Meanwhile...... back at the Ranch

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
Top Mueller Officials Coordinated With Fusion GPS Spouse In 2016
The Department of Justice's Bruce Ohr claimed he repeatedly said information was not verified, risked bias, and had been obtained under political circumstances.

A senior Department of Justice official says he repeatedly and specifically told top officials at the FBI and DOJ about dossier author Christopher Steele’s bias and his employer Fusion GPS’ conflicts of interest, information they kept hidden from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These conversations involved high-level officials, including some who are now senior officials in the special counsel probe. And the conversations began taking place in the earliest days of August 2016, much earlier than previously revealed to congressional investigators seeking to learn the facts about the FBI’s decision to spy on the Trump campaign.

Testimony from Bruce Ohr, the demoted associate attorney general at Justice, informs a years-long partisan debate about the role he played in funneling information to the FBI from the terminated source.

Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., expressed concern in February 2018 about Ohr’s role in their memo warning about abuses of the process by which the federal government spied on Trump affiliates. They claimed the high-ranking Justice official was in contact with Steele after the foreign actor had supposedly been terminated with cause as the primary source of negative and outlandish information on Trump.

They also said Ohr, whose wife worked for the very same information operation that Steele did, had shared critical information about the source that did not appear in the applications to spy on Carter Page. Finally, they claimed that Ohr funneled to the FBI his wife’s opposition research, which had been secretly bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Campaign.

All of that is true. If anything, it understates what Ohr admitted to congressional investigators.

Meanwhile, Democrats on the committee, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said the Republican majority overstated Ohr’s role. They claimed Steele’s conversations with the FBI “occurred weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FlSA application.”

In fact, Ohr met with Steele on July 30, 2016, and initiated discussions with top officials within days, continuing to share information from and about the supposedly terminated source, not just through the election but well into the first year of the Trump administration.

Early Meetings With Top Officials
Shortly before Ohr’s testimony in August, The New York Times took part in a bizarre effort to get investigators looking elsewhere. Reporters Michael Shear, Katie Benner, and Nicholas Fandos claimed that it was a “conspiracy theory” to view him as having a role in the Trump dossier saga.

Ohr is an interesting character in the Russia-Trump collusion investigation because his role was unknown for a long time. The former top career official at the Department of Justice was a 27-year veteran with no role in counterintelligence operations. Initially, the FBI and Department of Justice claimed he had no involvement in the probe, despite his marriage to a Fusion GPS contractor. Then they claimed his role was unique and was unknown by others in the department.

It turns out that Ohr kept top officials at both the FBI and Department of Justice apprised of his conversations with Steele, passed along electronic and written materials from multiple Fusion GPS employees, and shared key information that was excluded from the FISA application to the courts.

According to Ohr’s testimony, just days after his July 30, 2016, meeting with Steele, he sought out top FBI officials. His first meeting involved none other than Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who later lost his job for lying about some of his leaks to reporters. Shortly thereafter, Ohr met with top Justice Department officials, including two who now serve on the special counsel.

Mr. Gowdy. How did you find out who to meet with? Who did you call to find out.
Mr. Ohr. So, prior to that meeting, I had — okay. After the July 30th meeting with Chris Steele, I wanted to provide the information he had given me to the FBI. I reached out for Andrew McCabe, at that time, deputy director of the FBI and somebody who had previously led the organized crime, Russian organized crime squad in New York and who I had worked with in the past, and asked if he could meet with me.
I went to his office to provide the information, and Lisa Page was there. So I provided the information to them. And some point after that, I think, I was given Peter Strzok, or somehow put in contact with Peter Strzok.
Mr. Gowdy. And that would have been when?
Mr. Ohr. I don’t recall the exact date. I’m guessing it would have been in August since I met with Chris Steele at the end of July, and I’m pretty sure I would have reached out to Andrew McCabe soon afterwards.​
Ohr also admitted he was talking to top DOJ officials about his chats with Steele and Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson. (For what it’s worth, Simpson testified under oath that he had not met with Ohr during the campaign but Ohr testified that the two did meet during the campaign.)

Mr. Gowdy. Who at the Department knew that you were talking to Chris Steele and Glenn Simpson?
Mr. Ohr. I spoke with some people in the Criminal Division, other career officials who dealt with some of these matters. So —
Mr. Gowdy. Any of them have names?
Mr. Ohr. Yes. So I was about to tell you. One of them was Bruce Swartz, who is the Counselor for International Affairs in the Criminal Division; a person who was working with him at the time, working on similar matters in the Criminal Division was Zainab Ahmad; and a third person who was working on some — some of the matters I believe was Andrew Weissman.​
Bruce Swartz was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division. Andrew Weissmann was the head of the criminal division’s fraud section. A top official on the special counsel, Weissmann is known for destroying the 85,000-employee Arthur Anderson before the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction he got. Zainab Ahmad also works for the special counsel. She previously worked for none other than Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as this glowing profile of her in The New Yorkerdetails.

That Ohr was briefing one of Lynch’s top deputies, and heads of various divisions, counters the previous narrative that Justice officials were in the dark about Ohr’s work. That it took place in late summer refutes the claims he only got involved after the election. Ohr also testified that he met with Peter Strzok and others.

Revealing Bias
In conversations with various members, Ohr claimed he repeatedly made it clear to the FBI that the information was not verified, risked bias, and had been obtained under political circumstances.

He said he was open about his relationship with Steele and Simpson and about the fact his wife was on Simpson’s payroll, working on the same project Steele was. Asked if they were aware of Steele’s bias against Donald Trump, Ohr said “I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected. So, yes, of course, I provided that to the FBI.” He said he told the bureau that Simpson was doing opposition research against Trump.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked specifically about what the FBI had been told before their first FISA application. He said, “So, again, so the record is clear, what the Department of Justice and the FBI was aware of prior to the first FISA application was your relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, your wife’s relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, Mr. Steele’s bias against Donald Trump, your wife’s compensation for work for Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, correct?”

Ohr conferred with his lawyer but said, “Right,” and went on to list the things he told the FBI, including “At some point, and I don’t remember exactly when, I don’t think it was the first conversation, I told them that Chris Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected. So those are all the facts that I provided to the FBI.”

He went on in other lines of questioning, such as this one from Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.:

Mr. Ohr. So when I provided it to the FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information. I don’t know how reliable it is. You’re going to have to check it out and be aware. These guys were hired by somebody relating to — who’s related to the Clinton campaign, and be aware —
Mr. Gowdy. Did you tell the bureau that?
Mr. Ohr. Oh, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Why did you tell the bureau that?
Mr. Ohr. I wanted them to be aware of any possible bias or, you know, as they evaluate the information, they need to know the circumstances.
Mr. Gowdy. So you specifically told the bureau that the information you were passing on came from someone who was employed by the DNC, albeit in a somewhat triangulated way?
Mr. Ohr. I don’t believe I used — I didn’t know they were employees by the DNC, but I certainly said, yes, that — that they were working for — you know, they were somehow working associated with the Clinton campaign. And I also told the FBI that my wife worked for Fusion GPS or was a contractor for GPS, Fusion GPS.
Mr. Gowdy. And, again, you thought it was important to tell the bureau that for bias —
Mr. Ohr. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. — motive, interest in the outcome, all of the reasons that you have to produce —
Mr. Ohr. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. — not complimentary information?
Mr. Ohr. Yes.​
This information did not make it into the FISA applications, which asserted on the basis of an unverified dossier that Page was an agent of Russia. Carter Page, whom the U.S. government spied on for at least a year, has not been charged with any crime.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
Something Different Within The Bruce Ohr Testimony…
Posted on January 18, 2019by sundance
While reading a great article by Mollie Hemmingway at The Federalist, something stands out that might lend a cautious amount of optimism toward ongoing ‘spygate’ investigative inquiries and accountability. There are two distinct differences in the Bruce Ohr testimony as compared to all others released or revealed so far.
The known list of witnesses questioned by the joint House Judiciary and Oversight committees includes: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, and Bruce Ohr.

Until the release of the Ohr transcript all prior reports and leaks of witness testimony have been from the FBI side of ‘spygate’. Bruce Ohr is the first witness from the Main Justice (DOJ) side of the issue.
Within the released witness transcripts, lawyers from the FBI were interceding in the testimony and instructing witness not to answer questions; and/or blocking statements from the witness to the questioners. This pattern exists in Comey, McCabe, Baker, Page, Priestap and Strzok statements. However, there is a stark difference, a much more fulsome set of answers, obvious in the testimony from Bruce Ohr. Example:

[…] Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked specifically about what the FBI had been told before their first FISA application. He said, “So, again, so the record is clear, what the Department of Justice and the FBI was aware of prior to the first FISA application was your relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, your wife’s relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, Mr. Steele’s bias against Donald Trump, your wife’s compensation for work for Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, correct?”
Ohr conferred with his lawyer but said, “Right,” and went on to list the things he told the FBI, including “At some point, and I don’t remember exactly when, I don’t think it was the first conversation, I told them that Chris Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected. So those are all the facts that I provided to the FBI.” (read more)​
By all appearances, the Bruce Ohr testimony was far more direct and open. As a result the transcript provides substantially more weight to deconstruct the fraudulent narrative found amid claims and leaks from the FBI side of witnesses questioned. [See Here and See Here]
Question: Could it be that the absence of FBI lawyers, focused on FBI stakeholder interests, led to a more truthful end result from the Ohr testimony?
If so… could that not indicate a stronger likelihood the epicenter of the illicit “spygate” origination motive and intents lies factually in the FBI and not in Main Justice.
In Lisa Page’s transcript (as leaked) she outlined the conflict and schism between the FBI operation in 2016/2017 and across the street at the DOJ.
[…] According to Page, the ongoing dispute with the DOJ ran from “February/March-ish of 2016” to June of 2016. Page also noted one other critical factor in the investigation: “the FBI cannot execute a search warrant without approval from the Justice Department.” (more)
Following this line of possibility – one could infer that Main Justice priority (Lynch and Yates) was the exoneration/protection of Hillary Clinton; however, the FBI side of the overall effort (Comey and more specifically McCabe) was prioritized around the removal of candidate Trump (via ‘spygate’ writ large).
In the aftermath of the corrupt enterprise, and as the house of tenuous cards begins to collapse, the exoneration of Clinton is the lesser risk; and the discoveries of how far out of bounds the FBI and Intelligence Community traveled becomes the bigger risk.
If Andrew McCabe (and the FBI Team) were indeed the architect and primary control official in the targeting of Donald Trump, it would stand to reason the FBI lawyers would have a different set of priorities to defend the corrupted institution.
In addition to the substance within the testimony, perhaps the absence of lawyers protecting FBI interests is why Bruce Ohr’s testimony is so damaging….
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
FISA shocker: DOJ official warned Steele dossier was connected to Clinton, might be biased

When the annals of mistakes and abuses in the FBI’s Russia investigation are finally written, Bruce Ohr almost certainly will be the No. 1 witness, according to my sources.

The then-senior Department of Justice (DOJ) official briefed both senior FBI and DOJ officials in summer 2016 about Christopher Steele’s Russia dossier, explicitly cautioning that the British intelligence operative’s work was opposition research connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and might be biased.

Ohr’s briefings, in July and August 2016, included the deputy director of the FBI, a top lawyer for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a Justice official who later would become the top deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller.

At the time, Ohr was the associate deputy attorney general. Yet his warnings about political bias were pointedly omitted weeks later from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant that the FBI obtained from a federal court, granting it permission to spy on whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the 2016 presidential election.

Ohr’s activities, chronicled in handwritten notes and congressional testimony I gleaned from sources, provide the most damning evidence to date that FBI and DOJ officials may have misled federal judges in October 2016 in their zeal to obtain the warrant targeting Trump adviser Carter Page just weeks before Election Day.

They also contradict a key argument that House Democrats have made in their formal intelligence conclusions about the Russia case.

Since it was disclosed last year that Steele’s dossier formed a central piece of evidence supporting the FISA warrant, Justice and FBI officials have been vague about exactly when they learned that Steele’s work was paid for by the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

A redacted version of the FISA application released last year shows the FBI did not mention any connection to the DNC or Clinton. Rather, it referred to Steele as a reliable source in past criminal investigations who was hired by a person working for a U.S. law firm to conduct research on Trump and Russia.

The FBI claimed it was “unaware of any derogatory information” about Steele, that Steele was “never advised … as to the motivation behind the research” but that the FBI “speculates” that those who hired Steele were “likely looking for information to discredit” Trump’s campaign.

Yet, in testimony last summer to congressional investigators, Ohr revealed the FBI and Justice lawyers had no need to speculate: He explicitly warned them in a series of contacts, beginning July 31, 2016, that Steele expressed biased against Trump and was working on a project connected to the Clinton campaign.
Ohr had firsthand knowledge about the motive and the client: He had just met with Steele on July 30, 2016, and Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS, the same firm employing Steele.

“I certainly told the FBI that Fusion GPS was working with, doing opposition research on Donald Trump,” Ohr told congressional investigators, adding that he warned the FBI that Steele expressed bias during their conversations.

“I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected,” he added. “So, yes, of course I provided that to the FBI.”

When pressed why he would offer that information to the FBI, Ohr answered: “In case there might be any kind of bias or anything like that.” He added later, “So when I provided it to the FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information, I don’t know how reliable it is. You’re going to have to check it out and be aware.”

Ohr went further, saying he disclosed to FBI agents that his wife and Steele were working for the same firm and that it was conducting the Trump-Russia research project at the behest of Trump’s Democratic rival, the Clinton campaign.

“These guys were hired by somebody relating to, who’s related to the Clinton campaign and be aware,” Ohr told Congress, explaining what he warned the bureau.

Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented both the DNC and the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election, belatedly admitted it paid Fusion GPS for Steele’s work on behalf of the candidate and party and disguised the payments as legal bills when, in fact, it was opposition research.

When asked if he knew of any connection between the Steele dossier and the DNC, Ohr responded that he believed the project was really connected to the Clinton campaign.

“I didn’t know they were employed by the DNC but I certainly said yes that they were working for, you know, they were somehow working, associated with the Clinton campaign,” he answered.

“I also told the FBI that my wife worked for Fusion GPS or was a contractor for GPS, Fusion GPS.”

Ohr divulged his first contact with the FBI was on July 31, 2016, when he reached out to then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI attorney Lisa Page. He then was referred to the agents working Russia counterintelligence, including Peter Strzok, the now-fired agent who played a central role in starting the Trump collusion probe.

But Ohr’s contacts about the Steele dossier weren’t limited to the FBI. He said in August 2016 — nearly two months before the FISA warrant was issued — that he was asked to conduct a briefing for senior Justice officials.

Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ’s fraud section; Bruce Swartz, longtime head of DOJ’s international operations, and Zainab Ahmad, an accomplished terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor.

Ahmad and Weissmann would go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the Russia probe.

Ohr’s extensive testimony also undercuts one argument that House Democrats sought to make last year.

When Republicans, in early 2018, first questioned Ohr’s connections to Steele, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee sought to minimize the connection, insisting he only worked as an informer for the FBI after Steele was fired by the FBI in November 2016.

The memo from Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) team claimed that Ohr’s contacts with the FBI only began “weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FISA application.”

But Ohr’s testimony now debunks that claim, making clear he started talking to FBI and DOJ officials well before the FISA warrant or election had occurred.

And his detailed answers provide a damning rebuttal to the FBI’s portrayal of the Steele material.

In fact, the FBI did have derogatory information on Steele: Ohr explicitly told the FBI that Steele was desperate to defeat the man he was investigating and was biased.

And the FBI knew the motive of the client and did not have to speculate: Ohr told agents the Democratic nominee’s campaign was connected to the research designed to harm Trump’s election chances.

Such omissions are, by definition, an abuse of the FISA system.

Don’t take my word for it. Fired FBI Director James Comey acknowledged it himself when he testified last month that the FISA court relies on an honor system, in which the FBI is expected to divulge exculpatory evidence to the judges.

“We certainly consider it our obligation, because of our trust relationship with federal judges, to present evidence that would paint a materially different picture of what we're presenting,” Comey testified on Dec. 7, 2018. “You want to present to the judge reviewing your application a complete picture of the evidence, both its flaws and its strengths.”

Comey claims he didn't know about Ohr's contacts with Steele, even though his top deputy, McCabe, got the first contact.

But none of that absolves his FBI, or the DOJ for that matter, from failing to divulge essential and exculpatory information from Ohr to the FISA court.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City

Bruce Ohr's testimony on anti-Trump dossier at odds with Adam Schiff's version

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Sunday, January 20, 2019

Senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr has provided a point-by-point narrative of his actions promoting the 2016 Democratic Party-financed dossier that conflicts with Rep. Adam B. Schiff’s official version, according to a comparison of the two.

Mr. Schiff, a California Democrat and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who has promised a wide investigation of President Trump, issued a memo last year on the FBI’s early-on investigation into the Republican’s campaign.

It was a counter to a report issued Feb. 2 by Rep. Devin Nunes, a California Republican who was chairing the committee. Mr. Nunes won White House approval to declassify excerpts from FBI documents to show that the bureau relied heavily on the unverified dossier to gain a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page for one year. His report included a summary of the FBI application to a judge under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

He accused the FBI of improperly relying on a partisan document compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Nunes said the FBI failed to tell judges that the dossier was basically a Democratic Party product. Mr. Steele remains on the payroll of wealthy liberal donors trying to unseat Mr. Trump.

Mr. Schiff’s rebuttal report downplayed the dossier’s role. His version was overwhelmingly accepted by the liberal media, which declared the Nunes memo “debunked.”

Nunes supporters say his assessment has survived the test of time as more information reaches daylight. In July, the FBI released a redacted copy of the FISA application to which Mr. Nunes had referred. Supporters say its information dovetailed with his report.

The most recent disclosure is Mr. Ohr’s closed-door testimony in August to a joint House judiciary-oversight task force. Parts of the transcript were first reported Jan. 14 by The Epoch Times.

Point by point

Mr. Schiff’s report downplayed Mr. Ohr’s dossier role. At the time, Mr. Ohr was an associate deputy attorney general who reported to the No. 2 official in the Justice Department.

“The majority mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr’s role, overstates the significance of his interaction with Steele. … Bruce Ohrtook the initiative to inform the FBI of what he knew and the Majority does him a grave disservice by suggesting he is part of some malign conspiracy,” the Schiff report states.

Ohr testimony: For months, Mr. Ohr was the key link among the FBI, Mr. Steele and Fusion GPS, the firm that handled him as he submitted anti-Trump memos from June to December 2016.

Mr. Ohr was unclear about his motive for his self-appointed mission. His wife, Nellie, worked at Fusion as an anti-Trump researcher. She provided a thumb drive of her work, which Mr. Ohr handed to the FBI. Mr. Ohr also delivered a thumb drive from Fusion that contained dossier memos.

He met with Mr. Steele in July 2016 and had sessions with Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson. They both provided anti-Trump allegations that Mr. Ohr provided the FBI.

Mr. Ohr’s messenger job for Mr. Steele continued until November 2017.

Mr. Schiff’s report said Mr. Ohr didn’t go to the FBI with the Steele allegations until November 2016, a month after the FBI executed its first spy warrant on Carter Page. Mr. Schiff’s timeline asserts that Mr. Ohr’s feed had no effect on the FBI’s FISA application.

Ohr testimony: Mr. Schiff’s chronology is wrong. Mr. Ohr first met with Mr. Steele in July and personally conveyed the allegations at FBI headquarters in August to Andrew McCabe, the bureau’s No. 2 agent, and his legal counsel, Lisa Page.

Mr. Ohr met again with Mr. Steele in September. In October, before the FISA application, he met with Peter Strzok, the agent leading the Trump investigation, which he opened on July 31. He also spoke with Ms. Page and Andrew Weissmann, a Justice Department lawyer now on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

After the election in late November, Mr. Ohr again met with Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page. He also was introduced to agent Joe Pientka, who became his go-between.

In September, Mr. Strzok sent his counterintelligence team to London to gain more information from Mr. Steele, who provided dossier memos. At the time, the FBI knew that Russian agents had hacked Democratic Party computers and had sent stolen emails to WikiLeaks. The anti-secrecy website released the emails in July, September and October, creating scores of news stories on internal Clinton campaign operations.

Mr. Schiff’s report defended the FBI against Mr. Nunes‘ charge that the bureau hid the dossier’s pure partisanship. The California Democrat pointed to a FISA warrant application footnote: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit candidate #1’s campaign.”

The “U.S. person” was Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson.

Ohr testimony: When meeting with the FBI before the FISA application, Mr. Ohr knew Fusion was linked to the Clinton camp and warned Mr. McCabe that Mr. Steele was “desperate” to sink Mr. Trump.

In other words, the FBI knew firsthand of Fusion’s motives, as opposed to “speculates.”

Of the August 2016 FBI meeting, Mr. Ohr testified: “When I spoke with the FBI, I told them my wife was working for Fusion GPS. I told them Fusion GPS was doing research on Donald Trump. You know, I don’t know if I used the term opposition research, but certainly that was my — what I tried to convey to them. I told them this is the information I had gotten from Chris Steele. At some point, and I don’t remember exactly when, I don’t think it was the first conversation, I told them that Chris Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected.”

He added: “What I would say is that, in evaluating any information that I transmitted to the FBI, I wanted the FBI to be aware of any possible bias.”

Question: “So you believe there was the possibility of bias?”

Mr. Ohr: “Yes.”

He also testified: “I definitely had a very strong impression that he did not want Donald Trump to win, because he believed his information he was giving me was accurate, and that he was, as I said, very concerned, or he was desperate, which is what I then told the FBI.”

The fallout

Overall, Mr. Ohr’s testimony shows he played a major role in inserting Mr. Steele’s anti-Trump allegations inside the upper echelons of FBI headquarters. What followed was Mr. Strzok’s decision to dispatch agents to London in September to receive their first dossier copies.

Mr. Ohr also gave the agency copies, as did Obama appointees at the State Department and Sen. John McCain, who hand-delivered a copy to then-FBI Director James B. Comey.

Beyond Mr. Ohr’s House testimony, Mr. Nunes‘ supporters have pointed to other supposed errors in Mr. Schiff’s 2018 report.

Mr. Schiff said the FBI “independently corroborated” Mr. Steele’s allegation that Mr. Page, while on a public trip to Moscow in July 2016, met with two associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin. They offered Mr. Page, an energy investor who had lived in Moscow, bribes for working to ease U.S. sanctions.

Mr. Page has repeatedly denied any such meetings took place.

If Mr. Steele’s allegations were in fact confirmed, as Mr. Schiff said in 2018, they have not shown up in any Mueller court filings or charges against Mr. Page.

Overall, not one of Mr. Steele’s Russia election collusion charges against Mr. Trump and his associates has been confirmed publicly.

Mr. McCabe told the committee in December 2017 that the FBI hadn’t confirmed Mr. Steele’s charges. He also said the dossier was essential to gaining court-approved wiretaps.

In November 2016, an internal FBI report graded Mr. Steele’s dossier as only “minimally corroborated.”

Mr. McCabe was fired for allegedly lying to investigators for the Justice Department inspector general.

He opened an investigation into whether Mr. Trump was a Russian agent after the president fired Mr. Comey in May 2017, The New York Times reported.

Mr. Strzok was fired for a stream of text messages with Ms. Page denigrating Mr. Trump and discussing how to “stop” him. Ms. Page resigned.

The Ohr-Steele link continued until November 2017. Mr. Steele would call or text, and Mr. Ohr would pass along his latest charges to the FBI.

CNN reported that Mr. Steele met with Mr. Mueller’s staff in October 2017.

Meanwhile, Mr. Schiff, an active Twitter user, hasn’t responded to Mr. Ohr’s testimony.

House Democrats have said they have no interest in continuing the probe into Mr. Steele or into how the FBI investigated Mr. Trump.


It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
Meanwhile the Clinton Foundation is anxious to renew their relationship with Russia.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
Death Of Russiagate: Mueller Team Tied To Mifsud’s Network

January 21, 2019 Elizabeth Vos
In April last year, Disobedient Media broke coverage of the British involvement in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, asking why All Russiagate Roads Lead To London, via the quasi-scholar Joseph Mifsud and others.
The issue was also raised by WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange, just days before the Ecuadorian government silenced him last March. Assange’s Twitter thread cited research by Chris Blackburn, who spoke with Disobedient Media on multiple occasions covering Joseph Mifsud’s ties to British intelligence figures and organizations, as well as his links to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign, the FBI, CIA and the private cyber-security firm Crowdstrike.
We return, now, to this issue and specifically the research of Chris Blackburn, to place the final nail in the coffin of the Trump-Russia collusion charade. Blackburn’s insights are incredible not only because they return us to the earliest reporting on the role of British intelligence figures in manufacturing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but because they also implicate members of Mueller’s investigation. What we are left with is an indication of collusion between factions of the US and UK intelligence community in fabricating evidence of Trump-Russia collusion: a scandal that would have rocked the legacy press to its core, if Western establishment-backed media had a spine.
In Disobedient Media’s previous coverage of Blackburn’s work, he described his experience in intelligence:
“I’ve been involved in numerous investigations that involve counter-intelligence techniques in the past. I used to work for the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism, one of the biggest tort actions in American history. I helped build a profile of Osama bin Laden’s financial and political network, which was slightly different to the one that had been built by the CIA’s Alec Station, a dedicated task force which was focused on Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Alec Station designed its profile to hunt Osama bin Laden and disrupt his network. I thought it was flawed. It had failed to take into account Osama’s historical links to Pakistan’s main political parties or that he was the figurehead for a couple of organizations, not just Al-Qaeda.”
“I also ran a few conferences for US intelligence leaders during the Bush administration. After the 9/11 Commission published its report into the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon it created a public outreach program. The US National Intelligence Conference and Exposition (Intelcon) was one of the avenues it used. I was responsible for creating the ‘View from Abroad’ track. We had guidance from former Senator Slade Gorton and Jamie Gorelick, who both sat on the 9/11 Commission. We got leaders such as Sir John Chilcot and Baroness Pauline Neville Jones to come and help share their experiences on how the US would be able to heal the rifts after 9/11.”
“The US intelligence community was suffering from severe turf wars and firewalls, which were hampering counter-terrorism efforts. They were concentrating on undermining each other rather than tackling terrorism. I had mainly concentrated on the Middle East, but in 2003 I switched my focus to terrorism in South Asia.”
Counter Terrorism, Not Counter Intelligence, Sparked Probe
In an article published by The Telegraph last November, the paper acknowledged the following:
“It forces the spotlight on whether the UK played a role in the FBI’s investigation launched before the 2016 presidential election into Trump campaign ties to the Kremlin… Mr. Trump’s allies and former advisers are raising questions about the UK’s role in the start of the probe, given many of the key figures and meetings were located in Britain… One former top White House adviser to Mr. Trump made similar insinuations, telling this newspaper: “You know the Brits are up to their neck.” The source added on the Page wiretap application: “I think that stuff is going to implicate MI5 and MI6 in a bunch of activities they don’t want to be implicated in, along with FBI, counter-terrorism and the CIA.” [Emphasis Added]
The article cites George Papadopoulos, who asked why the “British intelligence apparatus was weaponized against Trump and his advisers.” Papadopoulos has also addressed the issue at length via Twitter. In response to the Telegraph’s coverage of the issue, Chris Blackburn wrote via Twitter: “The Telegraph story on Trump Russia acknowledges that activities involving counter-terrorism are at the heart of the scandal…not counter-intelligence. If the [London Centre for International Law Practice] was British state, not private, some Commonwealth countries are going to be seriously pissed off.”
Blackburn spoke with Disobedient Media, saying: “If you factor in the dreadful reporting to discredit Joseph Mifsud and leaks, it is pretty clear something rather strange happened to George Papadopoulos during the campaign while he was shuttling around Europe and the Middle East. He was working with people who have intelligence links at the London Centre of International Law Practice. A recent article in The Telegraph also alludes to MI5, MI6, and CIA using counter-terrorism assets which would tie into the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP), and its sister organizations, doing counter-terrorism work for the Australian, UK and US governments. They quote anonymous officials who believe that their intelligence agencies used counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal.” [Emphasis Added]
Blackburn discussed this differentiation with Disobedient Media: “Counter-terrorism is obviously involved in more kinetic, violent political actions-concerning mass casualty events, bombings, assassinations, poisonings, and hacking. But, the lines are blurring between them. Counter-intelligence cases have been known to stretch for decades- often relying on nothing more than paranoia and suspicion to fuel investigations. Counter-terrorism is also a broader discipline as it involves tactical elements like hostage rescue, crime scene investigations, and explosive specialists. Counter-Terrorism is a collaborative effort with counter-terrorism officers working closely with local and regional police forces and civic organizations. There is also a wider academic field around countering violent, and radical ideology which promotes terrorism and insurgencies. Cybersecurity has become the third major discipline in intelligence. The London Center of International Law Practice, the mysterious intelligence company that employed both Papadopoulos and Mifsud, had also been working in that area.”
Continuing, Blackburn pinpointed the significance of defining counter-terrorism as the starting point of the investigation, saying: “It shows that there is a high probability that intelligence was deliberately abused to make Papadopoulos’ activities look like they were something else. As counter-terrorism and counterintelligence are close in tactics and methods, it would seem that they were used because they share the same skill sets – covert evidence gathering and deception. It’s basically sleight of hand. A piece of theatre would be more precise. However, we don’t know if the FBI knew it was real or make-believe. It’s more likely that the CIA played the FBI with the help of close allies who were suspicious and frightened of a Trump presidency.”
Mueller’s Team And Joseph Mifsud
Zainab Ahmad, a member of Mueller’s legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn, Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security event in 2017. In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter: “Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC Mueller? She was at a GCCS event in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George Papadopoulos] and [Simona Mangiante]. She’s a GCCS consultant.”
Blackburn told this author: “Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May 2017, she attended a counter-terrorism conference in New York with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian spy, had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.”
Zainab Ahmad (AHMAD). Image via the Combatting Terrorism Center, West Point
“Richard Barrett, the Former Chief of Counter-Terrorism at MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence department traveled with Mifsud to Saudi Arabia to give a talk on terrorism in 2017. Ex-CIA officers, US Defense, and US Treasury officials were also there. The London Centre of International Law Practice’s relationship to the Global Center had been established in 2014. The Global Center on Cooperative Security made Martin Polaine and Arvinder Sambei consultants, they then became directors at the London Centre of International Law Practice.”
“The Global Center on Cooperative Security’s first major UK conference was at Joseph Mifsud’s London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD). Mifsud then followed Arvinder Sambei and Nagi Idris over to the London Centre of International Law Practice. Sources have told me that Mifsud was moonlighting as a specialist on counter-terrorism and Islamism while working at LAD which explains why he went to work in counter-terrorism after LAD folded.”
“I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Global Center on Cooperative Security is connected to various elements that popped up in the Papadopoulos case. The fact that a prosecutor on Mueller’s team was at Global Center before Mueller was appointed as special counsel is also troubling.”
Days ago, The Hill reported on Congressional testimony by Bruce Ohr, revealing that when served as a DOJ official, he warned FBI and DOJ figures that the Steele dossier was problematic and linked to the Clintons. Critically, The Hill writes:
“Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ’s fraud section; Bruce Swartz, longtime head of DOJ’s international operations, and Zainab Ahmad, an accomplished terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor. Ahmad and Weissmann would go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the Russia probe.” [Emphasis Added]
This point is essential, as it not only describes Ahmad’s role in Mueller’s team but places her at a crucial pre-investigation meeting.
Last year, Blackburn noted the connection between Mifsud and Arvinder Sambei, writing: “LCILP director and FBI counsel, works with Mike Smith at the Global Center. They ran joint counter-terrorism conferences and training with Mifsud’s London Academy. Sambei then brought Mifsud over to the [London Centre of International Law Practice]. [Global Center works with Aussies, UK and US State too.”
Sambei has been described elsewhere as a “Former practising barrister, Senior Crown Prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service of England & Wales, and Legal Adviser at the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), Ministry of Defence.” [British spelling has been retained]
Arvinder Sambei. Image via the Public International Law Advisory Group
That Sambei has been so thoroughly linked to organizations where Mifsud was a central figure is yet another cause of suspicion regarding allegations that Joseph Mifsud was a shadowy, unknown Russian agent until the summer of 2016. She is also a direct link between Robert Mueller and Mifsud.
Blackburn wrote via Twitter: “Arvinder Sambei helped to organize LCILP’s counter-terrorism and corruption events. She used her contacts in the US to bring in Middle Eastern government officials that were seen to be vulnerable to graft. Lisa Osofsky, former FBI Deputy General Counsel, was working with her.” Below, Arvinder is pictured at a London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP) event.
Arvinder Sambei, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
As Chris Blackburn told this author: “Mifsud and Papadopoulos’s co-director Arvinder Sambei was also the former FBI British counsel working 9/11 cases for Robert Mueller. She also runs a consultancy which deals with Special Investigative Measure (SIMs) which is just a posh description for covert espionage and evidence gathering. She has worked for major intelligence and national law agencies in the past. She wore two hats as a director of London Centre and a consultant for the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), a counter-terrorism think tank which is sponsored by the Australia, Canada, UK and US governments. Alexander Downer’s former Chief of Staff while at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade now works for the Global Center. Mifsud was also due to meet with Australian private intelligence figures in Adelaide in March 2016. So. Australia is certainly a major focus for the investigation.” [Emphasis Added]
Below, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Lisa Osofsky is pictured at a London Centre for International Law Practice event. Osofsky also served as the Money Laundering Reporting Officer with Goldman Sachs International. Since 2018, she has served as the Director of the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
Lisa Osofsky, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
An Embarrassment For John Brennan?
Disobedient Media previously reported that Robert Hannigan, then head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share ‘director-to-director’ level intelligence with then-CIA Chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016. This writer noted that “The Guardian reported Hannigan’s announcement that he would step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23 January 2017. Jane Mayer, in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the New Yorker, also noted that Hannigan had flown to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing “deemed so sensitive it was handled at director-level” is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers at the NSA, GCHQ’s Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner.”
Blackburn told Disobedient Media: “Former Congressman Trey Gowdy, who has seen most of the information gathered by Congress from the intelligence community concerning the Russia investigation, said that if President Trump were to declassify files and present the truth to the American public, it would “embarrass John Brennan.” I think that is pretty concrete for me, but it’s not definitive. I know the polarization and spin in Washington has become perverse, but that statement is pretty specific for me. If Brennan is involved, it is most probably through Papadopoulos who sparked off the ‘official’ investigation at the FBI. He also made sure the Steele dossier was spread through the US government.”
Blackburn added: “Chris Steele was also working on FIFA projects, and a source has told me that he was working to investigate the Russian and Qatari World Cup bids. The London Centre of International Law Practice has been working with Majed Garoub, the former Saudi legal representative of FIFA, the world governing body for soccer. He’s also been working against the Qatari bid. Steele likes to get paid twice for his investigations.”
“Mifsud has also been associated with Prince Turki the former Saudi intelligence chief, Mifsud and the London Academy of Diplomacy used to train Saudi diplomats and intelligence figures while Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to London. Turki is a close friend of Bill Clinton and John Brennan. Nawaf Obaid was also courting Mifsud and tried to get him a cushy job working with CNN’s Freedom Project at Link Campus in Rome. He also knows John Brennan. Intelligence agencies like to give out professional gifts like this plum academic position for completing missions. In the US, it is widely known that intelligence agencies gift the children of assets to get them into prestigious Ivy League schools.”
At minimum, we can surmise that Mifsud was not a Russian agent, but was an asset of Western intelligence agencies. We are left with the impression that the Mifsud saga served as a ploy, whether he participated knowingly or not. It seems reasonable to conclude that the gambit was initially developed with participation of John Brennan and UK intelligence. Following this, Mueller inherited and developed the Mifsud narrative thread into the collusion soap opera we know today.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal to subvert a US Presidency, and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City

Who Leaked the Bogus WikiLeaks Email About Don Jr.?
By Julie Kelly| January 25th, 2019

The Trump presidential campaign’s alleged ties to WikiLeaks have been a pivotal piece of the Trump-Russia “collusion” story since the beginning. In order to mitigate the damage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy after WikiLeaks in July 2016 released damning emails swiped from the Democratic National Committee’s server, Clinton’s team skillfully changed the subject by claiming Russia was behind the hack and suggested the Trump campaign had a hand in it, too.

WikiLeaks is back in the news for two reasons. First is the arrest on Friday of former Trump associate Roger Stone, who Special Counsel Robert Mueller alleges made false statements about his communications with the group.

Second, and far more interesting, is renewed allegations by Donald Trump, Jr. that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) leaked details about Don Jr.’s contact with WikiLeaks during the campaign—information that was erroneous and resulted in major correction by CNN, the news organization that first reported the bogus story.

In an interview with Fox News last week, Don Jr. said “there’s a 99.9 percent chance” that Schiff was “the guy that was leaking my testimony as I was testifying.”

“I came out of testimony at about 8 o’clock looking [at my phone] and CNN is running quotes from noon on about my testimony . . . I would bet a lot of money it was him.”

For more than a year, the people who leaked unauthorized information about Don Jr.’s closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on December 6, 2017, have not been officially identified, let alone punished. It is just one more frustrating example of how government insiders, in collaboration with their accomplices in the press, escape accountability for their role in perpetuating a seditious plot to take down a presidency.

The Big Scoop That Wasn’t
Schiff has been particularly fixated on Donald Trump, Jr. and desperate to prove his ties to Kremlin surrogates. From Don Jr.’s infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer (who shared a Russian client with Fusion GPS) to direct messages on Twitter between Don Jr. and WikiLeaks during the campaign, Schiff has gleefully amplified any perceived sketchy connection to prove somehow that the president’s oldest son coordinated with the Kremlin to interfere in the election.

But Schiff apparently flubbed one high-level disclosure, and he still refuses to answer directly whether he was the source of the unauthorized leak that gave CNN the wrong date on a critical September 2016 email from WikiLeaks to Don Jr.

Shortly after Don Jr.’s testimony, CNN ran a big scoop that WikiLeaks had sent an email to Don Jr. on September 4, 2016, furnishing details about how to access an additional trove of DNC documents.

“Trump Jr. was asked about the WikiLeaks email Wednesday when he was questioned in the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors, several sources familiar with the exchange told CNN,” reported correspondent Manu Raju on December 8.

The point of the story was to suggest that Trump’s son and top campaign advisor had advanced knowledge of hacked emails and that he was secretly plotting with Julian Assange to manage their release to inflict maximum damage on the Clinton campaign. (Don Jr.’s legal team voluntarily furnished the email to lawmakers ahead of the interview.) To bolster its scoop, CNN also cited as evidence a tweet from Don Jr. posted September 4, 2016, that ominously linked to a news article about WikiLeaks. Other news outlets eagerly ran with the story, including NBC News.

But later that day, CNN had to make a major and consequential correction to that scoop. The email actually was dated September 14, not September 4. Whoops!

The 10-day gap is significant because WikiLeaks itself made the documents available to the public on September 13. “The new details appear to show that the sender was relying on publicly available information,” the corrected article confessed. “The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.”

Unanswered Questions
A few days later, Don Jr.’s lawyer sent a letter to the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee demanding an investigation into the leaks that had occurred both during and after his client’s confidential testimony.

“In advance of the Interview, Mr. Trump Jr. and his counsel were assured by this committee that, in accordance with its rules of procedure, the Interview would be kept strictly confidential and not discussed publicly unless and until the full Committee voted to release the transcript,” Alan Futerfas, Don Jr.’s attorney, wrote. “Certain members of this Committee and/or their staff began disseminating wildly inaccurate information concerning a September 14, 2016 email sent to my client. These disturbing circumstances warrant examination.”

That letter was dated December 12, 2017; no one yet has been held accountable. It is unclear whether an inquiry by House Democrats is ongoing, and Don Jr.’s testimony is set to be released publicly pending approval by the Justice Department.

Last week, Schiff still refused directly to answer whether he was one of the unnamed officials responsible for leaking the (erroneous) details about the WikiLeaks email. When pressed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer three times whether he indeed leaked Don Jr.’s testimony, Schiff only responded in vague terms while essentially admitting he did tell the media that the president’s son had been “uncooperative” during his interview.

But considering Schiff’s odd obsession with the president’s son, his well-known penchant for leaking and his desire to be a media star, the California Democrat’s protestations are unconvincing.

“Everyone knows Schiff is the biggest, most shameless leaker in Washington and a craven media ambulance chaser,” one House Republican involved in the Russian investigations told me. “He’s got precisely two goals: to appear non-stop on cable news, and to slime Trump and all his associates with constant accusations that they’re traitors and Russia colluders—just like he did with Donald Trump Jr.”

Once again, the American public was witness to two distinct set of rules this week: When you are on the wrong side politically, you are hauled out of your home at dawn in your pajamas by FBI agents wielding firearms. When you are on the right side politically, you not only escape justice, you earn accommodating news coverage while controlling powerful government committees. (Schiff still has not corrected his misleading memo to Congress on FISA abuse from February 2018.)

Answers and accountability remain elusive hopes for millions of Americans who frustratingly watch this scenario play on a constant loop in Washington.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
Feds Refuse to Unseal Documents on FBI Deep State Raid of Clinton Foundation Whistleblower that Implicate Mueller
by Jim Hoft January 27, 2019 264 C

On the morning of November 19th, sixteen FBI agents raided the Maryland home of a DOJ whistleblower who was in possession of Clinton Foundation and Uranium One documents. The whistleblower came across the devastating documents while he was working for an FBI contractor, according to the whistleblower’s lawyer. (Note: This order was likely in the works before Jeff Sessions was fired.)

The Daily Caller exclusively reported that the whistleblower, Dennis Nathan Cain, had given these documents to Inspector General Horowitz and both the House and Senate Intel Committees.

Over a dozen FBI agents rifled through Dennis Nathan Cain’s home for over six hours even though he had already given the documents to the proper investigative channels, according to his lawyer.
The documents reveal then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to investigate criminal misconduct by Rosatam, the Russian nuclear firm that purchased 20% of the US’s Uranium.

In December the DOJ pushed back on requests to explain its reasons for raiding the Dennis Nathan Cain’s home.

And now a federal court refuses to unseal the documents to the public on why it was necessary for the DOJ to raid the home of a Clinton Foundation whistleblower.

Are you starting to understand that we have a two-tiered legal systems in America today?
** There is a DOJ-FBI and media complex that protects Democrats and destroys and hides any record of Democrat wrongdoing.
** There is a DOJ that arrests and jails Republicans and Trump supporters and threatens and destroys anyone associated with the Trump movement.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported:

A federal court refused to unseal government documents that permitted the FBI to raid the home of a reportedly recognized whistleblower who, according to his lawyer, delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a presidentially appointed watchdog.
The U.S. District Court of Maryland’s Chief Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner, a Clinton appointee, also sealed her justification for keeping the documents secret in a single-page Dec. 20 order.
On Nov. 15, federal Magistrate Judge Stephanie Gallagher authorized the raid on Dennis Cain’s Union Bridge, Maryland, home. She sealed the government documents justifying it.​


BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
I pray that somehow this deep state corruption can be rooted out and we can live without fear of a government run amok. Pie in the sky dream unfortunately.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
New details of 2016 meeting with Trump dossier author conflict with Dems’ timeline

By Catherine Herridge

New details contained in congressional transcripts and emails about a July 2016 meeting involving the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, and his wife, Nellie, appear to conflict with claims from Democrats -- and the co-founder of the firm behind the dossier -- that significant contacts did not occur until after the election.

According to the records, the little-known breakfast meeting was held on July 30, 2016 at Washington, D.C.’s Mayflower Hotel.

Congressional transcripts, confirmed by Fox News, showed Nellie Ohr told House investigators last year that Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled the dossier, wanted to get word to the FBI at the time.

“My understanding was that Chris Steele was hoping that Bruce (Ohr) could put in a word with the FBI to follow-up in some way,” Nellie Ohr testified in response to a Republican line of questioning, regarding the purpose of the meeting. Bruce Ohr did just that, almost immediately contacting then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

Asked by House investigators what they talked about at the breakfast meeting, Nellie Ohr said: “[Steele’s] suspicions that Russian Government figures were supporting the candidacy of Donald Trump.”

The transcripts came from closed-door interviews conducted last year by the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees when they were under Republican control. The transcripts are undergoing an FBI and DOJ review and are not public.

Nellie Ohr was of interest to investigators since she conducted opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump for the firm Fusion GPS – the same company that commissioned the dossier. Her husband, meanwhile, is a senior official at the Justice Department who became a back channel between Steele and the FBI, after Steele was fired by the bureau on the eve of the 2016 presidential election over his contacts with the media.

In her testimony, Nellie Ohr also said that pieces of the unverified dossier – which later would be used to secure a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign aide Carter Page – may have been shared during the meal.

In response to a committee Democrat's line of questioning, Ohr stated, "At the breakfast, I – if I recall correctly, they may have shown pieces ..." of the document.

Ohr said she never saw the entire body of opposition research, later dubbed the "dossier," until it was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017.

Question: "Okay. And you hadn't seen it or its portions during the time that you were employed, correct?"

Ohr: "I -- if I recall correctly, I may have seen a -- maybe a page or something of it at the breakfast."

Email traffic, reviewed by Fox News, indicated that Steele broached the possibility of a meeting with Bruce Ohr as early as July 1, 2016.

He emailed Ohr at the time: "I am seeing [redacted] in London next week to discuss ongoing business but there is something separate I wanted to discuss with you informally and separately. It concerns our favourite business tycoon!"

Subsequent emails between Ohr and Steele also confirmed the July 30 meeting in Washington.

Nellie Ohr’s testimony regarding Steele and the FBI would appear to align with her husband’s.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
The Stunning Importance of What Devin Nunes Said Yesterday – Rosenstein Made President Trump Mueller’s Target…
Posted on January 28, 2019by sundance

Devin Nunes dropped a bombshell yesterday in an interview with Maria Bartiromo [Video Here]. Many people are overlooking the implications of his speculation; and, more importantly how Nunes statement answers just about every contradictory question people have carried. Including:
  • Why Rosenstein introduced Mueller to President Trump the day before he was appointed as Special Counsel?
  • Why Mueller/Rosenstein are hiding the investigative origination letter?
  • Why President Trump has NOT been able to declassify documents? and
  • Why President Trump is, and will always be, hamstrung by the Mueller investigation?

In short, Devin Nunes speculated that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein put the substantive allegations from the Fusion-GPS/Ohr/Steele Dossier into his investigative instructions (full pdf below) that he gave Robert Mueller.

If it is accurate that Rosenstein charged Robert Mueller with investigating the dossier claims; and if Nunes is accurate that the DOJ investigative target, a derivative of the dossier, is Donald Trump; well, everything starts to make a hell of a lot more sense.

If the mandate given to Robert Mueller was to specifically investigate the sitting president of the United States as an active participant, and subsequent target, for a counterintelligence operation, then DAG Rod Rosenstein -and Mueller- would have tohide that mandate from everyone and anyone.

More specifically, Rosenstein would NEVER be able to honestly discuss the Mueller probe with President Trump; because President Trump would be the primary target within the investigation. And that changes EVERYTHING.

Now, at first blush this likelihood might sound disingenuous, but if you think about the downstream ramifications; and then contrast those ramifications against what we know has factually taken place; then things make a lot more sense.

Remember, back when this entire nonsense began, President Trump strongly said he had nothing to do with any coordination with Russia; nothing to do with collusion with Russia; and also stated he was okay with the investigation as it looked into the propriety of people within the 2016 campaign. However, these statements were also with the assumption, held by himself as a result of -perhaps false- confirmations from James Comey, that he himself was not a target.

If Nunes speculation is accurate; and if the reporting (based on leaks) that has surfaced in the two-plus years of the investigation is accurate; then President Trump was and is the target, and none of the principles would be able to discuss the key elements specifically because of this extra-constitutional issue.
All of President Trump’s prior commentary would be based on a (2017/2018) assumption that he was not the target of the FBI probe that was eventually turned over to Mueller by Rosenstein. If Nunes is accurate; and that origination instruction includes the specific charge to investigate the President; then all prior assumptions are invalid.
  • Rosenstein (or any DOJ/FBI official) would always be engaging with POTUS as a target. All conversation would be clouded by that aspect. As a result, Rosenstein could never be fully honest with President Trump; or answer any question therein.
  • Any action taken by President Trump (emphasis on “any”) would therefore potentially be direct influence by the President toward an investigation that held him as a target. He could never be permitted to approach the investigation…. yet he would never find anyone with an honest answer as to why he cannot approach the investigation.
We previously pondered this aspect when we outlined “the declassification conundrum“. However, at the time we did not evaluate the classifications issue from a targetperspective; we were evaluating the issue as if President Trump was the victim of the illegal targeting.

If you flip the paradigm and now look at what actions President Trump could take, while reconsidering that he is the likely principle target, well, two years of contradictory things start to make more sense.
The conversation, and inability of Rosenstein to be honest with POTUS, changes the dynamic of this tweet:

POTUS writing: “may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe” takes on a whole new meaning when you consider a conversation where Rosenstein cannot be honest with the target of the “Russia probe”…. and the target has essentially no idea.

Remember, throughout 2017 and 2018, the basic assumption -due to visible and public declarations by the DOJ- was that Mueller was conducting an investigation into Russian interference with the election; and/or other matters that may surface as an outcome of that investigation. However, we never knew (still don’t) the actual content of the August 2017 clarification mandate that Rosenstein gave to Mueller (see below):
If accurate, we can imagine a conversation where Mueller approaches Rosenstein in July and August 2017:
Mueller: “Rod, Andrew [Weissmann] wants to go deep into this stuff his buddy Glenn Simpson gave to the team; however, it’s likely a lot of this stuff doesn’t have anything to do with Russian interference of the election. If you want me to allow that, you’re going to have to give some specific expansion of the investigation, in writing, to look into all the stuff inside this dossier.”
Rosenstein: “OK Bob, I’ll put it in writing, but we’ve got to keep this part away from view or the targets will know we’re using an unvetted dossier, which could be portrayed as political opposition research funded by Clinton, as evidence against them…. fair enough?”​

View this document on Scribd
Taking Nunes speculation as accurate (after much more thought, it likely is) the redacted portion of the published mandate would be the part where President Trump is outlined as a target.

A direct target, or an indirect target, matters not. What matters is that President Trump is A TARGET. That would explain why Mueller requested that Rosenstein write down a much more expanded explanation for the mandate that no-one, [NO-ONE other than Judge Ellis (Manafort case)], has ever seen.

Knowing he would be entering into this foray where President Trump is the target, you can easily see why Mueller would want to meet with President Trump ahead of accepting the job. The entire enterprise would be fraught with tenuous extra-constitutional issues. Mueller’s target is the most powerful person in the world; and the ramifications are rather stunning.

Any action taken by President Trump to declassify documents, that would show the dubious structure of the originating FBI investigation, would now be considered as: the target of the investigation undermining the investigation into himself.

Under this principle, congress requesting President Trump to declassify documents showing the unlawful nature of the investigative origination is an exercise in futility.

Congress is asking the target of the unlawful investigation to declassify evidence that was assembled against him. The target then turns to the people who are investigating him and says please declassify….. however, the receiver (DOJ) is getting a request from their target.

Getting a declassification request from Congress is one thing; but getting a declassification request from the target of their investigation is a request they can neither fulfill nor explain their lack of fulfillment.
From the position of the DOJ:
As a counterintelligence target President Trump cannot declassify evidence, nor can he direct anyone to declassifying any evidence on his behalf.
Ultimately the only person who can correct this issue appears to be the same person who started this entire mess, Rod Rosenstein. Which likely explains why he said he will leave the DOJ when Mueller is finished.
WASHINGTON — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had been overseeing the special counsel investigation, plans to step down after Robert Mueller submits his report, according to administration officials familiar with his thinking.
A source close to Rosenstein said he intends to stay on until Mueller submits a report to the Justice Department on the Russian meddling investigation. The source said that would mean Rosenstein would remain until early March. (link)​
[*note* from this timeline you can see how the impeachment plans of Pelosi, Cummings, Schiff and Nadler align with Mueller (report) and Rosenstein (exit). Nunes is trying to catch Rosenstein before he can escape the coming shitstorm he created]

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein initiated the specific investigation into President Trump by authorizing, and later clarifying, that Mueller is to proceed with the special counsel mandate that includes President Trump as a target.

….And knowing that dynamic completely changes the background review about how corrupt Andrew McCabe’s allies in the FBI and media started leveraging against Rod Rosenstein for their own benefit.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
The video in this story is pretty amusing.........

Watch: CNN Hosts Devastated As Another Russia Scoop Collapses

8084 Shares Tweet 134 Print
By Bill D'Agostino | February 1, 2019 5:58 PM EST

Show hosts and analysts alike were in a panic over at CNN Thursday evening, as all present struggled to spin a new development in the ongoing Trump/Russia saga that dealt a death blow to one of their pet narratives.

According to CNN’s own reporting citing multiple Senate investigators as sources, neither of the two phone calls to blocked numbers that Donald Trump Jr. made back in June of 2016 were to his father.
For those who haven't obsessively kept track of every new development in the Russia collusion saga, here's some context explaining why that revelation was significant (click “expand):
Donald Trump Jr.’s phone records included calls with two blocked numbers that were made three days before he met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in Trump Tower during June of 2016. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee made quite a fuss about those phone calls after Trump Jr.’s private testimony in 2018.​

In May of that year, Democrats on that committee argued in a report that if either of those conversations had been with then-candidate Donald Trump, that might help establish that Trump Jr. had informed his father about the 2016 meeting before it took place. That would have been a problem for Trump his son, as both had repeatedly insisted that then-candidate Trump had not known about the meeting until after it had taken place.​

Back when the existence of these phone calls was first made known, CNN analysts spent a full day speculating about the disaster that would ensue for the Trump administration, if it turned out that one of those blocked numbers had been Donald Trump’s.​

From 4:00 p.m. EST onward on Thursday evening, CNN talking heads took great pains to sternly remind viewers that this news did not mean Trump Jr. had not informed his father about the meeting by some means other than over the phone. For a sample of some of the evening’s most entertaining reactions, see the video below:

On The Situation Room, CNN justice correspondent Pamela Brown speculated: “There are other ways the meeting could have been communicated to Donald Trump,”
Later on that same show, a hopeful Wolf Blitzer sought confirmation for this theory from Representative Jim Himes (D-CT): “Have you seen any evidence, Congressman, that Donald Trump Jr. did contact his father in some other way, perhaps?”

Even after Himes responded with a flat denial, every subsequent discussion of the story on CNN that evening featured either guest or host making that same assertion.

However, the most memorable reaction came from counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd, who delivered an admirably lucid soliloquty on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon during the 11:00 p.m. EST hour. Evidently fed up with seeing yet another narrative based solely on speculation collapse as more evidence surfaced, Mudd chided Senate Democrats for “hanging their hat” on “a couple of unidentified phone calls a few years ago” in the first place:
DON LEMON: That doesn't mean Don Junior didn't tell the president some other way, correct?
PHIL MUDD: Sure. But let me give you an eye roll-on this one, Don, at 11:11 p.m. on the East Coast. We are two-plus years into an investigation using the best resources in the Department of Justice and FBI.​

The question is not simply malfeasance on the financial side. The question is whether there was a conspiracy like we've never seen with the Russians. And the Democrats are hanging their hat on unidentified, a couple of unidentified phone calls a few years ago? Are you kidding me?​
“If I were them, I'd just hold fire,” he added, continuing: “This is not the time to say this is our solution, a couple of unanswered questions about phone calls a few years ago.”
Despite CNN’s incessant posturing as an unbiased, objective news organization, hosts were unable to conceal the very noticeable atmosphere of disappointment and begrudging acceptance that pervaded that evening’s coverage. But it did make for some good television.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
February 06, 2019 - 03:30 PM EST
Mueller hauled before secret FISA court to address FBI abuses in 2002, Congress told

Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and current special prosecutor in the Russia case, once was hauled before the nation's secret intelligence court to address a large number of instances in which the FBI cheated on sensitive surveillance warrants, according to evidence gathered by congressional investigators.

For most of the past 16 years, Mueller's closed-door encounter escaped public notice because of the secrecy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

But thanks to recent testimony from a former FBI lawyer, we now have a rare window into documented abuses of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants and how the courts handled the matter.

The episode is taking on new significance as Mueller moves into the final stages of his Russia probe while evidence mounts that the FBI work preceding his appointment as special prosecutor may have involved improprieties in the securing of a FISA warrant to spy on Donald Trump's campaign in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign.

The sin that plagued the FBI two decades ago, and that now lingers over the Russia case, involves the omission of material facts by agents applying for FISA warrants in sensitive counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases.

Such omissions are a serious matter at the FISC, because it is the one court in America where the accused gets no representation or chance to defend himself. And that means the FBI is obligated to disclose evidence of both guilt and innocence about the target of a FISA warrant.

Trisha Anderson, who recently stepped down as the FBI's principal deputy general counsel, told House investigators late last year in an interview that early in Mueller's FBI tenure, nearly two decades ago, the FISC summoned the new director to appear before the judges to address concerns about extensive cheating on FISA warrants.

"It preceded my time with the FBI but as I understood it, there was a pattern of some incidents of omission that were of concern to the FISA court that resulted in former Director Mueller actually appearing before the FISA court," Anderson told Congress.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller at the special counsel's office, declined comment on Anderson's testimony. So, too, did FBI spokeswoman Kelsey Pietranton.

Other sources who worked for Mueller at the time told me the court's concerns arose in 2002 and 2003 - shortly after America was stunned by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks - when the FISC learned the FBI had omitted material facts from FISA warrant applications in more than 75 terrorism cases that dated back to the late 1990s.

Most of the omissions occurred in FBI work that pre-dated Mueller's arrival, the sources said. But the court wanted assurances the new sheriff in town was going to stop such widespread abuses.

Mueller told the court the FBI had created a new system called the Woods Procedures - named for the FBI lawyer who drafted them - to ensure FISA warrant applications were accurate and did not omit material information, according to Anderson's congressional interview.

"My understanding is he committed to the court to address the problem and then that the series of reforms that we implemented, including the use of the Woods form, were the direct result of his engagement before the FISA court," Anderson told Congress.

Mueller does not appear ever to have publicly addressed his appearance before the FISC. But once, in follow-up written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he acknowledged there was a period in which the FBI was caught filing inaccurate FISA warrants.

"Prior to implementation of the so-called Woods Procedures there were instances where inaccurate information was provided by FBI field offices and headquarters personnel to the Court," Mueller wrote to senators in 2003.

A declassified FISC order from 2002 gives a glimpse into how serious the omissions were: In one case the FBI failed to tell the court that the person they were seeking a FISA warrant to surveil was, in fact, one of their own informants.

The court expressed concern that "misinformation found its way into the FISA applications and remained uncorrected for more than one year despite procedures to verify the accuracy of FISA pleadings."

Anderson's testimony isn't just for the history books. It has as much relevance today as when the judges first became upset with the FBI.

That's because we now know the FBI, in 2016, omitted significant information from the application for the FISA warrant that allowed it to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in hopes of finding evidence of collusion between Russia and the GOP presidential nominee's campaign.

Thanks to congressional oversight and declassified documents, we now know the FBI failed to tell the court that the primary evidence it used to support its warrant - the so-called Steele dossier - was political opposition research produced on behalf of and paid for by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign, in hopes of harming Trump's election chances.

We know the FBI falsely told the court in the first application warrant that it knew of no derogatory information about the dossier author, Christopher Steele, a retired British intelligence operative who worked simultaneously as an FBI source and a Clinton campaign opposition researcher. In fact, a senior Justice Department official named Bruce Ohr warned the FBI that Steele was desperate to stop Trump from becoming president, and other evidence showed Steele had been leaking to the media in violation of FBI rules - all derogatory evidence weighing against Steele's credibility.

Further, we've learned from congressional testimony of other FBI officials that the dossier's contents had not been corroborated by the FBI when it was used in the FISA application - even though the Woods Procedures mentioned above required that only corroborated evidence be used in support of a warrant request.

And, finally, we know from sources that the FBI had other evidence suggesting the innocence of two Trump campaign aides it targeted - Page and George Papadopoulos - that wasn't provided to the court.

As such evidence has mounted, some Justice and FBI officials have whispered suggestions that the FBI didn't have an obligation to disclose such information and, therefore, there were no abuses.

Yet, thanks to Anderson's recounting of the episode from 16-plus years ago, we now know the FISA judges don't tolerate omissions of material facts and were angry enough in an earlier time to haul the FBI director into court to make their point. Anderson testified Mueller got to see that lesson up close and personal.

The question now is, do the current FISC judges and Justice Department supervisors - Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray among them - care the same about the integrity of the FISA process?

If they do, the first step (as 2002 showed us) is to acknowledge the wrongdoing and put corrective action into place.

Silence and hiding behind classified information don't serve the American interest, just the interests of an intelligence bureaucracy that wrongly allowed itself to be used for a political dirty trick.
Jul 20, 2018
Oklahoma City
Hacked by Russians in 2016 – It Was an Inside Job And the Deep State Knows It!
by Jim Hoft February 7, 2019 138

Guest post by Joe Hoft

In 2016, numerous private emails from the Democrat Party (DNC) were released to the public by WikiLeaks. The emails unveiled activities of wrong doing by the Democrat and the Hillary camp and so the mainstream media (MSM) mostly ignored them. Soon after, the Democrats claimed that they were hacked by Russians.
New evidence shows that these emails most likely were never hacked at all, let alone by Russians.

In their recent book suggesting the Russians are to blame for Hillary’s 2016 election loss, far-left writers Michael Isikoff and David Corn, two individuals involved in promoting and releasing the fake Trump – Russia dossier, attempt to tie the release of DNC emails to Russia. In their book Russian Roulette, Isikoff and Corn share the following about the firm (CrowdStrike) the Democrats used to look into their data breach (p. 74) –

One of CrowdStrike’s first moves was to advise the DNC officials to do nothing. Don’t shut down the system. Don’t stop using it. The reason: Any dramatic action or change in routine could alert the hackers they had been spotted, and then the intruders might take steps to make it impossible to ferret them out of the system.” (Isikoff, p. 74)​
But this is nonsense on many counts:

If the “intruders” could have “made it impossible to ferret them out of the system,” this is the first thing they would have done. Not even CrowdStrike would have given the DNC the advice “to do nothing“. The DNC and CrowdStrike coordinated and provided this false account in order to explain why the DNC did nothing when it discovered the breach.
“CrowdStrike and the lawyers warned the small circle of DNC officials in the know to keep their mouths shut. And this meant not telling anyone in the Clinton campaign.” (Isikoff, p. 74-75)​
Instead of installing additional controls to prevent hacking, adding additional malware protection or other related preventative actions, the DNC decided to the keep everything secret and the same? This makes no sense at all.

The Democrats next held a gathering on June 10, 2016 per an AP report:

It was 4 p.m. on Friday June 10 when some 100 staffers filed into the Democratic National Committee’s main conference room for a mandatory, all-hands meeting.
“What I am about to tell you cannot leave this room,” DNC chief operating officer Lindsey Reynolds told the assembled crowd, according to two people there at the time.
Everyone needed to turn in their laptops immediately; there would be no last-minute emails; no downloading documents and no exceptions. Reynolds insisted on total secrecy.
“Don’t even talk to your dog about it,” she was quoted as saying.
Reynolds didn’t return messages seeking comment.
Two days later, as the cybersecurity firm that was brought in to clean out the DNC’s computers finished its work, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told a British Sunday television show that emails related to Clinton were “pending publication.”
“WikiLeaks has a very good year ahead,” he said.
On Tuesday, June 14, the Democrats went public with the allegation that their computers had been compromised by Russian state-backed hackers, including Fancy Bear.​
The DNC was never hacked by Russians. This was a tall tale developed by someone of the likes of Hillary’s creepy Campaign Manger John Podesta. If they were hacked they would have implemented aggressive controls to prevent future hacks. They wouldn’t have called a team meeting and asked the entire team to provide their laptops.

The actions taken by the DNC after the release of their emails were consistent with a loss of emails due to an insider job rather than a hacking from outsiders, let alone Russians. The DNC never let anyone but CrowdStrike look at their server. The FBI hasn’t even reviewed their server, but the entire fairy tale led to the Mueller Witchhunt and it’s all a lie.

Some say the insider who released the emails was Seth Rich. A Bernie Sanders supporter who was murdered in Washington DC in July of 2016 – God rest his soul. This makes more sense than Russia hacking the DNC.

Russians never hacked the DNC. Mueller and the FBI never investigated the DNC servers. A witchhunt was created from this mess and the US has now incurred over two years and millions of dollars discovering that it was all a lie.