Tag Archives: FBI

Hunter Biden’s ‘Disgusting’ Laptop: Repairman Reveals What Had Him Calling the FBI

Elizabeth Stauffer, The Western Journal
February 4th, 2022

On April 12, 2019, shortly before closing time, Hunter Biden walked into a small computer repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware. John Paul Mac Isaac, the former proprietor of The Mac Shop, told Fox News, “I could definitely tell that he was inebriated.”

The network has produced a four-part exposé on President Joe Biden’s wayward son. The series, entitled “Who is Hunter Biden?,” is now streaming on Fox Nation.

Recalling his encounter with Hunter, Isaac said, “When I asked for his last name, there was a long pause. And he kind of sarcastically added Biden. I had to ask Hunter for his password. And he started laughing. He was like, ‘You’re not really gonna like this.’”

Fox didn’t reveal the password, which I suppose is all we really need to know.

Isaac told the outlet he found an “astounding” and “disgusting” trove of homemade pornography on the laptop. In a Fox ad for the series, journalist Miranda Devine speaks of Hunter’s “roaring sex addiction.”

It was when Isaac discovered a PDF showing that Hunter had made over $1 million for Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings that he called the FBI.

The FBI was curiously uninterested in Isaac’s revelations. He said, “I think that was my first indication that maybe the FBI was more interested in returning the laptop to the former owner and protecting the Bidens than they were protecting me or getting this to the proper channel.”

At that point, Isaac contacted Bob Costello, Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, who was considerably more interested.

When the New York Post broke the laptop story in mid-October 2020, complete with emails that strongly suggested Hunter had sold access to his powerful father, Big Tech did the unthinkable. With the presidential election just over two weeks away, it censored the report.

Following the election, Hunter announced that a U.S. attorney in Delaware had opened an investigation into his finances. You may recall that, when asked for comment on the matter, the president-elect told reporters he was proud of his son.

Politico reported that the investigation went well beyond tax issues. It included “potential money laundering and the younger Biden’s ties abroad.”

With the corrupt Merrick Garland at the helm of the Justice Department, we can easily understand why we haven’t heard anything more about the case.

But the laptop has long since been authenticated. Far more consequential than Hunter’s sex tapes are the allegations that his father, the president of the United States, had knowledge of and may have even been a beneficiary of his dubious foreign business dealings.

This week, the New York Post editorial board called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the whole tangled web of corruption surrounding Hunter Biden.

“It’s past time for Garland to explain why he hasn’t named a special counsel,” the editors wrote. “Unless and until Garland produces an explanation for why he’s avoided an independent prosecutor, or his minions actually bring charges, Americans have every reason to suspect politics is standing in the way of justice.”

This is a story of government and media corruption, both of which have become the norm in our society.

Americans used to be alarmed by stories like this. Not anymore. Sadly, this corruption has become entrenched. We live in a world full of sin.

A special counsel investigation and a Republican tsunami in November will help. But it seems to me there is only one way to truly stop the madness. We need to bring God back into our lives.

Donald Trump on Durham Probe: ‘I Hear There’s a Lot Coming’

Martin Walsh
February 4, 2022

Donald Trump revealed this week that he has heard “there’s a lot coming” from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

“I hear there’s a lot coming,” Trump told former top aide Kash Patel on The Epoch Times’ “Kash’s Corner.”

“We’re gonna see what happens. But what he’s doing is one of the most important jobs being done right now in America,” Trump added.

The 45th president said he would like to see Durham’s investigation move faster.

“I wish it were faster,” Trump said. “It is really the crime of the century and changed everything, including the election.”

Investigative reporter John Solomon has a theory about who special counsel John Durham will go after next — the FBI.

During an interview on Fox News, Solomon and host Maria Bartiromo spoke about Durham’s investigation and what might be next.

Russian-born analyst Igor Danchenko — key source for the Steele dossier that alleged ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia — was arrested by federal agents last week as part of the Durham investigation.

Solomon explained that he believes Durham is dealing with “two buckets.”

In one “bucket,” there are the last two indictments against officials who were connected to Hillary Clinton and their plan to feed the FBI false information about Trump-Russia conspiracies.

Solomon said the other “bucket” focuses on the FBI and whether agents knowingly mislead the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on members of Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Solomon also disputes former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok’s statement on MSNBC last week that the FBI never investigated the Trump campaign in 2016, as Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe makes another indictment.

Below is a transcript of Solomon’s comments on Fox News:

PETER STRZOK: Whether intentionally or not, when you look at the balance of those pages, they have subtle dog whistles to these pro-Trump conspiracy theories, statements like “the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign relied on certain things.”

Well, there was never an FBI investigation of the Trump campaign. Unless you listen to some kind of far-extreme-right commentators or of folks in Congress who assert there was, but that’s nonsense.

MARIA BARTIROMO: Of course, John, there was no pushback from Rachel Maddow. To say there was no investigation of the Trump campaign. Your reaction? Mind-boggling.

JOHN SOLOMON: Listen, Pete Strzok’s opening electronic communication which starts the Crossfire Hurricane investigation states they are looking at whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating conspiring with Russia. When they put the first FISA in, in October, the Trump campaign is mentioned a dozen times in the first FISA, and as I mentioned in the last segment, the allegation is a well-developed conspiracy between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia to hijack the election.

Of course, it was about the campaign. Peter Strzok’s own words said it was about the campaign. He was lying the other night. There’s no other way to say it politely.

BARTIROMO: Of course, they continue to renew FISA warrants against the Trump campaign and they based those warrants to wiretap people like Carter Page, based on that dossier which they knew was false and made up. So I ask you now, what do you think the indictments will look like in the future?

Do you think that John Durham is going to indict people at high levels, big fish, within the FBI?

JOHN SOLOMON: There’s no doubt there is activity inside the grand jury right now aimed at looking at top-level officials of the FBI, and it’s based on this evidence. We all look at the fact that Denchenko was interviewed by the FBI on January 17, and disowned a lot of the things that were said to him.

A lot of people said that should have been the point where the FBI stopped.

But Durham developed really significant evidence that red flags, the stop-now warning signs go all the way back to August when Bruce Orr, in 2016 came to the FBI and said Christopher Steele is dumping a dossier. He hates Trump. He’s hired by Hillary Clinton and most of his information is raw and uncorroborated.

A month after the CIA sends a warning to the FBI, this is something John Ratcliffe declassified, saying Hillary Clinton is trying to play a dirty trick on Donald Trump to tie him to Russia to get out of her e-mail thing. All through the fall, they keep a spreadsheet of what’s right and wrong of the Steele dossier. It’s all wrong. Can’t corroborate, they can’t collaborate the information. The FBI never should have started the investigation and I think that’s where John Durham’s investigation is focused right now.

More Than Two Dozen FBI Agents Descend on Home of Texas Democrat Rep. Who Blasted Biden and Harris Over Border Crisis

Cristina Laila
January 19, 2022 

What’s going on?

More than two dozen FBI agents descended on Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar’s Laredo, Texas home on Wednesday.

The FBI was also present at Cuellar’s campaign office in Laredo.

“Congressman Cuellar will fully cooperate in any investigation. He is committed to ensuring that justice and the law are upheld,” his office said.

The FBI refused to comment on the ongoing investigation.

Rep. Cuellar, a nine-term Texas Democrat lawmaker who represents an area along the US-Mexico border, has lashed out at both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for allowing illegal aliens to pour over the border.

“I’ve moved on from the vice president to say, ‘OK, let’s work with the ambassadors and let’s work with the State Department. Let’s work with the Homeland Secretary,’” Cuellar said before the holidays.

“I think that’s the way to address it, but I know that the media has put a lot of focus on the vice president, but with all due respect, she was given that title. I don’t think she’s, with all due respect, put the effort in there…We’ve got to look at other folks that have the expertise on that,” he added.

Is this FBI raid revenge for speaking out against the regime?

The Monitor reported:

The FBI conducted what it described as “court-authorized” law enforcement activity at the Laredo home of U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar on Wednesday.

Agents were also present at his downtown campaign office in Laredo.

Although FBI spokesperson Roseanne Hughes did not identify what the agency is investigating, she did issue a statement acknowledging the activity.

“The FBI was present in the vicinity of Windridge Drive and Estate Drive in Laredo conducting court-authorized law enforcement activity,” the statement read. “The FBI cannot provide further comment on an ongoing investigation.”

At Cuellar’s home, located in the 8200 block of Estate Drive, federal vehicles were seen with cases and other items taken from the congressman’s house as over two dozen agents filed in and out of the residence Wednesday afternoon.

Two agents with a clipboard and camera in hand snapped photos of the trucks parked out front. The truck was again photographed and searched by agents using flashlights after the sunset.

According to reports, FBI agents were seen leaving Cuellar’s home Wednesday night with large plastic bins and a computer.

Latest Information Shows the FBI Continues to Try to Hide Facts About the Murder of Seth Rich

Larry Johnson
January 11, 2022

This year marks the sixth anniversary of the murder of DNC staffer, Seth Rich, by unknown assailants on July 14, 2016. For more than four years the FBI insisted that it was never involved actively in the investigation of Seth Rich’s murder and that it never opened a case. That lie was exposed in December 2020 thanks to the dogged legal work of Ty Clevenger when the FBI conceded:

FBI has completed the initial search identifying approximately 50 cross-reference serials, with attachments totaling over 20,000 pages, in which Seth Rich is mentioned.  FBI has also located leads that indicate additional potential records that require further searching. . . . FBI is also currently working on getting the files from Seth Rich’s personal laptop into a format to be reviewed. As you can imagine, there are thousands of files of many types. The goal right now is to describe, generally, the types of files/personal information contained in this computer.


This was a stunning admission and raises critical questions that are still unanswered. Why did the FBI open a case on the murder of a DNC staffer that was not a Federal crime? If Rich really was the victim of a street robbery/mugging gone wrong, there is no reason for the FBI to get involved. More telling, why did the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Division (i.e., Peter Strzok) get involved?

More than a year has passed and the FBI continues to stonewall producing the material it is required to produce. Ty Clevenger now represents Brian Huddleston, a Texan who sued the FBI under Freedom of Information law for the agency’s refusal to promptly turn over public documents in the case. Ty’s anger is focused on four key elements:
In this very litigation, after long denying that it investigated anything pertaining to Seth Rich, the FBI was finally forced to admit that it took possession of his personal and work laptops.
I would further direct your attention to the deposition testimony of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Sy Hersh, wherein he testified that a source inside the government told him that the FBI had examined Seth Rich’s laptop.

The FBI failed to conduct a search of the Operational Technology Division (OTD) and the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU). These two units would have documents/evidence of contacts between Seth Rich and Wikileaks.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation claimed there was no evidence that Seth Rich was involved in sharing Democratic National Committee emails with Wikileaks, but the failure to conduct a search of OTD and DITU means that Mueller’s team did not examine relevant evidence.

Here is the full exchange of emails the latest communication between Clevenger and Andrea Parker, a representative from the Department of Justice.

From: Ty Clevenger
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 10:06 AM
To: Parker, Andrea (USATXE)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4:20-447 (Huddleston)

Andrea,

I recently became aware of two FBI units in Quantico that may have information pertaining to Seth Rich and/or Aaron Rich: the Operational Technology Division (OTD) and the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU). As I understand it, the Vaughn index indicates only that only FBI headquarters and the Washington Field Office were searched.

Would you ask the FBI to clarify whether OTD and DITU were searched? And if not, would the FBI be willing to search OTD and DITU? Thank you.

On Monday, December 27, 2021, 10:19:24 AM CST, Parker, Andrea (USATXE) <andrea.parker@usdoj.gov> wrote:

I’ll check and let you know. I’m not sure how much response I will get this week.

Andrea

 

From: Ty Clevenger
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Parker, Andrea (USATXE)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 4:20-447 (Huddleston)

Did you hear back from the FBI about this? Or from CRM about the judicial records?

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022, 01:51:58 PM CST, Parker, Andrea (USATXE) wrote:

Yes, as to your first question, FBI’s response is as follows:

“FBI found no leads to indicate that records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests concerning subject, Seth Rich, would likely exist in OTD and DITU. Accordingly, if Plaintiff is able to provide a more concrete lead to show that records likely exist in either OTD and/or DITU relating to Seth Rich, we would consider conducting a search of those locations. However, at this time such a search of these locations for records relating to Seth Rich is not warranted without a concrete lead indicating that records would likely exist within OTD and DITU. Concerning Aaron Rich, the requester does not have a signed privacy waiver for Aaron Rich, so the FBI’s prior 6/7C response remains intact and no search would be conducted concerning him in either of these locations.”

Remind me what the issue is with CRM and judicial records?

Andrea,

My frustration is not directed toward you in any way, but I am stunned by the FBI’s latest admissions. I’ll begin with the admission that the FBI failed to search the Operational Technology Division (“OTD”). Paragraph 8 of Michael Seidel’s affidavit acknowledges that my client’s FOIA request specifically covered the “Computer Analysis Response Team (‘CART’), and any other ‘cyber’ unit within the FBI.”

According to publicly-available sources, e.g., the FBI’s own website, CART is a part of ODT. See https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2008/november/techexperts_110708. In fact, the LinkedIn page of John Dysart, the current chief of CART, notes that CART is part of ODT. Seehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/john-dysart-20056363/. Furthermore, ODT itself is unequivocally a “’cyber’ unit within the FBI.” See https://www.fbi.gov/services/operational-technology.

Mr. Seidel should have come clean and admitted up front in his declaration that ODT / CART was not searched, rather than forcing me to smoke him out. Then again, this not the first time I’ve caught an FBI section chief being deceptive in response to a FOIA request.

In this very litigation, after long denying that it investigated anything pertaining to Seth Rich, the FBI was finally forced to admit that it took possession of his personal and work laptops.  ODT would have been responsible for examining those laptops. We know this because, for example, ODT was responsible for examining the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner when it was referred to the FBI by the New York Police Department. See p. 388 of the DOJ inspector general report on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails (https://www.scribd.com/document/381806566/IG-Report-on-FBI-and-DOJ-Handling-of-Clinton-Investigation).

I would further direct your attention to the deposition testimony of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Sy Hersh, wherein he testified that a source inside the government told him that the FBI had examined Seth Rich’s laptop. A link to that transcript can be found on my blog at https://lawflog.com/?p=2433. Obviously, our targeted FOIA request about CART was not based on a blind hunch.

Even if the FBI did not examine Seth Rich’s laptops, that would be very important information in and of itself.  In Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation, he claimed there was no evidence that Seth Rich was involved in sharing Democratic National Committee emails with Wikileaks. We know from the records already produced that the FBI conducted that investigation at Mr. Mueller’s direction. If the FBI took custody of Mr. Rich’s laptops but never examined those laptops, then that would call into question the integrity of the investigation conducted by Mr. Mueller and the FBI.

The existence of the DITU is not a secret, and it certainly is not classified. See, e.g., Thomas Brewster, “Revealed: Two Secret Cogs In The FBI National Surveillance Machine,” February 21, 2018 Forbeshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/21/fbi-hidden-hacking-groups-revealed/?sh=4e1a8c51330f; and Shane Harris, “Meet the Spies Doing the NSA’s Dirty Work,” November 21, 2013 Foreign Policyhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2013/11/21/meet-the-spies-doing-the-nsas-dirty-work/. Furthermore, an email previously released by the FBI in response to a FOIA request plainly references DITU (because it was sent by the acting unit chief of DITU). See https://www.eff.org/files/fbi_cipav-08-p9.pdf. In short, there is no legitimate basis for trying to shield DITU.

As noted above, Mr. Mueller claimed there was no evidence that Mr. Rich transmitted emails to Wikileaks. According to the publicly-available sources cited above, DITU is the entity responsible for electronic data intercepts, therefore its database would be the place to search for communications between Mr. Rich and an overseas entity such as Wikileaks. If the FBI and Mr. Mueller failed to search DITU, that fact alone is something that the public deserves to know, because it would show that the investigation was a sham.

Finally, I will address the FBI’s claim that Aaron Rich’s identity is subject to privacy protections. Aaron Rich has spoken very publicly about the matters pertaining to my client’s FOIA request. See, e.g., Michael Isikioff, “’It is indescribable’: How a harassment campaign overwhelmed Seth Rich’s friends and family,” August 6, 2019 Yahoo!Newshttps://www.yahoo.com/now/it-is-indescribable-how-a-harassment-campaign-overwhelmed-seth-richs-friends-and-family-100000936.html. An Asst. U.S. Attorney testified that she obtained at least one of Seth Rich’s laptops from Aaron Rich. A transcript of her testimony is posted on my blog. See March 20, 2020 Deposition of Deborah Sines, https://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.03.20-Deborah-Sines-deposition-transcript.pdf. Finally, Aaron Rich sued one of my client’s in federal court, alleging that he was defamed because my client alleged that he played a role in leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks. See Rich v. Butowsky et al, Case No. 18-cv-00681-RJL (D.D.C.). Under the circumstances, Aaron Rich has no privacy interest to protect.

My client is trying to determine whether Mr. Mueller and the FBI whitewashed a murder for the sake of a partisan political agenda. Thus far, the FBI has bent itself over backwards to hide information about Seth Rich, with senior FBI personnel trying to deceive U.S. district courts in Texas and New York. The longer this chicanery continues, the greater the evidence that the FBI is indeed whitewashing a murder for the sake of politics.

BREAKING: Feds Finally Admit to Running Secretive DOJ “Commandos” at Jan. 6 Trump Protests

Jim Hoft
January 3, 2022

The Department of Justice admitted this week to running secretive DOJ “commandos” at the January 6 protests in Washington DC.

Four Trump supporters died that day including two women who were killed by Capitol Hill Police.
A third woman was nearly killed but was rescued by Green Beret Jeremy Brown.

The DOJ Commandos were given “shoot to kill” orders.

Now they’re admitting the government did in fact have commandos at the capitol on Jan. 6.

After nearly a year this information is finally coming out.
And they accused this website and others of being conspiracy nuts for reporting on the feds in the crowd that day.

We will likely never know how many feds were working that day to sabotage the peaceful protests.

Newsweek reported:

On Sunday, January 3, the heads of a half-dozen elite government special operations teams met in Quantico, Virginia, to go over potential threats, contingencies, and plans for the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. The meeting, and the subsequent deployment of these shadowy commandos on January 6, has never before been revealed.

Right after the New Year, Jeffrey A. Rosen, the acting Attorney General on January 6, approved implementation of long-standing contingency plans dealing with the most extreme possibilities: an attack on President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence, a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction, and a declaration of measures to implement continuity of government, requiring protection and movement of presidential successors.

Rosen made a unilateral decision to take the preparatory steps to deploy Justice Department and so-called “national” forces. There was no formal request from the U.S. Capitol Police, the Secret Service, or the Metropolitan Police Department—in fact, no external request from any agency. The leadership in Justice and the FBI anticipated the worst and decided to act independently, the special operations forces lurking behind the scenes.

“I believe that DOJ [Department of Justice] reasonably prepared for contingencies ahead of January 6, understanding that there was considerable uncertainty as to how many people would arrive, who those people would be, and precisely what purposes they would pursue,” Rosen later told Congress. He stressed that his department “no frontline role with respect to crowd control,” that they were focused on “high-risk” operations.

The contingency units meeting on January 3 included the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI’s national “Render Safe” team, an FBI SWAT team from the Baltimore Field Office, Special Response Teams from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the U.S. Marshals Service Special Operations Group…

…FBI tactical teams arrived on Capitol Hill early in the day to assist in the collection of evidence at sites—including the Republican and Democrat party national headquarters—where explosive devices were found. FBI SWAT teams and snipers were deployed to secure nearby congressional office buildings. Other FBI agents provided selective security around the U.S. Capitol and protection to congressional members and staff.

A tactical team of the Hostage Rescue Team was one of the first external federal agencies to actually enter the Capitol after protestors breached the building. In addition to augmentation of emergency security assets, one team coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police and Secret Service to provide additional safeguarding of Vice President Pence, who had been moved to the underground parking structure beneath the Capitol, from where he was supposed to evacuate. But Pence refused to leave the building and stayed underground instead.

The presence of these extraordinary forces under the control of the Attorney General—and mostly operating under contingency plans that Congress and the U.S. Capitol Police were not privy to—added an additional layer of highly armed responders. The role that the military played in this highly classified operation is still unknown, though FBI sources tell Newsweek that military operators seconded to the FBI, and those on alert as part of the National Mission Force, were present in the metropolitan area. The lingering question is: What was it that the Justice Department saw that provoked it to see January 6 as an extraordinary event, something that the other agencies evidently missed.

The FBI ‘Invented Conspiracy’ To Kidnap Gretchen Whitmer Motion Claims

December 28th, 2021

Lawyers representing the five men who have been charged with a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer are asking a judge to dismiss all charges by claiming that the FBI fabricated the entire plan in an attempt to trap them in a conspiracy.

Daily Mail reported that Barry Croff, 44, Adam Fox, 40, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, 23, and Brandon Caserta were all arrested in October of last year for allegedly planning to kidnap Whitmer because they were upset by her COVID-19 restrictions. The federal complaint alleges that the men planned to kidnap Whitmer from her vacation home and hide her away in an undisclosed location.

“The government initiated this case, despite the fact that it knew there was no plan to kidnap, no operational plan, and no details about how a kidnapping would occur or what would happen afterward,” defense lawyer Scott Graham wrote in his motion, which is 20 pages long.

The motion went on to claim that were it not for an FBI informant embedded within the group, known as “Dan,” who encouraged the plot and pledged to fund it through a charity organization, the men never would have hatched the plan on their own. Though the men discussed the plot in secret meetings and via text messages, with the FBI claiming that they trained for it, their lawyers allege that they had such little money that they would not even be able to travel to Whitmer’s home to carry it out.

“The evidence here demonstrates egregious overreaching by the government’s agents, and by the informants, those agents handled,” the motion stated. “When the government was faced with evidence showing that the defendants had no interest in a kidnapping plot, it refused to accept failure and continued to push its plan.”

The defense lawyers argued that “Dan” egged the men to move forward with the plan to kidnap Whitmer.

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Evidence from Jeffrey Epstein’s Safe Went Missing Following FBI Raid

Jim Hoft
December 19, 2021

In July 2019 the FBI raided Jeffrey Epstein’s home in New York City. The FBI agents found damning information and evidence throughout his 7-story residence. The evidence included “numerous black binders” with white labels that had “clear pages containing thumbnail photos with CDs attached.”

FBI agents also found several items in a safe including “binders with CDs, various items of jewelry, external hard drives, lose diamonds, large amounts of U.S. currency and passports.”

The FBI later said the evidence in the safe went missing. Chris Wray’s FBI said they went back a few days later and the evidence had disappeared.

** The same FBI that ran a coup against the sitting US president based on completely made-up opposition party nonsense wants the American public to believe the Epstein evidence went missing and they had nothing to do with it.

** The same FBI that raided hundreds of homes of US patriots with dozens of armed agents this year for walking inside or near the US Capitol on January 6th, wants you to believe they had nothing to do with this missing evidence — after they were the last ones to see it.

** The same group that believes Antifa is an idea but Trump supporters and conservative working Americans are domestic terrorists want you to believe they did not disappear the Epstein evidence.

So the FBI went inside his home and took photos but did not confiscate the evidence?

Does anybody buy this?

FOX News reported:

The witness told the tale of how the FBI searched Epstein’s $77 million New York home to the jurors. The agents buzzed but after no answer, they forced their entry to the residence and started performing a protective sweep to make sure there was no threat to them.

On the third floor, in a dressing room, they found a safe that they pulled out from a closet and brought in a saw to open it. There were several items in it that the FBI photographed such as more “binders with CDs, various items of jewelry, external hard-drives, lose diamonds, large amounts of U.S. currency and passports.” However, they needed a second search warrant in order to retrieve those items. So, they returned a few days later, except that the items that had been removed from the safe were missing. An attorney for Epstein then returned all the items to the agents.

THE SWAMP TAKES CARE OF ITS OWN: DC Bar Restores Convicted FBI Russiagate Forger Kevin Clinesmith While Still on Probation

Paul Sperry,
December 17th, 2021

A former senior FBI lawyer who falsified a surveillance document in the Trump-Russia investigation has been restored as a member in “good standing” by the District of Columbia Bar Association even though he has yet to finish serving out his probation as a convicted felon, according to disciplinary records obtained by RealClearInvestigations.

The move is the latest in a series of exceptions the bar has made for Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty in August 2020 to doctoring an email used to justify a surveillance warrant targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation last January. But the D.C. Bar did not seek his disbarment, as is customary after lawyers are convicted of serious crimes involving the administration of justice. In this case, it did not even initiate disciplinary proceedings against him until February of this year — five months after he pleaded guilty and four days after RealClearInvestigations first reported he had not been disciplined.

After the negative publicity, the bar temporarily suspended Clinesmith pending a review and hearing. Then in September, the court that oversees the bar and imposes sanctions agreed with its recommendation to let Clinesmith off suspension with time served; the bar, in turn, restored his status to “active member” in “good standing.”

Before quietly making that decision, however, records indicate the bar did not check with his probation officer to see if he had violated the terms of his sentence or if he had completed the community service requirement of volunteering 400 hours.

To fulfill the terms of his probation, Clinesmith volunteered at Street Sense Media in Washington but stopped working at the nonprofit group last summer, which has not been previously reported. “I can confirm he was a volunteer here,” Street Sense editorial director Eric Falquero told RCI, without elaborating about how many hours he worked. Clinesmith had helped edit and research articles for the weekly newspaper, which coaches the homeless on how to “sleep on the streets” and calls for a “universal living wage” and prison reform.

Special Counsel Could Still Be Investigating Clinesmith

From the records, it also appears bar officials did not consult with the FBI’s Inspection Division, which has been debriefing Clinesmith to determine if he was involved in any other surveillance abuses tied to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants, in addition to the one used against Page. Clinesmith’s cooperation was one of the conditions of the plea deal he struck with Special Counsel John Durham. If he fails to fully cooperate, including turning over any relevant materials or records in his possession, he could be subject to perjury or obstruction charges.

Clinesmith — who was assigned to some of the FBI’s most sensitive and high-profile investigations — may still be in Durham’s sights regarding other areas of his wide-ranging probe.

The scope of his mandate as special counsel is broader than commonly understood: In addition to examining the legal justification for the FBI’s “Russiagate” probe, it also includes examining the bureau’s handling of the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecured email server, which she set up in her basement to send and receive classified information, and her destruction of more than 30,000 subpoenaed emails she generated while running the State Department. As assistant FBI general counsel in the bureau’s national security branch, Clinesmith played an instrumental role in that investigation, which was widely criticized by FBI and Justice Department veterans, along with ethics watchdogs, as fraught with suspicious irregularities.

Clinesmith also worked on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into the 2016 Trump campaign as the key attorney linking his office to the FBI. He was the only headquarters lawyer assigned to Mueller. Durham’s investigators are said to be looking into the Mueller team’s actions as well.

The D.C. Bar’s treatment of Clinesmith, a registered Democrat who sent anti-Trump rants to FBI colleagues after the Republican was elected, has raised questions from the start. Normally the bar automatically suspends the license of members who plead guilty to a felony. But in Clinesmith’s case, it delayed suspending him on even an interim basis for several months and only acted after RCI revealed the break Clinesmith was given, records confirm.

Repeated Irregularities in Clinesmith’s Case

It then allowed him to negotiate his fate, which is rarely done in any misconduct investigation, let alone one involving a serious crime, according to a review of past cases. It also overlooked violations of its own rules: Clinesmith apparently broke the bar’s rule requiring reporting his guilty plea “promptly” to the court — within 10 days of entering it — and failed to do so for five months, reveal transcripts of a July disciplinary hearing obtained by RCI.

“I did not see evidence that you informed the court,” Rebecca Smith, the chairwoman of the D.C. Bar panel conducting the hearing, admonished Clinesmith.

“[T]hat was frankly just an error,” Clinesmith’s lawyer stepped in to explain.

Smith also scolded the bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the “delay” in reporting the offense, since it negotiated the deal with Clinesmith, pointing out: “Disciplinary counsel did not report the plea to the court and initiate a disciplinary proceeding.” Bill Ross, the assistant disciplinary counsel who represented the office at the hearing, argued Clinesmith shouldn’t be held responsible and blamed the oversight on the COVID pandemic.

The Democrat-controlled panel, known as the Board on Professional Responsibility, nonetheless gave Clinesmith a pass, rubberstamping the light sentence he negotiated with the bar’s chief prosecutor, Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton “Phil” Fox, while admitting it was “unusual.” Federal Election Commission records show Fox, a former Watergate prosecutor, is a major donor to Democrats, including former President Obama. All three members of the board also are Democratic donors, FEC data reveal.

Contrasting Action Taken by Michigan Bar

While the D.C. Bar delayed taking any action against Clinesmith, the Michigan Bar, where he is also licensed, automatically suspended him the day he pleaded guilty. And on Sept. 30, records show, the Michigan Bar’s attorney discipline board suspended Clinesmith for two years, from the date of his guilty plea through Aug. 19, 2022, and fined him $1,037.

“[T]he panel found that respondent engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the proper administration of justice [and] exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach,” the board ruled against Clinesmith, adding that his misconduct “was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals; violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court; and violated a criminal law of the United States.”

Normally, bars arrange what’s called “reciprocal discipline” for unethical attorneys licensed in their jurisdictions. But this was not done in the case of Clinesmith. The D.C. Bar decided to go much easier on the former FBI attorney, further raising suspicions the anti-Trump felon was given favorable treatment.

In making the bar’s case not to strip Clinesmith of his license or effectively punish him going forward, Fox disregarded key findings by Durham about Clinesmith’s intent to deceive the FISA court as a government attorney who held a position of trust.

Clinesmith Pled Guilty to Falsifying Records

Clinesmith confessed to creating a false document by changing the wording in a June 2017 CIA email to state Page was “not a source” for the CIA when in fact the agency had told Clinesmith and the FBI on multiple occasions Page had been providing information about Russia to it for years — a revelation that, if disclosed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, would have undercut the FBI’s case for electronically monitoring Page as a supposed Russian agent and something that Durham noted Clinesmith understood all too well.

Bar records show Fox simply took Clinesmith’s word that he believed the change in wording was accurate and that in making it, he mistakenly took a “shortcut” to save time and had no intent to deceive the court or the case agents preparing the application for the warrant.

Durham demonstrated that Clinesmith certainly did intend to mislead the FISA court. “By his own words, it appears that the defendant falsified the email in order to conceal [Page’s] former status as a source and to avoid making an embarrassing disclosure to the FISC,” the special prosecutor asserted in his 20-page memo to the sentencing judge, in which he urged a prison term of up to six months for Clinesmith. “Such a disclosure would have drawn a strong and hostile response from the FISC for not disclosing it sooner [in earlier warrant applications].”

As proof of Clinesmith’s intent to deceive, Durham cited an internal message Clinesmith sent the FBI agent preparing the application, who relied on Clinesmith to tell him what the CIA said about Page. “At least we don’t have to have a terrible footnote” explaining that Page was a source for the CIA in the application, Clinesmith wrote.

The FBI lawyer also removed the initial email he sent to the CIA inquiring about Page’s status as a source before forwarding the CIA email to another FBI agent, blinding him to the context of the exchange about Page.

Durham also noted that Clinesmith repeatedly changed his story after the Justice Department’s watchdog first confronted him with the altered email during an internal 2019 investigation. What’s more, he falsely claimed his CIA contact told him in phone calls that Page was not a source, conversations the contact swore never happened.

Clinesmith Was Politically Biased at the FBI

Fox also maintained that Clinesmith had no personal motive in forging the document. But Durham cited virulently anti-Trump political messages Clinesmith sent to other FBI employees after Trump won in 2016 – including a battle cry to “fight” Trump and his policies – and argued that his clear political bias may have led to his criminal misconduct.

“It is plausible that his strong political views and/or personal dislike of [Trump] made him more willing to engage in the fraudulent and unethical conduct to which he has pled guilty,” Durham told U.S. District Judge Jeb Boasberg.

Boasberg, a Democrat appointed by President Obama, spared Clinesmith jail time and let him serve out his probation from home. Fox and the D.C. Bar sided with Boasberg, who accepted Clinesmith’s claim he did not intentionally deceive the FISA court, which Boasberg happens to preside over, and even offered an excuse for his criminal conduct.

“My view of the evidence is that Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true,” Boasberg said. “By altering the email, he was saving himself some work and taking an inappropriate shortcut.”

Fox echoed the judge’s reasoning in essentially letting Clinesmith off the hook. (The deal they struck, which the U.S. District Court of Appeals that oversees the bar approved in September, called for a one-year suspension, but the suspension began retroactively in August 2020, which made it meaningless.) Boasberg opined that Clinesmith had “already suffered” punishment by losing his FBI job and $150,000 salary.

But, Boasberg assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that Clinesmith also faced possible disbarment. ”And who knows where his earnings go now,” the judge sympathized. “He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.”

Anticipating such a punishment, Boasberg waived a recommended fine of up to $10,000, arguing that Clinesmith couldn’t afford it. He also waived the regular drug testing usually required during probation, while returning Clinesmith’s passport. And he gave his blessing to Clinesmith’s request to serve out his probation as a volunteer journalist, before wishing him well: “Mr. Clinesmith, best of luck to you.”

FBI Should Have Much Higher Standards

Fox did not respond to requests for comment. But he argued in a petition to the board that his deal with Clinesmith was “not unduly lenient,” because it was comparable to sanctions imposed in similar cases. However, none of the cases he cited involved the FBI, Justice Department or FISA court. One case involved a lawyer who made false statements to obtain construction permits, while another made false statements to help a client become a naturalized citizen – a far cry from falsifying evidence to spy on an American citizen.

Durham noted that in providing the legal support for a warrant application to the secret FISA court, Clinesmith had “a heightened duty of candor,” since FISA targets do not have legal representation before the court. He argued Clinesmith’s offense was “a very serious crime with significant repercussions” and suggested it made him unfit to practice law.

“An attorney – particularly an attorney in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel – is the last person that FBI agents or this court should expect to create a false document,” Durham said.

The warrant Clinesmith helped obtain has since been deemed invalid and the surveillance of Page illegal. Never charged with a crime, Page is now suing the FBI and Justice Department for $75 million for violating his constitutional rights against improper searches and seizures.

Explaining the D.C. Bar’s disciplinary process in a 2019 interview with Washington Lawyer magazine, Fox said that “the lawyer has the burden of proving they are fit to practice again. Have they accepted responsibility for their conduct?” His office’s website said a core function is to “deter attorneys from engaging in misconduct.”

In the same interview, Fox maintained that he tries to insulate his investigative decisions from political bias. “I try to make sure our office is not used as a political tool,” he said. “We don’t want to be a political tool for the Democrats or Republicans.”

Bar records from the Clinesmith case show Fox suggested the now-discredited Trump-Russia “collusion” investigation was “a legitimate and highly important investigation.”

Protecting People Who Hurt Trump

One longstanding member of the D.C. Bar with direct knowledge of Clinesmith’s case before the bar suspects its predominantly Democratic board went soft on him due to partisan politics. “The District of Columbia is a very liberal bar,” he said. “Basically, they went light on him because he’s also a Democrat who hated Trump.”

Meanwhile, the D.C. Bar has not initiated disciplinary proceedings against Michael Sussmann, another Washington attorney charged by Durham. Records show Sussmann remains an “active member” of the bar in “good standing,” which also has not been previously reported. The former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer, who recently resigned from Washington-based Perkins Coie LLP, is accused of lying to federal investigators about his client while passing off a report falsely linking Trump to the Kremlin.

While Sussmann has pleaded not guilty and has yet to face trial, criminal grand jury indictments usually prompt disciplinary proceedings and interim suspensions.

Paul Kamenar of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, has called for the disbarment of both Clinesmith and Sussmann. He noted that the D.C. Court of Appeals must automatically disbar an attorney who commits a crime of moral turpitude, which includes crimes involving the “administration of justice.”

“Clinesmith pled guilty to a felony. The only appropriate sanction for committing a serious felony that also interfered with the proper administration of justice and constituted misrepresentation, fraud and moral turpitude, is disbarment,” he said. “Anything less would minimize the seriousness of the misconduct” and fail to deter other offenders.

Disciplinary Counsel Fox appears to go tougher on Republican bar members. For example, he recently opened a formal investigation of former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, whom records show Fox put under “temporary disciplinary suspension” pending the outcome of the ethics probe, which is separate from the one being conducted by the New York bar. In July, the New York Bar also suspended the former GOP mayor on an interim basis.

Giuliani has not been convicted of a crime or even charged with one.

This article is republished from RealClearInvestigations

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Day 6: Witness “Kate”, FBI Personel Take the Stand

Ryan DeLarme
December 6th, 2021,

We’ve now entered the second week in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Last week we heard testimony from Maxwell’s first accuser “Jane”, Epstein’s former pilot, A former Housekeeper at Epstein and Maxwell’s Palm Beach estate, and a former Palm Beach Crime Scene Manager.

We left off last week with Former Palm Beach Police Officer Gregory Parkinson on the stand and Epstein’s massage table rolled out and added to the evidence.’

This morning we saw a woman going by the pseudonym “Kate” take the stand after Judge Alison Nathan instructed jurors that she was not a victim of any crimes charged in the indictment.

The witness claimed that she was above the age of consent when she met Maxwell and Epstein. Because of her age, prosecutors will not be allowed to ask her any questions about the details of any sexual conduct between “kate” and Maxwell.

Kate testified that she met Maxwell in the early 1990s when she was 17 years old. She went on to describe a time when she was led up to a massage room in Maxwell’s London townhouse by the accused madam and then gave Epstein sexualized massages.

Kate said that Maxwell would tell her to “have a good time” after she opened the massage room door to reveal a naked Epstein.

After the massage, which included sex acts, Maxwell told Kate she was “such a good girl” and that she was “so happy you were able to come”.

“She sounded really pleased,” Kate added.

The witness testified that Ghislaine spoke about friendships with various celebrities, including Prince Andrew and former President Donald Trump. 

Assistant US Attorney Laura Pomerantz asked the witness about Maxwell’s social circle, to which “kate” responded that the disgraced socialite “seemed to know everybody.”

“She was friends with Prince Andrew, etc., sometimes there names would just come up or she would be talking about them on the phone with me present,”

While down in Palm Beach, Maxwell and Epstein had the witness dress up like a schoolgirl and requested that she serve them tea while in costume. Kate claimed that the pleated skirt, white socks, and shirt were laid out for her on a bed when she arrived at the mansion for the first time in the early 1990s.

“I thought it would be fun for you to take Jeffery his tea in this outfit,” Maxwell told her when she asked about it. Maxwell then gave her a tray, which she took to Epstein, who then engaged in sex acts with her near the pool, she testified.

Maxwell even tried to get Kate to recruit others to give the late pedophile oral sex, telling her he liked “cute, young, pretty” girls, “like you.”

“She would ask me if I knew anybody to come and give Jeffrey a blowjob because it was a lot for her to do,” recalled Kate.

The witness, now 44, said the duo promised to help with her budding music career.

Regarding her first impressions of Maxwell, Kate said: “She seemed very exciting and she seemed like everything that I wanted to be,” Kate said about the older woman.

“I thought that she was going to be my friend,” 

She then began abusing cocaine and sleeping pills.

“I did not want to admit what happened to me,” she said.

The next phase of the trial would see the defense attacking the girls credibility. Maxwell’s attorney Bobbi Sternheim grilled the witness – raising the fact that she’s made numerous public statements with her real name, but is now testifying anonymously.

Sternheim also raised that Kate is represented by an attorney who has profited off the Epstein case, including by writing a book about accusations against him. 

The next witness to take the stand was JP Morgan director Patrick McHugh, who was questioned about wire transfers to Ghislaine Maxwell from accounts belonging to Jeffery Epstein. 

One transaction on Oct. 19th, 1999, for instance, showed that $18.3 million was wired to Maxwell’s Bear Sterns account.

Another $5 million was funneled to Maxwell in 2002, McHugh testified.

Next up we had FBI Special Agent Kelly Maguire who testified about the 2019 raid on Jeffery Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse.

 Federal agents and NYPD officers raided the home around the time of Epstein’s July 2019 sex-trafficking arrest, and said they found hundreds of images of nude underage girls stashed inside a safe.

The last witness of the day was an FBI analyst, Kimberly Meder, who testified about the CDs discovered in Epstein’s safe which apperently contained images of Epstein and Maxwell together. 

The analyst wasn’t on the stand long before democrat Judge Alison Natha called an end to the day.

Testimony will resume tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.