The Cabal; the Weaponization of Government - deel VI

quote:

Op donderdag 20 juni 2019 13:52 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Je moet eerst de corrupte mensen die nog macht hebben zuiceren. Anders zullen ze op Comeysiaanse wijze iedereen immuniteit geven zonder tegenprestatie.

quote:

Op donderdag 20 juni 2019 14:03 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

En hoe zuiver je die mensen?

quote:

Op donderdag 20 juni 2019 14:25 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:

[..]

Zorgen dat je bewijzen hebt en dan vanaf onderaan beginnen en dan zorgen dat ze bewijslast leveren voor de grotere vissen.
BV die zanger die opgepakt was uit haiti die veel geld aan obama doneerde.
Of zoals page en strzok en waar nu de groep brennan en clapper etc aan de beurt zijn en daarna komen dan clinton en obama wel

quote:

Op donderdag 20 juni 2019 14:29 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Maar zit die Deep State niet zo diep dat ze daar niet al lang aan gedacht hebben? Hoe weet je zeker dat Trump niet van de Deep State is en alleen maar een rookgordijn creëert?

quote:

Suspicions grew as Comey started referring to CrowdStrike as the “pros that they hired.” Doubts became more intense when he referred to CrowdStrike as “a high-class entity.” In fact the company had a tarnished reputation for reliability and objectivity well before it was hired by the DNC.

Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. CrowdStrike said it determined that Russia had hacked the DNC server because it found Cyrillic letters in the metadata, as well as the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief—clues an amateur might leave.

quote:

A court unsealed more than 50 pages of texts that show Manafort was scared and defiant and did not think special counsel Robert Mueller would cut a cooperation deal with him because Manafort wouldn't give up Trump or his family.

"They would want me to give up DT or family, esp JK. I would never do that," Manafort texted.

Hannity replied, saying, "Understand. There is nothing to give up on DT. What did JK do?"

Manafort wrote: "Nothin, just like i did nothing. They will want me to make up s--- on both."

quote:

Manafort told Sean Hannity in texts he would never give up Trump or Kushner

(CNN)Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would never give up information on President Donald Trump or senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, according to newly unsealed texts between the two men in 2017 and 2018.

quote:

het grootste (politieke) schandaal uit de geschiedenis van de Verenigde Staten.

quote:

Op donderdag 27 juni 2019 15:35 schreef dellipder het volgende:

[..]

In de tussentijd neem je het op een goede manier waar. Prima berichten met een zekere uitleg, bewegend beeld en politiek-correcte referentie. Precies de substantie die nodig is om de verschillende facetten van deze saga inzichtelijk te maken.

quote:

Russian oligarch's story could spell trouble for Team Mueller

Sometimes it is the quiet, elusive ones who come back to haunt you. And for ex-special prosecutor Robert Mueller, one of those might be a Russian billionaire named Oleg Deripaska.

The oligarch who once controlled Russia’s largest aluminum empire has been an international man of intrigue in the now-completed and disproven Trump collusion investigation.

Deripaska was a disaffected former business client of Donald Trump’s fallen campaign chairman Paul Manafort. He also was a legal research client of Trump-hating, Clinton-aiding British spy Christopher Steele. In his spare time, he was an occasional friendly cooperator with the FBI and its fired deputy director, Andrew McCabe.

And, at the height of the Russia collusion hysteria, Deripaska was sanctioned by the Trump administration to financially punish Russian President Vladimir Putin for his meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

With the Russia case, in which he had so many connections, now completed, Deripaska is breaking his silence. And what he has to say could impact Mueller’s July 17 testimony before Congress.

In a wide-ranging interview with me, Deripaska confirmed a story told to me more than a year ago by law enforcement sources: He was indeed interviewed by FBI agents in September 2016 during the early Russia probe, and he told them he strongly doubted the bureau’s theory that the Trump campaign, through Manafort, was colluding with Moscow to hijack the 2016 election.

“I told them straightforward, ‘Look, I am not a friend with him [Manafort]. Apparently not, because I started a court case [against him] six or nine months before … . But since I’m Russian I would be very surprised that anyone from Russia would try to approach him for any reason, and wouldn’t come and ask me my opinion,' ” he said, recounting exactly what he says he told the FBI agents that day.

“I told them straightforward, I just don’t believe that he would represent any Russian interest. And knowing what he’s doing on Ukraine for the last, what, seven or eight years.”

OK, so why should you care if a Russian denied Trump campaign collusion with Russia during the election?

First, Deripaska wasn’t just any Russian. He was closely aligned with Putin and had been helpful to the FBI as far back as 2009. So he had earned some trust with the agents.

Most importantly, Deripaska’s interview with the FBI reportedly was never provided by Team Mueller to Manafort’s lawyers, even though it was potential proof of innocence, according to Manafort defense lawyer Kevin Downing. Manafort, initially investigated for collusion, was convicted on tax and lobbying violations unrelated to the Russia case.

That omission opens a possible door for appeal for what is known as a Brady violation, for hiding exculpatory information from a defendant.

“Recent revelations by The Hill prove that the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) claim that they had a legitimate basis to include Paul Manafort in an investigation of potential collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government is false,” Downing told me. “The failure to disclose this information to Manafort, the courts, or the public reaffirms that the OSC did not have a legitimate basis to investigate Manafort, and may prove that the OSC had no legitimate basis to investigate potential collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government.”

Deripaska’s second relevance to Mueller’s congressional hearings has to do with a series of events that first gained him trust inside the FBI.

Deripaska confirmed a story I reported last year from FBI sources that he spent more than $20 million of his own money between 2009 and 2011 on a private rescue operation to free Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent captured in Iran in 2007 while on a CIA mission.

Deripaska confirmed he paid for the operation at the request of the FBI, which was then under Mueller’s direction. And he added that McCabe, then a rising FBI supervisor who was a former colleague of Levinson and later became a key figure in the Russia collusion probe, was one of those who asked him to help.

“I was approached, you know, by someone that he is under a lot of scrutiny now — McCabe,” Deripaska said. “He also said that it was important enough for all of them [FBI officials]. And I kind of trusted them.”

Deripaska said his privately funded rescue team came very close to a deal with the Iranian captors to secure Levinson’s release but he was told by his FBI handlers that the deal ran into difficulties at Hillary Clinton’s State Department and was scuttled. “I heard that some Russian ‘hand,’ or whatever you call people who are expert on the Russians at the State Department, [said], ‘We just don’t want to owe anything to this guy,’ ” Deripaska told me, adding that he never expected any U.S. favors for his personal efforts to free Levinson.

Asked if he thought the former FBI agent is alive, some dozen years later, Deripaska answered: “I don’t think so.” He pointed out that if Levinson had been alive, he likely would have come home in 2016, after the Obama administration struck a nuclear deal with Iran.

Deripaska said he is continuing to investigate what really happened at State with Levinson, as he tries to fight the sanctions levied against him in 2018. His company, Rusal, has been removed from the sanctions list.

Deripaska’s tale has the potential to raise questions about a conflict of interest, since Mueller’s FBI first received a gift in the form of the privately funded rescue mission before Mueller, as special prosecutor, investigated Deripaska’s ties to key figures in the Russia case.

And Deripaska’s complicated tale goes on: His legal team in 2012 hired Steele, the former British MI6 agent, to do some research for a lawsuit involving a business rival that Deripaska was fighting in London: “It was a research project to support what was the case against me in London. But my understanding is that the lawyers trusted him for some reason, and he was for quite a time on retainer.”

Deripaska was unaware, though, that Steele also was working for the FBI on, among other things, a special program to recruit Russian oligarchs to provide intelligence on Putin and Russian organized crime.

He told me that Steele invited him to a September 2015 meeting with some Justice Department officials, under the guise that they might be able to help with the Russian’s long-running battle with State to get visas to visit the U.S. He said the offer to help with his visa problem was a “pretext” to recruit him.

“They actually never talk, you know, about the [visa] problem. They start talking about anything else. They ask, ‘Do you have anything? Give me names. Cases, whatever,’ ” Deripaska recalled.

He said he later was shocked to learn that Steele eventually went to work for the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS, and the FBI, and spread allegations of the now-disproven Russia-Trump collusion.

Deripaska’s willingness to do an American interview at this moment undoubtedly has a motive. It’s likely rooted in an American charm offensive, as he sues not only to reverse the sanctions that Trump imposed on him but to challenge the State Department’s 15-year effort to keep him from getting normal visas.

He recently won a lawsuit and forced State to produce the so-called evidence it used to justify denying him a visa for years and imposing the sanctions. It was a thinly sourced file, he said, mostly of old newspaper articles with no real secret intelligence.

So I asked him about the most common allegation levied by his detractors at State — that, earlier in his life while consolidating power in the aluminum industry, he had ties to Russian mobsters and may have killed or encouraged killing critics.

He quickly responded, noting that the file released by the courts offered no such direct proof: “There is no evidence. What is there to dispute? Do you believe that I could kill someone 25 years ago and there will be no victims, no corpses, no names?”

Throughout the interview, it was clear Deripaska chose his words in English carefully. But there was one word he offered only twice — once in response to the Steele dossier’s allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, and the other time to respond to the allegations used to sanction him. “Balderdash,” he insisted.

Now it’s time for Team Mueller to answer the same questions.

quote:

US investigators reportedly wiretapped Paul Manafort before and after the election

US investigators obtained a warrant to wiretap former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort before and after the election, CNN reported Monday night.
The revelation marks a potentially significant development in the ongoing probe into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

Some of the information gleaned from the surveillance prompted concerns that Manafort had encouraged Russians to "help with the campaign," CNN reported, citing three unnamed sources.

Investigators last year obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to conduct surveillance on Manafort, which continued through early 2017.

Former FBI agent Asha Rangappa, who served in the bureau's counterintelligence division, explained earlier this year the FBI can request and be granted a warrant to monitor a US person from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "if they can show probable cause that the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' who is 'knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.'"

"In other words," Rangappa added, "the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization."

Manafort was previously surveilled under a separate FISA authorization that began in 2014, due to scrutiny over his lobbying work on behalf of the pro-Russia Party of Regions in Ukraine and his business dealings with Russian entities. That surveillance ended due to a lack of evidence, according to CNN, but was later restarted under the new warrant that extended into 2017.

Information obtained from the newly discovered FISA warrant was shared with Mueller's team, CNN said.

The government eavesdropping apparently included a period earlier this year when Manafort was "known to talk" to President Donald Trump. The president sparked weeks of speculation in March when he accused former President Barack Obama of having his "wires tapped" in Trump Tower. Trump's own Justice Department, however, has said there is no evidence to support Trump's claim.

Manafort was forced to register as a foreign agent in April.

quote:

Op dinsdag 9 juli 2019 10:07 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
Interessant artikel van Aaron Maté over leugens en onzin over Russische inmenging in de Amerikaanse verkiezingen in het Mueller-report;

https://www.realclearinve(...)meddling_claims.html

Hier bespreekt hij dit met Jimmy Dore:

Mueller Repeatedly Contradicts Himself & Undermines Russiagate

(Zowel Maté als Dore zijn 'progressives' en fervent anti-Trumpers)

quote:

Op dinsdag 9 juli 2019 15:58 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:

[..]

Lol had niet gezien dat jij m ook al had gepost:)
Zat het gisteren te kijken en alles wordt vrij duidelijk en simpel uitgelegd en ook goed laat men delen uit het rapport zelf zien , waar men het uit legt.
Hun zijn imo normaal links, waar het van lijkt alsof er die nog maar heel weinig zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 9 juli 2019 16:34 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

Nou, Jimmy Dore en zijn vaste gasten zijn wel Bernie-aanhangers hoor. Ik denk dat ze naar Nederlandse begrippen SP-ers zouden zijn, recht-toe-recht-aan sociaaldemocraten.

Maar Dore is goed in zaken bij de kern pakken en dan in begrijpelijke taal aan de kijkers voorschotelen. Helemaal mooi vind ik het dat Dore en zijn gasten over het algemeen een duidelijke mening hebben, maar de waarheid nooit uit de weg gaan als die politiek onwelvallig is. Zo vinden ze Trump een eikel, maar noemen ze CNN en MSNBC ook fake news en vanaf het begin af aan vertelden ze dat de Russia Collusion een leugen was. Verder verdedigen ze Julian Assange, non-interventie etc. Grappig ook om te zien dat ze al een paar keer positief berichtten over Tucker Carlson en dat deze gewoon op tv zijn echte mening mag verkondigen en duidelijk een anti-oorlogsstandpunt inneemt.

quote:

Op donderdag 11 juli 2019 15:27 schreef dellipder het volgende:

[..]

Dit mag nog wel eens benadrukt worden dat een federale rechter stelt dat de suggestie die door de special counsel werd gedaan dat de IRA haar acties uit naam van de Russische overheid deed niet bewezen is.
De aanklacht zelf linkt de IRA niet aan de Russsische overheid.

En de hack van de DNC-servers is ook niet bewezen. Crowdstrike, een totaal partijdige partij, deed de analyse en gaf een redacted rapport aan de FBI die dit als waarheid overnam.
Onvoorstelbaar dat er mensen het narratief Russia collusion geloofden, terwijl dit van meet af aan grote BS was.

Het verhoor van Robert Mueller aanstaande 17 juli wordt overigens een epic backfire.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juli 2019 13:26 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
2dellipder; poeh, da's behoorlijk wat leesvoer. Ik heb hier in de NL media dus echt helemaal niks over vernomen. Die Imran Awan-affaire kan dus ook nog eens een flinke overlap hebben in de HRC e-mail affaire.

De Democraten hebben nu weer iets nieuws verzonnen om de Trump-regering in de wielen te rijden:

House Oversight hearing on Hatch Act violations by Kellyanne Conway

https://www.vox.com/polic(...)-act-special-counsel

Kellyann Conway zou de Hatch Act overtreden omdat ze als ambtenaar meewerkt aan politieke campagnes?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juli 2019 16:39 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:

Dit kan ook wel eens heel interessant worden:)
https://theconservativetr(...)-not-a-russian-hack/

quote:

REGG JARRETT (GUEST HOST): The number one question I would ask, Joe, is, "Mr. Mueller, the day before you were appointed Special Counsel, you were sitting in the Oval Office with the president, and isn't it true he told you his reasons for firing James Comey? Which makes you a witness in your own prosecutorial case, which you cannot do under any circumstances?" I'd love to hear the answer to that one.

JOE DIGENOVA: Yes, and the other thing is, remember something very interesting, it hasn't been written about, occurred. Bob Mueller went into that meeting with Rod Rosenstein, and it was just the three of them in the Oval Office, and Bob Mueller had a telephone with him, a cell phone.

He left that cell phone in the Oval Office after the meeting, and it is now believed by many people that the cell phone was used to broadcast the meeting between the president, Rod Rosenstein and Bob Mueller, back to FBI headquarters, where they recorded the conversation with the president.

Now why would you leave your phone in the president's office, after a meeting? It was to continue to record what happened after they left.

VICTORIA TOENSING: How did he get in there with a phone? We always have ours taken out.

DIGENOVA: That's right.

TOENSING: You have to put them in a locker, so something's fishy right there.