BREAKING, The FBI Maintains a Workspace, Including Computer Portal, Inside the Law Firm of Perkins Coie – The Ramifications are Significant

There is very little that surprises me, but this is completely stunning.  An FBI whistleblower came forth to inform Rep Jim Jordan and Rep Matt Gaetz that the FBI maintains a workspace inside the law firm of Perkins Coie.  {Direct Rumble Link}

In response to a letter sent by Rep. Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan, Perkins Coie, the legal arm of the DNC and Hillary Clinton, admitted they have been operating an FBI workspace in their Washington D.C. office since 2012.  Pay attention to that date, it matters.  WATCH:

This is a huge development.  Essentially, what is being admitted in this claim is that a portal existed into FBI databases within the law firm that represents democrats.  This means access to FBI database searches exists inside the office of the DNC and Clinton legal group.  Think about the ramifications here.

CTH has long claimed there was some kind of direct portal link between the Clinton campaign team and the FBI databases.  There were too many trails of extracted non-minimized research evidence in the hands of the Clinton team that CTH could not trace to a transferring FBI official.  If Perkins Coie operated a portal in their office that allowed them to conduct search queries of American citizens, then everything would make sense.  That access portal is exactly what is being claimed and admitted in this report.

The start date of 2012 is important for several reasons, not the least of which is FISA presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer criticizing the scale and scope of unlawful FBI database access going back to exactly 2012.  Keep in mind a FISA-702 search, is simply an unlawful FBI warrantless electronic search of an American (“702” represents the American citizen) into the central database -maintained by the NSA- that contains all electronic data and communication.

I have been in the deep hole of the FISA-702 database search query violations for so long I don’t even need a flashlight.

The report from Matt Gaetz about Perkins Coie access to FBI databases, is in direct alignment with Rosemary Collyer’s prior report on FBI abuses of the database, 702 violations.  Notice the dates and scope Judge Collyer references [Source Link].

Non-compliant queries since 2012.

85% of the FBI and contractor searches are unlawful.

Many of those searches involved the use of the “same identifiers over different data ranges.”  Put in plain terms, the same people were continually being tracked, searched and surveilled by querying the FBI database over time.

The non-compliant searches go back to 2012.  The same date mentioned for the FBI portal to begin operating inside the Perkins Coie office.

This specific footnote is a key.  Note the phrase: “([redacted] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into [redacted])”, this sentence has the potential to expose an internal decision; withheld from congress and the FISA court by the Obama administration; that outlines a process for access and distribution of surveillance data.

Note: “no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016“, that is important.

Summary: The FISA court identified and quantified tens-of-thousands of search queries of the NSA/FBI database using the FISA-702(16)(17) system. The database was repeatedly used by persons with contractor access who unlawfully searched and extracted the raw results without redacting the information and shared it with an unknown number of entities.

The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation.  When the DOJ use of the IRS for political information on their opposition became problematic, the Obama administration needed another tool.  It was in 2012 when they switched to using the FBI databases for targeted search queries.

This information from Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz has the potential to be extremely explosive.

It will be interesting to see how the domestic intelligence community media (NYT, Politico, WaPo – in that order) respond to this Matt Gaetz report.

I wrote about these suspicions in depth throughout 2017, 2018 and eventually summarized in 2019:

Source

Apparently, While Investigating Trump-Russia, Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann Never Interviewed Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook

Apparently, While Investigating Trump-Russia, Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann Never Interviewed Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook

One of the public revelations created by the trial of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann is that Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers, and Hillary Clinton’s contracted opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, manufactured the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.  How did Robert Muller not find this?

The Clinton hoax is the key takeaway within the testimony of Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, during the Sussman trial.  Of course, every intellectually honest person who watched events unfold already knew that.  However, the DC politicians, institutions of the DOJ and FBI, and the entire corporate media world have been pretending not to know the truth for almost six years.  Now they are in a pretending pickle.

Mr. Mook was legally forced to put the truth into the official record, ironically because the Clinton lawyers needed him to in order to save themselves.  A stunned Jonathan Turley writes about the revelation HERE.  Meanwhile the journalists who received Pulitzer Prizes, for pushing the manufactured Clinton lies that Mook now admits, must avoid any mention of the testimony in order to maintain their ‘pretending not to know things‘ position.

Special Prosecutor John Durham found the truth behind the creation of the Trump-Russia hoax, and through the trial of Sussmann is now diligently passing out the bitter pill ‘I toldyaso’s’ to the small group of rebellious researchers who found this exact trail of evidence years ago.

The Clinton campaign lying is politics.  The Clinton campaign selling lies to the media is slimy, but nonetheless politics.  The media pushing those lies only showcases how corrupt they are in supporting their political allies.  However, the Clinton campaign selling those lies to the FBI is a bit more problematic; thus, the trial of Sussmann.

Having said all that; while also accepting this grand game of pretense; there’s an 800lb gorilla in the room that no one seems bothered by.

How did Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann spend 2 years investigating Trump-Russia; with a team of 19 lawyers, $40 million in resources, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses; and not find out that Hillary Clinton created the hoax they were investigating?

(Source)

The question is, of course, infuriatingly rhetorical.  The 2017, 2018 and 2019 special counsel probe, led by the nameplate of Robert Mueller, was a DC cover-up operation for FBI and DOJ misconduct.  The best defense is a good offense, so they attacked President Trump by maintaining the hoax.

Media people often forget, or perhaps -again- need to pretend not to know; however, the exact same group of FBI and DOJ staff level investigative officials that originated the Trump investigation in 2016, transferred into the Robert Mueller investigation in May 2017.   It was the same people, doing the same investigation, under a different title.

The Mueller team originally consisted of the same FBI officials who received the Alfa-Bank hoax material from Michael Sussmann.

Andrew Weissmann and a group of 19 lawyers joined the effort and pulled in more resources. Yet if we are to believe the current narrative, you would have to believe those same investigators never talked to any Clinton campaign people, or Fusion GPS, or Rodney Joffe, or Marc Elias, or Michael Sussmann?… but wait, I mean, they did.. talk to Sussmann… because….. that’s what this trial is about….

…..Right?

Source

Special Prosecutor Frames the Background of the Sussmann Case, The FBI Was Manipulated, Duped by Clinton Campaign

Special Prosecutor Frames the Background of the Sussmann Case, The FBI Was Manipulated, Duped by Clinton Campaign

New York Times narrative engineer Charlie Savage is tweeting from within a packed media center at the E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse in Washington DC for the government case against Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann. [TWEET THREAD]  The mentions and notations, while skewed toward the self interest of media, give us a good insight into what is taking place in the courtroom.

First things first. All media reporting of this case will be done through the prism of their own cooperation in the perpetration of the fraud.  The MSM knew along with everyone else inside and outside of government, that their efforts to create the Trump-Russia conspiracy and collusion narrative were based on fraudulent pretext manufactured by the Clinton campaign.  They all knew it. They all acted collaboratively and they all engaged purposefully.

As noted by Charlie Savage, prosecutor Deborah Shaw, a member of the Durham team, delivered the opening remarks to frame the government position in the case.

The telling remarks came early: “Shaw addresses “the elephant in the room” – tells jury their feelings about Russia, Trump, Clinton can’t play a role in the case. This is about “our FBI” which should not be used as a tool by anyone, Republicans or Democrats.”  In essence, prosecutor Shaw is telling the jury the FBI were duped into the Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation by outsiders connected to the Clinton campaign.

That’s a critical baseline from the government we must understand and accept.  That baseline now indicates that none of the DOJ and FBI operatives involved in the fraudulent scheme will be held accountable by the Durham team.  “Our FBI should not be used as a tool by anyone,” yet they were, so sayeth the United States Government.

There you have it folks.  For those who tried to avoid the uncomfortable reality of the situation. The Durham prosecution has set down the cornerstone establishing the DOJ/FBI was used and tricked.

The prosecution cannot later turn toward DOJ and FBI officials who were victimized by the Clinton outside group, reverse the predicate motive of the prior trial, and then hold the DOJ and FBI legally accountable.

That’s that.

The Durham accountability focus is now narrowed to the Clinton team, starting with Michael Sussmann.

This outcome was always visible when we accept the totality of the Robert Mueller probe as an overlay into this entire scenario.  Put into a question I have asked for two years:

How could John Durham hold DOJ and FBI officials accountable for participating in the Trump-Russia fraud, when those same DOJ and FBI officials were part of the Robert Mueller cover-up operation? 

Answer, they can’t.   If Durham were to connect the conspiracy of the outside government and inside government collusion, he would be penetrating an impregnable firewall that would take down multiple DC government institutions simultaneously.

Durham is being permitted to give the illusion of accountability, but he was not authorized or permitted to expose the Dept of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, or any other institution.

The vehicles of our justice institutions are rusted and broken.

Bill Barr was the Bondo application.  John Durham is the spray paint.

The question asked two years ago is answered.

Source

New Documents Suggest Democrats Sicced The CIA On Their Domestic Enemy, The President

New Documents Suggest Democrats Sicced The CIA On Their Domestic Enemy, The President

Newly released CIA memoranda suggest the tech gurus behind the Alfa Bank hoax also tracked Donald Trump’s movements to devise another collusion conspiracy theory. While smaller in scale than other aspects of Spygate, the Yotaphone hoax represents an equally serious scandal because it involved both the mining of proprietary information and sensitive data from the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and the apparent surveillance of Trump’s physical movements.

When Special Counsel John Durham charged former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann in September 2021, the indictment focused on the Alfa Bank hoax that Sussmann, tech executive Rodney Joffe, and other cybersecurity experts had crafted. The indictment detailed how Joffe and other tech experts had allegedly mined data and developed “white papers” that deceptively created the impression that Trump had maintained a secret communication network with the Russia-based Alfa Bank.

Then, allegedly on behalf of the Clinton campaign and Joffe, Sussmann provided the Alfa Bank material to the media and to the FBI’s general counsel at the time, James Baker, with Sussmann falsely telling Baker he was sharing the “intel” on his own and not on behalf of any client. That alleged lie formed the basis for the one count, Section 1001 false statement charge against Sussmann.

There’s Another Alleged Lie

The 27-page indictment, however, also spoke of Sussmann sharing “updated allegations” on February 9, 2017, to another U.S. government agency, namely the CIA, while allegedly repeating the same false claim that he was not sharing the “intel” on behalf of any client. From the framing of the indictment, it appeared that what Sussmann had shared with the CIA concerned the same Alfa-Bank data provided to the FBI several months earlier, albeit updated.

But then two months ago, as part of the government’s “Motion to Inquire Into Potential Conflicts of Interest,” Durham’s team revealed for the first time that when Sussmann met with the CIA in early 2017, he provided agents with internet data beyond the Alfa Bank conspiracy theory. This data, Sussmann claimed, “demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”

The “supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones” were “Yotaphones.” Following Durham’s filing of the conflicts of interest motion, it appeared Sussmann bore responsibility for peddling a second conspiracy theory to the CIA. But the details contained in the government’s motion proved insufficient to understand the Yotaphone angle to Spygate. That all changed on Friday, when the special counsel filed two CIA memoranda memorializing what Sussmann said about the Yotaphones and the data Joffe and his tech experts had compiled.

What Sussmann Told the CIA

The first memorandum, dated January 31, 2017, summarized what Sussmann told a former CIA employee in hopes of scoring a meeting with the CIA. Sussmann said his client “had some interesting information about the presence and activity of a unique Russian made phone around President Trump.” Sussmann claimed the activity started in April 2016 when Trump was working out of the Trump Tower on its Wi-Fi network. That phone was also used on the “Wi-Fi at Trump’s apartment at Grand Central Park West,” according to Sussmann.

The memorandum then noted that “when Trump traveled to Michigan to interview a cabinet secretary, the phone appeared with Trump in Michigan.” The unnamed cabinet secretary apparently refers to Trump’s education secretary Betsy DeVos, whose husband Richard DeVos was chairman of the Michigan-based Spectrum Health in 2016.

According to the notes, Sussmann also told his contact that “the phone was never noticed in two places at once” and was seen “only around the President’s movement.” The memo noted that once, when Trump was not in Trump Tower, the phone was active on the Trump Tower WiFi network. Then, “in December 2016, the phone disappeared from Trump Tower Wi Fi network and surfaced on [the Executive Office Building] network,” the memorandum said, with Sussmann claiming it was the same Yotaphone and that it “surfaced” at the Executive Office Building after Trump moved to the White House.

The Yotaphone is rare, Sussmann told his contact, with only about a dozen or so present in the United States, and Russian government officials often receive a high-end version of the phone as a gift. According to Sussmann, the Yotaphone connected to Trump made a number of WiFi calls to Moscow and St. Petersburg from April 2016 until February 2017.

Adding Some Pressure to the Deal

Sussmann did more than merely pass on this information, however. He also “claimed that his client did not want to provide this [information] to the FBI as he knows that the FBI did not have resources to deal with these issues,” but also that the source—or Sussmann, it is not clear which—“did not trust the FBI” because Sussman is “openly a Democrat” and “does lots of work for the DNC.” Sussmann added “that his client would most likely only provide the data to senior bona fide [redacted] officers (active duty) and if there is no interest, he would most likely go to [the] New York Times.”

To further push for the CIA meeting, Sussmann then stressed that, given that he is “an experienced attorney with full clearances and lots of [redacted] experience, he believes that this client is telling the truth as he knows it.” “He cares about the security of the country” and wanted the CIA “to know about the Yotaphone activity close to the President,” Sussmann claimed.

Sussmann’s preview of this Yotaphone “intel” to his contact served its purpose, with the CIA arranging to meet with Sussmann in person less than two weeks later, on February 9, 2017. At that meeting, Sussmann again noted that he was passing the current information directly to the CIA “based on how the FBI had handled” the information he had previously provided that agency.

During Sussmann’s February 9, 2017 meeting with the CIA, the memorandum notes that Sussmann provided the agency thumb drives with separate data files for the Yotaphone by the location of the “domain name system” or DNS lookups, including one for Trump’s Central Park apartment, one for the EOP, one for Spectrum Health Care, and one for the Trump Tower. That data, Sussmann told the CIA agents, related to DNS information, “indicat[ed] that a Russian-made Yota-phone had been seen by [Sussmann’s contacts] connecting to the WiFi from the Trump Tower in New York, as well as a from a location in Michigan, at the same time that then-candidate Trump was believed to be at these locations.”

These People Were Watching Trump For Years

The data included in those files, however, reflected but a segment of the DNS lookups by the Yotaphones. The special counsel discovered that fact when it obtained more complete DNS data from a company that assisted Joffe in assembling the Yotaphone allegations. For instance, the more complete data assembled by Joffe and his associates showed the DNS lookups involving the EOP began at least as early as 2014, but Sussmann omitted that detail when providing the material to the CIA.

That Joffe and his associates had assembled more complete DNS data related to the Yotaphones than that provided to the CIA—data that disproves the Trump-Russia collusion theory—is a huge scandal: Those allegations indicate an intent to deceive by omission.

But it is not merely what data wasn’t provided to the CIA, it was what data was provided and how it was gathered.

From Durham’s earlier filings, it was already clear that Joffe had culled the DNS data by using proprietary information related to the Trump Tower, Trump’s residential building, and Spectrum Health, as well as exploiting sensitive data from the EOP. At the time, the corrupt media downplayed the misuse of the EOP DNS data by focusing on the fact that Joffe and his crew had accessed the EOP data while Barack Obama was still president. But these newly released CIA notes establish that the EOP DNS data specifically targeted Trump “after his move to the White House.”

The memoranda expose two additional troubling details. While the earlier court filings created the appearance that the DNS data had merely been pulled from locations connected to Trump, the memoranda speak of the phones connected to “Wi-Fi used at Trump’s apartment.” It thus appears that the DNS data directly targeted the Wi-Fi networks specifically used by Trump.

Even more disconcerting are the repeated references in the memoranda to Trump’s physical location during the DNS lookups, whether at the Trump Tower, in Michigan, or at the White House. Sussmann even claimed, according to one of the CIA memoranda, “the phone was never noticed in two places at once, only around the President’s Movements.”

These newly revealed details suggest that Joffe and his team were surveilling Trump’s movements, leading one to wonder whether they were doing so by geolocation technology. The four data files Sussmann provided the CIA related to the Yotaphones likely hold the answer to that question.

Democrats Sicced the CIA on the President

But no matter how Joffe and others tracked Trump’s movements, that a political enemy of Trump would provide the CIA fraudulent-by-omission data to prompt an investigation into the sitting president of the United States is horrifying. These memoranda also make clear that was the goal, as Joffe had Sussmann bypass the FBI and go to great lengths to get the “intel” in the hands of the CIA.

In fact, Sussmann first attempted to peddle the Yotaphone data to the CIA in mid-December 2016, when he communicated with the CIA’s general counsel, Caroline Krass. But when those efforts failed, he contacted a former CIA employee, threatening to go to The New York Times if the CIA didn’t bite.

As noted above, the ploy worked, resulting in Sussmann’s meeting with two CIA agents on February 9, 2017. The memorandum from that meeting also suggests Sussmann wasn’t shooting straight with the CIA.

A Pyramid of Lies

Foremost, of course, was Sussmann’s claim “that he was not representing a particular client,” even though the previous month he had told the former CIA agent his client “cares about the security of the country.” Also, according to Durham, Sussmann continued to represent Joffe during this meeting.

Relatedly, Sussmann told the CIA that his “contacts” “preferred anonymity, citing a potential threat from the Russian Intelligence Services.” But as other court filings established, Joffe had previously shared information with intelligence agencies directly, making a claim he sought anonymity for safety reasons suspect.

Also false, according to the special counsel, was Sussmann’s claim during his February 9, 2017 meeting with the CIA that “one of his contacts,” who was a “clearance holder,” had collected the data from his “private collection.” While that may have been true about the data collected for the Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and Spectrum Health, the data related to the EOP was accessed and maintained by Joffe’s employer “as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP.”

Joffe’s exploitation of the government’s EOP data to take down the president of the United States presents another huge scandal.

Sussmann also told the agents that while his firm supported several Democratic causes and officeholders, including the Democratic National Committee and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, his “work was unrelated to his reason for contacting the CIA.” But Joffe’s motivation in continuing to target Trump was far from apolitical, and Sussmann knew this.

While the special counsel’s office did not charge Sussmann with making a false statement to the CIA, Durham’s team seeks to present evidence of Sussmann’s representations to the CIA as evidence of his motive and intent to also deceive the FBI. But the scandal here goes much beyond Sussmann, and the Yotaphone hoax far surpasses what the public seems to realize—and represents yet another instance of Trump’s enemies spying on him.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

3 Blockbuster Revelations From The Latest Special Counsel Court Filings

3 Blockbuster Revelations From The Latest Special Counsel Court Filings

New court filings in a Spygate case solve some long-running mysteries and hint at serious developments.

Late Friday, three new memoranda and a handful of exhibits hit the docket in Special Counsel John Durham’s criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann. The filings analyzed about a dozen tedious issues concerning what evidence prosecutors may use at trial to prove Sussmann broke the law by lying to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker when he showed Baker information that supposedly indicated Donald Trump had a secret communications channel with the Russia-based Alfa Bank.

The evidentiary issues and the court’s resolution of them will prove vital when the trial begins next month. The special counsel’s office will try to prove Sussmann falsely told Baker he was not presenting the Alfa Bank information on behalf of a client, when in fact he represented both the Clinton campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe. More on those evidentiary rules another time, but for now, here are three fascinating takeaways revealed in Friday’s flurry of court filings.

The Mystery of the Appearing Text Solved—Sort Of

Two weeks ago, when the wave of pre-trial evidentiary filings began, the special counsel’s office revealed for the first time that the day before Sussmann met with Baker, Sussmann sent this text to Baker’s personal cellphone: “Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

The existence of this text is huge because, as the special counsel stressed in its filing, it shows that “the night before the defendant met with the General Counsel, the defendant conveyed the same lie in writing.” That’s the “same lie” Sussmann then allegedly told Baker in person during their September 19, 2016 meeting, namely that he was not presenting the Alfa Bank-Trump information on behalf of a client.

The text message thus debunked one of the main themes floated by those defending Sussmann: that the special counsel “is bringing a false statement charge based on an oral statement allegedly made five years ago to a single witness that is unrecorded and unobserved by anyone else.”

The revelation of the text message, however, also raised numerous questions. From the court filings in the Sussmann case and comments made by Sussmann’s attorneys, it appeared neither side knew of the text message at the time the indictment dropped. Why not? And why was the text just now becoming known?

On Friday we learned the answers to these questions, in part.

“On March 4, 2022, Mr. Baker apparently retrieved from his personal phone copies of text messages that he had sent and received with Mr. Sussmann between 2016 and 2020,” Sussmann’s attorneys wrote in their brief. Sussmann further claimed the special counsel had said that “the text messages had been stored on the cloud and Mr. Baker had not thought to produce them earlier.”

So Durham did not know of this text message at the time of the indictment, nor for five more months. But it was Baker, not the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, who provided the text.

The latter had been another possible source of the late-provided evidence, as the OIG had belatedly turned over two Baker cell phones to the special counsel’s office in January. Left unanswered, however, is why Baker was just now sharing with the special counsel’s office text messages he exchanged with Sussmann, including this coffin-nailing one.

The late reveal of this text message raises another question for the court to consider: Whether Sussmann’s failure to preserve this text message indicates Sussmann attempted to “obstruct justice.” In Friday’s court filings, Sussmann’s attorneys argued their client had no obligation to his former law firm, Perkins and Coie, to preserve the text message, so Sussmann’s failure to do so when he replaced his personal cellphone in November 2016 was not an attempt to “obstruct justice.” Conversely, the special counsel’s office wants the jury informed that Sussmann did not provide this text message to his employer, Perkins and Coie.

This issue will be yet another for the trial court to resolve. The more interesting question here concerns Baker’s behavior: after all, he is the one supposedly cooperating with the special counsel’s office.

Yes, the Executive Office of the President Spying Was About Trump

The second blockbuster revelation from Friday’s filings concerned the Russia Yota cell phone hoax Sussmann fed to the CIA during a February 9, 2017, meeting, allegedly on behalf of Joffe.

Approximately two months ago, the special counsel revealed how, as part of this hoax, Trump’s enemies surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, his New York City apartment building, a Michigan business, and later the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP). Sussmann then provided that data to the CIA, telling agents there were “suspicious lookups” of the “internet protocol or IP addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider” connected to the supposedly rare Russian Yota phone.

According to the special counsel’s filings, Sussmann claimed “these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”

When news broke that to craft the Yota phone hoax Joffe had accessed data his internet company obtained “as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP,” the corrupt media framed that explosive detail as a nothingburger because the data appeared to have been collected while Barack Obama was still president.

For instance, The New York Times reported that the data relating to the White House’s EOP “came from Barack Obama’s presidency.” The Times then quoted two lawyers representing one of the researchers who aided Joffe: “To our knowledge,” the attorneys claimed, “all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

Of course, as I noted at the time, as “a matter of pure logic, the data Sussmann presented to the CIA related to the White House must have somehow related to Trump or it would not ‘demonstrate’ that ‘Trump and/or his associates were using’ the Russian cell phones ‘in the vicinity of the White House.’” Most likely, “the data presented concerned the transition period”—a fact Durham’s team later confirmed in a filing noting Joffe exploited the EOP data “both before and after the Presidential election.”

Friday’s filings did more, however, than merely reconfirm that the EOP data Joffe exploited was collected after the election: Two exhibits filed by the special counsel revealed that the mining of the EOP data, as well as of the internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s New York City apartment building, and a Michigan business, were targeted to Trump’s physical presence at those locations. This raises the further question of whether the cybersecurity experts were using geolocation technology to surveil Trump’s movements.

An exhibit filed Friday by the special counsel’s office, consisting of a “Memorandum of Conversation” that summarized a CIA agent’s conversation with Sussmann, revealed these new details. That memo reported that Sussmann had claimed “the presence and activity of a unique Russian made phone around President Trump.” The alleged use of this phone started in April 2016, when “Trump was working out of the Trump Tower on its Wi-Fi network.” After his move to the White House, “the same phone surfaced on the [Executive Office Building] network.”

The Yota cell phone that was purportedly “close to” Trump at the Trump Tower network also surfaced “at Wi-Fi used at Trump’s apartment at Grand Central Park West,” and “when Trump traveled to Michigan to interview a cabinet secretary the phone appeared with Trump in Michigan,” Sussmann claimed, according to the memo. Sussman also claimed “the phone was never noticed in two places at once, only around the President’s movements,” with Sussmann further stressing that “in December 2016 the phone disappeared from Trump Tower Wi-Fi network and surfaced on [the Executive Office Building network.”

In addition to establishing beyond doubt that the mining of the sensitive EOP data concerned Trump, these new details suggest it was not merely the Yota cell phones and the internet at locations connected to Trump being surveiled, but Trump’s own physical movements. This is far from the nothingburger the press has been pushing.

It’s Tech Researcher-2, David Dagon, Who Has Immunity

The third piece of news flowing from Friday’s filings concerns the special counsel’s grant of immunity to Georgia Tech researcher David Dagon—and only to Dagon. “The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021,” Durham’s memorandum explained. “And the Government immunized Researcher-2,” it continued, “because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the [Alfa Bank] allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination.”

Durham’s decision to grant Dagon immunity proves intriguing for several reasons. First, unlike Researcher-1, who has been identified by his attorney as Georgia Tech researcher Manos Antonakakis, Dagon continued to work with Joffe and April Lorenzen to craft the second set of data Sussmann provided to the CIA related to the supposed Yota cellphone connection to Trump. The Sussmann indictment also alleged Dagon had drafted a white paper apparently related to the Alfa Bank allegations and that Sussmann asked Dagon to “speak on background with members of the media” regarding the Alfa Bank allegation.

An email from Fusion GPS’s Peter Fritsch, who was working with Sussmann and Joffe to peddle the Alfa Bank story, also told a media contact to “call David Dagon at Georgia tech” when a Reuters reporter indicated the publication had not run the story because of an inability to authenticate the data.

These details suggest Dagon holds a wealth of knowledge related to both the Alfa Bank hoax and the Yota cell phone charade, including various players’ parts in crafting the plots. More significantly, Dagon likely knows what information he and his fellow cyber researchers conveyed to Sussmann regarding the data and its weaknesses.

This insider’s view will prove significant if, at trial, Sussmann attempts to frame his motive in passing the information on to the FBI and CIA as altruistic. Likewise, Dagon’s firsthand knowledge of any efforts by Sussmann to peddle the Alfa Bank theory to the press will be important to the special counsel’s efforts to show Sussmann was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

Dagon also has the ability to counter Sussmann’s claims of ignorance about the technicalities of DNS data. The Georgia Tech researcher is prepared to testify that when he raised concerns with Sussmann about whether the Trump-Alfa Bank data had been ”lawfully collected and used,” in assuring him that there were no legal issues, Sussmann demonstrated an understanding of the data sources.

Yet, according to last week’s filings, Durham has not yet definitively decided which tech researchers to call as witnesses at Sussmann’s trial. Those seeking to more fully understand the scope of Spygate had better hope Dagon is among the witnesses called. From Friday’s filings, it is clear there is still much more to learn.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop

Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop

The metaphorical Jack had a great idea, open a coffee shop where the beverages were free and use internal advertising as the income subsidy to operate the business.  Crowds came for the free coffee, comfy couches, fellowship, conversation and enjoyment.

It didn’t matter where Jack got the coffee, how he paid for it, or didn’t, or what product advertising the customers would be exposed to while there.  Few people thought about such things.  Curiously, it didn’t matter what size the crowd was; in the backroom of Jack’s Coffee Shop they were able to generate massive amounts of never-ending free coffee at extreme scales.

Over time, using the justification of parking lot capacity and township regulations, not everyone would be able to park and enter.  Guards were placed at the entrance to pre-screen customers. A debate began.

Alternative coffee shops opened around town.  It was entirely possible to duplicate Jacks Coffee Shop, yet no one could duplicate the business model for the free coffee.  Indeed, there was something very unique about Jack’s Coffee Shop.  Thus, some underlying suspicions were raised:

The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap.  The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account.  A public-private partnership.

If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy.  Let that sink in.

The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database.  The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.

FREE COFFEE:

♦ June 2013: […] “Cloud computing is one of the core components of the strategy to help the IC discover, access and share critical information in an era of seemingly infinite data.” … “A test scenario described by GAO in its June 2013 bid protest opinion suggests the CIA sought to compare how the solutions presented by IBM and Amazon Web Services (AWS) could crunch massive data sets, commonly referred to as big data.” … “Solutions had to provide a “hosting environment for applications which process vast amounts of information in parallel on large clusters (thousands of nodes) of commodity hardware” using a platform called MapReduce. Through MapReduce, clusters were provisioned for computation and segmentation. Test runs assumed clusters were large enough to process 100 terabytes of raw input data. AWS’ solution received superior marks from CIA procurement officials”… (MORE)

November 2013: […] “Twitter closed its first day of trading on Nov. 7, 2013, at $44.90 a share. In the years since then, it briefly traded above $70, but more recently, it has struggled.”

Jack’s free coffee shop has been for sale, but there’s no viable business model in the private sector.  No one has wanted to purchase Twitter – it is simply unsustainable; the data processing costs exceed the capacity of the platform to generate revenue – until now….

And suddenly, the people who work in the backroom of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop don’t want Jack to sell.

Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.  The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant.  Twitter does not and cannot make money.  Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.

There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.

What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.

Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.

Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.

That’s the fight. (more)

2021, Public-Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazen they have made public admissions.

The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):

[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”

Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.

Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.

When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data-mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.

The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.

The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.

Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.

What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.

July 26, 2021, (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.

Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.

The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)

The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives. In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.

The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created, and turned those weapons into tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.

It’s all Connected Folks, SEE HERE

[…] “The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago.” … “It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.” (READ MORE)

One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”

Source

Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop

Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop

The metaphorical Jack had a great idea, open a coffee shop where the beverages were free and use internal advertising as the income subsidy to operate the business.  Crowds came for the free coffee, comfy couches, fellowship, conversation and enjoyment.

It didn’t matter where Jack got the coffee, how he paid for it, or didn’t, or what product advertising the customers would be exposed to while there.  Few people thought about such things.  Curiously, it didn’t matter what size the crowd was; in the backroom of Jack’s Coffee Shop they were able to generate massive amounts of never-ending free coffee at extreme scales.

Over time, using the justification of parking lot capacity and township regulations, not everyone would be able to park and enter.  Guards were placed at the entrance to pre-screen customers. A debate began.

Alternative coffee shops opened around town.  It was entirely possible to duplicate Jacks Coffee Shop, yet no one could duplicate the business model for the free coffee.  Indeed, there was something very unique about Jack’s Coffee Shop.  Thus, some underlying suspicions were raised:

The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap.  The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account.  A public-private partnership.

If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy.  Let that sink in.

The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database.  The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.

FREE COFFEE:

♦ June 2013: […] “Cloud computing is one of the core components of the strategy to help the IC discover, access and share critical information in an era of seemingly infinite data.” … “A test scenario described by GAO in its June 2013 bid protest opinion suggests the CIA sought to compare how the solutions presented by IBM and Amazon Web Services (AWS) could crunch massive data sets, commonly referred to as big data.” … “Solutions had to provide a “hosting environment for applications which process vast amounts of information in parallel on large clusters (thousands of nodes) of commodity hardware” using a platform called MapReduce. Through MapReduce, clusters were provisioned for computation and segmentation. Test runs assumed clusters were large enough to process 100 terabytes of raw input data. AWS’ solution received superior marks from CIA procurement officials”… (MORE)

November 2013: […] “Twitter closed its first day of trading on Nov. 7, 2013, at $44.90 a share. In the years since then, it briefly traded above $70, but more recently, it has struggled.”

Jack’s free coffee shop has been for sale, but there’s no viable business model in the private sector.  No one has wanted to purchase Twitter – it is simply unsustainable; the data processing costs exceed the capacity of the platform to generate revenue – until now….

And suddenly, the people who work in the backroom of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop don’t want Jack to sell.

Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.  The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant.  Twitter does not and cannot make money.  Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.

There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.

What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.

Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.

Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.

That’s the fight. (more)

2021, Public-Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazen they have made public admissions.

The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):

[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”

Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.

Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.

When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data-mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.

The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.

The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.

Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.

What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.

July 26, 2021, (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.

Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.

The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)

The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives. In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.

The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created, and turned those weapons into tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.

It’s all Connected Folks, SEE HERE

[…] “The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago.” … “It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.” (READ MORE)

One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”

Source

Durham Prosecutors Provide Evidence of Clinton Lawyer Michael Sussmann Lying to FBI

Durham Prosecutors Provide Evidence of Clinton Lawyer Michael Sussmann Lying to FBI

CTH begins every outline of the ongoing Durham investigation with the following disclaimer:  How is John Durham going to reveal everything that is possible about the deep state Trump targeting operation, and simultaneously handle the involvement of Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and the Special Counsel team who were specifically appointed to cover it up?

The short answer is, Durham can’t.  He’s not allowed to.

Durham can only outline the external participants in the corrupt activity of the U.S. government. No internal participants of government, legislative or executive, are allowed to be investigated.

In the latest court filings against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, the prosecution drops some significant discoveries outlining how the external participants lied to willfully blind FBI officials.  Technofog has all the details:

On September 19, 2016, DNC/Clinton Campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel James Baker, where Baker was provided with data and “white paper” purporting to show covert communications (since proven to be bogus) between Russian Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.

Special Counsel John Durham has just provided evidence that the night before – on September 18, 2016 – Sussmann sent Baker this text:

As it turns out, Sussmann was billing the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Alfa Bank hoax. This text from Sussmann to Baker is damning for Sussmann’s case, proving Sussmann’s efforts at deceiving a top official at the FBI about his clients, and demonstrating how Sussmann tried to convince Baker he was there to supposedly do the right thing. (read more)

This 2016 meeting between Sussmann and FBI Counsel James Baker took place in the lead up to the FBI and DOJ filing for the FISA warrant against the Trump campaign through Carter Page in October.  Sussmann has legal exposure for his lying to the FBI about the purposes of the manipulated information that came from Rodney Joffe (Tech Executive-1 in the Sussmann indictment).   As Technofog notes, Joffe also has legal exposure, however, he has not yet been charged.

While Sussmann was pushing fraudulent information into the open hands of the FBI, another Clinton campaign contractor, Fusion GPS, was pushing similarly constructed fraudulent information -including the Christopher Steele dossier- into the media, DOJ (Bruce Ohr) and FBI.

At the same time (September 2016), CIA Director John Brennan was briefing Barack Obama about the intentions of the Clinton campaign, and feeding information to Gang of Eight member Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (now dead).  Harry Reid was using his position in the Senate to weaponize the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence who became an active participant in the overall attacks against candidate Donald Trump.

After they failed to defeat Trump in the November 2016, election, all of the participants in the scheme shifted the focus of the Trump-Russia construct from defeating Trump to now removing Trump from office.

The SSCI retained their critical role as newly installed Vice-Chairman Mark Warner worked closely with the FBI to get a special counsel appointed.   The Special Counsel, Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann, would then be used to take over the DOJ for two years and protect all of the participants.

During a period in February, March and April of 2017, the DOJ became less useful for the operations against Trump, as various DOJ officials from the Obama team exited Main Justice.  The legislative branch, specifically the Senate Intelligence Committee, desperate to keep the attack against Trump in place, worked almost exclusively with the FBI team, Deputy Comey, Asst. Deputy McCabe and FBI Counsel James Baker during this phase.

It was during February and early March when FBI Director James Comey was falsely telling President Trump he was not under FBI investigation.  However, despite Comey’s statements to Trump, the FBI Director would not make those statements public, because they were not true.  Comey was manipulating Trump to retain the false premise underlying the investigation.

In early March 2017, the Democrats in the legislative branch were desperate to get a special counsel installed who would assist them in hiding all of the activity that took place prior.  The collective effort was to flood the media with speculation, rumors and innuendo that Donald Trump was under FBI investigation.  This collaborative effort between the SSCI, FBI and media would ultimately help the goal of getting a special counsel appointed.

On March 17, 2017, SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner asked the FBI for a copy of the FISA application used against the Trump campaign, with the intent to leak it to the media (James Wolfe to Ali Watkins).

Warner could not ask the DOJ, because by that time Jeff Sessions was in place (recused March 2nd), and Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente was not considered as strong for the SSCI/FBI intents of the Trump removal effort.

FBI Director James Comey was schedule to testify to the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017, where he would make the first public statement about President Donald Trump being under an active investigation.

Mark Warner coordinated with FBI leadership (Comey, McCabe) to receive the FISA application, so that he could leak it to the media in support of a push for the special counsel appointment.  The March 17th leak of the FISA application was timed to support the testimony by Comey a few days later on March 20th.

During this critical phase, Main Justice (Sessions, Boente, et al) was carved out of the political planning effort, and the SSCI worked directly with the FBI.

James Comey gave his testimony (3/20/17), SSCI Security Director James Wolfe did as he was told and leaked the FISA application (3/17/20), and with major stories of Trump now officially under investigation in the public – and all of the manipulated evidence (including an unredacted version of the FISA application) now in the media vaults for exploitation – the piranha pool was full of blood and the media frenzy began.

As soon as Rod Rosenstein was confirmed as Deputy AG (early April), and with Jeff Sessions purposefully recused from anything Trump-Russia, the FBI shifted slightly and began the pressure campaign toward Main Justice to appoint the special counsel.   The SSCI and FBI worked together to generate additional leaks to the media to get Robert Mueller appointed.

All of that internal activity is what John Durham is not permitted to look at, or else his investigation will be shut down.  Hence the disclaimer “How is John Durham going to reveal everything that is possible about the deep state Trump targeting operation, and simultaneously handle the involvement of Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and the Special Counsel team who were specifically appointed to cover it up?”  The short answer is, he won’t.

Bill Barr was the Bondo…  John Durham is the spray paint.

The corrupt and weaponized DOJ, FBI and SSCI government institutions remain unfazed.

That’s the rub.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)