Politics EXPOSING THE DEEP STATE

[MARIS61]

Judicial Watch Sues State Department for Obama Ambassador Victoria Nuland’s Communications Related to the Anti-Trump Dossier
APRIL 05, 2019

Ambassador Nuland reportedly initially connected the author of the anti-Trump dossier, Christopher Steele, to the FBI.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State for communications between Obama Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Ambassador Victoria Nuland and employees of Fusion GPS, as well as top ranking Department of Justice, FBI, and State Department officials.

Nuland served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs from September 2013 until January 2017.

Judicial Watch filed the suit after the State Department failed to respond to a November 1, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:19-cv-00574)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Any and all records of communication between Ambassador Victoria Nuland and any of the following individuals between January 1, 2016 and January 25, 2017:

Professor Joseph Mifsud

Mr. Christopher Steele

Mr. Glenn Simpson

Mrs. Nellie Ohr

Former CIA Director John Brennan

Former Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates

Former Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General George Toscas

Former DOJ Official David Laufman

Former Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco

Former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr

Former FBI Director James Comey

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe

Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok

FBI Attorney Lisa Page

FBI Attorney James Baker

Former FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki

FBI Assistant Director Edward William Priestap

Former FBI Agent John Giacalone

Former FBI Agent Michael Steinbach

Former FBI Agent Josh Campbell

The author of the anti-Trump dossier, Christopher Steele, reportedly had developed long-standing relationships with senior State Department officials including Ambassador Victoria Nuland, “Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis.”

On February 4, 2018, in an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation, Nuland stated that she had been given details of the anti-Trump dossier directly from Christopher Steele, which she then referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

[Steele] passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding. And our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate. And that was our reaction when we saw this. It’s not our – our – we can’t evaluate this.

Nuland reportedly “green lit” the initial meeting about the anti-Trump dossier between Christopher Steele and FBI agent Michael Gaeta. Quoting from David Corn and Michael Isikoff’s book Russian Roulette, “The FBI checked with Victoria Nuland’s office at the State Department: Do you support this meeting? Nuland, having found Steele’s reports on Ukraine to have been generally credible, gave the green light.”

“We intend to find out how far the Deep State was willing to go in their effort to discredit then-candidate Donald Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It seems the Obama administration engaged in a no-holds-barred attempt to clear the path for Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits have already shown the Obama State Department was corruptly targeting President Trump.”

Judicial Watch earlier released 42 pages of heavily redacted State Department documents containing classified information that was provided to Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and outspoken critic of President Donald Trump. The documents show Russian political interference in elections and politics in countries across Europe.

Judicial Watch also released two sets of heavily redacted State Department documents, 38 pages and 48 pages, showing classified information was disseminated to multiple U.S. Senators by the Obama administration immediately prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The documents reveal that among those receiving the classified documents were Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN).

###

 

[Lanny]

Judicial Watch Sues State Department for Obama Ambassador Victoria Nuland’s Communications Related to the Anti-Trump Dossier
APRIL 05, 2019

Ambassador Nuland reportedly initially connected the author of the anti-Trump dossier, Christopher Steele, to the FBI.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State for communications between Obama Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Ambassador Victoria Nuland and employees of Fusion GPS, as well as top ranking Department of Justice, FBI, and State Department officials.

Nuland served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs from September 2013 until January 2017.

Judicial Watch filed the suit after the State Department failed to respond to a November 1, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:19-cv-00574)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Any and all records of communication between Ambassador Victoria Nuland and any of the following individuals between January 1, 2016 and January 25, 2017:

Professor Joseph Mifsud

Mr. Christopher Steele

Mr. Glenn Simpson

Mrs. Nellie Ohr

Former CIA Director John Brennan

Former Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates

Former Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General George Toscas

Former DOJ Official David Laufman

Former Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco

Former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr

Former FBI Director James Comey

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe

Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok

FBI Attorney Lisa Page

FBI Attorney James Baker

Former FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki

FBI Assistant Director Edward William Priestap

Former FBI Agent John Giacalone

Former FBI Agent Michael Steinbach

Former FBI Agent Josh Campbell

The author of the anti-Trump dossier, Christopher Steele, reportedly had developed long-standing relationships with senior State Department officials including Ambassador Victoria Nuland, “Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis.”

On February 4, 2018, in an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation, Nuland stated that she had been given details of the anti-Trump dossier directly from Christopher Steele, which she then referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

[Steele] passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding. And our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate. And that was our reaction when we saw this. It’s not our – our – we can’t evaluate this.

Nuland reportedly “green lit” the initial meeting about the anti-Trump dossier between Christopher Steele and FBI agent Michael Gaeta. Quoting from David Corn and Michael Isikoff’s book Russian Roulette, “The FBI checked with Victoria Nuland’s office at the State Department: Do you support this meeting? Nuland, having found Steele’s reports on Ukraine to have been generally credible, gave the green light.”

“We intend to find out how far the Deep State was willing to go in their effort to discredit then-candidate Donald Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It seems the Obama administration engaged in a no-holds-barred attempt to clear the path for Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits have already shown the Obama State Department was corruptly targeting President Trump.”

Judicial Watch earlier released 42 pages of heavily redacted State Department documents containing classified information that was provided to Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and outspoken critic of President Donald Trump. The documents show Russian political interference in elections and politics in countries across Europe.

Judicial Watch also released two sets of heavily redacted State Department documents, 38 pages and 48 pages, showing classified information was disseminated to multiple U.S. Senators by the Obama administration immediately prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The documents reveal that among those receiving the classified documents were Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN).

###

Oh, this certainly has traction. I expect indictments any day now.

 

[MARIS61]

Hang in their Lanny, they're certainly coming...

Nunes to send eight criminal referrals to DOJ concerning leaks, conspiracy amid Russia probe

By Gregg Re | Fox News

Rep. Devin Nunes announces he will send eight criminal referrals to Justice Dept concerning leaks, conspiracy amid Russia probe.

California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes says justice will soon come to 'Watergate wannabes.'

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes exclusively told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that he is preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice this week concerning alleged misconduct from "Watergate wannabes" during the Trump-Russia investigation, including the leaks of "highly classified material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.

The dramatic step comes as Republicans have pushed for the release of key documents to uncover the origins of the now-discredited narrative that the Trump campaign colluded improperly with the Russian government. President Trump recently told Fox News he would release the entirety of the FISA applications used to surveil one of his top aides, and other related documents.

Nunes said he has been working on the referrals for more than two years, and wanted to wait until the confirmation of Attorney General Bill Barr.

"We're prepared this week to notify the attorney general that we're prepared to send those referrals over," Nunes said. "First of all, all of these are classified or sensitive. ... Five of them are what I would call straight up referrals -- so just referrals that name someone and name the specific crimes," Nunes told Maria Bartiromo. "Those crimes are lying to Congress, misleading Congress, leaking classified information. So five of them are those types."

It was not immediately clear whom Nunes would specifically refer. Both Democrats and Republicans have said former Trump fixer Michael Cohen is likely to face new charges of lying to Congress in the wake of his recent explosive testimony, which seemed to contradict his previous statements on a variety of matters, including whether he had sought a job in the Trump White House.
The memo pointed out that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

And House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., touched off a firestorm last August after claiming on Twitter that his office had "hard evidence" suggesting the FBI leaked information to the press and used the resulting articles to help obtain surveillance warrants. The claim stemmed in part from FBI intelligence analyst Jonathan Moffa’s Friday testimony behind closed doors before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

Nunes added: "There are three [referrals] that I think are more complicated. ... So on the first one, is FISA abuse and other matters. We believe there was a conspiracy to lie to the FISA court, mislead the FISA court by numerous individuals that all need to be investigated and looked at that, and we believe the [relevant] statute is the conspiracy statute. The second conspiracy one is involving manipulation of intelligence that also could ensnarl many Americans."

FBI BLAMES 'SYSTEM WIDE SOFTWARE GLITCH' FOR MISSING STRZOK, PAGE TEXTS --- STRZOK'S MUELLER PHONE TOTALLY WIPED

Nunes asserted that "we've had a lot of concerns with the way intelligence was used" during the Trump-Russia probe.

Just nine days before the FBI applied for a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page, then a Trump campaign aide, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application, according to internal text messages obtained by Fox News in March.

Redacted versions of FISA documents already released have revealed that the FBI extensively relied on documents produced by Christopher Steele, an anti-Trump British ex-spy working for a firm funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC), to surveil Trump aide Carter Page. The FISA application did not clearly state that the firm was funded by the Clinton team and DNC.

The leaked dossier, and related FBI surveillance, kickstarted a media frenzy on alleged Russia-Trump collusion that ended with a whimper last month, when it was revealed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe concluded finding no evidence of such a conspiracy, despite several offers by Russians to help the Trump campaign. Page was never charged with wrongdoing, and he is currently suing the DNC for defamation.

DOJ guidelines preclude the FBI from omitting exculpatory evidence, or misrepresenting sources, in FISA applications. Reports have indicated -- and Republicans have charged -- that the FBI improperly withheld evidence that would have suggested their surveillance targets during the Trump probe were in fact innocent.

FBI INCORRECTLY ASSURED FISA COURT ON FOUR OCCASSIONS THAT YAHOO NEWS ARTICLE WAS INDEPENDENT BASIS TO SPY ON TRUMP AIDE

"The third is what I would call a global leak referral," Nunes said. "So there are about a dozen highly sensitive classified information leaks that were given to only a few reporters over the last two-and-a-half-plus years. So you know, we don't know if there's actually been any leak investigations that have been opened, but we do believe that we've got pretty good information and a pretty good idea of who could be behind these leaks."

Nunes specifically named a series of known "horrific" leaks, including the leak of conversations between Trump and the leaders of Australia and Mexico, and the transcripts of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's calls.

Nunes noted that the eight criminal referrals could involve more than eight people, and that a conspiracy referral could involve "a dozen, two dozen people." He added that more referrals could be coming.

"I think it's impossible to ignore," Nunes said. "If the Mueller team was busting people for lying to the FBI -- there are some pretty simple times when people lied to Congress for the sole purpose of obstructing our investigation."

News that the FBI had been secretly monitoring Flynn's communications with Russians broke in January in The Washington Post, and was sourced to anonymous "U.S. officials." Flynn met with FBI officials shortly after the publication of that article, and eventually pleaded guilty to one charge of lying to investigators about whether he had spoken to Russia's ambassador concerning an upcoming U.N. resolution on Israel and the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. told Fox News in January that "there’s a 99.9 percent chance [House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is] the guy” who leaked private testimony that he gave in 2017 before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss the Trump Tower meeting with a Russian who offered dirt on Hillary Clinton.

“I came out of testimony 8 at night and CNN is running quotes from noon on about my testimony, you know, in the House Intelligence Committee,” Trump Jr. said. “I mean, that has to say something about what is going on and who they are. Since [Schiff has] never met a camera he didn’t love, I would bet a lot of money that it was him.”

Federal prosecutors have impaneled a grand jury to investigate former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe following the IG's report alleging that McCabe approved a media disclosure to advance his personal interests. McCabe was later fired for lying to investigators and former FBI Director James Comey about the leaks.

And last year, text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page surfaced that referred to government employees "leaking like mad" in the runup to the Russia collusion probe.

Strzok and Page exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages when Strzok was a high-level investigator looking into both Clinton and the Trump campaign. The DOJ Inspector General (IG) found that the texts violated policy and compromised the bureau's appearance of impartiality.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok texted Page prior to Election Day. Strzok also assured Page that Trump won't become president, because "we'll stop" it.

"The American people have only seen the pieces that have been declassified so far," Nunes said. "There's still more information. This was their insurance policy. A lot of people think the insurance policy was just the overall investigation of the Trump campaign. It's actually much more conspiratorial than that. There was exculpatory information."

 

[Lanny]

Hang in their Lanny, they're certainly coming...

Nunes to send eight criminal referrals to DOJ concerning leaks, conspiracy amid Russia probe

By Gregg Re | Fox News

Rep. Devin Nunes announces he will send eight criminal referrals to Justice Dept concerning leaks, conspiracy amid Russia probe.

California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes says justice will soon come to 'Watergate wannabes.'

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes exclusively told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that he is preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice this week concerning alleged misconduct from "Watergate wannabes" during the Trump-Russia investigation, including the leaks of "highly classified material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.

The dramatic step comes as Republicans have pushed for the release of key documents to uncover the origins of the now-discredited narrative that the Trump campaign colluded improperly with the Russian government. President Trump recently told Fox News he would release the entirety of the FISA applications used to surveil one of his top aides, and other related documents.

Nunes said he has been working on the referrals for more than two years, and wanted to wait until the confirmation of Attorney General Bill Barr.

"We're prepared this week to notify the attorney general that we're prepared to send those referrals over," Nunes said. "First of all, all of these are classified or sensitive. ... Five of them are what I would call straight up referrals -- so just referrals that name someone and name the specific crimes," Nunes told Maria Bartiromo. "Those crimes are lying to Congress, misleading Congress, leaking classified information. So five of them are those types."

It was not immediately clear whom Nunes would specifically refer. Both Democrats and Republicans have said former Trump fixer Michael Cohen is likely to face new charges of lying to Congress in the wake of his recent explosive testimony, which seemed to contradict his previous statements on a variety of matters, including whether he had sought a job in the Trump White House.
The memo pointed out that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

And House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., touched off a firestorm last August after claiming on Twitter that his office had "hard evidence" suggesting the FBI leaked information to the press and used the resulting articles to help obtain surveillance warrants. The claim stemmed in part from FBI intelligence analyst Jonathan Moffa’s Friday testimony behind closed doors before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

Nunes added: "There are three [referrals] that I think are more complicated. ... So on the first one, is FISA abuse and other matters. We believe there was a conspiracy to lie to the FISA court, mislead the FISA court by numerous individuals that all need to be investigated and looked at that, and we believe the [relevant] statute is the conspiracy statute. The second conspiracy one is involving manipulation of intelligence that also could ensnarl many Americans."

FBI BLAMES 'SYSTEM WIDE SOFTWARE GLITCH' FOR MISSING STRZOK, PAGE TEXTS --- STRZOK'S MUELLER PHONE TOTALLY WIPED

Nunes asserted that "we've had a lot of concerns with the way intelligence was used" during the Trump-Russia probe.

Just nine days before the FBI applied for a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page, then a Trump campaign aide, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application, according to internal text messages obtained by Fox News in March.

Redacted versions of FISA documents already released have revealed that the FBI extensively relied on documents produced by Christopher Steele, an anti-Trump British ex-spy working for a firm funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC), to surveil Trump aide Carter Page. The FISA application did not clearly state that the firm was funded by the Clinton team and DNC.

The leaked dossier, and related FBI surveillance, kickstarted a media frenzy on alleged Russia-Trump collusion that ended with a whimper last month, when it was revealed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe concluded finding no evidence of such a conspiracy, despite several offers by Russians to help the Trump campaign. Page was never charged with wrongdoing, and he is currently suing the DNC for defamation.

DOJ guidelines preclude the FBI from omitting exculpatory evidence, or misrepresenting sources, in FISA applications. Reports have indicated -- and Republicans have charged -- that the FBI improperly withheld evidence that would have suggested their surveillance targets during the Trump probe were in fact innocent.

FBI INCORRECTLY ASSURED FISA COURT ON FOUR OCCASSIONS THAT YAHOO NEWS ARTICLE WAS INDEPENDENT BASIS TO SPY ON TRUMP AIDE

"The third is what I would call a global leak referral," Nunes said. "So there are about a dozen highly sensitive classified information leaks that were given to only a few reporters over the last two-and-a-half-plus years. So you know, we don't know if there's actually been any leak investigations that have been opened, but we do believe that we've got pretty good information and a pretty good idea of who could be behind these leaks."

Nunes specifically named a series of known "horrific" leaks, including the leak of conversations between Trump and the leaders of Australia and Mexico, and the transcripts of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's calls.

Nunes noted that the eight criminal referrals could involve more than eight people, and that a conspiracy referral could involve "a dozen, two dozen people." He added that more referrals could be coming.

"I think it's impossible to ignore," Nunes said. "If the Mueller team was busting people for lying to the FBI -- there are some pretty simple times when people lied to Congress for the sole purpose of obstructing our investigation."

News that the FBI had been secretly monitoring Flynn's communications with Russians broke in January in The Washington Post, and was sourced to anonymous "U.S. officials." Flynn met with FBI officials shortly after the publication of that article, and eventually pleaded guilty to one charge of lying to investigators about whether he had spoken to Russia's ambassador concerning an upcoming U.N. resolution on Israel and the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. told Fox News in January that "there’s a 99.9 percent chance [House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is] the guy” who leaked private testimony that he gave in 2017 before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss the Trump Tower meeting with a Russian who offered dirt on Hillary Clinton.

“I came out of testimony 8 at night and CNN is running quotes from noon on about my testimony, you know, in the House Intelligence Committee,” Trump Jr. said. “I mean, that has to say something about what is going on and who they are. Since [Schiff has] never met a camera he didn’t love, I would bet a lot of money that it was him.”

Federal prosecutors have impaneled a grand jury to investigate former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe following the IG's report alleging that McCabe approved a media disclosure to advance his personal interests. McCabe was later fired for lying to investigators and former FBI Director James Comey about the leaks.

And last year, text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page surfaced that referred to government employees "leaking like mad" in the runup to the Russia collusion probe.

Strzok and Page exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages when Strzok was a high-level investigator looking into both Clinton and the Trump campaign. The DOJ Inspector General (IG) found that the texts violated policy and compromised the bureau's appearance of impartiality.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok texted Page prior to Election Day. Strzok also assured Page that Trump won't become president, because "we'll stop" it.

"The American people have only seen the pieces that have been declassified so far," Nunes said. "There's still more information. This was their insurance policy. A lot of people think the insurance policy was just the overall investigation of the Trump campaign. It's actually much more conspiratorial than that. There was exculpatory information."

I'm hanging in there. However, all this waiting and waiting and waiting is making me sleepy. Please wake me when there's something to report.
Of course, it shouldn't be long before there's some action in the courts. Everyone knows how reputable Nunes is.

 

[MARIS61]

Judicial Watch Uncovers ‘Cover-Up’ Discussions in Latest Production of Clinton Email Documents
APRIL 08, 2019

https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg https://www.judicialwatch.org

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it uncovered 422 pages of FBI documents showing evidence of “cover-up” discussions related to the Clinton email system within Platte River Networks, one of the vendors who managed the Clinton email system. The documents also show Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Charles McCullough forwarding “concerns” about classified information in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The new documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also contain Clinton’s 2009 classified information Non-Disclosure Agreement bearing her signature.

An October 2016 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) forced the release of the new FBI documents. Judicial Watch lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request seeking:

• All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.

• All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
• All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.

FBI notes of an interview with an unidentified Platte River Networks official in February 2016 (almost a year after the Clinton email network was first revealed) show that Platte River “gave someone access to live HRC archive mailbox at some point.” The same notes show that an email from December 11, 2014, exists that reads “Hillary cover up operation work ticket archive cleanup.” The interviewee said that the “cover up operation” email “probably related to change to 60 day [sic] email retention policy/backup.” The subject indicated that he didn’t “recall the prior policy.” The notes also indicated, “[Redacted] advised [redacted] not to answer questions related to conv [conversation] w/DK [David Kendall] document 49 – based on 5th amendment.”

The subject said that “everyone @ PRN has access to client portal.”

A December 11, 2014, Platte River Networks email between redacted parties says: “Its [sic] all part of the Hillary coverup operation <smile> I’ll have to tell you about it at the party”

An August 2015 email from Platte River Networks says: “So does this mean we don’t have offsite backups currently? That could be a problem if someone hacks this thing and jacks it up. We will have to be able to produce a copy of it somehow, or we’re in some deep shit. Also, what ever [sic] came from the guys at Datto about the old backups? Do they have anyway [sic] of getting those back after we were told to cut it to 30 days?”

In March 2015, Platte River Networks specifically discusses security of the email server.

[Redacted] is going to send over a list of recommendations for us to apply for additional security against hackers. He did say we should probably remove all Clinton files, folders, info off our servers etc. on an independent drive.

Handwritten notes that appear to be from Platte River Networks in February 2016 mention questions concerning the Clinton email system and state of back-ups

The documents show Platte River Networks’ use of BleachBit on the Clinton server. The BleachBit program was downloaded from a vendor called SourceForge at 11:42am on March 31, 2015, according to a computer event log, and over the next half hour, was used to delete the files on Hillary’s server.

The documents also contain emails and handwritten notes written in June and July 2015 from the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General discussing “concerns” over classified information. A redacted sender writes to State Department Official Margaret “Peggy” Grafeld that “inadvertent release of State Department’s equities when this collection is released in its entirety — the potential damage to the foreign relations of the United States could be significant. ICIG McCullough forwards the concern, saying: “Need you plugged in on this.”

From: [Redacted]

Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 2:46 PM

To: Grafeld, Margaret P [Peggy]

Subject: Concerns about the HRC Review …

While working with this inspector, I have personally reviewed hundreds of documents in the HRC collection. I can now say, without reservation, that there are literally hundreds of classified emails in this collection; maybe more. For example, there are comments by Department staff in emails relating to the Wikileaks unauthorized disclosures; many of the emails relating to this actually confirm the information in the disclosures. This material is the subject of FOIA litigation, and the emails will now have to be found, reviewed and upgraded. Under the EO 13526, it would be in in our right to classify the entire HRC collection at the Secret level because of the “mosaic effect.” While there may be IC equities in the collection, I am very concerned about the inadvertent release of State Department’s equities when this collection is released in its entirety — the potential damage to the foreign relations of the United States could be significant.

***

From: Chuck Mccullough [sic]

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:16 AM

To: [Redacted]

Subject: FW: SBU FW: Concerns about the HRC Review …

[Redacted]

Need you plugged in on this. Need to coordinate w/ State’s WB person.

In an August 2015 classified memo prepared by the FBI Counterintelligence Division regarding the findings of the ICIG with respect to Hillary’s email server, the FBI noted that the ICIG had found that in a sampling of only 40 of Hillary’s 30,000 emails, four classified emails were found. A subsequent letter sent by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) to ODNI Clapper regarding this sample of Clinton’s emails noted that they were all classified at the secret level.

In an August 2015 internal FBI memo, the FBI notes that Hillary Clinton had signed a June 28, 2011, official correspondence advising all State Department employees that, “due to ‘recent targeting of personal e-mail accounts by online adversaries,’ State employees should ‘avoid conducting official Department business from (their) personal e-mail accounts.” The same FBI memo noted that Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy had sent a memo to all senior State Department officials on August 28, 2014, in which Kennedy included excerpts from the Foreign Affairs Manual that said that “classified information must be sent via classified e-mail channels only…”

The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also show infighting between State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy and the ICIG over the processing of the potentially compromised Clinton email communications.

A June 15, 2015, memo for the record prepared by the ICIG regarding the State Department’s review of Hillary Clinton’s emails indicates among other things that the retired foreign service officers that State was using to review Hillary’s emails were not “not optimal.”

Evaluation of other agencies’ equities is not optimal. State Department is currently relying on retired senior Foreign Service Officers to review for other agencies’ equities in FOIA cases. For example, a review of the first set of 296 emails received from former-Secretary Clinton and released on the State Department FOIA website identified material that should have been referred to IC FOIA officials for review prior to release. Recommend State Department FOIA Office request staff support from IC FOIA offices to assist in the identification of intelligence community equities. [Emphasis in original]

***

According to State FOIA personnel, during the State Department Legal Office’s review, four of the Bl [national security] exemptions were removed and· changed to “B5” FOIA exemptions (Privileged Communications). Recommend State Department FOIA Office seek classification expertise from the interagency to act as a final arbiter if there is a question regarding potentially classified materials. [Emphasis in original]

It is unclear if the Department of Justice is reviewing the emails before FOIA release. Former-Secretary Clinton’s emails are the subject of numerous FOIA requests and multiple FOIA lawsuits. It may be prudent to integrate the Department of Justice into the FOIA process review to ensure the redactions can withstand potential legal challenges. If not already being done, recommend the State Department FOIA Office incorporate the Department of Justice into the FOIA process to ensure the legal sufficiency review of the FOIA exemptions and redactions. [Emphasis in original]

An August 4, 2015, interview by the FBI of State Department IG Steven Linick mentions an incident on “May 13, 2011 2:28 am Huma – Phil Rein potential hack.”

On October 15, 2012, Clinton’s IT technician Bryan Pagliano, sent to Bill Clinton’s aide Justin Cooper a bill indicating that on July 28-29, 2012, Pagliano had to address the issue of “Mailbox Corruption” of Hillary Clinton’s email server, spending a total of 5.5 hours on the problem. Other invoices show that he had to “fix corruption in justin’s [Cooper’s] mailbox; ” have a “conference call with security team;” “Blocked spamer [sic] smtp address for Viagra message;” “virus investigation and cleanup;” “clean up virus from bb [BlackBerry] profile;” and multiple “brute force attacks” against Hillary Clinton’s server, requiring him to “reset password.” The documents show that Pagliano was paid $40,337.86 over four years by the Clinton Executive Service Corp.

In a 2016 deposition in a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit, Pagliano repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions regarding IT support he provided to the Clinton email system.

An August 2015 letter from the United States Secret Service to the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI, addressing a request regarding preservation of records in connection with Clinton’s email system. The letter also cites Judicial Watch’s litigation concerning preservation of her email server records. The Secret Service writes that its searches “did not reveal any responsive documents … [n]otwithstanding, the Secret Service will send out a preservation request for the Agency records listed in your correspondence …”

A July 2015 letter from the National Archives requests information from the State Department regarding “the training, procedures and other controls” employed by the State Department to ensure key record management directives were implemented regarding “the management of email and other electronic records of senior agency officials.” Also, the Archives requests “that the Department contact the representatives of former Secretary Clinton to secure the native electronic versions with associated metadata” of the 55,000 hard copies of emails provided to the State Department.

November 2012 classified emails from Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, discuss a “Report of arrests – possible Benghazi connection” with her.

A request for travel dated November 2015 shows that the FBI dispatched special agents to Spain and Bahrain to conduct interviews in the “Midyear Exam” regarding a “sensitive investigative matter.”

Other released materials include letters from Clinton’s personal lawyer David Kendall throughout the production. On June 24, 2015, Kendall writes to the State Department Inspector General that the State Department is in possession of “all Secretary Clinton’s work-related … emails:” He continues that, as Hillary’s personal counsel, “We continue to retain a preservation copy of the .pst file containing the electronic copies of those e-mails, on a thumb drive that is stored in a secured safe at the offices of Williams and Connolly …”

I note at the outset that the Department of State is in possession of all of Secretary Clinton’s work-related and potentially work-related e-mails. Specifically, in response to an October 2014 letter request from the Department of State, Secretary Clinton’s counsel identified all work-related or potentially work-related e-mail in her possession, custody, or control. In total, 30,490 e-mails, all of which were from her @clintonemail.com account, were identified and provided in hard copy to the Department of State in _December 2014. A3 her personal counsel, we continue to retain a preservation copy of the .pst file containing the electronic copies of those e-mails, on a thumb drive that is stored in a secured safe at the offices of Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 12th Street NW, Washington DC 20005. The only two persons authorized to access that thumb drive are me and my law partner, Katherine Turner.

“Judicial Watch uncovered new ‘cover-up’ records on the illicit Clinton email system that further demonstrate the sham nature of the FBI/DOJ ‘investigation’ of her,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These shocking new documents show that various Obama agencies were protecting Hillary Clinton from the consequences of her misconduct. It is well past time for the DOJ to stop shielding Hillary Clinton and hold her fully accountable to the rule of law.”

In a different lawsuit Judicial Watch previously released 186 pages of records from the DOJ that include emails documenting an evident cover-up of a chart of potential violations of law by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

And, in a separate lawsuit, Judicial Watch uncovered 215 pages of records from the DOJ revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues.

Judicial Watch has previously released numerous instances of classified information distributed through Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email system. For example, see here, here and here.

And, Judicial Watch is currently conducting depositions of senior Obama-era State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...latest-production-of-clinton-email-documents/

 

[Lanny]

Judicial Watch Uncovers ‘Cover-Up’ Discussions in Latest Production of Clinton Email Documents
APRIL 08, 2019

https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg https://www.judicialwatch.org

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it uncovered 422 pages of FBI documents showing evidence of “cover-up” discussions related to the Clinton email system within Platte River Networks, one of the vendors who managed the Clinton email system. The documents also show Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Charles McCullough forwarding “concerns” about classified information in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The new documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also contain Clinton’s 2009 classified information Non-Disclosure Agreement bearing her signature.

An October 2016 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) forced the release of the new FBI documents. Judicial Watch lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request seeking:

• All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.

• All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
• All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.

FBI notes of an interview with an unidentified Platte River Networks official in February 2016 (almost a year after the Clinton email network was first revealed) show that Platte River “gave someone access to live HRC archive mailbox at some point.” The same notes show that an email from December 11, 2014, exists that reads “Hillary cover up operation work ticket archive cleanup.” The interviewee said that the “cover up operation” email “probably related to change to 60 day [sic] email retention policy/backup.” The subject indicated that he didn’t “recall the prior policy.” The notes also indicated, “[Redacted] advised [redacted] not to answer questions related to conv [conversation] w/DK [David Kendall] document 49 – based on 5th amendment.”

The subject said that “everyone @ PRN has access to client portal.”

A December 11, 2014, Platte River Networks email between redacted parties says: “Its [sic] all part of the Hillary coverup operation <smile> I’ll have to tell you about it at the party”

An August 2015 email from Platte River Networks says: “So does this mean we don’t have offsite backups currently? That could be a problem if someone hacks this thing and jacks it up. We will have to be able to produce a copy of it somehow, or we’re in some deep shit. Also, what ever [sic] came from the guys at Datto about the old backups? Do they have anyway [sic] of getting those back after we were told to cut it to 30 days?”

In March 2015, Platte River Networks specifically discusses security of the email server.

[Redacted] is going to send over a list of recommendations for us to apply for additional security against hackers. He did say we should probably remove all Clinton files, folders, info off our servers etc. on an independent drive.

Handwritten notes that appear to be from Platte River Networks in February 2016 mention questions concerning the Clinton email system and state of back-ups

The documents show Platte River Networks’ use of BleachBit on the Clinton server. The BleachBit program was downloaded from a vendor called SourceForge at 11:42am on March 31, 2015, according to a computer event log, and over the next half hour, was used to delete the files on Hillary’s server.

The documents also contain emails and handwritten notes written in June and July 2015 from the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General discussing “concerns” over classified information. A redacted sender writes to State Department Official Margaret “Peggy” Grafeld that “inadvertent release of State Department’s equities when this collection is released in its entirety — the potential damage to the foreign relations of the United States could be significant. ICIG McCullough forwards the concern, saying: “Need you plugged in on this.”

From: [Redacted]

Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 2:46 PM

To: Grafeld, Margaret P [Peggy]

Subject: Concerns about the HRC Review …

While working with this inspector, I have personally reviewed hundreds of documents in the HRC collection. I can now say, without reservation, that there are literally hundreds of classified emails in this collection; maybe more. For example, there are comments by Department staff in emails relating to the Wikileaks unauthorized disclosures; many of the emails relating to this actually confirm the information in the disclosures. This material is the subject of FOIA litigation, and the emails will now have to be found, reviewed and upgraded. Under the EO 13526, it would be in in our right to classify the entire HRC collection at the Secret level because of the “mosaic effect.” While there may be IC equities in the collection, I am very concerned about the inadvertent release of State Department’s equities when this collection is released in its entirety — the potential damage to the foreign relations of the United States could be significant.

***

From: Chuck Mccullough [sic]

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:16 AM

To: [Redacted]

Subject: FW: SBU FW: Concerns about the HRC Review …

[Redacted]

Need you plugged in on this. Need to coordinate w/ State’s WB person.

In an August 2015 classified memo prepared by the FBI Counterintelligence Division regarding the findings of the ICIG with respect to Hillary’s email server, the FBI noted that the ICIG had found that in a sampling of only 40 of Hillary’s 30,000 emails, four classified emails were found. A subsequent letter sent by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) to ODNI Clapper regarding this sample of Clinton’s emails noted that they were all classified at the secret level.

In an August 2015 internal FBI memo, the FBI notes that Hillary Clinton had signed a June 28, 2011, official correspondence advising all State Department employees that, “due to ‘recent targeting of personal e-mail accounts by online adversaries,’ State employees should ‘avoid conducting official Department business from (their) personal e-mail accounts.” The same FBI memo noted that Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy had sent a memo to all senior State Department officials on August 28, 2014, in which Kennedy included excerpts from the Foreign Affairs Manual that said that “classified information must be sent via classified e-mail channels only…”

The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also show infighting between State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy and the ICIG over the processing of the potentially compromised Clinton email communications.

A June 15, 2015, memo for the record prepared by the ICIG regarding the State Department’s review of Hillary Clinton’s emails indicates among other things that the retired foreign service officers that State was using to review Hillary’s emails were not “not optimal.”

Evaluation of other agencies’ equities is not optimal. State Department is currently relying on retired senior Foreign Service Officers to review for other agencies’ equities in FOIA cases. For example, a review of the first set of 296 emails received from former-Secretary Clinton and released on the State Department FOIA website identified material that should have been referred to IC FOIA officials for review prior to release. Recommend State Department FOIA Office request staff support from IC FOIA offices to assist in the identification of intelligence community equities. [Emphasis in original]

***

According to State FOIA personnel, during the State Department Legal Office’s review, four of the Bl [national security] exemptions were removed and· changed to “B5” FOIA exemptions (Privileged Communications). Recommend State Department FOIA Office seek classification expertise from the interagency to act as a final arbiter if there is a question regarding potentially classified materials. [Emphasis in original]

It is unclear if the Department of Justice is reviewing the emails before FOIA release. Former-Secretary Clinton’s emails are the subject of numerous FOIA requests and multiple FOIA lawsuits. It may be prudent to integrate the Department of Justice into the FOIA process review to ensure the redactions can withstand potential legal challenges. If not already being done, recommend the State Department FOIA Office incorporate the Department of Justice into the FOIA process to ensure the legal sufficiency review of the FOIA exemptions and redactions. [Emphasis in original]

An August 4, 2015, interview by the FBI of State Department IG Steven Linick mentions an incident on “May 13, 2011 2:28 am Huma – Phil Rein potential hack.”

On October 15, 2012, Clinton’s IT technician Bryan Pagliano, sent to Bill Clinton’s aide Justin Cooper a bill indicating that on July 28-29, 2012, Pagliano had to address the issue of “Mailbox Corruption” of Hillary Clinton’s email server, spending a total of 5.5 hours on the problem. Other invoices show that he had to “fix corruption in justin’s [Cooper’s] mailbox; ” have a “conference call with security team;” “Blocked spamer [sic] smtp address for Viagra message;” “virus investigation and cleanup;” “clean up virus from bb [BlackBerry] profile;” and multiple “brute force attacks” against Hillary Clinton’s server, requiring him to “reset password.” The documents show that Pagliano was paid $40,337.86 over four years by the Clinton Executive Service Corp.

In a 2016 deposition in a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit, Pagliano repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions regarding IT support he provided to the Clinton email system.

An August 2015 letter from the United States Secret Service to the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI, addressing a request regarding preservation of records in connection with Clinton’s email system. The letter also cites Judicial Watch’s litigation concerning preservation of her email server records. The Secret Service writes that its searches “did not reveal any responsive documents … [n]otwithstanding, the Secret Service will send out a preservation request for the Agency records listed in your correspondence …”

A July 2015 letter from the National Archives requests information from the State Department regarding “the training, procedures and other controls” employed by the State Department to ensure key record management directives were implemented regarding “the management of email and other electronic records of senior agency officials.” Also, the Archives requests “that the Department contact the representatives of former Secretary Clinton to secure the native electronic versions with associated metadata” of the 55,000 hard copies of emails provided to the State Department.

November 2012 classified emails from Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, discuss a “Report of arrests – possible Benghazi connection” with her.

A request for travel dated November 2015 shows that the FBI dispatched special agents to Spain and Bahrain to conduct interviews in the “Midyear Exam” regarding a “sensitive investigative matter.”

Other released materials include letters from Clinton’s personal lawyer David Kendall throughout the production. On June 24, 2015, Kendall writes to the State Department Inspector General that the State Department is in possession of “all Secretary Clinton’s work-related … emails:” He continues that, as Hillary’s personal counsel, “We continue to retain a preservation copy of the .pst file containing the electronic copies of those e-mails, on a thumb drive that is stored in a secured safe at the offices of Williams and Connolly …”

I note at the outset that the Department of State is in possession of all of Secretary Clinton’s work-related and potentially work-related e-mails. Specifically, in response to an October 2014 letter request from the Department of State, Secretary Clinton’s counsel identified all work-related or potentially work-related e-mail in her possession, custody, or control. In total, 30,490 e-mails, all of which were from her @clintonemail.com account, were identified and provided in hard copy to the Department of State in _December 2014. A3 her personal counsel, we continue to retain a preservation copy of the .pst file containing the electronic copies of those e-mails, on a thumb drive that is stored in a secured safe at the offices of Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 12th Street NW, Washington DC 20005. The only two persons authorized to access that thumb drive are me and my law partner, Katherine Turner.

“Judicial Watch uncovered new ‘cover-up’ records on the illicit Clinton email system that further demonstrate the sham nature of the FBI/DOJ ‘investigation’ of her,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These shocking new documents show that various Obama agencies were protecting Hillary Clinton from the consequences of her misconduct. It is well past time for the DOJ to stop shielding Hillary Clinton and hold her fully accountable to the rule of law.”

In a different lawsuit Judicial Watch previously released 186 pages of records from the DOJ that include emails documenting an evident cover-up of a chart of potential violations of law by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

And, in a separate lawsuit, Judicial Watch uncovered 215 pages of records from the DOJ revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues.

Judicial Watch has previously released numerous instances of classified information distributed through Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email system. For example, see here, here and here.

And, Judicial Watch is currently conducting depositions of senior Obama-era State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...latest-production-of-clinton-email-documents/

Are you quoting from that highly respected Judicial Watch? Wow, you're pulling out the big guns now. Surely we will soon see action in the court room. When do you think that will be?

 

[MARIS61]

Scandal: Joe Biden’s son Hunter landed sweet big money deals in Ukraine while VP dad was threatening its government
04/04/2019 / By JD Heyes

Former Vice President Joe Biden has been creeping out Americans with his handsy, innuendo-ridden physical behavior around women and young girls for decades, but only now has his behavior become an “issue.”

As the former veep gears up for a potential 2020 presidential bid of his own, a story broke last week that broke wide open the wide-open “secret” in D.C. regarding Biden’s sexual creepiness, told in first person by Lucy Flores, who ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor of Nevada in 2014.

Flores claims that right before she was scheduled to take the stage at a campaign event she appeared at with him, the then-VP sidled up behind her real close, leaned in, took a big whiff of her (unwashed) hair and slowly planted a lingering kiss atop her head.

All of which made her feel angry, shocked, and…creeped out.

Since Flores told her story a second woman has come forward, CNN no doubt begrudgingly reported: Amy Lappos told the Hartford (Connecticut) Courant newspaper (Biden’s from Connecticut) that the veep touched her inappropriately as well.

If you do an Internet search for “Joe Biden creepy videos” you’re going to find a lot of them. Why it’s suddenly an issue is already political fodder; maybe “someone” in the Democratic establishment doesn’t want an old white guy to be the face of the party in 2020 (so look for Crazy Bernie to be sandbagged next, if this is true).

But there is another reason why Biden cannot and should not be placed at the pinnacle of American power: He may also be corrupt.

’You’re not getting the billion’
According to ace investigative reporter John Solomon, writing at The Hill, Biden’s perhaps/maybe 2020 presidential campaign may be over before it starts, and not just because his legendary creepiness is coming home to roost.

Solomon notes that earlier this year, Biden – speaking during a Council on Foreign Relations event – couldn’t help bragging about how he effectively threatened the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, in 2016 that he would see to it the U.S. withheld $1 billion in American loan guarantees, which would have bankrupted Kiev, if he didn’t fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin immediately.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden says he told Poroshenko.

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time” – which is diplomatic speak for “someone the Obama administration favored.” He even implicated the former president in the exchange.

Solomon noted further:

Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.

In subsequent interviews with Ukrainian officials, however, they related something to Solomon they say Biden no doubt knew when he issued his ultimatum: The prosecutor who was fired was leading a far-reaching corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm that just happened to employ Biden’s son, Hunter, as a board member.

Solomon noted that, according to banking records, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, Hunter Biden’s U.S. firm, “received regular transfers into one of its accounts – usually more than $166,000 a month – from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.”

The general prosecutor’s file on the probe shows that officials with the office had already identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer, and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as likely recipients of the money. (Related: The complete Hillary-Ukraine connection: Official investigating leak of Manafort financial records to help her win in 2016.)

In written answers, Shokin told Solomon that he was widening his investigation to include interrogations of members of Burisma board – including Hunter Biden.

Creepy Joe needs to answer some hard questions
Former VP Biden never mentioned any of this in his braggadocio discussion at the CFR seminar, but Solomon says that U.S. and Ukrainian authorities said Biden and his office certainly knew of the general prosecutor’s investigation.

Why? Because:

— Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board was widely reported in the U.S.;

— The U.S. Embassy located in Kiev which coordinated Biden’s in-country work discussed the prosecutor’s case against Burisma often and publicly;

— Great Britain took well-publicized actions against Burisma while VP Biden was involved in the Ukraine-Russia mess;

— Biden’s office was quoted on the record, noting Hunter Biden’s appointment to and role on Burisma’s board, stating that as a private citizen and lawyer, he was free to pursue his own private business deals.

The investigation stopped cold after Shokin was fired. But though Shokin was out, his replacement – the man VP Biden hailed as “solid” – Yuriy Lutsenko – began looking in to the funny money that was changing hands and allegedly streaming into the account of Hunter Biden after rumors began to swirl that his dad was considering a 2020 presidential run.

And now, after finding similarities between his own review of the case file and Sokin’s original findings, Lutsenko told Solomon that he’d like to present what he has to POTUS Trump’s new attorney general, William Barr. And he would particularly like to highlight the former Veep’s intervention.

In all, Solomon notes, Ukrainian officials believe some $3 million made it into the accounts of Hunter Biden and Archer, his partner. And while everyone is innocent until proven guilty, Joe Biden needs to answer some hard questions about this if he decides to run.

That is, if he even makes it past the “creeper” part
https://deepstate.news/2019-04-04-bidens-son-hunter-landed-deals-in-ukraine.html

 

[MARIS61]

Just how long did Robert Mueller sit on the fact that the Russia collusion narrative was a HOAX? Long enough for Dems to win the House in 2018

03/28/2019 / By JD Heyes

In a column for Fox News on Tuesday, former U.S. district attorney and national security prosecutor Andrew McCarthy asked a question that the American people deserve an answer to: Just how long did former special counsel Robert Mueller know that the “Trump-Russia collusion” narrative was a hoax?

Noting that the word collusion became highly “elastic,” having been slung about by Democrats angry about Hillary Clinton’s loss to someone they consider to be no better than a carnival barker, a sideshow, a joke, there was never any substance to it.

In fact, as McCarthy wrote, ‘collusion’ as it began as an allegation involved two separate non-criminal incidents: The infamous “Trump Tower meeting” which lasted only as long as Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner determined that the Russian lawyer meeting with them had no “dirt” on Hillary; and incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s pre-inaugural conversation with a Russian diplomat.

“The only ‘collusion’ prosecutors care about is conspiracy; a criminal agreement to violate a federal penal statute – such as the laws against hacking,” he wrote. “There was never any such evidence. There was just unverified, sensational, hearsay nonsense – the Steele dossier generated by the Clinton campaign.”

So a) Why was Mueller even appointed; and b) Why did it take him so long to ‘figure out’ that there was never any collusion?

Some people believe they have discovered the reason: Robbing the president of power.

Never forget that the real reason Mueller was appointed had nothing to do with “collusion” and everything to do with getting rid of POTUS Trump. As such, it makes perfect sense that Mueller would wait until the most opportune time for the president’s opponents, not for the president, before he released his ‘findings.’ (Related: Kingpins behind “Russiagate” conspiracy theory, James Clapper and John Brennan, both lied to Congress – will they be held criminally liable?)

True Pundit reported, quoting unnamed Justice Department sources, that the significant portion of the investigation was done by August 2018. An insider source claimed, “(Rod) Rosenstein was briefed and it was common gossip and well-known nothing had been pinned on Trump and it was wrapping up.”

Mueller knew for months there was nothing to the collusion allegations, and yet…

That gibes with something former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova revealed in September, that Mueller was privately telling some people that he “was handed a piece of crap” regarding the initial ‘Russian collusion’ allegation against POTUS and his 2016 campaign, The National Sentinel reported.

“This is going to be a bad next 30 days for a bunch of people in the FBI and DoJ under Obama,” diGenova predicted.

“The Mueller probe is coming to an end with no indictments about collusion whatsoever. There will be one further indictment” regarding a false statement made “to the FBI, but other than that, it’s over, and Mueller has told very close associates he was handed ‘a piece of crap’ on collusion. They knew it from Day One,” he added.

DiGenova’s timing was off some, but there was an additional indictment: Roger Stone, POTUS Trump’s long-time confidant. He wasn’t charged with lying to the FBI, however, he was charged, in part, with lying to Congress.

Still, what diGenova said about Mueller knowing this was a “crap” sandwich from day one is telling given the fact that, as McCarthy notes, there were never any illegalities alleged against the Trump campaign or the president himself. In fact, in an April 2018 interview, diGenova noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “created a special counsel where none is authorized by law.”

As for robbing POTUS of power, notice how Mueller waited until after the 2018 midterms, allowing the hoax to become part of the Democrats’ campaign strategy. And it worked, like a charm.

“When Special Counsel Mueller closed his investigation last week, he almost certainly knew for about a year and a half that there was no collusion case. Indeed, the indictments that he did bring appeared to preclude the possibility that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin,” McCarthy wrote. “Yet the investigation continued.

“Why?”

https://deepstate.news/2019-03-28-r...he-russia-collusion-narrative-was-a-hoax.html

 

[Lanny]

Scandal: Joe Biden’s son Hunter landed sweet big money deals in Ukraine while VP dad was threatening its government
04/04/2019 / By JD Heyes

Former Vice President Joe Biden has been creeping out Americans with his handsy, innuendo-ridden physical behavior around women and young girls for decades, but only now has his behavior become an “issue.”

As the former veep gears up for a potential 2020 presidential bid of his own, a story broke last week that broke wide open the wide-open “secret” in D.C. regarding Biden’s sexual creepiness, told in first person by Lucy Flores, who ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor of Nevada in 2014.

Flores claims that right before she was scheduled to take the stage at a campaign event she appeared at with him, the then-VP sidled up behind her real close, leaned in, took a big whiff of her (unwashed) hair and slowly planted a lingering kiss atop her head.

All of which made her feel angry, shocked, and…creeped out.

Since Flores told her story a second woman has come forward, CNN no doubt begrudgingly reported: Amy Lappos told the Hartford (Connecticut) Courant newspaper (Biden’s from Connecticut) that the veep touched her inappropriately as well.

If you do an Internet search for “Joe Biden creepy videos” you’re going to find a lot of them. Why it’s suddenly an issue is already political fodder; maybe “someone” in the Democratic establishment doesn’t want an old white guy to be the face of the party in 2020 (so look for Crazy Bernie to be sandbagged next, if this is true).

But there is another reason why Biden cannot and should not be placed at the pinnacle of American power: He may also be corrupt.

’You’re not getting the billion’
According to ace investigative reporter John Solomon, writing at The Hill, Biden’s perhaps/maybe 2020 presidential campaign may be over before it starts, and not just because his legendary creepiness is coming home to roost.

Solomon notes that earlier this year, Biden – speaking during a Council on Foreign Relations event – couldn’t help bragging about how he effectively threatened the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, in 2016 that he would see to it the U.S. withheld $1 billion in American loan guarantees, which would have bankrupted Kiev, if he didn’t fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin immediately.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden says he told Poroshenko.

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time” – which is diplomatic speak for “someone the Obama administration favored.” He even implicated the former president in the exchange.

Solomon noted further:

Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.

In subsequent interviews with Ukrainian officials, however, they related something to Solomon they say Biden no doubt knew when he issued his ultimatum: The prosecutor who was fired was leading a far-reaching corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm that just happened to employ Biden’s son, Hunter, as a board member.

Solomon noted that, according to banking records, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, Hunter Biden’s U.S. firm, “received regular transfers into one of its accounts – usually more than $166,000 a month – from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.”

The general prosecutor’s file on the probe shows that officials with the office had already identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer, and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as likely recipients of the money. (Related: The complete Hillary-Ukraine connection: Official investigating leak of Manafort financial records to help her win in 2016.)

In written answers, Shokin told Solomon that he was widening his investigation to include interrogations of members of Burisma board – including Hunter Biden.

Creepy Joe needs to answer some hard questions
Former VP Biden never mentioned any of this in his braggadocio discussion at the CFR seminar, but Solomon says that U.S. and Ukrainian authorities said Biden and his office certainly knew of the general prosecutor’s investigation.

Why? Because:

— Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board was widely reported in the U.S.;

— The U.S. Embassy located in Kiev which coordinated Biden’s in-country work discussed the prosecutor’s case against Burisma often and publicly;

— Great Britain took well-publicized actions against Burisma while VP Biden was involved in the Ukraine-Russia mess;

— Biden’s office was quoted on the record, noting Hunter Biden’s appointment to and role on Burisma’s board, stating that as a private citizen and lawyer, he was free to pursue his own private business deals.

The investigation stopped cold after Shokin was fired. But though Shokin was out, his replacement – the man VP Biden hailed as “solid” – Yuriy Lutsenko – began looking in to the funny money that was changing hands and allegedly streaming into the account of Hunter Biden after rumors began to swirl that his dad was considering a 2020 presidential run.

And now, after finding similarities between his own review of the case file and Sokin’s original findings, Lutsenko told Solomon that he’d like to present what he has to POTUS Trump’s new attorney general, William Barr. And he would particularly like to highlight the former Veep’s intervention.

In all, Solomon notes, Ukrainian officials believe some $3 million made it into the accounts of Hunter Biden and Archer, his partner. And while everyone is innocent until proven guilty, Joe Biden needs to answer some hard questions about this if he decides to run.

That is, if he even makes it past the “creeper” part
https://deepstate.news/2019-04-04-bidens-son-hunter-landed-deals-in-ukraine.html

The deepstate.news? Wow, impressive.

 

[Lanny]

Just how long did Robert Mueller sit on the fact that the Russia collusion narrative was a HOAX? Long enough for Dems to win the House in 2018

03/28/2019 / By JD Heyes

In a column for Fox News on Tuesday, former U.S. district attorney and national security prosecutor Andrew McCarthy asked a question that the American people deserve an answer to: Just how long did former special counsel Robert Mueller know that the “Trump-Russia collusion” narrative was a hoax?

Noting that the word collusion became highly “elastic,” having been slung about by Democrats angry about Hillary Clinton’s loss to someone they consider to be no better than a carnival barker, a sideshow, a joke, there was never any substance to it.

In fact, as McCarthy wrote, ‘collusion’ as it began as an allegation involved two separate non-criminal incidents: The infamous “Trump Tower meeting” which lasted only as long as Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner determined that the Russian lawyer meeting with them had no “dirt” on Hillary; and incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s pre-inaugural conversation with a Russian diplomat.

“The only ‘collusion’ prosecutors care about is conspiracy; a criminal agreement to violate a federal penal statute – such as the laws against hacking,” he wrote. “There was never any such evidence. There was just unverified, sensational, hearsay nonsense – the Steele dossier generated by the Clinton campaign.”

So a) Why was Mueller even appointed; and b) Why did it take him so long to ‘figure out’ that there was never any collusion?

Some people believe they have discovered the reason: Robbing the president of power.

Never forget that the real reason Mueller was appointed had nothing to do with “collusion” and everything to do with getting rid of POTUS Trump. As such, it makes perfect sense that Mueller would wait until the most opportune time for the president’s opponents, not for the president, before he released his ‘findings.’ (Related: Kingpins behind “Russiagate” conspiracy theory, James Clapper and John Brennan, both lied to Congress – will they be held criminally liable?)

True Pundit reported, quoting unnamed Justice Department sources, that the significant portion of the investigation was done by August 2018. An insider source claimed, “(Rod) Rosenstein was briefed and it was common gossip and well-known nothing had been pinned on Trump and it was wrapping up.”

Mueller knew for months there was nothing to the collusion allegations, and yet…

That gibes with something former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova revealed in September, that Mueller was privately telling some people that he “was handed a piece of crap” regarding the initial ‘Russian collusion’ allegation against POTUS and his 2016 campaign, The National Sentinel reported.

“This is going to be a bad next 30 days for a bunch of people in the FBI and DoJ under Obama,” diGenova predicted.

“The Mueller probe is coming to an end with no indictments about collusion whatsoever. There will be one further indictment” regarding a false statement made “to the FBI, but other than that, it’s over, and Mueller has told very close associates he was handed ‘a piece of crap’ on collusion. They knew it from Day One,” he added.

DiGenova’s timing was off some, but there was an additional indictment: Roger Stone, POTUS Trump’s long-time confidant. He wasn’t charged with lying to the FBI, however, he was charged, in part, with lying to Congress.

Still, what diGenova said about Mueller knowing this was a “crap” sandwich from day one is telling given the fact that, as McCarthy notes, there were never any illegalities alleged against the Trump campaign or the president himself. In fact, in an April 2018 interview, diGenova noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “created a special counsel where none is authorized by law.”

As for robbing POTUS of power, notice how Mueller waited until after the 2018 midterms, allowing the hoax to become part of the Democrats’ campaign strategy. And it worked, like a charm.

“When Special Counsel Mueller closed his investigation last week, he almost certainly knew for about a year and a half that there was no collusion case. Indeed, the indictments that he did bring appeared to preclude the possibility that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin,” McCarthy wrote. “Yet the investigation continued.

“Why?”

https://deepstate.news/2019-03-28-r...he-russia-collusion-narrative-was-a-hoax.html

More deepstate.news. You're on a roll.

 

[MARIS61]

Barr assembles 'team' to look into counterintelligence investigation on Trump campaign in 2016, official says

By Gregg Re, Jake Gibson | Fox News

Attorney General Barr says he will release a redacted version of the Mueller report
Barr testifies as Mueller report release approaches; Catherine Herridge reports from Capitol Hill.

Attorney General William Barr has assembled a "team" to investigate the origins of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, an administration official briefed on the situation told Fox News on Tuesday.

Republicans repeatedly have called for a thorough investigation of the FBI's intelligence practices and the basis of the since-discredited Russian collusion narrative following the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe -- and they now appear to have assurances that a comprehensive review was underway.

The FBI's July 2016 counterintelligence investigation was formally opened by anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok. Ex-FBI counsel Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was romantically involved, revealed during a closed-door congressional interview that the FBI “knew so little” about whether allegations against the Trump campaign were “true or not true” at the time they opened the probe, noting they had just “a paucity of evidence because we are just starting down the path” of vetting the allegations.

GOHMERT UNLOADS ON 'SMIRKING' STRZOK, ASKS IF HE LIED TO CONGRESS LIKE HE LIED TO HIS WIFE WHILE CHEATING ON HER

Page later said that it was “entirely common” that the FBI would begin a counterintelligence investigation with just a “small amount of evidence.”

Former FBI Director James Comey would testify later that when agency initiated its counterintelligence probe into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government, investigators "didn't know whether we had anything" and that "in fact, when I was fired as director [in May 2017], I still didn't know whether there was anything to it."

President Trump greeting then-FBI Director James Comey at the White House on January 22, 2017. (Reuters, File)

Barr told lawmakers at a contentious hearing earlier Tuesday that he was reviewing the bureau's “conduct” in particular during the summer of 2016. The attorney general's explosive testimony marked his first Capitol Hill appearance since he revealed the central findings of Mueller’s investigation, and he indicated the full report -- with redactions -- would be made public within the week.

Mueller's investigation completed last month without securing the indictment of a single American for collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice, "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

“I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016,” Barr said at the hearing.

FBI BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR MISSING STRZOK TEXTS; STRZOK'S MUELLER PHONE TOTALLY WIPED

Barr also was questioned about the initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants approved to surveil members of the Trump campaign, including former Trump aide Carter Page.

Republicans have called for a careful review as to whether the FBI, in violation of Page's constitutional rights and FBI procedures, misled the FISA court or withheld exculpatory information, and Barr testified that a DOJ review of the FBI's FISA practices was in progress.

The FBI's ultimately successful October 2016 warrant application to surveil Page, which relied in part on information from British ex-spy Christopher Steele – whose anti-Trump views are now well-documented – flatly accused Page of conspiring with Russians. Page has never been charged with any wrongdoing, and he since has sued the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for defamation.

President Trump vows to release FISA documents
What could we learn from them? Republican strategist Ned Ryun weighs in.

The FBI assured the FISA court on numerous occasions -- in the October 2016 warrant application and in subsequent renewals -- that other sources, including a Yahoo News article, independently corroborated Steele's claims, without evidence to back it up. It later emerged that Steele was also the source of the Yahoo News article, written by reporter Michael Isikoff.

The FBI also quoted directly from a disputed Washington Post opinion piece to argue that Trump's views on providing lethal arms to Ukraine, and working towards better relations with Russia, was a possible indicator that the campaign had been compromised.

The Trump campaign, at the time, supported only providing only defensive arms to Ukrainians, and rejected a single Republican delegate's proposed platform amendment that called for providing lethal arms. Later, the Trump administration changed course and approved lethal arms sales to Ukraine.

The FBI did not provide its own independent assessment of whether the Washington Post opinion piece contained accurate information, and did not mention that the Obama administration had the same policy towards arming Ukraine as the one Trump's team supported.

The FBI also did not clearly state that Steele worked for a firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign. Instead, the FBI only indicated that Steele's dossier was prepared in conjunction with a presidential campaign.

TRUMP VOWS TO DECLASSIFY, RELEASE FISA DOCS, RELATED MATERIALS NOW THAT MUELLER PROBE IS OVER

Fox News exclusively obtained internal FBI text messages last month showing that just nine days before the FBI applied for the Page FISA warrant, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News also has been told the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) was looking separately into whether Comey mishandled classified information by including a variety of sensitive matters in his private memos.

A DOJ court filing on Monday night revealed that Comey incorporated into his private documents, among other key details, the name and code name of a confidential human source.

 

[Lanny]

Barr assembles 'team' to look into counterintelligence investigation on Trump campaign in 2016, official says

By Gregg Re, Jake Gibson | Fox News

Attorney General Barr says he will release a redacted version of the Mueller report
Barr testifies as Mueller report release approaches; Catherine Herridge reports from Capitol Hill.

Attorney General William Barr has assembled a "team" to investigate the origins of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, an administration official briefed on the situation told Fox News on Tuesday.

Republicans repeatedly have called for a thorough investigation of the FBI's intelligence practices and the basis of the since-discredited Russian collusion narrative following the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe -- and they now appear to have assurances that a comprehensive review was underway.

The FBI's July 2016 counterintelligence investigation was formally opened by anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok. Ex-FBI counsel Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was romantically involved, revealed during a closed-door congressional interview that the FBI “knew so little” about whether allegations against the Trump campaign were “true or not true” at the time they opened the probe, noting they had just “a paucity of evidence because we are just starting down the path” of vetting the allegations.

GOHMERT UNLOADS ON 'SMIRKING' STRZOK, ASKS IF HE LIED TO CONGRESS LIKE HE LIED TO HIS WIFE WHILE CHEATING ON HER

Page later said that it was “entirely common” that the FBI would begin a counterintelligence investigation with just a “small amount of evidence.”

Former FBI Director James Comey would testify later that when agency initiated its counterintelligence probe into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government, investigators "didn't know whether we had anything" and that "in fact, when I was fired as director [in May 2017], I still didn't know whether there was anything to it."

President Trump greeting then-FBI Director James Comey at the White House on January 22, 2017. (Reuters, File)

Barr told lawmakers at a contentious hearing earlier Tuesday that he was reviewing the bureau's “conduct” in particular during the summer of 2016. The attorney general's explosive testimony marked his first Capitol Hill appearance since he revealed the central findings of Mueller’s investigation, and he indicated the full report -- with redactions -- would be made public within the week.

Mueller's investigation completed last month without securing the indictment of a single American for collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice, "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

“I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016,” Barr said at the hearing.

FBI BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR MISSING STRZOK TEXTS; STRZOK'S MUELLER PHONE TOTALLY WIPED

Barr also was questioned about the initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants approved to surveil members of the Trump campaign, including former Trump aide Carter Page.

Republicans have called for a careful review as to whether the FBI, in violation of Page's constitutional rights and FBI procedures, misled the FISA court or withheld exculpatory information, and Barr testified that a DOJ review of the FBI's FISA practices was in progress.

The FBI's ultimately successful October 2016 warrant application to surveil Page, which relied in part on information from British ex-spy Christopher Steele – whose anti-Trump views are now well-documented – flatly accused Page of conspiring with Russians. Page has never been charged with any wrongdoing, and he since has sued the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for defamation.

President Trump vows to release FISA documents
What could we learn from them? Republican strategist Ned Ryun weighs in.

The FBI assured the FISA court on numerous occasions -- in the October 2016 warrant application and in subsequent renewals -- that other sources, including a Yahoo News article, independently corroborated Steele's claims, without evidence to back it up. It later emerged that Steele was also the source of the Yahoo News article, written by reporter Michael Isikoff.

The FBI also quoted directly from a disputed Washington Post opinion piece to argue that Trump's views on providing lethal arms to Ukraine, and working towards better relations with Russia, was a possible indicator that the campaign had been compromised.

The Trump campaign, at the time, supported only providing only defensive arms to Ukrainians, and rejected a single Republican delegate's proposed platform amendment that called for providing lethal arms. Later, the Trump administration changed course and approved lethal arms sales to Ukraine.

The FBI did not provide its own independent assessment of whether the Washington Post opinion piece contained accurate information, and did not mention that the Obama administration had the same policy towards arming Ukraine as the one Trump's team supported.

The FBI also did not clearly state that Steele worked for a firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign. Instead, the FBI only indicated that Steele's dossier was prepared in conjunction with a presidential campaign.

TRUMP VOWS TO DECLASSIFY, RELEASE FISA DOCS, RELATED MATERIALS NOW THAT MUELLER PROBE IS OVER

Fox News exclusively obtained internal FBI text messages last month showing that just nine days before the FBI applied for the Page FISA warrant, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News also has been told the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) was looking separately into whether Comey mishandled classified information by including a variety of sensitive matters in his private memos.

A DOJ court filing on Monday night revealed that Comey incorporated into his private documents, among other key details, the name and code name of a confidential human source.

Barr, a top name in legal excellence. I'm sure there will be indictments aplenty. When can we expect them?

 

[MARIS61]

Indictments? You want indictments?!

Gregory Craig, ex-Obama White House counsel, expects to be charged in relation to Ukrainian work with Manafort, his lawyers say

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger
1 hr ago

© ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE - In this March 30, 2000, file photo, Gregory Craig, attorney for Elian Gonzalez's father, meets reporters outside his Washington office to discuss the case. The special counsel in the Russia probe has referred investigations into possible unlawful foreign lobbying to federal prosecutors in New York, according to two people familiar with the inquiry. The people said Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2018, that three Washington insiders, Tony Podesta, Craig and Vin Weber, were suspected of failing to register as foreign agents. (AP Photo/Khue Bui, File)
Attorneys for former White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig said Wednesday that he expects to face federal charges in the coming days in relationship to legal work he did for the Ukrainian government in 2012.

The expected indictment — which his attorneys called “a misguided abuse of prosecutorial discretion” — stems from work Craig did with GOP lobbyist Paul Manafort on behalf of the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice in 2012.

At the time, Craig was a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the law firm he joined after ending his tenure as counsel to President Barack Obama. Manafort, the former campaign chairman to President Trump, pleaded guilty last year to charges related to his Ukraine lobbying.

In a statement, attorneys William W. Taylor III and William Murphy said they expect Craig, 74, will be indicted by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington at the request of the Justice Department’s national security division. That could not be independently corroborated. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Craig resigned from Skadden in April 2018 amid a building investigation into whether the firm’s lawyers failed to register as foreign lobbyists for their Ukraine engagement.

He would be the first prominent Democratic figure to be charged as a result of a foreign lobbying investigation spun out of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe into Russia interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

His indictment would represent a dramatic turn for a member of the country’s most elite legal circles. Craig attended Yale Law School with Bill and Hillary Clinton and later worked in the Clinton State Department and White House. An early Obama supporter, he served for a year as his first White House counsel. He is also a veteran of the Washington-based law firm Williams and Connolly.

Last year, Mueller’s team prosecuted Manafort, who admitted that he had failed to properly register as a foreign lobbyist while working as a political consultant for Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whose 2010 campaign Manafort helped advise. Last month, Manafort was sentenced to a total of 7½ years in prison for lobbying violations and financial crimes.

Craig’s firm was hired in 2012 by Yanukovych’s Justice Ministry to conduct a review of the prosecution of one of Yanukovych’s leading political rivals, Yulia Tymoshenko. The agreement included providing advice on improving prosecutions by the ministry, according to court filings.

Skadden produced a 187-page white paper that offered a mixed review of the trial and imprisonment of Tymoshenko, claiming the analysis it conducted of the case was independent.

But human rights advocates alleged the report had been engineered by Yanukovych’s government and whitewashed the jailing of his political opponent.

And Manafort eventually admitted that he and other lobbyists used the Skadden report as part of a broad effort to improve Yanukovych’s reputation in the West, which had suffered after the widely condemned jailing of Tymoshenko. Manafort agreed they failed to disclose their lobbying effort, which included disseminating the Skadden report to U.S. government officials.

Craig came under scrutiny in part for contact he had in December 2012 with reporters, particularly at the New York Times, to explain the content of the report.

After Skadden was mentioned in news coverage, the Justice Department sought information from the law firm about whether its work, including the media contacts, required the lawyers to have registered as foreign lobbyists.

In a letter sent to the Justice Department in October 2013 and obtained by The Washington Post, Craig wrote that his media contacts came in response “to inaccuracies in U.S. news reports” and that he was “in no way serving as an agent for Ukraine.”

In response, a Justice Department official sent Craig a letter in January 2014 indicating that the government agency found the firm had “no present obligation to register under FARA.”

But subsequently, as prosecutors began scrutinizing the work of Manafort and his associates in Ukraine, they reexamined the role of Craig’s firm, including whether Craig was honest during his interactions with the Justice Department over his registration requirements in 2013.

Skadden in January reached a settlement with the Justice Department, admitting it should have registered for its work in 2012 and 2013, and agreed to turn over the $4.6 million in fees it made for the report in exchange for facing no criminal charges. In its settlement, Skadden agreed that DOJ’s 2014 finding that the firm did not need to register came after DOJ relied on “false and misleading oral and written statements” made by Craig.

The Ukrainian government reported that Skadden was paid just $12,000 for the report, but prosecutors have said that Manafort used an offshore account to help route more than $4 million to the law firm to pay for the work.

Another Skadden lawyer, Alex van der Zwaan, pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to the FBI about his work on the report, agreeing that he had slipped an early copy to Manafort to assist in his pro-Yanukovych lobby efforts and later deleted emails related to the effort. He served 30 days in prison.

Mueller’s office, which prosecuted Manafort, referred Craig’s case last year to prosecutors in Manhattan as Mueller worked to bring his investigation to a close, people familiar with the matter have said. The case was then transferred back to prosecutors in Washington.

Separately, prosecutors in New York have been investigating whether FARA rules were violated by two other prominent Washington figures: Tony Podesta, a Democratic lobbyist who once owned one of Washington’s leading firms, and Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman, who helps lead the Washington office of Mercury LLC.

Spencer S. Hsu contributed to this report.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rt-his-lawyers-say/ar-BBVOKHf?ocid=spartanntp

 

[Lanny]

Indictments? You want indictments?!

Gregory Craig, ex-Obama White House counsel, expects to be charged in relation to Ukrainian work with Manafort, his lawyers say

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger
1 hr ago

© ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE - In this March 30, 2000, file photo, Gregory Craig, attorney for Elian Gonzalez's father, meets reporters outside his Washington office to discuss the case. The special counsel in the Russia probe has referred investigations into possible unlawful foreign lobbying to federal prosecutors in New York, according to two people familiar with the inquiry. The people said Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2018, that three Washington insiders, Tony Podesta, Craig and Vin Weber, were suspected of failing to register as foreign agents. (AP Photo/Khue Bui, File)
Attorneys for former White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig said Wednesday that he expects to face federal charges in the coming days in relationship to legal work he did for the Ukrainian government in 2012.

The expected indictment — which his attorneys called “a misguided abuse of prosecutorial discretion” — stems from work Craig did with GOP lobbyist Paul Manafort on behalf of the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice in 2012.

At the time, Craig was a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the law firm he joined after ending his tenure as counsel to President Barack Obama. Manafort, the former campaign chairman to President Trump, pleaded guilty last year to charges related to his Ukraine lobbying.

In a statement, attorneys William W. Taylor III and William Murphy said they expect Craig, 74, will be indicted by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington at the request of the Justice Department’s national security division. That could not be independently corroborated. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Craig resigned from Skadden in April 2018 amid a building investigation into whether the firm’s lawyers failed to register as foreign lobbyists for their Ukraine engagement.

He would be the first prominent Democratic figure to be charged as a result of a foreign lobbying investigation spun out of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe into Russia interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

His indictment would represent a dramatic turn for a member of the country’s most elite legal circles. Craig attended Yale Law School with Bill and Hillary Clinton and later worked in the Clinton State Department and White House. An early Obama supporter, he served for a year as his first White House counsel. He is also a veteran of the Washington-based law firm Williams and Connolly.

Last year, Mueller’s team prosecuted Manafort, who admitted that he had failed to properly register as a foreign lobbyist while working as a political consultant for Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whose 2010 campaign Manafort helped advise. Last month, Manafort was sentenced to a total of 7½ years in prison for lobbying violations and financial crimes.

Craig’s firm was hired in 2012 by Yanukovych’s Justice Ministry to conduct a review of the prosecution of one of Yanukovych’s leading political rivals, Yulia Tymoshenko. The agreement included providing advice on improving prosecutions by the ministry, according to court filings.

Skadden produced a 187-page white paper that offered a mixed review of the trial and imprisonment of Tymoshenko, claiming the analysis it conducted of the case was independent.

But human rights advocates alleged the report had been engineered by Yanukovych’s government and whitewashed the jailing of his political opponent.

And Manafort eventually admitted that he and other lobbyists used the Skadden report as part of a broad effort to improve Yanukovych’s reputation in the West, which had suffered after the widely condemned jailing of Tymoshenko. Manafort agreed they failed to disclose their lobbying effort, which included disseminating the Skadden report to U.S. government officials.

Craig came under scrutiny in part for contact he had in December 2012 with reporters, particularly at the New York Times, to explain the content of the report.

After Skadden was mentioned in news coverage, the Justice Department sought information from the law firm about whether its work, including the media contacts, required the lawyers to have registered as foreign lobbyists.

In a letter sent to the Justice Department in October 2013 and obtained by The Washington Post, Craig wrote that his media contacts came in response “to inaccuracies in U.S. news reports” and that he was “in no way serving as an agent for Ukraine.”

In response, a Justice Department official sent Craig a letter in January 2014 indicating that the government agency found the firm had “no present obligation to register under FARA.”

But subsequently, as prosecutors began scrutinizing the work of Manafort and his associates in Ukraine, they reexamined the role of Craig’s firm, including whether Craig was honest during his interactions with the Justice Department over his registration requirements in 2013.

Skadden in January reached a settlement with the Justice Department, admitting it should have registered for its work in 2012 and 2013, and agreed to turn over the $4.6 million in fees it made for the report in exchange for facing no criminal charges. In its settlement, Skadden agreed that DOJ’s 2014 finding that the firm did not need to register came after DOJ relied on “false and misleading oral and written statements” made by Craig.

The Ukrainian government reported that Skadden was paid just $12,000 for the report, but prosecutors have said that Manafort used an offshore account to help route more than $4 million to the law firm to pay for the work.

Another Skadden lawyer, Alex van der Zwaan, pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to the FBI about his work on the report, agreeing that he had slipped an early copy to Manafort to assist in his pro-Yanukovych lobby efforts and later deleted emails related to the effort. He served 30 days in prison.

Mueller’s office, which prosecuted Manafort, referred Craig’s case last year to prosecutors in Manhattan as Mueller worked to bring his investigation to a close, people familiar with the matter have said. The case was then transferred back to prosecutors in Washington.

Separately, prosecutors in New York have been investigating whether FARA rules were violated by two other prominent Washington figures: Tony Podesta, a Democratic lobbyist who once owned one of Washington’s leading firms, and Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman, who helps lead the Washington office of Mercury LLC.

Spencer S. Hsu contributed to this report.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rt-his-lawyers-say/ar-BBVOKHf?ocid=spartanntp

Oh no, a man who worked with Manafort being indicted, you say. How shocking.

 

[Minstrel]

This is pretty hilarious even for MARIS. His big "gotcha" is a former Obama staffer indicted for working with one of Trump's noted-criminal former staffers.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

This is pretty hilarious even for MARIS. His big "gotcha" is a former Obama staffer indicted for working with one of Trump's noted-criminal former staffers.

It would be hilarious that you seem to be holding on to the Republicans bad and Democrats good narrative that the media has been pushing for the last few years if it weren't so sad.

Notice the name Podesta at the end of the article (along with another Republican)

They are ALL dirty and some are getting caught finally because they started this Russian hoax. Let's have investigations into every member of congress and the DOJ

 

[barfo]

It would be hilarious that you seem to be holding on to the Republicans bad and Democrats good narrative that the media has been pushing for the last few years if it weren't so sad.

Nobody is claiming that. There are very bad people, on both sides.

Notice the name Podesta at the end of the article (along with another Republican)

They are ALL dirty

No, SOME people are dirty. Some aren't. Claiming everyone is a criminal is just a cheap and easy way to excuse criminality.

and some are getting caught finally because they started this Russian hoax.

No, some are getting caught because of the investigation into 'this Russian hoax'.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

It would be hilarious that you seem to be holding on to the Republicans bad and Democrats good narrative

How so? My post didn't say anything about Republicans bad or Democrats good. I said I found it funny that MARIS was like "LOOK INDICTMENTS!" and the relatively minor figure he was pointing to was mixed up with a staffer of his beloved Trump. As a "gotcha," how is that not hilarious?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

How so? My post didn't say anything about Republicans bad or Democrats good. I said I found it funny that MARIS was like "LOOK INDICTMENTS!" and the very minor figure he was pointing to was mixed up with a staffer of his beloved Trump. As a "gotcha," how is that not hilarious?

I don't know, maybe because he's been posting these stories that everyone laughs at and says "wake me up when the indictments start"

They weren't even looking into anything any Democrat did and they got one already. These corporate owned government assholes are everywhere on both sides.

They are all dirty and the hilarity of two years of people crying about all the dirty Trump associates is going to bite them in the ass.

I say this with full affirmation that Trump has probably averaged 30 felonies a year for decades. Maybe 30 a month.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Nobody is claiming that. There are very bad people, on both sides.



No, SOME people are dirty. Some aren't. Claiming everyone is a criminal is just a cheap and easy way to excuse criminality.



No, some are getting caught because of the investigation into 'this Russian hoax'.

barfo

Nope. People like Hillary aren't getting caught because they've been covering their tracks for years. These are the smart criminals. I'm sure there is a small percentage of congress that aren't criminals. I'm sure there are even some lobbyists that aren't.

Those outliers are like the few fat people that don't eat too much. They exist but are very rare.

 

[barfo]

Nope. People like Hillary aren't getting caught because they've been covering their tracks for years.

But everyone knows about the pedophilia ring in the pizza parlor basement, and how she killed all those people. How can you say she covered her tracks?

EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT A CRIMINAL MASTERMIND SHE IS, AND THE LOCATION OF HER SECRET ISLAND LAIR.

These are the smart criminals. I'm sure there is a small percentage of congress that aren't criminals. I'm sure there are even some lobbyists that aren't.

Those outliers are like the few fat people that don't eat too much. They exist but are very rare.

Well, I guess the strategy then is to elect the dumbest criminals, like Trump, so that we can catch them?

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

But everyone knows about the pedophilia ring in the pizza parlor basement, and how she killed all those people. How can you say she covered her tracks?

EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT A CRIMINAL MASTERMIND SHE IS, AND THE LOCATION OF HER SECRET ISLAND LAIR.



Well, I guess the strategy then is to elect the dumbest criminals, like Trump, so that we can catch them?

barfo

Did hillary bleachbit the evidence of pizzagate?

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016...t-about-clinton-staff-taking-the-fifth-228728

I am pretty sure I've heard people here say that innocent people don't take the 5th when referring to the Mueller investigation. Hmmmm, weird

 

[barfo]

Did hillary bleachbit the evidence of pizzagate?

I don't know, did she? If only she wasn't so smart, maybe we could catch her!

Thank god we didn't elect her, it would be disastrous to have a smart person as president.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Greg Craig, ex-Obama White House counsel, indicted for alleged false statements

By Gregg Re | Fox News

Greg Craig, former White House counsel for then-President Barack Obama, was indicted Thursday on two counts of making false and misleading statements to investigators -- including Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team -- in connection with his work on behalf of Russia-backed former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.

Craig is the first prominent Democrat to be indicted in a case arising from Mueller's now-completed probe into Russian election interference. Mueller referred the Craig case to prosecutors in New York last year after uncovering possible wrongdoing while he investigated former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Ukraine lobbying work.

The Washington-based lawyer was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for allegedly falsifying and concealing “material facts” and making false statements both to Mueller and to the DOJ National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit.

The FARA Unit is responsible for enforcing foreign lobbying laws that require the disclosure of certain overseas activity, including public relations work for foreign entities. At issue were Craig’s 2012 lobbying and media contacts on behalf of Yanukovych, while Craig was a partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Specifically, Craig and the law firm were commissioned by Yanukovych and Ukraine's government to write a report to assess whether the government's prosecution of dissident Yulia Tymoshenko -- a criminal case that was criticized widely as an abuse of power -- was a "fair trial."

The apparent aim of the Skadden report was to provide cover for what critics called an obviously politically motivated prosecution, and Manafort and others used the published document to advance Yanukovych's standing in the international community. But, if Skadden and Craig registered under FARA, Ukraine's payments for the supposedly independent report would be revealed publicly, exposing the report's lack of credibility.

In the indictment, prosecutors cited several emails between Craig and the report's co-author, including one April 2012 email in which Craig wrote that a follow-up Skadden report on Yanukovych's then-upcoming second trial would "help make it go better and look better vis a vis the West."

Although Ukraine officials said they paid only $12,000 for the report, prosecutors charged that Manafort illegally used an offshore account to ensure Skadden received approximately $4 million for its services.

In February 2012, prosecutors said, Craig emailed the co-author of the report, saying, "I don't want to register as a foreign agent under FARA. I think we don't have to with this assignment, yes?"

In April that year, Craig emailed, "I don't really care who you ask [about the FARA requirements] but we need an answer from someone who we can rely on with a straight face."

On December 15, 2012, after the report's release, a lobbyist wrote to Craig that media coverage on the report was glowing: "You are back in the headlines internationally. ... People in Kiev are very happy. You are 'THE MAN.'"

Yanukovych was overthrown in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and has lived in exile in Russia since. Tymoshenko, who was also one of the leaders of the Orange Revolution, was convicted on charges including embezzlement in 2011 but was released in 2014 upon Yanukovych's ouster.

In 2013, the DOJ sent Skadden a letter informing Craig that the firm and Craig's work with Ukraine meant they had to register as foreign agents under FARA. Craig resisted those requests, providing false information to Skadden's general counsel, the indictment said.

On October 19, 2017, according to the indictment, Craig repeated the lies to Mueller's team -- allegedly providing misleading statements on his contacts with journalists concerning the report.

REPORT: PROBE INTO CLINTON-LINKED PODESTA MAY ALSO BE HEATING UP

"The purpose of the scheme was for Craig to avoid registration as an agent of Ukraine," the indictment read. "Registration would require disclosure of the fact that Private Ukrainian had paid Craig and the Law Firm more than $4 million ... [and] undermine the Report and Craig's perceived independence; and impair the ability of Craig and others at the Law FIrm to later return to government positions."

It was not clear why Mueller -- who prosecuted other Trump officials, including Manafort, Michael Flynn, and George Papadopoulos for making false statements -- did not handle the Craig case himself, and opted instead to farm it out to prosecutors in New York.

Alex van der Zwaan, another former Skadden lawyer, pleaded guilty last year to lying to investigators about the report.

Craig faces up to 10 years in prison in all -- up to five years and a possible $250,000 fine for allegedly willfully falsifying and concealing material facts from the FARA Unit and another five years and $10,000 fine for making false and misleading statements to the FARA Unit.

FARA violations had been prosecuted rarely until Mueller took aim at Manafort for his own lobbying work in Ukraine. Manafort, who counted Yanukovych as one of his most lucrative clients, has been convicted on numerous bank and tax fraud charges and separately was accused of FARA violations as well.

Manafort was sentenced earlier this year to approximately seven years in prison. No Americans were indicted for colluding with Russia or obstruction of justice following the completion of Mueller's nearly two-year-long investigation, despite multiple attempts by Russians to involve the Trump campaign in a conspiracy to hack Democrats' emails.

Craig left Skadden last year after his work with Manafort became public. Skadden agreed this past January to cooperate with the DOJ's registration requirements and paid $4.6 million in a settlement to avoid criminal prosecution.

"We have learned much from this incident and are taking steps to prevent anything similar from happening again,” the firm said in a statement at the time.

Craig's attorneys on Wednesday night told The Associated Press in a statement that the "government's stubborn insistence on prosecuting Mr. Craig is a misguided abuse of prosecutorial discretion."

On Thursday, the attorneys, William Taylor and William Murphy, told reporters: "This indictment accuses Mr. Craig of misleading the FARA Unit of the Department of Justice in order to avoid registration. It is itself unfair and misleading. It ignores uncontroverted evidence to the contrary. Mr. Craig had no interest in misleading the FARA Unit because he had not done anything that required his registration. That is what this trial will be all about."

The indictment was announced by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu for the District of Columbia, and Assistant Director in Charge William F. Sweeney, Jr. of the FBI’s New York Field Office.

Separately, another Mueller-referred investigation into Clinton-linked Washington insider Tony Podesta related to his overseas lobbying work also reportedly is heating up.

Fox News' Mike Emanuel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[MARIS61]

 

[Lanny]

It would be hilarious that you seem to be holding on to the Republicans bad and Democrats good narrative that the media has been pushing for the last few years if it weren't so sad.

Notice the name Podesta at the end of the article (along with another Republican)

They are ALL dirty and some are getting caught finally because they started this Russian hoax. Let's have investigations into every member of congress and the DOJ

Manafort is the only one associated with Craig who has been indicted and convicted of a felony. The other is your conjecture.

 

[Lanny]

Greg Craig, ex-Obama White House counsel, indicted for alleged false statements

By Gregg Re | Fox News

Greg Craig, former White House counsel for then-President Barack Obama, was indicted Thursday on two counts of making false and misleading statements to investigators -- including Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team -- in connection with his work on behalf of Russia-backed former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.

Craig is the first prominent Democrat to be indicted in a case arising from Mueller's now-completed probe into Russian election interference. Mueller referred the Craig case to prosecutors in New York last year after uncovering possible wrongdoing while he investigated former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Ukraine lobbying work.

The Washington-based lawyer was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for allegedly falsifying and concealing “material facts” and making false statements both to Mueller and to the DOJ National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit.

The FARA Unit is responsible for enforcing foreign lobbying laws that require the disclosure of certain overseas activity, including public relations work for foreign entities. At issue were Craig’s 2012 lobbying and media contacts on behalf of Yanukovych, while Craig was a partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Specifically, Craig and the law firm were commissioned by Yanukovych and Ukraine's government to write a report to assess whether the government's prosecution of dissident Yulia Tymoshenko -- a criminal case that was criticized widely as an abuse of power -- was a "fair trial."

The apparent aim of the Skadden report was to provide cover for what critics called an obviously politically motivated prosecution, and Manafort and others used the published document to advance Yanukovych's standing in the international community. But, if Skadden and Craig registered under FARA, Ukraine's payments for the supposedly independent report would be revealed publicly, exposing the report's lack of credibility.

In the indictment, prosecutors cited several emails between Craig and the report's co-author, including one April 2012 email in which Craig wrote that a follow-up Skadden report on Yanukovych's then-upcoming second trial would "help make it go better and look better vis a vis the West."

Although Ukraine officials said they paid only $12,000 for the report, prosecutors charged that Manafort illegally used an offshore account to ensure Skadden received approximately $4 million for its services.

In February 2012, prosecutors said, Craig emailed the co-author of the report, saying, "I don't want to register as a foreign agent under FARA. I think we don't have to with this assignment, yes?"

In April that year, Craig emailed, "I don't really care who you ask [about the FARA requirements] but we need an answer from someone who we can rely on with a straight face."

On December 15, 2012, after the report's release, a lobbyist wrote to Craig that media coverage on the report was glowing: "You are back in the headlines internationally. ... People in Kiev are very happy. You are 'THE MAN.'"

Yanukovych was overthrown in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and has lived in exile in Russia since. Tymoshenko, who was also one of the leaders of the Orange Revolution, was convicted on charges including embezzlement in 2011 but was released in 2014 upon Yanukovych's ouster.

In 2013, the DOJ sent Skadden a letter informing Craig that the firm and Craig's work with Ukraine meant they had to register as foreign agents under FARA. Craig resisted those requests, providing false information to Skadden's general counsel, the indictment said.

On October 19, 2017, according to the indictment, Craig repeated the lies to Mueller's team -- allegedly providing misleading statements on his contacts with journalists concerning the report.

REPORT: PROBE INTO CLINTON-LINKED PODESTA MAY ALSO BE HEATING UP

"The purpose of the scheme was for Craig to avoid registration as an agent of Ukraine," the indictment read. "Registration would require disclosure of the fact that Private Ukrainian had paid Craig and the Law Firm more than $4 million ... [and] undermine the Report and Craig's perceived independence; and impair the ability of Craig and others at the Law FIrm to later return to government positions."

It was not clear why Mueller -- who prosecuted other Trump officials, including Manafort, Michael Flynn, and George Papadopoulos for making false statements -- did not handle the Craig case himself, and opted instead to farm it out to prosecutors in New York.

Alex van der Zwaan, another former Skadden lawyer, pleaded guilty last year to lying to investigators about the report.

Craig faces up to 10 years in prison in all -- up to five years and a possible $250,000 fine for allegedly willfully falsifying and concealing material facts from the FARA Unit and another five years and $10,000 fine for making false and misleading statements to the FARA Unit.

FARA violations had been prosecuted rarely until Mueller took aim at Manafort for his own lobbying work in Ukraine. Manafort, who counted Yanukovych as one of his most lucrative clients, has been convicted on numerous bank and tax fraud charges and separately was accused of FARA violations as well.

Manafort was sentenced earlier this year to approximately seven years in prison. No Americans were indicted for colluding with Russia or obstruction of justice following the completion of Mueller's nearly two-year-long investigation, despite multiple attempts by Russians to involve the Trump campaign in a conspiracy to hack Democrats' emails.

Craig left Skadden last year after his work with Manafort became public. Skadden agreed this past January to cooperate with the DOJ's registration requirements and paid $4.6 million in a settlement to avoid criminal prosecution.

"We have learned much from this incident and are taking steps to prevent anything similar from happening again,” the firm said in a statement at the time.

Craig's attorneys on Wednesday night told The Associated Press in a statement that the "government's stubborn insistence on prosecuting Mr. Craig is a misguided abuse of prosecutorial discretion."

On Thursday, the attorneys, William Taylor and William Murphy, told reporters: "This indictment accuses Mr. Craig of misleading the FARA Unit of the Department of Justice in order to avoid registration. It is itself unfair and misleading. It ignores uncontroverted evidence to the contrary. Mr. Craig had no interest in misleading the FARA Unit because he had not done anything that required his registration. That is what this trial will be all about."

The indictment was announced by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu for the District of Columbia, and Assistant Director in Charge William F. Sweeney, Jr. of the FBI’s New York Field Office.

Separately, another Mueller-referred investigation into Clinton-linked Washington insider Tony Podesta related to his overseas lobbying work also reportedly is heating up.

Fox News' Mike Emanuel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Another tie-in to Manafort. Good work, Mueller.

 

[MARIS61]

Judicial Watch Sues State Department over John Kerry’s ‘Shadow Diplomacy’ to Prevent U.S. Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear Deal
APRIL 15, 2019

Seeks emails, texts, instant chats between Kerry and State Department officials and/or Kerry meetings with Iranian officials

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State for records of communications between former Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department officials regarding “the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as JCPOA or ‘Iran nuclear deal’) and/or meetings between Kerry and Iranian officials to discuss the JCPOA.” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:19-cv-00777)).

On May 8, 2018, President Trump announced the United States withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, which had been negotiated by Kerry in 2015 on behalf of the Obama State Department. In the months preceding the U.S. withdrawal, Kerry reportedly had been on a “stealthy yet aggressive mission” of shadow diplomacy in an attempt to preserve the Iran nuclear deal. Kerry reportedly held meetings and spoke with major players, foreign and domestic, involved in the Iran nuclear agreement who opposed the U.S. withdrawal.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit was filed after the State Department failed to respond to a May 7, 2018, FOIA request seeking:

All records of communications, including but not limited to emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text message or instant chat, between former Secretary of State John Kerry and official of the State Department regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as the JCPOA or “Iran nuclear deal”) and/or meetings between Kerry and Iranian officials to discuss the JCPOA.

During his personal campaign to salvage the Iran nuclear deal, Kerry is said to have met with Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif at the United Nations in New York in late April 2018, their second meeting in two months, to discuss ways of preventing the deal limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program from falling apart. Current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo termed Kerry’s meeting with “the world’s largest state-sponsor of terror” “unseemly and unprecedented” and “beyond inappropriate.”

Kerry also met in April 2018 with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, separately had meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron, both in Paris and New York, and spoke on the phone with European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. Additionally, Kerry was reported to have quietly lobbied members of Congress, including then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and placed dozens of phone calls just before the U.S. withdrawal.

“John Kerry wasn’t elected president, so he should avoid colluding with Iran and other foreign government to undermine U.S. foreign policy,” said Judicial Watch President Fitton. “Our lawsuit is meant to discover not only what Kerry was up to but also to unearth who inside the Deep State Trump ‘resistance’ were coordinating with Kerry’s clandestine efforts to undermine the President Trump’s Iran policy.”

In another Iran-related FOIA lawsuit, on May 19, 2017, Judicial Watch filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of the Treasury(No.1:17-cv-00864)) against the State and Treasury Departments regarding the Obama administration’s January 2016 transfer of $400 million in foreign currency to Iran, a cash payment delivered the same weekend five American hostages were released. The Obama administration insisted at the time the cash payment was not ransom for the hostages, but several Republican lawmakers said it was too coincidental to be true. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) reportedly said, “Paying Iran behind our backs, incentivizing further kidnappings of Americans while providing funds for terrorism, is as ignorant as it is wrong.”

The State Department, just two weeks after an August 4 press conference in which President Barack Obama said the payment was not a “ransom,” confirmed that the U.S. handed over the cash only after Iran released the hostages. The $400 million was the first installment of a $1.7 billion cash settlement the Obama administration paid Iran to resolve an arms deal signed before the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which toppled the pro-U.S. regime in Tehran.

Few documents were produced to Judicial Watch in this case, and all were fully redacted.

 

[Lanny]

Judicial Watch Sues State Department over John Kerry’s ‘Shadow Diplomacy’ to Prevent U.S. Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear Deal
APRIL 15, 2019

Seeks emails, texts, instant chats between Kerry and State Department officials and/or Kerry meetings with Iranian officials

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State for records of communications between former Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department officials regarding “the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as JCPOA or ‘Iran nuclear deal’) and/or meetings between Kerry and Iranian officials to discuss the JCPOA.” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:19-cv-00777)).

On May 8, 2018, President Trump announced the United States withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, which had been negotiated by Kerry in 2015 on behalf of the Obama State Department. In the months preceding the U.S. withdrawal, Kerry reportedly had been on a “stealthy yet aggressive mission” of shadow diplomacy in an attempt to preserve the Iran nuclear deal. Kerry reportedly held meetings and spoke with major players, foreign and domestic, involved in the Iran nuclear agreement who opposed the U.S. withdrawal.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit was filed after the State Department failed to respond to a May 7, 2018, FOIA request seeking:

All records of communications, including but not limited to emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text message or instant chat, between former Secretary of State John Kerry and official of the State Department regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as the JCPOA or “Iran nuclear deal”) and/or meetings between Kerry and Iranian officials to discuss the JCPOA.

During his personal campaign to salvage the Iran nuclear deal, Kerry is said to have met with Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif at the United Nations in New York in late April 2018, their second meeting in two months, to discuss ways of preventing the deal limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program from falling apart. Current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo termed Kerry’s meeting with “the world’s largest state-sponsor of terror” “unseemly and unprecedented” and “beyond inappropriate.”

Kerry also met in April 2018 with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, separately had meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron, both in Paris and New York, and spoke on the phone with European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. Additionally, Kerry was reported to have quietly lobbied members of Congress, including then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and placed dozens of phone calls just before the U.S. withdrawal.

“John Kerry wasn’t elected president, so he should avoid colluding with Iran and other foreign government to undermine U.S. foreign policy,” said Judicial Watch President Fitton. “Our lawsuit is meant to discover not only what Kerry was up to but also to unearth who inside the Deep State Trump ‘resistance’ were coordinating with Kerry’s clandestine efforts to undermine the President Trump’s Iran policy.”

In another Iran-related FOIA lawsuit, on May 19, 2017, Judicial Watch filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of the Treasury(No.1:17-cv-00864)) against the State and Treasury Departments regarding the Obama administration’s January 2016 transfer of $400 million in foreign currency to Iran, a cash payment delivered the same weekend five American hostages were released. The Obama administration insisted at the time the cash payment was not ransom for the hostages, but several Republican lawmakers said it was too coincidental to be true. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) reportedly said, “Paying Iran behind our backs, incentivizing further kidnappings of Americans while providing funds for terrorism, is as ignorant as it is wrong.”

The State Department, just two weeks after an August 4 press conference in which President Barack Obama said the payment was not a “ransom,” confirmed that the U.S. handed over the cash only after Iran released the hostages. The $400 million was the first installment of a $1.7 billion cash settlement the Obama administration paid Iran to resolve an arms deal signed before the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which toppled the pro-U.S. regime in Tehran.

Few documents were produced to Judicial Watch in this case, and all were fully redacted.

Judicial Watch, what a joke just like their lawsuit.

 

[MARIS61]

Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records of Communications and Payments to Anti-Trump Dossier Author Steele
APRIL 16, 2019

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the FBI failed to respond to a September 27, 2018, FOIA request
(Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00572)).

Judicial Watch seeks:

1. All records of communications between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and Mr. Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer and the owner of the private firm Orbis Business Intelligence.
2. All records related to the proposed, planned, or actual payment of any funds to Mr. Steele and/or Orbis Business Intelligence
3. All records produced in preparation for, during, or pursuant to any meetings or telephonic conversations between any official, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Christopher Steele and/or any employee or representative of Orbis Business Intelligence

The time frame for this request is March 9, 2017, to September 27, 2018.

Former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr testified to Congress that “at some point during 2017, Chris Steele did speak with somebody from the FBI, but I don’t know who.”

This is the latest Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit in an extensive investigation into the Clinton-funded, anti-Trump dossier and its use to obtain FISA warrants in order to spy on the Trump campaign.

In a case seeking information between January 1, 2016, and March 8, 2017, Judicial Watch previously released FBI records showing that Steele was cut off as a “Confidential Human Source” in November 2016 after he disclosed his relationship to the FBI to a third party. The documents show that there were at least 11 FBI payments to Steele in 2016.

Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, reportedly paid $168,000 in 2016 to Steele’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence.

In a related case, Judicial Watch recently released 339 pages of heavily redacted records from the DOJ revealing Bruce Ohr remained in regular contact with Steele after Steele was terminated by the FBI.

“How and why did the FBI pay Christopher Steele, who was already being funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC through Fusion GPS?” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That we had to sue for this basic information shows the FBI may have something more to hide.”