Featured Timeline Entries
May 20, 2020 - Zelensky seeks probe over leaked audio of Biden linking US aid to Ukraine prosecutor's ouster

Vlodomyr Zelensky and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko debate on April 19, 2019. (Credit: Wikipedia)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for an investigation Wednesday of leaked recordings purportedly depicting then-Vice President Joe Biden telling Zelensky’s predecessor Petro Poroshenko that his country would receive U.S. aid once top prosecutor Viktor Shokin was replaced.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee already has acknowledged such an arrangement publicly. But the leaked audio revived criticism that Biden was engaged in a kind of quid-pro-quo, much like President Trump was accused — during impeachment proceedings — of linking U.S. aid to calls for Zelensky to probe Shokin’s ouster.

The new audio indicates Poroshenko went along with Biden’s plan but did not think Shokin was involved in wrongdoing.

Shokin purportedly has said under oath that he had launched a probe concerning Hunter Biden’s role at Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings when he was ousted. Hunter Biden held a lucrative post there, despite limited expertise, while his father handled Ukrainian policy as vice president. At the least, Ukrainian prosecutors had previously been investigating Burisma’s founder. Biden’s defenders have argued his intervention had nothing to do with Burisma and was focused on corruption concerns.

Zelensky said at a news conference in Ukraine that the contents of the leaked conversations, however, “might be perceived, qualified as high treason,” according to The Washington Post. Ukrainian prosecutors have said they are looking into sweeping “international corruption.” Zelensky has tried to maintain good relations with the Trump administration, even as his 2019 discussions were at the core of the U.S. president’s impeachment.

Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s parliament, released the recordings a day earlier.

“It’s going to be critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage that Shokin did,” the man identified as Biden says in one clip. “And I’m a man of my word. And now that the new prosecutor general is in place, we’re ready to move forward to signing that new $1 billion loan guarantee. And I don’t know how you want to go about that… I’ll leave it to you to how you want it done and where you want it done.”

(Read more: Fox News, 5/20/2020)  (Archive)

May 23, 2020 - Flynn judge, Emmett Sullivan, hires high-powered D.C. attorney to "defend his actions in Flynn case”

The Washington Post headline reads (emphasis mine): “Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case.” Which gives some insight into the framework and purpose of this event, and how it reached the WaPo narrative engineers.

The Washington Post is, as an institution, adverse to the interests of Michael Flynn.  So this story, specifically the events behind the story, is written in a posture to aid Judge Sullivan and oppose Flynn.  Keep that in mind (I’ll explain after).

Judge Sullivan has hired a high profile DC lawyer to assist him in responding to the inquires of the DC circuit:

(…) In a rare step that adds to this criminal case’s already unusual path, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has retained Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington, according to a person familiar with the hire who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

(…) Wilkinson, known for her top-notch legal skills and get-results style, is expected to file a notice with the court in the coming week about representing the judge. She declined to comment when reached Friday evening. Sullivan also declined to comment through his office.

(…) A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court, and yet so much about Flynn’s case has been a departure from the norm.

(…) Flynn’s lawyers then accused Sullivan of bias and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to intervene.  On Thursday, that higher court took the extraordinary step of ordering Sullivan to answer within 10 days. The court also invited the Justice Department to comment.

(…) Wilkinson, a go-to advocate for prominent officials snared in major Washington investigations and high-stakes legal battles, now joins the fray. (read more)

I’m not going into the weeds to outline the motives of Beth Wilkinson.  Suffice to say the reason she is considered ‘high-profile’ or ‘high-powered’ is because of her connections to the DC system; a political system that frequently becomes enmeshed with the legal system.  Beth Wilkinson is well-connected; that’s the part that matters.

A federal judge hiring a well-connected lawyer to write his response to a DC circuit court appeals panel is the part that’s interesting.  There’s no guarantee the appeals court will accept such a response; but that’s also another issue.   Bottom line: Judge Sullivan is importing a lawyer to represent his interests.  Very unusual.

CTH readers are smart; aware and smart enough not to get stuck in the weeds; so let’s stay elevated on this and look at the whole picture.  Consider this decision by Judge Emmet Sullivan through the prism of recent events surrounding Flynn:

♦ The DOJ joined with the defense position and filed an unopposed motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.

♦ A USAO from Missouri, Jeff Jensen, has discovered a trail of internal evidence pointing toward a corrupt originating prosecution for the case against Flynn.   Mr. Jensen has been revealing those documents and providing them to the court (and defense).

♦ Meanwhile DNI Ric Grenell has declassified and revealed documents showing a corrupt intent by the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) against Michael Flynn.

♦ Just yesterday (5/22/20) the FBI Director announced an internal investigation into officials inside the FBI for wrongful conduct specifically as it relates to a corrupt operation, now discovered and public, against Michael Flynn.

Additionally, we shall not play games and ignore the obvious.

Judge Emmet Sullivan is well aware of the reason why former Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras was recused from the Flynn case; only days after accepting the first plea agreement, and less than 72 hours after the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages publicly surfaced.

Lisa Page: “Rudy is on the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]! Did you know that?” “Just appointed two months ago”

Peter Strzok: “I did. We talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him.”

On November 30th, 2017, Mike Flynn signed a guilty plea; ostensibly admitting lying to investigators.  The plea was accepted by Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras; who is also a FISA court judge.  Six days later, December 7, 2017, Judge Contreras “was recused” from the case without explanation.

If the conflict -which required recusal- existed on December 7, 2017, wouldn’t that same conflict have existed days earlier on November 30th?

The same DC circuit now ordering Judge Sullivan to explain his decision-making, is the same DC circuit that previously recused and replaced Judge Contreras from the Flynn case.  None of this, including the specific tone of the panel in their order, is disconnected from the larger background.

So when we take everything in total, the decision by Sullivan to hire a high-profile and well connected DC lawyer to represent his interests in the Flynn case…. well, it looks to me like Sullivan just hired himself a defense attorney.

The phase of the “resistance” that federal Judge Emmet Sullivan was participating in, and had a role to play, is now almost totally engulfed in sunlight.  With few options for deniability and justification remaining, Sullivan has hired himself a lawyer.

(Conservative Treehouse, 5/23/2020)  (Archive)

May 27, 2020 - Matt Whitaker discusses the “Obstruction of Justice Trap” - Mueller probe used as weapon to cover coup effort

Within an interesting interview conducted by Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times, former AAG Matt Whitaker confirms what CTH long suspected. The Mueller investigation was used by corrupt interests within the special counsel’s office to threaten any/all executive branch and congressional officials with “obstruction of justice” charges if they revealed any exculpatory or counter-narrative information during the Mueller probe.

Whitaker describes this as the “obstruction of justice trap.”

Essentially, this approach confirms the second-prong purpose of the Mueller investigation itself. First, use the special counsel in 2017, 2018 and into the beginning of 2019, as a shield (hide information); and secondly a weapon (threats) against any entity who would reveal the background intelligence that undercut the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

We know President Trump was threatened by Rod Rosenstein not to declassify any information in September of 2018 or the Mueller investigation would use that act as evidence of obstruction. Whitaker confirms that same approach was applied toward any executive branch officer who would reveal or release information to congress during the tenure of the special counsel; even within the DOJ and including the attorney general.

This is how the Mueller probe was weaponized to mislead the American people.

While the Mueller team continued the same corrupt process started in 2016; and essentially transferred the same objectives as the DOJ/FBI team under Crossfire Hurricane; that same investigative unit was used to keep information from surfacing in ’17, ’18 and ’19 that would expose the corrupt nature of the investigation itself.

Documents could not be released without Mueller approval; interviews with key FBI/DOJ officials could not be conducted without Mueller team approval; information could not be declassified without Mueller team approval, etc.

Any agency or individual that attempted to release any information was subject to the threat of indictment by the same corrupt prosecutors leading the investigation. It’s a self-fulfilling safety mechanism.  Even DOJ officials like Matt Whitaker were under threat. Whitaker calls it the “Obstruction of Justice Trap”.

With that in mind, this is a very serious flaw in the authority of the special counsel statute that needs to be addressed by congress. Who can watch the watchers, when the watchers were specifically selected because they would knowingly contribute to the corruption.

Very disturbing (timestamps for interview):

♦03:43 On Judge Sullivan choosing not to dismiss the case against Gen. Flynn
♦06:54 On FBI director Christopher Wray calling for an internal investigation
♦08:41 What kind of accountability will we see for 2016 election surveillance?
♦15:27 The problem with the regulation creating Special Counsels
♦19:32 Obstruction of justice trap?
♦35:38 Communist China’s a greater threat than Russia

(Conservative Treehouse, 5/27/2020)  (Archive)

May 29, 2020 - Dana Boente resigns amid criticism for his role in Flynn investigation

Dana J. Boente (Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

FBI’s top lawyer Dana Boente was asked to resign on Friday. Two sources familiar with the decision to dismiss Boente said it came from high levels of the Justice Department rather than directly from FBI Director Christopher Wray.

His departure comes on the heels of recent criticism by Fox News for his role in the investigation of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

A spokesman for the FBI confirmed to NBC News that Boente did in fact resign on Friday.

Boente signed one of the warrants renewing the FBI’s authority to surveil Flynn. The warrants, known as FISA warrants, were renewed several times and had to be approved by a judge.

(Timeline editor’s note: Dana Boente did NOT sign one of the FISA warrants to surveil Flynn. The FISA warrants were used to surveil Carter Page.)

Boente also said in a recently leaked memo that material put into the public record about Flynn was not exculpatory for the former national security advisor. The memo undermines the Justice Department’s latest position that material about Flynn was mishandled by prosecutors.

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs said on April 27 that, “Shocking new reports suggest F.B.I. General Counsel Dana Boente was acting in coordination with F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray to block the release of that evidence that would have cleared General Flynn.” (Read more: NBC News, 5/29/2020)  (Archive)

June 1, 2020 - Podesta's plan to stop Trump from taking office if he wins - Transition Integrity Project

Transition Integrity Project (TIP)  (Archive)

June 2, 2020 - Hillary Clinton loses her appeal, order stands to testify on private server and Benghazi emails

Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi October 22, 2015. (Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

(…) The hearing in the D.C. Circuit came in the case Judicial Watch v. Clinton, a public records case involving a request for State Department documents and communication about the 2012 terror attack at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.  U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

The case also involves Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.  Judicial Watch, a conservative activist watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials, uncovered another 756 pages of emails the FBI was able to retrieve that were part of Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server revealing communications between some prominent Washington figures and classified emails sent by former prime minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair.  The emails were part of the batch “Clinton tried to delete or destroy,” Judicial Watch stated in its press release.  It showed that Clinton had asked Blair to continue using her private email after her confirmation and also revealed that Blair was sending classified information on her unsecured server.  Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information, as ex–FBI director James Comey carefully and rather mildly concluded in July 2016, announcing there would be no charges against her.  Judicial Watch did not drop the case.

On June 2, Clinton’s lawyers challenged a March 2 order from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who ordered Clinton to testify:

P.5: “The Court is not confident that State currently possesses every Clinton email recovered by the FBI; even years after the FBI investigation, the slow trickle of new emails has yet to be explained. For this reason, the Court believes the subpoena would be worthwhile and may even uncover additional previously undisclosed emails. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS this request.”

P. 10: “The Court GRANTS Judicial Watch’s request to depose Secretary Clinton on matters concerning her reasons for using a private server and her understanding of State’s records management obligations.”

P. 10–11: “The Court holds that Secretary Clinton and Ms. Mills [Counselor and Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton during her whole tenure as United States Secretary of State] cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack, but they may be questioned about their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack. Such inquiries would go to the adequacy of the search without expanding the parameters…Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART this request.”

(…) Judicial Watch wants to know about the Benghazi talking points — when senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened by heavily scrubbing the CIA’s talking points regarding terror references on the eve of the 2012 presidential election.  They would want to ask her why she deleted 33,000 emails from her private server and what information they contained — because despite her claims that they were “personal,” the FBI recovered more than 17,000 of them that were work-related.  Did they contain any classified information?  Did they contain human intel?  Did she know about the upcoming terrorist attack?  What measures did she use to prevent the Benghazi attack?  What measures did she use to save American lives?  And many, many more.

And now, despite all the effort to avoid testimony, Madam Secretary will have to answer questions from Judicial Watch, as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals submitted the case, which will now be heard on September 9.” (Read more: American Thinker, 6/14/2020)  (Archive)

June 3, 2020 - Rosenstein and McCabe accuse each other of lying in Russia hoax

(Credit: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

(…) During Rosenstein’s testimony, McCabe issued a statement saying the former DAG was giving “false” testimony about his recollection regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s memos about his interactions with President Donald Trump.

Interestingly, both men accuse each other of lying, pointing the finger at one another, in one of the biggest hoaxes in modern political history. They lied to each other, all the while creating a hoax to fool the American people and the world. McCabe and Rosenstein, along with their colleagues in the bureau, DOJ and the intelligence community know that eventually they will get caught up in the lies and explanations. This is when the finger-pointing will start.

(…) During the hearing, Rosenstein said during his testimony that McCabe did not share details about Comey’s memos or his conversations with Trump prior to opening the special counsel investigation. Rosenstein claimed that he didn’t know about the memos until they were leaked by Comey’s friend Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman to the media. Comey admitted to Congress during testimony in June 2017 that he purposefully leaked several memos to Richman in an effort to ensure a special counsel investigation.

“Lying is when you ask someone a direct question and get a false answer. Candor is when you’re forthcoming with information someone needs to know,” said Rosenstein. “I believe McCabe should have recognized that when I became acting AG (overseeing the Russia probe), I needed to know about Comey’s memos and he didn’t tell me until a couple of hours before they showed up in the New York Times.”

It didn’t take long for McCabe to fire back at Rosenstein, saying “Mr. Rosenstein’s claims to have been misled by me, or anyone from the FBI, regarding our concerns about President Trump and the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia are completely false.”

“Mr. Rosenstein approved of, and suggested ways to enhance, our investigation of the President,” McCabe added. “Further, I personally briefed Mr. Rosenstein on Jim Comey’s memos describing his interactions with the President mere days after Mr. Rosenstein wrote the memo firing Jim Comey.” (Read more: Sara Carter, 6/03/2020)  (Archive)

June 10, 2020 - FBI knew Steele’s Russia research was connected to Clinton, Dems from earliest interactions

An ecstatic Hillary Clinton celebrates at the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention where she accepted the nomination on Thursday, July 28, 2016. (Credit: Ben Lowy/ Time)

“Notes and emails that have been kept so far from Senate investigators show the FBI knew from its earliest interactions with Christopher Steele in July 2016 that his Russia research project on Donald Trump was connected to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

(…) While the headlines since that report have mostly focused on FISA abuses, Senate investigators have also zeroed in on a handful of little-noticed passages in Horowitz’s narrative that reference original FBI source documents showing what agents and supervisors knew about Steele, the former MI6 agent, and the firm that hired him, Fusion GPS.

(…) But one passage and two footnotes in Horowitz’s report that have largely escaped public attention suggest the FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in London on July 5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton and that a separate office of the FBI passed along information from an informant by Aug. 2, 2016 that Simpson’s Fusion GPS was connected to the DNC.

For instance, the agent in London contacted an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) in the New York field office (NYFO) shortly after interviewing Steele and obtaining one of the anti-Trump memos that made up his dossier, according to information in Horowitz’s report.

The agent sought advice July 13, 2016, on how to handle the sensitive election-year allegations from the supervisor in New York, where the FBI had already opened a probe of Page that would eventually be assumed by Washington headquarters.

“ASAC 1’s notes from his July 13 call with Handling Agent 1 closely track the contents of Report 80, identify Simpson as a client of a law firm, and include the following: ‘law firm works for the Republican party or Hillary and will use [the information described in Report 80] at some point,’” the Horowitz report stated. “ASAC 1 told us that he would not have made this notation if Handling Agent 1 had not stated it to him.”

Footnote 223 in the report reveals a second line of evidence that came to the FBI from a confidential human source (CHS) suggesting the Steele-Simpson-Fusion project was tied to Democrats. That warning was immediately sent to Agent Peter Strzok, the case agent for the Crossfire Hurricane probe investigating whether Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016 election.

Senate investigators want to see the original emails and notes from these conversations as they plan to interrogate dozens of key witnesses in the Russia investigation about whether there was an intentional effort by he FBI to hide from the courts and Congress the flaws in their case, exculpatory evidence involving the Trump targets, and derogatory information about Steele’s credibility.” (Read more: Just the News, 6/10/2020)  (Archive)

June 11, 2020 - DNI Ratcliffe declassifies “Annex A” the supportive documents for 2017 Intel Community Assessment

“DNI John Ratcliffe has declassified the Appendix to the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). [Source Document Here] The appendix known as “Annex A” was the material the FBI and CIA did not include in the body of the ICA; however, it was used to brief congress.

There was always suspicion that “Annex A” was the ridiculous claims by FBI source Christopher Steele; those suspicions are confirmed today.  The ICA was written in late December ’16 & early January 2017, and the purpose was to politicize intelligence by making outlandish claims of the Trump-Russia conspiracy the official position of the U.S intelligence apparatus (CIA, FBI, DOJ and NSA).

(NOTE: the document quality/clarity is very poor as released)

The “Annex A” supporting the narrative was made out of claims by Christopher Steele. The two-page document is stunningly obtuse by design; and despite the FBI knowing the purpose of Christopher Steele, the Annex pretends not to know his agenda.

By keeping the ridiculous Steele claims in the annex the FBI was able to use the claims yet it afforded them plausible deniability under the pretense of non-verification.  When James Comey briefed President Trump about the claims he pretended not to know the political intents of the information; and worse still, he covered-up that Clinton’s campaign had paid for the information.  A stunningly political move based on deception.

In many ways, the refusal of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ to admit their knowledge of the material from Chris Steele is the biggest example of how those same agencies were playing politics.   None of the Steele claims were based on actual evidence; everything was hearsay, gossip, innuendo, and entirely made-up.  The agencies knew this and yet they pretended not to know the motives for the fraudulent intelligence.

As bad as it was to not clearly disclose to FISA court the Steele Dossier had been paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, it was far worse to not disclose this to President-elect (and outgoing President) in the intelligence community assessment.

Deceptive and fraudulent official intelligence documents, purposefully designed to achieve a political agenda, outline a level of serious misconduct even beyond the fabricated claims within the Carter Page FISA application.

The release of this “Annex A” document shows something beyond the willfully blind intentions of James Comey and John Brennan, and speaks to an intentional effort to fabricate claims against the incoming administration on the weakest of possible grounds.

Our research previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 6/11/2020)  (Archive)

June 12, 2020 - Devin Nunes discusses FBI top lawyer Dana Boente as “a witness to FBI corruption”

“HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has an interview on OAN news to discuss FBI legal counsel Dana Boente and his exit from the FBI this month.  As Nunes notes Mr. Boente is at the center of an information flow which put him in a position to know the underlying evidence.  As an outcome of that position Boente is either a participant or a witness to corruption at the highest levels of the DOJ.

In prior positions as U.S. Attorney for Virginia; and while leading the DOJ National Security Division; and then later shifting to the FBI as chief legal counsel under Chris Wray; Dana Boente was at the epicenter of corrupt intent and malign activity toward the Trump administration.

It is easiest to capture the full background content in this sequence:

♦June 2019 – Devin Nunes threatens criminal referrals for Dana Boente and Chris Wray – This background highlights Boente as a very bad actor [SEE HERE].

♦April 24, 2020 – Boente and Wray try to block release of Flynn documents. AG Bill Bar intervenes. This is the Flynn firetruck story, that ties to the release of the July 2018 letter from the DOJ-NSD and FBI to the FISA court. [SEE HERE]

♦April 26, 2020 – CTH Open Letter to Bill Barr – Outlines the corruption of Boente and Wray in the long-view and how it all comes together. [SEE HERE]

My educated hunch is the July 12, 2018, letter from the DOJ/FBI that was fraught with false information and purposeful lies to the FISA court, is really the issue that DOJ Bill Barr could not avoid. The lies within the letter are just too brutally obvious and contrast heavily against revelations coming from the outside USAO’s that Barr has brought in to review all of the prior DOJ and FBI activity.

Why do I think that’s the final straw? Because if you take that moment in time and start working backward what you find is demonstrable and provable evidence that Dana Boente was one of the original Trump-era officials who participated in protecting “Spygate” and using his support of the Mueller investigation as an internal weapon. Remember, all the corrupt FBI players on Mueller’s team reported to Boente, including David Archey.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 6/12/2020)  (Archive)

June 17, 2020 - Clinton to President Trump: 'go away quietly' and 'stop messing with our country'

“Unsuccessful presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has hit out at President Donald Trump saying the country and the world is “desperately in need for a change in the American Presidency”. Ms. Clinton told Sky News UK the President tried to characterise the “peaceful protesters” in Washington DC as “thugs” when he sent in the national guard to clear them from the square outside the White House.

She said she is going to “work like crazy to make sure” Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins the November election, but there is “no doubt in my mind” if the election was held on Tuesday Mr Biden would win. “I just have to do everything I can so it’s also true on the first Tuesday of November”. Ms. Clinton said President Trump needed to “go away quietly” and said to him “don’t continue to mess with our country”. (Sky News UK 6/17/2020)

June 19, 2020 - Attorney General Bill Barr removes SDNY attorney Geoffrey Berman and he refuses to leave

“Officially it’s being called a “resignation” according to the Associated Press.  However, all the right Lawfare “beach friends” are going bananas as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, is being replaced.  (DOJ Announcement Here)

According to the DOJ release Berman is being replaced by the nomination of Jay Clayton, currently the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Additionally, “Craig Carpenito, currently the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, will serve as the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, while the Senate is considering Jay Clayton’s nomination.”

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

(Via AP) (…) Geoffrey S. Berman is stepping down as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. The office is one of the nation’s premiere districts, trying major mob cases and terror cases over the years.

It was unclear why Berman was leaving his position after serving more than two years. The announcement was made late Friday and came after Barr visited New York City to meet with local police officials. And Trump is nominating the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to the job, a lawyer with virutally no experience as a federal prosecutor. (link)

UPDATE: USAO Geoffrey Berman is refusing to leave:

Well, there we have it.  That explains things; Geoffrey Berman is a member of the Lawfare resistance, a “beach friend” per se…

It’s worth keeping in mind that Berman’s office was the lead in several high profile cases assembled by Robert Mueller.  Additionally, AG Barr brought in five+ outside U.S. attorney’s to review all of the Mueller cases as an outcome of the FISA court order to conduct a sequestration review of any/all evidence that might have been used as an outcome of the fraudulently obtained Carter Page FISA warrant.

As CTH noted at the time…. “If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The Washington DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.”

There’s no evidence the moves are connected to the sequestration review, but with USAO John Durham looking deeply into the background of DOJ and FBI activity surrounding the effort to target candidate Trump, and later President Trump, there could be a possibility that several lanes are merging.   Obviously, AG Barr feels very confident to make the moves and subsequent recommendations to President Trump for replacements.

All of the exit moves and incoming replacements are coming to a head at the same time; early July. The current SDNY move is effective July 3rd, which is the same time that FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente is leaving his position.  Both Boente (FBI) and Jeffrey Berman (DOJ-SDNY) appear to be resigning by Bill Barr’s request; essentially being told to leave.

Other activity this week that may hold deeper connection:

♦On Monday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that two former Special Counsel Robert Mueller attorneys, John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky  would be designated as “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr. (LINK)

♦On Tuesday, the last remaining DOJ advisor to Jeff Sessions, Jody Hunt, announced his intent to leave the justice dept effective “early July”. (LINK) Mr. Hunt was Jeff Session’s chief-of-staff, and one of the key advisors responsible for the decision to recuse from the Mueller probe. (LINK)

♦On Wednesday the DOJ announced that Solicitor General Noel Francisco will be  departing: “Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco announces his departure from the Department of Justice, effective as of July 3, 2020.” (LINK)

♦And now on Friday Geoffrey Berman is removed and replaced at the SDNY office; and his exit is also timed for July 3rd. (LINK)

In addition to an identical exit time, one thing all of these departures have in common, including FBI legal counsel Dana Boente’s exit, is their connection to former AG Jeff Sessions (appointments) and DAG Rod Rosenstein (oversight); and ultimately each of these individuals is connected to the larger Robert Mueller special counsel activity.

Their previous work in the DOJ and FBI during the soft-coup insurance phase; which specifically involved the use of the special counsel appointment; in conjunction with the ongoing –and expanded– internal investigation by John Durham; which now includes seven or eight outside U.S. attorneys offices; just seems too coincidental.

The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions. However, understanding the January FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary.  This is a big shield that AG Barr is likely keeping in his back pocket until after Nadler launches his impeachment attack.

The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the fraudulent FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein. It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest carried by any prosecutor that used corrupt evidence.

The Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection. Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested July 2017 renewal of the FISA warrant two months after the special counsel team was assembled.

If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed. Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).

Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.

Overlay USAO John Durham doing a deeper and more lengthy investigation that touches the edges of the underlying warrant, and, well, that’s quite a lot of review ongoing.

Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework. The media ignore in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part, because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place. Likely well more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.

There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review.

Imagine that?

(Washington Post Link) (…) Shortly after the McCabe announcement on Friday, officials said that Barr had assigned Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, to review and “assist” prosecutors currently handling the case of Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is still awaiting sentencing after having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The Jensen appointment marks the latest iteration of an unusual trend inside the Justice Department of tasking outside U.S. attorneys with reviewing, managing, or reinvestigating work that would otherwise not be in their portfolio. Much of the effort seems aimed at re-examining the work of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose probe of possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign infuriated the president, or at targeting the president’s foes.  (read more)

Like I said, the Washington Post (above) and the New York Times (LINK) have both written pearl-clutching articles about Barr using DOJ “outsiders”; yet never once have they noted the FISA Court order that preceded all of these outside USAO’s entering the picture and receiving instructions from Bill Barr.  In order for media ideologues to continue advancing their political narrative and to pretend not to know things…

But Truth Has No Agenda!

(Conservative Treehouse, 6/20/2020)  (Archive)

(Republished with permission)

June 23, 2020 - DOJ reveals discovery of new Strzok notes that are exculpatory to General Flynn

“In the latest twist, the Justice Department disclosed to a federal court Tuesday it has located a new page of notes from Peter Strzok, the former lead FBI agent in the Russia collusion investigation, that are exculpatory to former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin (Credit: public domain)

Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin informed U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan of the discovery in a midday court filing, revealing the single page of notes were believed to have been taken by Strzok during the critical juncture of early January 2017 when FBI agents recommended shutting down their investigation of Flynn only to be overruled by FBI superiors.

“This page of notes was taken by former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok. While the page itself is undated; we believe that the notes were taken in early January 2017, possibly between January 3 and January 5,” Sherwin wrote in the motion. The prosecutor said it was possible more documents may be produced to the court.

The page of notes were not made public with the filing because they are currently subject to a protective order.

A source directly familiar with the discovery of the document told Just the News they include one paragraph of notes believed to be taken around Jan. 4, 2017, the date Strzok relayed a request from FBI leadership to the lead agent in the Flynn case asking him not to shut down the investigation as had been planned. The notes are “highly exculpatory,” the source said, declining to describe them more fully because they are under seal.” (Read more: JustTheNews, 6/23/2020)  (Archive)

@Techno_Fog provides a copy of Sherwin’s letter to Flynn attorney, Sidney Powell:

June 26, 2020 - New Secret Service records show Hunter Biden took 411 flights, visited 29 Countries, including 5 visits to China yet none to Ukraine

Left: Dr. Chi Ping Patrick Ho, former Hong Kong home secretary. Ho was arrested in 2017 on charges he paid bribes on behalf of a Chinese energy conglomerate. Center-right: In Beijing On December 4, 2013, Vice President Joe Biden on Air Force Two with his granddaughter and his son, Hunter. (Credit: Politico Illustration/AP/ Getty Images)

“New Secret Service records show Hunter Biden’s significant overseas travels during the first part of the Obama-Biden administration.

Judicial Watch investigators uncovered records from the U.S. Secret Service showing that, for the first five and a half years of the Obama administration, Hunter Biden traveled extensively with a Secret Service protective detail. During the time period of the records, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden took 411 separate domestic and international flights, including to 29 different foreign countries. He visited China five times.

Our February 7, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request sought:

Records reflecting the dates and locations of travel, international and domestic, for Hunter Biden while he received a U.S. Secret Service protective detail; please note whether his travel was on Air Force One or Two, or other government aircraft, as applicable and whether additional family members were present for each trip; time frame is 2001 to present.

The Secret Service did not indicate, as was requested, whether Biden’s travel was on Air Force One, Air Force Two or other government aircraft, or whether additional family members were present.

The records show that countries and territories visited by Hunter Biden, between June 2009 and May 2014, included:

  • Ethiopia and India on June 14-22, 2009
  • Argentina on September 14-17, 2009
  • France and Spain on November 9-13, 2009
  • Canada on February 12-15, 2010
  • Dominican Republic on February 18-22, 2010
  • Puerto Rico on March 20-27, 2010
  • China on April 6-9, 2010
  • Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom on May 5-8, 2010
  • UK, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, Ascension Island, U.S. Virgin Islands on June 6-13, 2010
  • Denmark and South Africa on August 9-24, 2010
  • Hong Kong, Taiwan and China on April 16-22, 2011
  • Mexico on May 15-17, 2011
  • Colombia, France, United Arab Emirates and France again on November 1-11, 2011
  • UK and Russia on February 15-18, 2012
  • Germany, France and UK on February 1-5, 2013
  • UK and Ireland on March 20-22, 2013
  • China on June 13-15, 2013
  • Switzerland and Italy on July 26-August 7, 2013
  • Japan, China, South Korea and the Philippines on December 2-9, 2013
  • China and Qatar on May 7-14, 2014

The records were also provided but were not made public, to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson in a response to a request the senators sent to Secret Service Director James Murray on February 2020.

In its cover letter to Grassley and Johnson, which was included in the records we received, the Secret Service said that the senators’ request was time and labor-intensive, and they could only provide a limited amount of information by the senators’ imposed turnaround time of February 19.

Given the Burisma-Ukraine-China influence-peddling scandals, Hunter Biden’s extensive international travel during the Obama-Biden presidency, including at least 5 trips to China, will certainly raise additional questions.

According to reports, Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden flew on Air Force Two for the official trip to Beijing in December 2013. The records we obtained show Hunter Biden arrived in Tokyo on December 2, 2013, and departed for Beijing two days later. While it is typical for the families of the president and vice president to travel with them, questions have been raised about whether Hunter Biden used the government trip to further his business interests.

NBC reporter Josh Lederman, who was one of four reporters on the December 2013 trip, noted in an October 2, 2019, report that, “What wasn’t known then was that as he accompanied his father to China, Hunter Biden was forming a Chinese private equity fund that associates said at the time was planning to raise big money, including from China.”

His travel is only one of our inquiries.

During the last year and a half of the Obama administration, Hunter Biden served on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings while his father was heading up Ukraine policy. We are seeking records through six lawsuits and dozens of FOIA requests related to Hunter Biden’s dealings with the Ukrainian Burisma Holdings and the Chinese BHR Partners.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 6/26/2020)  (Archive)

July 4, 2020 - Rose McGowan calls for the arrest of Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew following the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell

Rose McGowan is calling for Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton to be arrested next for their alleged ties to the late Jeffrey Epstein following the arrest of his alleged sex abuse accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

“Now get Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew,” McGowan tweeted on Friday, just one day after Maxwell was captured by the FBI and NYPD in a rural New Hampshire town where she was hiding out.

The actress’s tweet was accompanied by a photo of Harvey Weinstein, Epstein and Maxwell standing side-by-side with red x’s over their faces.

(…) Following Maxwell’s arrest, Audrey Strauss, acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said she “would welcome Prince Andrew coming in to talk with us.”

The painting of Bill Clinton on display inside Jeffrey Epstein’s New York home. (Credit: public domain)

(Read more: Fox News, 7/04/2020)  (Archive)

July 8, 2020 - British court rules against Christopher Steele, orders damages paid to businessmen named in dossier

The High Court of England and Wales (Credit: public domain)

“A British judge ruled Wednesday that Christopher Steele violated a data privacy law by failing to check the accuracy of information in his infamous dossier, ordering the former spy’s firm to pay damages to two businessmen he wrongly accused of making illicit payments in Russia.

Justice Mark Warby of the High Court of England and Wales ordered Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to pay a modest 18,000 English pounds – about $22,596 in American currency – each to Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman as compensation for a violation of Britain’s Data Protection Act 1998.

Warby ruled that while Steele had a national security interest to share his intelligence with U.S. and British authorities, several of the allegations in Memo 112 of the Steele dossier were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.”

The judge ruled Steele violated the law by failing to aggressively check the accuracy of one claim accusing Aven and Fridman of making illicit payments to Russia President Vladimir Putin before distributing it to various U.S. and British figures, including the FBI.

“That is an allegation of serial criminal wrongdoing, over a prolonged period. Even in the limited and specific context of reporting intelligence for the purposes I have mentioned, and despite all the other factors I have listed, the steps taken to verify that proposition fell short of what would have been reasonable,” Warby ruled.

“The allegation clearly called for closer attention, a more enquiring approach, and more energetic checking,” the judge added.” (Read more: JusttheNews, 7/08/2020)  (Archive)   Aven v Orbis.Judgment Summary.pdf

July 8, 2020 - New British court evidence reveals the FBI knew early on that Steele’s dossier was a product ordered up for the Hillary Clinton campaign

(…) Buried in Justice Mark Warby’s ruling were several new pieces of evidence that answer long-lingering questions about just what the FBI knew, and when it knew it.

For instance, Congressional Republicans have long questioned when exactly the FBI knew that Steele’s dossier was a product ordered up for the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. After all, the bureau never revealed the connection to the FISA court despite its central relevance to the motives of the dossier.

Justice Mark Warby (Credit: public domain)

Warby’s lengthy ruling unearthed a gem of new evidence to answer the question: Steele kept his own notes of what he told FBI agents the first time he met them on July 5, 2016, in London to discuss his anti-Trump Russia research.

And, Warby revealed, the notes make clear that Steele told his FBI handlers from the get-go that the dossier’s “ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.”

(…) The ruling discloses that officials at the State Department where Hillary Clinton had served as secretary of state were uniquely involved in Steele’s efforts to bring the dossier to attention, including Mrs. Clinton’s former Russia expert Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, Clinton’s successor as secretary of state John Kerry and Joe Biden’s former national security adviser Tony Blinken.

Steele “elaborated, by explaining that his understanding in July 2016 was that the FBI officer he met had cleared his lines with the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland,” the judge disclosed.

And after Trump won the election, the judge added, Steele disclosed he gave copies of his dossier to longtime Clinton friend Strobe Talbot in hopes it would get to the top of the State Department.

Talbott “said that he was due to meet a group of individuals at the State Department, and asked Mr Steele to share a copy of the Dossier with him, with a view to him being able to discuss the national security issues raised with these individuals,” the court revealed.

“Mr Steele agreed. He did so on the understanding that Mr Talbott had been speaking to the US Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ms Nuland, who knew of the Dossier and its broad content; and that the individuals whom Mr Talbott was due to meet included the then US Deputy Secretary of State, Tony Blinken,” the court added.

The British evidence continues, noting that Steele openly admitted he was leaking to the news media while working for the FBI.” (Read more: Just the News, 7/10/2020) (Archive)

July 10, 2020 - Flynn defense files supplement #2 motion to dismiss – includes new exculpatory DOJ release

“Earlier today Sidney Powell filed a new supplemental brief (#2) [pdf here] in support of the unopposed motion to dismiss.  The supplement covers the defense position on the newly released information from USAO Jeff Jensen which includes: notes taken by Tash Guahar at a January 25, 2017 briefing; the FBI work product that was an outcome of that briefing; and later notes by acting DAG Dana Boente.

The notes and FBI briefing summary are also on pdf here and embedded below.  It’s a lot of granular information to consider – so it’s worth beginning with the filing by Sidney Powell to see how the evidence released pertains to the current status of the case.

On January 25, 2017, the day after Flynn was interviewed by FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka (he’s the redacted name per his status under an ongoing protective order) the DOJ and FBI group assembled to discuss the Flynn interview and what steps they would take to frame Michael Flynn as part of their ongoing resistance operation.

Tashina Guahar from the DOJ-National Security Division was taking the notes.

Notes of then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar, reveal a January 25, 2017, meeting of ten officials including FBI General Counsel James Baker, Bill Priestap, Agent Peter Strzok, and [redacted]; from the National Security Division of DOJ: Mary McCord, George ZT, and STU; from the Office of the Deputy AG: Tash, Scott [Schools], and [redacted].

Additionally, when reviewing the notes and FBI briefing summary it’s worth remembering the release only covers the information pertinent to Michael Flynn; hence the non-Flynn material is redacted (even though some of the non-Flynn material we previously found). [Thanks to Techno Fog for that reminder]

One of the key aspects to the notes taken by Tashina Guahar relates to the group discussion of their own leaking of information to the media, which they worried had now alerted the Trump administration to the nature of their intelligence surveillance.

The resistance group’s media leaks, intended to undermine the Trump administration, “changed the dynamic” by informing the White House that FBI agents were intercepting communication from White House officials.

“Media leaks – re intercepts” pertains to the group telling their allied resistance operatives in media about the Flynn calls.  The leak of the Flynn-Kislyak call was one of the more dominating narrative headlines at the time.  Yes, it’s quite a surprising admission to admit their own leaks pushed the “investigation in the open” which “changed the dynamic”.

First here’s the supplemental filing (#2) that outlines the Flynn defense position.

Here’s the attachment with three segments: (1) the Tashina Guahar notes; (2)  The typewritten FBI summary of the meeting; (3) the handwritten notes of Dana Boente.

The release is in that order.  Tash notes, FBI summary work product, then Boente notes.

The FBI summary of the briefing is an interesting, albeit troubling, dive into the mindset of a resistance group determined to make something unlawful out of ordinary contact between the incoming National Security Advisor and foreign officials.

The basic conflict, the fulcrum upon which they ended up deciding to move forward, surrounded the definition of the word “sanctions.”   Flynn never discussed ‘sanctions’, or ongoing punitive policy positions, in his call with Kislyak.  However, he did discuss not escalating tensions by reacting -beyond a reciprocal manner- to the expulsion of Russian officials; that is an entirely distinct difference between the “sanctions” imposed by the Obama administration.

In order to advance their “Flynn lied” narrative; the group merged the expulsion of the Russian officials into the ongoing “sanctions” against Russia.  In essence, they called the expulsions ‘sanctions’, and then set about saying Flynn lied when he said he never discussed those sanctions.   It was a strategic lawfare approach to parse words and meaning in order to advance their legal attack.

Four years of this bullshit over the word “sanctions.”  Think about it.

(FBI notes – January 25, 2017 Briefing)

(Conservative Treehouse, 7/10/2020)  (Archive)

July 12, 2020 - Rod Rosenstein steps-up to assist Mueller attack Trump over Roger Stone commutation

“One of the biggest mistakes many people have made in their evaluation of Rod Rosenstein is separating him from the Special Counsel investigation run by Robert Mueller’s team of resistance lawyers. The reality is Rosenstein was always a willing active participant and co-dependent enabler.  [Thread Here]

Support for this foundational understanding comes forward yesterday as the former Deputy Attorney General showcases his support for an op-ed presumably written by Robert Mueller.

*Authorship is tenuous at best and more likely written by Weissman or Zelby [sic] (Lawfare) on behalf of Mueller. But for now, focus on Rosenstein.

Notice how Rosenstein positions his current advocacy as part of the Mueller team. This is critical; and unfortunately, everyone keeps missing it. Rosenstein did the same thing in his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

When you stand back it becomes clear, Rosenstein viewed his role with the special counsel as participatory. He was Deputy AG not only as DAG, but also there as a functionary – to facilitate the needs of the special counsel investigation.

This outlook, specifically Rosenstein’s internal definition of his role and responsibility, is why the special counsel was able to essentially take over Main Justice during the two year investigation. Rosenstein took NO ACTION that was not approved by his teammates.

This becomes key.

This becomes key because Rosenstein was an enabler for the plots and ploys being executed by Mueller’s assembled team. That’s how the Lawfare resistance group was able to set up shop and essentially run amok.

As Attorney General Jeff Sessions was firewalled; and Rod Rosenstein was a willing co-dependent enabler. The special counsel team was running main justice. Repeat this as many times as needed to absorb.

The special counsel team was running the DOJ.

When congress was getting stonewalled, blocked, and impeded from inquiry it was the special counsel doing the blocking. It was also the special counsel that did every release. Every strategic release!

The resistance team convinced Rosenstein that part of his role to help them was to block any inquiry into material they did not want released. If they defined it as adverse to their interests they controlled it. Rosenstein allowed this. Rosenstein facilitated this approach.

That approach included Rosenstein telling President Trump that he could not declassify any material that touched on anything to do with the Mueller team investigation. [Example Sept. 2018]

By aligning with the team of usurpers, Rosenstein blocked declassification of documents and helped the special counsel control the media narrative. It would be obtuse and intellectually dishonest to think Rosenstein was hoodwinked. He’s not stupid.

Rod Rosenstein knew what was going on behind the Mueller team’s closed doors, even if he was not physically in the room.

Additionally, another critical element to understand; that helps reconcile many challenging issues; was that every release from the DOJ during the Special Counsel tenure was only possible with the special counsel directing and approving the release.  Again, it’s worthy of repeating because this is a cornerstone understanding that is completely misunderstood.  This is another paradigm shift.

Nothing was ever released from the DOJ without a purposeful intent by the special counsel to allow its release. This includes the Lisa Page and Peter Strazok text messages, and the information about Bruce Ohr which was released only a few days after the text messages.

This resistance group control also includes the redactions to all documents. The special counsel controlled all this stuff.  [Listen to AG Jeff Sessions in the video above]

Immediately after Brandon Van Grack pressured Flynn into signing the plea agreement (November 30, 2017), literally the next day, December 1st and 2nd, the Page/Strzok text messages were released. The special counsel was gaming this out. Controlling everything. Rosenstein was the facilitator.

The special counsel did all the redactions; the special counsel removed texts from releases; it was the special counsel who were selectively releasing and selectively hiding information for two years. Rosenstein was the facilitator.

It was the special counsel who decided to release the FISA application under the guise of a FOIA request. Again, a purposeful release. [Go look at it – release date Saturday, July 21, 2018] Everything was being managed from inside the DOJ operation center controlled by special counsel lawyers. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was their shield.

Additionally from the Mueller Op-Ed, notice how the cornerstone of Mueller’s position is that Russia hacked the DNC emails and gave them to Wikileaks. Again, in this article published Saturday -critical of Stone’s commutation- the issue of importance is the Russia-Wikileaks angle.

This Russia hacking narrative had been the fulcrum position of the special counsel all along. That’s why this specific issue must be defended *AT ALL COSTS*, even through today.  Take away the “Russia hacked the DNC emails” narrative and suddenly the entire premise of the special counsel collapses on itself.

THAT is why the day after the special counsel provided the original report to newly confirmed AG Bill Barr, the very next day they grabbed Julian Assange and threw a bag over him.”

(Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 7/13/2020)  (Archive)

July 15, 2020 - Sen Graham tells Hannity, Steele's subsource was also his employee

Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Hannity’s show July 15, 2020 to discuss his attempt to declassify a 40 page memo that explains how the Steele dossier wasn’t reliable. He also mentions Steele’s Russian source was an employee, not a contractor.

Twitter user @15poundstogo notes Steele’s employee and sub-sources are mentioned on page 283 of the DOJ OIG FISA report published December 9, 2019.