In this episode I address stunning new information about the repeated efforts by the Obama administration to target their political opponents using weaponized intelligence assets.
In this episode I address some fascinating new information about the Mueller witch-hunt, along with the strong likelihood that Mueller knew he was investigating a hoax.
“I would probably have been less comfortable doing opposition research that would have gone against Hillary Clinton,” Ohr told Congress on October 19.
When asked by a Congressional aide why that was the case, Ohr responded, “Because I favored Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate.”
Ohr’s transcripts were released by House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) yesterday and also show how the wife of demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr even researched Trump’s family members and their “travels.”
“I was asked to research Trump’s family broadly in connection with any—any Russian connections,” Ohr said, adding that she “did some research on all of them, but not in much depth.”
Specifically, Ohr said she researched Donald Trump Jr.’s and Ivanka Trump’s “travels.”
Ohr claimed the research was done “to see whether they were involved in dealings and transactions with people who had suspicious pasts, or suspicious types of dealings.”
Ohr also testified that she was asked to research members of the campaign including former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former campaign aide Carter Page and former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Ohr noted that, in her research, she found that Page traveled to Moscow to speak at a university about “better relations” between Russia and the U.S.
With regard to the research on Flynn, Ohr said she was asked to look into “any relationships he might have with Russia.” Ohr said that through her research, it “became evident that he had a relationship with Turkey as well.”
Exculpatory evidence about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s 2015 trip to Russia has been revealed by John Solomon of the Hill.
Contrary to the mainstream narrative that Flynn almost committed treason for attending a Russia Today (RT) dinner in December of 2015, the three-star general’s meeting in Moscow actually provided some “modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community.”
It turns out that before Flynn’s Russia meeting, he alerted the his former employer, the DIA, of his planned visit to Moscow and attended a “defensive” briefing which prepared him to extract intelligence for U.S. agencies and warned him of possible Kremlin efforts to compromise him. Upon his return from Russia, Flynn briefed officials on what he had learned.
All of this exculpatory evidence was kept under wraps by U.S. intelligence agencies, despite Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) pleas to publicly release some of this information.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw? And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security? Highly unlikely.
For the full story, click HERE.
In this episode I address the surprise presidential trip to Iraq and the hysterical media response to it. I also discuss 3 troubling oddities in the LTG Mike Flynn interview with the FBI. Finally, I address the national debt crisis, and the government shutdown endgame.
The ruling from Sullivan comes one day after he presided over the dramatic sentencing hearing of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Sullivan stated in his ruling today, “The Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ challenges to the credible fear policies, that it has the authority to order the injunctive relief, and that, with the exception of two policies, the new credible fear policies are arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the immigration laws.”
He also ordered the government to “return to the United States the plaintiffs who were unlawfully deported and to provide them with new credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws.”
The new immigration policies referenced by Sullivan were policies enacted by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and were meant to curb the number of “credible fear” claims.
In June, Sessions said, “The vast majority of the current asylum claims are not valid. For the last five years, only 20 percent of claims have been found to be meritorious after a hearing before an immigration judge.”
In November, the ACLU represented a group of asylum seekers who sued the Trump administration over the asylum policies.
For the full story, click HERE.
- The judge has delayed sentencing in the Mike Flynn persecution.
- Jim Comey doesn’t appear to care who funded the anti-Trump dossier.
- Jim Comey’s credibility continues to evaporate.
- This piece describes the disaster that the FBI/Carter Page investigation was.
- Major advertisers are refusing to cave in to another attempted liberal boycott.
- This entrepreneurial inventor constructed a device to combat package thieves.
When asked by Congressman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) who paid for the document during yesterday’s closed-door interview, Comey replied, “Who cares?”
Meadows tweeted today just after the transcript of Comey’s interview was released to the public:
I asked Director Comey about who paid for the dossier.
1) Republicans paid for it — (Republicans did not pay for it)
2) “Who cares?” Yes, this is an FBI Director apparently not caring to know who paid for information used to surveil Americans with a FISA warrant.”
According to Fox News, the transcript also reveals Comey’s rationale for sending the two FBI agents to interview Flynn in January 2017 without following standard protocol and the fact that the FBI knew “exactly” what Flynn had said to Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to their questioning.
“The agents went to interview Flynn to try and understand why the national security adviser was making false statements to the vice president of the United States about his interactions with the Russians during the transition,” Comey said in response to a question from House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).
He continued, “I knew certain classified facts about the nature of his interactions with the Russians. I knew that the Vice President was making statements that he attributed to conversations he’d had with Mr. Flynn that were starkly at odds with those classified facts.”
When Gowdy stated, “You knew exactly what General Flynn had said to the Russian Ambassador before you interviewed him.” Comey replied, “Yes.”
Other highlights from Comey’s testimony:
- He claims he didn’t hand pick the FBI agents to interview Flynn–one of whom is known anti-Trump special agent Peter Strzok. He told Gowdy, “I didn’t know what agents would go. I wanted Flynn interviewed as soon as possible.”
- He attempted to clarify his remarks that he “got away” with not involving the White House Counsel in the Flynn interview, telling lawmakers, “In a more established environment, there would’ve been an expectation that the FBI would coordinate the interview through White House Counsel.”
- He pushed back against claims that the FBI didn’t tell Flynn the severity of the consequences of lying to Congress: “He was an extraordinarily experienced person and so reasonably should be assumed to understand you can’t lie to the FBI,” Comey told House Republicans .”Second, it’s not protocol. The FBI does not do that in noncustodial interviews. And, third, you want to find out what the witness will say to you before you heat up an interview by raising the prospect that the witness might be lying to you.”
NBC News reporter Mike Memoli noted the apparent inconsistencies between Comey’s testimony to Congress and his interview with NBC’s Nicolle Wallace just days prior.
Tweeting a transcript of Comey’s comments, Memoli wrote:
What’s at odds:
Comey, to Wallace 12/9: Q: What did he think they were coming there for?
COMEY: “I don’t think he knew. We didn’t tell him.”
Comey, to Gowdy 12/17: “The Deputy Director … told him what the subject matter was. … He knew what he was going to be asked about.”
Dan documented the death of the collusion narrative yesterday on the podcast. If you missed it – here’s what you need to know.
Comey Deflects Dossier Dirt
After speaking with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee, fired FBI head James Comey came out firing against Fox News and Trump. “So another day of Hillary Clinton’s emails and the Steele dossier. This while the President of the United States is lying about the FBI, attacking the FBI and attacking the rule of law in this country. How does that make any sense at all?” Comey asked, before then blaming distrust of the FBI on Fox News.
Though truly, Comey should be blaming distrust of the FBI on the FBI’s actions. Even former assistant FBI counterintelligence division director Bill Priestap acknowledged that dossier wasn’t verified before being used to justify surveillance on members of the Trump campaign team. And as we documented in “Spygate,” there are countless other procedures the FBI ignored or violated in using the Steele dossier. Is concern over the FBI ignoring procedures to justify politically-motivated spying something that only concerns Fox News viewers? If so, that paints Fox News viewers in a positive light.
Of course, Comey is only deflecting to blame Fox News to deflect away from his own role in pushing the bogus dossier, which is even more bogus than we thought.
The Dossier – Glaring Errors Remain, Trump Critics Express Doubt, and Steele Admits Political Motivation
While it’s not like the dossier had any credibility in the first place, we can revise its “D-” grade for truthfulness to a straight “F” for a number of reasons.
- The dossier story that Michael Cohen visited Prague to pay Russian hackers remained unverified. Cohen’s spokesman Lanny Davis (a Clinton ally) laughed off the alleged Prague trip when asked about if it happened on MSNBC, telling host Kasie Hunt “No. No. Everybody, America, we all love Kasie’s show. No, no Prague, ever, never.” And Cohen, who is now turning on Trump, still denies the Prague story and hasn’t corroborated any elements of the collusion narrative (which he probably would if it were true).
- Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter Greg Miller said during a book interview that sources at the FBI and CIA don’t believe that the Prague incident ever happened. Miller said that Post reporters “literally spent weeks and months trying to run down” leads from the dossier, and that they “sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there, and came away empty.” Interestingly, that fact has yet to be reported in the Washington Post.
- “Russian Roulette” author Michael Isikoff (which pushes the collusion narrative) now acknowledges that the dossier is “likely false.”
- There’s no secret that the dossier is politically motivated (as indicated by the Clinton campaign funding its creation), but we finally have Steele on record admitting as much thanks to a lawsuit from Russian bankers smeared in his dossier. In an answer to questions from interrogators, Steele wrote “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”
Is there anyone not in agreement that the dossier is a politically motivated hoax, except James Comey? It’s certainly not just “Fox News” saying as much, and thus far, the only evidence of attempted foreign meddling in the 2016 election came from the Clinton camp. Comey doesn’t have a problem with that, apparently.
The Framing of Flynn – New Information
In the past we’ve documented how Michael Flynn was setup, having not been charged with a crime relating to collusion, but rather for misremembering the contents of a telephone conversation he had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak over sanctions. In late December 2016, the two discussed the sanctions against Russia Obama had just passed, and Kislyak promised that Russia would not react with sanctions of their own. Other sanctions related to Israel were also discussed. Flynn reportedly didn’t recall discussing sanctions when quizzed by the FBI.
At worst, it seemed that Flynn simply misremembered his conversation, which is extremely likely.
In a stunning new development, we’ve learned from a 302 report that proper protocol wasn’t followed to protect Flynn against entrapment. A 302 report contains accounts from the agents of what they said and did while interviewing Flynn, and the FBI waited over half a year to detail the Flynn interview. Interestingly, there were two 302 reports, which Robert Mueller claims was due to a drafting error (though many are speculating it proves the 302 was edited). The 302 contains numerous pieces of damaging information, including:
- Flynn saying “yes, good reminder” when being asked about whether he discussed sanctions related to Israel with Kislyak (he did), even though the public was told Flynn lied in response to that question.
- The fact that Flynn spoke with representatives from thirty other countries on December 22nd, making it likely that Flynn could’ve been confusing his calls when answering the FBI’s questions.
- The revelation that Flynn had at least one other conversation with Kisylak (again, making it likely he could be truthful about the contents of a conversation he was confusing with another). Flynn thanks the FBI for this reminder (which isn’t indicative of an adversarial interview), and says he doesn’t remember if he discussed sanctions about Russia (which is radically different from a denial).
If I were asked to recall a random phone conversation while on vacation, I doubt I’d be able to do it. Add in thirty other calls, and faulty memory is to be expected. No one has yet to put forward a convincing motive for why Flynn would knowingly lie to the FBI. Given he didn’t do anything illegal, why would he bother?
For a more extensive summary, give the podcast a listen for yourself.
During a dramatic hearing today, Sullivan asked Flynn if he wanted to delay the sentencing process so that his full cooperation with investigators could be considered. The judge told Flynn, “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today [with the sentencing], you will not receive a sentence of incarceration.”
Robert Kelner, one of Flynn’s attorneys told the judge, “There’s that additional modicum of cooperation that he expects to provide in the [Eastern District of Virginia.] For that reason, we are prepared to take your honor up on the suggestion to delaying sentencing.”
Sullivan also repeatedly asked Flynn if he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea for lying to the FBI during a January 2017 interview. Flynn stated he did not wish to withdraw his plea.
After initially issuing what was described as “scathing” questions about whether or not Flynn committed treason, Sullivan later clarified his remarks, saying he wasn’t suggesting the Lieutenant General’s actions were treasonous but that he was “just curious.”
Mueller’s prosecutors said, “After looking at the definition of treason, we have no reason to believe he committed treason.”
Sullivan set a status hearing for March 13, 2019.