August 11, 2020 - Igor Danchenko and a 34 Month Long DOJ/FBI Cover-Up Operation

“CTH friend, researcher and producer John Spiropoulos helps connect the dots within the operation to cover-up corrupt activity by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Christopher Wray, Dana Boente and the entire special counsel group.

In this video John walks us through the internal evidence showing how the FBI intentionally hid the statements by Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source Igor Danchenko.  The result…. a 34-month cover-up operation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released the declassified documents on July 17th. [Thank You John Ratcliffe] The documents relate to how the intelligence apparatus conducted surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign in 2016; and ultimately the Trump administration after the inauguration.

The first document [Direct pdf here] is the Washington Field Office (WFO) FBI briefing summary of a three-day interview with Chris Steele’s primary sub-source. The document is highly redacted, but we already know from the IG release what the total content of the briefing revealed. The first interview was conducted on January 12, 2017, during the transition period between administrations. The classification term “SIA” stands for Source Identifying Attribute.

Per Senator Lindsey Graham:

♦ This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness.

♦ The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best.

♦ Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how the information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect.

In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court. (Senate Link)

Here’s the FBI Briefing Summary: [Direct pdf Link]

FBI Interview Release – Chr… by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd

The inspector general already reviewed this briefing material and explained the content in the IG report on FISA Abuse in December 2019. Here’s the nub of that full review:

The aspect of the primary sub-source deconstructing and undermining the underlying material within the Steele Dossier is critical because ultimately the dossier underpinned the FISA application.

When you recognize the FISA application itself was based on a fraudulent premise; and you recognize the intentional ignoring of the underlying evidence; then the motive behind the FISA becomes clear. The FISA against Carter Page was used as a justification for surveillance of Donald Trump that had been ongoing by Obama intelligence officials.

This context becomes stunningly more important when you look at how the FISA was used by the Mueller investigation to continue its weaponization throughout 2017 and even into 2018. Remember, in July of 2018 long after the source material was debunked, the special counsel office was still telling the FISA court the predication for the FISA application and renewals was valid.

Drive this point home.

This is a key to understanding the scope of how weaponized the Mueller team was.

In July of 2018 the special counsel resistance group was lying to the FISA court in order to protect the cornerstone document that permitted them to weaponize the intelligence apparatus.

This letter was written on July 12, 2018. It is NOT accidental that only a week later, July 21st, the special counsel released the FISA application under the guise of FOIA fulfillment.

Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it. The Mueller team running the DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application. The resistance unit running the DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.

On page #8 [Source Document Here] when discussing Christopher Steele’s sub-source, the special counsel group notes the FBI found him to be truthful and cooperative.

This is an incredibly misleading statement to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.

By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid. Why?

It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.

In July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.

This letter justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant…. My research suspicion is that the DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA authority. That’s the motive.

In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending. The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.

♦ The FISA was also released in July 2018 in order to retain the false premise behind it. The copy that was released by the special counsel, through Rod Rosenstein, contained redacted dates because the special counsel needed to hide the fact the FBI (Washington Field Office) had actually used the FISA to catch a leaker of classified intelligence, James Wolfe.

Again, Wolfe’s story is the fulcrum…. tell that story and the House of Cards collapses like the Potemkin village it is. {GO DEEP}

The resistance lawyers in the Mueller team released the same initial FISA application (and first renewal) used to catch Wolfe; they had to release that specific March 17, 2017, copy. However, they had to redact the dates on the document they released because the dates were changed by SSA Brian Dugan to catch Wolfe.

The March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA, an FBI investigative equity, went into Main Justice with the leak trap visible. When the special counsel released the FISA application to Rosenstein for public FOIA fulfillment they had to redact the dates or people would ask questions about why this specific version had different dates than the original.

The March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA application is the only one to date that has been in the public sphere; including reviewed by OIG Michael Horowitz. That’s why when Horowitz originally released his FISA report, the OIG kept the dates redacted and only revealed them after the irrelevance of classification was pointed out.

The March 17th Wolfe copy of the first half of the full FISA application (original and first renewal), is the only copy that has ever been made public. If we were to ever see the modified and unredacted copy the FBI gave to Wolfe, the dates would not match with the actual dates of the application(s). The dates were used as part of the leak trace.

The Mueller team knew the explosive nature of the FBI investigation to catch the SSCI leaker. The Mueller team, with full control over Main Justice, was the group that buried FBI Supervisor Special Agent Brian Dugan’s explosive investigative findings.

Expose the conduct of this group and everything about the insurance policy falls into place:

(Conservative Treehouse, 8/11/2020)  (Archive)

August 18, 2020 - Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ needed Julian Assange arrested – and why UK officials obliged

“According to reports in November of 2019, U.S Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One recent quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes:

“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion, the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor, Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts, recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress…

However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts to become important.

Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok…. and Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.

It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little-reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid-2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.

International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.

The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.

We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties into the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why the delay?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take a keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and the U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this three-year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This Russian “hacking” claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus…. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.

Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual… well, then certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.

The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?

(Conservative Treehouse, 8/18/2020)  (Archive)

August 19, 2020 - Kevin Clinesmith pleads guilty to one count false statements, key exchange goes to intent

CBS News reporter Catherine Herridge tweets this exchange that occurred between Kevin Clinesmith and Judge Boasberg during the plea hearing on August 19, 2020.

(Reformatted for an easier read.)

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleads guilty 1 count false statements, but key exchange goes to intent.

Judge Boasberg: Did you read plus understand this document before you signed it?

Clinesmith: I did your honor.

Judge Boasberg: This document actually sets forth the fact that the government contends occurred here. The act that you actually committed that you agree that what the government sets forth here is in fact true.

Clinemsith: Yes, your honor.

Judge Boasberg: And most specifically that on (garbled-date??) that you intentionally altered an email to add the language plus “not a source” in regard to individual one (Carter Page) plus you knew that (garbled) statement was not in fact true.

(20-second pause)

Judge Boasberg: I’m not sure whether you are conferring with your client, I didn’t hear a response to that question.

Lawyer: I apologize…on mute…give me a second…

Clinesmith: Sir, I, Sir at the time, I believed that the information I was providing in the email was accurate. but I, (stumbles) am agreeing that the information I entered into the email was not originally there. That I inserted that information.

Judge Boasberg: In other words, you agree that you intentionally altered the email to include information that was not originally in the email.

Clinesmith: Yes your honor.

August 27, 2020 - Sources tell CBS News FBI agent Joe Pientka has been interviewed by the Senate Judiciary and Oversight Committees

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Chuck Grassley give an opening statement before swearing-in Attorney General William Barr to testify, May 1, 2019. (Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

“Two sources close to the Senate probe tell CBS News that FBI agent Joe Pientka has been interviewed behind closed doors for “multiple hours” by investigators with Senate Judiciary and Senate Oversight/Government Affairs.

In 2018, then Chairman Chuck Grassley first sought Pientka’s testimony but the request was denied until now.

WHY IT MATTERS: Pientka is at the intersection of key events in the Durham investigation. Along with agent Peter Strzok, Pientka conducted the January 2017 WH interview of General Flynn that led to his dismissal.

More recently, declassified records showed Pientka and others used an August 2016 “defensive-briefing” to warn candidate Trump, Flynn Governor Christie about national security threats to gather information on their line of questioning about Russia for the  FBI probe known as Crossfire Hurricane. These events and decision making fall under Durham.” (Read more: Catherine Herridge/Twitter, 8/27/2020)  (Archive)

September 4, 2020 - Did Mueller prosecutors find problems with Page FISA; approve it anyway; recreate the Woods File; and cover up?

(Credit: Alexander Hunter/Washington Times)

“On September 1, 2020, journalist Sarah Carter broke a story based on confidential sources that in a briefing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI and Department of Justice informed the committee that the “Woods File” for the Carter Page FISA application had been somehow “lost” at some unknown point in time.  She reported that the Committee was told that the contents of the file had been “recreated” by the Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel office by “reverse engineering” — my words — through examining the application and determining what factual allegations would have required supporting documentation normally contained in a “Woods File”.

(…) Where to begin?

How about with the “disappearance” of an electronic file in a system where nothing disappears.  The Woods File is a subfile in the investigation’s case file.  It is created by the Case Agent by scanning in the documentary sources used as the basis to make a factual allegation in the affidavit.

The purpose of having the file is so that when third parties — supervisors, subsequent case agents, other agencies — who review the affidavit and have questions about a particular allegation, they can go to the Woods File and find the specific documents from which the allegation was sourced.  The file is not intended to “prove” the allegation true — only that the allegation has a source, and what that source is.

A question that has never received enough scrutiny is the role of the Special Counsel’s office in seeking the third extension of the Page FISA warrant.  That extension was requested on June 29, 2017.  That is six weeks after Mueller was appointed Special Counsel, and responsibility for Crossfire Hurricane was transferred to the Special Counsel’s Office.

(…) How does the Woods File — stored electronically in the FBI’s Sentinel database — get “lost”?  And at what point in time did the SCO decide it was necessary to “reconstruct” a replacement Woods File by reverse engineering it through analyzing the applications to determine the specific factual allegations needed source documentation — other than the Steele Memos — in order to justify their inclusion in the third application to extend.

Was the ACTUAL Woods File so lacking — or so dependent on the allegations of the Steele Memos — that someone in the SCO realized it was a “ticking time bomb” waiting to be uncovered once an authorized investigator was given the responsibility to sort things out?

We learn on page 220 of the IG Report that when time arrived for the third application, there were already concerns among the FBI personnel involved that the FISA warrant was “going dark” — it was yielding little of value in May and June 2017.  In addition, Carter Page had been interviewed multiple times at that point, telling Agents who did the interview that he suspected he was under surveillance.  Yet “Case Agent 6” and “Supervisory Special Agent 5” decided to proceed with the third extension according to the IG Report at page. 220.” (Read more: RedState, 9/04/2020)  (Archive) 

September 6, 2020 - Peter Strzok appears on CBS and shares new information about his Alexander Downer interview; the official story and dates don't jive

Peter Strzok (l) and Alexander Downer (Credit: public domain)

(…) Strzok’s September 6, 2020, interview with CBS (and related brief comments in Compromised) gave the very first information on the critical Downer interview, including the very first official explanation of why Downer decided to report the Papadopoulos conversation to the U.S. embassy when he did—in Strzok’s words, what “triggered him.”

Exact words are important, so here are Strzok’s exact words in the CBS interview (transcription and emphasis mine):

Narrator: Papadopoulos was in London having drinks with an Australian diplomat. 

Strzok: Papadopoulos told them that somebody on the Trump campaign had received an offer that said the Russians have material that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton and to Obama and they offered to coordinate the release of that information in a way that would help the Trump campaign.

Narrator: The Australians didn’t make much of it until Trump made this appeal about Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” Those Australian diplomats heard that and contacted the FBI.

Strzok: When they saw that speech by Trump, that triggered their memory of the conversation they had with Papadopoulos.

The CBS interviewer observed the implication that Trump had been hoisted on his own petard, as it was his own inflammatory statements that had originated the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation, not malicious or mistaken conduct by others after all. Strzok agreed:

Interviewer: So, Donald Trump with his own words brought this investigation down on himself. 

Strzok: According to what the foreign government told us, yes.

In Compromised, Strzok similarly stated that Downer delivered his original information to the U.S. embassy “shortly after Trump’s Florida press conference”:

When we received the report about Papadopoulos’s revelations to the Friendly Foreign Government’s personnel—intelligence that they sent from their embassy to ours shortly after Trump’s Florida press conference…

In Downer’s recounting, Trump’s words jarred his memory of a series of conversations months earlier…

A vivid narrative from one of the most important figures in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

The Contradiction

Here’s the problem.

Trump’s “Russia, are you listening” quip was made at a July 27, 2016, press conference, while Downer’s tip was given to the U.S. embassy on July 26, one day earlier. (The July 26 date is provided in both the Mueller Report, published in April 2019, and the Horowitz Report, published in December 2019.) 

It was chronologically impossible for Trump’s quip to have actually triggered Downer’s tip.  

Worse, this implies that Strzok’s story about Downer telling him that he had been triggered by Trump’s speech was also untrue—either a false memory or fabrication—each as insalubrious as the other. 

Nobody in U.S. major media or its “fact checkers” noticed Strzok’s false information.

It was, however, quickly noticed by Hans Mahncke, a knowledgeable Twitter commentator on Russiagate, who issued the following challenge to Strzok on Twitter at 5:58 p.m. on Sept 6, 2020:

.@petestrzok told CBS that the Australians came forward because they were triggered by a Trump speech.

The problem is that the Australians came forward *before* Trump’s speech.

Strzok is lying or the Australians lied. Take your pick.

Either way, this destroys the predicate. pic.twitter.com/MBL2e1NJg1

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 6, 2020

Mahncke’s observation was picked up by Dan Bongino, who two days later (September 8, 2020) colorfully brought it to the attention of his large audience (citing Mahncke). In framing his comment as a choice between Strzok lying or Downer lying, Mahncke was allowing the remote possibility that Australian ambassador Downer had lied to Strzok about what had triggered him. Because Strzok’s interview with Downer took place after Trump’s quip, Downer would have had knowledge of the quip when he met Strzok, even though he didn’t have knowledge of the quip when he provided the tip. So it is not chronologically impossible that Downer lied, only implausible. But it remains a remote possibility that Strzok himself never suggested, and which became moot when Strzok (as discussed below) walked back part of his false story.

Later on September 6 (9:11 p.m.), Jerry Dunleavy of the Washington Examiner published a short article (together with accompanying announcement on Twitter) that pointed out the impossibility of Strzok’s chronology:

NEW: Strzok claims Downer was spurred to tell U.S. about Papadopoulos convo (FBI cited to open Trump-Russia inquiry) after Trump said “Russia if you’re listening…” But Mueller/Horowitz say Australia told U.S. on 7/26/16. Trump quip wasn’t til next day…https://t.co/ipjKNbqZTM

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) September 7, 2020

While Dunleavy alertly noticed the chronological issue, unlike Mahncke, he didn’t connect the impossible chronology to Strzok’s false story about what Downer had told him. As discussed in the next section, Strzok capitalized on this oversight to construct a “limited hangout”—to borrow an apt phrase from Nixonian days. (Read more: American Conservative, 3/20/2021) (Archive)

September 10, 2020 - Besides 22 wiped devices, 44 Mueller team iPhones had zero records

This photo shows the cover of Andrew Weissmann’s “Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation”  that will be published Sept. 29, 2020. (Credit: Random House/The Associated Press)

“Forty-four iPhones used by members of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation contained no records when they were examined by an officer assigned to the team, according to internal documents.

Five more Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) phones contained only one record each, and four others contained fewer than 10 records per device, according to a log kept by a records officer over the course of more than 20 months.

The lack of records on the phones is extraordinary given the immense scope of the probe. It is also suspicious considering that at least 22 phones belonging to members of the Mueller team were wiped, with employees offering questionable explanations for the erasures.

Under U.S. law, government records are defined as “all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a federal agency under federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business  and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States government or because of the informational value of data in them.”

Of the 92 unique iPhones used by the Mueller team, only 12 contained a significant number of records, an Epoch Times review of available records determined.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 9/20/2020)  (Archive)

September 10, 2020 - Newly released DOJ records show top Mueller team members "accidentally wiped" their phones

Original source that obtained the DOJ records: Judicial Watch

Newly released DOJ records show that multiple top members of Mueller’s investigative team claimed to have “accidentally wiped” at least 15 (!) phones used during the anti-Trump investigation after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices to be handed over.

(Sample of released docs)

Federal records show that Mueller deputy Andrew Weismann claims to have “accidentally” wiped, via wrong passwords at least 2 phones detailing his activity during the anti-Trump probe.

James Quarles’ phone “wiped itself.”

Greg Andre also made the same wrong password claim…

Mueller deputy Kyle Freeny similarly claimed that his phone was accidentally wiped after too many wrong passwords were entered.

Same with Mueller deputy Rush Atkinson.

At least 12 other officials whose names are redacted also claimed to have “accidentally” nuked their phones.

The newly released DOJ records from the OIG investigation of corruption during the Mueller probe shows that a key tactic used by the Mueller team was to put the phones in airplane mode, lock them, and then claim they didn’t have the password.

What are the actual probabilities of more than a dozen top Mueller officials all “accidentally” nuking their phones or accidentally putting them in airplane mode, locking them, and “forgetting” their passwords so the DOJ OIG couldn’t access and examine them? Negative 100,000%?  (Sean Davis@seanmdav/Twitter, 9/10/2020) (Archive)

(Department of Justice/Mueller team records, 9/04/2020)

(Timeline editor’s note: I reformatted the Twitter thread for an easier read. No words were changed.)

Devin Nunes appears on Maria Bartiromo’s show Sunday, September 13, 2020, to discuss the wiped phones:

September 17, 2020 - FBI agent from Mueller team is interviewed and says Flynn case was a politically motivated "dead end"

“Thanks to Judge Emmet Sullivan refusing the DOJ’s request to drop the Michael Flynn case, a cache of explosive documents has now been released to the public revealing that at least one FBI agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team thought the case was a politically motivated “dead end,” and others bought professional liability insurance as their bosses were continuing the investigation based on “conspiracy theories.”

Judge Sullivan and the DC Court of Appeals are turning out to be the unintentional heroes of the Flynn saga. In their unseemly quest to destroy Flynn, they refused to let DOJ drop case, and now we’re getting some of the most explosive documents about Special Counsel probe yet.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 25, 2020

In one case, FBI agent William J. Barnett said during a Sept. 17 interview that he believed Mueller’s prosecution of Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump,” and that he didn’t want to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation because it was “not there” and a “dead end,” according to Fox News.

Barnett, during his interview, detailed his work at the FBI, and his assignment to the bureau’s original cases against Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Barnett said the Flynn investigation was assigned the code name “Crossfire Razor,” which was part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation — the bureau’s code name for the original Trump-Russia probe.

Barnett told investigators that he thought the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe was “opaque” and “with little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.”

“Barnett thought the case theory was ‘supposition on supposition,’” the 302 stated, and added that the “predication” of the Flynn investigation was “not great,” and that it “was not clear” what the “persons opening the case wanted to ‘look for or at.’”

After six weeks of investigating, Barnett said he was “still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation.” –Fox News

When Barnett approached agents about what they thought the ‘end game’ was with Flynn – suggesting they interview the former National Security Adviser “and the case be closed unless derogatory information was obtained,” he was cautioned not to conduct an interview, as it may tip Flynn off that he was under investigation.

“Barnett still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” the 302 states. “Barnett was willing to follow any instructions being given by the deputy director as long as it was not a violation of the law.”

(Read more: Zero Hedge, 9/25/2020)  (Archive)

Conservative Treehouse also weighs in:

“U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Jeff Jensen, has been conducting an ongoing review of the FBI investigation that led to charges in the case against Michael Flynn. As part of that review an interview was recently conducted (September 17, 2020) with the former Flynn supervisory case agent, William Barnett – who also was assigned to the Special Counsel’s Office investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.

What Special Agent Barnett says under oath about the DOJ and FBI investigations is devastating to the institutions.”

September 18, 2020 - FBI agent who discovered Clinton emails on Weiner laptop claims he was told to erase his computer

John Robertson (Credit: USA Network/YouTube)

“FBI agent John Robertson, the man who found Hillary Clinton’s emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, claims he was advised by bosses to erase his own computer.

(…) His startling claims are made in a book titled, “October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election,” an excerpt of which has been published by the Washington Post.

Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton’s emails on the Anthony Weiner laptop.

It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney’s office overseeing the case, he claims, that the agency took action.

“He had told his bosses about the Clinton emails weeks ago,” the book contends . “Nothing had happened.”

“Or rather, the only thing that had happened was his boss had instructed Robertson to erase his computer work station.”

This, according to the Post report, was to “ensure there was no classified material on it,” but also would eliminate any trail of his actions taken during the investigation.” (Read more: Zero Hedge, 9/22/2020)  (Archive)

September 24, 2020 - New docs reveal the primary sub-source for Steele dossier was a possible national security threat and the subject of 2009 FBI counterintelligence case

Primary sub-source Igor Danchenko (Credit: public domain)

“The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.

The timing matters because the dossier was first used two months earlier, in October 2016, to help secure a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and then used in three subsequent surveillance renewals.

“Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual who later would be identified as Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source,” the two-page FBI memo states. “The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.”

The memo, which is a summary of the FBI counterintelligence investigation continues, “in December 2016, the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team identified the Primary Sub-source used by Christopher Steele and, at that time, became familiar with the 2009 investigation.”

The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, who released the FBI records said in a statement, “To me, failure of the FBI to inform the court that the Primary Sub-source was suspected of being a Russian agent is a breach of every duty owed by law enforcement to the judicial system.”  (Read more: CBS News, 9/24/2020)  (Archive)

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel responds to Catherine Herridge’s breaking news with this lengthy tweet:

“So Christopher Steele’s main source for the dossier? He was the subject of a nearly two-year-long FBI counter-intel investigation (2009-2011), under suspicion of being a Russian spy and a “threat to national security.”

Early in [the] Obama admin, subsource “reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor” to Obama. Said if they got jobs in the administration and access to classified information, he could help them “make a little extra money.”

FBI says he had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and Russian intelligence officers. Thanks to @paulsperry_ we know the name of this subsource, and that he, for a period, [was] at Brookings, [a] Democratic think tank.

But here’s the real kicker, per these documents out from @LindseyGrahamSC The FBI KNEW about this prior CI investigation into the source in DECEMBER OF 2016. It KNEW it was relying on information from a suspected Russian spy!

The same FBI said to be concerned about Russian interference in the election, was using information from a suspected Russian spy to probe a presidential campaign. The same FBI claiming Carter Page, a Russian agent, was making that case based on info from a suspected Russian agent.

Most importantly: It never told the FISA court about this CI investigation. It withheld that information and continued re-upping its applications to surveil Page and the campaign. It vouched for information supplied by a suspected Russian agent.

The name of this subsource, and the realization of the FBI’s prior suspicions, should have ended the entire probe. Instead, the FBI doubled down, hid things from the court, kept going. This again raises an urgent need to know who knew what, and when.

And people wonder why #Durham is looking into all this?

Also, extra-credit question: Wasn’t it Mueller’s job to find sources of Russian disinformation? How do you miss the guy potentially feeding it directly to the FBI?

Finally, big credit here to AG Bill Barr and  [Senator] Lindsey Graham for their commitment to truth and transparency. Americans deserve to know what happened before they vote. (Kimberley Strassel/Twitter, 9/24/2020)

September 24, 2020 - Report: Durham is investigating Main Justice resistors blocking FBI subpoenas in 2016 RE: Clinton Foundation

September 24, 2020 - Powell files new Motion to Dismiss: FBI texts detail the internal strife over their handling of ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ investigation; 'Trump Was Right'

“Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team.

“[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.

“While the names of the agents responsible for the texts are redacted, the legal filing from Powell, quoting communications from the Department of Justice (DOJ), states that the latest document production included handwritten notes and texts from Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and FBI analysts who worked on the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.

Agents also said they were worried about how a new attorney general might view the actions taken against Trump during the investigation. Shortly after then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was confirmed to be Trump’s new attorney general, congressional Democrats, media, and Obama holdovers within DOJ immediately moved to force Sessions to recuse himself from overseeing the department’s investigations against Trump.

(…) The FBI agents also discussed how the investigation’s leadership was consumed with conspiracy theories rather than evidence.

(Read more: The Federalist, 9/24/2020)  (Archive) (Motion to Dismiss w/docs, 9/24/2020)

September 30, 2020 - James Comey testifies to Senate Judiciary Committee and doesn't remember much

On September 24th Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released a letter from Attorney General William Barr and a declassified summary from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicating Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source was a likely Russian agent and had previously been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation.  In advance of former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony today, the question is: did Comey, Andrew McCabe or Bill Priestap know?

John Spiropoulos outlines the issue.  WATCH:

Key takeaways from the FBI’s declassified summary:

• The Crossfire Hurricane team knew in December 2016 that Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source was an individual who the FBI had indicated in 2009 “could be a threat to national security.”
• In May 2009, Steele’s source reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor connected to President Obama, offering that if the two individuals “‘did get a job in the government and had access to classified information’ and wanted ‘to make a little extra money,’ [Steele’s source] knew some people to whom they could speak.”
• FBI databases revealed Steele’s source “had contact in 2006 with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers, [including contacting a known Russian intelligence officer] ‘so the documents can be placed in tomorrow’s diplomatic pouch.’”
• One individual interviewed by the FBI noted that “the Primary Sub-source persistently asked about the interviewee’s knowledge of a particular military vessel.”
• Significantly, the “record documenting the closing of the investigation [of the Primary Sub-source] stated that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary Sub-source returned to the United States.”  (source)

(Conservative Treehouse, 9/30/2020)  (Archive)

Some public responses to Comey’s testimony:

+ explain his past dealings with FBI + CIA. WHY IT MATTERS: Page’s support of CIA went a long way to explaining his Russia contacts + FISA Court SHOULD have been told before signing 4 warrants 4 a campaign aide. Knowingly misleading court can be criminal. READ @LindseyGrahamSC pic.twitter.com/4G2LzmLn73

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) October 1, 2020

There are people who were around Comey who know he was briefed. And then directed action. https://t.co/rHctd53p9q

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) October 1, 2020

The full hearing:

September 30, 2020 - CIA Gina Haspel is blocking declassification of Russiagate documents detailing corruption at highest levels

Gina Haspel swears in as the first woman to direct the Central Intelligence Agency, on May 21, 2018. (Credit: public domain)

“CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally blocking the declassification of documents detailing corruption at the highest levels of the intelligence community during the 2016 election, according to The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis.

While new information about wrongdoing at the FBI has recently been declassified, including recent revelations about Hillary Clinton campaign’s collusion with Russia, Davis reported on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Wednesday that Haspel herself is standing in the way of the declassification of other relevant documents.

“I’m told that it is Gina Haspel personally who is blocking continued declassification of these documents that will show the American people the truth of what actually happened,” Davis said.

Notably, Haspel was previously the London CIA station chief under former CIA director John Brennan during the 2016 election. “Recall it was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work,” Davis said, noting Haspel was the “main link” between Washington and London at the time. Haspel was hand-picked by former CIA director John Brennan to run the CIA’s operations in London, where she served as the spy agency’s bureau chief from 2014 through early 2017.” (Read more: The Federalist, 9/30/2020)  (Archive)

Breaking: CIA Director Gina Haspel Is Blocking Declassification Of Remaining Russigate Documents pic.twitter.com/xSNwqPzdTM

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) October 1, 2020

October 2020 - Michael Morell is one of seven CIA directors on the Atlantic Council Board; DHS deputizes the Board to censor the 2020 election while they are lobbyists for Burisma

The Department of Homeland Security, its CISA division under Chris Krebs, then turned around deputized the Atlantic Council – a Burisma lobbyist – to censor the 2020 election.

The Atlantic Council was the anchor hub of the 4-entity censorship consortium, EIP, who DHS tapped: pic.twitter.com/maGFlXperd

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 23, 2022

Again, the Atlantic Council had seven CIA directors – seven LIVING former CIA directors – serving on its board of directors, as it was serving as Burisma’s lobbyist and DHS’s 2020 deputized social media censor:https://t.co/G167FnpEOQ

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 23, 2022

The Atlantic Council is the anchor of EIP, part of its “core four.” When EIP published its 292-page report about how they censored tens of millions of conservatives with DHS in the 2020 election, they made their launch event an Atlantic Council event:https://t.co/hHVqsJYIuo

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 23, 2022

Chris Krebs, the DHS director at CISA who deputized EIP and Atlantic Council to censor 22 million tweets during the 2020 election cycle, even gave the opening remarks at the Atlantic Council tell-all about how they colluded to silence conservatives: pic.twitter.com/rXPIKLXkOH

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 23, 2022

Morrell was *inches* away from becoming Biden’s CIA chief as a reward. (The Daily Beast, 11/24/2020)

October 5, 2020 - Trump is working to declassify documents related to the Russia investigation

“President Donald Trump is working to declassify documents related to the Russia investigation while he recovers from coronavirus at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, his chief of staff said Monday.

“This morning we’ve already had a couple of discussions on items that he wants to get done,” Mark Meadows, the chief of staff, said in an interview on “Fox & Friends.”

“Candidly, he’s already tasked me with getting declassification rolling in a follow up to some of the requests that Devin Nunes and others have made.”

Meadows did not go into detail about the documents he is working to declassify or the timeline on which they will be released. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has called for the declassification of a variety of documents from the FBI and U.S. intelligence community related to the investigation of the Trump campaign’s possible links to Russia in 2016.

In a Fox News interview on Sunday, Nunes discussed two sets of documents he wants released to the American public. He called for the release of memos from interviews that the FBI conducted with the primary source for dossier author Christopher Steele in January, February and May 2017.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 10/05/2020)  (Archive)

October 6, 2020 - Declassified CIA documents reveal Brennan briefed Obama on Clinton’s plan to tie Trump to Russia

(Illustration: Yahoo News/Associated Press/Getty Images)

“Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified documents revealing that former CIA Director John Brennan had briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s plan to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia — as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Ratcliffe declassified two items — two pages of Brennan’s handwritten notes — taken after he briefed Obama on intelligence the CIA received; and a CIA memo that showed that the CIA referred the matter to the FBI for potential further investigation.

Most of Brennan’s handwritten notes are redacted. However, the unredacted portions say: “We’re [gaining] additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED].”

“Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton [on 26 July] of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to villify [sic] Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services,” he wrote.

An intelligence official said on background about the revelation:

The American people deserve to see how the Obama-Biden White House and their appointees at DOJ and CIA politicized our work, because many of them are trying to regain power now. We just want to keep the American people safe. It’s what we spend every waking hour focusing on. We don’t want to go back to our important work being abused as a political weapon of the Democrats.

The rest of Brennan’s notes appear to be linked to different Obama administration officials — possibly of what they said or wanted follow-up action on.

Enclosure 2 (Dcia Memo, 09-… by Sara

In the left margin, he wrote “POTUS,” and to the right, he then made three bulleted notes. Two are redacted, but one said: “Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia.”

He then wrote “JC” in the left margin — a likely reference to then-FBI Director James Comey, and took four additional bulleted notes on the right, all of which are redacted.

He drew another line, with no additional name, for one bulleted note that is redacted.

Another line was drawn, and below that in the left margin he wrote “Denis” — likely in reference to then-White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, and added one redacted note.

He drew another line, and below it in the left margin wrote “Susan” — likely then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice. To the right, he added five bulleted notes, and put an asterisk by one of the notes. All of the notes are redacted.

RealClearInvestigations journalist Paul Sperry tweeted on Monday evening that the Clinton foreign policy adviser who allegedly proposed vilifying Trump is Jake Sullivan, who is now a top Biden campaign aide.

DEVELOPING: The “foreign policy adviser” who allegedly proposed “vilify[ing] Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services” was Jake Sullivan, now a top Biden aide. Hillary OK’d his proposal on July 26, 2016–days before FBI opened probe

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) October 6, 2020

(Read more: Breitbart, 10/06/2020)  (Archive)

October 8, 2020 - Massive 2020 voter fraud uncovered in Michigan; estimated “800,000 ballot applications sent to non-qualified voters”; guns, burner phones and voter registrations

On October 8, 2020. only one month before the 2020 general election, Muskegon, MI City Clerk Ann Meisch noticed a black female (whose name was redacted from the police report), dropping off between 8,000-10,000 completed voter registration applications at the city clerk’s office.

The Muskegon Police Department was contacted and asked to investigate. On 10/21/20 First Lieutenant Mike Anderson was contacted by Tom Fabus, Chief of Investigations for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s Office. According to the MI State Police report, Mr. Fabus asked for Michigan State Police assistance with a joint investigation of alleged voter fraud being conducted by the Muskegon Police Department and the AG.

On 10/16/20 Muskegon City Clerk Ann Meisch and Deputy Clerk Kimberly Young contacted the Muskegon Police Department after noticing irregularities in voter registration applications received both in person and by mail.

The Muskegon city clerk became suspicious when the female, (whose name is redacted in the first part of the police report, but then later, is unredacted), hand-delivered thousands of voter registrations to her office, many of them in the same handwriting.

On 10/20/20 (deadline day for in-person voter registration applications) the suspect retumed to the *Muskegon City Clerk’s office to deliver additional registration forms in person. Meisch estimated that (suspect) brought an additional 2500 forms. Meisch contacted the Muskegon Police Department and Detective Logan Anderson and Captain Shawn Bride conducted a non-custodial interview with the suspect. 

Meisch stated that in her opinion a quantity of the voter registration forms were highly suspicious and possibly fraudulent.

Meisch’s opinion was based on the fact that numerous forms appeared to have been completed by the same writer and upon initial examination, addresses on multiple forms were invalid or non-existent.

Meisch investigated further and found that phone numbers on multiple forms were erroneous and signatures on multiple forms didn’t appear to match signatures on file with the Department of Secretary of State. Examples included an address in the and another in the [REDACTED]

Those addresses do not exist in the Muskegon City house numbering system. Another form listed 80 W. Southern Ave which is the address for Muskegon High School and is clearly not a residence.

Later in the report, the name of the female suspect was unredacted.

The MI State Police investigator assigned to the case spoke with the female suspect who explained that she was being paid $1150/week “to find un-registered voters and provide them with a form so they can get registered to vote or obtain their absentee ballot.” The only problem is, the handwriting on the voter registrations was the same on several of the registrations and many of the addresses were non-existent or fake.

Two members of AG Dana Nessel’s Criminal Investigation Division were assigned to the operation, yet curiously, she failed to mention the investigation to the public. To this day, Dana Nessel is still claiming there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Michigan, despite the fact that she knew her office and the office of her friend, Michigan’s crooked SOS Jocelyn Benson, were involved with the MI State Police in a large scale investigation that took place across the state before it was taken over by the FBI.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (l) and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (c) (Credit: The Gateway Pundit)

Corey Ames, a MI SOS analyst CONFIRMED “a quantity of the forms they found in their investigation “are clearly fraudulent.”MI SOS Jocelyn Benson also claimed there was no widespread voter fraud in Michigan and neglected to mention the investigation to the public.

Today, The Gateway Pundit and our close friends from Michigan are exposing this damning report. The evidence from this investigation exposes criminal election fraud involving thousands of fraudulent ballots in Michigan by an organization that set up temporary offices in several swing states prior to the 2020 election.

This explosive investigation was covered up and buried from the public, until today.

It should be noted that after documenting these crimes and investigating for weeks, the Michigan police turned their investigation over to the FBI who promptly buried the findings. Once again, the FBI apparently took no action—more on that in an upcoming report. (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 8/08/2023)  (Archive)

October 8, 2020 - Federal judge rules whistleblower case against Clinton Foundation can proceed

Clinton Foundation Whistleblowers: Doyle, Moynihan vs. IRS
In a December 2018 Congressional hearing. (Credit: Fox News)

“A federal judge on Oct. 8 ruled that a whistleblower complaint against the Clinton Foundation can proceed, saying that the IRS “abused its discretion” in attempting to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing by the nonprofit organization.

U.S. Tax Court Judge David Gustafson last week found that the complaint, brought by whistleblowers Lawrence Doyle—a corporate tax compliance expert, and John Moynihan—a former Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) official, “provided ‘specific credible documentation’ supporting their allegations” that the Clinton Foundation potentially evaded paying taxes on millions if not billions of dollars.

The judge struck down the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) request for a summary motion. He said that its Whistleblower Office (WBO) was wrong in denying the whistleblowers’ claims based on an email from the agency’s Criminal Investigation (CI) office that said the complaint was closed.

The record “fails to support the WBO’s conclusion that CI had not proceeded with any action based on petitioners’ information. Accordingly, we deny the motion on the grounds that the WBO abused its discretion in reaching its conclusion, because not all of its factual determinations underlying that conclusion are supported by that record,” Gustafson wrote.

Gustafson also said that based on evidence, he had reason to believe that the FBI was involved in an IRS investigation. He cited information contained within IRS records that had until now been kept secret from the public, in which Doyle and Moynihan discuss their contacts with law enforcement officials. (Read more: The Epoch Times, 10/14/2020)  (Archive)