Three well-written, detailed, investigative reports have been issued by three different sources, which has dropped the hammer on a number a "deep state" heads as more and more dots are being connected, showing a true, vast conspiracy, involving a number of individuals, spanning multiple intelligence agencies, to take down president Trump.
One by John Solomon over at The Hill showing that Robert Mueller has some serious conflicts of interest in his being in charge of any investigation that involves Russia.
The second comes from the Real Clear Investigations website, showing that two former intelligence agency officials have contradicted Former CIA Director John Brennan’s congressional testimony regarding the use of the Steele Dossier.
Former CIA Director John Brennan has been publicly contradicted by two former intelligence community members, regarding testimony he presented before congress in May 2017.
Brennan had denied, in no uncertain terms, that the Kremlin sourced Steele Dossier, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, played any part in "the intelligence community’s publicly released conclusion last year that Russia meddled in the 2016 election 'to help Trump’s chances of victory'."
Many may remember at the time the media, which later corrected itself, claimed that all 17 intelligence agencies had agreed with that assessment, when the Director of National Intelligence report itself stated that only three Intelligence agencies, The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), contributed to the report. A report that asserted at the very beginning that they would offer their assessment, but would not provide any evidence or basis to support those assessments.
Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did factor into the ICA. And James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations.
These accounts are at odds with Brennan’s May 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that the Steele dossier was "not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community's assessment" that Russia interfered in the election to help elect Donald Trump. Brennan has repeated this claim numerous times, including in February on “Meet the Press.”
In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier — described as “the Christopher Steele information” — was “added” as an “appendix to the ICA draft,” and that consideration of that appendix was “part of the overall ICA review/approval process.”
His skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the White House.
The entire piece is definitely recommended reading, as it shows that Clapper himself broke with precedent in how he handled the DNI report by not allowing all agencies to weigh in. Considering the unverified dossier was used in a number of manners, including as part of the FISC application to obtain a warrant for surveillance of Trump campaign members. The fact that the other two groups that made up the three named in the DNI report, the FBI and the CIA, are now embroiled in scandals of their own over possible abuses of power, brings into question the validity of the entire "assessment" of the original DNI report on Russia.
Flashback interview from February 2018, in regards to Brennan's testimony and the deceit the deep state members of the intelligence community throughout this whole process.
This brings us to another one of the outstanding investigative reports over at National Review by Andrew McCarthy, who took it upon himself to go through the mind-numbing amount of text messages (502 page PDF here) between Strzok and Page to highlight portions, and offer a timeline of events in conjunction with the texts themselves.
Being a former prosecutor, McCarthy first highlights how the FBI puts the investigation into Hillary to bed in a manner that provided a "legal rationale for letting Clinton off the hook that might pass the laugh test," before delving into the Strzok-Page texts which he specifies as "An Invaluable Narrative," calling the texts a "goldmine of insight."
McCarthy focuses on eight days of texts, from July 28 through August 5, 2016 because the Russia probe started in late July, as he painstakingly shows the interactions between Strzok and Page, as well as the mention of coordinating with other high level senior members (at least the members that didn't have their names redacted) of the FBI to establish their "insurance policy," to which we all now know was what Strzok considered the Russia investigation to be.
There truly is no way to adequately highlight the "tone" McCarthy captures with the texts he cites without copying and pasting the entire piece, so please head over and read it in full to see what the texts, and the highly questionable redactions indicate about how the FBI, from the top down, quite literally were preparing the Russia investigation in a manner that was purely a political witch hunt set up for the specific purpose of using it as an "insurance policy," in the event that Donald Trump won the presidency.
More importantly, those texts show that it was not only the FBI, but it went straight up to the state department and it was the Obama White House that was running the show.
"He who winks his eyes does so to devise perverse things; He who compresses his lips brings evil to pass"- Proverbs 16:30
MUELLER'S RUSSIA CONNECTION
Last, but definitely not least, award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon, exposes Robert Mueller, the man selected by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to head up the probe into Russian collusion with members of the Trump campaign, which to date, has found none, for the FBI's previous association with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska back when Mueller was Director of the FBI.
But there’s one episode even Mueller’s former law enforcement comrades — and independent ethicists — acknowledge raises legitimate legal issues and a possible conflict of interest in his overseeing the Russia election probe.
In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.
Yes, that’s the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration.
The Levinson mission is confirmed by more than a dozen participants inside and outside the FBI, including Deripaska, his lawyer, the Levinson family and a retired agent who supervised the case. Mueller was kept apprised of the operation, officials told me.
Solomon goes to cite other legal experts showing the myriad of different ways this presents a clear conflict of interest in having Mueller play any part in the Russia investigation, including Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz pointing out that while Mueller was the head of the FBI, they previously accepted financial help from a Russian that is, at the very least, a witness in the current probe.
"The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law," Dershowitz said.
Solomon also quotes Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog in her assertion that "It’s possible the bureau’s arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services."
George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agrees there could be a serious conflict of interest: "If the operation with Deripaska contravened federal law, this figure could be viewed as a potential embarrassment for Mueller. The question is whether he could implicate Mueller in an impropriety," Turley is quoted as saying.
Solomon joined Laura Ingraham on The Ingraham Angle on May 14th to discuss his article and findings.
The conspiracy to take President Trump down included members from the very intelligence agencies that initially signed off on the original DNI report into Russian interference. The misconduct that has already been exposed, from the lies told to congress, to the text messages indicating the conspiracy went straight up to the top of the Obama administration, indicates a level of corruption that cannot be overstated.
While we have seen many resignations, terminations, reassignments and demotions at the highest levels of the FBI, we are now seeing the culmination of results from the many investigations into the actions of multiple intelligence agencies under the control of the Obama administration. Many of the revelations were the result of the DOJ's Office of Inspector General who has been tasked with investigating a variety of issues, from how the Clinton investigation was handled, to the misconduct on the part of the Intel agencies senior members.
The first IG report exposed the former FBI deputy director for lying multiple times under oath and unauthorized leaking of information to the press, and that is considered to be "Just the tip of the iceberg." Another IG report is expected to be released this month.
The so-called "deep state," is taking some seriously hard hits right now.
NOTE TO READERS: With digital media revenue spiraling downward, especially hitting those in Independent Media, where attacks from every direction continue to come unabated, it has become apparent that traditional advertising simply isn't going to fully cover the costs and expenses for many smaller independent websites.
Any extra readers may be able to spare for donations is greatly appreciated.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: