The legal team for indicted Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann doesn’t like special counsel John Durham’s proposal to ask potential jurors in an upcoming trial if they have any links to groups that looked into what he describes as the Hillary Clinton campaign’s promotion of “the Trump/Russia collusion narrative.”
A filing in federal court Friday said both Durham’s team and Sussmann’s lawyers were in agreement about a questionnaire asking potential jurors if “you, any family member, or close personal friend participated or had any connection with any other government agency, group, organization, committee or subcommittee, public or private group or organization, including any media group or organization that has investigated or made inquiry into” either “Russian interference with the 2016 election” or “the federal government’s investigation of Donald Trump’s relationship with Russia.”
But Sussmann’s team said it objected to the Durham prosecution request to ask the jury pool the same question related to any links to groups that have looked at or been tied to “the Clinton Campaign and/or the Democratic National Committee’s promotion of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative.”
“In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot — one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy,” Trump’s lawyers argued. “Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.”
A federal judge has rejected a bid by Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to “strike” a “factual background” section of Special Counsel John Durham’s early February court filing.
Last month, Sussmann’s legal team filed a motion demanding that the court remove portions of the Feb. 11 filing that included the “Factual Background” section by claiming that it would “taint” a jury, Fox News reported Thursday evening.
“I’m not going to strike anything from the record,” noted U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Christopher Cooper during a status hearing. “Whatever effect the filing has had has already passed.”
…Sussmann was representing the Clinton campaign when in 2016 he passed along information to an FBI counsel. His lawyers say the documents “raised national security concerns” while prosecutors describe them as purportedly detailing a covert channel between a Russian bank and the business of Donald Trump, Clinton’s rival at the time.
Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI because he falsely told the counsel he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client despite presenting the information on behalf of the Clinton campaign, prosecutors say.
In a filing in February, Sussmann’s lawyers moved to dismiss the charge, claiming their client “did not make any false statement to the FBI” but even if he had, “the false statement alleged in the indictment is immaterial as a matter of law.”
“Allowing this case to go forward would risk criminalizing ordinary conduct, raise First Amendment concerns, dissuade honest citizens from coming forward with tips, and chill the advocacy of lawyers who interact with the government,” the filing stated.
Durham’s team responded by calling his claims “absurd” and asked the federal court in the District of Columbia to proceed.
“Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant – a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer – chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham wrote in his court filing.
“He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect,” Durham, who was appointed by former Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of the ‘Russiagate’ probe, noted.
“And far from being immaterial, they went on to say that ‘the defendant’s false statement was capable of influencing both the FBI’s decision to initiate an investigation and its subsequent conduct of that investigation,” the filing continued.
In its response to the Sussmann filing, Durham’s team noted: “The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign.”
“The defendant’s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBI’s decision-making in any number of ways,” Durham’s team continued.
If the case does go to trial, Durham will likely argue that the evidence proves the bureau could have done something prior to starting a full investigation into the matter, to include an assessment, and should have delayed making a decision until after the 2016 election or declined to have launched a probe at all.
Also in his filing, Durham suggested that were it not for Sussmann’s allegedly false statement to the FBI, the Russiagate probe of then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign would never have happened.
“Had the defendant truthfully informed the FBI General Counsel that he was providing the information on behalf of one or more clients, as opposed to merely acting as a ‘good citizen,’ the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel might have asked a multitude of additional questions material to the case initiation process,” Durham told the court in a memo filed late last week.
“Given the temporal proximity to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the FBI also might have taken any number of different steps in initiating, delaying, or declining the initiation of this matter had it known at the time that the defendant was providing information on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive at a private company,” he added.
FEC records unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon show that the Biden campaign in 2020 paid the same tech firm that Hillary Clinton used to allegedly spy on Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.
“The Biden campaign paid nearly $20,000 to a cybersecurity firm at the center of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe,” Chuck Ross reported at the Free Beacon.
According to the Federal Election Commission records uncovered by the Free Beacon, the Biden campaign paid Neustar Information Services $18,819 in 2020 for ‘accounting and compliance work.’
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was found to have paid the tech firm that conducted surveillance on then-candidate Donald Trump’s private, campaign, and White House communications. Special Counsel John Durham highlighted these findings in a motion to probe potential conflicts of interest with lawyer Michael Sussmann, who had worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
“As set forth in the Indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016 – less than two months before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election – the defendant, a lawyer at a large international law firm (‘Law Firm-1’) that was then serving as counsel to the Clinton Campaign, met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C,” the indictment’s factual background states. “The defendant provided the FBI General Counsel with purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank (‘Russian Bank-1’).”
This is referring to the debunked smear that Donald Trump had a secret bank wire with a Putin-linked Moscow bank named Alfa Bank. Clinton’s lawyer Michael Sussmann utilized the false accusations to argue that the federal government should conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign. Sussmann even peddled this baseless allegation to the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency.
“The Indictment alleges that the defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client,” the indictment continues. “In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive (‘Tech Executive-1’) at a U.S.-based Internet company (‘Internet Company-1’), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign.”
Thus, Sussmann misled the FBI about his work for the Clinton campaign, as well as his ties to a tech executive that has been identified as Rodney Joffe, senior vice president of Neustar.
Joffe had brought the alleged Alfa Bank finding to Sussmann as early as July 2016; both were in communications with former Perkins Coie lawyer and Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias. Sussmann’s allegation that Trump had a secret connection with Alfa Bank was repeated at a September 2016 meeting with former FBI General Counsel James Baker.
The FBI would launch an investigation into the Trump campaign to look into the “odd” Alfa Bank connection. Hillary Clinton even weaponized the political disinformation in an October 2016 tweet.
Hillary Clinton’s pronouncement of the findings via the statement of Jake Sullivan are a tacit admission of guilt: The language about the “covert” server and the “secret hotline,” albeit later debunked, show that she was effectively spying on her campaign opponent, and later, the President of the United States.
Sussman’s attorneys, however, deny that Durham’s statement of facts is accurate and are asking it be struck from the record.
Donald Trump, for his part, exploded at further vindication of his claim that he was spied on.
“The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia,” Donald Trump said in a statement. “This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution. In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this.”
It turns out it wasn’t just the Hillary Clinton campaign that had a relationship with the tech firm that spied on Donald Trump when he was a candidate and president. The Biden campaign hired the same firm prior to the 2020 election.
The Biden and Clinton campaigns are the only two presidential committees to have ever paid Neustar, the Free Beacon noted, but the DCCC also hired the firm before the 2018 midterms.
Aspects of U.S. Attorney John Huber’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation have been assumed by U.S. Attorney John Durham as part of his review into the origins of the Russia probe, Fox News has learned.
A source familiar with Durham’s investigation told Fox News on Thursday that parts of what Huber was investigating in 2017 — involving the Clinton Foundation — have been incorporated in Durham’s investigation.
In November 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed Huber, the U.S. attorney for Utah, and other senior prosecutors to evaluate “certain issues” involving the sale of Uranium One, and other dealings related to the Clinton Foundation. Sessions tapped Huber after requests by congressional Republicans, who had been calling for the appointment of a special counsel to review the matters.
Sessions revealed that he asked U.S. Attorney John Huber, seen here, to look into the accusations.
Huber was also tasked with reviewing the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe, including allegations that the Justice Department and FBI “policies or procedures” were not followed.
It has been unclear, for years, the status of Huber’s investigation, but another source told Fox News Thursday that Huber has faced mounting criticism from the Justice Department and White House over his progress.
“There are folks that are aware of the fact that Huber has not done much, and there has been criticism at the Justice Department and the White House,” the source said. “Folks that have been concerned about what he did or didn’t do, and many of them feel that Huber did not dig deep enough or work hard enough.”
The source added that many are “very concerned about why there hadn’t been more done.”
The New York Times on Thursday first reported that Durham has focused attention on the Clintons, and said that Durham has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation.
Durham was appointed by Attorney General Barr last year to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe shortly after Mueller completed his yearslong investigation into whether the campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Durham’s timeline has been focused on July 2016, when the FBI’s original Russia probe began, through the appointment of Mueller in May 2017.
Durham’s investigation has been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic, but that has not blunted the level of anticipation from President Trump, his Republican allies on Capitol Hill and his supporters, some of whom have called for findings to be released before November’s presidential election.Video
Speculation over the status of Durham’s review into the origins of the Russia probe has only intensified amid the resignation of a top aide earlier this month, Norah Dannehy, and comments from congressional Republicans suggesting developments could soon be announced.
Dannehy, a top aide to Durham, resigned Friday, after working closely with the U.S. attorney for Connecticut for years. Durham’s office confirmed her departure but did not elaborate on the backstory.
Earlier this month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., hinted that developments in Durham’s investigation were on the horizon. This was after newly released Justice Department records showed numerous phones belonging to members of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team were wiped of information because of forgotten passcodes, irreparable screen damage, loss of the device, intentional deletion or other reasons—all before the Justice Department inspector general’s office could review the devices.
“You think you are mad about the phones being wiped?” Graham said on Fox News’ “Hannity” last week. “Stay tuned.”
He added: “We’ll talk in about 10 or 12 days and we’ll see if there is something else you can get mad about.”
The investigation has produced one criminal charge so far, against former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who was accused of altering an email related to the surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide. But that prosecution did not allege a broader conspiracy within the FBI, and the conduct it involved had largely been laid out in a Justice Department inspector general report from last December.
It is not clear if Durham will be able to conclude his work before the election, though Barr has not ruled out the possibility of additional criminal charges.
Barr, during an interview with NBC News last week, said that there “could be” more charges stemming from Durham’s review.
“Yeah, there could be,” Barr said while declining to say whether any such charges would be announced prior to Election Day.
In July, though, Fox News reported that Durham could wait to reveal his findings or initiate further prosecutions until after the 2020 presidential election.
Two sources familiar with Durham’s investigation told Fox News at the time that Durham was working expeditiously to try to finish the probe before Labor Day — which he did not — but that several lines of the investigation had not yet been completed.
“He believes it’s critical to do them,” one source said at the time. “He is feeling more pressure to get this done and wrapped up.”
The source also told Fox News that Durham “does not want this to be viewed political,” and the closer it gets to November, Durham could “punt it to after the election.”
Newly reviewed documents show that former FBI agent Peter Strzok and other officials involved in the counter-intelligence probe against Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign are in trouble, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said.
U.S. Attorney John Durham is reviewing the origins of that investigation and landed his first guilty plea last month.
While he doesn’t have visibility into the timeline of Durham’s probe, Meadows said he’s reviewed additional documents that “say that a number of the players, the Peter Strzoks, the Andy McCabes, the James Comeys—and even others in the administration previously—are in real trouble because of their willingness to participate in an unlawful act.”
“And I use the word unlawful at best, it broke all kinds of protocols and at worst people should go to jail as I mentioned previously,” Meadows said during a virtual appearance on Fox Business’ “Mornings With Maria” on Monday.
Strzok, McCabe, and Comey are former high-level FBI officials.
Strzok, best known for exchanging biased text messages about Trump with an FBI lawyer he was having an affair with, was fired by FBI officials in 2018.
The former agent sat down for an interview with CBS that ran over the weekend. He insisted that the counter-intelligence probe, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane, was opened on a legitimate basis.
Meadows said it was easy for Strzok to make claims when not under oath.
“In all of his interview, I can tell you this: It’s not backed up by the facts. It’s not backed up by documents that I’ve seen. And ultimately his house of cards will come falling down,” Meadows said.
The facts that have come out show that officials treated Trump “very differently, in an inappropriate way, and they must be held accountable,” he added.
Durham’s criminal investigation is being kept under tight wraps, prompting much speculation about when another development will come, or even if any other people will be charged.
Trey Gowdy, a Fox News contributor who used to serve in the House of Representatives, said over the weekend that there’s concern that Durham “is dragging his feet.”
Durham, he said, “is going to access documents that the FBI never shared with Congress and he’ll write the definitive accounting of what happened.”
“Whether or not there’ll be more indictments or not, I don’t know and I like to assume that there will not be,” he said, adding: “That puts me in a small minority, but I’m assuming that the Clinesmith indictment will be the only one.”
Kevin Clinesmith recently pleaded guilty to altering an email to say Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, was not a CIA asset when the CIA had said the exact opposite.
The altered email was used to obtain spy warrants against Page, enabling the FBI to conduct surveillance against Page and people he was linked to in the future and past.
Meadows, meanwhile, said Trump supports the declassification of all documents, along with full transparency.
“He has nothing to hide,” he said.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said last week that he’s coordinating with Durham to declassify more documents.
U.S. Attorney John Durham filed the first charge of his criminal inquiry on Aug. 14 against the primary FBI attorney assigned to provide legal support to the special counsel team led by Robert Mueller, casting a shadow over the 22-month probe that roiled the nation before finding no evidence of collusion between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia.
As part of a potential plea deal with Durham, former FBI assistant general counsel Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty on Aug. 19 to altering an email as part of a process to obtain a secret court warrant used to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Clinesmith altered the email on June 19, 2017, while working as the primary FBI attorney assigned to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which Mueller inherited a month earlier.
According to the court documents, Clinesmith inserted the words “and not a source” into an email from a CIA liaison that described Page’s relationship with the agency. As the primary FBI attorney on the case, Clinesmith was asked to find out if Page was a source for the CIA before the FBI applied for the fourth and final warrant to continue surveilling the former Trump campaign associate.
The liaison replied with a memo showing that Page was an approved “operational contact” for the agency, a crucial fact that never made it into the spy warrant application the FBI sent to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. According to the CIA memo, Page reported to the agency about his contacts with Russian intelligence officers, a fact which would have been indispensable to a judge considering the FBI’s attestation that Page is a Russian agent.
The Department of Justice inspector general flagged Clinesmith’s forgery as one of the most egregious faults among the 17 serious errors and omissions contained in the applications the FBI used to surveil Page. While the inspector general’s reports and other evidence in the public realm have already substantially clouded the credibility of the Mueller probe, Durham’s first case and the expected guilty plea taint the battery of blunders with the first indisputable link to criminality.
The charge also raises serious questions about the culture within the broader special counsel operation, during which Clinesmith played a key role for roughly a year before being removed upon the discovery of his blatantly anti-Trump text messages.
“I am so stressed about what I could have done differently,” Clinesmith wrote to his FBI colleague Sally Moyer on the day after Trump’s victory in November 2016. “I’m just devastated.”
“Plus, my [expletive] name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff,” he wrote a few messages later.
Clinesmith wasn’t the only FBI official to have been removed from Mueller’s team over biased text messages. FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ridiculed Trump, spoke of stopping him from winning the election, and mentioned an “insurance policy” in the “unlikely” event he won. The pair, who at the time were involved an extramarital affair, broached the subject of impeachment around the time Mueller was assigned to lead the inquiry. Mueller removed Strzok upon learning of the messages. Page had left on her own prior to the discovery.
The inspector general didn’t find evidence that bias motivated any of the investigative actions. He also told Congress that he was baffled by the sheer number of serious errors committed by three handpicked teams working on the FBI’s most sensitive case.
While it is unclear what Durham will make public next and when, the court papers in Clinesmith’s case provide a hint. The charge against the former FBI attorney was filed as information rather than an indictment, indicating that Clinesmith agreed to waive his right to have a grand jury decide whether the government has probable cause to charge a crime. The waiver of indictment is often used with a defendant who agreed to plead guilty under a cooperation agreement. The terms of the plea may reveal whether Clinesmith is cooperating with the investigation.
The charging document also states that the CIA provided the memo about Page to “certain members of the Crossfire Hurricane team” on Aug. 17, 2016, months before Clinesmith was assigned as the primary FBI attorney on the case. The “certain members” received the memo days after opening individual cases on four Trump campaign associates, including Page. All four of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications failed to disclose Page’s status and history with the CIA.
When the DOJ inspector general asked Clinesmith why he subsequently described Page as “not a source” for the CIA, Clinesmith said that he recalled the liaison “saying that [Page] was not a source of theirs,” but rather “incidentally reporting information via a source of theirs.” When the inspector general asked the CIA liaison about it, the liaison said “her email stated just the opposite.”
Justin Shur, a lawyer for Clinesmith, said in a statement to Reuters that his client “deeply regrets having altered the email.”
“It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate. But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility,” Shur said.
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes told Fox Business in June that the Republicans on the committee have sent 14 criminal referrals related to Crossfire Hurricane.
President Donald Trump, who has long asserted that the Obama administration spied on his campaign, told reporters at the White House on Aug. 14 the charge against Clinesmith is “just the beginning, I would imagine, because what happened should never happen again.”
“The fact is, they spied on my campaign and they got caught, and you’ll be hearing more,” Trump said.
The plethora of errors in the Page FISA applications appear to be an anomaly. Horowitz’s subsequent review of a sample of 29 other FISA applications found less than a handful of errors, none of which were significant enough to invalidate any of the applications. By contrast, the FBI conceded that the errors in the Page FISAs invalidated the last two warrants.
Clinesmith’s tenure at the FBI ended on Sept. 21, 2019, according to the criminal information. The bureau told The Epoch Times that Clinesmith left before “an internal disciplinary process was completed.”
In addition to working as the attorney on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Clinesmith worked on the probe of Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server to conduct government business during her tenure as secretary of state. His work on that investigation earned him an entire section in a separate inspector general report, which found that he sent numerous politically charged messages ridiculing then-candidate Trump.
External reviews of the conduct of the Mueller investigation aren’t the only sources casting shadows on the legacy of the probe.
Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham in May 2019 to examine the conduct of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and related issues. Durham is looking to determine whether intelligence collection on Trump’s presidential campaign by top Obama administration officials was “lawful and appropriate.” The investigation was designated a formal criminal investigation in October 2019.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) in March dropped the charges brought by Mueller against two Russian companies accused of using social media to sow discord during the 2016 election. The charges were once heralded as one part of Russia’s two-prong operation to influence the election.
The second prong of the purported campaign consists of charges against a dozen Russian intelligence officers that remain alleged. In May, the DOJ moved to drop charges brought by Mueller against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Attorney General William Barr told Fox News anchor Bret Baier in an interview that aired on Tuesday night that he has been “very troubled” by what U.S. Attorney John Durham has uncovered in his criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation.
Barr was tight-lipped about what has been uncovered so far in the criminal investigation and said that the investigation has been “working very aggressively to move forward” despite the coronavirus pandemic, which shut down a lot of the court system.
“I think before the election, I think we’re concerned about the motive force behind the very aggressive investigation that was launched into the Trump campaign without, you know, with a very thin, slender reed as a basis for it,” Barr said. “It seemed that the bureau was sort of spring loaded at the end of July to drive in there and investigate a campaign.”
“But they seem to have ignored all the exculpatory evidence that was building up and continued Pell-mell to push it forward,” Barr continued. “The other area of concern is that after the election, even though they were closing down some of that, as we’ve seen in the Flynn case, and say there’s nothing here, for some reason, they went right back at it, even at a time where the evidentiary support or claim support like the dossier was falling apart. And it’s very hard to understand why they continued to push and even make public testimony that they had an investigation going when it was becoming painfully obvious or should have been obvious to anyone that there was nothing there.”
“For the first time in American history, the police organizations and the national security organizations were used to spy on a campaign and there was no basis for it,” Barr added. “The media largely drove all kinds of sensational claims were being made about the president. That could have affected the election. And then and then later on in his administration, there were actions taken that really appear to be efforts to sabotage his campaign. And that has to be looked at.”
Barr later said that based on what has been called to his attention, he has been “very troubled by” what he has seen.
The Underground Newswire operates from the understanding that we are in the midst of a Global information war between the Central Banking System and a loose amalgamation of sub-groups (Wall Street, CIA, Vatican, p2 Masons, Mafia, Etc.) and an Alliance of patriots from many nations (USA, Britain, India, Russia, Brazil, Italy, etc.) who are also working together to remove members of this Cabal from their individual countries. The articles, essays, and political commentaries featured on this website should NOT be taken as the ultimate truth, in fact nothing should be until you can prove it yourself.The Underground Newswire does not seek to convince or sway, rather it is our hope to indicate and suggest without violating the universal and self evident laws of free will and confusion. True objectivity may be impossible (especially these days) and while we have defended Donald Trump on many points, we are not “Pro Conservative” nor are we “Anti-Liberal”, though the accusations have been made and likely will be made again. We’d like first and foremost to suggest that we are all, every one of us, in the midst of a quiet war fought with silent weapons. The fight is world wide, louder in some places than others (think revolutions simultaneously occurring across the globe IE: Hong Kong, France, Iran, Venezuela, ETC.) It is a psychological war, and the front lines are quite literally human hearts and minds. With these weekly reports, we hope to offer alternative perspectives and speculation coming from an amalgamation of sources involved in Media, Military, Finance, and politics.
There’s a lot of buzz coming out on the FISA court right now, including errors, abuse, and omitting certain facts to get the outcome they want, to stir up bogus charges to use against anyone in opposition to the DC Cabal’s agendas. Now of course the media and career politicians claim they “followed the rules to a T”, many of us know that this is not the case but now it will be revealed to show the people who care to see how the FISA courts have been used to further criminal and treasonous enterprises.
FISA Court issues order on latest IG findings of serious abuse. This includes:
1) Govt must give court names of all targets in the 29 applications found deficient
2) Assess whether those issues render applications invalid
So the “We followed all the rules” shtick is quickly unraveling, and these FISA warrants will likely become INVALID. This is a big deal but will probably get very little media attention because it will basically catch these bad actors in a lie. Every little agenda the Deep-state politicians and dirty cops at the DOJ were able to push forward using phony FISA warrants will become null and void, think General Flynn, Carter Page, George Papadopolous, the Mueller investigation, and so on. In a nutshell, all this Russia malarkey will be shown to have been fabricated to make moves against a duly elected president. It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds.
In related “Deep-State” takedown news, we have US Attorney John Durham going after former CIA director John Brennan. Durham, who is conducting an investigation that could lead to high-profile arrests, has scrutinized Brennan over the bungled Steele Dossier, in particular he is looking into whether it was used in the 2017 assessment and why then FBI director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe insisted it be used.
The Washington Examiner reported the following:
“The 2017 assessment concluded with “high confidence” that Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016” and Russia worked to “undermine public faith” in U.S. democracy, “denigrate” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and “harm her electability and potential presidency,” and “developed a clear preference” for Trump. The NSA diverged on one aspect, expressing only “moderate confidence” that Putin actively tried to help Trump win and Clinton lose.
“I wouldn’t call it a discrepancy, I’d call it an honest difference of opinion between three different organizations,” former NSA chief Adm. Mike Rogers told the Senate in 2017. “It didn’t have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources.”
Durham has interviewed Rogers and is also reportedly reviewing Brennan’s handling of a secret source said to be close to the Kremlin. The prosecutor wants to know what role that person’s information played in the assessment.
Durham is also scrutinizing Brennan in relation to British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s dossier. In particular, the prosecutor is looking for answers on whether it was used in the 2017 assessment, why former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe insisted upon it being part of the assessment, how allegations from the dossier ended up in the assessment’s appendix, and whether Brennan misled about the dossier’s use…”
Seth Rich, the DNC intern who was likely murdered for trying to expose election rigging, is creeping back into the public mass consciousness. Now prestigious news disseminators like Buzzfeed have claimed this to be a “Debunked conspiracy theory” which is far from the truth, as more details continue to emerge how can a site like that make such a claim confidently? Simple, because if it’s printed by a source people recognize 9 out of 10 folks will just believe it and look no further. Once again more details emerge around the deceased patriot, This time a Deep State connected former Assistant US Attorney claimed under oath that the FBI did examine Seth Rich’s computer and that she met with an FBI Agent and prosecutor from the Mueller gang. This indicates the meeting should have been recorded in a form 302 but the FBI continues to claim no records related to Seth Rich are available.
It was reported that after getting caught lying to the Courts and claiming there were no documents related to Seth Rich, emails between FBI Deep State lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were uncovered by Judicial Watch with the title “Seth Rich” .
Attorney Ty Clevenger uncovered that the former Assistant US Attorney related to the case admitted that Rich’s computer was inspected by the FBI and that there would be records related to this investigation. She now has been deposed and her comments are shocking, indicating she met with both the FBI and the Mueller gang.
The former Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) provided an affidavit which claims the following – that she was inducted into the Fellow of American College of Trial Lawyers, that from 2016 to 2018 she was the lead AUSA on the murder case of Seth Rich and that she consulted with the FBI on the case:
We have everyone’s favorite billionaire eugenics enthusiast Bill Gates out there pushing for what he really wants, mandatory vaccinations and requiring paperwork to prove it. In case your spidey senses are busted, this is an Orwellian nightmare under the guise of public safety and concern. Naturally, celebrities are being activated to join the chorus they are trying to whip up. We have Madonna out there tweeting about this:
Remember, countless documents and intelligence whistleblowers have shown that the CIA uses celebrities to push certain narratives believing that the public would “follow the stars”. Is that what we are seeing here? I suppose it’s not possible to know for sure but it certainly looks and feels that way. Remember there is a drug that can fight this: Hydroxychloroquine, which we reported on last week and was recently approved by the FDA despite desperate attempts to discredit its success in treating this virus.
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko of NY has had great success in treating the virus, claiming a 100% Cure rate after treating over 700 patients now. His treatment is as follows:
1 – Hydroxychloroquine 200 mg 1 pill 2x a day/5 days
2 – Azithromycin 500 mg 1 pill/day/5 days
3 – Zinc sulfate 220 mg 1 pill/day/5 days
A global survey taken on Thursday has shown incredible results. A poll conducted by Sermo (a private social media network for physicians open to licensed M.D.s and D.O.s in the United States and 149 other countries) asked over 6000 physicians in 30 countries what works against SARS, COVID-19. They rated Hydroxychloroquine as the most effective therapy. You can read more on that here.
It appears that COVID-19 checkpoints are helping the DHS with fighting human trafficking. This is very interesting because one of the prime driving forces behind the Trump administration and Alliance operations have to do with ending human and child trafficking.
According to the Polaris Project, which studies human trafficking, it is estimated that the total number of victims in the United States is in the hundreds of thousands. The International Labor Organization says human trafficking is a $150 billion industry worldwide.
Lastly, there is a lot of hearsay and strangeness surrounding the true purposes of the USS Comfort and Mercy. It’s popular consensus among conspiracy theorists that these ships are not actually being used to just fight the Virus, but are also being used to house and treat trafficking victims, particularly children. There are some indicators that this could be true but nothing substantial as of yet, however, we will be keeping an eye out for any evidence supporting these claims.
“As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity.” -Hunter Thompson