight of my trip" and said "I am excited about what the future holds for us :)."
    Turk returned to the United States after the FBI determined no valuable intelligence had been gathered at the meetings.
    The Justice Department inspector general's investigators are now looking into Halper, who met multiple members of Trump's campaign, to assess whether he exceeded his mandate.    His role as an FBI informant was leaked to the media in May 2018, after which Trump and his allies alleged his campaign was the target of a politically motivated "spygate" scheme.    Trump tweeted the FBI embedding a spy in the 2016 campaign would be the "all time biggest political scandal" if true.
    The FBI launched its original counterintelligence investigation, called Crossfire Hurricane, in July 2016.    It was prompted by Australian diplomat Alexander Downer informing the FBI that Papadopoulos told him Russia had stolen emails related to Hillary Clinton, Trump's Democratic rival in the 2016 election.
    Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russians and served 12 days in prison late last year.    He agreed to cooperate with the Russia investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller, who recently wrapped up and found no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
    Attorney General William Barr says he is "reviewing the conduct" of the FBI's initial investigation into the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016.

    The following found at
Left: Papadopoulos with wife and Right: May or may not be Azra Turk
  • The New York Times report on Azra Turk provides mixed clues about who the aliased investigator worked for during an operation to spy on George Papadopoulos.
  • Turk was reportedly tasked by the FBI to accompany bureau informant Stefan Halper during meetings with Papadopoulos in London in September 2016.
  • But a reporter who wrote The Times story has hinted that Turk could work for another government agency.
    The FBI tasked a woman posing as an assistant to longtime FBI informant Stefan Halper to meet with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos in London in 2016, The New York Times revealed in a report Thursday.
    The report confirms longstanding speculation that the woman, who operated under the alias Azra Turk, was part of the government’s operation to keep tabs on Papadopoulos and the Trump team.
    But one question about Turk remains unanswered by The Times piece: Who does she work for?
    The Times report appears on first glance to suggest Turk is an FBI investigator.    One section of the story states:
    But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation.    The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.
    Adam Goldman, one of the reporters on The Times story, added mystery to the report Thursday night when he discussed it on CNN.
    Goldman provided a cryptic response suggesting she does not work for the FBI when host Anderson Cooper asked who Turk worked for.
    “I’m just going to leave it right now as a ‘government investigator.’    I use that wording for a reason, and I’m going to leave it at that,” he said.
    Papadopoulos has long speculated that Turk was working for either the CIA or a foreign government’s intelligence service.    He’s speculated that if the latter is the case, she was working for the Turkish government.    That theory is largely based on Turk’s claim that she was Turkish and that she spoke with a heavy accent.
    The Times piece is carefully worded so as to obscure exactly which government agency employed Turk.    It also does not clearly say she was working for the American government.    Goldman did say in the CNN interview that the FBI wanted to use an American investigator in the operation, suggesting Turk herself is at least a U.S. citizen. (RELATED: Stefan Halper’s ‘Assistant’ In Papadopoulos Spy Operation Is Outed)
    Another passage, taken literally, raises the possibility that Turk merely had an affiliation with the American government.    It says:
    The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President [Donald] Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances.
    Another passage suggests stronger ties to the FBI or another American intelligence agency.    The FBI also wanted to use Turk in order to protect Halper’s identity as an informant “if prosecutors ever needed court testimony about their activities,” according to The Times.
    Halper contacted Papadopoulos out of the blue on Sept. 2, 2016 with a compelling offer.    The professor offered to fly Papadopoulos to London to meet to discuss writing an academic paper about Mediterranean energy security issues for $3,000. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: A London Meeting Before The Election Aroused George Papadopoulos’s Suspicions)
    Halper had already been in contact with two other Trump campaign advisers by that point.    He first met Carter Page at an event at the University of Cambridge on July 11, 2016.    The pair would remain in contact through September 2017.    Halper also reached out to and met Trump campaign official Sam Clovis.
    Papadopoulos exchanged emails with Halper, Turk and Halper’s wife.    He accepted the offer and flew to London.    His first visit was with Turk, who Papadopoulos described as a voluptuous blonde woman in her 30s who spoke with a heavy accent.
    In his book, “Deep State Target,” Papadopoulos speculates that Turk was a honeypot, the spy term used to describe a situation where sex is used to lure in targets.
    Papadopoulos has said that Turk exchanged flirtatious messages with him during his London visit.    She also sought to meet him when he returned home to Chicago. He’s said he turned down the offer.
    The British government was informed about the operation, according to The Times, but it is not clear if they took part.    The report also gels with Papadopoulos’s past claims about his interactions with Halper and Turk.    He’s said that both pressed him about any contacts he or the campaign had with Russians.    Papadopoulos has said that he denied having any Russian contacts or knowing about Russians hacking Democrats’ emails.
    The FBI obtained little useful information from the operation, The Times reported.
    Turk has not responded to emails seeking comment.    A phone number she used during her interactions with Papadopoulos was disconnected after The Daily Caller News Foundation began contacting her in March 2018.
    A Facebook account belonging to an Azra Turk who claims to live in Los Angeles has been active since at least 2014.    A profile photo on the account is of a blonde woman whose face is obscured.    When shown the Facebook account, Papadopoulos said it is possible the photo is of the woman he met in London.

    The following found at
8/18/2019 Lindsey Graham wants answers on role of CIA and Obama in Trump-Russia probe by Jerry Dunleavy, Washington Examiner
    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Sunday he wants answers about the role the CIA and the Obama White House played in the Trump-Russia investigation, including answers on what President Barack Obama himself may have known.
    The Judiciary Committee chairman spoke with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures about the unanswered questions he has about possible abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.    Regarding who he thought was the “mastermind” behind President Trump getting caught up in the investigation, Graham said he believed more than just the Justice Department and FBI needed to be scrutinized, saying he was curious about the role U.S. intelligence agencies played as well.
    “You know, I really am very curious about the role that CIA played here,” Graham said.
    Graham noted the DOJ and FBI made extensive use of the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, which he put together in 2016 at the behest of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS.    The Clinton campaign hired the firm through Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm and the campaign was briefed about Steele's findings.    The Democratic funding was never revealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
    Graham said the dossier was “one problem” but not the only one.
    “This whole intelligence operation, what role did the CIA play?    Who knew about this in the White House?    There’s a question!” Graham said.    “Was President Obama briefed on the fact that they were opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign?    I’d like to know that.”
    “At the time John Brennan was running CIA,” Bartiromo said.    “Are you going to call him to testify?
    “We’ll see,” Graham replied.
    Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, is a vociferous Trump critic on Twitter and television.    Brennan wrongly suggested earlier this year that members of Trump’s family would be indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller, who did not establish any criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia.    Brennan's possible role in the Trump-Russia probe is increasingly being scrutinized.    According to multiple reports, the CIA had a key informant close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Brennan would hand-deliver information from the source in an envelope directly to Obama in the summer and fall of 2016.    This source was allegedly providing information about the Kremlin’s culpability in election interference efforts.
    There is also an ongoing debate over whether Brennan or former FBI Director James Comey attempted to include the unverified dossier in the high-profile Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017 which focused on this Russian interference.     The interactions Trump associate George Papadopoulos had with the mysterious Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud allegedly led to the FBI opening an inquiry into Trump in July 2016.    Mifsud allegedly told Papadopoulos in the spring of 2016 about the Russians having “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.    Papadopoulos then allegedly mentioned this to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who later passed the information along to the FBI, triggering what the FBI dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane.”
    It remains unknown what Obama knew about all this as it was happening.
    Graham also discussed the “three lanes” of the investigation of the investigators looking at the origins and conduct of the probe into alleged connections between Trump and the Russian government.
    Graham said the first lane is the work his Senate Judiciary Committee will do.    The second lane is the work being done by Attorney General William Barr and Barr’s right-hand man, U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is looking into possible criminality in the Obama administration.    The third lane is the FISA abuse investigation carried out by DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz.
    “My job will be to make sure this never happens again,” Graham said.    “Do we need to change the FISA warrant application process to protect against this happening in the future?    Do we need to have rules about counterintelligence investigations being opened against politicians?    Do we need to restructure the Department of Justice?    These are things that Congress will be looking at.”

    The following found at
8/20/2019 10 declassified Russia collusion revelations that could rock Washington this fall by John Solomon, the views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
    Behind the scenes, some major events were set in motion last autumn that could soon change the tenor in Washington, at least as it relates to the debunked Russia collusion narrative that distracted America for nearly three years.
    It was in September 2018 that President Trump told my Hill.TV colleague Buck Sexton and me that he would order the release of all classified documents showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. intelligence agencies may have done wrong in the Russia probe.
    About the same time, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, under then-Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), voted unanimously to send 53 nonpublic transcripts of witnesses in its Russia review to the director of national intelligence (DNI) for declassification.    The transcripts were officially delivered in November.
    Now, nearly a year later, neither release has happened.
    To put that into perspective, it took just a couple of months in 2004 to declassify the final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks after a presidential commission finished its work, which contained some of the nation’s most secretive intelligence revelations.
    But the long wait for transparency may soon end.
    The foot-dragging inside the intelligence community (IC) that occurred under now-departed DNI Dan Coats and his deputy, Sue Gordon, could halt abruptly.    That’s particularly true if Trump appoints a new IC sheriff, such as former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the current ambassador to the Netherlands, or longtime national security expert Fred Fleitz.
    Likewise, the president has an opportunity to speed up and organize the release of declassified information by simply creating an Office of Transparency and Accountability inside his own White House, run by a staffer empowered at the level of a formal assistant to the president.    That would prevent intelligence agencies from continuing their game of public keep-away.
    Nunes, who helped to unravel the Russia collusion farce, has identified five buckets of information he’d like to see released.    One of those buckets, the FBI's interview reports on Bruce Ohr’s cooperation, was released last week—not through a Trump declassification order but, rather, through litigation brought by Judicial Watch, and with heavy redactions.
    My reporting, including interviews with four dozen U.S. officials over the last several months, actually identifies a much larger collection of documents – about a dozen all together – that, when declassified, would show more completely how a routine counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by Democrats.

    Here are the documents that have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:

  • 1.) Christopher Steele’s confidential human source reports at the FBI.    These documents, known in bureau parlance as 1023 reports, show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier.    The big reveal, my sources say, could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with Steele, such as the existence of the classified Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign.    It would be a huge discovery if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).    The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under FOIA lawsuits and they were 100 percent redacted.    The American public deserves better.
  • 2.) The 53 House Intel interviews.    House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November.    There are several big reveals, I’m told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA.
  • 3.) The Stefan Halper documents.    It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources.    We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the election.    My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working his way to the top of Trump's transition and administration, eventually reaching senior advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017.    These documents would show what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government’s Russia probe.
  • 4.) The October 2016 FBI email chain.    This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and his investigators.    My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and discussed with DOJ about using Steele’s dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016.    If those concerns weren’t shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major repercussions.
  • 5.) Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements.    Another of Nunes’ five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence.    Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason.    If he made that statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.
  • 6.) The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials.    These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative.    Of all the documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited to me in private as having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren’t initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI irregularities.
  • 7.) The Steele spreadsheet.    I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier.    According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors.    Given Steele’s own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI’s final analysis of his credibility.    A document I reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele’s information as only “minimally corroborated” and the bureau’s confidence in him as “medium.”
  • 8.) The Steele interview.    It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ's inspector general (IG) interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton’s opposition research firm, Fusion GPS.    It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump, had a political deadline to make his dirt public, was working for the DNC/Clinton campaign and was leaking to the news media.    If he told that to the FBI and it wasn’t disclosed to the FISA court, there could be serious repercussions.
  • 9.) The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application.    This was the .    It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I’m told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump’s orbit.
  • 10.) Records of allies’ assistance.    Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia.    Members of Congress have searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence.    My sources say these documents might help explain Attorney General Bill Barr’s recent comments that “the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed.”
    John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption.    He is an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.    Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports.

    The following found at
8/22/2019 Overstock CEO resigns after comments about 'deep state,' Russia investigation by Chris Mills Rodrigo.
    The CEO of internet retailer Overstock resigned Thursday after comments he made recently about the "deep state" and helping the government investigate Russian election interference.
    "In July I came forward to a small set of journalists regarding my involvement in certain government matters," Patrick Byrne said in a statement Thursday.    "Doing so was not my first choice, but I was reminded of the damage done to our nation for three years and felt my duty as a citizen precluded me from staying silent any longer."
    “Thus, while I believe that I did what was necessary for the good of the country, for the good of the firm, I am in the sad position of having to sever ties with Overstock, both as CEO and board member, effective Thursday, August 22," he added.
    The company's stock took a dive earlier this month after Byrne came out with a statement about what he referred to as the "deep state" while saying that he assisted efforts to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
    Byrne also acknowledged that he was romantically involved with Maria Butina, a Russian operative who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for using NRA activism to infiltrate American politics.
    The Overstock executive later told The New York Times that he wanted to highlight what he viewed as problems with the way senior law enforcement officials handled the case against Butina, adding that he was still "quite fond" of her.
    Butina's lawyer confirmed that she and Byrne had been "romantically involved" and that Byrne had said he was instructed by government officials on how to interact with her.
    "Starting in 2015 I (operating under the belief that I was helping legitimate law enforcement efforts) assisted in what are now known as the ‘Clinton Investigation’ and the ‘Russian Investigation,’" Byrne said on the company's website earlier this month.    "It was the third time in my life I helped the Men in Black."
    He did not offer any specifics regarding the investigation.
    Byrne has a history of making controversial statements.    He previously compared his company's cryptocurrency goals to the polio vaccine.
    In his statement Thursday, Byrne acknowledged that his presence at Overstock "may affect and complicate all manner of business relationships, from insurability to strategic discussions regarding our retail business."
Below left is images of Byrne with Butina, and below right is more of them, and below that is her lawyer who stated that he was around her at one time.
    Below is two articles that I have on Maria Butina before she was incarcinated as a spy.
2/8/2019 Defense team pushing for accused Russian spy Maria Butina to be released in 6 weeks by OAN Newsroom
Maria Butina speaks during a rally in support of legalizing the possession of handguns in Moscow, Russia, in 2013. (AP/Photo)
    The lawyer of accused Russian spy Maria Butina claimed she should be released and sent back home within the next six weeks.    In an interview on Thursday, attorney Robert Driscoll said the defense team is hoping to have a sentencing date set as early as next month.
    This comes after the 30-year-old pleaded guilty to one-count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. on behalf of Russian interest groups.
    Driscoll went on to claim Butina was only seeking to create peace between Russia and the U.S., but got caught up in the politics.
    “The reality is she was really seeking peace, its an odd kind of case, you have someone who viewed herself as a peace builder, wanted to build bridges between the two countries in the private sphere and ended up getting caught up in this and I think its unfortunate,” he stated.
    So far however, an official sentencing date for her case has not been set.    Butina faces a maximum of five-years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
2/27/2019 Convicted spy Marina Butina to remain jailed by OAN Newsroom
In this photo taken on Friday, Sept. 7, 2012, Maria Butina walks with Alexander Torshin then a
member of the Russian upper house of parliament in Moscow, Russia.. (AP Photo/Pavel Ptitsin)
    Convicted Russian spy Maria Butina’s sentencing is pushed back by prosecutors due to her cooperation in other investigations.    Assistant U.S. attorney Erik Kenerson asked for the extension during a hearing Tuesday in front of the federal judge overseeing her case.
    Butina has been jailed since last summer, but has vehemently denied ever being employed or paid by the Kremlin.    She said she’s now hated in Russia, because she is seen as an American spy.
    This comes after she pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as a foreign agent back in December.
    Her attorney — Robert Driscoll — provided an update on her living conditions behind bars, following the hearing.
    “She’s not in solitary anymore, she’s in general population, so she’s able to read, she gets visitation from her priest every week — Russian Orthodox priest father Robert Viktor — the attorneys see her pretty much every day or every other day, and she can call home a couple times a week to talk to her parents, so she’s doing as well as can be expected,” he explained.
    Butina is set to be sentenced in March, where she faces a maximum of five-years in prison as well as a $250,000 fine and deportation.

8/23/2019 Former Overstock CEO alleges Peter Strzok gave orders during Russia investigation by OAN Newsroom
    Former CEO Patrick Byrne recently revealed the reasons behind his resignation, and opened up about his alleged involvement in a ‘deep state’ operation.    Byrne said he began a relationship with a woman who turned out to be a Russian spy — Maria Butina — in 2015, which Byrne claimed led FBI officials to reach out and push him to form a romantic relationship with Butina.
    Once Byrne learned about the alleged scheme, he said he refused to pursue romantic encounters with Butina.    He also said he felt he was involved in – what he called – a politicized operation in which he was being given orders by the FBI.    Orders that, according to Byrne, turned out to be political espionage under the directive of Peter Strzok and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
    “Last summer watching television, watching Congress rip apart some people, I put some details together and figured out who had sent me the request — the man’s name was Peter Strzok,” said Byrne.
FILE – In this Nov. 6, 2007, file photo Patrick Byrne, President and CEO of is reflected on a large television screen while
being interviewed at the headquarters for supporters of school vouchers in Salt Lake City. Byrne has resigned, saying he’d become
far too controversial” to helm the e-commerce company known for selling discounted sofas and jewelry. Bryne, who founded the
online discount retailer 20 years ago, said Thursday, Aug. 22, 2019, that was “in the sad position” of having to step down. (AP Photo/Steve C. Wilson)
    The executive claimed he was offered up to one billion dollars to keep quiet, but refused the offer.    Byrne also alleged President Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio were all targets of the spying, and named former FBI Director James Comey as one of the prime suspects.
    “Not only knew, but I was specifically told this request is coming from Jim Comey at the request of somebody, who I’m not going to name,” he stated.
    The CEO also alleged he is not the only whistleblower that will come forward with allegations of ‘deep state’ spying, adding, names that he refused to publicize will likely be revealed during a potential indictment from William Barr.
    Byrne resigned from Thursday amid revelations of his involvement in these investigations, which caused their stock value to plummet more than 30-percent only to recover shortly after his resignation.    Butina is currently in prison serving 18-months for charges unrelated to Russian interference.

    The following was found at
8/23/2019 Spying, sex and the 2016 campaign: Parsing wild new allegations against the FBI - The former CEO of made some hard-to-believe — and confusing — new claims by Phillip Bump.
Patrick Byrne resigned Thursday as president and chief executive of (Steve C. Wilson/AP)
    Unlike most interesting stories, this one began with a news release.
    “ CEO Comments on Deep State, Withholds Further Comment,” the Aug. 12 message on the company’s website was titled.    The content of the release was simple: two bullet points confirming components of reporting by Fox News regular Sara Carter and a statement that the chief executive, Patrick Byrne, would offer no further comment.
    That would have been easier to digest had the bullet points contained less dramatic allegations.    But in the news release Byrne claimed to have assisted “in what are now known as the ‘Clinton Investigation’ and the ‘Russian Investigation’” beginning in 2015; “in fact,” he wrote, “I am the notorious ‘missing Chapter 1’ of the Russian investigation.”    This was the third time he had worked with the “Men in Black,” he wrote, referring to the FBI, but it “turned out to be less about law enforcement and more about political espionage conducted against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (and to a lesser degree, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz)."
    The release concluded: “[H]aving lived in places lacking Rule of Law and having witnessed the consequences of its absence, I plan on sitting back and watching the United States Department of Justice re-establish Rule of Law in our country.”
    On Thursday evening, Byrne broke his pledge, appearing for lengthy interviews on Fox News and CNN.    (Earlier in the day, he had resigned his position with Overstock.)    In each interview, he alleged that he had been instructed by “Men in Black” — a term used for bad actors within the government — to carry on a sexual relationship with a Russian woman.    The request that he do so, he said, came indirectly from senior officials he called “X, Y and Z.”    At different points in the conversations Byrne stated that one of those letters applied to former FBI director James B. Comey.    He further claimed that former FBI agent Peter Strzok was also involved.
    In case your Russia-probe-Bingo-card is still incomplete, the Russian woman at issue is one with whom you are probably familiar: Maria Butina.    Butina was sentenced to 18 months in prison earlier this year after having worked on behalf of the Russian government to build relationships with political figures in the United States without having registered as a foreign agent.
    As the news release states, this was all documented last month by Fox News’s Carter.    Her telling is a bit simpler to follow than Byrne’s TV appearances, so let’s start there.
    Byrne told Carter that he had worked with the FBI twice before, once after the death of a friend and again in the lead-up to the last recession.    He also claims to have had low-level security clearance, so when Butina contacted him at an event in 2015 — the same event where she asked a question of then-candidate Donald Trump — Byrne reported the unusual encounter to the FBI.        He claims that the FBI signed off on his interacting with Butina, skeptical that she was a Russian agent, and he began a relationship with her.
    At some point, Byrne told Carter, he began to believe that Butina was being used by both American and Russian intelligence agencies, though it’s not clear why. (It’s worth noting that for years Byrne managed a website called, which includes a number of odd, rabbit-hole-esque screeds alleging various conspiracies.)    According to Carter, Byrne said that Butina told him she “want[ed] to meet anyone in the Hillary [Clinton] campaign, the [Sen. Ted] Cruz, the [Sen. Marco] Rubio campaigns,” referring to those individuals’ 2016 presidential bids.    She sought the meetings at the request of Alexander Torshin, a Russian politician and banker with whom she was working in the United States, with the goal of having contacts within whatever administration took office in January 2017, Byrne told Carter.
    Byrne said he broke off their relationship but eventually resumed it at the behest of the government.    That’s where Carter’s story ends.
    During his Fox and CNN interviews, Byrne added new details and broad new allegations.
    Byrne claimed to Fox’s Martha MacCallum that Butina was hoping to build contacts with people in Trump’s campaign, as well.    He claims that Butina contacted someone in Clinton’s campaign.    He claims she didn’t end up contacting the Trump campaign, but not for lack of trying.
    “At one point,” Byrne told CNN’s Chris Cuomo, “I learned, in several weeks, she’s going to some convention in the South, I thought it was Tennessee and the Conservative Convention.    [Donald Trump Jr.]'s going to come, be taken on a Sunday afternoon at 2 o’clock out the back of his hotel, taken up this road, and driven up the road to her hotel, spend 60 minutes with her.”    He said he told the FBI about it.
    That plan tracks with one of the lingering mysteries of the Russia probe.    In late May 2016, Trump Jr. and Torshin met briefly at a dinner associated with the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Kentucky.    Torshin had reached out multiple times to the Trump campaign through intermediaries and been rebuffed but still ended up meeting the then-candidate’s son.
    Byrne claims that Butina was there, too, at a private dinner — an allegation for which there’s no public evidence.
    (Torshin isn’t mentioned in the report on Russian interference compiled by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.)    Byrne further alleges that the government allowed that meeting to happen after he informed them about it, implying that Trump’s team was being set up.    He also said, at another point, that the planned meeting with Trump Jr. didn’t happen.
    How he would have known about such a meeting isn’t clear.    Byrne claims he had stopped seeing Butina in March of that year at the request of the FBI — meaning that they weren’t dating “several weeks” before the NRA convention.
    The more significant new allegation Byrne made Thursday night is that he had been approached again in July 2016 to rekindle his affair with Butina, on orders from senior FBI officials.
    He claims to have been working with the FBI on a corruption investigation that was really “more about blackmail … on Hillary Clinton.”    He didn’t give details.
    “And then, when that was done, about three months later in July, July 1 or so, they came back to me, and said: ‘Boy, what a mistake we made.    Russia!    You’re right.    There’s this Russia, Russia, Russia, this gal Maria, oh, my gosh, highest national priority,’” Byrne told Cuomo.    “And they said, and the very honorable men and women, the Men in Black, they said: ‘We want to be clear.    This never happens in the United States.    We are the good guys.    Oh, we’re not — we don’t work like the bad guys.    But we need to ask you to rekindle a romantic relationship with Maria Butina.’"
    Cuomo asked: “Members of the FBI that you’re sure were members of the FBI asked you to do this?
    “And I know their names,” Byrne said.    “And they said these orders are coming from the personal — this is being personally supervised by Y, and it’s being — and at the request of X.    And then two months later, they said Mr. Z has added his name.”
    He wouldn’t identify two of those individuals, but he did tell MacCallum that if you were to go to Comey and “say the name Patrick Byrne, you will see a former director of the FBI crap his pants.”    To Cuomo, he claimed that Comey was Z.    In a subsequent statement to CNN, Comey said the claim was “ridiculous.”
    According to Byrne, Peter Strzok, the FBI agent, was not X, Y or Z but, instead, just an “errand boy.”    Strzok, who led the FBI’s counterintelligence arm in 2016, is a central figure in a narrative popular on the right in which the entire Russia probe was a function not of an effort to root out Russian malfeasance but, instead, a function of anti-Trump bias by Strzok and others.    One branch of this theory includes speculation that the probe itself didn’t begin on July 31, 2016, as has been widely reported but began much earlier, targeting Trump for months.    Byrne’s story of outreach in early July would seem to bolster that.
    Except that it doesn’t.    Setting aside the particular allegations about what Byrne says he was asked to do, there was reason in early July for the FBI to have renewed concern about Russia: the revelation in mid-June that Russian intelligence officers had hacked into the Democratic National Committee and begun releasing stolen material.
    Nor does Byrne offer any evidence for Comey’s or Strzok’s involvement in the alleged request, telling MacCallum simply that he had seen Strzok’s 2018 congressional testimony and pieced together that he must be involved, having that suspicion later confirmed by unnamed sources.
    Byrne said he gave all of this information to the Justice Department shortly after the Mueller investigation concluded.
    “I am highly confident,” he told Cuomo, “that [Attorney General] Bill Barr and the Department of Justice will be providing those names on an indictment someday — someday in the not-too-distant future.”
    Government officials confirmed to CNN that Byrne had met with the Justice Department and that at least some aspects of his story were believable, if not verified.    It’s hard not to notice, though, how frequently his most speculative claims overlap with existing rumors popular on the conservative right (ones often fostered by Carter): Strzok and Comey being involved, the July timeline, suggestions that the FBI was trying to set Trump up … though not really explaining how that was going to work.    Even that comment about the government officials getting indicted by Barr’s Justice Department mirrors a popular pro-Trump idea.
    Byrne told Cuomo that as early as December 2015, he believed that the government was letting Butina contact prominent figures so that they had a “can o’ scandal” ready to deploy.
    “Are they letting this happen so someday they’re going to pull the pin, and there’s some explosion … of Russian scandal?” he claims to have thought at that point.    “That couldn’t possibly be.”
    It does seem a bit convenient.

    The following found at
8/25/2019 Carter Page: FBI Wanted Me To Make False Testimony About Russians by Tim Hains
    Former 2016 Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page joined FNC's Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures" for a conversation about his experience as a government witness.
CARTER PAGE: Great to be with you, Maria.
MARIA BARTIROMO: You had an esteemed career.    I want to start there because our viewers know that we've covered this story very effectively from the get-go, poking holes in this whole idea of collusion, poking holes in the FISA court situation, but you had worked with the government for a long time before they actually turned on you.    Tell me your career as a government informant after you worked at the Pentagon and after in the Navy tell us about it.
CARTER PAGE: Well I got out of the Navy in '98 and I was on a research fellowship at a foreign policy think tank and that was actually the first time as a civilian (as you mentioned I spent a lot of time doing intelligence tasks in the military) but that was the first time when I actually did stuff as a civilian, and so one of the guys I worked closely with was Chris Stephens, who was the Iran desk officer at the State Department in '98-99, and we had a long ongoing dialogue, and so a lot of similarities between what happened with him, and the lack of responsibility by these Democrat administrations.    That was during the Clinton administration, but the loss of his life was really a continuation of that.
MARIA BARTIROMO: So the bottom line is you've worked as a government informant for what, two decades?    And somewhere along the line, they obviously turned on you, because they wiretapped you.
MARIA BARTIROMO: And somewhere along the line, they obviously turned on you because they wiretapped you.    Fast forward to 2013 or so when you are an informant for the government about a spy ring in New York, involving three Russians.
CARTER PAGE: Yeah, well listen.    It was something where there was a lot, they did an indictment.    I spent time with the FBI in 2013 giving them all of the information they needed.
MARIA BARTIROMO: This is under the Obama administration.
CARTER PAGE: It was under the Obama administration and then a number of top officials, Attorney General Holder, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and [former Assistant Attorney General] John Carlin in January of 2015, a year before the start of when I joined the-- I was a volunteer on the Trump campaign, they had this indictment... of the three Russians.    So I was one of the main sources on "Male #1."
MARIA BARTIROMO: That's interesting because you were "Male #1" -- we're looking at a timeline in 2013 you're male number one and they indict these people and the indictment comes down in January 2015 and they name you as Male #1.
CARTER PAGE: Well there's this big thing about masks and unmasking, and I was very lightly masked and there are a lot of problems in that indictment and they really kind of put me out on a limb.
MARIA BARTIROMO: That's what I want to ask you because then you start getting death threats your life was in danger... We're taking a pivot looking at how the government has treated government informants...
    I'm back with former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page and you were telling us about this case that you helped the government with.    Tell me what happened in 2015 after the indictment was handed down on the Russians.
CARTER PAGE: Well really, in March of 2016, they called me in to come to testify in the Southern District of New York on that case.
    There were so many falsehoods and misrepresentations in their indictment the prior year.    I said I am not going to lie in court. Similar to their false court filings, which the DOJ and the FBI has submitted in this case. So it was a long back and forth with them but I told them, I am a man of my word and I'm not going to, you know, provide false testimony like they've done.    It is very similar between the false testimony which they did and that case against the Russians, and the false testimony which they did a few months later in October of 2016 with their start of the FISA abuse.
MARIA BARTIROMO: You never actually testified in the spy ring circus in terms of that, but this all goes to government informants and you could look at Patrick Byrne from, right?
CARTER PAGE: Well its basically, the government is taking control of people's lives I mean, look, I've lost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and he lost a couple hundred million off his market cap just based on these falsehoods.
MARIA BARTIROMO: You mean the stock lost hundreds of millions of dollars, not you?
CARTER PAGE: Well I've lost, you know, massive amounts of money.

    The follwoing found at
8/27/2019 Is Andrew McCabe About to be Indicted for Lying Under Oath? by Katie Pavlich, Townhall.
Source: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File
    In April 2018 Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz officially referred fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe for criminal prosecution.    According to a report published by the IG's office, McCabe lied under oath multiple times to FBI and agents and IG investigators.    In other words, he committed perjury.
    We found that, in a conversation with then-Director Comey shortly after the WSJ article was published, McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe, that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did.    This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.5 (Lack of Candor – No Oath).
    We also found that on May 9, 2017, when questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did.    This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).
    We further found that on July 28, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) that, because he was not in Washington, D.C., on October 27 and 28, 2016, he was unable to say where Special Counsel was or what she was doing at that time.    This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).
    We additionally found that on November 29, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ, McCabe lacked candor when he: (a) stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; (b) denied telling INSD agents on May 9 that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ about the PADAG call; and (c) asserted that INSD’s questioning of him on May 9 about the October 30 WSJ article occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and asked him one or two questions about the article.    This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).
    Now, it looks as though a decision about whether the U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C. will indict McCabe is looming.
[There are bigger fish to fry especially if these two start singing to save their own hides.].

    The follwoing found at
8/29/2019 Former acting AG: Potential for IG's Comey-centric report to 'lay bare a lot of the rumors or innuendo we've heard' by Charles Creitz, Fox News
    Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said the potential release of an inspector general report focusing on ex-FBI Director James Comey could shed new light on why he was fired.
    Whitaker, who served in the interim between former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and current AG William Barr, claimed Wednesday on "The Storyabove the law."
    "I think it's going to lay bare a lot of the rumors or innuendo we've heard," he said of the potential release from the inspector general.
    "It's going to say specifically what Jim did leak and how he leaked it."
    The purported document is said to concentrate on the former FBI director's leaking of memos detailing his interactions with President Trump just prior to his firing.
    Those memos were then passed by Comey to Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, who in turn gave them to The New York Times.
    Comey later admitted to that arrangement during congressional testimony.
    According to Whitaker, that situation exemplified the questionable "culture" Comey oversaw inside the bureau, "folks were running their own plays," he said.    "They did not believe they were in the chain of command at the Department of Justice.    Jim is really demonstrating why he was fired, quite frankly."
    "I think one of the things [the IG report] is also going to lay bare, once you hear the story of Comey and McCabe told together, is that there was a culture of leaking in the senior offices at the FBI that really was out of control."
    Whitaker, a former federal prosecutor in Iowa, added the culture he said Comey instilled was "dangerous."
    Regarding Andrew McCabe, who was Comey's deputy director at the FBI, federal prosecutors appear to be close to a decision on whether to charge the newly minted CNN contributor.
    A source close to the process said that McCabe has had a “target on his back” because of the Justice Department inspector general findings against him over actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, as well as his role in the surveillance warrants against Trump campaign associates during the Russia election-meddling investigation.    McCabe is a former deputy and acting director of the FBI.
[James Comey's ego is so big that he cannot admit that what he has done is a crime, but any new FBI agent who would have done this same crime would have been fired from the FBI.    So GOD help us that the Republicans won so that we caught all of this before the infestation increased from the last 8 years of the Obama administration and we are about to clean the SWAMP, which Comey and all of his cohorts will be involved and indicted in that as it ensues in the next few months.    The worst of all of the above is that Comey's leak to his friend who then gave it to The New York Times news service caused the start of the Special Council investigation that we put up with for the next two years plus and turned out to have no Russian collusion.].

    The following is a digest of the numerous times Comey was criticized and cited in the report for violations: seen at
  • “Comey did not seek authorization from the FBI before providing Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to his attorneys.” (page 2)
  • “Comey did not seek FBI authorization before providing the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter.” (page 2)
  • “As described in this report, we conclude that Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement.” (page 3)
  • “Comey told the OIG that he did not notify anyone at the FBI that he was going to share these Memos with anyone, and did not seek authorization from the FBI prior to emailing these four Memos to Fitzgerald.” (page 38)
  • “Accordingly, Comey stated that he did not notify anyone at the FBI that he was going to share the contents of the Memo 4 with Richman or the media, and that he did not seek authorization from FBI to provide Memo 4 to Richman.” (page 40)
  • “Accordingly, after his removal as FBI Director, Comey violated applicable policies and his Employment Agreement by failing to either surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to the FBI or seek authorization to retain them; by releasing official FBI information and records to third parties without authorization; and by failing to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his personal attorneys once he became aware in June 2017 that Memo 2 contained six words (four of which were names of foreign countries mentioned by the President) that the FBI had determined were classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” (page 52)
  • “Despite knowledge that Memo 3 contained classified information, Comey did not appropriately mark Memo 3 with classification banners, portion markings, or a classification authority block.    By failing to do so, Comey violated Executive Order 13526 and Intelligence Community, Department, and FBI policies governing marking of classified information.” (page 53)
  • “Comey's actions with respect to the Memos violated Department and FBI policies concerning the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information, and violated the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.” (page 54)
  • “Comey violated Department and FBI policies, and the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement, by retaining copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 after he was removed as Director, regardless of each Memo's classification level.” (page 55)
  • “As a departing FBI employee, Comey was required to relinquish any official documents in his possession and to seek specific authorization from the FBI in order to personally retain any FBI documents.    Comey failed to comply with these requirements.” (page 55)
  • “As the FBI Director and Head of a Department Component, Comey was required to apply for and obtain authorization from the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to retain any FBI records after his removal.    Comey violated these Department and FBI policies by failing to surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 upon being removed as FBI Director and by failing to seek authorization to retain them.” (page 55)
  • “Comey violated FBI policies and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he sent a copy of Memo 4 to Richman with instructions to provide the contents to a reporter, and when he transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and a redacted version of 7 to his three attorneys.” (page 56)
  • “Comey violated FBI policy and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he chose this path.” (page 56)
  • “Comey was not authorized to disclose the statements he attributed to President Trump in Memo 4, which Comey viewed as evidence of an alleged attempt to obstruct the Flynn investigation and which were relevant to the ongoing Flynn investigation.” (page 56)
  • “Rather than continuing to safeguard such evidence, Comey unilaterally and without authorization disclosed it to all.” (page 56)
  • “However, Comey’s own, personal conception of what was necessary was not an appropriate basis for ignoring the policies and agreements governing the use of FBI records, especially given the other lawful and appropriate actions he could have taken to achieve his desired end.” (page 57)
  • “The unauthorized disclosure of this information—information that Comey knew only by virtue of his position as FBI Director—violated the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement and the FBI's Prepublication Review Policy.” (page 57)
  • “However, Comey was not authorized to provide these Memos to his attorneys without prior approval from or coordination with the FBI.” (page 58)
  • “By providing Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to his attorneys without seeking FBI approval, Comey took for himself the ‘carte blanche authority’ expressly denied by the courts, in clear violation of the FBI's Prepublication Review Policy and the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.    As a result, Comey not only disclosed sensitive law enforcement information to his personal counsel but also a small amount of information contained in Memo 2 that the FBI subsequently determined was classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” (page 58)
  • “Once he knew that the FBI had classified portions of Memo 2, Comey failed to immediately notify the FBI that he had previously given Memo 2 to his attorneys.” (page 59)
  • “The FBI's Safeguarding Classified National Security Information Policy Guide clearly states that ‘[a]ny person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, compromised, or disclosed to an unauthorized person must immediately report the circumstances to his or her security office.’    Comey violated this requirement by failing to immediately inform the FBI that he provided Memo 2 to his attorneys.” (page 59)
  • “By not immediately reporting that he had provided Memo 2 to his attorneys when Comey first learned that the FBI had designated a small portion of Memo 2 as classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level, Comey violated FBI policy.” (page 59)
  • “However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times.” (page 60)
  • But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.    Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility.” (page 60)
  • “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy.    Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” (page 61)
  • “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure.    What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” (page 61)

8/29/2019 DOJ IG releases Comey report by OAN Newsroom     The Justice Department’s inspector general recently released a report on the leaking of classified documents by fired FBI director James Comey.
    According to the report, Comey violated policy by writing, keeping and then leaking memos about his conversations with Donald Trump during the transition period as well as during his presidency.
    The inspector general did refer his findings to the Justice Department for prosecution, but the department declined.
    Comey admitted to Congress that he leaked documents to the media through a friend to ensure the appointment of a special counsel into alleged Russian collusion, but said he did so after he was fired.
    Read the full report here:
Report of Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey’s Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda
FILE – In this Dec. 17, 2018, file photo, former FBI Director James Comey speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill Washington.
The Justice Department’s inspector general says former FBI Director James Comey violated FBI policies in his handling of
memos documenting private conversations with President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

    The following found at
9/4/2019 ACLJ Files Lawsuit Against FBI Over FOIA Regarding Comey’s Spies in the White House by Jordan Sekulow
    We told you about the reports that fired FBI Director James Comey had planted spies in the White House.    And we told you that we were doing something about it.
    Last month, we sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the FBI and other offices of the Department of Justice (DOJ) so we could determine for ourselves what Comey and his circle of corruption had done in their efforts to spy on the Trump Administration.
    The deadline for the FBI to comply with the FOIA has now passed and it has not complied.
    Today, we are filing a federal lawsuit against the FBI in Washington, D.C.    If these Deep State agencies will not comply with the law until a federal court forces them to, then we’ll keep filing federal lawsuits and taking them to court.
    As we told you at the time we filed our FOIA requests:
    Spies in the White House, planted by a corrupt FBI Director, to sabotage a sitting U.S. President.
    It sounds like a Hollywood movie about political espionage and spies, but the sad truth is, it’s not fiction.    It really happened, and we’re taking action to find out how, why, and what they said.
    As we told you, fired FBI director James Comey reportedly conducted his own “covert operation” against President Trump by inserting FBI agents – spies – inside the White House.    Their job was to secretly collect information and report back to Comey’s office on the President and his Administration.
    Since his firing by President Trump, Comey has tried to present himself to the American people as a victim worthy of sympathy.    Especially as he peddled his book.    But now information has come to light that seems to expose the real James Comey to be a deceptive schemer against the Trump Administration.
    Now we know even more about the depths of Comey’s corruption.    A stunning Inspector General’s report has detailed the leaks, violations of FBI policy, and surreptitious subversion of the President.
    As we discussed on our radio show last week, Comey leaked classified memos containing privileged conversations with the President to the media through a friend in order to force “official action” – the appointment of a special counsel.
    As we said:
    [W]e are filing a lawsuit in federal court against the FBI concerning Comey’s circle of corruption, including one individual who we believe may still at the FBI.    These people who were at the National Security Council, with access to the most classified information in the world, were spying on a sitting President. . . .
    [W]e were given 70 pages worth of reasons why James Comey should have been and was fired by President Trump.
    Here’s what’s at stake: this is how a Constitutional Republic responds when this kind of corruption and bad behavior is taking place.    The ACLJ is taking action to expose this and see that those involved are held accountable for putting the security of our nation at risk for their personal agendas.
    Here is what we are demanding from the FBI through our lawsuit:
1. All records, including emails, memorandums, briefs, electronic messages, etc., pertaining to this spy Ferrante’s time within the White House and beyond.    Specifically, we are requesting records and emails between or about Comey and Ferrante and others.
2. We are also demanding records related to this spying effort and what we call Comey’s circle of corruption.    These are Comey’s closest advisors including: FBI General Counsel James Baker; Deputy Director/Acting Director Andrew McCabe; Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, McCabe’s Deputy Counsel, Lisa Page; and Comey’s Chief of Staff, James Rybicki, David Bowdich (Director’s Office - DO), Michael Steinbach (Director’s Office - DO), Trisha Anderson (OGC), E.W. Bill Priestap (Counterintelligence Division - CD), and Jonathan Moffa (Counterintelligence Division - CD).
3. Finally, we are requesting “All of James Comey’s emails from April 1, 2016, to May 31, 2017.”
    In this lawsuit, the ACLJ also alleges that the FBI operates under a pattern or practice of unlawfully ignoring FOIA requests until the requestor takes legal action.    We will give the court an opportunity to reign in this bureaucratic abuse – the type of abuse, unfortunately, contributing to the FBI’s bad reputation.
    Comey may have betrayed the trust of the American people and think he got away with it, but today we are doing something about it.    The American people deserve the truth.    We deserve justice.    We will keep you informed as our lawsuit progresses.

    The following was found at
9/4/2019 Devin Nunes Files Racketeering Lawsuit Against Fusion GPS by Chuck Ross, Investigative Reporter, Daily Caller
FILE PHOTO: House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) speaks
to the media on Capitol Hill in Washington March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein
    Rep. Devin Nunes is suing Fusion GPS, the firm behind the Steele dossier, and a liberal watchdog group.
  • The Republican accuses Fusion GPS and Campaign for Accountability of working together to derail his investigation into Fusion GPS.
  • Campaign for Accountability paid Fusion GPS nearly $140,000 for research last year. The group also filed three ethics complaints against Nunes, including one that accused him of leaking information about Fusion GPS.
  • Campaign for Accountability official Daniel Stevens has denied hiring Fusion GPS to investigate Nunes.
    Rep. Devin Nunes filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against opposition research firm Fusion GPS and the Campaign for Accountability, accusing the two of smearing him over his investigation into Fusion GPS’s and the Steele dossier.
    The complaint, which the California Republican filed in federal court in Virginia, alleges that Fusion GPS and Campaign for Accountability (CfA) worked on a “joint and systematic effort to intimidate, harass, threaten, influence, interfere with, impede, and ultimately to derail” Nunes’ investigation of the dossier, which he directed as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
    In the lawsuit, Nunes draws a link between CfA payments to Fusion GPS and a string of ethics complaints that the watchdog group filed against him last year.
    The Daily Caller News Foundation reported Aug. 1 that CfA’s 2018 tax filings show the group paid Fusion GPS nearly $140,000 unspecified research activities.
    CfA filed three complaints against Nunes with the Office of Congressional Ethics.    In a Jan. 25, 2018 complaint, CfA accused Nunes of leaking sensitive House Intelligence Committee information about Fusion GPS.
    Daniel Stevens, the executive director of CfA, denied in a statement to the DCNF that the payment was for information about Nunes.
    “CfA did not hire Fusion to look into Devin Nunes or coordinate with the firm regarding our ethics complaints against Devin Nunes,” he told the DCNF for the Aug. 1 article.
Fusion GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson listens as his lawyer, Joshua Levy, speaks to members of
the media following a meeting with members of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee in the
Rayburn Office Building on Capitol Hill on October 16, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)
    But Nunes, who is seeking $9.9 million in damages, dismisses Stevens’ denial, saying in the lawsuit that the ethics complaints were “fraudulent and retaliatory,” and intended to protect Fusion GPS and its co-founder, Glenn Simpson.
    He alleges that Fusion GPS and Simpson “harbored spite and ill-will” towards him for exposing details of Fusion’s dossier-related work.
    In October 2017, HPSCI subpoenaed Fusion GPS’s bank records, leading to the revelation that the law firm for the Clinton campaign and DNC-funded the Steele dossier.    The firm, Perkins Coie, paid Fusion GPS more than $1 million in 2016.    Fusion paid Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer, nearly $170,000 to work on what would become known as the dossier. (RELATED: Here’s How Much The Clinton Campaign And DNC Paid For The Dossier)
    The dossier has come under intense scrutiny because the FBI relied heavily on the document to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump aide Carter Page.    The special counsel’s report all but debunked Steele’s key claim that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
    Nunes contends that Fusion GPS and Simpson have also retaliated against him for fear that the Republican would submit criminal referrals against Simpson over testimony he gave HPSCI and the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017.
    Nunes accuses Simpson of lying in his HPSCI testimony on Nov. 14, 2017 when he said that he had contact with the Justice Department and FBI regarding the dossier only after the 2016 election.    Bruce Ohr, a Justice Department official whose wife was a contractor at Fusion GPS, testified on Aug. 28, 2018 that he and Simpson met in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 22, 2016.
    Nunes also claims that Simpson lied during his Senate testimony on Aug. 22, 2017 when he denied having a client for Trump-related work after the 2016 election.    A non-profit group called The Democracy Integrity Project hired Fusion GPS and Steele’s London-based firm in 2017.
    “Fearing a criminal referral for his false statements to the FBI and DOJ, for lying to Congress and the Senate, and for obstructing the House Intelligence Committee in its Russia investigation, the Defendants directly and aggressively retaliated against Plaintiff, employing the same or similar means and methods as Fusion GPS and Simpson have employed multiple times in the past to smear the opposition,” the complaint says.
    Nunes has filed four lawsuits this year.    He has sued Twitter, McClatchy, political consultant Liz Mair, among others.

    The follwoing found at
Michael Flynn’s Attorney Accuses Feds Of Hiding Exculpatory Information About His Case
9/3/2019 Collusion - Michael Flynn’s Attorney Accuses Feds Of Hiding Exculpatory Information About His Case by Margot Cleveland, a senior contributor to The Federalist
    Michael Flynn’s new attorney filed a 19-page brief detailing prosecutorial misconduct and seeking sanctions against government attorneys for withholding evidence.
    On Friday, while most of America prepared for the long Labor Day weekend, things exploded in the Michael Flynn case.    What began with an intriguing status report, which exposed the chasm between Flynn’s new powerhouse attorney Sidney Powell and prosecutors, culminated with Powell’s filing of a 19-page brief detailing prosecutorial misconduct and seeking sanctions against government attorneys for withholding evidence.
    Flynn, who pleaded guilty in late 2017 to lying to FBI agents about conversations he had in December 2016 with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, awaits sentencing before federal Judge Emmett Sullivan.    In Friday’s status report, prosecutors told Sullivan that Flynn’s “cooperation has ended” and that the case is ready for sentencing.
    Conversely, Powell argued “the case is not ready for sentencing,” first because new counsel still needs “a significant amount of time” to review the mountainous file.    But it was the additional reasons for a delay Powell detailed that piqued the interest of pundits
    “There are serious issues to be addressed by the Court before we can proceed further,” prosecutor-turned-defense-attorney Powell wrote.    “First, the government continues to deny our requests for security clearances,” and the impasse requires court intervention, Powell argued.    Among the classified information Powell sought clearance to review are “the transcripts and recordings of the phone calls that supposedly underpin the charges against Mr. Flynn,” and “the original or first draft of the FBI 302 of the interview of Mr. Flynn on January 24, 2017,” as well as “any records or documents that show everyone who made changes to that 302.”
    Powell’s status report position ended with a note that Flynn’s defense team “expect[ed] to identify more issues for the Court promptly, and we will file the appropriate motions to address those issues as soon as possible.”
    Powell soon proved to be a woman of her word, when hours later she filed a “Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material” under seal, and an accompanying brief in support of that motion, which was filed on the public record. (Under Brady and its progeny, the government must turn over material favorable evidence—called exculpatory evidence—as well as material evidence adversely affecting the credibility of a government’s witness, known as impeachment evidence.)
    In her brief in support of the motion to compel, Powell pulled no punches.    “The suppression of Brady evidence by the government here is ripe for a finding of contempt of this Court’s Standing Order,” Powell pronounced, referencing the order Judge Sullivan entered shortly after the case was transferred to him in December 2017.
    That order required the “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner—including during plea negotiations—any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.”    Sullivan further ordered the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
    From there, Powell’s brief focused on two seemingly disconnected complaints.    First, Powell highlighted evidence not provided to the defense team, in violation of Brady.    Second, she detailed the many abuses in the Russian investigation, such as the Department of Justice’s use of Bruce Ohr and his wife, Nellie, to feed supposed intel from “Christopher Steele to the FBI through his secret back-channel,” after the FBI terminated Steele as a confidential informant.    Powell’s brief also narrated a flow chart of the incestuous interactions between FBI agents and DOJ attorneys involved both in the Ohr-Steele shenanigans and Flynn’s targeting and prosecution.
    Federal prosecutors will now need to respond to Powell’s motion to compel, although from the status report, their position seems clear.    “We take very seriously our discovery and disclosure obligations,” the DOJ attorneys wrote, adding that “the government has exceeded its discovery and disclosure obligations in this matter,” and “is not aware of any classified information that requires disclosure to the defendant or this counsel under Brady or the Court’s Standing Order.”
    Because a protective order necessitated the filing of the underlying motion under seal, it is difficult to assess the strength of Powell’s arguments.    And it is impossible to predict Judge Sullivan’s reaction to the filing.
    When Flynn’s former attorneys highlighted the strange circumstances of the FBI’s interview of Flynn, Judge Sullivan became unhinged and accused Trump’s former national security advisor of treason, before later back-peddling his statements and suggesting instead that Flynn had not truly accepted responsibility and might well see prison time.
    What can be predicted, though, is that Judge Sullivan’s response will depend on whether Powell showed a clear violation of Brady, and Powell’s brief is not a mere spew of hyperbole.
    In her brief, Powell argued that the government “affirmatively suppressed evidence (hiding Brady material) that destroyed the credibility of their primary witness” and “impugned their entire case against Mr. Flynn.”    “They continued to hide that exculpatory information,” Powell stressed, “and they continue to suppress exculpatory information to this day.”
    To illustrate her point, Powell then noted that “just two weeks ago,” federal prosecutors “produced 330 pages of documents with an abject denial the production included any Brady material.”    Yet, as Flynn’s new attorney noted, “that production reveals significant Brady evidence that we include and discussion in our accompanying Motion.”
    If Powell succeeds in revealing significant Brady evidence withheld by the prosecutors—or, for that matter, even one piece of Brady evidence the government lawyers hid—prosecutors have something to fear in Judge Sullivan, who made history when he launched an investigation into the DOJ’s misconduct in a criminal case against now-deceased Sen. Ted Stevens.
    How this issue plays out will likely also set the tone on Powell’s requests for access to information concerning potential misconduct by FBI and DOJ agents related to Ohr and Steele.    Federal prosecutors will pooh-pooh this request, arguing it is irrelevant to Flynn’s sentencing.    But Powell has a solid argument that that evidence bears on the credibility of government witnesses.
    So why does Powell want this evidence?    Does she intend to pull Flynn’s guilty plea?    “That is not what I want to see happen here,” Powell said during an interview on Friday on Lou Dobbs Tonight.    “I expect frankly that we find evidence that warrants dismissal of the case for egregious government misconduct.”
    But first Powell needs access to that evidence, and whether she will get it will have to await Judge Sullivan’s decision, which will be some time coming.    However, when the parties appear at the hastily scheduled status conference on September 10, 2019, we may get an inkling of Judge Sullivan’s perspective.

The following found at
9/10/2019 Flynn lawyer accuses prosecutors of ‘egregious conduct,’ hiding exculpatory evidence by ake Gibson, Alex Pappas, Fox News
Court documents reveal extent of Mike Flynn's cooperation with Robert Mueller
Former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn told special counsel Robert Mueller of multiple instances,
before and after his guilty plea, where he or his lawyers got calls from individuals connected to the Trump administration
or Congress; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports.
    Former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s legal team indicated in federal court Tuesday they are seeking to have the case against him thrown out, accusing the prosecution of "egregious conduct and suppression” of possibly exculpatory evidence.
    In a status conference in federal court in Washington, Flynn's lead defense attorney, Sidney Powell, said: "There never would have been a plea to begin with if the government had disclosed Brady information about what it knew before the plea agreement."
    The "Brady material" complaint is in reference to the Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, which established the government's obligation to turn over all exculpatory evidence.    The accusation came as both sides have squabbled over a sentencing date.
    After months of delays, prosecutors have said they are ready to proceed to sentencing.    On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan indicated he would like to set a tentative sentencing date of Dec. 18.
    "There is far more at stake here than sentencing," Powell said.    "There were stunning failures to produce Brady material, going back to July of 2017."
    Prosecutors, though, have strongly rejected that assertion, saying "the government has exceeded its discovery and disclosure obligations in this matter," including by providing Flynn with more than 22,000 pages of documents.
    Flynn in 2017 pleaded guilty to providing false statements to the FBI during an interview about his contacts with the former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, as part of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
    Powell, who has accused the Justice Department of withholding documents critical to Flynn's defense, is demanding access to classified materials she claims the government has blocked them from viewing.
    Those materials include FBI documents surrounding the actions of Bruce Ohr, a former high-ranking official at the Department of Justice who had multiple contacts with the author of the infamous Trump dossier
    On Tuesday, Powell claimed that there is an internal DOJ memo that "exonerates" Flynn from being a Russian agent which the prosecution had and failed to disclose before Flynn signed his plea deal.
    But prosecutor Brandon Van Grack countered that the charge Flynn pleaded guilty to was lying about his contacts with the Russian government, not of being a Russian agent.
    "There never would have been a plea to begin with if the government had disclosed Brady information about what it knew before the plea agreement" — Sidney Powell, Flynn attorney
    Flynn's defense team also wants all the documents surrounding the FBI’s interview of Flynn.    Prosecutors claim they have already turned all those documents over to Flynn's team prior to the plea deal.    Powell also suggested there is another document that hasn't been released.    "It would be in the FBI computer system," Powell said.
    Powell also told the court there is evidence that Flynn passed a polygraph test.    "There is just a plethora of information out there that we need the actual documents to support and the notes to support," she said.
    Powell in court papers has also compared the government's conduct toward Flynn to the case of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens -- which ended with Sullivan, the same judge in the Flynn case, finding prosecutorial misconduct.
    Sullivan said he wants briefs from both sides on the merits of materials, including some that are classified, being released to the defense team.    The government has said they can have their brief to the judge within two weeks.    The deadline for the defense to reply was set by Sullivan for Oct. 15.
    A court hearing on Brady material was set for Oct. 31.

    The following found at
9/9/2019 Trump-Russia and Clinton-Libya: A Story of 2 Probes and the FBI by Mark Hemingway, RealClearInvestigations
    Records recently posted online by the FBI indicate that it did little to investigate allegations from private sources connected to Republicans about a scheme in which associates of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to exploit their connection to her to profit from the turmoil in Libya in 2011.
    The FBI received the documents in June 2016, around the same time it launched an exhaustive, three-year investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia based, in part, on information from private sources connected to Democrats that in the main would prove to be false – the Steele dossier.
    The bureau’s different responses to these documents also came during the same period when FBI Director James B. Comey controversially cleared Clinton, in his first of two exonerations, of criminal wrongdoing in the bureau’s probe of her unauthorized and insecure email setup.
Sidney Blumenthal: A cut of Gadhafi's billions? Top photo: Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a
C-17 military plane departing Malta for Libya in October 2011. AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File Top: AP Photo
    The documents, quietly released as part of the FBI’s case files for the “Midyear Exam,” its code name for the Clinton email investigation, revive a lingering mystery from Clinton’s tenure as the nation’s chief diplomat: Why did Sidney Blumenthal, the former journalist and Bill Clinton White House aide, send her a series of detailed memos and reports about Libya beginning in 2011?
    The documents offer an answer.    They allege that Blumenthal sent the emails as a "quid pro quo" to free up classified State Department financial intelligence to help Libya recover as much as $66 billion spirited offshore by slain strongman Moammar Gadhafi.
    Out of that, Blumenthal and associates stood to gain a brokers' cut of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars.
    The private Libya inquiry leaves important issues unsettled.    The documents do not include emails or other original source material to support the allegations within.    While claiming to possess evidence that Blumenthal and his associates had contracts and offshore accounts to repatriate the money, the documents say "no concrete evidence" was found suggesting Clinton acted to support the effort.
    Yet if verified, the files might shed light on why Clinton kept her emails, tens of thousands of which have gone missing, out of normal government communication channels.
    They do offer tantalizing connections between the Libya and Trump-Russia affairs.    Previous reporting from multiple outlets has established Blumenthal worked on Libya with Cody Shearer, another longtime Clinton operative.    Shearer would later join Blumenthal in passing anti-Trump claims similar to those in the Steele dossier on to the State Department and across the federal government.    The FBI's acquisition of the Libya files made it freshly aware of Blumenthal's possible past motives - including personal financial gain - as he spurred an investigation meant to help defeat Donald Trump and elect Clinton.
    In addition, one FBI agent played an especially pivotal role in the bureau’s response to both sets of allegations: Peter Strzok, who would eventually be fired by the bureau because of his anti-Trump bias.
    The new material certainly adds twists to an already tangled web of intrigue.
Birth of an Inquiry
    The heavily redacted files are part of a 428-page FBI document dump posted on in June, which can be downloaded here (relevant pages: 318-380).    The documents are labeled by the FBI as having been received on June 6, 2016 – a month before the first of Comey’s two exonerations of Clinton and roughly seven weeks before the FBI opened its counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign, relying on the Steele dossier.    They are watermarked as having been declassified in December 2016, after the presidential election.
Peter Strzok: FBI hot potatoes on his plate were apparently handled differently. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
    Describing the genesis of the Libya inquiry, FBI notes say its methodology was conceived by private entities with data recovery expertise and that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich referred them to the watchdog group Judicial Watch for financial support.    Gingrich, a Republican, did not reply to a request for comment from RealClearInvestigations.
    Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, confirmed that his organization funded the freelance investigative project, including research on the encrypted “dark web,” after the work was already underway -- “and then we found a key Libya-linked document suggesting Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked by the Russians.”
    He said his group passed the probe’s information on to the FBI team led by Strzok, the agent in charge of the Clinton email inquiry.
    The FBI files do not indicate how, or if, the allegations in the documents were pursued.    The only hint is a few handwritten notes of an FBI interview with someone apparently involved in the private probe, with the names redacted.
    Fitton said he does not know why the alleged Libyan asset-repatriation plan had not been publicized earlier.    He would not identify the private investigator or elaborate further on the investigation.
    The FBI and Justice and State departments declined to comment for this article.    Spokesmen for Clinton did not respond to requests for comment.    Shearer could not be reached.
    After an earlier version of this article was published, Blumenthal contacted RealClearInvestigations objecting that its contents were "false and defamatory."    He said that, contrary to the article's earlier assertion that he did not respond to a reporter's inquiry, he had received no inquiry from the reporter seeking his comment or perspective.
    Blumenthal continued: “At no time did I seek to obtain classified information from the State Department.    It is completely false that I ever sought to recover any of Gadhafi’s assets.    It is completely false that I stood to gain a broker’s cut as a result as falsely stated in the article.”
'We Came, We Saw, He Died'
    The turmoil in the oil-rich North African nation of Libya and its troubled aftermath created a fraught period in Obama-era foreign policy, marked by the phrase “leading from behind” to describe the administration’s backstage role in the allied-backed ouster of Gadhafi, and Secretary Clinton’s awkwardly triumphal comment afterward, “We came, we saw, he died.”
    During that period, Clinton heard often from Blumenthal – a controversial infighter, dubbed “Sid Vicious” by detractors, whom the Obama administration prevented from joining her at State.    He emailed the secretary on a range of foreign policy issues, some of which he had financial interests in.    He began regularly emailing Clinton about Libyan affairs at the start of that country’s civil war in 2011, the year before the infamous attack on the American consulate in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Tyler Drumheller: Called part of a "secret spy ring" to funnel information to Clinton. MSNBC/YouTube screen grab
    Reporting by ProPublica and Gawker in 2015 established that Blumenthal was working with Shearer and former CIA officer Tyler Drumheller, who died in 2015, as part of what the publications called a “secret spy ring” to funnel information to Clinton.
    Over the next few years, Blumenthal sent her intelligence reports prepared by Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA’s clandestine service in Europe who left the agency in 2005.    Emails between Blumenthal and Drumheller suggest that Shearer may have been in contact with the Libyan authorities.
    The group’s interest in Libya came to light after Marcel Lazar Lehel, the notorious Romanian hacker who goes by the name “Guccifer,” stole Blumenthal’s emails in 2013 and published his correspondence with Clinton online.    The hack also revealed that Clinton was conducting sensitive State Department business on a personal email account, though her email practices didn’t become a high-profile controversy until 2015, during the congressional investigation into the Benghazi attack.
    A 2015 New York Times article on the hack reported that “[m]uch of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government.”
    Nevertheless, the Times reported that Clinton passed Blumenthal’s memos on to other State Department officials, though a Clinton aide would obscure the source of the information, saying “they had come from an anonymous ‘contact’ of Mrs. Clinton.”
A Lucrative Opportunity
    The documents recently released by the FBI purport to spell out the exact nature of business Blumenthal and company were pursuing:
    “Our evidence shows that Mr. Blumenthal was involved with a group of intelligence professionals seeking to repatriate asset[s] which were plundered and then exfiltrated by the [Gadhafi] family and hidden in various offshore localities.”
    The documents continue with an apparent reference to the Mossack Fonseca law firm in Panama, which was implicated in the 2016 Panama Papers media exposé on shady offshore finance:
    “One of the devices used by [Blumenthal’s] lawyers and advisors was the infamous Panama papers law firm that has recently been referenced in the news.    This program is better known as Rogue National Judgment Recovery Litigation, for which we have much experience, sources, and knowledge generally.”
    The findings continue:
    “However, in order for Mr. Blumenthal and his associates to be successful with this program, they needed high quality FINCEN [Financial Crimes Enforcement Network] intelligence analysts that formerly worked as liaisons with the CIA; he needed complete access to the Libyan Central Bank to do the financial traces; and most important of all, needed access to the State Department Intelligence Bureau file regarding the Libyan Frozen Assets Fund, which consisted of about $30 billion in frozen and recovered assets.”
    It’s estimated that Gadhafi and his family may have squirrelled away some $66 billion in assets around the globe.    Recovering that money was likely to be extremely lucrative, the private inquiry stated.
    “As an illustration of how profitable this program could be, since the Blumenthal group had a contingency contract with the coalition government [in Libya], if they found just $1 billion in assets and the contingency fee was 10% of the funds recovered (which is extremely conservative and considerably below industry standards), it would mean the group would earn a windfall of $100 million gross.    Assuming expenses of 10% of the gross, which would be extremely generous, the net to the group would be nearly $90 million.    The only obstacle separating Mr. Blumenthal and the money was the State Department intelligence; and the key to getting it was Mrs. Clinton, his longtime patron.”
    The private inquiry asserts that the “constant Libya memos” Blumenthal and his associates were passing on to Clinton were meant as “bait to entice the State Department to release the data” and an “official example of quid pro quo.”     The documents released do not include evidence regarding this and other claims, though one person connected to the private inquiry told RCI supporting material was provided to the FBI.    The investigation further mentions that another person whose name is redacted began contacting senior intelligence analysts about recovering Libyan assets in January 2012, nine months after the March 2011 American military intervention in Libya.    This person, described as having a “rather controversial history within the U.S. intelligence community,” also claimed that he had contacts in the Libyan coalition government and was dealing with “high-level political types in the U.S." in the State Department.
    The documents published by the FBI claim Blumenthal and his associates were working on the Libya “scheme” as late as December 2015.    The documents assert that they got as far as obtaining a draft agreement for asset recovery with Libya’s coalition government and setting up an “offshore corporate vehicle” – with the help of Mossack Fonseca, the Panama Papers firm.    But the findings of the private investigation state that “what we do not know is whether the team was actually operationalized or if the attendant publicity surrounding [Clinton’s] email server” — which ramped up throughout 2015 — “effectively shut down the Blumenthal team’s efforts.”
    Still, the private inquiry’s broader assessment is confidently stated: “For these reasons, we assess that the true motivation behind Mr. Blumenthal’s willingness to move mountains of data about Libya to Mrs. Clinton was all about the money and to get access to or actually obtain the State Department intelligence file, notwithstanding the fact it would be highly illegal for the file to be released to a private citizen.”
    To date, these claims are unverified.    Still, the FBI’s subdued handling of the matter appears to contrast with its all-hands-on-deck response to another set of unconfirmed memos that it also received in mid-2016 – the Steele dossier – and the fact that Blumenthal and Shearer were deeply involved in the effort to tie Trump to Russia.
The Second ‘Dossier’
    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Blumenthal and Shearer were actively preparing opposition research on behalf of Hillary Clinton.    Two memos prepared by Shearer claimed, as did the Steele dossier, that Donald Trump had been compromised by the Russians.
Jonathan Winer: State Department official dealt with his "old friend" Sidney Blumenthal.
    One of the people they used to pass on these false allegations to the FBI was Jonathan Winer, then a U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy for Libya.
    Winer declined to comment for this article, but in a Washington Post op-ed in February of last year, he explained his meeting with his “old friend” Blumenthal.    When the two met in September 2016, Winer had already met with Steele and was familiar with the contents of Steele’s dossier on Trump.    “What struck me was how some of [Shearer’s] material echoed Steele’s but appeared to involve different sources,” Winer wrote.    For instance, both reports contain unproven allegations that Trump was filmed during sexual acts at a hotel in Moscow.
    After the Blumenthal meeting, Winer passed Shearer’s material on to Steele.    “[Steele] told me it was potentially ‘collateral’ information.    I asked him what that meant.    He said that it was similar but separate from the information he had gathered from his sources.    I agreed to let him keep a copy of the Shearer notes,” Winer recounts.    He further states: “I did not mention or share his notes with anyone at the State Department.    I did not expect them to be shared with anyone in the U.S. government.    But I learned later that Steele did share them — with the FBI, after the FBI asked him to provide everything he had on allegations relating to Trump, his campaign and Russian interference in U.S. elections.”
Cody Shearer: compiled separate Trump dossier. YouTube screen grab
    In a previous RealClearInvestigations report by Lee Smith detailing the contents and genesis of Shearer’s dossier, former CIA agent Robert Baer said that he spoke to Shearer about his work collecting dirt on Trump in “March or April” of 2016, which would roughly coincide with the time that the Democratic National Committee was hiring the Fusion GPS research firm to employ Steele and create the primary dossier.    Given Blumenthal and Shearer’s close ties to Clinton and their previous work doing opposition research for the Clintons, there’s a possibility that one or both men could have been aware of the Steele dossier and its findings as the work was ongoing — and that perhaps Shearer’s dossier was not an independent corroboration but part of a larger operation to manufacture credibility for the Steele dossier.
    A memo released by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year appears to reference Steele’s use of the Blumenthal-Shearer Trump dossier to corroborate his own:
    "One memorandum by Mr. Steele that was not published by BuzzFeed is dated October 19, 2016. Mr. Steele’s memorandum states that his company ‘received this report from [REDACTED] US State Department,’ that the report was second in a series, and that the report was information that came from a foreign sub-source who ‘is in touch with [REDACTED], a contact of [REDACTED], a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to [REDACTED].’    It is troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility."
    As Smith’s RCI article notes, it is also significant that Steele provided the FBI with only the second of Shearer’s opposition research reports on Trump.    The first identified a Democratic funder: Shearer relates that Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch of Fusion GPS had been hired by the DNC to “rack [sic] down Trump compromised story.”
    Did Steele obtain both Shearer reports?    Winer is vague in his Washington Post op-ed on the exact nature of the “notes” Blumenthal passed on to him.    But if Winer provided both reports to Steele, that suggests that Steele would have been aware of who was funding his efforts, and that he withheld that information from the FBI by not sharing the first report.    The FBI’s FISA warrant application to surveil the Trump campaign includes no mention that Steele knew of the dossier's politically motivated funders, the DNC and the Clinton campaign.    Instead, citing the Steele dossier, the application states that Simpson “never advised Source No. 1 [Steele] as to the motivation behind the research into candidate’s #1 [Trump’s] ties to Russia.”
    The newly posted material says Blumenthal and Shearer’s efforts to recover Gadhafi’s pilfered funds involved reaching out to many people in Washington familiar with Libyan affairs.
    Winer was a State Department envoy to Libya and an expert in international organized crime.    As such, he was well-positioned to know that Blumenthal was actively engaged in passing on Libyan intelligence to the State Department and whether he had tried to obtain State Department information in order to profit off recovering Libyan assets.    If Winer knew what Blumenthal was working on regarding Libya, then he had to be aware that Blumenthal might have a large financial interest in seeing Hillary Clinton become president.
    Similarly, if the FBI had been made aware in mid-2016 that Blumenthal and Shearer might have had financial motives tied to presidential candidate Clinton, Steele’s decision to pass on information obtained by Shearer later that year should have been a red flag about the reliability of Steele’s information.    The FBI cited Steele’s dossier in its first application for a FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in October — months after the bureau received the Libya documents.
    In May of this year, former Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chaired the House Oversight and Benghazi panels, told Fox News that he had seen Blumenthal’s name on an FBI spreadsheet that attempted to list independent corroboration for specific factual assertions in the Steele dossier.    Apparently referring to Blumenthal’s reputation for pro-Clinton political machinations, the Republican said the operative’s past should have concerned the FBI.    “When the name Sidney Blumenthal is included as part of your corroboration, and when you’re the world’s leading law-enforcement agency, you have a problem,” Gowdy said.

9/13/2019 Charges against McCabe advised - Former acting FBI chief often targeted by Trump by Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
    WASHINGTON – Federal prosecutors recommended seeking criminal charges against Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI and a frequent target of criticism by President Donald Trump, according to people familiar with the decision Thursday.
    McCabe was fired from the FBI just before his retirement in March 2018 after the Justice Department’s internal watchdog concluded that he improperly authorized a leak about a federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.
    The U.S. attorney in Washington, Jessie Liu, recommended moving forward with unspecified charges against McCabe, according to people familiar with the situation who were not authorized to comment publicly.
    Whether McCabe is indicted will be up to a federal grand jury in Washington.    The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington declined to comment.
    The recommendation that McCabe be charged is the latest fallout from the FBI’s handling of investigations around the 2016 presidential election, when agents investigated both of the majorparty candidates.    Those investigations – into Russian meddling to help Trump win the presidency and Democrat Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server – inserted the FBI into the center of fraught political controversies.
    Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe after a Justice Department Inspector General’s report found he misstated his involvement in a leak to The Wall Street Journal days before the election about an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.    He was ousted days before he could begin collecting retirement benefits.
    McCabe, who became acting FBI director after Trump fired James Comey in May 2017, has been the target of the president’s attacks.    Trump accused law enforcement officials of partisan investigations of him, his campaign and his administration.    Inquiries led to charges against six of Trump’s aides and advisers.
    The election-year investigations roiled the top ranks of the FBI.    Internal investigators faulted McCabe and Comey for violating Justice Department rules in the final months of the campaign.    Lower-level staffers were fired or reassigned.
    The Justice Department said Aug. 29 that Comey violated bureau policies for keeping private memos about his conversations with Trump, then having a friend describe the contents of one memo to The New York Times.    The department didn’t charge Comey criminally.
    McCabe’s firing came after the inspector general investigated the information behind a Wall Street Journal story about the Clinton Foundation to determine whether it was an unauthorized leak and if so, who was the source.
    Investigators determined that McCabe, to promote his impartiality, authorized associates to disclose a call Aug. 12 between McCabe and the principal associate deputy attorney general to The Wall Street Journal.
    The inspector general found McCabe “lacked candor” when he said he hadn’t authorized the disclosure.
Contributing: Kristine Phillips
Andrew McCabe was fired from the FBI just before his retirement in March 2018. ALEX BRANDON/ AP
[The tides are beginning to turn the other way as the "DEEP STATE" collusions of the Obama administeration are coming out in the daylight for all to see, and in time will be seeing plea deals to cover their own behind.].

    The following found at
9/12/2019 Tom Fitton: Rosenstein Coup Plan Involved Wearing A Wire, Invoking 25th Amendment, Appointing A Special Counsel by Ian Schwartz
Judicial Watch reports new documents reveal the Department of Justice made an effort to craft a response following
then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's 25th Amendment report. Judicial Watch believes Rosenstein plotted a Trump coup.
    TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH: This is the first official confirmation based on government documents that discussions took place or allegations that it took place. There was some testimony about it.
    But here you have Rod Rosenstein and his team tried to craft a response, a non-denial denial to the allegations.    When you look at the materials you see Rosenstein saying, hey, we're hopeful, we're successful in preventing people from talking about it.    They changed the statement from a categorical denial -- Rod Rosenstein's direct statement -- from a categorical denial that discussions of the 25th Amendment did not take place to a less categorical denial.
    So you have this confirmation that
(a) they were talking about the 25th Amendment,
(b) he was sarcastically talking about wearing a wire with the president of the United States, and you have to remember that those coup discussions involved three topics:
(1) wearing a wire,
(2) invoking the 25th Amendment,
(3) and appointing a special counsel.    And we know the special counsel was appointed.
    All part of the same scheme.

9/13/2019 DOJ recommends charges for McCabe after striking down request for appeal by OAN Newsroom
    Disgraced FBI official Andrew McCabe doesn’t get the mercy from the Department of Justice he so desperately wanted.    The department reportedly struck down McCabe’s last ditch effort to appeal and avoid criminal charges related to false statements he made regarding the Clinton Foundation.
    The Justice Department fired McCabe in 2018, days before he was set to retire, after an Inspector Generals report said he allowed FBI officials to leak Clinton probe information to the Wall Street Journal ahead of election day in 2016.
    “Do too many people leak?    Absolutely.    Is there too much government information that’s being provided in unauthorized fashions to the media? No question, something that concerned me greatly…something that concerned Jim Comey greatly…” — Andrew McCabe
FILE – In this June 7, 2017, file photo, then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe appears before a Senate Intelligence Committee
hearing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington. McCabe faces the prospect of an
indictment after his attorneys were unable to persuade senior Justice Department officials not to pursue charges. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
    McCabe has denied any wrongdoing, and has said the IG report about him was based on “mischaracterizations and omissions.”    He also claimed — without evidence — President Trump pressured the Inspector General’s findings because McCabe refused to pledge loyalty to the president.
    “A 21 year career in the FBI…absolutely unblemished career until the point which the president decided and communicated to several people that he wanted me to go,” Mccabe stated during an interview.
GOP lawmakers who have been highly critical of the Comey-era FBI welcomed the Justice Department’s recommendation.    Ohio congressman Jim Jordan tweeted, “looks like we might be getting accountability for the Comey cabal.”    Meanwhile, North Carolina Representative Mark Meadows tweeted:
    The Justice Department’s decision now clears the way for a formal indictment of Andrew McCabe, but chances are likely it may not bring charges.    The department chose not to indict former FBI Director James Comey for similar actions after an IG report said Comey leaked confidential FBI memos of his discussions with President Trump to an acquaintance, who then gave those notes to the press.
    If the Department of Justice does not bring any criminal proceedings against McCabe, it runs the risk of appearing to advocate for a two tiered system of justice where the powerful and connected are never held to account for reported misconduct and the average citizen pays the highest price for the smallest offense.

9/13/2019 President Trump condemns Democrat efforts toward impeachment, mainstream media by OAN Newsroom
    President Trump is slamming House Democrats for continuing their push for impeachment.    In a series of tweets Friday, the president pointed to the economy as he questioned their efforts.
    Trump tweet: "How do you impeach a President who has helped create perhaps the greatest economy in the history of our Country?    All time best unemployment numbers, especially for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians & Women.    More people working today than ever before.    Rebuilt Military & Choice for Vets...
    President Trump then touted a list of achievements such as low minority unemployment and job growth, a rebuilt military, U.S. energy independence, and record number of appointed judges as well as two Supreme Court justices.
    This comes after the House Judiciary Committee authorized rules for an impeachment inquiry on Thursday.
President Donald Trump speaks at the 2019 House Republican Conference Member Retreat Dinner in Baltimore, Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
    While speaking at a recent GOP retreat in Baltimore, the president laid into House Democrats as well as the mainstream media. He had this to say:
    “We also need to prepare for the coming fight, because the traditions and beliefs that have made the American dreams possible are under attack like never before.    You’ve never seen anything like it.    I’ve never seen anything like it.    House Democrats are pursuing the most radical far-left program ever put forward in that historic chamber.    It’s the Democrats and it’s the media who are fighting two battles.    The Democrats and the media.    It’s as if they’re one because they are one.    They’re working together, they are colluding and they are obstructing.”
    The president then said he’s done so much for the country despite the Mueller witch hunt, and an Inspector General report which found James Comey to be a dirty cop.    He ended the series of tweets by saying, “you don’t impeach presidents for doing a good (great!) job.”

    The following was found at
9/14/2019 DOJ watchdog submits draft report on alleged FISA abuses to Barr by Alex Pappas, Catherine Herridge, Jake Gibson, Fox News
Justice Department inspector general wrapping up probe into FISA abuse allegations
Michael E. Horowitz's draft findings are now with the Justice Department and FBI for review; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports.
    The Justice Department’s inspector general told lawmakers Friday his team is nearly finished with its long-awaited review of alleged surveillance abuses by the DOJ and FBI during the Russia investigation, saying they have submitted a draft to Attorney General Bill Barr and are “finalizing” the report ahead of its public release.
    “We have now begun the process of finalizing our report by providing a draft of our factual findings to the department and the FBI for classification determination and marking,” Michael Horowitz wrote in a Friday letter to several House and Senate committees.    “This step is consistent with our process for reports such as this one that involve classified material.”
    Barr has received the draft report from Horowitz and will begin the process of reviewing it, according to a source familiar with the situation.    The inspector general said his team has “reviewed over one million records and conducted over 100 interviews, including several of witnesses who only recently agreed to be interviewed.”
AG Barr has received draft report on FISA abuse allegations
    Horowitz and his investigators have probed how the infamous anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele was used to secure the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant for former Trump aide Carter Page in October 2016, as well as for three renewals.    Horowitz’s team has questioned why the FBI considered Steele a credible source, and why the bureau seemed to use news reports to bolster Steele’s credibility.
    In his letter Friday, Horowitz indicated that once the Justice Department and the FBI send back a marked document relating to classified material, his team will “proceed with our usual process for preparing final draft public and classified reports, and ensuring that appropriate reviews occur for accuracy and comment purposes.”
    Meanwhile, a key FBI player during the time frame, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, is facing the prospect of federal charges after Horowitz faulted him in a separate inquiry over statements he made during a Hillary Clinton-related investigation.    The review found that McCabe "lacked candor" when talking with investigators, but the former FBI official has denied wrongdoing.
    As Fox News reported Thursday, Washington D.C. U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu has recommended moving forward with charges against McCabe, a CNN contributor, though no indictment has been handed down.
    The Horowitz letter also comes amid other similar inquiries related to the 2016 election:
    Barr has assigned John Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, to conduct an inquiry into alleged misconduct and alleged improper government surveillance on the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.
    And U.S. Attorney John Huber was appointed by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to review not only alleged surveillance abuses by the Justice Department and the FBI but also their handling of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and other matters.

9/14/2019 Rep. Nadler speaks out on Dems impeachment push amid disagreement within party by OAN Newsroom
    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler speaks out on Democrats push for impeachment amid disagreements within the party over the matter.
    In an interview Friday, Nadler said an impeachment inquiry is exactly what the committee is doing, but claimed the term itself has no legal significance.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler. | Win McNamee/Getty Images
    He also said the panel is doing it’s job under the constitution, which is to conduct a series of hearings and an investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.
    “We’ve been very clear for the last several months, in filing with the court and public statements in official statement in the committee, that we are conducting an investigation, with the purpose among other things, of determining whether to report articles of impeachment to the entire House,” said Nadler on the House Judiciary Committee’s approval of a resolution defining the rules of the panel’s impeachment probe.
    Earlier this week, Democrat House Majority leader Steny Hoyer told reporters that Congress was not starting an impeachment investigation.
    Additionally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly emphatically argued the investigation is not a true impeachment proceeding.
    Meantime, a lawyer for former Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke out about the apparent impeachment probe by Democrats saying he will only appear for questioning under a congressional subpoena.
    The Washington Post revealed Friday, Democrats want to question Sessions about his relationship with President Trump, and his decision to recuse himself from the Russia probe.
    Democrats reportedly want any information they can get from Sessions, about possible instances of obstruction of justice.
    However, a subpoena for Sessions has yet to be issued.
[Heh Numbskull Nadler your party is trying to tell you something in that you have been investigating for almost 3 years and you have not found any obstruction of justice, etc. abuse of power to do anything to Trump so quit wasting taxpayers money or continue and watch you party lose the Congress, Senate and the Presidency, because it will not be long before the courts will be putting many of the former SWAMP FBI, CIA, DNI, NSA, etc, for trying to overthrow Presidency with a illegal Russian collusion conspiracy, and I know Adam Shiff may be in that and now wonder if you were also.].

9/14/2019 Snowden says he hopes France will grant him asylum
FILE PHOTO - Edward Snowden speaks via video link as he takes part in a round table on the protection of
whistleblowers at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, March 15, 2019. REUTERS/Vincent Kessler
    PARIS (Reuters) – Former U.S spy agency contractor Edward Snowden hopes France will grant him asylum, according to a France Inter radio interview to be broadcast on Monday.     In excerpts made available on the French radio station’s Twitter account, Snowden says he would “love to see” French President Emmanuel Macron make a gesture enabling him to live in the country.
    It was not immediately clear when or where the interview took place.
Snowden has been living in Russia since 2013 after he revealed details of secret surveillance programs by U.S. intelligence agencies.
    Many civil rights activists see him as a hero, but at home in the United States authorities want him to stand trial for espionage.
(Reporting by Matthias Blamont ; Editing by William Maclean)
[The US should allow him to come back since the DEEP STATE is about to get busted for what he uncovered, which was spying on American citizens from the years of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barak Obama, who was the worst of bunch, as you could see why it was embedded so deep in the agency for 8 years that they used it to control anyone in their way, and I hope Donald Trump will win in 2020 get that all taken care of eventually.].

9/14/2019 U.K. judge rules Assange will remain in jail after sentence ends by OAN Newsroom
    A U.K. judge rules Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will remain behind bars even after his sentence for violating bail conditions ends.
Julian Assange gestures from the window of a prison van on his way to court in June. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images
    On Friday, the judge ruled Assange will not be released on September 22nd when his sentence concludes but rather stay in jail due to his history of evading proceedings.
    The 48-year-old is currently serving a 50 week sentence for violating bail conditions, and avoiding extradition to Sweden by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years.
    Assange is facing extradition to the U.S. over allegations of hacking, and a final hearing regarding the matter is expected to be held in February.

9/15/2019 Trump official is issued subpoena by Mary Clare Jalonick, ASSOCIATED PRESS
    WASHINGTON – The chairman of the House intelligence committee has issued a subpoena to the acting Director of National Intelligence, saying Joseph Maguire is withholding a whistleblower complaint from Congress.
    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said in a statement Friday night that the committee will require that Maguire testify Thursday unless he complies with the subpoena.    The chairman did not detail the subject of the whistleblower complaint, but said he was aware the intelligence community’s inspector general had determined it to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern.”
    Schiff said Maguire is required to share the complaint with Congress but won’t do so, and “this raises serious concerns about whether White House, Department of Justice or other executive branch officials are trying to prevent a legitimate whistleblower complaint from reaching its intended recipient, the Congress, in order to cover up serious misconduct.”
    He added that he was concerned that administration officials “are engaged in an unlawful effort to protect the president.”
    An unidentified senior intelligence official said the intelligence director’s office was reviewing the subpoena, and said Maguire is committed to upholding whistleblower protections.
[My comments: We have not heard much from Shifty Shiff in awhile who has no respect from the rest of the members of his committee after he spent two years promoting Russia collusion to the fake news, so now he thinks he has a ringer in a whistleblower from Congress, which is simply an attack by those in the NSA, CIA, NIA, DOJ, and FBI who was part of the corruption during the Obama administration are trying create any kind of crime as you can see above anyone who would protect the president.    The only protection really needs is protection from the Democrats Trump Syndrome.
Joseph Maguire, current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, retired United States Navy as a Vice Admiral in 2010 after 36 years of military service.    Prior to retiring from active duty, he was the Deputy Director for Strategic Operational Planning at National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).    On August 8, 2019, President Donald Trump announced that Maguire would become Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 16, 2019, and he replaced Dan Coats who is suspect to me.].

    The following of the above article was found at
9/13/2019 Schiff accuses top intel official of illegally withholding 'urgent' whistleblower complaint by KYLE CHENEY
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (center). | Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images
    The nation's top intelligence official is illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint, possibly to protect President Donald Trump or senior White House officials, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff alleged Friday.
    Schiff issued a subpoena for the complaint, accusing acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire of taking extraordinary steps to withhold the complaint from Congress, even after the intel community's inspector general characterized the complaint as credible and of "urgent concern."
    “A Director of National Intelligence has never prevented a properly submitted whistleblower complaint that the [inspector general] determined to be credible and urgent from being provided to the congressional intelligence committees.    Never," Schiff said in a statement.    "This raises serious concerns about whether White House, Department of Justice or other executive branch officials are trying to prevent a legitimate whistleblower complaint from reaching its intended recipient, the Congress, in order to cover up serious misconduct."
    Schiff indicated that he learned the matter involved "potentially privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence Community," raising the specter that it is "being withheld to protect the President or other Administration officials."    In addition, Schiff slammed Maguire for consulting the Justice Department about the whistleblower complaint "even though the statute does not provide you discretion to review, appeal, reverse, or countermand in any way the [inspector general's] independent determination, let alone to involve another entity within the Executive Branch."
    "The Committee can only conclude, based on this remarkable confluence of factors, that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials," Schiff wrote in a letter to Maguire on Friday.
    The initial whistleblower complaint was filed last month, and Schiff indicated that it was required by law to be shared with Congress nearly two weeks ago.    His subpoena requires the information to be turned over by Sept. 17 or else he intends to compel Maguire to appear before Congress in a public hearing on Sept. 19.
    Schiff said Maguire declined to confirm or deny whether the whistleblower's complaint relates to anything the Intelligence Committee is currently investigating or whether White House lawyers were involved in the decision-making about the complaint.
    Officials in Maguire’s office acknowledged Schiff’s subpoena late Friday.
    “We received the HPSCI's subpoena this evening.    We are reviewing the request and will respond appropriately,” said a senior intelligence official.    “The ODNI and Acting DNI Maguire are committed to fully complying with the law and upholding whistleblower protections and have done so here.”

9/16/2019 Whistleblower Snowden: I’d love to be granted asylum in France
FILE PHOTO: Edward Snowden speaks via video link during a conference at University of Buenos Aires
Law School, Argentina, November 14, 2016. REUTERS/Marcos Brindicci
    PARIS (Reuters) – Former U.S spy agency contractor Edward Snowden said he would love French President Emmanuel Macron to grant him political asylum after one of Macron’s ministers said if it was up to her she would offer him asylum.
    French Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet said at the weekend she supported granting asylum to him, though she made clear she was speaking in a personal capacity and it was not an official offer.
    Asked about the prospect of asylum in France in an interview aired on Monday on France Inter radio, Snowden said: “I applied for asylum in France in 2013 under [former French President Francois] Hollande and of course we would love to see Macron roll out an invitation.”
    “But it’s not about France, it’s about Europe, it’s about the world and the system that we have.    Protecting whistleblowers is not a hostile act.    Welcoming someone like me is not an attack on the United States.”
    Snowden, about to publish his memoirs ‘Permanent Record,’ has been living in Russia since 2013 after he revealed details of secret surveillance programs by U.S. intelligence agencies.
    Many civil rights activists see him as a hero, but at home in the United States authorities want him to stand trial for espionage.
(Reporting by Benoit Van Overstraeten ; Editing by Christian Lowe)

9/17/2019 New details on Trump-Comey meeting by OAN Newsroom
    A new book is shedding light on the unorthodox practices of fired FBI Director James Comey.    The upcoming book by former FBI assistant Josh Campbell reportedly raises new facts about the origins of the Russia probe.
    Campbell, now a CNN analyst, said Comey took the unusual step of requesting a top secret laptop before a meeting with President Trump.    This corroborates claims made by the Inspector General report, which claimed the true intent of the meeting was to gather information to launch the Russia probe.
    This differs from prior reporting, which suggested the meeting was intended to inform the president about the salacious dossier.
President Donald Trump, center, shakes hands with then-FBI Director James Comey during an Inaugural Law Enforcement Officers
and First Responders Reception in the Blue Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harrer/AP Photo)
    “As it was described to me when it came in — it was raw intelligence, a series of reports, from a credible person with reliable track record and a known experience and source network in Russia, and so it was something to be taken seriously.” – James Comey, former FBI Director
    Campbell’s book reveals Comey devised a plan to use the meeting to collect information from the president — not give him a briefing.
    More details are expected to be revealed in the book, which is set to be released Tuesday.
[Lets see now if in the future CNN lets this person go for his book in Trump's favor.].

9/17/2019 U.S. sues Edward Snowden over new book, cites non-disclosure agreements
Edward Snowden speaks via video link as he takes part in a discussion about his book "Permanent Record"
with German journalist Holger Stark in Berlin, Germany, September 17, 2019. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who in 2013 leaked secret documents about U.S. telephone and Internet surveillance, saying his new book violates non-disclosure agreements.
    The Justice Department said Snowden published his book, “Permanent Record,” without submitting it to intelligence agencies for review, adding that speeches given by Snowden also violated nondisclosure agreements.
    The United States is seeking all proceeds earned by Snowden for the book, the Justice Department said.
(Reporting by Makini Brice)

9/18/2019 Feds sue Edward Snowden over new memoir by John Bacon, USA TODAY
    The Justice Department filed suit Tuesday against renegade former CIA and NSA employee Edward Snowden, saying his memoir “Permanent Record” violates nondisclosure agreements he signed with both agencies.
    The suit claims Snowden, living in exile in Moscow, violated the agreements by publishing the book without submitting it for review and by giving public speeches on intelligence-related matters.
    The suit doesn’t seek a halt to distribution of the book, released Tuesday in more than 20 countries, but does press for recovery of all proceeds.
    “Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit,” said G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    Snowden hawked the autobiography in a satellite book tour from Russia. The book follows him from his youthful obsession with video games through his dash out of the country six years ago after leaking information on how the intelligence community conducted surveillance on the U.S. public.
    Snowden thought his stop in Russia was a layover on a flight from Hong Kong to Latin America, but his passport was canceled, and he has lived in exile, approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin, ever since.
    Snowden – hailed as hero, trashed as traitor – said he never took an oath of secrecy, he took an oath to defend the Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
    He claimed he rejected overtures from Russian agents to aid their cause.    He describes himself as a whistleblower – but the Justice Department under President Barack Obama charged him with espionage.
    Snowden said that he does not regret his actions and that he wants to return to the USA.
    “I’m not asking for a parade.    I’m not asking for a pardon,” he told CBS News.    “I’m not asking for a pass.    What I’m asking for is a fair trial.”
    For Snowden, a fair trial means allowing the jury to consider his motivations rather than simply deciding the case on whether a law was broken.
    “They want the jury strictly to consider whether these actions were lawful or unlawful, not whether they were right or wrong,” Snowden said.    “And I’m sorry, but that defeats the purpose of a jury trial.”
    Snowden claimed his goal was to reform the NSA, not destroy it.    He said he is a privacy advocate concerned by the information collected and distributed from cellphones.    The government, he said, often uses the same tools as criminal hackers.
    “Anything you can do on that device, the attacker – in this case, the government – can do,” Snowden told NBC News.    “They can see anything that is on that phone instantly and send it back home to the mothership.”
    Snowden made headlines when The Washington Post and The Guardian published stories based on his leaks about the U.S. government’s surveillance program, including access to cellphone records of millions of Americans.
Edward Snowden’s memoir is out in more than 20 countries. VIA GETTY IMAGES
[Snowden is really spooking someone in the NSA and CIA that he will reveal what had was really going on through previous presidents.].
    The following is found on my website page at, a file which gives you more information of why the Democrats want him so bad because he can expose their crimes, and below is what I presented regarding the above.
    The punitive treatment of Roark, Binney, Wiebe, and Loomis, as well as, and, in particular, then still active (rather than retired) NSA executive Thomas Andrews Drake, who had gone in confidence with anonymity assured to the DoD IG, led the Assistant Inspector General John Crane to eventually become a public whistleblower himself and also led Edward Snowden to go public with revelations rather than to report within the internal whistleblower program.
    Udall expressed his support for Edward Snowden to return to America to "make his case."
    Mark Emery Udall, an American politician who served as a United States Senator from Colorado from 2009 to 2015.        After reports that the Central Intelligence Agency improperly spied on U.S. Senators, Udall called for the resignation of Agency Director John O. Brennan.
    In 2015 is when Edward Snowden revealed what was going on in Sec. 215 under FISA, to access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    Snowden in 2013 released 1000 of the classified documents of the illegal surveillance and was forced to go find Asylum in Russia as you see below.
    In 2015 is when Edward Snowden revealed what was going on, noted Sec. 215 under FISA.
    I think Snowden should come back and all of Obama and all his crooks should go get asylum in Russia.

9/17/2019 Rep. Collins blasts Judiciary Democrats during Lewandowski hearing by OAN Newsroom
    Representative Doug Collins recently blasted Democrats for wasting taxpayer money trying to impeach the president.    During Corey Lewandowski’s hearing Tuesday, the ranking Republican rejected chairman Jerry Nadler’s word games on whether or not the Democrats were engaged in an impeachment inquiry.
    Collins then called out the fact that the Democrats wouldn’t be able to impeach the president even if they wanted to.    He had this to say during the hearing:
    “17 of the members of the Judiciary Committee have said they think the president ought to be impeached.    So why are we still investigating it?    17, you get some more, the problem is you don’t have the votes.    You don’t have the numbers.    Even if you got it out of this committee, you don’t have it on the floor, that’s your problem.    So the thing we’re going to do is we’re going to drag this committee through oversight hearings.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., left, listens to a spirited objection by Rep. Doug Collins,
R-Georgia, right, the ranking member, as the panel moved to approve guidelines for impeachment investigation hearings
on President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
    Collins then accused chairman Nadler of trying to fool the public into thinking they are actively legislating instead of harassing the White House.
[So to let you know:
(Article I, Section 2, Clause 4) The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
    As finally agreed, a majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5),
which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6).
    Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed.
    The President may not pardon a person who has been impeached (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1).    If an official is impeached by the House and convicted by the requisite vote in the Senate,
then Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, provides that the person convicted is further barred from any "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."    The convicted official also loses any possible federal pensions.    With a few exceptions, those impeached and removed have generally faded into obscurity

9/18/2019 Lewandowski rebuffs most questions by Mary Clare Jalonick, ASSOCIATED PRESS
    WASHINGTON – Democrats’ first hearing in what they are calling an impeachment investigation quickly turned sour on Tuesday as their sole witness, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, refused to answer most of their questions.    Lewandowski was following White House orders not to discuss confidential conversations with President Donald Trump beyond what was already public in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.
    As the hearing began, Lewandowski – a friend and supporter of the president – demanded that Democrats provide him a copy of the report, sending Democratic staff scrambling to find one.    Lewandowski then just read directly from the report, making it clear he wouldn’t say much beyond what Mueller wrote.    Republicans on the panel then forced a series of procedural votes, immediately sending the hearing into disarray.
    “He’s filibustering,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, R-N.Y., House Judiciary Committee chairman.
    The hearing is the latest in a series of hurdles the committee has faced as they try to investigate Trump.    Mueller himself testified this summer, with no bombshells.    Two other witnesses who were subpoenaed alongside Lewandowski – former White House aides Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter – won’t show up at all, on orders from the White House.
    It also underscores what has been a central dilemma for House Democrats all year – they have promised to investigate Trump, aggressively, and many of their base supporters want them to move quickly to try to remove him from office.    But the White House has blocked their oversight requests at most every turn, declining to provide new documents or allow former aides to testify.
    Lewandowski did confirm that Trump asked him to urge former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse himself and oversee the Russia investigation.    Lewandowski never delivered that message, but he told the committee that Trump didn’t ask him to break the law.
    Lewandowski said, “I didn’t think the president asked me to do anything illegal.”    Under questioning later by Rep. Hank Johnson, D.La., Lewandowski confirmed as “accurate” that Trump had asked him to deliver the message.    Asked why, according to the Mueller report, he never delivered the message to Sessions as instructed, Lewandowski answered that he had taken his kids to the beach.
    Lewandowski never worked for Trump in the White House, but remained a confidant.    Porter, a former staff secretary in the White House, took frequent notes during his time there that were detailed throughout the report.    He resigned last year after public allegations of domestic violence.
    In letters to the committee on Monday, the White House said that Dearborn and Porter were “absolutely immune” from testifying.    White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote that the Justice Department had advised, and Trump had directed, them not to attend “because of the constitutional immunity that protects senior advisers to the president from compelled congressional testimony.”
Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager for Donald Trump, refused to answer
most questions from a House panel Tuesday. JACK GRUBER/USA TODAY
[I watched the entire process and it was the best entertainment I have seen in months as Lewandowski made mockery of the Democrats unconstitutional impeachment inquiry, which properly the house votes for impeachment first, then sends it to the Judicial committee, instead of assbackwards.    Lewandowski said Democrats were pursuing their investigation of Trump because “they hate this president more than they love their country.”    And in the midst of the hearing, he tweeted a link to a website promoting his potential Senate campaign in New Hampshire and after this he just may get that position.
    “We as a nation would be better served if elected officials like you concentrated your efforts to combat the true crises facing our country as opposed to going down rabbit holes like this hearing,” Lewandowski’s statement said

9/18/2019 Democrats amplify Russia hoax, ‘election security’ at Lewandowski hearing by OAN Newsroom
    Congressional Democrats have continued to push the Russia conspiracy, alleging a threat to U.S. elections.    During Tuesday hearings for 2016 Trump campaign aide Corey Lewandowski, Democrat lawmakers focused on so-called “Russian meddling” in U.S. elections.
    Democrats urged the Senate to pass the For the People Act of 2019, also known as H.R. 1, to ensure what they call “the integrity of American democracy.”    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has previously criticized the bill as a “Democrat politician protection act.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., leads questioning of Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager
for President Donald Trump,Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
    During the hearing, Lewandowski blasted Democrats for focusing on the failed Russia hoax.
    “Not surprisingly after the Mueller report was made public, interest in the fake Russia collusion narrative has fallen apart,” he stated.    “Instead of focusing on petty and personal politics, the committee (should) focus on solving the challenges of this generation — imagine how many people we could help or how many lives we could save.”
    Lewandowski rebuffed all Democrat attacks, asserting the debunked Russia hoax serves political purposes and has nothing to do with national security.

9/18/2019 Lewandowski: House Judiciary Committee has no reason to hold me in contempt by OAN Newsroom
    Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said there is no reason for him to be held in contempt after his appearance on Capitol Hill.
    While speaking to CNN Wednesday morning, he argued he answered every question from the House Judiciary Committee that he had an obligation to answer.    This caused Lewandowski to clash with the show’s host over his refusal to answer certain questions about his interactions with the president and his senior staff due to claims of executive privilege.
    Lewandowski said despite his “five-or-six hour testimony” Tuesday, “he’s happy to come back and answer more questions for Congress.”
Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager for President Donald Trump, arrives to testify to the
House Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
[Corey made all the Democrats look like fools trying to come up with some form of impeachment crime with him.].

9/18/2019 Acting DNI misses House Intel deadline, panel subpoena sought info. on whistleblower complaint by OAN Newsroom
    The acting Director of National Intelligence failed to comply with a House subpoena to turn over a mysterious whistleblower complaint.    Joseph McQuire was supposed to submit relevant materials to the Intelligence Committee by Tuesday.
    Chairman Adam Schiff made the request after an intelligence watchdog informed Congress that a whistleblower had come forward last month.
    While the substance of the complaint remains unknown, the Director of National Intelligence informed Schiff it does not involve anyone or any activity tied to intelligence.    However, congressman Schiff has offered speculation on the matter.
FILE – In this July 24, 2019, file photo, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., speaks during a hearing on Capitol
Hill in Washington. The chairman of the House intelligence committee has issued a subpoena to the acting Director of National Intelligence,
saying that he is withholding a whistleblower complaint from Congress. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
    “I can’t go into the contents, but I can tell you that — at least according to the Director of National Intelligence — this involves an issues of privileged communications,” said the House Intelligence Committee chairman.    “Now, that means it’s a pretty narrowed group of people that could apply to that are both above the DNI and authority and also involved privileged communication, so I think it’s fair to say this involves the president or the people around him, or both.”
    Separately, congressman Schiff said the acting DNI chief will be required to appear before his panel if he didn’t comply with the subpoena.    In the meantime, McGuire has already expressed he has no plans to do so.
[Looks like Shifty Schiff has created another false narrative with no meat on its bones pushing a "whistle blower complaint" which is occurring while the IG and Durham are investigating the investigators].
[Intel IG testifies on whistleblower complaint of Trump making 'promise' to foreign leader noting that Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson is scheduled to appear before the House Intelligence Committee in a closed session on a whistleblower complaint about the president's communications with a foreign leader.
as Inspector General, Mr. Atkinson oversees a workforce of special agents, auditors, inspectors, attorneys, and support staff whose mission is to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration and implementation of programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in such programs and activities. He also serves as the Chair of the Intelligence Community Inspectors General Forum, which consists of the twelve inspectors general with oversight responsibility for elements of the intelligence community.]

9/19/2019 No reason for France to change mind over Snowden asylum: minister
FILE PHOTO: Edward Snowden speaks via video link as he takes part in a discussion about his book "Permanent Record"
with German journalist Holger Stark in Berlin, Germany, September 17, 2019. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch/File Photo
    PARIS (Reuters) – There’s no reason for France to change its mind over a 2013 decision to deny former U.S spy agency contractor Edward Snowden asylum, French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.
    Snowden said on Monday he would love French President Emmanuel Macron to grant him political asylum after another one of Macron’s ministers said if it was up to her she would offer him asylum.
(Reporting by Sudip Kar-Gupta ; Writing by Benoit Van Overstraeten ; Editing by Christian Lowe)

9/19/2019 Sen. Graham: Somebody needs to go to prison for lying to FISA court by OAN Newsroom
    Senator Lindsey Graham is warning the FISA court to take corrective action amid lingering allegations of misconduct.    The South Carolina Republican made the remarks in a recent interview, suggesting “somebody should go to jail.”
    He believes a prison sentence may help restore the public’s faith in the U.S. justice system.    This comes after the Obama-era Department of Justice and FBI allegedly misled the court with an unverified dossier.
    “To my Republican colleagues: if you vote no, you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,” said Graham.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill
in Washington, D.C. Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
    He went on to say, “every American should be concerned about the fact that the agencies knew the source of the dossier had anti-Trump bias” yet neglected to look into it or inform the court in any way.
    The documents, compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, allowed the federal agencies to obtain warrants.
    Specifically, to spy on one-time Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
    Republicans like Sean Hannity have continuously claimed the agencies committed “premeditated fraud” by lying to the court for political gain.    He hopes the American people will see through the so-called “charade.”

9/19/2019 Judicial Watch: Obama State Dept. had working ties to dossier author, Democrat lawmakers by OAN Newsroom
    Watchdog group Judicial Watch recently released evidence allegedly showing ties between the author of the Trump dossier and top Obama officials.    The group released 146 pages of State Department documents Thursday, detailing the relations between Obama-era officials and former British spy Christopher Steele.    The communications date back to May of 2014.
    Documents show Steele was in touch with assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer.    The Obama State Department was also reportedly feeding classified information to anti-Trump lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
    “But they wanted to make President Trump’s life miserable, as I said, a criminal seditious conspiracy, so they were sending this information out with the hopes, it’s clear, that their friendly partisans on the hill would use it against him,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
    Judicial Watch also found Steele’s work was reportedly distributed to State Department officials working on the Russia and Ukraine policy.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton is pictured. (Photo/Judicial Watch)

9/20/2019 Trump: No improper promise made - Whistleblower complaint is about foreign leader by David Jackson and Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
    WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Thursday denied making an improper promise to an unnamed foreign leader.    The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee criticized the administration for hiding the details of a whistleblower’s complaint against the president.
    Saying “many people” within the government have access to his conversations with international counterparts, Trump tweeted, “Is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially ‘heavily populated’ call.”
    Trump did not specify details of the complaint against him, nor did other administration officials.
    The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that Trump’s contact with the foreign leader included a promise that a U.S. intelligence official found troubling enough to warrant filing a whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for intelligence agencies.
    Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the intelligence community and the administration refuse to release the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s dealings with the foreign leader.
    Schiff accused the administration of trying to shield the president.    “There is an effort to prevent this information getting to Congress,” he said.
    “There is no privilege to be corrupt,” Schiff said after his committee held a closed-door meeting with the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson.
    Atkinson “determined that this complaint is both credible and urgent and that it should be transmitted to Congress under the clear letter of the law,” Schiff said before the hearing.
    According to Schiff, the office of the director of national intelligence – with the help of Trump’s Justice Department – refused to turn over the complaint, saying it involves classified information.
    The standoff figures to continue for a while.    The acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, is scheduled to testify before Schiff’s committee next Thursday.
    Trump’s aides have not commented on the whistleblower complaint, which was filed Aug. 12. In the weeks before that, the foreign leaders     Trump spoke with included Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mongolian President Khaltmaagiin Battulga, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.
    The president also met with numerous foreign leaders at a G-20 summit in Japan in late June, including Putin.    Trump’s critics have accused him of mishandling classified information.    They point to 2017 incident in which Trump allegedly discussed intelligence information in a meeting with Russian officials.    After that incident, Trump said he the “absolute right” to share intelligence information with other countries, and that in the case of Russia it involved terrorism and airline safety.
    “I cannot remember a whistleblower trying to blow a whistle on a president, & this cant just be about Trump’s handling of classified materials,” tweeted Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration. “Like it or not, the president can declassify whatever he wants when he wants.    Something bigger seems to be going on.”    Andrew P. Bakaj, attorney for the whistleblower, declined to comment.
    Schiff accused the administration of trying to shield the president.    “There is an effort to prevent this information getting to Congress,” he said.
[Today we learned that the whistleblower is bipartisan but is an unknown member of the Intellligence system who is probabally biased toward Trump who is another Political Hack Job, and all should remember it was Adam Schiff who was the Democrat who for two and half years was leaking to the press and claiming that Trump was colluding with the Russians and none of that came true when the Mueller Report was brought to light and also refuting any claims by Republicans of a corrupt FBI, DOJ, NSA, CIA activities that were discovered.    He cannot be trusted for anything.    It is very possible that the whistleblower did this just to start a new narrative because Trump and company are nosing around in the former Biden Ukraine corruption which Biden admitted on camera when he was bragging about getting a prosecutor fired.].

    The following was found at
9/20/2019 State Department's overture to Rudy Giuliani by John Solomon, opinion contributor
    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.
    When I was a young journalist decades ago, training to cover Washington, one of my mentors offered sage advice: When it comes to U.S. intelligence and diplomacy, things often aren’t what they first seem.
    Those words echo in my brain today, as much as they did that first day.    And following the news recently, I realize they are just as relevant today with hysteria regarding presidential lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s contacts with Ukraine’s government.
    The coverage suggests Giuliani reached out to new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s team this summer solely because he wanted to get dirt on possible Trump 2020 challenger Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings in that country.
    Politics or law could have been part of Giuliani’s motive, and neither would be illegal.
    But there is a missing part of the story that the American public needs in order to assess what really happened:
    Giuliani’s contact with Zelensky adviser and attorney Andrei Yermak this summer was encouraged and facilitated by the U.S. State Department.
    Giuliani didn’t initiate it.    A senior U.S. diplomat contacted him in July and asked for permission to connect Yermak with him.
    Then, Giuliani met in early August with Yermak on neutral ground — in Spain — before reporting back to State everything that occurred at the meeting.
    That debriefing occurred Aug. 11 by phone with two senior U.S. diplomats, one with responsibility for Ukraine and the other with responsibility for the European Union, according to electronic communications records I reviewed and interviews I conducted.
    When asked on Friday, Giuliani confirmed to me that the State Department asked him to take the Yermak meeting and that he did, in fact, apprise U.S. officials every step of the way.
    “I didn’t even know who he (Yermak) really was, but they vouched for him.    They actually urged me to talk to him because they said he seemed like an honest broker,” Giuliani told me.    “I reported back to them (the two State officials) what my conversations with Yermak were about.    All of this was done at the request of the State Department.”
    So, rather than just a political opposition research operation, Giuliani’s contacts were part of a diplomatic effort by the State Department to grow trust with the new Ukrainian president, Zelensky, a former television comic making his first foray into politics and diplomacy.
    Why would Ukraine want to talk to Giuliani, and why would the State Department be involved in facilitating it?
    According to interviews with more than a dozen Ukrainian and U.S. officials, Ukraine’s government under recently departed President Petro Poroshenko and, now, Zelensky has been trying since summer 2018 to hand over evidence about the conduct of Americans they believe might be involved in violations of U.S. law during the Obama years.
    The Ukrainians say their efforts to get their allegations to U.S. authorities were thwarted first by the U.S. embassy in Kiev, which failed to issue timely visas allowing them to visit America.
    Then the Ukrainians hired a former U.S. attorney — not Giuliani — to hand-deliver the evidence of wrongdoing to the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, but the federal prosecutors never responded.
    The U.S. attorney, a respected American, confirmed the Ukrainians’ story to me.    The allegations that Ukrainian officials wanted to pass on involved both efforts by the Democratic National Committee to pressure Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election as well as Joe Biden’s son’s effort to make money in Ukraine while the former vice president managed U.S.-Ukraine relations, the retired U.S. attorney told me.
    Eventually, Giuliani in November 2018 got wind of the Ukrainian allegations and started to investigate.
    As President Trump’s highest-profile defense attorney, the former New York City mayor, often known simply as “Rudy,” believed the Ukrainian’s evidence could assist in his defense against the Russia collusion investigation and special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.
    So Giuliani began to check things out in late 2018 and early 2019, but he never set foot in Ukraine.    And when Ukrainian officials leaked word that he was considering visiting Ukraine to meet with senior officials to discuss the allegations — and it got politicized in America — Giuliani abruptly called off his trip.    He stopped talking to the Ukrainian officials.
    Since that time, my American and foreign sources tell me, Ukrainian officials worried that the slight of Giuliani might hurt their relations with his most famous client, Trump.
    And Trump himself added to the dynamic by encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to work with Giuliani to surface the evidence of alleged wrongdoing that has been floating around for more than two years, my sources said.
    It is likely that the State Department’s overture to Giuliani in July was designed to allay fears of a diplomatic slight and to assure the nascent Ukrainian administration that everything would be okay between the two allies.
    The belief was that if Zelensky’s top lawyer could talk to Trump’s top lawyer, everything could be patched up, officials explained to me.
    Ukrainian officials also are discussing privately the possibility of creating a parliamentary committee to assemble the evidence and formally send it to the U.S. Congress, after failed attempts to get the Department of Justice’s attention, my sources say.
    Such machinations are common when two countries are navigating diplomatic challenges and, often, extracurricular activities with private citizens are part of the strategy, even if they are not apparent to the American public.
    So the media stories of Giuliani’s alleged political opposition research in Ukraine, it turns out, are a bit different than first reported.    It’s exactly the sort of nuanced, complex news development that my mentor nearly 30 years ago warned about.
    And it’s too bad a shallow media effort has failed to capture the whole story and tell it to the American public in its entirety.
    It’s almost as though the lessons of the now debunked Russia-Trump collusion narrative never really sunk in for some reporters.    And that is a loss for the American public.    The continuing folly was evidenced when much attention was given Friday to Hillary Clinton’s tweet suggesting Trump’s contact with Zelensky amounted to an effort to solicit a foreign power to interfere in the next election.
    That tweet may be provocative but it’s unfair.    The contacts were about resolving what happened in the last election — and the last administration.
    And if anyone is to have high moral ground on foreign interference in elections, Clinton can’t be first in line.    Her campaign lawyers caused Christopher Steele, a British foreign national desperate to defeat to Trump, to be hired to solicit unverified allegations from Russians about Trump as part of an opposition research project and then went to the FBI to trump up an investigation on Trump.    And her party leaders, the Democratic National Committee, asked the Ukraine embassy to also try to dig up dirt on Trump.    That’s not a record worthy of throwing the first punch on this story.
    The truth is, getting to the bottom of the Ukraine allegations will benefit everyone.    If the Bidens and Ukraine did nothing wrong, they should be absolved.    If wrongdoing happened, then it should be dealt with.
    The folly of the current coverage is preventing us from getting the answer we deserve.

    The following was found at
9/20/2019 How Trump and Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate the president’s rivals by Josh Dawsey, Paul Sonne, Michael Kranish and David L. Stern, The Washington Post
Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani has been pushing Ukrainian officials
to launch probes into the president’s political opponents. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News)
    When President Trump spoke on the telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in late July, the Ukrainians had a lot at stake.    They were waiting on millions in stalled military aid from the United States, and Zelensky was seeking a high-priority White House meeting with Trump.
    Trump told his Ukrainian counterpart that his country could improve its image if it completed corruption cases that have “inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA,” according to a readout of the call released by Kiev.
    What neither government said publicly at the time was that Trump went even further — specifically pressing Ukraine’s president to reopen a corruption investigation involving former vice president Joe Biden’s son, according to two people familiar with the call, which is now the subject of an explosive whistleblower complaint.
    Days after the two presidents spoke, Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, met with an aide to the Ukrainian president in Madrid and spelled out two specific cases he believed Ukraine should pursue.    One was a probe of a Ukrainian gas tycoon who had Biden’s son Hunter on his board.    Another was an allegation that Democrats colluded with Ukraine to release information on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort during the 2016 election.
    “Your country owes it to us and to your country to find out what really happened,” Giuliani said he told the Ukrainian president’s aide, Andriy Yermak, during the Madrid meeting.    Yermak, according to Giuliani, indicated that the Ukrainians were open to pursuing the investigations.    The aide reiterated the Ukrainians’ plea for a meeting with Trump, a summit that would be an important signal to Russia of Washington’s support for Ukraine.
    “I talked to him about the whole package,” said Giuliani, who has been lobbying Ukrainian officials to take up the investigations since the spring.    Yermak did not respond to a request for comment.
    New revelations about the dual channels of pressure on Ukraine — one from the president and one from his personal attorney — are fueling questions about whether Trump used his office to try to force a foreign country to take actions damaging to his political opponents.
    Giuliani said he has kept the president informed of his efforts in Ukraine for months.    But he declined to say specifically what he has told the president.    “My narrow interest is for the benefit of my client,” he said.
    The White House declined to comment.
    Asked Friday if he had discussed Biden on his call with Zelensky in July, Trump told reporters, “It doesn’t matter what I discussed,” adding: “Someone ought to look into Joe Biden.”
    National security experts said Trump’s pressure on Ukraine was highly inappropriate.
    “This is requesting assistance from a foreign government to tarnish your political rival and opening the door to outside interference in our politics and elections,” said David Kramer, a former State Department official responsible for Russia and Central Europe during the George W. Bush administration.
    Giuliani said Trump did not threaten to withhold U.S. funds from Ukraine if the country did not investigate Biden and Democrats.
    “He didn’t do that.    President Trump didn’t do that,” Giuliani said this week.
    However, the Trump administration has held Zelensky at arm’s length since his election in April.
    Trump refused to set a firm date for an Oval Office meeting with the newly minted Ukrainian president at the White House — a sit-down that Ukraine has urgently sought to demonstrate Washington’s backing as it fights a long-simmering war with ­Russian-backed proxies in its east.
    U.S. officials and members of the Trump administration wanted the meeting to go ahead, but Trump personally rejected efforts to set it up, according to three people familiar with the discussions.
    By the time Trump and Zelensky spoke during the July 25 telephone call, the meeting at the White House still hadn’t been set.    Soon after, it was disclosed that the White House had put a hold on $250 million in military aid for Ukraine after Trump ordered a review of the assistance package.
    Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told Zelensky this month in a Kiev meeting that the aid was being held back because Trump was concerned about corruption and thought the Europeans should provide Ukraine more assistance, according to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who was in attendance, as well as an aide to Johnson.
    A former senior administration official who repeatedly discussed the issue with Trump said that the president thought “what we were doing in Ukraine was pointless and just aggravating the Russians.”
    “The president’s position basically is, we should recognize the fact that the Russians should be our friends, and who cares about the Ukrainians?” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
    Meanwhile, throughout the spring and summer, Giuliani was pressing the Ukrainian government behind the scenes, gathering information about Biden and briefing Trump on his findings, he said in several interviews with The Washington Post.
    At one point this year, the former New York mayor had planned a trip to Ukraine, but it was scuttled amid criticism about the propriety of his visit.    Instead, he has made his case in phone calls and meetings with Ukrainian officials in New York and Madrid.
[Giuliani meets with former diplomat as he continues to press Ukraine inquiries]
    Giuliani said he was operating in his personal capacity as Trump’s lawyer, although he said the State Department help put him in touch with Yermak.
    The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
    U.S. Embassy officials in Kiev repeatedly expressed concerns about the contacts between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials.    They have not been privy to most of the discussions, and at times, have only learned later from the Ukrainians, who said they were unsure if Giuliani was officially speaking for the U.S. government, according to two officials with knowledge of the matter.
    Giuliani has pushed Ukrainian officials to renew an investigation into the activities of Hunter Biden, who served on the board of a Ukrainian gas producer while his father handled U.S.-Ukraine policy.
    In particular, Giuliani has alleged Biden advocated for the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who at one point had overseen an anti-corruption probe of the gas producer’s owner.    However, the case had been dormant before the prosecutor’s firing, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials, and the U.S. ambassador at the time publicly called for the case against the gas tycoon to proceed.
    Yuri Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general who succeeded the fired prosecutor, told Bloomberg News in May that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden.
[As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production.    Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.]
    But Giuliani has said there is more to uncover, adding that his goal is to make sure Biden didn’t become president without having to answer for the issues in Ukraine.
    “What I’m saying to him: You’re not getting from here to the presidency without answering these questions,” Giuliani said in May of his efforts.    “The president’s counsel is entitled to develop evidence.”
    Biden has denied any wrongdoing.     “Not one single credible outlet has given any credibility to these assertions,” the former vice president said in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Friday.    “Not one single one.”

    Giuliani has also urged Ukraine to investigate whether Democrats colluded with Ukrainian authorities during the 2016 election to put out information damaging to Manafort, who is now serving a 7½-year prison sentence for financial crimes related to lobbying he did for a Russia-aligned politician in Ukraine.
    In all, Giuliani said he has had about five conversations this year with Yermak, the aide to Zelensky.    He said Yermak was concerned that Trump had not met with the Ukrainians and was “embarrassed” at the lack of a meeting — and wanted to make sure “nothing is wrong.”
    At the Madrid meeting this summer, Giuliani said he did not address the topic of U.S. aid.    “I was not involved in the aid at all,” he said.    “I had no idea the $250 million was on the table.”
    Giuliani said he left the meeting with the impression that the Ukrainians would pursue the cases he has pushed them to take up.    “He told me he would make sure things were investigated appropriately but they would need some time to appoint a new prosecutor,” Giuliani said.
    Yermak told the New York Times last month that the new government in Ukraine was committed to fairly investigating possible crimes but all decisions had to wait until the country had a new top prosecutor.
    People close to Zelensky have told American officials that if there is a case to pursue, they will follow it and the law — an attempt by Zelensky and his aides to avoid getting drawn into a partisan political fight in the United States.
    “For us, the important thing is to not get involved,” said one Ukrainian official earlier this summer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
    “There is nothing good that can come from this,” he added.    “I don’t want us to be used.”
[Trump’s interest in stirring Ukraine investigations sows confusion in Kiev]
    During the Kiev meeting with Zelensky this month, Murphy said there was “a large level of discomfort from the outreach of the president’s political team.    The embassy didn’t know what to do with it either.”
    “I heard they were confused and vexed about what they should do by these requests,” Murphy said Friday.    “This is a brand-new president, and he starts getting requests from the president’s political team to do investigation.    My concern was definitely validated by the conversations I had in Kiev.”
    When they spoke, Zelensky also stressed the importance of a meeting with Trump, adding that he did not want to be drawn into the 2020 presidential election, Murphy said.
    Zelensky did not respond to requests for comment Friday.
    The two presidents had been scheduled to meet in Warsaw earlier this month until Trump called off the trip, citing Hurricane Dorian’s projected landfall in the United States.
    Vice President Pence went in his place.    Asked by reporters on the trip if he brought up Biden with his meeting with Zelensky, Pence said he did not.    But he connected the delayed military aid to Ukraine’s actions on corruption.
    “As President Trump had me make clear, we have great concerns about issues of corruption,” the vice president said.    “The president wants to be assured that those resources are truly making their way to the kind of investments that will contribute to security and stability in Ukraine.    And that’s an expectation the American people have and the president has expressed very clearly.”
    Days later, on Sept. 12, the U.S. aid package was delivered to Ukraine and announced the following day by Zelensky at a political conference.
    Zelensky thanked Trump for releasing the $250 million in aid, noting that another $140 million was included as well, adding, “Now I can say that we have excellent relations with the U.S.A.
    “So I think we are really moving in the right direction and we have the right relationship with our strategic partner — the United States of America,” he added.
    Murphy said he and other senators were planning legislation to push through the aid that would have won Republican support, potentially forcing the White House’s hand.
[9 questions about the Trump whistleblower complaint, answered, see the next article for those]
    Zelensky and Trump are scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this month.    Still, the White House hasn’t set a date for an Oval Office meeting with Zelensky.
    Trump’s interactions with Zelensky are part of the whistleblower complaint by an intelligence official that is at the center of a showdown between the executive branch and Congress.    Administration officials have refused to divulge any information about the substance of an Aug. 12 report to the inspector general of the U.S. intelligence community.
    Earlier this month, House Democrats launched an investigation into whether Trump sought to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden in exchange for receiving U.S. foreign aid.
    Giuliani said he does not believe House Democrats are acting in “good faith” and said the administration’s resistance to sharing more information is justified.
    “Congress doesn’t have a decent purpose in getting it.    They’re a bunch of headhunters and have lost any credibility,” Giuliani said, adding: “They’re desperately trying to revive their false story about Russian collusion.    It’s not a legal issue, it’s a political issue.”
    Stern reported from Kiev.    Robert Costa, Tom Hamburger, John Hudson, Karoun Demirjian and Julie Tate in Washington, and Holly Bailey in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, contributed to this report.

    The following was found at
9/20/2019 9 questions about the Trump whistleblower complaint, answered by Aaron Blake, The Washington Post
Speaking to reporters Sept. 20, President Trump said his conversation with
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was "totally appropriate." (The Washington Post)
    Washington has been engulfed in recent days by a fast-evolving story about a whistleblower complaint regarding alleged misdeeds by President Trump.
    Given the complexity of it and all the angles involved, here’s an explainer that covers the major points.
1. What did Trump allegedly ‘promise,’ and what’s the big deal?
    The big, unanswered questions here are essentially: Did Trump make some kind of promise to a foreign government (apparently Ukraine) that would involve using official government resources for personal gain?    And if he didn’t make a promise, how persistent were his efforts to gain foreign assistance?
[Why Ukraine being the focus of Trump’s whistleblower complaint is particularly ominous]
    A whistleblower from the U.S. intelligence community filed a complaint Aug. 12 that alleged some kind of wrongdoing at high levels of the U.S. government.    But we haven’t seen the complaint, nor has it been shared with Congress.
    Thanks to reporting from The Washington Post’s national security team this week, though, we now know that this whistleblower’s complaint involves Trump and alleges that he made some kind of a “promise” to a foreign leader.    We then learned that the complaint involves Ukraine.    By Friday afternoon, we learned that Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25 call to launch an investigation involving the Bidens. (The Wall Street Journal first reported that and said Trump pressed Zelensky on the matter about eight times)
    Intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson has reviewed the complaint and determined it was credible.    Generally, that means there is corroboration beyond just the one source.    Atkinson also determined that it was a matter of “urgent concern,” which is a legal threshold that requires notifying the relevant congressional committees.    In this case, that would be the intelligence committees.
2. Why isn’t the administration sharing the whistleblower complaint?
    Acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire has refused to share the complaint, and we learned Friday that the White House Office of Legal Counsel has been involved in efforts to keep it from Congress.
[Trump pressed Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter]
    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Thursday that he understood that the Justice Department was involved in the decision but that he had not been given an answer as to whether the White House is also involved.
    DNI general counsel Jason Klitenic said in a letter that the complaint “involves confidential and potentially privileged communications.”    The Post reports that the White House has stopped short of asserting executive privilege over the complaint, but White House counsel Pat Cipollone has been trying to set up legal obstacles, such as claiming jurisdictional issues, to prevent Maguire from handing it over to Congress.
3. What recourse does Congress have?
    This an unusual situation that breaks with traditional protocol, so, as The Fix’s Amber Phillips writes, there are limited tools at Schiff’s disposal.    He has already activated one of them.
    This week, he subpoenaed both the whistleblower complaint and documents related to the decision to withhold it.    Schiff has said that if Maguire doesn’t comply, he will require him to testify in an open session, at which point lawmakers could pepper him with difficult questions.    Maguire is scheduled to testify Thursday.
    Schiff this week also said that he might sue over the matter and that his committee and the Democratic-controlled House could withhold funding from the DNI’s office until it relents.
4. How does this involve Ukraine?
    We know little concretely besides that it involves the Eastern European country and the requests from Trump.    But the picture is filling out.
    The Trump team, and specifically his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, has publicly telegraphed a desire to get the Ukrainian government to pursue certain investigations that might carry political benefits for Trump.    These include matters involving convicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the 2016 campaign and the Biden family.
    Giuliani this summer even planned a trip to Ukraine, which he readily admitted was intended to benefit Trump by pushing for particular investigations.    “I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop,” Giuliani told the New York Times in May.    “And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”    Giuliani ended up canceling the trip amid an outcry.
    We also know that Trump spoke with Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, on July 25 — 2½ weeks before the whistleblower filed the complaint — and that the administration was withholding $250 million in military aid for Ukraine in late August, before bipartisan pressure forced it to release the funding.
5. What do we know about Trump’s phone call with Zelensky on July 25?
    Logically, this would seem likely to be the conversation at the heart of the complaint.    Given the parties involved in the call — Trump and Zelensky — and its temporal proximity to the complaint, that would make sense.
    Trump’s repeated request of Zelensky that Ukraine investigate the Bidens would form one portion of a potential quid pro quo, but our latest reporting is that Trump didn’t mention foreign aid on the call.    So it’s not clear what was actually part of the “promise” the whistleblower alleges.
    But Atkinson, in his closed-door testimony this week, also said the complaint involves multiple actions and no single communication.
    The White House said July 25 that the call involved Trump congratulating Zelensky on his election win this year and that they “discussed ways to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Ukraine, including energy and economic cooperation.”
    The Ukrainians, though, said at the time that Trump told Zelensky he was “convinced the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve [the] image of Ukraine, [and] complete [the] investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA.”
    That last phrase is particularly conspicuous, given what we know now.
6. Why is the Trump team so interested in Ukraine?
    For a variety of perhaps unrelated reasons, Trump has eyed developments in Ukraine for potential political gain.
    As Philip Bump wrote Friday, the first of these involved a Democratic National Committee consultant who sought information from Ukrainian officials about Manafort, who had previously done work for onetime Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.    This was held up as a counterargument to potential Trump campaign collusion with Russia — the idea being that Democrats might have also colluded, with Ukraine.
    The other big one — and apparently the more significant one when it comes to what we see today — is the situation involving the Bidens.    As The Post’s Michael Kranish and David L. Stern detailed in July, the vice president’s son, Hunter Biden, took a well-paying job on the board of Ukraine’s largest private gas company, Burisma Holdings, late in the Obama administration.    That company had been under some scrutiny from Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.    Shokin was removed amid pressure from then-Vice President Biden and other Western leaders, who alleged that he wasn’t pursuing corruption cases seriously enough.
7. How substantial are the allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden?
    The contention from Trump, Giuliani, et al., is that Biden was taking an action to benefit his son’s company.    Shokin himself alleged to The Post “that the activities of Burisma, the involvement of his son, Hunter Biden, and the [prosecutor general’s office] investigators on his tail, are the only, I emphasize, the only motives for organizing my resignation.”
    But Shokin’s contention is dubious, and it’s not clear that he had actually been scrutinizing Burisma at the time; one official said the probe had long been dormant.    Shokin had also fallen out of favor with many other Western leaders, as well as with lawmakers in Ukraine, where he was the subject of a decisive vote of no confidence.
    Neither of these cases involves readily apparent wrongdoing.    Ukraine’s current prosecutor general told Bloomberg he had no evidence of anything illegal or corrupt by either Joe or Hunter Biden.    But the Trump team seems to regard them as sleeping giants in the 2020 race — or at least issues that could be used to muddy the political waters with the leading Democratic candidate in the race (and the one who polls best against Trump).
8. Where do Joseph Maguire and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence fit into this?
    Maguire’s defenders say he’s in a legitimate legal bind, because the law doesn’t countenance this conflict between a president’s executive privilege and the disclosure requirements regarding a whistleblower complaint.
    Regardless of whether you sympathize with him, though, he finds himself in an inauspicious position.    Trump named him acting DNI a little more than a month ago under slightly controversial circumstances.    After it was announced that then-DNI Daniel Coats would be resigning, Trump bypassed Coats’s No. 2, Sue Gordon, who had extensive bipartisan support, in favor of Maguire as the acting DNI. (Gordon resigned and subtly protested the decision in a brief letter.)    Maguire, a retired Navy admiral, was also a somewhat unorthodox pick for the job, given his lack of experience in the U.S. intelligence community.
    The overlapping timelines of Coats’s resignation, Maguire’s elevation and the whistleblower complaint are also raising eyebrows.    Trump announced the exit of Coats, with whom he occasionally clashed, on July 28.    That’s three days after his call with Zelensky.    Trump announced Maguire’s selection Aug. 8.    Four days later, the whistleblower complaint was filed.
    The practical impact is that Maguire, who was Senate-confirmed but for a different job, has been thrust into a high-profile position that now involves making a very difficult legal and political call for an intelligence community in which he isn’t exactly steeped.
9. How bad is this for Trump and his presidency?
    That’s the other big question right now.    It’s too early to know whether it will be proved that Trump did anything wrong.    Even if we see the complaint, it’s not certain that things happened exactly as the whistleblower said they did.    And just because Trump pushed for investigating the Bidens doesn’t mean there is a provable quid pro quo.
    Any specific legal violations would depend on those details.    Asking for foreign assistance is problematic in and of itself, but this is also the president who publicly asked for Russia to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016 and has indicated repeatedly that he was open to foreign help.    The more troubling possibility (and the one raised specifically by the “promise” allegation) is that this might involve outright government corruption — the trading of favors for personal gain.    It has been suggested that such a situation could involve federal election law violations or even extortion.
    Of course, even if Trump violated the law, we’re in the same position as we are with obstruction of justice and Michael Cohen’s campaign finance violation (in which Trump has been implicated but not accused of a crime).    And that position is: Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president can’t be indicted, thus any remedy would be Congress’s responsibility, via potential impeachment proceedings.
    The constitutional definition of an impeachable offense — “high crimes and misdemeanors” — is a subjective one that means basically whatever Congress determines it means.    So the real question is whether serious wrongdoing by Trump in this case would rally public and political support in a way we haven’t yet seen for impeachment and/or removal from office.
    In the background are other highly controversial things Trump has done, most notable being his potential obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation.    But thus far, public support for impeachment is far short of a majority, and Republicans, who control the Senate and can easily prevent Trump’s removal from office, have shown no appetite for going down that road.    Democrats have thus proceeded somewhat timidly.    And with the 2020 election approaching, they might reason that the election would be the best way to decide how Trump is held accountable.
    As far as that race goes, Trump finds himself in a tough spot.    He has low approval ratings and trails most Democrats he potentially faces in 2020, including by double digits in the case of Biden.    One more big scandal would seem to cement his underdog status, but there is plenty of time until November 2020.

    The following found at
    Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.
    In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
    In the video Biden said, “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’    I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours.    I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours.    If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.
    “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.    And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.
    Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day.    Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor.    Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.
    But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
    U.S. banking records show
Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
    The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
    Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”
    He added: “I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine” and that he couldn’t describe the evidence further.
    The timing of Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s appointment to Burisma’s board has been highlighted in the past, by The New York Times in December 2015 and in a 2016 book by conservative author Peter Schweizer.
    Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of Burisma and his son's role.    They noted that:
  • Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
  • The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma;
  • Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
  • Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin.    The vice president's office suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
    President Obama named Biden the administration’s point man on Ukraine in February 2014, after a popular revolution ousted Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow sent military forces into Ukraine’s Crimea territory.
    According to Schweizer’s book, Vice President Biden met with Archer in April 2014 right as Archer was named to the board at Burisma.    A month later, Hunter Biden was named to the board, to oversee Burisma’s legal team.
    But the Ukrainian investigation and Joe Biden’s effort to fire the prosecutor overseeing it has escaped without much public debate.
    Most of the general prosecutor’s investigative work on Burisma focused on three separate cases, and most stopped abruptly once Shokin was fired.    The most prominent of the Burisma cases was transferred to a different Ukrainian agency, closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, known as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), according to the case file and current General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko.
    NABU closed that case, and a second case involving alleged improper money transfers in London was dropped when Ukrainian officials failed to file the necessary documents by the required deadline.    The general prosecutor’s office successfully secured a multimillion-dollar judgment in a tax evasion case, Lutsenko said.    He did not say who was the actual defendant in that case.
    As a result, the Biden family appeared to have escaped the potential for an embarrassing inquiry overseas in the final days of the Obama administration and during an election in which Democrat Hillary Clinton was running for president in 2016.
    But then, as Biden’s 2020 campaign ramped up over the past year, Lutsenko — the Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden once hailed as a “solid” replacement for Shokin — began looking into what happened with the Burisma case that had been shut down.
    Lutsenko told me that, while reviewing the Burisma investigative files, he discovered “members of the Board obtained funds as well as another U.S.-based legal entity, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, for consulting services.”
    Lutsenko said some of the evidence he knows about in the Burisma case may interest U.S. authorities and he’d like to present that information to new U.S. Attorney General William Barr, particularly the vice president’s intervention.
    “Unfortunately, Mr. Biden had correlated and connected this aid with some of the HR (personnel) issues and changes in the prosecutor’s office,” Lutsenko said.
    Nazar Kholodnytskyi, the lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Lutsenko’s office, confirmed to me in an interview that part of the Burisma investigation was reopened in 2018, after Joe Biden made his remarks.    “We were able to start this case again,” Kholodnytskyi said.
    But he said the separate Ukrainian police agency that investigates corruption has dragged its feet in gathering evidence.    “We don’t see any result from this case one year after the reopening because of some external influence,” he said, declining to be more specific.
    Ukraine is in the middle of a hard-fought presidential election, is a frequent target of intelligence operations by neighboring Russia and suffers from rampant political corruption nationwide.    Thus, many Americans might take the restart of the Burisma case with a grain of salt, and rightfully so.
    But what makes Lutsenko’s account compelling is that federal authorities in America, in an entirely different case, uncovered financial records showing just how much Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s company received from Burisma while Joe Biden acted as Obama’s point man on Ukraine.
    Between April 2014 and October 2015, more than $3 million was paid out of Burisma accounts to an account linked to Biden’s and Archer’s Rosemont Seneca firm, according to the financial records placed in a federal court file in Manhattan in an unrelated case against Archer.
    The bank records show that, on most months when Burisma money flowed, two wire transfers of $83,333.33 each were sent to the Rosemont Seneca–connected account on the same day.    The same Rosemont Seneca–linked account typically then would pay Hunter Biden one or more payments ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 each.    Prosecutors reviewed internal company documents and wanted to interview Hunter Biden and Archer about why they had received such payments, according to interviews.
    Lutsenko said Ukrainian company board members legally can pay themselves for work they do if it benefits the company’s bottom line, but prosecutors never got to determine the merits of the payments to Rosemont because of the way the investigation was shut down.
    As for Joe Biden’s intervention in getting Lutsenko’s predecessor fired in the midst of the Burisma investigation, Lutsenko suggested that was a matter to discuss with Attorney General Barr: “Of course, I would be happy to have a conversation with him about this issue.”
    As the now-completed Russia collusion investigation showed us, every American deserves the right to be presumed innocent until evidence is made public or a conviction is secured, especially when some matters of a case involve foreigners.    The same presumption should be afforded to Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and Burisma in the Ukraine case.
    Nonetheless, some hard questions should be answered by Biden as he prepares, potentially, to run for president in 2020: Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy?    What work was performed for the money Hunter Biden’s firm received?    Did you know about the Burisma probe?    And when it was publicly announced that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who very publicly pursued Burisma?

9/21/2019 Biden urges investigation into Trump Ukraine call by Amanda Becker and Jonathan Landay
Joe Biden, former U.S. vice president and Democratic presidential hopeful, smiles while signing autographs at the
Polk County Democrats' Steak Fry in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., September 21, 2019. REUTERS/Elijah Nouvelage
    DES MOINES, Iowa/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, a frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, on Saturday called for an investigation into reports that President Donald Trump pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Biden and his son.
    “This appears to be an overwhelming abuse of power.    To get on the phone with a foreign leader who is looking for help from the United States and ask about me and imply things … this is outrageous,” a visibly angry Biden said while campaigning in Iowa.
    “Trump is using this because he knows I’ll beat him like a drum and is using the abuse of power and every element of the presidency to try to do something to smear me,” Biden said.
    Trump’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is at the center of an escalating battle over a whistleblower’s complaint reportedly concerning the U.S. leader’s dealings with Ukraine that the administration has refused to give Congress.
    The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets on Friday said Trump repeatedly asked Zelenskiy to investigate unsubstantiated charges that Biden, while vice president, threatened to withhold U.S. aid unless a prosecutor who was looking into a gas company in which Biden’s son was involved was fired.
    Trump, reports said, urged Zelenskiy, a comedian who had just won election, to speak with Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani.    Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, has promoted the allegations against Biden and his son, Hunter, and acknowledged that he pressed for a Ukrainian investigation.
    Biden has admitted threatening to withhold aid unless the prosecutor was dismissed, a demand also made by the wider U.S. government, the European Union and other international institutions for his alleged failure to pursue major corruption cases.
    The news reports about the Zelenskiy phone call have intensified demands by Democratic lawmakers for the House of Representatives to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump, and have elevated the controversy to a major campaign issue.
    Trump denied doing anything improper.    He wrote in a series of tweets on Saturday that his conversation with Zelenskiy was “perfectly fine and routine.”    He accused the “Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party” of staying “as far away as possible” from the Biden allegations.
    Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko on Saturday denied in an interview with a Ukrainian news outlet suggestions that Trump had pressured Zelenskiy.
    Biden, responding to a reporter’s question at the Polk County Democratic Party’s annual steak fry in Des Moines, denied that he had ever spoken to his son about his business dealings in Ukraine.
You should be looking at Trump.    Everybody looked at this and everybody who’s looked at it said there’s nothing there.    Ask the right question,” continued Biden.    “You should be asking him the question: why is he on the phone with a foreign leader, trying to intimidate a foreign leader?
    Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of Biden’s main rivals in the Democratic primary race, reiterated in Des Moines that she believes Trump’s reported actions should be the subject of impeachment proceedings in the U.S. House of Representatives.
    “It is time for us to call out this illegal behavior and start impeachment proceedings right now,” Warren said in remarks at the steak fry.
    At the steak fry, Biden called on voters to oust Trump but did not mention Ukraine.    “Above all else we must defeat Donald Trump period and stop his abuse of power,” Biden said.
    The House Intelligence Committee is demanding it be given the whistleblower’s complaint in line with a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence community that the matter met the legal threshold for transmission to Congress.
    Acting Director of National Security Joseph Maguire, however, decided against providing the complaint to the committee after he consulted with the Justice Department, and reportedly the White House.
    Maguire and his top lawyer contended the complaint did not meet the legal guidelines for submission to the committee, prompting Democrats to accuse Maguire of breaking the law.
    Three House committees already were investigating the Trump-Zelenskiy call in part because the Ukrainian government’s readout of the call appeared to show that he had encouraged Zelenskiy to pursue a Biden investigation.
(Reporting by Jonathan Landay in Washington and Amanda Becker in Des Moines, Iowa; Editing by David Gregorio)
[Biden cannot even admit his crime with bragging about the firing of the prosecutor as seen above in Ukraine even though it is on camera, and he is now behind Warren in the polls.    By the way we want the whistleblower to come forward so we know who is still in the "DEEP STATE" and anyone associated with him, so if Trump is re-elected he can clean the SWAMP some more, which means he survived this attack.    Neither Biden or Warren would not make a good president because they both just jumped to impeach without any proof of a crime.].

9/21/2019 Rep. Perry: ‘smoke’ to Biden reports by OAN Newsroom
    A GOP lawmaker said as the nation’s top diplomat, the president has broad discretion regarding his conversations with foreign leaders.
    Representative Scott Perry said Saturday, reports focus on the president’s effort to curb alleged corruption, not the alleged corruption itself.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden works the grill during the Polk County
Democrats Steak Fry, Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
    He adds, with congressional oversight and aides on the line, he doesn’t believe the president would act inappropriately.
    However, the Pennsylvania lawmaker said there’s at least “smoke” when it comes to accusations of self-dealing involving the Bidens that warrant a further look.
    He even said Ukraine was offering the U.S. information about the incident during the prior administration, but wasn’t accepted.

9/21/2019 Pelosi calls for whistleblower complaint from DNI by OAN Newsroom
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling on the president to release the whistleblower complaint raising concerns within the intelligence community.
    The calls by the House speaker Friday, revolve around an alleged promise he made to a foreign leader.    Pelosi is calling the reports “urgent concerns for national security.”
On this Sept. 12, 2019, photo, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks at the Capitol in Washington. The good news is that it
doesn’t look like a bitterly polarized Washington will stumble into another government shutdown. But as Democrats controlling the
House unveil a stopgap, government-wide spending bill to keep the lights on and pay the troops, there’s scant evidence that power
sharing in the U.S. Capitol will produce further legislative accomplishments anytime soon. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
    She didn’t reveal any details that have been reported as of recently, but said she wants to make sure the president is acting in the best interest of the American people.
    This builds on comments made by Pelosi Thursday, where she said she has faith in Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff to handle the matter.
    “Well I obviously, trust the judgment of our committee chair, Adam Schiff. And he’s following this very closely with an expert eye on what the law is, what protections there are for the whistle blowers and where does it cross the line of a conversation that the president may have.    A commitment he may make for our nation at the public should be aware of,” said Pelosi during a press briefing with reporters.
    Pelosi said the stonewalling coming from the acting Director of National Intelligence must end.    Further, she said the whistleblower must be provided with every protection guaranteed under the law.

9/23/2019 Ukraine official says any investigation would be transparent: report
FILE PHOTO: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy delivers a speech during the Yalta European Strategy (YES) annual
meeting in Kiev, Ukraine September 13, 2019. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
    KIEV (Reuters) – An aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was quoted on Monday as saying any investigation in Ukraine would be conducted transparently, after U.S. media reports said President Donald Trump asked Zelenskiy to investigate Joe Biden, a rival in next year’s U.S. election.     Trump’s July 25 call with Zelenskiy stoked controversy in Washington after reports that Trump repeatedly asked the Ukrainian leader to investigate whether Biden, the Democratic front-runner in next year’s election, misused his position when he was vice president.     Trump told reporters on Sunday he had discussed Biden and his son in a call with Zelenskiy but said their phone conversation was largely congratulatory.     Andriy Yermak, an aide to Zelenskiy, was quoted in Ukrainian media outlet as saying that he had told Trump’s lawyer Rudolph Giuliani that any investigation would be transparent.
    “We can guarantee that during our term in office all investigations will be carried out transparently,” Yermak said.    “These are the fundamental principles and basis of President Zelenskiy’s program which we campaigned on.”
(Reporting by Matthias Williams; Editing by Nick Tattersall)
[Did you notice that on July 25th, 2019 the day the Mueller Report flopped before Congress on the Democrats, is the same day that Trump had the above call.].

9/24/2019 Ukraine warns ‘witch hunt’ over Biden may hurt relations by OAN Newsroom
    “Joe Biden and his son are corrupt, all right?    But the fake news doesn’t want to report it because they’re Democrats.” — President Trump
    Ukrainian officials have continued to dismiss the latest media attacks on President Trump over the mounting scandal surrounding Joe Biden’s alleged corruption in that country.    The president is raising the stakes in his standoff with the mainstream media in the wake of attempts to launch a new hoax alleging “Ukrainian collusion.”
    Democrats and the media have claimed the president was trying to force Ukraine to release “dirt on Biden” by threatening to cut U.S. aid to that country in a phone call in July.    However, remarks by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky earlier this month suggest President Trump never wanted to cut aid to Ukraine.
    “Now I can say that we have excellent relations with the USA because now, instead of the blocked $250 million, we will have $140 and $250 million,” Zelensky stated.    “So, I think we are moving in the right direction.”
    Ukrainian officials are now debating the questionable role of Biden’s son, Hunter, in the nation’s energy sector.
President Trump has suggested the Bidens may have been selling America’s political influence and receiving the proceeds of corruption overseas.
    “Based on energy?    He knows nothing about energy, so why did he leave China?    Why did he leave Ukraine with all this money?” questioned the president.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden speaks at an LGBTQ Presidential Forum in the Sinclair Auditorium on the
Coe College campus in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Friday, Sept. 20, 2019. (Rebecca F. Miller/The Gazette via AP)
    A former member of the Ukrainian Parliament, Vladimir Oleynik, has indirectly confirmed the president’s view of the matter.
    “He never really played any management role, Hunter Biden never took part in decision making,” said the former Ukrainian official.    “I don’t think he even took part in corporate meetings, but he was formally with the company and received real money for that.”
    Meanwhile, Ukrainian National Security Adviser Alexander Danilyuk said any attempts to use Ukraine in domestic political debates in the U.S. could hurt bilateral ties.    The official also said a “Ukrainian witch hunt” could be used by either party for political gain in next year’s elections, adding, it’s unacceptable.    President Trump appears to agree:
    “It’s just a Democrat witch hunt.    Here we go again.    They failed with Russia.    They failed with recession.    They failed with everything, and now they’re bringing this up. The one who’s got the problem is Biden.    What Biden did was wrong.”
    The Biden-Ukraine scandal adds to a series of questionable ties between Democrat officials and high-profile corruption schemes overseas, which raises an issue of potential harboring of proceeds of international corruption in the U.S. at the expense of America’s foreign relations.
    The following found at
Note that the mainstream fake news television and radio has failed to show this to the rest of the public because they know it is true

9/25/2019 Asked about Trump, Ukrainian leader says only his son can pressure him by Matthias Williams
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy attends a luncheon for world leaders at the 74th session of the United Nations
General Assembly (UNGA) at U.N. headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., September 24, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
    KIEV (Reuters) – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asked whether U.S. President Donald Trump had put improper pressure on him during a July phone call, said nobody can put pressure on him except his six-year-old son.
    Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday launched a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump, accusing him of seeking Ukraine’s help to smear Democratic rival Joe Biden ahead of next year’s election.    Trump has dismissed the inquiry as a witch hunt.
    The allegations turn on a July 25 telephone call between Trump and Zelenskiy during which critics allege Trump improperly pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Biden, the former U.S. vice president, and his son Hunter, who had worked for a company drilling for gas in Ukraine.
    Trump has said he did nothing wrong and that he’ll release a transcript of the conversation later on Wednesday to prove it.
    “Nobody can put pressure on me because I am the president of an independent state,” Zelenskiy told Russian reporters in New York where he is attending the United Nations General Assembly.
    “The only one person by the way who can put pressure on me … is my son, who is six years old,” said Zelenskiy whose comments were broadcast by the Rossiya 24 channel on Wednesday morning ahead of an planned meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump.
    Asked whether he would ask Trump for anything when they met, Zelenskiy said:
    “Asking for something is not Ukraine’s style.    It’s a new strong country and isn’t asking anyone for anything. We can help others ourselves.”
    Since the political scandal involving Trump and Ukraine erupted, a trip to the United States that began as a golden opportunity for Kiev to burnish relations with its most powerful international backer has turned into a diplomatic tightrope walk for Zelenskiy.
(Writing by Matthias Williams; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

    Pressed by fellow Democrats, Pelosi initiates formal inquiry into Trump’s use of power.
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched the House into a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on Tuesday, acquiescing to pressure from fellow Democrats and plunging the nation into a clash between Congress and the commander in chief.
    The probe centers on whether Trump abused his presidential powers and sought help from a foreign government for his reelection.
    Pelosi had long resisted pursuing impeachment, but her caucus moved swiftly in favor of a probe in recent days following reports that Trump asked Ukraine’s president to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son.
    Trump predicted the inquiry would be a “positive for me.”

9/25/2019 Pelosi announces probe: ‘No one is above the law’ by Lisa Mascaro, Mary Clare Jalonick and Jonathan Lemire, ASSOCIATED PRESS
    WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched the House into a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on Tuesday, acquiescing to mounting pressure from fellow Democrats and plunging a deeply divided nation into an election-year clash between Congress and the commander in chief. The probe centers on whether Trump abused his presidential powers and sought help from a foreign government for his reelection, actions Pelosi said would mark a “betrayal of his oath of office.”    She declared: “No one is above the law.”
    Pelosi had long resisted pursuing impeachment, but her caucus moved swiftly in favor of a probe in recent days following reports that Trump asked Ukraine’s president to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son.    Her decision sets up her party’s most urgent and consequential confrontation with a president who thrives on combat, and it injects deep uncertainty in the 2020 White House race.
    Trump, who was meeting with world leaders at the United Nations on Tuesday, predicted the inquiry would be a “positive for me.”
    Trump tweeted that “the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage.    So bad for our Country!
    The president has all but dared Democrats to open impeachment proceedings, repeatedly stonewalling requests for documents and witness interviews in a variety of ongoing investigations.    His advisers say they are confident that the specter of impeachment led by the opposition party will bolster Trump’s political support.
    Pelosi has shared that concern and has spent months trying to hold off liberals in her caucus pushing for impeachment.
    Earlier Tuesday, Pelosi sidestepped questions about whether she believed Trump’s actions were impeachable, but she said it would be wrong for the president to ask a foreign leader for help investigating Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.
    “We don’t ask foreign governments to help us in our election,” Pelosi said.
    An impeachment inquiry into a president in the middle of his reelection campaign is virtually certain to exacerbate the nation’s partisan divides.
    Pelosi has shared that concern and has spent months trying to hold off liberals in her caucus pushing for im- peachment.
    At issue is a summer phone call Trump had with Ukraine’s president, which came to Congress’ attention through a whistleblower complaint.    Trump has insisted he did nothing wrong in the call, but has suggested he raised Biden and his son Hunter as part of discussions over corruption in Ukraine.
    Trump acknowledged Tuesday that he personally ordered his staff to freeze nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine a few days before the July phone call to Volodymyr Zelenskiy.    In remarks to reporters at the United Nations, Trump said he held up the aid to fight corruption and urge European nations to share in helping out Ukraine.
    Moments before Pelosi spoke, Trump tweeted that he had authorized the release on Wednesday of a transcript of the call.
    “You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call,” Trump said.
    Trump has sought to implicate Biden and his son in the kind of corruption that has long plagued Ukraine.    Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv.    Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son.
    Biden said Tuesday that Congress must use its “full constitutional authority” to determine whether Trump asked the Ukrainian president for dirt on the former vice president.
    Biden said that if Trump doesn’t comply on that and other inquiries, he “will leave Congress ... with no choice but to initiate impeachment.”
    The identity of the whistleblower is unknown. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that the whistleblower wants to speak with the panel and could testify as soon as this week.
    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler has declared that his committee is already conducting impeachment hearings, but the panel has been unable to get many key witnesses and documents from the Trump administration.
    The atmosphere on Capitol Hill started shifting following the whistleblower complaint, with several moderate lawmakers from political swing districts announcing their support for an impeachment probe.    “We should all want to get to the bottom of these allegations and know without a shadow of a doubt that our president is either innocent or he’s not,” said Virginia Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA agent and a freshman lawmaker from a hotly contested district.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., long resisted calls for impeachment from liberal House
members before announcing the inquiry. J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE/AP
    “No one is above the law,” Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House speaker.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces a formal inquiry Tuesday over allegations that
President Donald Trump abused his presidential powers. ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES

9/25/2019 Trump rejects Dems’ efforts as ‘garbage’ by John Fritze and David Jackson, USA TODAY
    NEW YORK – President Donald Trump dismissed House Democrats’ decision to launch an impeachment inquiry Tuesday as “witch hunt garbage.”
    The president, who is in New York for his third United Nations General Assembly, returned to Trump Tower in Manhattan for what White House officials described as “executive time” shortly before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the decision.
    He sent a series of tweets minutes later.
    “Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Trump tweeted.    “So bad for our Country!
    The president followed up with a tweet naming the chairs of several of the committees that have been investigating him for years, then fired off a two-word missive in all caps: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!
    Trump is scheduled to next appear in public at a meeting Wednesday focused on Venezuela.
    Trump’s campaign sought to turn the inquiry into a campaign issue, blasting a fundraising solicitation to supporters late Tuesday slamming the impeachment drive.
Trump has promised to release a full transcript of the phone call with the Ukraine president on Wednesday. AP

9/25/2019 House Democrats plunge into Trump impeachment inquiry by Patricia Zengerle
Ukrainian and U.S. state flags fly in central Kiev, Ukraine September 25, 2019. REUTERS/Valentyn Ogirenko
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives plunge into a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on Wednesday, a move that could dramatically change the 2020 presidential race.
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had for months resisted calls inside her party for Trump’s impeachment, announced her decision after meeting with members of her party on Tuesday.
    In a brief, nationally televised statement, Pelosi accused Trump of seeking Ukraine’s help to smear Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election.
    She described the Republican president’s behavior as a “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”
    Trump fired back quickly on Twitter, calling the inquiry “Witch Hunt garbage.”
    Even if the Democratic-controlled House ultimately voted to impeach Trump, it is unlikely to lead to his removal from office.    Republicans hold a slim majority in the Senate, where an impeachment ruling would need a two-thirds majority to pass.
    But the process could damage the president’s image as he vies for re-election, with only about 45% of Americans approving of his performance as president, especially if damaging information comes out during public hearings.
    It could also boost Trump if Americans believe Democrats are unfairly targeting the president.
    The S&P 500 closed down 0.84% on Tuesday, hurt partly by the anticipation of Pelosi’s announcement, and Asian shares were weaker on Wednesday because of the possibility of political uncertainty in the world’s largest economy.    The dollar nursed losses against most major currencies.
    Pelosi’s change of heart followed reports that Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a July 25 telephone call to investigate Biden, the former U.S. vice president, and his son Hunter, who had worked for a company drilling for gas in Ukraine.
    Trump has admitted that he discussed Biden and his son in the call, but denied putting any pressure on the Ukrainian leader despite his administration’s withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid approved for Kiev by Congress.
    Support from House members for impeachment has surged in recent days, fueled by anger over the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with a law requiring the release of a whistleblower’s complaint over the discussions with Ukraine.
    Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth said that when Pelosi mentioned her phone call with Trump today, she said Trump had told her that “he’d like to figure this out,” and Pelosi responded to Trump by saying, “Tell your people to obey the law.”
    The U.S. Senate voted unanimously on Tuesday, with no objections from Trump’s fellow Republicans, for a resolution calling for the whistleblower’s report to be sent to Congress.
    The House is due to vote on a similar non-binding resolution on Wednesday.
    The White House had refused to hand over the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress but an administration official said late on Tuesday it was now preparing to release it by the end of the week and would most likely allow the whistleblower to meet with congressional investigators.
    Trump’s approval among Republicans remains strong.    A Sept. 16-20 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 82% of registered Republicans approved of his job performance.
    Kevin McCarthy, the party’s leader in the House, accused Democrats of seeking to overturn the 2016 election.    “This is all about politics.    Not about facts,” he said.
    Pelosi had considered creating a select committee to lead the impeachment inquiry, but instead opted to rely on the House Judiciary, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and other committees already conducting probes of the Trump administration.
    Those investigations will continue and committee leaders will decide whether to hold public hearings.
    Separately, Trump announced on Twitter on Tuesday that he would release a transcript of his telephone call with Zelenskiy.
    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said his panel was communicating with an attorney representing the whistleblower and that the individual would like to testify this week.
    There will be a burst of hearings this week but lawmakers then leave Washington for two weeks and will not return until after the Oct. 14 Columbus Day holiday.
(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Richard Cowan and David Morgan in Washington and Steve Holland at the United Nations; editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

9/25/2019 House GOP leader slams Pelosi over impeachment push, questions if she should step down by OAN Newsroom
    Partisan tensions are escalating on Capitol Hill as top Republicans blast their colleagues across the aisle for pursuing impeachment.    During a press conference Wednesday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Democrats’ decision to launch an inquiry marked a “dark day” in the rule of law.
    McCarthy criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s timing, saying it was wrong for her to proceed while the president met with world leaders at the United Nations.    He is also questioning if she should consider resigning from her role in Congress.
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Calif., joined from left by, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the House Judiciary
Committee, Republican Conference chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, the top Republican on the House
Judiciary Committee, criticizes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the Democrats for launching a formal impeachment inquiry
against President Donald Trump, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
    “To claim that a president had violated a law based on a whistleblower she does not know, that wasn’t even on a phone call…to claim that the president did a quick quid pro quo and mentions Biden’s name eight times…so I think at the end of the day the speaker owes an apology to to this nation and I think it’s even questioned why she should stay in her job,” stated the House minority leader.
    Mccarthy went on to blast Pelosi for allowing House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff to stay in his role after the Mueller report, ans condemned the House Speaker for not denouncing Joe Biden and his ties to Ukraine.

9/26/2019 For Ukraine’s leader, Trump memo on their call is a diplomatic car crash by Pavel Polityuk and Andrew Osborn
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy speaks as he and U.S. President Donald Trump hold a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the
74th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City, New York, U.S., September 25, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
    KIEV/MOSCOW (Reuters) – For U.S. President Donald Trump, White House publication on Wednesday of a memo summarizing his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy fueled a domestic political crisis.
    For Zelenskiy, it was a far-reaching diplomatic disaster.
    Zelenskiy’s comments to the Republican Trump, disclosed in the summary, will likely irk U.S. Democrats, risking the bipartisan U.S. support Kiev requires while irritating France and Germany whom Zelenskiy criticized in the same exchange.
    Locked in a geopolitical standoff with neighboring Russia after Moscow annexed the Crimea region and backed pro-Russian separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine needs all the international friends it can get.
    It relies heavily on Washington for aid and diplomatic help, and European countries like France and Germany are trying to help bring about talks aimed at breathing life into a stalled peace process over eastern Ukraine.
    “Unfortunately the main consequence of this is that Ukraine could become toxic,” said Alyona Getmanchuk, director of the New Europe Center in Ukraine.
    “Maybe not as toxic as Russia became during the Mueller investigation, but toxic,” she said, referring to a two-year U.S. investigation into contacts between Trump’s successful 2016 election campaign and Russia.
    The timing of the latest scandal is awkward for Zelenskiy, who is keen to reinvigorate parts of a stalled peace deal over eastern Ukraine, something for which he needs European and U.S. diplomatic muscle.
    The White House memo summarizing the call shows Zelenskiy promised to reopen an investigation into a company that employed former U.S.     Vice President Joe Biden’s son and voiced frustration about what he said was a lack of support from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron when it came to enforcing sanctions on Russia.
    It also showed Zelenskiy had agreed with Trump that the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine – Marie Yovanovitch – was “a bad ambassador.”
    “Zelenskiy does not come out looking good from this – giving the ex-U.S. ambassador a kicking, Merkel and the Europeans a kicking, and then agreeing to do Trump’s dirty work on Biden,” said Timothy Ash, a senior emerging markets strategist at Bluebay Asset Management.
    “(He) seems very eager to ingratiate himself with Trump.”
    International investors have been hoping that Zelenskiy will make good on pledges to refashion Ukraine into a fully fledged transparent graft-free democracy.    Ash’s comments reflect growing scepticism on that score in some quarters.
    The French foreign ministry declined to comment and the Elysee was not immediately available for comment.    But French officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Macron had gone out of his way to meet Zelenskiy before he was elected, something that was uncommon in normal protocol.
    There was no immediate comment from German officials.
    Zelenskiy, who held talks with Trump in New York on Wednesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, had resisted calls for Ukraine to release details of the July 25 call with Trump during which the U.S. president asked him to investigate the son of Biden, the front-runner in the Democratic Party race for the November 2020 election.
    Zelenskiy told reporters on Wednesday he had thought that only Trump’s side of the call would be published and that he believed that details of such calls “between presidents of independent countries” should sometimes not be published.
    He said he did not know the details of the investigation into Biden’s son, saying it was one of many cases he discussed with world leaders if asked and that he wanted his new general prosecutor to investigate all cases without interference.
    Zelenskiy also tried to smooth over things with Merkel and Macron, saying he was grateful for their help and that he had made his comments about them during “a difficult period.”
    “I don’t want to say anything bad about anyone,” Zelenskiy said after meeting Trump.    “We thank everyone who helps us.”
    But some at home said the damage had already been done.
    “Of course the background to relations with European leaders and especially Merkel will worsen,” said Volodymyr Fesenko of the Penta think tank.
    “There’s no direct criticism (in the call summary) but the context and tonality is such that Zelenskiy sounds like he’s complaining about Merkel to Trump.”
    Some Ukrainians fear that the damage the Trump scandal could inflict on U.S.-Ukraine ties could also play into Russia’s hands as it might imperil future U.S. military aid among other things.
    “For Ukraine there’s a huge danger that it could find itself alone with its enemy the Russian Federation … as the United States is a strategic partner in the military sphere and when it comes to pushing ahead with reforms,” said Maria Ionova, a lawmaker from former president Petro Poroshenko’s faction.
    “The Russian Federation will definitely use this chance.”
    The Kremlin has said the matter is one for the United States and Ukraine and that it is merely observing.
    “(The) facts are that Trump in effect asks Zelenskiy to dig dirt up on Biden, and Zelenskiy seemingly agreed,” Ash said.
    “After everything Biden did for the reform story in Ukraine, Zelenskiy stabs him in the back – along with the former U.S. ambassador, Merkel, et al."
    “The winner – Putin!
(Additional reporting by Sergiy Karazy and Matthias Williams in Kiev and John Irish in Paris; Writing by Andrew Osborn; Editing by Howard Goller)

9/26/2019 Ukrainian leader’s rivals use Trump call to kick him, voters more forgiving by Sergiy Karazy and Pavel Polityuk
FILE PHOTO: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy delivers a speech during a parliamentary session
in Kiev, Ukraine August 29, 2019. Picture taken August 29, 2019. REUTERS/Gleb Garanich/File Photo
    KIEV (Reuters) – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s political opponents rebuked him on Thursday over what they said was his amateurish handling of a phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump, accusing him of damaging important international alliances.
    But on the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, people said they were either unfazed or merely disappointed by a politician they said they knew was short on experience and likely to struggle against more experienced political operators.
    Zelenskiy, a former comedian and political novice who was only elected in April, was blindsided on Wednesday when the White House released a memo summarizing his July 25 call with Trump during which the U.S. leader asked him to investigate Joe Biden and his son.
    The memo shows Zelenskiy promised to reopen an investigation into a company that employed Biden’s son and voiced frustration about what he said was a lack of support from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron when it came to enforcing sanctions on Russia.
    It also showed Zelenskiy had agreed with Trump that the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine – Marie Yovanovitch – was “a bad ambassador” and had Zelenskiy boasting that Ukraine’s new prosecutor general would “100%” be his person.
    Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his party said on Thursday that the call showed Zelenskiy was an irresponsible custodian of the country’s foreign policy and accused him of upsetting key allies.
    They also questioned his commitment to a genuinely independent judiciary and demanded that the prosecutor general appear before parliament to explain whether he was Zelenskiy’s puppet or a genuine “servant of the law.”
    “European Solidarity notes with deep concern that such inadvertent and ill-advised statements by the president may complicate Ukraine’s international support,” Poroshenko’s party said in a statement.
    It said it wanted Zelenskiy to maintain Ukraine’s bipartisan support in the United States and retain the support of European allies.
    “Diplomacy and international relations do not forgive amateurism, they need a thoughtful attitude and professional approach,” the party said.
    U.S. congressional Democrats launched an inquiry to impeach Trump over allegations he pressed Zelenskiy to help smear Biden, the front-runner in the race to challenge Trump at presidential elections next year.
    Ordinary Ukrainians in Kiev on Thursday were more understanding of Zelenskiy.
    “My attitude toward Zelenskiy has not changed,” said Irina Belyayeva, who said she was on maternity leave from work.
    “I didn’t have unrealistic expectations.    His lack of experience and a good team who could have advised him so that we wouldn’t be in this situation has been confirmed.    Many things were said which shouldn’t have been.”
    Zelenskiy enjoys a popularity rating over 70% and his Servant of the People party controls parliament with many Ukrainians hoping he can refashion their country into a fully fledged transparent graft-free democracy.
    Some Ukrainians said his Trump phone call showed he was trying to do his best to keep a powerful ally on side and that he hadn’t known it would one day be made public.
    Bohdan Telenko, a writer, said he thought the sudden flurry of media attention in Ukraine was welcome even if it was for the wrong reasons.    But he said Zelenskiy had been shown to be out of his depth.     “I am worried a bit about Zelenskiy’s lack of experience,” he said.    “There are sharks out there.”
(Writing by Andrew Osborn; Editing by Alistair Bell)

9/26/20019 How Ukraine got caught up in Trump’s impeachment battle by Matthias Williams
A view shows the U.S. embassy in Kiev, Ukraine September 25, 2019. REUTERS/Valentyn Ogirenko
    KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine is the unwitting participant in a political battle in Washington between President Donald Trump and the Democrats ahead of the 2020 election.
    Democrats launched an inquiry to impeach Trump over allegations he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to help smear Joe Biden, the frontrunner in the race to challenge Trump as the Democratic Party nominee next year.
    Trump and Zelenskiy spoke by phone on July 25, and the White House has released a reconstruction of their conversation, in which Trump asks Zelenskiy to investigate the Biden family, and Zelenskiy agrees to do so.
    Earlier, Trump had frozen nearly $400 million of aid to Ukraine.    His critics accuse him of using the funds as leverage to pressure Zelenskiy into pursuing the investigation.
    Zelenskiy denies being put under pressure and Trump dismissed the inquiry as a “witch hunt.”
    Biden was vice president in President Barack Obama’s administration and the point person for Ukraine.    Trump alleges that Biden bullied the Ukrainian authorities to fire General Prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2016, threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Kiev failed to comply.
    According to Trump, Biden had Shokin fired because he was investigating the activities of Biden’s son Hunter, who was working for a Ukrainian gas company called Burisma.
    Hunter Biden denies any wrongdoing during his work for Burisma.    Joe Biden denies trying to protect his son, and says pressure to fire Shokin was being applied widely by European governments at the time because of concern over corruption.
Burisma was founded by a former minister and member of ex-President Viktor Yanukovich’s party.    After the Kremlin-friendly Yanukovich was ousted following street protests in 2014, prosecutors opened a criminal probe into Burisma.
    Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani also alleges some officials in Ukraine conspired to help Trump’s Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton in 2016 by leaking information damaging to Trump’s then-campaign manager, Paul Manafort.
    Manafort, a long-time Republican political consultant who is now serving a sentence after being convicted of fraud, had worked in Ukraine for Yanukovich for years before being hired by Trump.
    Giuliani has singled out Serhiy Leshchenko, a former lawmaker who published details of off-the-books payments made by Yanukovich to Manafort.
    A former comedian with no prior political experience, Zelenskiy won a landslide election victory in April.    Before Zelenskiy was inaugurated, Giuliani announced in May that he would visit Ukraine, but then abruptly canceled his visit saying Zelenskiy was surrounded by Trump’s enemies.    He named Leshchenko, who had been an advisor to Zelenskiy during his campaign.
    After Giuliani canceled the trip, Andriy Yermak, an aide to Zelenskiy, sought to meet Giuliani on what Yermak said was his own initiative.
    Shokin became General Prosecutor in February 2015 at a time when Ukraine’s Western backers were calling for Kiev to tackle corruption in exchange for billions of dollars in aid.    Diplomats, anti-corruption activists and some officials accused Shokin’s office of blocking reform and stalling investigations.
    Shokin’s critics included his deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, who publicly resigned in February 2016 saying the General Prosecutor’s office was a “brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption.”    Shokin’s office dismissed the resignation as a stunt.
    The U.S. Ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, in a September 2015 speech, singled out Shokin’s office as an obstacle to fighting corruption “by openly and aggressively undermining reform.”
    While Trump calls Shokin a “tough prosecutor” and Giuliani asserts that Shokin was fired for investigating Burisma, Pyatt accused Shokin’s office of deliberately undermining a probe into Burisma’s founder both in Ukraine and in Great Britain.
    Shokin was pushed out in March 2016, a decision publicly endorsed by the European Union.    In 2017, Burisma said all investigations against the company and its founder were closed.
    Shokin and Shokin’s successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, both spoke to The Hill newspaper in Washington in articles published in March and April of this year.    Shokin said before he was fired he had made “specific plans” for an investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”
    Lutsenko said he had begun looking into Burisma and Biden’s activities in connection to it.    However, Lutsenko told Reuters last week there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Biden’s son in his relationship with the energy firm.
    According to the White House summary of Zelenskiy’s phone call with Trump, Zelenskiy assured Trump that his next prosecutor general, the man who replaced Lutsenko, “will be 100% my person” and “will look into the situation.”
    Pyatt’s successor as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was Marie Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who had previously served as ambassador to other ex-Soviet republics.    She returned home in May.    Trump strongly criticized her in his phone call to Zelenskiy, and Zelenskiy agreed with Trump’s criticism.
    Lutsenko has alleged that Yovanovitch had given him a list of people not to prosecute.    The State Department called the allegation “an outright fabrication”    Trump’s son called her a “joker” while Giuliani accuses her of colluding on Clinton’s behalf.    Yovanovitch left her post after what Democrats called a “political hit job.”
(Editing by Peter Graff)

9/26/2019 Acting DNI testifies before Intelligence Committee on whistleblower complaint by OAN Newsroom
    Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire recently testified on Capitol Hill over the administration’s handling of a still-anonymous whistleblower’s complaint.    During his testimony Thursday, Maguire claimed the complaint was not ignored or hidden from the House Intelligence Committee when grilled over his reluctance to immediately notify them.
    Maguire defended his actions of going to the White House before the committee.    He said that due to the information in the complaint, it appeared to be subject to executive privilege.    He went on to clarify the White House never once directed him to withhold information, but he made sure he determined the best course of action.
    “The question was whether or not it has executive privilege, not whether or not I should send it onto Congress,” he stated.    “I am not authorized as the Director of National Intelligence to provide executive privileged information…I think it is prudent as a member of the executive branch to check to ensure that in fact it does not.”
Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testifies before the House Intelligence Committee
on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
    At the same time, Maguire also touted his support for the whistleblower’s right to testify if they choose under the Whistleblower Act.
    Meanwhile, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff claimed President Trump was trying to take advantage of Ukraine, while sacrificing national security for personal political gain.    His remarks are in reference to the July phone call between the president and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as well as the released whistleblower complaint.
    Schiff claimed the president withheld military support to the Ukraine in exchange for Ukrainian assistance on digging up dirt on Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden.    The congressman went on to claim the new Ukrainian leader was eager to have a meeting with President Trump to get more military help, which he said the president used as leverage.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., questions Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, as
he testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
    President Trump has continued to slam Democrat attempts to find wrongdoing by calling it “another witchhunt.”

9/26/2019 NEW: Whistleblower complaint released by OAN Newsroom
    The Intelligence community whistleblower complaint has officially been released to the public.    It alleges President Trump’s actions regarding his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky posed a national security risk.
    In the report, the anonymous individual claimed in eight pages that the president attempted to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.    The person also believes the White House took steps to “lock down” records of the call by moving the official word-for-word transcript to an outside electronic system normally used for highly sensitive material.
    It’s important to note the whistleblower admited they received the alleged information from more than half a dozen U.S. officials, and was not a direct witness most of the events described.
    Read the unclassified whistleblower complaint here [SEEN BELOW].
    Meanwhile, President Trump is urging Republicans to “stick together,” following the release of the complaint.
    In a tweet Thursday morning, the president called on the GOP to “fight hard.”
    The president has pointed out in previous tweets that he has created a booming economy, rebuilt the military, and has made the U.S. respected again on the world stage.    Regardless of his accomplishments, impeachment efforts have continued.    He has referred to those efforts as “the greatest scam in the history of American politics.”
    Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire is now testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in regards to the newly released whistleblower complaint.
Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire takes his seat before testifying before the House
Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Read the unclassified whistleblower complaint here and it is obviously that it looks like an attorney wrote this
and was presented to them from upper echelon CIA employees who are "Never Trumpers, who the DNI needs to clear the SWAMP

9/26/2019 Rep. Nunes says Democrats just want ‘media frenzy,’ not facts about complaint by OAN Newsroom
    Representative Devin Nunes is blasting Democrats for using the media to cause another public spectacle against President Trump.    During his opening statement at the Director of National Intelligence hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday, he mocked Democrats and said he wanted to congratulate them on the rollout of their “latest information war-fare operation.”
    Nunes also said the left has an “extraordinary ability to, once again, enlist the mainstream media in their campaign to hurt the president.”    He proceeded to go through the facts, detailing why the whistleblower complaint provides no basis for impeachment:
    “The complaint relied on hearsay evidence provided by whistleblower.    The inspector general did not know the contents of the phone call at issue.    The inspector general found that the whistleblower displayed arguable political bias against Trump.    The DOJ investigated the complaint and determined no action was warranted.    The Ukrainian president denies being pressure by President Trump.”
Ranking Member Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., questions Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire as he testifies before
the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
    Nunes added, the meetings about the complaint should be behind closed doors, but then Democrats would not get their true goal of a media frenzy.
    The president echoed Nune’s remarks while speaking to reporters Thursday, following the House Intelligence Committee hearing.    President Trump said, “what Democrats are doing is a disgrace and should not be allowed.”    He went on to reiterate that his phone call with the Ukrainian president was “perfect.”

9/26/2019 McConnell: No impeachable offense by President Trump in Ukraine talks by OAN Newsroom
    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he hasn’t seen evidence of an impeachable offense by President Trump. In a statement Wednesday, McConnell said he read the summary of the Trump-Ukraine phone call, adding, it contains no basis for impeachment whatsoever.
    The senator said Democrat efforts to use the call to launch impeachment proceedings are ridiculous.    He added, the Democrats may have “overplayed their hand.”    The Senate majority leader said they jumped on impeachment before seeing any factual evidence of alleged “quid pro quo” or other misconduct.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., smiles as he speaks to members of the media, next to Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.,
right, Tuesday Sept. 24, 2019, after a Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
    “The dam finally broke — Speaker Pelosi couldn’t hold back the far-left any longer,” he stated.    “Before any of us even had the facts in hand, she caved to the left and announced an impeachment inquiry.”
    McConnell stressed the Democrats appear to be desperately praying for evidence of any potential wrongdoing by President Trump, but their hopes have been futile so far.

9/26/2019 Gabbard: Ukraine transcript shows no compelling case for impeachment by OAN Newsroom
    Democrat 2020 hopeful Tulsi Gabbard believes the Trump-Ukraine phone call does not provide a compelling case for impeachment.    In an interview Wednesday, she said the push for impeachment by her party’s leadership would only deepen the partisan divide in America.
    Gabbard believes the call for impeachment is a politically motivated move, however, she has alleged the president is corrupt.
    “Most people reading through that transcript are not going to find that extremely compelling cause to throw out a president that won an election in 2016, and instead what I think most people will see this is another move by Democrats to get rid of Donald Trump,” stated Democrat representative.
    Gabbard said she intends to defeat President Trump next year in a fair election without resorting to political gimmicks.    Meanwhile, the Hawaii representative has officially qualified for the next Democrat debate, but said she remains critical of the DNCs’ selection process.
Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, speaks at an LGBTQ Presidential Forum in the
Sinclair Auditorium on the Coe College campus in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Friday, Sept. 20, 2019. The forum, which brings together
ten Democratic presidential hopefuls, is hosted by The Gazette, The Advocate, GLAAD, and One Iowa. (Rebecca F. Miller/The Gazette via AP)

    The following found at
9/26/2019 Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story by John Solomon, Opinion Contributor
    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
    Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.
    He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.
    There’s just one problem.
    Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.
    And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
    For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting.    The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.
    In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.
    The memos raise troubling questions:
1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma's American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?"
2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
    Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws.    First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest.    Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
    Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.
    “I’m knowledgeable about the situation,” Zelensky told Trump, asking the American president to forward any evidence he might know about.    "The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.”
    Biden has faced scrutiny since December 2015, when the New York Times published a story noting that Burisma hired Hunter Biden just weeks after the vice president was asked by President Obama to oversee U.S.-Ukraine relations.    That story also alerted Biden’s office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder.
    Documents I obtained this year detail an effort to change the narrative after the Times story about Hunter Biden, with the help of the Obama State Department.
    Hunter Biden’s American business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleague two days after the Times story about a strategy to counter the “new wave of scrutiny” and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department.    The text suggested there was about to be a new “USAID project the embassy is announcing with us” and that it was “perfect for us to move forward now with momentum.”
    I have sued the State Department for any records related to that meeting.    The reason is simple:
    There is both a public interest and an ethics question to knowing if Hunter Biden and his team sought State’s assistance while his father was vice president.
    The controversy ignited anew earlier this year when I disclosed that Joe Biden admitted during a 2018 videotaped speech that, as vice president in March 2016, he threatened to cancel $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, to pressure Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Shokin.
    At the time, Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma.    Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm.    Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000.
    Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations.    Those reports are wrong.    A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met.    But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me.    One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption.    Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.
    After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.
    Joe Biden has since responded that he forced Shokin’s firing over concerns about corruption and ineptitude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.
    Some of the new documents I obtained call that claim into question.
    In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation.    “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.
    “On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.
    Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing.    But his account is supported by documents from Burisma’s legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden’s effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.
    Burisma’s own accounting records show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of an American lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run by Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, who both served in President Bill Clinton’s administration.
    Just days before Biden forced Shokin’s firing, Painter met with the No. 2 official at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and asked to meet officials in Kiev around the same time that Joe Biden visited there.    Ukrainian embassy employee Oksana Shulyar emailed Painter afterward: “With regards to the meetings in Kiev, I suggest that you wait until the next week when there is an expected vote of the government’s reshuffle.”
    Ukraine’s Washington embassy confirmed the conversations between Shulyar and Painter but said the reference to a shakeup in Ukrainian government was not specifically referring to Shokin’s firing or anything to do with Burisma.
    Painter then asked one of the Ukraine embassy’s workers to open the door for meetings with Ukraine’s prosecutors about the Burisma investigation, the memos show.    Eventually, Blue Star would pay that Ukrainian official money for his help with the prosecutor's office.
    At the time, Blue Star worked in concert with an American criminal defense lawyer, John Buretta, who was hired by Burisma to help address the case in Ukraine.    The case was settled in January 2017 for a few million dollars in fines for alleged tax issues.
    Buretta, Painter, Tramontano, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s campaign have not responded to numerous calls and emails seeking comment.
    On March 29, 2016, the day Shokin’s firing was announced, Buretta asked to speak with Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, but was turned down, the memos show.
    Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokin’s firing. Buretta, Tramontano and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Star’s memos.
    Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memo that the general prosecutor’s office provided to me, stating that the three Americans offered an apology for the “false” narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.
    They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management,” the memo stated.
    The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: “These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution … and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.”
    The memo provides a vastly different portrayal of Shokin than Biden's.    And its contents are partially backed by subsequent emails from Blue Star and Buretta that confirm the offer to bring Ukrainian authorities to meet the Obama administration in Washington.
    For instance, Tramontano wrote the Ukrainian prosecution team on April 16, 2016, saying U.S. Justice Department officials, including top international prosecutor Bruce Swartz, might be willing to meet.    “The reforms are not known to the US Justice Department and it would be useful for the Prosecutor General to meet officials in the US and share this information directly,” she wrote.
    Buretta sent a similar email to the Ukrainians, writing that “I think you would find it productive to meet with DOJ officials in Washington” and providing contact information for Swartz.    “I would be happy to help,” added Buretta, a former senior DOJ official.
    Burisma, Buretta and Blue Star continued throughout 2016 to try to resolve the open issues in Ukraine, and memos recount various contacts with the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Kiev seeking help in getting the Burisma case resolved.
    Just days before Trump took office, Burisma announced it had resolved all of its legal issues.    And Buretta gave an interview in Ukraine about how he helped navigate the issues.
    Today, two questions remain.
    One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burisma’s case, given his son’s interests.    That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.
    The second is whether Biden has given the American people an honest accounting of what happened.    The new documents I obtained raise serious doubts about his story’s credibility.    And that’s an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.
[Go to this link to see more]

9/26/2019 John Solomon: Democrats attempted to collude with Ukraine in 2016 by OAN Newsroom     A national security journalist with access to White House sources told One America’s John Hines that former President Obama and the DNC overtly lobbied the Ukrainians to collude with their political attacks on the 2016 Trump campaign.
[Go to this link to see more]

9/26/2019 Report: Sen. Mitt Romney has connection to Biden-Ukraine scheme by OAN Newsroom
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
    Senator Mitt Romney may have a connection to Joe Biden’s alleged corruption scandal in Ukraine. According to a report released on Thursday, Romney’s top aide in the 2012 presidential campaign, J. Cofer Black, has served on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings since 2017.
    Biden’s son Hunter previously worked for Burisma, where he made at least $50,000 a month.    Romney’s former aide joined Burisma roughly six months after Hunter Biden left the company’s board.    This connection may explain Romney’s cautious stance on impeachment.
    “[When] the President of the United States asks or presses the leader of a foreign country to carry out an investigation of a political nature, then that’s troubling… But if there were a quid pro quo, that would take it to an entirely more extreme level.” — Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah
    It is unknown whether Romney and Black maintained close communication after the 2012 election.
    Related: Sen. Romney Blasts Political Opponents, Attacks President Trump’s Leadership
    OLD Article 8/22/2019 Sen. Romney blasts political opponents, attacks President Trump’s leadership by OAN Newsroom
    GOP Senator Mitt Romney recently took a jab at his political opponents in an effort to elevate himself.    During a speech at a conservative think tank in Salt Lake City Wednesday, Romney subtly went after President Trump’s foreign policy approach.
    Without naming the president, Romney called to censure the leaders of Russia and North Korea rather than approach them with flattery.    His comments come as President Trump has rejected accusations of being too lenient on foreign adversaries.
FILE – In this Jan., 18, 2019, file photo, U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, speaks with reporters, in Ogden, Utah.
Romney said Friday, June 7, 2019, that he’s not sure if he will endorse President Donald Trump for a second term and
that he may not throw his weight behind anyone during the 2020 campaign. “I don’t think endorsements are worth a
thimble of spit,” the Republican former presidential candidate told reporters. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, File)
    In fact, the president has touted his ability to maintain strong ties with foreign leaders unlike previous administrations.
    “I think we’ll have another meeting — he (Kim Jong-un) really wrote a beautiful three-page, I mean right from top to bottom, really beautiful letter,” President Trump told reporters.    “And maybe I’ll release the results of the letter, but it was very positive.”
    Also in Wednesday’s speech, Romney said he considers himself a “renegade Republican,” adding, he doesn’t agree with everything his party does.    He then went on to slam Democrats for their socialist agenda, including Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.
[Now we know why Romney is also dissing Trump and voting against him].

9/27/2019 Rep. Adam Schiff slammed for fictional version of President Trump’s call to Ukraine by OAN Newsroom
    The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, is coming under fire for reading a fictional version of President Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine.    However, President Trump is well within his legal rights to ask Ukraine for assistance.
    One America’s Pearson Sharp explains.

9/27/2019 Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy listens during a bilateral meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the
74th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City, New York, U.S., September 25, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
    KIEV (Reuters) – A Ukrainian investigation of gas company Burisma is focused solely on activity that took place before Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, was hired to sit on its board, Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigation agency said.
    U.S. President Donald Trump asked Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in July to investigate whether Joe Biden tried to block an investigation into his son’s relationship with the company, which was drilling for gas in Ukraine.
    Trump’s intervention is the subject of an impeachment investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives, with Democrats saying the Republican president was trying to push a foreign leader to smear Joe Biden, a political opponent.
    The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said it was investigating permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.
    But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.
    “Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.
    Hunter Biden was a director on Burisma’s board from 2014-2018, according to documents filed by the company in Cyprus, where it is registered.
    The investigation into Burisma covers a period when Ukraine was governed by a Kremlin ally, Viktor Yanukovich.    Burisma hired Hunter Biden after Yanukovich was toppled in a popular revolt in 2014 and replaced by a pro-Western government.
    At the time, many Ukrainian firms were seeking to distance themselves from their relationships with the previous, pro-Moscow authorities, and some invited Western public figures to sit on their boards.
    Nazar Kholodnytsky, the head of anti-corruption investigations at Ukraine’s Prosecutor’s Office, a separate body to the NABU, said on Novoye Vremya radio that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden had been called in for questioning as part of NABU’s investigation into activities at Burisma.
    “At the moment, this case is up in the air, so to speak.    Up in the air means that there is no active investigative work ongoing.    At the moment, detectives and prosecutors do not understand what they are supposed to be investigating,” Kholodnytsky said.
(Reporting by Pavel Polityuk and Maria Tsvetkova; Writing by Polina Ivanova; Editing by Peter Graff)

9/27/2019 Ukraine’s Zelensky, UN’s Guterres meet in N.Y. to reaffirm ties by OAN Newsroom
    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently met with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres in New York.    The two officials held talks on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Thursday to bolster cooperation between Ukraine and international institutions.
    Zelensky also had a chance to sign the UN guestbook during his first presidential visit to the UN.    The Ukrainian president reiterated his country is an independent nation that doesn’t accept any foreign pressure or guidance.
    “As for asking for something — it’s definitely not Ukraine’s style,” he stated.    “Ukraine is a new strong country and isn’t asking anyone for anything, we can help others ourselves.”
    Guterres also said he expects the UN-Ukrainian relation to remain “excellent” going forward.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky visits the site of the 9/11 terror attacks at ground zero in New York, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019.
Zelensky made specific stops at the names of victims that were born in Ukraine. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
    This comes as amid the release of a whistleblower complaint that alleges President Trump’s actions regarding a July phone call with the Ukrainian president posed a national security risk.    The anonymous individual claimed the President Trump attempted to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.    Zelensky has repetitively denied that he was pressured in any way by the U.S.
    Trump tweet: “The President of Ukraine said that he was NOT pressured by me to do anything wrong.    Can’t have better testimony than that! As V.P., Biden had his son, on the other hand, take out millions of dollars by strong arming the Ukrainian President.    Also looted millions from China. Bad!

9/27/2019 Ukraine security official offered to quit before Zelenskiy’s U.S. trip by Matthias Williams
FILE PHOTO: Oleksandr Danylyuk, a top Ukrainian security official who has tendered his resignation, addresses lawmakers
in his earlier role as finance minister in Kiev, Ukraine June 7, 2018. REUTERS/Valentyn Ogirenko/File Photo
    KIEV (Reuters) – A senior Ukrainian security official offered to quit before President Volodymyr Zelenskiy began a visit to the United States this week, the president’s office said on Friday.
    Oleksandr Danylyuk, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, gave no reason for his decision and will stay on until Zelenskiy decides whether to accept his resignation, it said in a statement.
    The statement gave no indication that the resignation was connected with a telephone call between Zelenskiy and Donald Trump that is at the center of a formal impeachment inquiry into the U.S. president.
    In the July 25 call, Trump asked Zelenskiy to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian gas company for several years, according to a summary of the conversation released by the White House.
    Biden, a former vice president, is a leading contender in the Democratic race to take on Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
    Trump’s administration also released a whistleblower’s complaint that questioned whether U.S. aid was held up until Ukraine showed it would act on Trump’s request.
    Reuters could not immediately contact Danylyuk for comment.    Earlier this week he told Reuters Ukraine did want not to be dragged into U.S. domestic politics.
    Danylyuk is a former finance minister who oversaw the nationalization of PrivatBank, Ukraine’s largest lender, and his appointment to his security role in May sent a positive signal to investors gauging Zelenskiy’s reformist credentials.
    Investors are also looking for Kiev to conclude a new loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund to help underpin economic stability, tackle reforms and fight corruption.    An IMF delegation left Ukraine on Friday without finalizing an agreement.
(Reporting by Matthias Williams and Ilya Zhegulev and Pavel Polityuk, Editing by Andrew Heavens and Timothy Heritage)

9/27/2019 President Trump suggests whistleblower is a ‘leaker or spy’ by OAN Newsroom
    President Trump is speculating on the identity of the whistleblower accusing him of being a national security risk.    In a tweet Friday, the president said, “sounding more and more like the so-called whistle-blower isn’t a whistle-blower at all.”    The president then questioned if the anonymous individual was a “partisan operative.”
    Trump tweet: “Sounding more and more like the so-called Whistleblower isn’t a Whistleblower at all.    In addition, all second hand information that proved to be so inaccurate that there may not have even been somebody else, a leaker or spy, feeding it to him or her?    A partisan operative?
President Donald Trump pauses to talk as he leaves a ceremony with members of law enforcement on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington,
Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. The president was given a plaque of appreciation from America’s Sheriffs and Angel Families. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
    President Trump brought up the whistleblower during a meeting with the U.S. mission to the United Nations.
    “I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information because that’s close to a spy,” he stated.    “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason — we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”
    This comes after the New York Times revealed the whistleblower was a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House. The Times also alluded to the fact the agent is male.

9/27/2019 Pelosi accuses Attorney General of ‘going rogue’ with leaker complaint, faces her own criticism by OAN Newsroom
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the attorney general has “gone rogue” in his handling of the whistleblower complaint.    In an interview     Friday, Pelosi accused William Barr of trying to protect the president.    She also accused Barr of being part of a White House cover-up trying to block the details of the call between President Trump and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
    Pelosi said her message to both Democrats and Republicans at this point is to put country before party.
    “This is no cause for any joy, this is a very sad time for our country,” she stated.    “The impeachment of a president is as serious as our congressional responsibilities can be, apart from declaring war or something.”
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., addresses reporters at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019, as Acting
Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire appears before the House Intelligence Committee. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
    Pelosi also criticized acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire for taking a complaint involving the president to the White House legal counsel.
    The speaker herself has come under criticism for her haste in launching an impeachment inquiry before even seeing the details of the complaint.    Former Trump administration adviser Steve Bannon said Pelosi is starting a civil war with her impeachment inquiry.    In a comment to the Washington Post Wednesday, the former White House official said her decision to announce the intent to start an impeachment inquiry at 5 PM is “the shot a Fort Sumter,” which started the American Civil War.
    In an interview earlier this week, Bannon said the inquiry is a move to shut down President Trump’s agenda as the focus shifts to impeachment instead of things like national security.
    “What you’re going to see is 24 hours a day in the Washington Post, in the New York Times, that will then feed into the cable news process, you’ll see these guys on TV…it’ll be overwhelming, it will be relentless,” he explained.
    Bannon said Pelosi and the Democrat House have been trying to figure out how to impeach the president for the last three years.    His comments come as most Republicans pointed out the whistleblower complaint is not enough evidence to start an impeachment inquiry.
[Well Nancy you better watch out what goes around comes around.]

9/27/2019 Abuse of power, not criminality, key to Trump impeachment by Tom Hals and Jan Wolfe
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives aboard Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S. September 26, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
    (Reuters) – Democratic lawmakers have a strong case for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump if they can prove he abused his power when he asked Ukraine’s president to “look into” an American political rival, several legal experts said.     Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Joe Biden, an early favorite to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, according to a summary of a Trump phone call released this week by the White House.     The administration also released a whistleblower’s complaint that questioned whether U.S. aid was held up until Ukraine showed it would act on Trump’s request.     The legal experts said the central question in an impeachment inquiry is whether Trump put his interest above those of the nation by leveraging aid to Ukraine in return for incriminating information.    Evidence of a cover-up could strengthen the impeachment case, they said.
    “The U.S. has a national security interest in Ukraine and it does appear that what the president was doing was putting that national security interest at risk in exchange for political benefits,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a professor at Georgetown Law.    “If that is what happened, that is the core of what impeachment is about.”
    U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday.
    If the Democratic-led House of Representatives votes to approve articles of impeachment, the Republican-controlled Senate would then decide whether to find Trump guilty and remove him from office.
    A total of 218 votes, a simple majority in the 435-member House, is required for impeachment.    Conviction requires a two-thirds vote of the 100-member Senate – or 67 votes.
    Under the U.S. Constitution, the president can be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
    Legal experts said Trump’s call with Zelenskiy, who was seeking U.S. missiles, may run afoul of the bribery statute or violate campaign finance law, which makes it a crime to solicit a benefit to the campaign from a foreign national.
    But during an impeachment inquiry, lawmakers are not required to adhere to strict legal definitions and can look more broadly at whether Trump used his authority for personal gain, experts said.
    “Whether it is a crime or not makes no difference for purposes of impeachment.    Asking a foreign country to provide campaign dirt in exchange for weapons is an abuse of power and precisely what the Framers (of the U.S. Constitution) believed would justify impeachment,” said former federal prosecutor Harry Sandick.
    Trump has said that his call with Zelenskiy was perfectly appropriate. He has said he did not put pressure on the Ukrainian president to look into Biden, who Trump says improperly tried to halt a Ukrainian probe of a company with ties to his son Hunter.
    There is no evidence Biden used his position as vice president to help his son.
    Legal experts said the House will likely seek testimony from those who are familiar with Trump’s discussions with world leaders, as well as communications from advisers leading up to and following the Ukraine call.
    Not all experts agreed there was an impeachment case against Trump.
    David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator and a former Justice Department lawyer, said there was nothing inappropriate about asking a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have violated the laws of that country.
    “The fact some of such persons are currently running for political office in the United States doesn’t and cannot render them immune from foreign investigations.”
    But other experts said the whistleblower’s claims that White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the July call suggested a cover-up that could bolster the impeachment case against Trump.
    Berit Berger, the executive director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School, said investigating a possible cover-up expanded the pool of potential witnesses, and the likelihood that some would be cooperative with Congress.
    “Anytime you have a situation where you have a number of people involved in an alleged criminal act, it’s that many more people who can come in and provide information to Congress,” Berger said.
(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware and Jan Wolfe in Washington, DC; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Howard Goller)
[The only abuse of power occurred before 2016 and it is being investigated by Horowitz, Durham and Barr and when they are done that’s when you will see their concept of impeachment will turn into criminal charges against Obama, Hillary, FBI crooks, CIA Brennan, and any of the so-called whistle blower crooks also in the NSA .].

9/27/2019 Ukrainian prosecutor allegedly terminated due to pressure from Biden by OAN Newsroom
    Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
    Calls to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden have grown louder after the sworn statement of former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was released to the public.    In the document Shokin said he was asked to resign due to “pressure from the U.S. presidential administration, in particular from Joe Biden.”    He went on to say that Biden was, “threatening to withhold $1 billion in subsidies to Ukraine” until he stepped down.
    The prosecutor was terminated back in 2016 in a controversial decision still contested to this day.    Shokin said he was forced out because he was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings.    Burisma is the natural gas firm in Ukraine for which Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors.
    The official ruling said Shokin was terminated due to alleged corruption.    Regardless, the newly released court document has sparked a fire under Biden, who admitted to pressuring Burisma to fire Shokin.
    “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours,” the former Vice President said.    “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.”
    Ukraine’s former Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, said all concerns must be investigated to the fullest.
    “Everything that I now know about this company (Burisma), that the son of the Vice President took part in it, now explains the position that the Vice President occupied,” said Azarov.    “I think an investigation is essential.”
    If proven to be true, Shokin’s statements outline a serious abuse of power carried out directly by Biden while in office.
[This is not alleged he actually bragged about doing it on video that the fake news will not show.]
    The following file 20190928_053515_558605952546766.mp4 will pop up to play on MP4 to click to see quid pro quo in action a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something:
Click to see the Biden's Brag of Quid Pro Quo.
    This file was uploaded at 12MB and they only allow 5MB uploads.
    So I added these two links to go to or paste into a google link to see more information:
    This first one has a video showing Biden bragging about firing the prosecutor committing Quid Pro Quo, "this for that."
    This next one is on the Hannity show explaining the corruption for you.

9/27/2019 NYT defends revealing key details of whistleblower’s identity by OAN Newsroom
The New York Times building in New York. (Richard Drew/AP)
    The New York Times said they want to allow their readers to make their own judgments about whether the whistleblower is credible.    The paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, said readers should know the whistleblower is a CIA officer with extensive knowledge about Ukrainian politics, who at one point worked in the White House.
    Baquet regarded the information as vital to set the record straight after he said President Trump and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistleblower.    The president and several officials have stated the subject’s complaint about the Ukraine phone call consisted of political bias and secondhand information.
    “Basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call…heard something and decided that he or she or whoever the hell it is…they’re almost a spy.    I want to know who’s the person that gave the whistleblower the information?” — President Trump
    Despite the New York Times trying to disprove President Trump’s argument, disclosing the identity backfired into a larger debate.     Baquet’s statement alludes to the whistleblower’s gender as the editor refers to the complainant as “him” and “he.”
    National Intelligence officials noted the publication has now endangered the whistleblower’s life and reputation, and has set an alarming precedent that would prevent potential whistleblowers to come forward in the future.
    The general public also objected across the board as the hashtag — #CancelNYT — appeared trending on Twitter, kick-starting a movement for everyone to cancel their subscriptions.    Others called for Baquet to step down and noted his New York Times continuously fails to meet basic journalistic standards.

    The following found at
9/27/2019 Hannity Guests Claim George Soros' 'Dirty Money' Backed Ukraine Whistleblower Report: 'This Was a Set-Up' by David Brennanwhistleblower who raised the alarm over President Donald Trump's scandalous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, is being funded by liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros.
    Guests Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing joined host Sean Hannity in maligning the anonymous intelligence official who filed a complaint over the call for fear that Trump was abusing the power of his office.
    Both diGenova and Toensing vehemently attacked the official, who has now agreed to testify to congressional leaders about his concerns.    The whistleblower's complaint was released Thursday, and details efforts by White House officials to hide evidence of the phone call with Zelensky.
    DiGenova told Hannity Thursday that the whistleblower "doesn't need to be feted, he needs to go to prison," as reported by Media Matters.
    The former attorney for the District of Columbia also claimed that the entire whistleblower report was a Democratic ploy to deflect attention away from alleged corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
    Trump and his allies have claimed that Biden abused his position as vice president in 2016 when he pressured the Ukrainian government to fire its chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin.    Shokin was considered soft on corruption, and the U.S., its allies, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund all wanted him removed.
    Shokin had also led an investigation into gas company Burisma, for whom Hunter worked.    The investigation probed dealings that took place several years before Hunter joined the company, and was dormant by the time Biden visited Ukraine in 2016.    In May, Ukraine's top prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko told Bloomberg he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son.
    But this hasn't stopped Republican lawmakers and talking heads pushing the conspiracy theory.    "Joe Biden shook down the Ukrainian government," diGenova claimed Thursday.    "It's very simple, it's not complicated.    And they lied about Viktor Shokin being corrupt."
    "This was a set-up," he added.    "And what we're now seeing is the Democratic party trying to cover that up.    And therefore you have the whistleblower in the White House come forward, who actually knows nothing."
    Toensing, who is married to diGenova, then claimed that statements made against Shokin were fabricated by an NGO funded by Soros.    The Jewish philanthropist has long been a favored bogeyman and target of anti-Semitism for the hard right.
    "U.S. and other people made false statements about him," Toensing claimed.    "That was George Soros-funded NGOs who were also in bed with the State Department.    They were in bed with each other during that time, in the name of anti-corruption and it really means that Soros goes after his competitors."
    "Now, let me bring this full circle, this is my last point here," she continued.    "The whistle-blower sprinkles throughout his document's footnotes referring to a publication with the initials 'OCCRP.' One guess, Sean, who funds OOCRP?    George Soros."
    DiGenova then added: "Soros' dirty money is all over this story from day one."
    The OCCRP—the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project—was set up in 2006 by veteran journalists Drew Sullivan and Paul Radu.    It is supported by grants from the United States Agency for International Development, the International Center for Journalists, the United States Department of State, the Swiss Confederation, the Open Society Foundations (founded by Soros), Google Ideas and the Knight Foundation, among others.
    The organization has been involved in multiple high-profile corruption investigations, targeting prominent individuals and institutions including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, Danske Bank and the parliament of Romania.
    The organization has also done extensive work in Ukraine, uncovering corruption involving senior government officials including former President Petro Poroshenko.
Financier and philanthropist George Soros attends the official opening of the European Roma Institute
for Arts and Culture at the German Foreign Ministry on June 8, 2017 in Berlin, Germany.
[You can see on the Whistleblower report the OCCRP at the bottom of page 4, 5, 6, unsure if the redacted on page 8-9.].

9/28/2019 Rep. Adam Schiff likely knew about whistleblower complaint in August by OAN Newsroom
    Democrat Representative Adam Schiff is under public scrutiny, as he continues to be a driving force in the House’s impeachment inquiry.
    New evidence comes to light, suggesting Schiff knew about the whistleblower complaint in August, a month before the House launched a formal impeachment inquiry.
    Reports Friday recirculated the tweet, which alleged the president withheld “vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer sought help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., questions Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire,
as he testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
    The complaint was handed to Congress just this week, accusing the president of using his political power to harm former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential election campaign.     Some have speculated Schiff and other Democrats have been working with the whistleblower, as a new version of the form is said to have been revised last month.     This, as reports indicate the Intelligence Community secretly did away with requirements for whistleblower complaints, to have direct first-hand knowledge of their claim, in order to have their concerns expedited to Congress.
    The anonymous whistleblower has confirmed he had no direct knowledge of the claim.
    Plus, my guess if the former DNI Dan Coats who retired on July 30th is the whistleblower who had all kinds of employees telling him what he knew, and if you notice that is when the whistleblower emerged.    I will laugh if it turns out that I am right

9/28/2019 Rudy Giuliani open to testify before House regarding Ukraine by OAN Newsroom
    President Trump’s personal attorney says he is willing to testify before Congress about the Ukraine>     Congressional Democrats called for Rudy Giuliani’s testimony this week, amid reports he pushed the Ukrainian government to reopen its corruption probe into Joe Biden’s son Hunter.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks at a rally supporting a regime change in Iran outside United Nations headquarters on
the first day of the general debate at the U.N. General Assembly, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)
    This after information in the recent whistleblower complaint emerged, mentioning attempts by Giuliani’s associates to reach out to the current Ukrainian president’s team.
    In an interview on Friday, Giuliani said the move was perfectly legal, and that he has nothing to hide.
    “Would I like to testify and tell my story?    Sure.    I’ve been telling it.    All the time.    In fact, you know my story,” said Giuliani.    “There’s nothing I can tell them that you can’t read online.    From the very beginning, I’ve been totally transparent about this.”
    Giuliani reiterated that the whistleblower complaint cannot be trusted because it was based solely on second hand information.

9/28/2019 President Trump slams Dem ‘do-nothings’ amid impeachment inquiry by OAN Newsroom
    President Trump blasts House Democrats for their inaction on Capitol Hill amid the ongoing impeachment probe.
President Donald Trump speaks at the Hispanic Heritage Month Reception in the East Room
of the White House in Washington, Friday, Sept. 27, 2019. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
    In a tweet Saturday, the president said “can you imagine if these do nothing Democrat savages, had a Republican party who would have treated former President Obama like Democrats are treating me?.”
    He specifically called out Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and “AOC plus 3.”
    Trump tweet: “Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me.    Oh well, maybe next time!
    This comes as nearly all House Democrats have thrown their support behind the House’s impeachment inquiry.

9/28/2019 President Trump slams impeachment efforts, touts admin.’s achievements by OAN Newsroom
    President Trump is doubling down on his phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, and slams ongoing impeachment efforts by the Left.
President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the InterContinental Barclay New York hotel
during the United Nations General Assembly, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
    In a pair of tweets Saturday evening, the president questions how the U.S. would impeach a leader, who has created the greatest economy in the history of the U.S. and rebuilt the nation’s military.
    He also touts the tax cuts and jobs act, as well as fixing the department of Veterans affairs.
    In a follow up tweet, President Trump said, Volodymyr Zelenskiy told the media he wasn’t pressured to investigate the Biden family, in any way shape or form.
    President Trump also said, his Ukrainian counterpart’s dismissal of the allegations should bring an end to the latest witch hunt, adding that the others “ended in ashes.”
    Trump tweet: “How do you impeach a President who has created the greatest Economy in the history of our Country, entirely rebuilt our Military into the most powerful it has ever been, Cut Record Taxes & Regulations, fixed the VA & gotten Choice for our Vets (after 45 years), & so much more?...”    “....The conversation with the new and very good Ukraine President, who told the Fake News, at the United Nations, that HE WAS NOT PRESSURED BY ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, should by and of itself bring an end to the new and most recent Witch Hunt.    Others ended in ashes!

9/28/2019 Ukraine must investigate Joe Biden’s son, says ex-Ukrainian PM by Anton Zverev and Ilya Zhegulev
Former U.S. Vice President and Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden makes a statement during
an event in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S., September 24, 2019. REUTERS/Bastiaan Slabbers
    MOSCOW/KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine must investigate the activities of U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son to establish whether his role in a Ukrainian gas company complied with the country’s laws, Mykola Azarov, Ukraine’s former prime minister, said in an interview.
    Azarov did not specify to which Ukrainian laws he was referring.
    Hunter Biden’s role in the company, Burisma Holdings Limited, is in focus after the White House released a memo showing U.S. President Donald Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in a July phone call to get prosecutors to look into his activities. Zelenskiy agreed.
    “It’s a fact (his directorship and fees) and not made up.    It should be investigated so that the ‘i’s can be dotted and the ‘t’s crossed,” Azarov told Reuters.
    A spokesperson for Joe Biden’s campaign declined to comment on Azarov’s investigation call and none of Hunter Biden’s critics have provided any evidence that he broke Ukrainian law.
    Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau said on Friday it was investigating activity at Burisma between 2010-2012, but that it was not looking into changes to its board in 2014, when Hunter Biden joined.
    Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are pursuing an impeachment inquiry against Trump, a Republican, after a whistleblower complained about his call with Zelenskiy.    Lawmakers are looking into whether Trump’s actions jeopardized national security and the integrity of U.S. elections, saying he appeared to be soliciting a political favor from a foreign leader to get re-elected.
    Azarov lives in Moscow, but says he remains well-connected with parts of Ukraine’s political establishment and would like to return one day.    He did not provide further details.
    Hunter Biden was a director on Burisma’s board from 2014 until at least 2018, according to documents filed by the company in Cyprus, where it is registered.
    Azarov, who was prime minister from 2010-2014, is himself wanted by Ukrainian authorities for alleged abuse of power.    An Interpol red notice issued in 2015 at the request of Ukrainian authorities said he was wanted on accusations of charges including embezzlement and misappropriation.
    Azarov denies any wrongdoing and Reuters cannot determine whether there is any active investigation on him.
    Azarov said he was not aware of any evidence suggesting wrongdoing on Hunter Biden’s part, but said it was in the Ukrainian public interest to ascertain the legality of his activities.
    In particular, he said it was important to investigate what Biden had done for Burisma to justify his remuneration from Burisma.
    The younger Biden has said he consulted for Burisma, but critics have suggested he was not doing actual work in return for his compensation, an allegation he denies.
    “I think it’s essential (he’s investigated),” Azarov told Reuters in Moscow, where he fled after street protests toppled Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovich in 2014.
    “If, using his knowledge, he played an active role then there’s nothing scandalous about it,” Azarov said.    “But if he was simply on the books and getting money, then that could be seen as a violation of the law.”
    Burisma was not available for comment on Saturday night.
    Ukrainian prosecutors have said they are not investigating Hunter Biden, but are looking into the legality of Burisma’s activities before Biden joined its board.    Burisma, which denies any wrongdoing, has faced allegations of dodging taxes and of improperly securing licenses for gas deposits.
    Azarov said he thought it was “absolute nonsense,” but that he believed allegations from Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and others that Joe Biden had gotten Ukraine’s prosecutor general fired to protect his son Hunter must also be investigated.    He did not provide the basis for his views.
    The former U.S. vice president has denied using his influence to get Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, fired in 2016 to prevent him investigating his son’s involvement and has said he and his son have done nothing wrong.
    Shokin has said he was forced out at Joe Biden’s behest to thwart an investigation of Burisma and Hunter Biden.
(Additional reporting by Maria Tsvetkova and Matthias Williams in Kiev; Writing by Andrew Osborn; Editing by Alistair Bell and Dan Grebler)

10/1/2019 Trump contacted foreign officials over probe of Russia inquiry origins -Justice Dept
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Attorney General William Barr participates in a presentation ceremony of the Medal of Valor
and heroic commendations to civilians and police officers who responded to mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas
during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S. September 9, 2019. REUTERS/Erin Scott
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump has contacted other countries to introduce Attorney General William Barr and a Justice Department official who is conducting an inquiry into the origins of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, a Justice Department spokeswoman said on Monday.
    Spokeswoman Kerri Kupec did not name the countries in her statement.    But an Australian government spokesperson was quoted as saying Trump had spoken to Prime Minister Scott Morrison by phone, and the Washington Post reported that Barr had made overtures to British intelligence officials and met with Italian officials to seek their help in the inquiry.
    John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, is reviewing American intelligence agencies’ examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election, which led to the Mueller probe denounced by Trump as a partisan witch hunt.
    “Mr. Durham is gathering information from numerous sources, including a number of foreign countries,” Kupec said.    “At Attorney General Barr’s request, the president has contacted other countries to ask them to introduce the Attorney General and Mr. Durham to appropriate officials.”
    An Australian government spokesperson said Morrison confirmed in a phone call with Trump that his government was ready to “help shed further light on the matters under investigation,” Australian Broadcasting Corp reported.
    The New York Times reported on Monday that Trump had urged Morrison to help Barr in the Durham investigation.
    The Post, which cited unnamed people familiar with the matter for its report, said Barr had made overtures to British intelligence officials, and last week traveled to Italy, where he and Durham met senior Italian government officials and Barr asked them to help Durham.
    The Post said Barr’s involvement was likely to spur further criticism by Democrats who are pursuing an inquiry into impeachment of Trump.
    The House of Representatives initiated the impeachment inquiry against the Republican president last week after a whistleblower report raised concerns that Trump tried to leverage nearly $400 million in U.S. aid in exchange for a political favor from Ukraine’s leader in July.
(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Writing by Mohammad Zargham; editing by Grant McCool and Jonathan Oatis)
[This is what the Left fears the most the investigation by Barr, Durham and Horowitz as they are uncovering their crimes against the U.S. and is the biggest reason they have created and pushed this phony impeachment and fake whistleblower because they know their time is short when the truth comes out.].

    The following found at
10/1/2019 Australian Ambassador Offered to Help AG Barr with Investigation of Mueller Probe’s Origins by Zachary Evans, National Review
Attorney General William Barr testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee
on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., May 1, 2019. (Clodagh Kilcoyne/Reuters)
    Australian ambassador to the U.S. Joe Hockey offered in May of this year to help Attorney General William Barr with the Department of Justice’s investigation of the origins of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.
    In a letter to Barr dated May 28, 2019, Hockey noted that President Trump had placed Barr at the head of the investigation, and that the Australian government would “use its best endeavors to support” the probe.
    An F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, the results of which were later cited in the Mueller report, began after Australian intelligence reported a meeting between its then-head Alexander Downer and Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos.    During the meeting, Papadopoulos reportedly bragged to Downer that the campaign had obtained dirt on Hillary Clinton from officials in the Russian government.
    Hockey’s letter, which was revealed by Australian journalists, stated that while Downer was no longer in government, Australia “stand[s] ready to provide you with all relevant information to support your inquiries.”
    Trump currently faces an impeachment inquiry as the Democrat-controlled House investigates allegations that he used his office to pressure the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelentsky, to conduct an investigation damaging to Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden.
    On Monday evening, the New York Times reported that Trump had spoken with Australian prime minister Scott Morrison regarding the Mueller probe, seeking Morrison’s cooperation with Barr’s investigation. The Australian government put out a statement after details of the conversation became known saying, “The Australian Government has always been ready to assist and cooperate with efforts that help shed further light on the matters under investigation.”

    The following found at
9/30/2019 Trump and Barr have been urging foreign governments to help them investigate the Mueller probe’s origins
New reports from the New York Times and Washington Post shed light on this effort
by Andrew Prokop,
US President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr walk together
down a White House corridor on September 9, 2019. |AFP/Getty Images
    Attorney General Bill Barr has been personally urging foreign governments to cooperate with an investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe during trips abroad — and President Donald Trump himself asked the prime minister of Australia to help Barr out, several news outlets reported Monday.
    Though this is being breathlessly mentioned in the same context as Trump’s request that the Ukrainian president investigate Joe Biden, it’s a somewhat different situation, one that raises its own concerns about whether Barr is politicizing the Justice Department to serve Trump’s electoral needs.
    What Trump is talking about here is a probe from US Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia interference investigation.    The scope and the nature of Durham’s probe aren’t entirely clear, but Trump supporters have high hopes that this investigation will reveal some sort of malfeasance that will vindicate the president’s claims that he was the victim of a “witch hunt.”    Trump himself has been calling for such a probe for years, and Barr launched it earlier this year.
    Now, the Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett, Shane Harris, and Matt Zapotosky reported Monday that Barr has been personally involved in meeting foreign intelligence officials to try to get their help with Durham’s probe.    This involved a trip to Italy just last week, as well as a previous trip there, and requests to both British and Australian officials.
    The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti and Katie Benner, meanwhile, reported that Trump recently “pushed” Australia’s prime minister to help Barr with Durham’s investigation.    Trump did so at Barr’s request, they report. And the AP reports that Trump has made other introductory phone calls for Barr in relation to the Durham probe.
    So unlike the Ukraine scandal that launched House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, this isn’t a free-range effort to get a foreign government to provide dirt on one of Trump’s 2020 opponents.
    But it is an investigation with political implications, one that the president and his attorney general have taken a keen interest in.    And Trump’s requests may well have been perceived by these foreign officials as requests for “favors,” as with the Zelensky call.
    So to the extent that Trump and Barr’s demands have taken an inordinately high priority in American foreign policy, they may weigh on House Democrats’ minds going forward as they pursue their impeachment inquiry.
    What we know about the Durham investigation.
    The background is that when President Trump was embroiled in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russian interference investigation, he and his supporters frequently called for an investigation of, well, the investigation itself.
    And just a few months after Barr was confirmed as Attorney General back in February, Barr tapped Durham, the US Attorney for Connecticut, to look into the origins of the probe.
    What, precisely, Durham is looking into isn’t entirely clear.    But more recently, the Justice Department has said that Durham is “exploring the extent to which a number of countries” played “a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” according to a recent Justice Department statement.
    Four particular countries have surfaced in news reports as being scrutinized by Durham: Australia, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Ukraine.    (For three of those countries, Trump specifically said in public remarks in May that he hoped Barr would look into them.)
    Attorney General Bill Barr has been personally urging foreign governments to cooperate with an investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe during trips abroad — and President Donald Trump himself asked the prime minister of Australia to help Barr out, several news outlets reported Monday.
    Though this is being breathlessly mentioned in the same context as Trump’s request that the Ukrainian president investigate Joe Biden, it’s a somewhat different situation, one that raises its own concerns about whether Barr is politicizing the Justice Department to serve Trump’s electoral needs.
    What Trump is talking about here is a probe from US Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia interference investigation.    The scope and the nature of Durham’s probe aren’t entirely clear, but Trump supporters have high hopes that this investigation will reveal some sort of malfeasance that will vindicate the president’s claims that he was the victim of a “witch hunt.”    Trump himself has been calling for such a probe for years, and Barr launched it earlier this year.
    Now, the Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett, Shane Harris, and Matt Zapotosky reported Monday that Barr has been personally involved in meeting foreign intelligence officials to try to get their help with Durham’s probe.    This involved a trip to Italy just last week, as well as a previous trip there, and requests to both British and Australian officials.
    The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti and Katie Benner, meanwhile, reported that Trump recently “pushed” Australia’s prime minister to help Barr with Durham’s investigation.    Trump did so at Barr’s request, they report.    And the AP reports that Trump has made other introductory phone calls for Barr in relation to the Durham probe.
    So unlike the Ukraine scandal that launched House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, this isn’t a free-range effort to get a foreign government to provide dirt on one of Trump’s 2020 opponents.
    But it is an investigation with political implications, one that the president and his attorney general have taken a keen interest in.    And Trump’s requests may well have been perceived by these foreign officials as requests for “favors,” as with the Zelensky call.
    So to the extent that Trump and Barr’s demands have taken an inordinately high priority in American foreign policy, they may weigh on House Democrats’ minds going forward as they pursue their impeachment inquiry.
    What we know about the Durham investigation
    The background is that when President Trump was embroiled in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russian interference investigation, he and his supporters frequently called for an investigation of, well, the investigation itself.
    And just a few months after Barr was confirmed as Attorney General back in February, Barr tapped Durham, the US Attorney for Connecticut, to look into the origins of the probe.
    What, precisely, Durham is looking into isn’t entirely clear.    But more recently, the Justice Department has said that Durham is “exploring the extent to which a number of countries” played “a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” according to a recent Justice Department statement.
    Four particular countries have surfaced in news reports as being scrutinized by Durham: Australia, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Ukraine.    (For three of those countries, Trump specifically said in public remarks in May that he hoped Barr would look into them.)
    Australia’s import is clear.    In May 2016, Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos met Australian diplomat Alexander Downer for drinks at a London bar.    There, Papadopoulos reportedly told Downer that he knew that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.    Two months later, after DNC emails hacked by Russia were posted by WikiLeaks, Downer tipped off the US government about what Papadopoulos had told him.
    Shortly afterward, at the end of July, the FBI officially opened its counterintelligence investigation into Trump campaign aides’ Russia ties.    So Australia is, in a sense, responsible for the creation of what would later morph into the Mueller investigation
    Downer’s information seemed to be good: Papadopoulos had indeed gotten a tip from a source he believed to have Russian ties, Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, about Russia having emails related to Clinton.    He shared this information with others and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Mifsud.
    But lately, Papadopoulos has been claiming he was set up by officials from Western intelligence agencies and insisting Mifsud may have been on some Western government’s payroll.    No information has yet surfaced to vindicate these claims, but Barr may be looking into them.
    What Barr and Durham hope to get from the United Kingdom and Italy isn’t as clear, though they may also relate to Papadopoulos or to the Steele dossier allegations (which were assembled by a former British spy) or to information collected about another Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.
    As for Ukraine, the DOJ confirmed that Durham is scrutinizing that country too.    The department said he had not “yet contacted the Ukrainian government,” but that “certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”
    In addition to insisting that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky investigate the Bidens, Trump also said they should investigate the DNC server and whether it was “in Ukraine.”    It is unclear if this relates to Durham’s probe.
    The argument from Trump supporters in defense of Durham’s probe is that either foreign or domestic officials were spreading bogus accusations about Trump and his associates’ Russia ties to try and drum up an investigation against him for political reasons.    But while it is of course possible that some sources in the process had less-than-pure motives, many of these concerns have been based in conspiracy theories popularized in conservative media outlets.
    Trump critics, meanwhile, have feared Durham’s investigation will be a political hit job used as a pretext to smear law enforcement or intelligence officials, either in the US or abroad, for simply doing their jobs and pursuing a legitimate investigation into Trump’s Russia ties.    Durham’s reputation as a straight shooter helped ease those fears for a time but the newly reported involvement of Barr may well worsen them.

This page created on 7/1/2019, and updated by 7/31/2019, 8/31/2019, 9/30/2019.
Or return to the Table of Contents - Chapter Eight or
Or return to the Astronomical Events To Appear Between 2014 Through 2017 A.D. or
Or return to the Beast That Came Out Of The Sea or
2011-2022 ????? Unknown future of the Sixth group of Twelve years
Or return to FISA- Under Surveillance in 2018
Or return to FISA- Under Surveillance in 2019 January-March
Or return to FISA- Under Surveillance in 2019 April-June.
Or continue to FISA- Under Surveillance in 2019 October-December.