Tag Archives: senate

Grassley Warns of National Security Concerns Surrounding Biden Crime Family; Says New Revelations Will Be Presented to Senate THIS WEEK

Julian Conradson
April 4th, 2022

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has teamed up with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in order to expose the truth behind the Biden Crime Family’s illicit business dealings once and for all.

Hopefully, this is an effort that will lead to some true accountability. The Bidens have profited off of selling out Americans for far too long.

Last week, the pair of Republican Senators spoke on the Senate floor and exposed several high-dollar transfers from foreign entities, including several Chinese Communist Party linked organizations, that were sent to Hunter Biden, the bagman of the Biden Crime Family.

As has been reported before by outlets like the Gateway Pundit, Hunter has received millions of dollars jet-setting across the world on behalf of “the big guy.”

Over the weekend, Grassley appeared on Fox News to discuss Hunter Biden’s backroom deals with China and the possible implications, which could include national security threats like the blackmail of the sitting president.

Grassley, who is currently the President Pro Tempore Emeritus of the Senate, plans on continuing to expose the details of the Bidens and their business operation over the coming weeks, and, for now, will leave the decision to form a Special Counsel to investigate these crimes up to the Attorney General. However, as he pointed out on Fox, Grassley and Johnson have already brought “out the facts and bank records” that “prove” Hunter was picking up cash from people aligned with hostile enemies of the United States.

Doing nothing at this point would be a bad look for the already-fledgling Biden Regime, and Grassley knows it.

From Grassley:

“What’s concerning to us, we released all these documents, is there any sort of blackmail opportunity for china against the United States because of those close working relationships. I say it’s concerning. We dont have any records that would prove anything along that line but when you have people high up in the Chinese government and the business community and you know what they want – they want in’s in the United States for their own political benefit. Then that’s concerning. 

We can only expose the records that show that $5 million dollars went from people in china to Hunter Biden.”

Grassley went on to preview, what he called, “more revelations” about Hunter Biden’s business enterprise, which will be coming out later in the week, he explained.

He also points out the failure of the lying partisan hacks in the Legacy news media who buried the information for so long. If they had done their jobs, it wouldn’t be Grassley and Johnson who are the ones bringing this information to the public light.

Grassley Continued:

“Well, we just follow the money and the facts where they lead us, and we aren’t done with this yet. We’ll probably be making some more revelations yet this week in Senate speeches…

…the media should have been working on these over a long period of time. In fact, they were in cahoots with Democratic senators who were trying to say Johnson and I were just disseminating Russian disinformation. When we can trace it right back to the Russians, they [Democrats and the Fake News Media] were the ones who were spreading Russian Disinformation.”


Hunter’s seat is getting awfully hot right about now.

Sen. Grassley Unveils Explosive New Docs That ‘Undeniably’ Show Strong Links Between Biden Family and Communist China

Kyle Becker
March 29, 2022

The Biden family international corruption scandal begins to snowball towards a mountain of ‘undeniable’ evidence that the First Family is linked to communist Chinese interests.

As the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, the federal tax investigation into Hunter Biden is “gaining momentum as prosecutors gather information from several of his associates about the sources of his foreign income.” The New York Times recently corroborated the authenticity of the reporting prior to the 2020 election that the Hunter Biden laptop and its records are, indeed, authentic. The Times’ report raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s potential criminal exposure for failing to report his actions as a foreign agent of a government under FARA requirements.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) rose on the Senate floor and disclosed new documents that he promised were just a ‘taste’ of what he and his colleague Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) have in store to demonstrate ‘undeniable’ strong links between the Biden family and the Chinese communist government.

“Today, Senator Johnson and I begin a series of speeches on our investigations into the Biden family financial deals,” Senator Grassley said. “We’ll make these presentations with two themes. First, we’ll refute and we’ll dismantle the talking points that the liberal media and our Democrat colleagues pushed onto the American people.”

“Their talking points said that our investigation over the years advanced and spread disinformation,” Grassley continued. “On November 29, 2021; May 11, 2021; March 18, 2021; December 14, 2020; December 10, 2020; October 19, 2020; and December 9, 2020, I came to the Senate floor to rebut those false charges. Now, or at least then, the liberal media and my Democrat colleagues ought to be ashamed of themselves for the outright lies that they peddled about our investigative work.”

“As a result, Senator Johnson and I did what any good investigator would do,” he said. “We gathered even more records to prove all these people wrong, which brings me to the second theme. Senator Johnson and I will produce new records to show additional connections between the Biden family and the communist Chinese regime.”

“Before we get to those records, I’m going to discuss the background of our investigation,” he continued. “We started this investigation last congress. Then, I was Chairman of the Finance Committee, and at that time, Senator Johnson was Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It began in August 2019. I started at that time an inquiry into a transaction involving Hunter Biden that was reviewed by the federal government’s Committee on Foreign Investment.”

“On September 23, 2020, Senator Johnson and I released our report,” he added. “On November 18, 2020, we released our supplement to that report. Those reports were based in large part on Obama administration government records and also almost a dozen transcribed interviews of government officials. In both reports, Senator Johnson and I made financial information public that hadn’t ever been known before.”

“Our report exposed extensive financial relationships between Hunter and James Biden and Chinese nationals connected to the communist regime,” he went on. “More precisely, these were Chinese nationals connected to the Chinese government’s military and intelligence service. One of those individuals was a person by the name of Patrick Ho. According to reports, Hunter Biden said of Patrick Ho, quote, ‘I have another New York Times reporter calling about my representation of Patrick Ho.’ Then Hunter Biden says the F-word denoting ‘a spy chief of China who started a company that my partner who is worth $323 billion founded and is now missing.’ End of that quote.”

“We’ll get into more detail with respect to Patrick Ho in future speeches,” Grassley added. “We’ll do the same with Gongwen Dong [CFO of the Kam Fei Group of Hong Kong], another close associate of Hunter Biden who is connected to the Communist regime. Hunter Biden’s reference to, quote, ‘my partner,’ end quote, is an apparent reference to Ye Jianming [former chairman of the Shanghai-based CEFC China Energy]. Yi had connections to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Yi had a company called CEFC, which had multiple variations.”

“Today and in future speeches, Senator Johnson and I will simply refer to that company as CEFC,” he said. “Documents show that CEFC’s corporate mission was, quote, ‘to expand cooperation in international energy economy and contribute to national development,’ end of quote. Now let me emphasize that word national in that quote — national development. CEFC existed for the communist state.”

“Indeed, records show that CEFC is dedicated itself to serve China’s national energy strategy, developing national strategic reserves for oil, and now I quote, ‘partnering with centrally administered and state-owned enterprises,’ end of quote,” Grassley continued. “Records prepared by one of Hunter and James Biden’s business associates, a James Gilliar, say the following about this company’s CEFC — quote, ‘at the time China was hungry for crude, but its state-backed companies were having difficulty closing some deals abroad. The optics of China’s state-backed giants marching into a country to buy and extract oil weren’t great for central Asian politicians. This paved the way for private firms like CEFC, which can strike oil deals in Europe and the Middle East, where Chinese state-owned enterprises could bring political liabilities,’ end of quote.”

“Documents also show that CEFC, quote, ‘is building an energy storage and logistic system in Europe,’ end of quote, to connect China, Europe, and the Middle East,” he added. “You may ask why. Plainly, to serve, quote, ‘China’s ambitions to have over seas storage locations connected with world markets,’ end of quote.”

“The document further states that CEFC’s investments and their bank division has investments in the energy sector, quote, ‘which are in tandem with the government’s $4 trillion one belt, one road foreign investment program,’ end of quote,” Grassley said. “So, then CEFC operated under the guise of a private company, but for all intents and purposes, as an arm of the Chinese government.”

“Hunter Biden and James Biden served as a perfect vehicle by which the Chinese communist government could gain inroads here in the United States through CEFC and its affiliates,” he said. “And these inroads were focused on Chinese advancement into the global and U.S. energy sector. Hunter and James Biden were more than happy to go along, of course, for the right price.”

“So, now let’s turn to the first poster which shows bank records that hasn’t been made public before now,” Grassley said while standing in front of a blown-up bank record. “This is a portion of a document that we, meaning Senator Johnson and I, will release in full. The topic of this poster shows a wire transaction, August 4, 2017, from CEFC to Wells Fargo clearing services for $100,000. Now look at the bottom of the poster. This is the underlying data of this transaction. It states, quote, ‘further credit to Owasco,’ end of quote. Owasco is Hunter Biden’s [law] firm.”

“Now, there is no middle man in this transaction,” he added. “This is $100,000 of what is effectively arm of the Chinese communist government direct to Hunter Biden.”

“So, a second question,” he said. “Question to the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues who accused us over the last two years of distributing Russian disinformation. Is this official bank document Russian disinformation?”

“Now, beyond this document, in future speeches, Senator Johnson and I will show you more transfers between and among such companies as CEFC, Northern International Capital [a Hong Kong-based investment company], Hudson West III, Hunter Biden’s Owasco and James Biden’s Lion Hall group. In doing so, please keep in mind the players in this game, Hunter Biden, James Biden, Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, Mervyn Yan and Patrick Ho, to name a few. All of these individuals mixed and mingled with related corporate entitites over a period of years with respect to millions of dollars.”

“Now, the next poster,” Grassley said and turned to a record with a number of signatures. “Those connections are illustrated by the second poster which I made public last November. It’s an original bank record with one typographical error in all. Here you have Hunter Biden, Gongwen Dong and Mervyn Yan executing an assignment, an assumption agreement together.”

“So, now a third question to those who accuse us of disseminating ‘Russian disinformation,’ so especially to the liberal media, who are the ones who ought to be policing our government system to make sure that everything is done honest, they shouldn’t have to have members of Congress giving all this information out, but is this official record ‘Russian disinformation’?” he asked.

“In our next speeches we’ll show you more records that haven’t been seen before,” Grassley said. “Records that undeniably show strong links between Biden family and communist China. Today is just a small taste.”

Senators Allege Secret CIA Program Collecting Data on Americans, Call for Declassification

Sophie Mann
February 11th, 2022

Two Democrat senators are alleging the CIA has a secret data trove that includes information collected about Americans.

In a letter sent to the clandestine agency, the senators allege the CIA has long hidden details about the program from the public and the legislative branch, according to the Associated Press.

Sens. Ron Wyden, of Oregon, and Martin Heinrich, of New Mexico, called for a declassification of the program, though significant parts of their letter, sent in April 2021, were redacted.

The lawmakers say they think the program operated “outside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection.”

Though the CIA, the country’s top spy operation and the National Security Agency, are typically barred from monitoring U.S. citizens and businesses, the agencies’ focus on foreign communications sometimes encapsulates messages and data incidentally belonging to Americans. 

The CIA’s privacy and civil liberties officer, Kristi Scott, said the agency “recognizes and takes very seriously our obligation to respect the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons in the conduct of our vital national security mission. CIA is committed to transparency consistent with our obligation to protect intelligence sources and methods.”

Wyden and Heinrich have historically been advocates for transparency among the U.S. intelligence agencies. Years ago, Wyden asked then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper if the NSA was collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Clapper initially responded “no,” but then said, “not wittingly.”

The lawmakers’ letter emphasizes the importance of congressional awareness of CIA data collection programs to properly legislate.

They also argue it is important that “the American public not be misled into believe that the reforms in any reauthorization legislation fully cover the [U.S. intelligence community’s] collection of their records.”

77 Representatives, 13 Senators Plan to Object to Electoral Votes Today

Ryan DeLarme,
January 6th, 2021

Today could be an explosive day in Washington DC as Ninety Republicans have committed to objecting to electoral votes during the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 according to an Epoch Times tally.

Congress, as well as millions of disenfranchised voters, are convening this morning in Washington DC. The house is set to count ballots sent by state electors, under the Electoral College system. Congress will determine who is president-elect based on the votes assuming Pence doesn’t send the results back.

RELATEDTrump Lawyer Jenna Ellis Suggests Pence Could Defer Certifying Election, Send Requests to State Legislatures (VIDEO)

RELATEDVP Mike Pence Drops Major Hint At What Will Go Down January 6th [VIDEO]

Unless you’ve been in a coma for the last few months you probably at least have a vague idea of what’s going on. Many democrats believe today will be the end of the “baseless” election fraud allegations and that Biden will be certified as the winner, but it looks like there will be objections from at least 13 senators and a host of republicans backing them.

How does that work? These objections must be in writing and have the support of at least one senator and one representative. An objection triggers a withdrawal from the joint session and a two-hour debate, followed by a vote. A majority vote in each chamber votes upholds an objection, which would nullify the contested electoral votes. This means the folks who have been warning of election fraud will get their day in court in a very public and televised way, assuming the media has an interest in showing the people both sides of the controversy.

A candidate must reach 270 electoral votes to win. If neither candidate does, a secondary system is triggered wherein each state’s representatives combine in one vote to elect the next president. The Senate would do the same for the vice president.

Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats say Biden has already won the election. Trump and others assert the election isn’t over.

Trump this week signaled he’d continue challenging the election even if they steamroll the whole thing and Biden is certified the winner by Congress.

“That was a rigged election, but we’re still fighting it and you’ll see what’s going to happen,” he said at a rally in Georgia.

Here’s a working list of planned objectors:


Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.)

House of Representatives

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)
Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.)
Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.)
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.)
Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.)
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas)
Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.)
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)
Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas)
Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah)
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.)
Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.)
Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.)
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.)
Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.)
Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.)
Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.)
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.)
Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.)
Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.)
Rep. Fred Keller (R-Pa.)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.)
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.)
Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas)
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga)
Rep. John Rutherford (R-Fla.)
Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.)
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.)
Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.)
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.)
Rep. Ron Estes (R-Kan.)
Rep. Tracey Mann (R-Kan.)
Rep. Jacob LaTurner (R-Kan.)
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.)
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah)
Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.)
Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.)
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.)
Rep. Ron Wright (R-Texas)
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio)
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.)
Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.)
Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.)
Rep. Scott Franklin (R-Fla.)
Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.)
Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.)
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.)
Rep. David Rouzer (R-N.C.)
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio)
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.)
Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas)
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.)
Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas)
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.)

Quiet War: 900-Page Senate Russia Report Includes No Evidence for How Emails Were Taken From DNC

August 25, 2020

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded its three-year Russia investigation on Aug. 18 with the release of the fifth and final volume of the report on its work, a 966-page tome resulting from interviews with more than 200 witnesses and the review of more than a million pages of documents.

While offering a broad and detailed view of the counterintelligence issues related to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, the hefty volume included just one sentence of vague evidence about the central and essential crime at the epicenter of the debacle—the alleged theft of more than 40,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee.

The two major Russia investigations that preceded the Senate intelligence report didn’t offer the public much more in terms of details or evidence. The final report by special counsel Robert Mueller featured a single paragraph on the matter. The unredacted portion of the report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence included two sentences, neither of which mentioned emails.

The three reports on these formal investigations aren’t the only government records with a glaring lack of evidence about how the emails were taken from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Over the course of four years, the intelligence community, media organizations, and the private sector released a trickle of hazy and contradictory claims that did nothing to augment the government’s claims.

An exhaustive review by The Epoch Times of more than four years of public records determined that all of the claims and evidence boil down to a single allegation and one piece of circumstantial evidence in Mueller’s final report.

“Between approximately May 25, 2016, and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC’s mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States,” the report, released on April 18, 2019, stated, referencing the acronym for one of Russia’s spy agencies. “During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016.”

Despite relying heavily on the Mueller report, the fifth volume of the report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) doesn’t feature any of the details from the specific claim by the special counsel. The late-May time frame alleged by Mueller is entirely absent from the committee’s 20-page timeline of the DNC hack. Instead, the SSCI report includes a single vague sentence, as part of an undated timeline entry that mentions neither emails nor hacking.

“Henry testified that CrowdStrike was ‘able to see some exfiltration and the types of files that had been touched’ but not the content of those files,” the Aug. 18 report states, citing the committee’s interview with Shawn Henry, the head of the team from cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which the DNC brought in to handle the breach on April 30, 2016.

The office of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the acting chairman of the SSCI, didn’t immediately respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

CrowdStrike’s official timeline of the DNC event likewise omits the hack that Mueller alleged to have taken place on or about May 25 to June 1, 2016. The cybersecurity firm claims that no hack occurred.

“There is no indication of any subsequent breaches taking place on the DNC’s corporate network or any machines protected by CrowdStrike Falcon,” the company told The Epoch Times.

The likelihood of a hack taking place without CrowdStrike noticing is low, but not impossible. The company had deployed 200 sensors on the committee’s network within the first week of its engagement with the DNC, which began on May 1, 2016, more than three weeks before the alleged hack.

The revelation about the sheer number of sensors deployed on the DNC network is significant for another reason. In his interview with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Dec. 5, 2017, Henry told lawmakers that CrowdStrike “didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave” when answering questions posed by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) about evidence of email exfiltration.

It’s possible that CrowdStrike didn’t deploy a sensor to monitor the DNC mail server. CrowdStrike didn’t provide a response to a question about whether this was the case, referring The Epoch Times to its statement that no hack had occurred.

Hazy Disclosures

The contradictions and vague statements are abundant beyond the incongruent claims by Mueller and CrowdStrike.

In order to separate which of the myriad claims about the DNC emails actually deal with how the files were taken from the committee’s mail server, timing is essential. The most recent DNC email released by WikiLeaks was dated May 25, 2016, which matches with the time window in Mueller’s allegation. Roughly 99 percent of the emails were sent between April 19 and May 25, 2016, a window that roughly fits the DNC’s 30-day email retention policy. Considering the 30-day window, the emails were most likely taken in the handful of days around May 25.

Because the DNC systems were allegedly subjected to multiple breaches on different dates by at least two separate actors, any allegations that are undated or don’t include the May 25, 2016, timeframe are too vague to be useful to inform the public about how the emails were taken. The claims could be conflating another exfiltration with the enigma of what happened with the emails, or they could be referring to a different theft altogether.

In addition, a separate theft of data is alleged to have occurred on April 22, 2016, during which the alleged hackers took files other than the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016. As a result, claims that provide a broad timeline including May 25 and April 22—while not specifically describing what was taken—are equally of little use because it is unclear which events they describe.

The two categories of vagueness described above plague every claim made by the government about the DNC emails since Oct. 7, 2016, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) attributed the hacking to the Russian government.

“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process,” the joint statement said.

The absence of dates from the allegation would become the norm over time. The choice of broad and imprecise language in the statement about the “alleged hacked emails” isn’t accidental. The FBI, which wasn’t a party to the statement, apparently hadn’t yet received the forensic images of the DNC systems from CrowdStrike when the statement was released.

According to the SSCI report, CrowdStrike billed the FBI $4,000 on Oct. 13, 2016— one week after the DHS-ODNI statement—for the “forensic images that FBI requested.” While it’s possible the FBI received the files earlier, the FBI official who spoke to the committee used the word “requested” rather than “received.” According to Shawn Henry’s interview with the SSCI, CrowdStrike handed over the images to the FBI sometime in October 2016. The FBI didn’t respond to a request to confirm when it received the images.

Despite the certainty with which the DHS and ODNI attributed the broader hacking campaign to Russians, the statement described the hacking of the emails as alleged. The statement’s earlier mention of “recent compromises of e-mails,” is an apparent reference to the email phishing campaign that occurred prior to the theft of the emails.

The government’s haziness about the dates and other details about how the emails were taken tainted every subsequent statement and assessment on the matter. The Dec. 29, 2016, joint analysis report by the DHS, ODNI, and FBI; the Jan. 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment by the CIA, FBI, and NSA; and the March 22, 2018, report on Russian active measures by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) all featured a blatant lack of specificity about when and how the emails were taken.

In addition to reviewing all of the government records on the matter, The Epoch Times reviewed all of the media articles featuring interviews with firsthand witnesses, CrowdStrike’s evolving blog post about the remediation, third-party assessments of CrowdStrike’s work, transcripts of witness interviews, congressional testimony, and third-party analyses of the metadata of the DNC emails.

The sum total of the most detailed claims about how the emails were taken still boils down to roughly the allegation made by Mueller, which is itself directly contradicted by CrowdStrike.

A more detailed version of Mueller’s allegation appeared in the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers Mueller filed nine months prior to his final report on July 13, 2018.

“Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC employees,” the indictment alleged. “During that time, Yermakov researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.”

It is unclear why the special counsel’s version of events grew more vague over the months between the filing of the indictment and the publication of the final report. Notably, the report softened the language about the certainty of what transpired from the definitive “stole thousands of emails” to the circumstantial “appear to have stolen thousands of emails.”

What Didn’t Happen

While details about what happened with the DNC emails have been scant, details about what didn’t happen have recently emerged. On May 7, the HPSCI released the transcripts of the interviews it conducted as part of the investigation for the Russian active measures report. The transcript of the interview of Shawn Henry showed that CrowdStrike “did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC.”

“We have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated,” Henry told lawmakers on Dec. 5, 2017.

When asked about the date on which the indicators occurred, Henry referred to the separate exfiltration event on April 22, 2016, which occurred a month before the emails were allegedly stolen.

Later in the interview, when asked specifically about the emails, Henry said it was possible for the alleged hackers to view and copy the content of the emails in addition to taking screenshots. The monitoring activity he described is unlikely to have yielded the raw email files published by WikiLeaks and was different from the allegation by the special counsel, who claimed that the emails were taken during a separate breach.

A source with the HPSCI told The Epoch Times that the committee relied on sources other than CrowdStrike to conclude that Russians stole the DNC emails, but couldn’t provide further details because they were classified. The evidence for the theft of the emails was as strong as the evidence of the attribution of the overall hacking campaign to Russia, the source said.

The release of Henry’s transcript prompted CrowdStrike to issue on June 5 the fourth significant update in as many years to its DNC incident response blog post. The update, running at more than 2,400 words, consisted of a Q&A and a timeline of events surrounding CrowdStrike’s remediation work.

The CrowdStrike timeline extensively references the Mueller report, but doesn’t include the crucial May 25 to June 1, 2016, time frame the special counsel provided for the alleged hacking of the DNC mail server.

The Q&A features an apparent misinterpretation of Henry’s testimony, claiming, contrary to what Henry told lawmakers, that CrowdStrike has evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC but omitting Henry’s qualification that the evidence was circumstantial. Regardless, the statement, as expected, included no dates and didn’t use the word “emails.”

Follow Ivan on Twitter: @ivanpentchoukov

Former Obama DAG Sally Yates Was Either Lying or Incompetent Based on Her Testimony Before the US Senate

 Joe Hoft,
August 7th,2020

Sally Yates testified before the Senate on Wednesday about her actions involved in Obamagate.  She was not impressive and showed that she either was lying or incompetent or perhaps both.

Right out of the gate, Yates claimed former Trump volunteer George Papadopoulos was connected to Russia.  From all the evidence uncovered to date, there is absolutely no evidence this is true:

President Trump opined on what we all were thinking after Yates testified – she is either incompetent or lying:

Overall, the testimony of Sally Yates was a bust.  The Republicans lost an opportunity to press Yates further and really dig into her actions involved in the Obama Administration’s criminal coup of President Trump.   The Democrats in the Senate were still running with the lie that President Trump was a Russian agent.  Millions were spent by the corrupt Mueller gang, who hated Trump,  and they concluded there was no such evidence to even suggest such a connection.

Yates lied about General Flynn’s phone call.  She claimed General Flynn discussed Russian sanctions.  This is a lie as we now know from a transcript released of the call.  But the Republicans on the committee allowed her to get by with saying this.

If the Republicans on the committee would like to get to the truth, they would be much better off grabbing ten of us individuals off of Twitter and with conservative websites, who have written about and uncovered the many lies in the Mueller gang’s investigation, to assist with the questioning.

The President is right.  Sally Yates was either totally incompetent or she was lying about her involvement in Obamagate.

Unanimous Senate Votes to Protect Sea Turtles and Dolphins from Driftnets in the Last Spot That Allows Them

Staff Writer
Jul 25, 2020

Sea turtles, whales, and dolphins may soon be free of the deadly possibility that they will get entangled in the huge driftnets floating off the coast of California.

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday unanimously passed a bipartisan bill to phase out the use of the harmful mesh gillnets in federal waters there—the only place the nets are still used in the United States.

The mesh driftnets, which are more than a mile long, are left in the ocean overnight to catch swordfish and thresher sharks. Other marine species including whales, dolphins, sea lions, sea turtles, fish, and sharks can also become entangled in the large mesh nets, injuring or killing them.

Turtle Island Restoration Network has led a coalition of concerned citizens and partner organizations for nearly 20 years, working to stop the devastating impact of this driftnet fishery on sea turtles and other ocean animals—with much success.

In 2018, California passed a four-year phase out of large mesh drift gillnets in state waters, but the new law, The Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, would extend similar protections to federal waters within five years and authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help the commercial fishing industry transition to more sustainable gear types.

RELATEDHawaii Group Sets Record For Largest Haul of Plastic Removed From The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

“This legislation will ensure no more whales or dolphins fall victim,” said Annalisa Batanides Tuel, policy and advocacy manager for Turtle Island Restoration Network. “We are encouraged that the United States is taking steps to address harmful fishing methods in the ocean and off our coasts.”

small gillnet – USFWS

The use of large mesh driftnets by a single fishery in California is responsible for 90 percent of the dolphins and porpoises killed along the West Coast and Alaska. At least six endangered, threatened, or protected species are harmed by driftnets off the California coast.

The bill, S. 906, was introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).

“We are now one step closer to removing these nets from our waters,” Senator Feinstein said. “There is no reason to allow the carnage of large mesh drift gillnets when there are better, more sustainable methods to catch swordfish. We can preserve the economically important swordfishing industry while protecting the ocean and its wildlife.”

POPULARScientists Find Half the World’s Fish Stocks Are Recovered—or Increasing—in Oceans That Used to Be Overfished

Large mesh drift gillnets are already banned in the U.S. territorial waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Hawaii. However, they remain legal in federal waters off the coast of California. The United States is also a member of international agreements that ban large-scale driftnets in international waters.

The bill would phase out the use of the nets and help the industry transition to more sustainable methods like deep-set buoy gear that uses a hook-and-buoy system. Deep-set buoy gear attracts swordfish with bait and alerts fishermen immediately when a bite is detected. Testing has shown that 94 percent of animals caught with deep-set buoys are swordfish, resulting in a vastly smaller incidental catch than drift gillnets.

To become law, the bill must pass also the House of Representatives. In May, 2019, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife held hearings on the bill.

MORE15 Giant Tortoises Finally Returned to Their Galapagos Island Home After Saving Their Species With 1,900 Babies

SHARE An Ocean of Good News With Animal-Loving Friends on Social Media…

Judiciary Committee Releases Declassified Documents that Substantially Undercut Steele Dossier, Page FISA Warrants

WASHINGTON – Today, as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and related FISA abuses, Chairman Lindsey Graham (R- South Carolina) released two recently declassified documents that significantly undercut the reliability of the Steele dossier and the accuracy and reliability of many of the factual assertions in the Carter Page FISA applications.

“I’m very pleased the investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee has been able to secure the declassification of these important documents,” said Chairman Graham. “I want to thank Attorney General Barr for releasing these documents and allowing the American People to judge for themselves.

“What have we learned from the release of these two documents by the Department of Justice? Number one, it is clear to me that the memo regarding the FBI interview of the primary sub-source in January 2017 should have required the system to stop and reevaluate the case against Mr. Page.

“Most importantly after this interview of the sub-source and the subsequent memo detailing the contents of the interview, it was a miscarriage of justice for the FBI and the Department of Justice to continue to seek a FISA warrant against Carter Page in April and June of 2017.

“The dossier was a critical document to justify a FISA warrant against Mr. Page and this DOJ memo clearly indicates that the reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed after the interview with the primary sub-source in January 2017. Those who knew or should have known of this development and continued to pursue a FISA warrant against Mr. Page anyway are in deep legal jeopardy in my view.

“Secondly, the comments of Peter Strzok regarding the February 14 New York Times article are devastating in that they are an admission that there was no reliable evidence that anyone from the Trump Campaign was working with Russian Intelligence Agencies in any form.

“The statements by Mr. Strzok question the entire premise of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump Campaign and make it even more outrageous that the Mueller team continued this investigation for almost two and a half years. Moreover, the statements by Strzok raise troubling questions as to whether the FBI was impermissibly unmasking and analyzing intelligence gathered on U.S. persons.

“These documents, which I have long sought, tell a damning story for anyone who’s interested in trying to find the truth behind the corrupt nature of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 and beyond.”

The first document is a 57-page summary of a three-day interview the FBI conducted with Christopher Steele’s so-called “Primary Sub-source” in January of 2017. [Document 1]

  • This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness.
  • The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best.
  • Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect.
  • In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court.     

The second document contains Peter Strzok’s type-written comments disagreeing with assertions made in a New York Times article about alleged Russian intelligence ties to the Trump campaign. [Document 2]

  • The document demonstrates that Peter Strzok and others in FBI leadership positions must have been aware of the issues with the Steele dossier that the FBI’s interview with Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” revealed, because Strzok commented that “[r]ecent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network.”
  • The document further shows that the FBI’s assertion to the FISA court that “the FBI believes that Russia’s efforts to influence U.S. policy were likely being coordinated between the RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] and Page, and possibly others” appears to be a misrepresentation. This is because, in his comments on the Times article, Strzok asserts that “[w]e have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with IOs [Intelligence Officials]. . . . We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”
  • The document also indicates that the FBI may have been using foreign intelligence gathering techniques to impermissibly unmask and analyze existing and future intelligence collection regarding U.S. persons associated with the Trump campaign: “Both the CIA and NSA are aware of our subjects and throughout the summer we provided them names and selectors for queries of their holdings as well as prospective collection.” The quote does not provide enough information to fully understand exactly what the FBI was doing but impermissible unmasking and analysis of existing and future incidental intelligence collection of U.S. persons would be troubling.
  • The document also raises questions as to whether the FBI was properly using intelligence techniques and databases “throughout the summer” considering that the earliest formal investigation of a U.S. person associated with the Trump campaign was not officially opened until July 31, 2016.

These declassified documents and other related material may be accessed at the following link: judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation

Senate Intelligence Committee Wants Public to See Government’s UFO Records

Jun 23, 2020

A vote by the Senate Intelligence Committee will require the Defense Department and U.S. intelligence agencies to put together in-depth analysis for public consumption based on the data they have on “unidentfied aerial phenomenon,” according to POLITICO. Put in a way that’s easier to understand, those reports should include all the weird shit that Navy pilots have been seeing lately.

The next hurdle (for those of us who wish to view such a thing) is whether or not this provision to a yearly intelligence authorization bill will be adopted by the rest of the senate. Nevertheless, even if that doesn’t happen, a debate will be held that could give the public an idea of just how closely the government has been monitoring UFOs. 

In the report, the Committee makes it clear that they’re concerned about how seriously the government is (or, more accurately, is not) taking the “potential threat” of aerial phenomena of unknown origins. Whether it’s aliens, or another country, you can see why that would be of some interest to the government, oh, and also us citizens.

“The Committee understands that the relevant intelligence may be sensitive; nevertheless, the Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent, and this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders,” they write in their report on the bill.

POLITICO adds that “[t]he unclassified analysis, which can include a classified annex, is to be completed by the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense within 180 days of passage.”

A year ago, senators on the panel were told about a run of incidents in which navy pilots were followed by unidentified aircrafts off the nation’s coasts. Included in these briefings were a set of videos that were made public earlier in 2020

These briefings came after it was learned that the Pentagon had looked into these sightings a few years earlier, in late 2017. It was also learned that a new set of guidelines had been given to military members on the subject of how to report such incidents in the future.  

The Senate panel is now directing relevant information on that subject to be collected from the various agencies/organizations that have data on the subject for the purpose of centralizing that information. 

Obviously this is a win for our nation’s Fox Mulders, Dale Gribbles, and whatever third fictional character you can name that I’m unaware of.

“It further legitimizes the issue,” said ex-Pentagon intelligence official and Senate staffer Christopher Mellon, himself a longtime proponent of getting the info out. “That in itself is extremely important. People can talk about it without fear of embarrassment.”

He also elaborated on the significance of a report done correctly. 

“Assuming the report is properly prepared and delivered, there is no telling what the impacts could be,” Mellon added. “That could range from revealing an unknown threat or military vulnerability to there have been probes visiting our planet, or anything in between.”

SOURCE: https://www.complex.com/life/2020/06/senators-want-government-to-release-ufo-reports-to-public

Senate Democrats Block Republican Police Reform Bill

June 24, 2020

Democrats in the Senate blocked a Republican-backed police reform bill from advancing to the floor, calling for talks on how to overhaul policing after protests, riots, and unrest following George Floyd’s death in police custody.

The bill, backed by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), didn’t gather the 60 votes necessary to move forward for debate, failing by a 55-45 margin.

“If you don’t think we’re right, make it better. Don’t walk way,” Scott said before the vote. “Vote for the motion to proceed so that we have an opportunity to deal with this very real threat to the America that is civil, that is balanced.”

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), and Angus King (I-Maine) voted with Republicans to advance the bill.

Scott’s bill would increase transparency in departments by providing incentives for them to use body cameras and ban chokeholds by withholding grant money. Some Democrats have said that an end to qualified immunity for police officers should be included in the bill. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields police officers from civil lawsuits.

The bill would also create a national database of police use-of-force incidents and create new training procedures and commissions to study race and law enforcement.

Police clear H Street
Police clear H Street and Black Lives Matter Plaza after protesters set up an autonomous zone the previous night, just north of the White House in Washington on June 23, 2020. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)

Some GOP senators said that blocking the measure would lower the chances of a bipartisan deal being struck.

“There’s literally no harm done by debating this important topic,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at his weekly news conference on Tuesday. “They don’t want a debate, they don’t want amendments, they’ll filibuster police reform from even reaching the floor of the Senate unless the majority lets the minority rewrite the bill behind closed doors in advance,” he said.

Following the block, “There probably is no path forward in this Congress if they block debate,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told reporters.

The House is set to approve the Democrats’ bill later this week. The two bills, the House and Senate versions, would ultimately need to be the same to become law.

“If you present a bill, as Republicans have here in the Senate, that does nothing on accountability and say they are solving or dealing with the problem in even close to an adequate way, they are sadly mistaken,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Even though Democrats have argued that their proposals take more serious reform steps than Republicans’ proposal, it falls short from cries to “defund the police” or redirect money to social services.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.