DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

As a voter I like someone of higher moral fiber. Someone who doesn’t act on whims. Someone who considers the possibility that the people around him know what they are talking about. Someone not obsessed with his perception in the media. 

 

But I’m still impressed by some of the things he’s been able to do despite his inability to engage the majority of the country. 

1) He likes women. Makes him a scumbag for sure.  {sarcasm} 

2) Act on whims!? Holy crap. If he "acted on whims", he would not be a multi-billionaire. One  current example of not "acting on a whim" is his holding the cards on the declassification of documents pertaining to "Russia" and the FISA warrants.  People have been clamoring for them, but the guy you think acts impulsively has been holding them close ... waiting ... waiting... waiting.

3) He consults experts all the time. What do you think Manafort was presented as? The guy who could round-up the delegate cats and make sure they don't scatter at the RNC. He continues to consult people on foreign relations, armed service, the border, etc., etc. If you think he is not consulting people to make informed decisions, you are not seeing the whole picture. 

4) I'm actually quite impressed at how well he handles the media. He made his name a profitable brand exactly because he knows how to handle the media. Is he currently "obsessed" with the negative reporting of him and his administration?  I would assume he'd like more than 92% negative press, and that he would like the American people to know about the achievements of his administration. After all, if someone was beating you up daily - all day, every day - you probably wouldn't mind it if the beatings stopped.  

[DC Tom]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

1) He likes women. Makes him a scumbag for sure.  {sarcasm} 

2) Act on whims!? Holy crap. If he "acted on whims", he would not be a multi-billionaire. One  current example of not "acting on a whim" is his holding the cards on the declassification of documents pertaining to "Russia" and the FISA warrants.  People have been clamoring for them, but the guy you think acts impulsively has been holding them close ... waiting ... waiting... waiting.

3) He consults experts all the time. What do you think Manafort was presented as? The guy who could round-up the delegate cats and make sure they don't scatter at the RNC. He continues to consult people on foreign relations, armed service, the border, etc., etc. If you think he is not consulting people to make informed decisions, you are not seeing the whole picture. 

4) I'm actually quite impressed at how well he handles the media. He made his name a profitable brand exactly because he knows how to handle the media. Is he currently "obsessed" with the negative reporting of him and his administration?  I would assume he'd like more than 92% negative press, and that he would like the American people to know about the achievements of his administration. After all, if someone was beating you up daily - all day, every day - you probably wouldn't mind it if the beatings stopped.  

 

He tweets on whims.

 

Too many nitwits think tweeting is acting.  Thanks, Obama!

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

He tweets on whims.

 

Too many nitwits think tweeting is acting.  Thanks, Obama!

I wish that was not the perception. I think he uses Twitter like a Grand Media Master. He sometimes informs (great way to get out there what the media is hiding) and he sometimes trolls (provoke your enemies). Every once in a while I cringe, but then it becomes apparent in the not too distant future why that cringeworthy Tweet was sent to begin with. 

[BeginnersMind]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

1) He likes women. Makes him a scumbag for sure.  {sarcasm} 

 

Strawman. 

 

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

2) Act on whims!? Holy crap. If he "acted on whims", he would not be a multi-billionaire. One  current example of not "acting on a whim" is his holding the cards on the declassification of documents pertaining to "Russia" and the FISA warrants.  People have been clamoring for them, but the guy you think acts impulsively has been holding them close ... waiting ... waiting... waiting.

 

He acts on whims all the time. Sometimes he walks his whims back (Syria withdrawal), sometimes not (Kushner clearance). 

 

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

3) He consults experts all the time. What do you think Manafort was presented as? The guy who could round-up the delegate cats and make sure they don't scatter at the RNC. He continues to consult people on foreign relations, armed service, the border, etc., etc. If you think he is not consulting people to make informed decisions, you are not seeing the whole picture. 

 

 

The people who surround him consistently say he does what he wants, with little deference to the experts. You know this. Just because there are experts around him, doesn't mean he listens.

 

He rules quite often by the fiat of his present mood. I'm impressed he's gotten as much done as he has, given this style. And I mean that. 

 

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I wish that was not the perception. I think he uses Twitter like a Grand Media Master. He sometimes informs (great way to get out there what the media is hiding) and he sometimes trolls (provoke your enemies). Every once in a while I cringe, but then it becomes apparent in the not too distant future why that cringeworthy Tweet was sent to begin with. 

 

The deeper meaning behind his attack on the Khan family is yet to be revealed. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, BeginnersMind said:

 

Strawman. 

 

 

He acts on whims all the time. Sometimes he walks his whims back (Syria withdrawal), sometimes not (Kushner clearance). 

 

 

The people who surround him consistently say he does what he wants, with little deference to the experts. You know this. Just because there are experts around him, doesn't mean he listens.

 

He rules quite often by the fiat of his present mood. I'm impressed he's gotten as much done as he has, given this style. And I mean that. 

 

1) Really? 'Cause I could not think of any other reason why anyone would consider him a "scumbag" otherwise. 

2) No. Please educate yourself. Syria was not a whim. He has stated since he started running we need to stop being the world's policeman, stop the endless wars. He left a few troops in there to appease the Rs who do want our fingers in every pie.  

As far as any intervening in Kushner's clearance - good thing Democrats are leaking that information!  Numerous people from past administrations have stated it is the president's prerogative, full stop.  Otherwise, clearances can be held indefinitely (sorta like all the heads of agencies were slow-walked in the Senate due to Democratic "rules" obstruction so President Trump could not have his people in place, allowing for even more obstruction by holdovers). 

3) He is the boss. The boss makes the final big decisions. You listen to your people, you give them a certain level of autonomy, but the big decisions need to be yours when you are in charge. And, as the boss, he also needs to decide what is a "big decision". 

4) I do not think he rules by fiat at all. 

[BeginnersMind]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

1) Really? 'Cause I could not think of any other reason why anyone would consider him a "scumbag" otherwise. 

2) No. Please educate yourself. Syria was not a whim. He has stated since he started running we need to stop being the world's policeman, stop the endless wars. He left a few troops in there to appease the Rs who do want our fingers in every pie.  

As far as any intervening in Kushner's clearance - good thing Democrats are leaking that information!  Numerous people from past administrations have stated it is the president's prerogative, full stop.  Otherwise, clearances can be held indefinitely (sorta like all the heads of agencies were slow-walked in the Senate due to Democratic "rules" obstruction so President Trump could not have his people in place, allowing for even more obstruction by holdovers). 

3) He is the boss. The boss makes the final big decisions. You listen to your people, you give them a certain level of autonomy, but the big decisions need to be yours when you are in charge. And, as the boss, he also needs to decide what is a "big decision". 

4) I do not think he rules by fiat at all. 

 

We have our positions. One thing that makes me really happy is what you mention above about him. He is untangling our military from unwinnable wars. Two years in, he’s he most peace-focused president in a long time. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

LINDSEY GRAHAM REBOOTS FISA ABUSE INVESTIGATION WITH EXPANSIVE DOJ DOCUMENT REQUEST
 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is resuming an investigation of potential surveillance abuse by the FBI with an expansive request for records related to the bureau’s vetting of the Steele dossier.
 

In a letter sent Thursday to Attorney General William Barr, Graham asked for all FBI and Justice Department documents related to investigators’ attempts to verify allegations made in the dossier, which was authored by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democrats.
 

</snip>

[row_33]

• Report post
•  

 

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Strawman. 

 

 

He acts on whims all the time. Sometimes he walks his whims back (Syria withdrawal), sometimes not (Kushner clearance). 

 

 

FINALLY

 

Someone has totally figured out the problems with Syria and how to fix it

 

oh goody!

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Strawman. 

 

 

He acts on whims all the time. Sometimes he walks his whims back (Syria withdrawal), sometimes not (Kushner clearance). 

 

 

The people who surround him consistently say he does what he wants, with little deference to the experts. You know this. Just because there are experts around him, doesn't mean he listens.

 

He rules quite often by the fiat of his present mood. I'm impressed he's gotten as much done as he has, given this style. And I mean that. 

 

 

The deeper meaning behind his attack on the Khan family is yet to be revealed. 

 

For as much and as long as it was discussed in the media, Kushner's clearance could not possibly have been a whim.

[Uncle Joe]

11 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Calling a guy in a wheelchair “Ironsides” is insensitive. Shame on you.

 

Sorry, I had a relapse and forgot which century I was in.

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said:

Sorry, I had a relapse and forgot which century I was in.

 

The "handicapped channel" ran Ironside in full a full years back, great show, House MD was another mainstay for reruns.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Ohr testimony 

https://dougcollins.house.gov/sites/dougcollins.house.gov/files/Ohr Interview Transcript 8.28.18.pdf

[Deranged Rhino]

 

It is. And it means Cohen is going away for even longer.

[Deranged Rhino]

Being told we're in the eleventh hour with Mueller's probe. Today some people (in DC) are expecting Mueller to wrap up with a last round of indictments before he submits his final report to Barr early next week. There is lots of chatter (from the left) that Don Jr is getting one today... but that's been the chorus for months now. 45 is out of DC today and in Alabama, so a last flurry of indictments would fit the pattern we've seen from the SCO (a big Friday move while POTUS is traveling). Not sure who else is left for Mueller to indict from Trump's circle, other than his kids (which I can't rule out but would be stunned if it actually happened), guess we'll see by 5pm today. 

 

Barr is getting ready to move as well. Huber met with Barr this week, and  my best contacts in the DOJ (one of whom was in the meeting) are telling me Huber's work has more than just teeth... 

 

Could be shaping up for a nutty day.

13 hours ago, section122 said:

I don't understand this thread but I'm always willing to learn...

 

2 guys very close to Trump and part of his election team are going to prison.  So these guys were acting on their own?  That's hard to buy.  Seems like a lot of celebrating for Manafort "only getting 47 months." How is this not bad for Trump?  

 

The search function on the board is pretty limiting... but I'm pulling together links to old threads for you to read. Start here though, it's just an excerpt from a larger write up I did but gives you a good foundation for the discussion: 

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/401394773/Building-a-Monster-Partial-introduction

 

More to come.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

@section122 I just went through the first 40 pages of this thread and pulled a selection of 26 posts. It's a lot to get through (and the responses they're replying to are worth looking at to get the full picture of the conversation). Putting this behind a spoiler tag for space purposes: 

 

The posts are in chronological order for context/evolution. But the 12/3/17 post second from the bottom is key.

 

 

On 5/19/2017 at 12:42 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I just wanted to add this, though I agree with your overall sentiment:

 

(and this isn't directed at you, just your post sparked it)

 

Dragging this "scandal" down into partisan fighting is exactly the intent of those pushing it. The people on the left and right parroting their chosen narratives aren't doing so out of malice but out of a deep concern for the country.

 

It's the people manipulating the narrative, and triggering the hyper partisanship on both sides, who are the ones to blame. That should be the target of scorn and anger - not our fellow citizens.

 

This isn't a right or left issue, it's not a Trump or anti-trump issue, it's not even Russia vs the US - that's all noise designed to distract. This is about a segment of the IC fighting to preserve the regime change legacy of the past 16 years. Nothing more. If you strip away all the rhetoric, if you strip away all the innuendo, the true motive driving this story becomes clear:

 

1) A segment off the IC wants to preserve the empire (which means more regime change wars) over the country

2) The DNC wants to blame anyone but themselves for their failure in 16.

3) The MSM, who was all in for Hillary, want to save face by giving the people a boogeyman to blame for why their predictions were wrong.

 

Track that back to 2011, long before Trump was relevant, and you'll see all the pieces being aligned for exactly this moment - if not by design than by happy coincidence.

 

I say all to as a reminder now is not the time to give into partisan bickering. This is the time we need to come together as a country to save the republic - not from Russia, not from Trump, but from the unelected powers that are controlling the policies and agendas of this nation. The threat we are all facing is an internal one, not an external one.

 

But it is an existential threat.

 

On 5/19/2017 at 1:11 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Oh, you have every right to be upset - as should every thinking American.

 

Remember two things:

1) We are, all of us, engaged in the world's first global information war. Information is being used as a weapon of mass distraction on a scale never before seen.

2) The most recent NDAA passed at the end of 2016 (more openly) legalized US propaganda through US news outlets by the State Department.

 

We're at war. It's just a very different war than we've ever fought before. People are confused, people are triggered because people are being intentionally deluged with disinformation from US news sources on top of Russian, Chinese, Iranian et al sources.

 

I just think the way through this is not to give in to that partisan triggering that's going on and instead focus our anger on the true threats.

 

On 7/20/2017 at 4:22 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's a totally fair question - and for clarity there is zero doubt in my mind that the Russians waged such a propaganda campaign. There's zero doubt because those sorts of campaigns have been waged as long as there have been newspapers. That Russia uses information warfare isn't news, and that story alone shouldn't be particularly alarming to anyone familiar with history (as I know you are).

 

And that's exactly why the hysteria over this story has always smacked of something deeper than just this election or this president. Because you're right, there were probably lots of people swayed by such propaganda during this election cycle. I personally doubt whether that amount of people were statistically significant enough to sway the election one way or the other, but for argument's sake let's say it was enough.

 

How was this feat accomplished? By using the powers our own system, our own freedoms of thought, speech, and the press against us. This is the part of the story that isn't being discussed - and it's arguably the most important element. If you're accusing them of writing dubious news stories and putting them out on the web for Americans to read, then in reality they committed no crime other than playing on our own stupidity as a nation and using our own system against us. That, to me, is more of an "us" problem than a Russian problem.

 

Getting back to your point, this is something that was clearly done. So, what's the solution? The one immediately floated out by the Washington Post several months ago now was to label these stories "fake news" - which then allowed search engines and social media companies to begin vetting which articles and stories can get traction on their sites. In other words, the first solution proposed was censorship. The solution to protecting our country's sacred institution was to fundamentally undercut our first amendment protection. Think about that and let it sink in. In the name of protecting our freedoms, the first solution offered (and the solution that's ultimately at the root of all the others I've heard so far) is to limit our citizen's ability to read, say, or write what they wish.

 

And this time it's not coming from the right. It's coming from the left. Which, as someone who believes in liberalism in the actual definition of the word, is astonishing to hear.

 

The War on Terror demanded a sacrifice of our right to privacy. "That's the only way to protect our nation," is what was said at the time. A short while later the right to due process went out the window in the name of stopping lone wolf actors. Now, in 2017, we're honestly discussing giving up our first amendment rights in order to protect our nation from Russian aggression.

 

Here's my question: If we no longer have the basic fundamental rights that make us American and made this country the beacon of freedom it is - what are we actually protecting with these sorts of overreactions?

 

My answer: an empire that has nothing to do with the people of this country.

 

The real problem with this whole narrative is that Russia, even though they are most certainly guilty of what you're describing, isn't really the enemy. An adversary? Sure. But they are not a hostile enemy as they're being painted as being in this story. That's not defending Russia, that's just an honest threat assessment. So if Russia isn't really a hostile actor, what's the point of this hysteria?

 

If you take the politics out of it (which is darned near impossible, I grant you), this is a story designed to pump up the budgets of the MiC and defense contractors. The War on Terror is fading, a new boogeyman is needed to justify the budgets of various departments, agencies, and contractors.

 

The real enemy isn't Russia. The real enemy is within. It's the system that educated - or failed to educate - those people who were swayed by the Russian propaganda on basic critical thinking skills. We don't teach that anymore, we teach our kids how to pass tests not how to think. Our education system is in tatters in part because we spend billions a year on defense instead of investing that into our people and future.

 

That's not to say I think we should spend nothing on defense - not at all - just that we're currently out of whack with our priorities in the spending department. And this narrative will only further put us out of whack because it's shifting the blame and focus to more empire building rather than focusing on the issues on the home front.

 

imo of course.

 

On 8/3/2017 at 9:49 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

Bullshite. How do I know? Because there was a smoking gun uncovered recently and there hasn't been a word about it from the MSM, anyone on the left, the USIC or any of the posters here who have been claiming the DNI as all the evidence they needed.

 

 

 

This is a smoking gun, forensic evidence that anyone with the technical know-how can verify themselves, evidence which proves the only piece of concrete evidence offered to the American people was intentionally altered and manipulated by the USIC before they released it.

 

It's proof that the "consensus" within all 17 USIC agencies was a lie from the beginning. This is real evidence of a crime, corruption, and collusion - not inside the WH but inside Langley, NSA, DNI and DHS. This is the smoking gun which proves what we are really witnessing is a group of unelected officials trying to dictate policy and agenda to an incoming president two weeks before he was even sworn in.

 

Yet your outrage is absent. You and everyone else pushing this narrative without thinking for yourselves for months won't even acknowledge this evidence because you think it's an attack on your political party of choice. It's not.

 

It's an attack on you. It's an attack on all of us. You're just too partisan to care.

 

On 7/25/2017 at 11:54 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

RIP TO THE JANUARY 6th DNI REPORT:

 

Over the past few weeks, three pieces of evidence - real evidence, not evidence that relies on unnamed sources citing unnamed methods - have come to light that blow a huge hole in major portions of the "Russian collusion" story's main piece of evidence: The DNI report issued in January of this year.

 

Shockingly, much of this evidence has been ignored by the MSM and the loudest supporters of this narrative on this board - despite most of those same folks spending the past six months telling me I was wrong for raising these very same concerns...

 

Let's lay it out step by step.

 

1) Let's start with basic reading comprehension: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/06/us/politics/document-russia-hacking-report-intelligence-agencies.html

 

This is the DNI report issued in January, the same report being touted by many as being the best evidence because it comes from the USIC itself. The report was sold to the public as being comprehensive (if unclassified) analysis from all 17 US Intel agencies who unanimously agreed that Russia had "hacked" the election.

 

Many posters on here have held this report up as all the evidence they needed to believe the narrative being spun. When I pointed out to them, simply by reading the report itself, that it was not from all 17 agencies and in fact wasn't even presenting a consensus within the three agencies it actually came from (NSA, CIA, DHS), I was told - repeatedly - how I was wrong.

 

Then a funny thing happened at the end of June. The NYT's issued a correction, buried of course, that admitted a basic error in their now seven month long disinformation campaign:

 

 

 

 

This correction is important, not just because it shows that the NYT and other outlets knowingly lied for months about the unanimous consensus of the USIC, but because it completely omits the second most troubling part of the January DNI report - namely how the team was assembled... which brings us to:

 

2) On July 12th, this report came out detailing how the DNI report came to be: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/

 

Again, much of this could be discerned by reading the DNI report itself, presuming you have a basic understanding about how intel is gathered, analyzed and processed within the USIC.

 

 

This exposes yet another lie which has been repeated to the point of now being taken for granted and absolute truth by the MSM and various talking heads within the USIC. The DNI Report was not a consensus of opinion within all 17 agencies, it wasn't even the consensus of opinion within the three agencies that actually compiled the report (DHS, NSA, CIA). Rather, it was the conclusion the small task force created by Directors Brennan and Clapper were ORDERED TO REACH.

 

After the WMD debacle in the early 2000's, the USIC rewrote their rule books to avoid repeating such a mistake of confirmation bias clouding active intel analysis. Part of this culture shift was the regulations to not create insular task forces within the USIC but rather to more freely exchange information and investigations between relevant branches. Clapper and Brennan's actions, by creating a separate investigative group and insulating them, is in direct violation of those new guidelines.

 

Think about that for a moment. Clapper and Brennan - two men who dealt with the WMD investigations at different times, both men who have perjured themselves before Congress and Senate on issues of domestic collection and various USIC programs' over reach, broke the protocols they were a part of creating to FORCE the conclusion they wanted to reach. It's, quite literally, a repeat of the WMD agenda. Only this time the stakes aren't a poorly thought out invasion of a weak country - but the undercutting of our national confidence in our electoral process while poking the nose of the world's largest thermonuclear power.

 

Motive is always important to examine in these cases, and it should be noted that both Brennan and Clapper have been at the forefront of the USIC's regime change war in Syria. It's an agenda they've been engineering and working towards for years now. And Trump's incoming administration - whether they meant it or not - campaigned and won in no small part because of their promises to end the nation's regime change addiction.

 

This means that both Clapper and Brennan had a clear motive to undercut 45's incoming administration and to paint a target on Russia by engineering a fear campaign through their chosen MSM outlets (the NYT, Washington Post, CNN primarily).

 

So, at the end of the day, the January DNI report which has been touted as proof by many here and in the media, has been completely blown out of the water just by these admissions:

- It's not a consensus.

- It was not compiled following proper USIC protocol.

- It was, by their own admission, an investigation designed to prove Russian meddling and hacking rather than an honest investigation into the event itself.

 

3) Now that we've established the DNI report itself was flawed in design and pushed onto the public by Brennan, Clapper, and the MSM in a dishonest and propagandizing way - what about the actual evidence offered in the report itself?

 

A new analysis was dropped this week by a collection of Intel vets working on behalf of the public - who signed their names and cited their sources and methods, more than the USIC has done to date. Their examination of the limited forensic evidence offered in the DNI report shows that the evidence itself was deliberately tampered with and that the story of hacking itself is impossible:

 

*edit: forgot the link: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

 

 

Re-read that again, and consider this evidence in conjunction with the rest of the "narrative" spun about this January 6th DNI report. What this report is saying is that the evidence offered to the American public by the DNI report was tampered with and altered to hide the presence of a leaker (not hacker) and an attempt was made to pin it all on Russia.

 

This is proven even further by the Vault 7 drops by Wikileaks this year which released the USIC's cyber weapon cache to the public. Chief among these tools are Umbrage (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikileaks-files-cia-umbrage-hacker-secret-spies-explained-countries-donald-trump-russia-a7618661.html) and Marbles (http://thehackernews.com/2017/03/cia-marble-framework.html) both of which are programs which make it possible to mask/fake ISP addresses.

 

The forensic analysis of the DNI documents show proof of these programs in action. Meaning, the USIC deliberatley altered the key evidence it presented to the American public as proof of Russian interference and hacking in the election.

 

In other words, they lied to the American public. What makes anyone of us so certain they're not still lying?

 

All of this leads me back to a question I've asked many in this thread and have yet to hear an answer to. If you honestly believe Russian Intelligence agencies launched a massively successful hacking/propaganda campaign that duped the public into voting for Trump - is it not possible that the USIC has the same capabilities and reach to wage an information war on their own people?

 

Because the final analysis of the DNI report shows a concerted effort on behalf of Brennan, Clapper, elements within the US MSM and Congress to mislead the American public and scare them into buying into the next "Big Bad" that the US MiC will need generous budgets to combat.

 

This isn't partisan. This is absolute evidence that the DNI report touted by many on here was intentionally crafted to mislead the American public into a false conclusion.

 

And those of you on the left who are so blinded by your desire to remove Trump and sink him with this story, I ask you to consider this article in its entirety first:

With New D.C. Policy Group, Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocon

 

It shows, once again, where the motivations for this narrative truly lie. It's not really about the DNC protecting it's party or Hillary making excuses. It's not really about protecting our "sacred institutions"... It seems to be about the continuation of regime change policies pushed by the neocon establishment which, with the help of this narrative, have now flipped to the left side of the aisle. A move that should outrage anyone who protested against W's wars in the desert.

 

Conclusion: We are in an information war. Up is not up and down is not down. Discernment is key. It's taken seven months for the MSM to admit the DNI report was flawed (at best). In that time, the narrative has been allowed to metastasize primarily by people flaunting the DNI report as proof.

 

What actual discernment and evidence shows is the Russian narrative has been concocted at worst, overblown at best, from the very beginning.

 

Stay frosty out there, people.

 

On 8/3/2017 at 10:41 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Stop running and focus on the issues I'm raising with the DNI.

 

The evidence that's been used to build this narrative by the MSM, pundits on the Hill, and multiple posters on this board who have been saying for months that the DNI report is all the evidence they need to know Russia meddled has been proven to have been altered before its release to the public. Not speculated to have been altered, forensically proven to have been altered.

 

That leaves two possibilities: Either the segment of the USIC who compiled the DNI were duped and are very bad at their job (doubtful), or those same officials were the ones who did the alterations in an effort to force a conclusion two weeks before Trump was even sworn in. The men responsible for this are the same men who so badly bungled the WMD question which lead directly to 16 years of endless war - not the same agencies, the same men.

 

Are you seriously just going to brush this evidence off? Have you learned nothing from the past decade and a half? Because so far your silence on this issue, along with many other posters on here who spent months saying I was wrong to point out the DNI was flawed, shows you only care about your partisan politics.

 

And that's shameful.

 

You're willing to overlook being lied to by the USIC, manipulated by the MSM, and lied to by your chosen politicians pushing this narrative because you don't like the GOP. That's not being a patriot. That's cutting your nose off to spite your face and assuring the continued slide of our democratic republic into an authoritarian oligarchy.

 

On 8/5/2017 at 3:08 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm all for evidence. Real evidence. I've got no loyalty to 45.

 

The problem, as I've been raising, is that so far there's been zero evidence to support the claim that the DNC was hacked by Russia. Do you have any you wish to share? I'll happily read any sources that make that case without couching their claims in unnamed sources citing unknown methods.

 

To your question: if DT just asked the Russians to hack the DNC and the Russians took no action would that be enough for me? No.

If DT colluded and payed the Russians to do so - and then the Russians actually hacked the DNC - then evidence of that fact would be enough for me. Absolutely.

 

The problem is, the only evidence offered to make that claim so far has been proven to have been inaccurate at best, and falsified at worst.

 

Here we are over a year into the investigation and we still have zero evidence that the DNC servers were hacked other than speculations by the USIC. Forensic examination of the "hacked" documents discussed in that report has proven that it would have been physically impossible for those documents to have been attained via a hack. The copy speeds are too fast to the point of breaking the known laws of physics:

 

"Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. "

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

 

"The use of a USB drive would suggest that the person first accessing the data could not have been a Russian hacker. In this case, the person who copied the files must have physically interacted with a computer that had access to what Guccifer 2.0 called the DNC files."

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/

 

Again, this is a report compiled by retired USIC cyber and counter-cyber officers. The same group of folks who got the WMD question right, and called out the MSM and USIC in real time for their blunders, back in the early 2000s. They have a track record of accuracy and men like Binney are legit national heroes - these aren't tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy guys throwing stuff against the wall. They were ignored by the public and the media in 2003. Will we repeat that same mistake? Unlike the DNI, and unlike every news story about the hacking claim, these men and women signed their names to the report and provided verifiable evidence of their claims.

 

Meaning you can verify their work. In every definition of the word, that's real evidence and what it shows is that we are being deceived about this story for some reason. Put your partisanship down just for a moment (please) and really think about what is being proven in these reports:

 

The only real evidence that's been offered to the public, the unclassified DNI pushed by Langley - was either poorly put together or intentionally deceitful. That's the real story of what's happening.

 

The rest of this is political theater that serves only to further muddy the waters for people interested in the truth.

 

On 9/5/2017 at 10:37 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Comey only appears to be an oddball choice if you don't look at his resume.

 

He's been up to his neck in corruption in the DOJ, Clinton Foundation, and HSBC. He's always been in the pockets of the deep state.

 

On 10/1/2017 at 8:25 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

The USIC did NOT make that conclusion with high probability. A small, hand picked task force, led by Clapper and Brennan (in violation of USIC protocol) SPECULATED (their words) it was POSSIBLE.

 

But the media narrative on this issue has always been spun and disingenuous. I suggest poking through the trump Russia thread to see evidence of what I said above.

 

I also suggest you read in full the DNI ICA you posted. It's been proven to be a bullshite report that doesn't say what you think it does. It was also complied with falsified evidence (either knowingly or unknowingly depending on how much slack you want to give proven perjurers and liars like Clapper and Brennan - both of whom have lied before congress on multiple occasions BEFORE this fiasco).

 

On 10/1/2017 at 1:06 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

The document you are citing is flawed and by its authors' own writing does not say what you think it says. Read the document, not the reports which cite the document.

 

The entire intelligence community DOES NOT and never has backed that report. That has been retracted by every outlet - seven months after the fact.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html

 

(I'm not trying to be pedantic or annoying, posting from the road so I can't dig up the links as easily. Will when I get back )

 

Edit 2: after getting back to my hotel I wrote a long edit to this post because you are new down here and I've spilled a lot of digital ink already on this topic. But it didn't post... I'll short hand it:

 

1) I'm not a republican and not a trump guy.

 

2) I have no doubt the Russians used or tried to use propaganda to tilt the election in a way they thought would benefit them. This isn't new. This isn't a serious threat to our country or our elections. It's something every nation does to friends and foes alike, including (especially) the United States of America. This line of thinking is a trap, designed to get us to give up more of our civil liberties in the name of "protecting" us from an "enemy". We gave up our right to privacy and due process in the name of fighting "terrorists", now this line of thinking is trying to get us to give up freedom of speech and the press by censoring content because we need to be protected from information. It's a trick.

 

3) I have serious doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. This was the basis of the DNI/ICA and was the story sold to the public before trump was even sworn in. Propaganda was never a real issue. The hacking of podestas emails was. And now it's been proven that the information and evidence presented in the DNI was falsified to mislead the public. The only piece of concrete evidence offered to the public so far by the USIC was deliberately altered to make their case. This has been proven forensically to be true. And just like the line "all 17 Intel agencies agree" is untrue, so is the foundation of the DNI/ICA.

 

4) Clapper and Brennan broke their own protocols in compiling the ICA. Which is proof they have an agenda.

 

5) Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - in collusion with elements within the MiC and USIC have clear motives to lie about this and all have lied under oath without consequence in the past. Why are they now paragons of truth?

 

6) None of this is meant to be combative. I'm not asking you to trust my word. I'm asking you to do your own digging and see for yourself that what I'm sayin is true. This isn't about politics. This isn't about trump. It's about the USIC and the MiC wanting to continue their agenda of regime change and perma war and they're creating a new "enemy" in order to get their way.

 

 

On 10/3/2017 at 2:11 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's all good. Your posts didn't come off that way at all to me. I was worried mine was because I was posting on the run and, as everyone here can vouch, am prone to long winded posts wherein my conversational tone/intent gets lost. This is such a politically charged topic that it's easy to misconstrue someone's intent and get sidetracked into partisan bickering. I'm certainly on the fringes of most who post here, but I myself am politically agnostic.

 

Still posting from the road, back at my home base soon, but I wanted to address what I could of your post:

 

 

It's much more than that because the ICA/DNI is NOT the product of four intel agencies, it's the product of a select group of hand picked officers from within those agencies. Why does that matter?

 

After 2003 and the WMD debacle, the intelligence failure was attributed (internally) to have been caused by too little information sharing between intel agencies. That limited information sharing led to a strong case of cognitive dissonance - which grew when there was pressure brought to bear by the White House who wanted to find a reason to go to war in Iraq. This is a mistake we are still paying for today, not just as a nation but as a global community.

 

In order to avoid such mistakes from being repeated, Clapper, Brennan and others in the USIC got together and rewrote the guidelines for investigations of this magnitude. Part of those new guidelines were mandates designed to prevent compartmentalized investigations. This was seen as a necessity to avoid any "political agendas from corrupting our internal investigations" (paraphrased from Clapper himself, testifying to Congress in 2012).

 

The DNI/ICA was not just published by four agencies, it was the work product of a group of under 40 officers - hand picked by Clapper and Brennan - and was not shared prior to its publication with the entirety of any single agency, let alone all 17. The hand picked teams, the way the ICA was compiled were both in direct violations of the guidelines Clapper and Brennan both wrote. This isn't speculation, it's confirmed by the ICA itself.

 

Any officer or analyst who had views DIFFERENT from the ICA's conclusion (a conclusion Brennan and Clapper ordered them to reach - again, the ICA does not hide this, it's spelled out in the document) were not allowed to contribute to the report OR to the media. That's exactly how the WMD debacle happened. And now we're witnessing a repeat of that.

 

Remember, the ONLY piece of evidence offered in the ICA revolves around the hacking of the DNC servers. The issue of propaganda and "fake news" bots were and remain secondary to the primary thrust of the ICA. The ICA's "smoking gun" was the information regarding the DNC hack which the report claimed was absolutely conclusive, without raising any reservations about the document (or the fact that none of the officers who compiled the report even saw the servers for themselves, instead they relied upon second hand information gathered by CrowdStrike - a private firm who has been made rich by their contracts with the DNC over the years). It was this story, the hack of the DNC, that made the "Russians meddled in our election" story BIG NEWS, not the presence of "fake news" bots.

 

The ICA/DNI came out in early January. Two weeks before 45 was sworn in. It was a report that was parroted not by Hillary Clinton, but by every pundit and talking head in the media for seven months. For seven months this document, which we now know contained falsified evidence, was allowed to metacisize in the public's mind for seven months before it was even challenged. The line "all 17 intel agencies agreed with its findings" is not just a little white lie, it's an outrageous misinterpretation of the document itself. The document itself made no bones about how it was compiled, everyone who read it could easily see it was the product of a select group, not the whole intel community, yet the media and talking heads reported it as fact anyway. Either they didn't read it (probable) or they were just following orders to push the agenda (remember, in 2012 the NDAA made it legal for the US Government and its intel agencies to publish propaganda in our own media - this was one of the first uses of that "new" ability).

 

What's NOT in dispute - by me or anyone in the intel community from what I've gathered - is that Russia used propaganda to try to cause chaos during our election process. That's what the intel community agrees upon - NOT the findings of the ICA/DNI which was built almost entirely around the "hacking" of the DNC servers.

 

So, saying the Intel community is in lockstep is true... about the propaganda... but it's 100% untrue about whether or not Russia succeeded in changing a single vote, swaying the election, and certainly they are not in agreement about the hacking of the DNC servers. That's why this situation is so complicated. Nothing is black and white. We are in an information war - not only with Russia, but with our OWN intelligence community.

 

 

 

No apologies necessary. It's complicated. And as stated above, a lot of those saying there is agreement within the community are talking about the propaganda - which is not at all the case the ICA/DNI is trying to make.

 

There is no agreement within the community about collusion (in fact, there are far more people within the USIC who think collusion is ridiculous with no evidence than there are who believe it). There is no agreement over Russian hacking anything with regards to the election. There's no agreement that WikiLeaks is a Russian intel cut out. And those, to me (and I think in reality to everyone) are the real issues that people are concerned about.

 

I still remain open to new evidence of any of the above. But so far the only actual evidence that's been given to the American public by the USIC was contained in the ICA and has since been shown to have been tampered with / impossible to be true.

 

I'll also point out that as of today, the NSA has less than 50% confidence that the Russians meddled. The NSA is part of the ICA report, being less than 50% confident in that findings shows that there isn't agreement on the issue within the NSA - let alone the other 3 agencies on the report or the other 12 agencies under the USIC umbrella. Of all the agencies, the NSA (who is tracking in real time all the internet traffic on the planet) would have the most evidence to support this conclusion.

 

Yet they're at 50%. Let that sink in as you go through the rest.

 

 

 

I'll post more when I get back to my home base but there are tons of links (credible to me and most) strewn throughout both the Deep State and Trump Russia threads. Look for the VIPs report as well as the YouTube lecture I linked from William Binney earlier in September.

 

I speculate wildly in the Deep State thread but try to not do that in other threads. Still, I've spent the past year and a half researching the intel community for a project I'm doing. Through that research I've been able to form relationships with dozens of officers in several agencies and branches of service. I'm just a random guy on the internet, so I don't expect that to pass for fact (nor would I want it to), but I will say anecdotally that within that group there are a dozen different (informed) opinions on this issue which to me says the men and women in the trenches of these agencies aren't unified.

 

It's just the talking heads and pundits who are pushing an agenda of perma-war who are seemingly in lockstep.

 

 

On 10/4/2017 at 8:14 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

IMO it's a mistake to politicize this further. The left/DNC/Hillary have clear agendas, yes. But it's the elements within the USIC who have deliberately pushed false information on the American public in an effort to shape opinions (incorrect opinions) which is the real concern. Don't let them off the hook here by only focusing on scoring partisan points. This isn't about left or right. It's about whether or not we want to live in a country where the will of the people can be undermined by a select few unelected Intelligence Officers.

 



 

That's the true threat to our republic.

 

On 10/7/2017 at 10:40 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

This is frankly untrue. What the VIPs memo and ensuing investigations prove, without a shadow of a doubt, is that the conclusion reached by the ICA is impossible. The VIPs findings have not been refuted, the only experts who attempted to do so did so with smoke and misdirection.

 

The ICA says plainly the meta data proves the DNC was hacked by Russian GRU assets. They did not say it was downloaded from an inside source, the document's conclusion is clear: the DNC was hacked, this meta data proves it. But the meta data in fact proves their conclusion is an outrageous lie at worst, a reflection of a haphazard investigation at best. This has not been refuted in any meaningful way by any expert.

 

The connection speed of the DNC servers is irrelevant when you consider the ICA makes it plain these GRU assets were doing everything they could to mask their identity. That means they're using proxy servers and masking signals. The top cyber intelligence officers in the world, the men and women who built our cyber defenses, have all said the download speeds in the metadata are beyond the realm of our known physics if the perpetrators were taking as much care to cover their tracks as the ICA claims they were. In other words, the ICA is lying to you.

 

Mind you, the "proof" the ICA cites in these documents is the fact the "hackers" used known Russian cyberwarfare tools to do the job. Step back and reexamine that statement in light of the document's other conclusions...

 

On one hand the ICA is telling us these are cyber masterminds who are covering their tracks to such an extent that the NSA's only piece of evidence is this metadata, yet the same cyber masterminds are so lazy they used a tool that would immediately be traced back to Russian state operatives.

 

You also must factor in the Vault 7 releases which included the CIA's cyberwarfare toolkit and playbook. The primary tool and program (marbles) used by the CIA is one which masks/alters the metadata and leave behind misleading digital fingerprints of other nation's cyber warefare divisions. This isn't speculation or conspiracy, it's verified documentation through Wikileaks's Vault 7 ( https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_14588467.html) and confirmed by both Langley and NSA.

 

So, that means the only evidence the ICA is presenting to the public is evidence we know they routinely manipulate to mislead investigations, and the conclusion the ICA draws from this scant evidence fundamentally violates the laws of physics.

 

None of this is in dispute. The only defense offered of these facts came from the Washington Post, and was parroted thereafter, who argued the DNC's connection speeds were more than fast enough to achieve the download speeds contained in the metadata. Of course, that's only relevant if we believe the "hackers" didn't attempt to hide their identity - which would mean that there would be mountains of evidence the NSA, FBI and CIA could release to the public that wouldn't compromise sources or methods.

 

 

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2003/08/judith_miller_duped.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part1/wmd.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/spies-lies-and-weapons-what-went-wrong/302878/

 

On 11/11/2017 at 11:11 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/10/cia-director-john-brennan-quit-mark-udall

 

https://www.today.com/news/ex-cia-director-michael-hayden-torture-report-i-didnt-lie-1D80349126

 

The three people who created the false "Russian hacked the election" narrative are all known and proven liars. 

 

But they're being forthright about this one... right, guys?!

 

On 11/27/2017 at 12:46 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I posed some of this in the Trump Russia thread but it's worth restating here... it's sure starting to look like it's possible Mueller's "fishing trip" has much less to do with Trump specifically as it does with corruption in general on K-Street.

 

This is still speculation (wild even) but there are a lot of signs that it's headed that way. A first clear sign is in how the media is covering Mueller. This past weekend/today in the MSM there has been a sudden shift to anti-Mueller stories, perhaps because they realize now (too late) where this investigation is and isn't going. The Washington Post, the LAT and Newsweek all just ran negative Mueller stories over the past few days... 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-might-be-the-one-whos-draining-the-swamp/2017/11/24/e1f11ae0-c40b-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?utm_term=.76a8cba2c615

 

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-aides-criticize-722670

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-record-20171122-story.html

 

Then of course there is this question, which has been bugging me since it went down and was the basis of my post in the Trump Russia thread:

 

Why would Trump meet with Mueller after Comey's firing and before the special counsel was announced? Mueller met with both White House officials and the DOJ in the interim period... why? The meeting with the DOJ makes sense, they were preparing to select him as special counsel... but why the White House? 

 

This is an important question to ask and do your own digging on. Reports at the time said it was because Mueller was on a "secret" short list to be the head of the FBI... which can't be the case considering Mueller cannot legally be considered for the position: 

 

NPR Quote:

President Barack Obama asked Mueller to continue to serve for two more years past the director's normal 10-year term, a move that required Congress to pass special legislation. Congress cited "the critical need for continuity and stability at the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the face of ongoing threats to the United States and leadership transitions at the Federal agencies charged with protecting national security."

   

That law stated that lawmakers had made a one-time exception and made it clear that Mueller "may not serve as Director after September 4, 2013."

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/09/532286723/special-counsel-robert-mueller-had-been-on-white-house-short-list-to-run-fbi?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170609 

 

Second source on the White House meeting:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337182-trump-considered-mueller-for-fbi-director-before-he-was-named-special

 

What could they have been discussing? 



 

Who else met with Trump under odd circumstances? 

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/22/502980006/reports-suggest-nsa-director-mike-rogers-is-on-his-way-out

 

Why is that timing significant?

How does that timing line up with the FISA warrants on Trump's team? 

How did the previous administration feel about MR? 

Why is that important?

 

... Oh, does anyone know what branch of service Mueller served in before he became an attorney? 

Who else served in that branch in the cabinet? 

Who was the only head of the IC Trump retained? What branch does he represent? 

 

The answers to those questions starts to paint a potentially very different picture of Mueller's investigation.

 

Bottom line is this: Something smells funny, things are not what they seem. 

 

I'm thinking this isn't going to break the way people are expecting:

 

On 11/27/2017 at 1:57 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I think you can make the case that something of substance has been found - otherwise the Podesta Group wouldn't have imploded. The lobbyists and the dirty foreign money are (possibly) being targeted - which would be a boon to the country regardless of your political affiliation (if it's true). 

 

It just hasn't produced anything of substance in terms of collusion between Trump and Russia. Yet. 

 

We'll find out soon enough. But I wouldn't say it's been a waste of money and time if the real target of the investigation has shifted to the K-Street rats.

 

On 11/29/2017 at 9:41 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

"White House Officials", that means Trump (there's also other sources out there that make it clear he was present - dig).  Even if you'd like to believe Trump wasn't present, who in the White House would Mueller be meeting with at that time, and for what purpose? Why would Mueller, who already knew he was being considered for the special prosecutors position at the time, risk ruining the objectivity of his upcoming investigation by meeting in private with the subjects of that investigation beforehand? 

 

Gotta walk it all the way through.

 

Notice neither sources make clear the fact that Mueller was legally prevented from taking the job, they instead say it was because Rosenstein named him special prosecutor thus his name was taken off the list. That's false. His name was never on the list because he legally could not be a candidate for the job. 

 

What did Mueller do in the service before he became a lawyer?

Who else on Trump's cabinet served in the same branch? 

Why is that important?

 



 

 

On 11/29/2017 at 10:09 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There are lots of Marines. It's a brotherhood that goes beyond most others in the service - especially Marine Corps officers... 

 

How many Marines were brought into Trump's cabinet under protest from various major media outlets?

Do any of those men have direct connections to Mueller?

Who was the only IC chief Trump retained?  

Did Trump have an unusual meeting with that person as well? 

Why would this be important in light of Mueller's work?

 

I'm posing these questions not to be pedantic or to evade your questions, but because I'm not trying to get bogged down in a debate where we both end up more entrenched than when we started. I'm all for conversation rather than argument. So, I'm trying to open minds to the possibility that things are not what they seem by asking questions which, when researched, provide a different context and allows you to form your own conclusions separate from my own. If it comes from me, and challenges your world view, it's easier to dismiss than if you come to the same conclusions yourself.

 

Because we haven't conversed much on here, allow me to recap my working theory for the past 18 months: There is a civil war going on behind the scenes within the intelligence community. We've seen that play out on the front pages for over a year (CIA vs DIA/Pentagon vs NSA vs FBI).

 

I'm suggesting with these questions that it's possible Mueller is targeting K-Street more-so than Trump, and that's been the plan from the beginning. That doesn't mean there won't be Trumpers swept up in the corruption probe (I expect both sides to pay a heavy toll), but it does mean that the main thrust of this investigation might not be Russian meddling or collusion. In other words, it's starting to look to me like this thing is not going to break the way people are expecting. 

 

I'm aware what I'm laying out here is speculation, but there's a lot of meat on that bone.  

 

On 12/1/2017 at 5:18 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Finally got the time to read the filing... 

 

After reading it and the plea deal specifically, I'm left wanting answers to a few questions:

 

1) Why would Flynn lie to the FBI on the 24th of January about a story that was already in the press (leaked) weeks before? Incompetence and idiocy can't be ruled out completely as humans do stupid things for inane reasons every day... but the fact he chose to lie about something that a) he knew wasn't illegal, and b) he knew was already leaked in the media always struck me as strange for a man with Flynn's counter intel background:

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/13/michael_flynn_called_the_russians_is_this_normal.html

https://apnews.com/ba462d64c12d4692b8381cb7076d34ab/ap-source-trump-aide-frequent-contact-russia-envoy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-obama-dawdle-on-russias-hacking/2017/01/12/75f878a0-d90c-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.21b2198dfd35

 

2) The Turkey of it all. The FARA issues with regards to Flynn's work with Turkey were some of the strongest violations Mueller had against Flynn, there's no reason to include it in this part of the deal they struck unless they agreed before hand Flynn wouldn't be penalized for it (the quid pro quo of it all). Compare his plea deal to the Popadopalous's plea deal and it's clear they hammered Papadopalous in comparison. By including the Turkey of it all in this deal, and Flynn pleading guilty to the lesser charge, he's now immune from not just all things Russian, but Turkish as well. There are additional speculations that can be drawn about this if you do some thinking back to the "coup" last year and Flynn's alleged role in that, but we'll set those aside for now and leave that for the Deep State thread wherein the Turkey coup was discussed and sourced at length.

 

Flynn now has immunity on all things Russia and Turkey, and most importantly, is required by the terms of his plea to turn over to Mueller and the FBI any and all information and evidence he has about any illegal activities - not just those related to Mueller's investigation. That gives Mueller the ability to shift his investigation in any number of unexpected ways depending on what evidence and what crimes Flynn is disclosing. 

 

This is why Flynn's previous job experience is important to keep in mind, as is the oath he took to hold that position.

 

Remember back (and dig into) the relationship Flynn had with the previous administration while serving in that post. What was the specific issue that lead to their falling out? Does that issue relate to the things we've seen unfold recently abroad? (*cough* KSA) 

 

Let that soak in before you dismiss it...

 

So now we have two key Mueller witnesses who leave us questioning what Mueller is really investigating: One witness was probably working as an asset for the investigation by wearing a wire - though he was instructed by the court not to have any contact with any Trump officials or transition team officials (so, who was he wearing a wire for?); and a second witness who is now legally compelled to turn over any evidence of any illegalities he knows of, whether it's related to Russian collusion or not.

 

Now, it's entirely possible that the information Flynn has to cut the deal is everything the Russian-gate folks have been hoping for - can't rule that out and won't until we know definitively. But it's also possible the information Flynn will give to Mueller has nothing to do whatsoever with Russian collusion, and is instead something else entirely. 

 

Which brings me back to my number one question above: why lie then to the FBI?

 

... Could a spy have been playing the long game?

 

Nah, that's not how spies think, or how they're trained, or how they problem solve.

 

Better link to all the indictments and pleas: https://www.justice.gov/sco

 

On 12/2/2017 at 11:30 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

Mueller Removed Top F.B.I. Agent Over Possible Anti-Trump Texts

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/politics/mueller-removed-top-fbi-agent-over-possible-anti-trump-texts.html

 

On 12/2/2017 at 12:16 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 



 

We are. This was January too... 

 

And for those who haven't tuned me out completely, I'll ask this rhetorically again: 

 

What did Flynn do professionally before joining Trump's team?

What specifically did Flynn and the previous administration have a falling out over? (Hint, Congressional Testimony)

Why is that relevant to the Russian-gate investigation and narrative? 

Which IC chief did Trump retain? 

Did Trump meet with that IC Chief in an unconventional way that made headlines?

Why is that important?

What was THAT IC Chief's relationship with the previous administration?

What specifically did that IC Chief and the previous administration have a falling out over? 

How does that relate to Flynn's falling out with the previous administration?

Who has everyone's secrets?

 

We are through the looking glass. And things are working out as Schumer warned... though it's possible it's not going to turn in the way he expected. 

 

 

 

On 12/2/2017 at 2:32 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And... none of this is illegal. In fact, it's pretty standard procedure. 

 

What was illegal was lying to the FBI about it. The act itself, legal. 

 

And Flynn knew it was legal when he lied. Which brings me back to the question(s) I posed a page or two ago. Why would a master spy, who had the right to refuse to answer the question knowingly lie about something he a) knew to be legal, and b) knew the press had already leaked two weeks earlier?

 

When you start digging into those questions your point of view might change about what these charges really are saying. They're not at all, in any way, talking about Russian collusion to win the election for Trump.

 

Important to read the source material for yourself before you read the hyperbole.

**************************

 

Hmm... wonder what they discussed? 

 

A key witness in the Russia probe had a 'lengthy conversation' with Trump at Mar-a-Lago

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-james-woolsey-mueller-mar-a-lago-2017-11

 

On 12/2/2017 at 3:24 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And... you can't make this stuff up:

 

In late July [2016], the F.B.I. opened an investigation into possible collusion between members of Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. Besides Mr. Comey and a small team of agents, officials said, only a dozen or so people at the F.B.I. knew about the investigation. Mr. Strzok, just days removed from the Clinton case, was selected to supervise it.

 

The Times also reported that Strzok relied on information provided to the FBI by Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was hired by an opposition research firm working for the Clinton campaign to investigate Trump’s Russia activities.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/02/fbi-agent-who-supervised-trump-russia-probe-reportedly-sent-anti-trump-text-messages/?utm_source=site-share

 

On 12/3/2017 at 6:26 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Long read warning!

 

Something interesting I found in relation to some of my earlier Flynn speculations:

 

Who is David Cattler and why is that relevant to Flynn's plea? 

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/02/white-house-national-security-advisor-announces-nsc-senior-staff-0

 

Cattler's position on the NSC senior staff was created by Flynn, one of two new deputy assistant positions he created within the NSC. This is important because Cattler was approved and granted TS/SCI clearance along with the other senior NSC staff hand picked by Flynn - this is actually a higher security clearance than he held in his previous (well decorated) positions within the USIC. It allows him access to see raw SIGINT without violating national security - something that was denied to many other Trump appointees in Jan/Feb: 

 

"In February, intelligence agencies denied a high-level security clearance to Robin Townley, an African affairs specialist and close aide to then-White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

 

The denial of the Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance, the high-level security clearance known as TS/SCI, was widely viewed as a bureaucratic power play by opponents of both Flynn and Townley inside intelligence agencies.

 

Angelo Codevilla, an intelligence expert, said the denial of clearances was engineered by the CIA and came despite Townley's holding of the high level clearance for many years when he worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

 

The clearance denial drove Townley out of the White House National Security Council staff.

 

(snip)

 

The TS/SCI clearance grants a holder access to special intelligence, such as information obtained from foreign recruited agents and electronic communications intelligence.

 

The clearance also can include signing extensive non-disclosure agreements."

Source: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-clearance-process-increasingly-politicized/

 

Cattler was hired February 2, 2017 - 11 days before Flynn would resign, less than a week after Flynn's interview with the FBI where he lied, and thirty two days after Flynn's phone call was leaked to the press (illegally since what was released was the raw SIGINT content of Flynn's phone call with the Ambassador). 

 

Flynn steps down February 13th. February 20th, McMaster is hired and he immediately begins reassigning Flynn's NSC senior staff and eliminating positions Flynn created, including Cattler's:

*************************************************

(From March 1st, 2017 - https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/mcmaster-national-security-council-staff-changes-235579 )

 

President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, is taking steps to streamline the National Security Council — starting by eliminating positions created by his short-lived predecessor Michael Flynn, according to two people familiar with the moves.

 

McMaster did away this week with two deputy assistant spots, one overseeing the NSC’s regional desks and another overseeing transnational issues, according to a senior White House aide.

*************************************************

 

Cattler was not fired, he was reassigned: 

 

*************************************************

Dave Cattler, who was named deputy assistant to the president for regional affairs, will return to the office of the Director of National Intelligence, where he worked during the Obama administration.

 

(snip)

 

“McMaster took a look at them and thought he didn’t need the extra layer,” the White House aide said of the two positions. “He wanted to go back to the way it had been prior.”

*****************************************************

 

Excluded from this article is the fact that Cattler returned to his former post while retaining his TS/SCI clearances, clearances he did not hold previously. 

 

The same article then goes on to add:

*****************************************************

 

Cattler and Hansell are generally well-regarded, according to a person familiar with the current NSC.

 

Cattler was a Flynn pick, the person said. According to his LinkedIn page, Cattler worked under the former NSC boss at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was forced out of the DIA in 2014.

 

According to the person familiar with the NSC, some career intelligence professionals regarded Cattler with suspicion because of his connection to Flynn, a vocal critic of the CIA and its tactics.

******************************************************

(The last few quotes all from the same source above: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/mcmaster-national-security-council-staff-changes-235579 )

 

Those of you paying close attention might already see where this is going...

 

Let's go back to earlier questions I asked about Flynn: 

 

(Abridged the first lengthy post for space purposes, click on the post to see it in full)

 

 

And with those questions in mind let's reexamine the entire Flynn timeline because it's important: 

 

December 28, 2016 - 44's administration sanctions Russia for Russian "meddling" and expels over 30 diplomats.

 

December 29, 2016 - Flynn, acting as a member of the transition team, called the Russian Ambassador Kislyak and asked him not to escalate the situation in response to 44's sanctions. This call was made on an open line, not a secured one. It's safe to assume Flynn, with his 33 year career as a spy, was aware that the call was being monitored and recorded by many different parties, including the USIC and FBI. 

 

January 12th, 2017 - David Ignatius of the Washington Post, relying on unnamed sources, reports the following and ignites a media firestorm:

"According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-obama-dawdle-on-russias-hacking/2017/01/12/75f878a0-d90c-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.00752efd0d54

 

January 15th, 2017 - Pence goes on Face the Nation and describes the Flynn Kislyak call as coincidental and not prompted by 44's sanctions the day prior. He bases this on a conversation Pence had with Flynn days before. The firestorm of speculations in the media intensifies, as pundits breathlessly write about just what might have been said in the call between Flynn and Kislyak. Pence is in the spotlight and dragged through the mud as op-eds claim he's covering for Flynn and Trump both. 

 

January 20th - 21st, 2017 - 45 sworn into office. Flynn's senior staff begins to get deployed and granted TS/SCI clearances while Trump immediately begins to fire swaths of people at both State and CIA, going as far as to give a speech at Langley wherein he joked about building a new entry way for the CIA "without any columns". Columns in intelligence speak is defined as such: any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. This is an incredibly audacious "joke" for a newly elected president to make while standing in front of the CIA's wall of honor.

 

During the same speech, well before he makes the "column" comments, 45 specifically calls out Flynn. This is significant because he's standing in Langley. Flynn was once head of DIA -  DIA and CIA do not get along and it was Flynn's clash with the CIA which lead to him losing his position under the previous administration. The subtext here is perhaps more than just Trump standing behind Flynn amidst the fire storm, it's more a "game on" statement:

 

The columns comment comes immediately after 45 "rambles" about "liking honest reporting" @ the 15:09:

"We'll get rid of the columns." The columns in this could possibly mean those in CIA and other USIC agencies who have been leaking classified intel damaging to the administration to the "dishonest" press. 

 

January 24th, 2017 - Flynn has his meeting with the FBI and lies about the contents of the call on the 29th. Flynn had the legal right not to answer the question, or even to take the meeting, yet rather than do that he knowingly lies to the FBI about a call which a) he knows to have been legal, and b) he knows the FBI has a complete transcript of already.

 

January 26th, 2017 - Sally Yates (per her congressional testimony in May) informs White House Counsel that Flynn is now vulnerable to Russian blackmail because he lied to the FBI and to Pence about the contents of the call. It's important to note here that Sally Yates did not have TS/SCI clearance and thus could not legally read the contents of Flynn's call unless Flynn's name had been unmasked and shared with her by 44's administration. Also note that Flynn was cleared of any illegalities with regards to the contents of the call itself - meaning, there was nothing illegal or treasonous in the transcripts for which Flynn could be charged. This is why he only got hit with Process Crimes. 

“We weren’t the only ones that knew all of this, that the Russians also knew about what General Flynn had done and the Russians also knew that General Flynn had misled the vice president and others,” Yates said. 

https://www.thewrap.com/sally-yates-says-told-white-house-michael-flynn-blackmailed-russians/amp/

 

February 2nd, 2017 - In the midst of a media firestorm and leaks causing the Administration headaches and twitter tantrums, Flynn who knows he's on borrowed time, creates a new deputy assistant position in the NSC senior staff and appoints Cattler to fill it. 

 

February 8th, 2017 - Flynn denies the story to the Washington Post, saying the topic of sanctions never came up on his call with Kislyak. This sets off another media firestorm.

 

February 9th, 2017 - Flynn then backtracks to the Washington Post, and through a spokesman said the topic "might have come up". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/10/just-how-much-trouble-is-michael-flynn-in/?utm_term=.2fdc1946409c

 

February 13th, 2017 - Flynn resigns, officially for lying to Pence and the FBI. 

 

February 20th 2017 - McMaster is hired as National Security Advisor and recycles Flynn's staff. McMaster eliminates the two new deputy positions Flynn created, transfering Cattler back to the office of the DNI, though he is now armed with TS/SCI clearance good for 12 months. 

 

 

Why is this timeline important?

 

Because by January 24th we know Flynn knew three things for certain:

1) His phone call to the Ambassador was not illegal, nor was discussing sanctions. 

2) His phone call to the Ambassador was being monitored and recorded. 

3) The administration was in the midst of trying to plug leaks of classified intelligence to the media by members of the USIC:

 

"It is the second consecutive day that Trump has been critical of leakers, a tirade that followed the resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn earlier this week. Perhaps seeking an avenue with which to go on the offensive amid the swirling controversy, Trump has kept his attacks focused on the means by which reporters have sourced stories harmful to his administration, not the substance of the stories themselves. He has especially aimed his bombast at the intelligence community, escalating his long-running feud by accusing its officials of delivering leaks to reporters."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-tweet-leakers-will-be-caught-235081

 

(More articles about Trump v the Leakers)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-leaks_us_589a45f1e4b04061313a1fbb

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-fbi-unable-to-stop-national-security-leakers-2017-2

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-loved-leaks-before-he-hated-them-8df720204c7b/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/16/donald_trump_has_changed_his_tune_on_leakers.html

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/05/25/intel-leakers-putting-hatred-trump-above-love-country.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/08/trump-rages-about-leakers-obama-quietly-prosecuted-them/?utm_term=.052b5a6c3797

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-hates-leaks-federal-whistleblowers-153550049.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-24/russia-meddled-in-american-election-trump-spy-chief-confirms

 

Now, it's entirely possible Flynn knowingly lied to the FBI about something he knew they'd know was a lie (and wasn't legally compelled to answer in the first place) because he didn't trust the FBI to keep his answer confidential. Had he answered yes, and the FBI leaked it, in that environment (which was even more hysterical than it is now) this news would have SUNK Trump's administration in Russian scandal to the point of crippling it less than two weeks after being sworn in. 45 might never recover from Flynn answering honestly about a conversation he knew was in no way illegal or treasonous. With that in mind, Flynn, being a patriot, fell on his sword to protect the administration from undue and unfair scrutiny...

 

Can't rule that out. 

 

But there's another possibility... 

 

It's also possible that a career master spook was doing something else entirely. That's where Cattler comes in and where this gets fun:

 

Cattler's career in the USIC is flawless. His specialty? Counter terrorism. He and Flynn go way back, but Cattler isn't a politician or a public figure or a department head who sits behind a desk and pushes paper. He's a field spook who specializes in finding terrorists using SIGINT and HUMINT. He's an expert at finding Terrorists who hide in population centers and build networks and cells in secret... Kind of like spies or people leaking classified intel to the media would do... 

 

I'm proposing that it's possible - if not likely - that Flynn brought on Cattler (and others) to hunt for the leakers inside the USIC feeding the media as well as to root out CIA corruption/influence in both the FBI and DOJ. Remember, National Security Advisor is not confirmed by the Senate, Flynn was an outsider who had just been torched by the outgoing administration at the time he was picked for the job - he was already a target before he took the job.

 

Flynn appointed Cattler at a period of time when he knew he had lied to the FBI and they had the proof. He knew that proof, which was classified TS/SCI intelligence, was being shared illegally with members of the media with the explicit purpose to undercut the incoming administration's ability to dictate its own foreign policy agendas. Flynn created a new position within the NSC senior staff to bring Cattler on, assuring he would get TS/SCI clearances above his existing clearances, which Cattler would then retain for the next 12 months even after his transfer out of the NSC.

 

This would allow the NSA (and other friendly agencies) to share raw SIGINT with Cattler even after Flynn's resignation without violating the law.

 

For those of you unaware, the raw SIGINT that would be most useful for someone hunting leakers would be the same SIGINT that would be useful to a terrorist hunter: cell phone records, conversations and all and all electronic communications - encrypted or not. 

 

Who holds the keys to that particular kingdom? 

 

(Drum roll please.....)

 



 

That's right. The person who holds the keys to that kingdom, the agency that knows everyone's secrets and has them on file, is the only USIC chief 45 retained...

 

Curious, isn't it? Why would Trump retain Rogers? You can start to answer that by remember what Rogers has in common with Flynn.

 

Both were Obama appointees who had serious falling outs with the administration. So much so that 44 warned 45 that both Flynn and Rogers should be viewed with caution. Dig into what specifically Flynn and Roger's clashes with the administration were all about and you (unsurprisingly) arrive at the same answer. (That's on you to dig for)

 

Immediately following the election, Rogers had an unscheduled meeting with Trump that outraged 44's administration and was painted in the press as Rogers "begging" to keep his job. https://www.npr.org/2016/11/22/502980006/reports-suggest-nsa-director-mike-rogers-is-on-his-way-out

 

Others, before me,  have speculated (with solid evidence to support their speculation) that Rogers was not there to beg for his job but instead there to warn Trump about leakers and the coup attempt by elements within the USIC. 

 

Which one is the truth? Perhaps both? Whatever was discussed, Rogers was retained as head of NSA and in that position he has the keys to the world, as well as everyone's email and phone conversations. Information he could share with men like Cattler once he got his TS/SCI clearance.

 

Information and intelligence that a master mole hunter can deploy to locate and oust leakers. 

 

To recap: Flynn brought counter intel spooks into the NSC (more than Cattler, look into the rest of his NSC staff picks. Nearly all of them are career spooks outside of the ones who are/were known media personalities), got them TS/SCI clearances which they retained after Flynn's resignation in order to assist the administration in tracking down the leaks coming from within the USIC. 

 

And they've been at work since February 13th... Has it worked?

 

Well... let's go back to this story which broke last week:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The initial reports attempted to paint Strzok as a middling level agent involved in the investigation. This is a lie. He was running the investigation into Clinton's emails and was heading up the FBI's Russia investigation before Mueller was hired as special prosecutor. After which he played a prominent role on Mueller's team.

 

Why specifically was Strzok reassigned off the investigation and into human resources (which is about as humiliating of a demotion a senior agent can get in the FBI)? 

 

"The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/politics/mueller-removed-top-fbi-agent-over-possible-anti-trump-texts.html

 

In other words, precisely the kind of raw SIGINT that the NSA collects on every one of us every day. Precisely the kind of SIGINT Flynn's spooks like Cattler were given clearances to see and analyze. 

 

But there's more... 

 

When was Strzok reassigned? 

 

"But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/politics/mueller-removed-top-fbi-agent-over-possible-anti-trump-texts.html

 

Yet, the Strzok news did not leak until after Flynn signed his plea deal. Why is this significant?

 

Remember back to the speculations revolving around Papadapoulos, he was arrested in July but: 

 

The next day, in the motion to seal the filings associated with his arrest, the office of the special counsel argued that “public disclosure of the defendant’s appearance” would “significantly undermine his ability to serve as a proactive cooperator.”

 

“I assume that means he wouldn’t be able to wear a wire and trick a target of the investigation into making incriminating statements, because his cooperation would then be known,” said Bruce Green, a former associate counsel in the Iran-Contra affair and a Fordham Law School professor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/what-did-george-papadopoulos-give-robert-mueller/544493/

 

Popodopoulos wasn't formerly incited until October because they did not want to expose to the world that he'd been caught and ruin his ability to gather intelligence for the special investigation. 

 

Why didn't the news of Strzok's reassignment leak until after Flynn signed his plea? Could it be because the Strzok texts were given to Mueller by Flynn's leak hunters and announcing that in July would have exposed Flynn's network? A network run by men like Cattler. 

 

ABSOLUTELY. 

 

And if that's true, now that Flynn has come in from the cold, it could mean that Strzok is just the beginning. We are perhaps about to see the results of the network Flynn deployed before resigning. 

 

This next week should be interesting... 

 

Addendum:

 

*This is an article about one of Flynn's DIA spooks... it's important to read in context with the above: 

 

There was one person, however, who McMaster couldn’t get rid of: Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence programs. McMaster tried to remove him in March, but President Trump, at the urging of Bannon and Jared Kushner, told McMaster that Cohen-Watnick was staying, as first reported by Politico. ... That Cohen-Watnick, 31 years old and largely unknown before entering the administration, has become unfireable reveals how important he has become to the Trump White House, where loyalty is prized.

 

31 year old unknown senior NSC position who's suddenly unfirable. What exactly was his position?


The senior in Cohen-Watnick’s title reflects the importance of his job, if not the level of experience he brings to it. The senior director for intelligence programs on the NSC is a powerful position, designed to coordinate and liaise between the U.S. intelligence community and the White House.

 

(snip)

 

The CIA has traditionally had control over who fills this position, and normally the job is staffed by a more experienced official. McMaster, assuming he’d be allowed to relieve or reassign Cohen-Watnick, had gone so far as to interviewCohen-Watnick’s potential replacement, Linda Weissgold, a veteran CIA officer.

 

CIA traditionally has control over who fills this spot - Flynn fills it instead with an unknown 31 year old from the DIA:

 

Despite his prominent, and apparently quite secure, position in Trump’s NSC, little is known about Cohen-Watnick, who had spent much of his short career as a low-ranking official at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Information about him in publicly available sources is scarce. Few higher-ups from the DIA remember him. Only one picture of him can be found online 

 

Sure sounds like the type of background you'd associate with a spook, not a suit, doesn't it? Notice how the article describes people going out of their way not to describe the man. Protecting an intelligence officer's identity is one of the most important national security secrets in existence. Perhaps that's the reason for the unusual behavior:

 

Unlike other White House officials who have become public figures in their own right, Cohen-Watnick never speaks for himself publicly, leaving others to fill the void. Yet he hardly comes into sharper focus when you talk to co-workers, friends, and former colleagues. Ask around about Ezra Cohen-Watnick, and people get defensive. Some profess not to know him, or ask why anyone would want to write about him. Others simply refuse to discuss him.

 

“I won’t talk to any journalist about Ezra,” said Michael Ledeen, a Flynn confidant who knows Cohen-Watnick well.

 

And here is where it gets potentially really interesting in context with the rest of this post:

 

Washington got its first real look at Cohen-Watnick when he was identified as one of two White House sources who provided House Intelligence chairman Devin Nunes with evidence that former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the “unmasking” of the names of Trump associates in intelligence documents. In the intelligence world, incidental collection refers to intelligence agencies obtaining, in the course of monitoring foreigners, communications that either refer to or involve Americans, whose names are typically “masked” unless officials request that they be “unmasked.”

 

The incident, coming in the aftermath of Trump baselessly accusing his predecessor of wiretapping Trump Tower, became one of the first dust-ups related to the investigations into possible Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign that have gripped the White House. The president later accused Rice of having committed a crime; for her part, Rice has denied that she ordered the unmasking for political purposes.

 

Again, if Cohen-Watnick is who this post suggests he is, and his job at DIA was in line with Cattler's and Flynn's (counter terror/counter intel), then it becomes conceivable that this whole Nunes / wire tapping tweets and hoopla was actually a trap being set by Flynn's network. The results of which might be about to break. 

 

For example: We know from Sally Yates own testimony that she knew for certain just two days after Flynn's FBI interview that he had lied about the call. The only way she could know such a thing with certainty was if she saw the transcript of the call - which legally could only be shown to a Yates if Flynn's name had been unmasked and Trump's team was under surveillance for Russian collusion. We also now know that at that time - January 26th - Strzok was the lead FBI agent running the investigation into Trump's team. 

 

It's possible Yates obtained this information illegally from a leak within the USIC - from a man like Strzok perhaps? 

 

Back to Cohen- Watnick...

 

Nunes had to step down from the investigation because of his role in this, but Cohen-Watnick?
 

Despite that early controversy, Cohen-Watnick retains one of the most consequential intelligence jobs in the nation, and his influence is rising.

 

Notice in the article there is mention of the central (and ongoing) rivalry between CIA and DIA. I point this out in relation to the larger context of everything we're discussing:

 

According to a former senior intelligence official, Cohen-Watnick later served overseas in Afghanistan at a CIA base. “He was embedded with the Agency guys,” said a person familiar with Cohen-Watnick’s career. “But the Agency guys were all like ‘!@#$ this guy, he’s just here to spy on us for Flynn and the DIA.’”

 

A White House official said that Cohen-Watnick did not know Flynn at the time he was in Afghanistan but did not dispute that there were “rivalries between CIA and DIA.”  

 

Now the best part in relation to the thesis of this post: 

 

Nunes claimed at one point that his source had been an intelligence official, not White House. Citing four U.S. officials, the Times later reported that his sources on the intelligence reports were Cohen-Watnick and Michael Ellis, a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office focused on national security. But the question of who cleared Nunes onto White House grounds, and why Cohen-Watnick was looking into the material, have never been fully answered.

 

I believe we are answering that question in this post. Cohen-Watnick was looking into unmasking material because he was part of Flynn's network deployed to root out leakers and politicization of the DOJ/FBI (ie CIA influence/compromised elements within those agencies). 

 

The Washington Post reported in April that days after McMaster’s effort to remove Cohen-Watnick, the CIA’s liaison to the White House was fired. The Guardian’s story on the firing cited sources describing it as an “act of retaliation” against the CIA for encouraging McMaster to sack Cohen-Watnick, a report unlikely to endear him to his colleagues.

 



 

The article really is worth the time to read and reflect on what I'm laying out above. Cohen-Watnick is basically outed in this article as being an unfirable DIA spook loyal Flynn, it's really incredible in hindsight: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/ezra-cohen-watnick/534615/

 

Addendum 2: 

 

This came out today, from the DOJ Office of the Inspector General and is more circumstantial evidence of the case I outlined above:

 

"The January 2017 statement issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announcing its review ofallegations regarding various actions of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in advance of the 2016 election stated that the OIG review would, among other things, consider whether certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations and that we also would include issues that might arise during the course of the review.

 

The OIG has been reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them."

- Justice Department Office of the Inspector General

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investigation/index.html

 

What that statement is saying in simpler terms: For the past 11 months the DOJ IG has been investigating the politicization within the DOJ and FBI and deciding if the action, or lack of action, was driven by the political ideology of the participants therein. 

 

What makes this noteworthy, and related to my above longer post, is that IG investigators don't usually talk about investigations when they're in the middle of them. They discuss them when they're wrapping up.

 

Which might explain the timing of the Strzok revelation (he flipped on others inside the FBI possibly). And it wouldn't surprise me to find out Flynn's network had a lot to do with it.

 

The results of this investigation could actually be quite major.

 

Here's the announcement of the investigation, almost 11 months ago - while Flynn was still National Security Advisor and filling out his staff / deploying his network: https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017-01-12.pdf 

 

 

 

On 12/4/2017 at 1:19 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

And... as an update: 

 

Strzok? Guess what he was doing January 24th... he was running the interview with Michael Flynn: 

 

"A supervisory special agent who is now under scrutiny after being removed from Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office for alleged bias against President Trump also oversaw the bureau’s interviews of embattled former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, this reporter has learned. Flynn recently pled guilty to one-count of lying to the FBI last week."

 

Telling ya'll. There's spy v spy stuff happening here that the media is WAY behind on.

https://saraacarter.com/2017/12/04/fbi-supervisor-removed-from-special-counsels-office-had-interviewed-michael-flynn/

 

On 12/4/2017 at 1:24 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And... Strzok supervised the Clinton "interview" re her emails: 

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary R. Clinton Part 02 of 16/view

 

 

There's MUCH more here (just the first 40 pages here - not including the Trump/Russia and Deep State threads which also have tons of information). Let me know if you have questions (I'm sure you will). 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Here's the headline that those docs are revealing: Nellie never stopped working for CIA while working for Fusion GPS. 

 

Ask yourself why that matters.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Yup

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

But... Shhh. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Someone has given the greenlight to members on the Hill to release the testimony/transcripts of the SpyGate plotters. 

 

That is more confirmation we're in the eleventh hour of this thing.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Would be great to see Weismman and others on his team get called in for a meeting only to find out they've been indicted.  

[snafu]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Someone has given the greenlight to members on the Hill to release the testimony/transcripts of the SpyGate plotters. 

 

That is more confirmation we're in the eleventh hour of this thing.

 

When is Horowitz supposed to make his report?

Maybe it has to do with that, as well?

Do you think it matters that this is a Senate transcript, and not a House transcript?

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, snafu said:

 

When is Horowitz supposed to make his report?

Maybe it has to do with that, as well?

Do you think it matters that this is a Senate transcript, and not a House transcript?

 

I've been told by people in the loop that Horowitz can't/won't release his report until after Mueller's. Which makes sense if they're coordinating their releases for maximum impact.

 

Best guess: Mueller's report will exonerate Trump of collusion/conspiracy while laying open the FISA abuse questions for Horowitz to expand upon in his report. Then Barr moves in with indictments based on both - and half the country loses its mind when they realize how badly they've been misled for two+ years on this topic by politicians and media pundits alike.

 

I'd like to see the House transcript as well, but with the left in charge of those releases we won't see it unless it's leaked. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

268 pages.

Question... is he allowed to do this? I mean he did it, but isn't this considered leaking? 

And just skimming it very, very quickly... I think there is a reason Ohr is still employed.  

Mr. Ohr. I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected. So, yes, of course, I provided that to the FBI.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes. And so were the Department of Justice and THE FBI also aware of Glenn Simpson's bias against Donald Trump? Mr. Ohr. I certainly told the FBI that Fusion GPS was working with -- doing opposition research on Donald Trump.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So, again, so the record is clear, what the Department of Justice and the FBI was aware of prior to the first FISA application was your relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, your wife's relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, Mr. Steele's bias against Donald Trump, Mr. Simpson's bias against Donald Trump, your wife's compensation for work for Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, correct?

Mr. Ohr. Right. So just, again, to reiterate, when I spoke with the FBI, I told them my wife was working for Fusion GPS. I told them Fusion GPS was doing research on Donald Trump.  You know, I don't know if I used the term opposition research, but certainly that was my -- what I tried to convey to them. I told them this is the information I had gotten from Chris Steele. At some point, and I don't remember exactly when, I don't think it was the first conversation, I told them that Chris Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected. So those are all facts that I provided to the FBI.

</snip>

Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Ohr, the reason I hesitated before is I don't want to start, my time is about to expire and I want to start a new topic. I'll leave it for the next hour. But it relates to your interviews with the FBI. And just so that I'm clear and can be thinking about this, it's my understanding -- I have seen that you sat down with the FBI on 12 different occasions, or I have seen 302s that relate to 12 different interviews that you gave between November 22 of 2016 and May 15 of 2017. My only question for you right now is, did you have interviews with the FBI regarding these matters after May 15 of 2017.

[Cinga]

11 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

We have our positions. One thing that makes me really happy is what you mention above about him. He is untangling our military from unwinnable wars. Two years in, he’s he most peace-focused president in a long time. 

There is no such thing as an "unwinnable war" Those are only wars we don't chose to go all in and kick ass... I've said it before, take the shackles off our men and women in uniform, keep the media away, and neither conflict we are in should have lasted more than 3 to 6 months.

Patton once said, "War is hell, and it's supposed to be. Otherwise, we might grow rather fond of it." 

Washington by their idiotic restraints, have grown rather fond of it.... 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Cinga

[DC Tom]

47 minutes ago, Cinga said:

There is no such thing as an "unwinnable war" Those are only wars we don't chose to go all in and kick ass... I've said it before, take the shackles off our men and women in uniform, keep the media away, and neither conflict we are in should have lasted more than 3 to 6 months.

Patton once said, "War is hell, and it's supposed to be. Otherwise, we might grow rather fond of it." 

Washington by their idiotic restraints, have grown rather fond of it.... 

 

Lee, actually.  "It is well that war is terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."  

 

William T. Sherman said "War is hell."  Patton is never cited as saying either.

[Buffalo_Gal]

(thread)  it is unrolled ---> here  This may overlap to some of  @Deranged Rhino 's  woo-woo Q stuff. ? 
 

 

[Foxx]

14 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Would be great to see Weismman and others on his team get called in for a meeting only to find out they've been indicted.  

no, 'act' today, though?

[Buffalo_Gal]

He's already testified before Congress twice, and for Mueller.  Not only is this "get Trump", but isolate Trump, and make anyone who works for him in any capacity "pay" so that no one will work for the Trump administration in the future.

I guess Nadler got his moment, but pound sand seems to be the response.

 

(video) at link
 

</snip>

After enduring six-figure legal costs that I was only able to pay with GoFundMe donations from 8,500 people – no big donor aid, no campaign help, no Patriot Fund assistance – I am reticent to stand alone in defiance of the committee and rack up far more legal bills. But I might, if others among the 81 join me.
 

This charade has gone on long enough. Somebody has to be the first to take a stand. For the sake of my family – for 81 families – it might as well be me.

[row_33]

So what does the Mueller Report say?

 

it was released yesterday, right?

 

 

[3rdnlng]

44 minutes ago, row_33 said:

So what does the Mueller Report say?

 

it was released yesterday, right?

 

 

No.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

No.

 

Oh, I thought it was coming out Friday, media reported innuendo as pure fact again.

 

 

[Cinga]

15 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Lee, actually.  "It is well that war is terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."  

 

William T. Sherman said "War is hell."  Patton is never cited as saying either.

thanks for the correction, but the point still stands

[Buffalo_Gal]

38 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Oh, I thought it was coming out Friday, media reported innuendo as pure fact again.

 

 

My guess would be the 26th as that is the day Amazon has scheduled for it to be published and sold (WaPo has their own version coming out that day too).

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

So what does the Mueller Report say?

 

it was released yesterday, right?

 

 

 

Mueller called everyone back to make their final reports to him yesterday (SOP for the end of these sorts of investigations). 

 

No indictments came (sorry those hoping Don Jr was going to be indicted). 

 

Report will be submitted to Barr within the next week or two - Barr will release his report on the Mueller report some time after that. 

[Cinga]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

He's already testified before Congress twice, and for Mueller.  Not only is this "get Trump", but isolate Trump, and make anyone who works for him in any capacity "pay" so that no one will work for the Trump administration in the future.

I guess Nadler got his moment, but pound sand seems to be the response.

 

(video) at link
 

</snip>

After enduring six-figure legal costs that I was only able to pay with GoFundMe donations from 8,500 people – no big donor aid, no campaign help, no Patriot Fund assistance – I am reticent to stand alone in defiance of the committee and rack up far more legal bills. But I might, if others among the 81 join me.
 

This charade has gone on long enough. Somebody has to be the first to take a stand. For the sake of my family – for 81 families – it might as well be me.

Agreed, most of these folks have already been under the gun the last 2 years, when is enough enough? But I would find if Nadler gives Assange immunity to testify, I want a front row seat!

[keepthefaith]

51 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Oh, I thought it was coming out Friday, media reported innuendo as pure fact again.

 

 

 

They did say Friday but they didn't say which week. 

[Foxx]

51 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

My guess would be the 26th as that is the day Amazon has scheduled for it to be published and sold (WaPo has their own version coming out that day too).

i would think it would have to be issued before then. Barr gets it and then decides what to do with it, so he would need time to digest it before releasing it to the wilds, i would think.

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Report will be submitted to Barr within the next week or two - Barr will release his report on the Mueller report some time after that. 

 

Reports on the contents of other reports... I love bureaucracy!