The Cabal; the Weaponization of Government - deel x

quote:

Op vrijdag 14 augustus 2020 08:47 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

"...We caught them."

quote:

Op vrijdag 14 augustus 2020 15:05 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Was ook niet de mijne. Had ik erbij moeten zetten.

quote:

Op vrijdag 14 augustus 2020 15:21 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

Je had ook ook enigszins neutrale opsomming van feiten en claims kunnen weergeven, aangevuld met je eigen kijk hier op. Ben benieuwd of je ooit al eens serieus gekeken hebt naar @:dellipder ‘s uitgebreide epistels met diverse bronverwijzingen etc. In plaats daarvan roep je af en toe wat trollerige oneliners en daar blijft het bij. Iemand die ook maar een beetje op de hoogte is van de tot nu toe bekende feiten en achtergronden achter de poging van eerst HRC/DNC en later Obama administration en diens veiligheidsdiensten om Trump bewust op valse gronden ten val te brengen, zal moeten oordelen dat dit een schandaal van ongekende proporties is.

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 augustus 2020 12:44 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

To be fair, als je de laatste post maakt moet je het nieuwe topic aanmaken toch? Volgens mij hoef je dan niet per sé een korte roman te schrijven. De vorige OP gaat helemaal automagisch mee.

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 augustus 2020 15:32 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

Blijkbaar niet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 augustus 2020 16:48 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Een inleidende OP zou inderdaad leuk zijn maar de OP van het vorige deel is toch echt hetzelfde.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 augustus 2020 08:32 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

Democrats Push Post Office Scandal To CHEAT The Election Against Trump And Here's The Proof

Het stemmen per post is het huidige DNC plot om de verkiezingen naar de hand te zetten, zodat het koppel seniele opa en een nog groter kutwijf dan Hillary te verkiezen. Tim Poole legt het uit.

quote:

Newly Declassified FBI Materials Demonstrate Clear Double Standard for Clinton, Trump Campaigns
After threats posed by foreign governments, FBI HQ sought defensive briefing for Clinton campaign, opened counterintelligence investigation of Trump campaign

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today released newly declassified FBI documents and communications demonstrating the Bureau’s double standard when it came to the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

According to these declassified documents and communications, in 2015 FBI leadership sought to give the Clinton campaign a defensive briefing before an FBI field office could pursue a FISA warrant related to a threat posed to the Clinton campaign by a foreign government. But in 2016 when there was a similar counterintelligence threat to the Trump campaign, FBI leadership failed to give a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign, opting instead to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and relentlessly pursue FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign.

[...]

quote:

Op vrijdag 8 mei 2020 15:50 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Overigens was er destijds een hardnekkig narratief in de media dat special counsel Robert Mueller "nooit echt collusion" heeft onderzocht, omdat het geen echt misdrijf is. De scope memo van 2 augustus 2017, afkomstig van het Mueller-team en ondertekend door toenmalig acting AG Rod Rosenstein zegt in zwart, wit en rood onderstreept nadrukkelijk iets anders; aka dit narratief is #FakeNews.



Vanaf dag 1 is dit een groot debacle geweest.

quote:

Op maandag 20 april 2020 14:19 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Bij veel zaken is context belangrijk. De Russia collusion delusion hoax en het debacle van het Steele dossier werden niet gebruikt tijdens de verkiezingen. Er werden wat zaadjes geplant tijdens de campagne door wat media-artikelen en interviews, maar het opjutten en de hysterie dat Donald Trump een marionet van Vladimir Putin en de verkiezingsuitslag illegitiem zouden zijn ontstond pas na de publicatie van Buzzfeed en de kwestie Micheal Flynn. Toen FBI-directeur James Comey Mid Year Exam (FBI-onderzoek naar de e-mail kwestie van Hillary Clinton) heropende, zou de DNC en de Clinton-campagne kunnen pareren met het materiaal van Christopher Steele, dat ze hadden gefinancierd. Het Pee Pee gate materiaal zou dan bijvoorbeeld als beschuldiging de aandacht op zijn minst gedeeltelijk afleiden van Comey's actie en Hillary's vermeende misdrijven.

Wat steeds duidelijker wordt is dat dit plot helemaal niet bedoeld was om de verkiezingen te winnen of om een coup te plegen, maar dat het bedoeld was voor na de verkiezingen. Om de hele Russia collusion delusion hoax kans van slagen te bieden vereist het dat de coupplegers hun overheidsfuncties zouden behouden als Hillary Clinton had gewonnen. Dan zouden onder andere het dossier en de FISA's tegen Carter Page verdedigd en gerechtvaardigd kunnen worden door figuren als Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, James Baker en de sub-sources van Christopher Steele. Dan was er niemand die iets anders kon bewijzen, want de informatie van de FISA's zou onder zwarte vlakken verdwijnen vanwege nationale veiligheid en bescherming van "sources and methods" en de inspecteur-generaal zou überhaupt niet zoveel gelegenheid geboden worden audits te verrichten.
Om enkele voorbeelden te noemen van schandalen dat uiteindelijk in de doofpot zijn beland Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Awan IT-scandal, et cetera. De DNC-mediacomplex heeft er een handige manier van gemaakt het publiek 24/7 te overspoelen met BS -kijk maar naar het Kavanaugh-debacle en de Jussie Smollett hoax- dat afwijking van het politiek-correcte narratief als een rechtse conspiracy theory zou worden bestempeld. De Republikeinse minderheid zou misschien criminal referrals naar het ministerie van Justitie versturen, maar deze zouden dan in een diepe la in vergetelheid verdwijnen.
Het plan om het verzonnen en gemanipuleerde “bewijs” van het Steele dossier te gebruiken was voor na de verkiezingen. Als verdediging tegen het illegaal bespioneren.

De beschuldigingen uit het dossier zouden na de verkiezingen tegen Donald Trump en zijn electoraat gebruikt worden om elk onderzoek naar Hillary Clinton en de Obama-regering te onderdrukken en onder het tapijt te vegen. Clinton kon namelijk toch niet verliezen? Dus het dossier hoefde niet voor de verkiezingen worden ingezet. Het plan was om admiraal Micheal Rogers en generaal Micheal Flynn te ruïneren, omdat zij in hun NSA- en DIA-hoedanigheid wisten dat er crimineel bespioneerd werd en overheidsinstrumenten werden gepolitiseerd.
Als Hillary Clinton in het Witte Huis zat, de 40 plus officials uit de FBI en DoJ die inmiddels ontslagen, demotie hebben gehad of ontslag hebben genomen nog allemaal op hun positie zouden zitten en de DNC-mediacomplex 24/7 de boel zouden opjutten dat Donald Trump een Russische marionet is, die een ziekelijke, perverse fetisjisme erop nahield, bondgenoot is met een generaal die een dubieuze loyaliteit met Turkije en Rusland heeft en een campagne heeft die samenwerkt met Rusland om de perverse uitingen van Trump stil te houden, hoeveel kans zou politieke tegenstand hiertegen hebben gehad?

De enige reden dat de Russai collusion delusion hoax werd ontrafeld en de coup mislukte is, omdat Donald Trump de verkiezingen won. De mensen die verantwoordelijk waren voor de hoax hebben de touwtjes -zoals de openbaar aanklagers en onderzoekers- niet meer in handen om bescherming te bieden. Robert Mueller kon het dossier niet gebruiken voor een coup, omdat alle coupplegers blootgesteld konden worden aan onderzoek en kruisverhoor.
Het tegengestelde gebeurt nu juist. Steeds meer informatie -zoals uit de FISA-aplicaties, het OIG-rapport en transcripties van spionage-acties- wordt de afgelopen weken en maanden vrijgegeven. De onthullingen geven een goede weergave dat de top van de FBI en DoJ van de vorige regering verschrikkelijk corrupt was, eigen beleidsregels en de eed van het ambt niet naleefde, burgerrechten op grove manier schond en loog, manipuleerde en misleidde alleen maar voor het behouden van macht. Werkelijk een grof schandaal.

The top of the FBI was scum...and what they did to general Flynn was a disgrace!

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 juli 2020 19:47 schreef dellipder het volgende:


Vandaag vier jaar geleden werd Russia collusion als wapen tegen de toen kandidaat Donald Trump en de Trump campagne publiekelijk gelanceerd door de Hillary Clinton campagne.
Clinton's campagnemanager Robby Mook suggereerde in het programma State of the Union van CNN op 24 juli 2016 dat de Russen Trump mogelijk wilden helpen de verkiezingen te winnen.
Het 4-jarige jubileum van leugens, fraude, bedrog en het inzetten van overheidsmiddelen tegen politieke tegenstanders.

PSY OP Russia collusion by DNC campaign manager 24 July 2106

quote:

Clinton campaign planned to 'swift boat' Trump

Despite claiming her campaign would "go high" in response to personal attacks from GOP nominee Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's team actually planned as far back as February to go low when the time came.

In one of the illegally obtained emails from WikiLeaks, Joel Johnson, managing director of a political consulting firm, asked Clinton's communications director about creating a "Trump swift boat project" to begin attacking the GOP candidate after the primaries.

"I know you can't look past Bernie and March primaries — but who is in charge of the Trump swift boat project?" Johnson asked Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri. "Needs to be ready, funded and unleashed when we decide – but not a half assed scramble."

To "swift boat" someone means to target them with personal attacks that may be unfair or untrue. The term originated in 2004, after a group calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" began telling stories that contradicted then presidential candidate John Kerry's claims about his time in the military.

Palmieri responded to Johnson sarcastically.

"Gee. Thanks, Joel. We thought we could half-ass it," she said. "Let's discuss."

Johnson fired back several hours later: "Sorry. I've been behind too many curtains in my day …"

During the second presidential debate, Clinton quoted Michelle Obama as saying "When they go low, you go high." There's that, and then there's the real world ...

quote:

EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT: How The DNC Hired CrowdStrike to Frame Russia for the Hack

On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails to an unknown entity in a “spear phishing” scam. This has been called a “hack,” but it was not. Instead, it was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the internet.

The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They showed election fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.

Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. There was already an existing Russia operation that could easily be retrofitted to this purpose. The problem was that it was nearly impossible to identify the perpetrator in a phishing scheme using computer forensic tools.

The only way to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially.

The DNC retained a company that called itself “CrowdStrike” to provide assistance. CrowdStrike’s chief technology officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin, Russian expat and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

With the Atlantic Council in 2016, all roads led to Ukraine.

The Atlantic Council’s list of significant contributors includes Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk.

The Ukrainian energy company that was paying millions to an entity that was funneling large amounts to Hunter Biden months after he was discharged from the US Navy for drug use, Burisma, also appears prominently on the Atlantic Council’s donor list.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Western puppet installed in Ukraine, visited the Atlantic Council’s Washington offices to make a speech weeks after the coup.

Pinchuk was also a big donor (between $10 million and $20 million) to the Clinton Foundation. Back in ’15, the Wall Street Journal published an investigative piece, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends.” The piece was about how Ukraine was attempting to influence Clinton by making huge donations through Pinchuk. Foreign interference, anyone?

On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced: “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails pending publication.”

Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a story, headlined, “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump.” The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got away with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted Alperovitch of CrowdStrike and the Atlantic Council.

The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the internet and announced:

Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by “sophisticated” hacker groups.

I’m very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy, very easy.

Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton’s and other Democrats’ mail servers. But he certainly wasn’t the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get access to the DNC’s servers.

Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I’ve been in the DNC’s networks for almost a year and saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?

Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC’s network.

Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun. In raw form, the opposition research was one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely reported the document now contained “Russian fingerprints.”

The document had been cut and pasted into a separate Russian Word template that yielded an abundance of Russian “error “messages. In the document’s metadata was the name of the Russian secret police founder, Felix Dzerzhinsky, written in the Russian language.

The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post “)))” is the Russian version of a smiley face used commonly on social media. In addition, the blog’s author deliberately used a Russian VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide any national affiliation.

Under the circumstances, the FBI should have analyzed the DNC computers to confirm the Guccifer hack. Incredibly, though, the inspection was done by CrowdStrike, the same Atlantic Council-connected private contractor paid by the DNC that had already concluded in The Washington Post that there was a hack and Putin was behind it.

CrowdStrike would declare the “hack” to be the work of sophisticated Russian spies. Alperovitch described it as, “skilled operational tradecraft.”

There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity when trying to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It certainly looks like Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post’s article that appeared the previous day.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 oktober 2020 08:43 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Directeur van de nationale inlichtingendienst (ODNI) John Ratcliffe heeft onlangs informatie vrijgegeven waaruit blijkt dat de CIA in 2016 inlichtingen had verkregen dat de Russen dachten dat de Clinton-campagne Rusland ten onrechte wilde associëren met de zogenaamde hack van DNC-servers. CIA-directeur John Brennan deelde deze inlichtingen met president Obama. Met andere woorden wisten ze dat de DNC een false flag operatie voerde tegen de Trump-campagne.

Echter hebben media pundits en verscheidene politici in de dagen na de onthulling van deze eerdere vertrouwelijke informatie verkondigd dat de informatie waarmee de Clinton-campagne kandidaat Trump, president-elect Trump en president Trump probeerde te belasteren "vals" of "grotesk" zou zijn.
Hierbij is het toch te vermelden waard dat Brennan president Obama persoonlijk heeft ingelicht. Waarom zou hij dat doen als de inlichtingen vals zijn? En de Clinton-campagne heeft wel degelijk geprobeerd de "DNC-hack" vast te pinnen op Donald Trump door Fusion GPS in te huren via hun advocatenkantoor Perkins Coie, die precies deze beschuldiging deed in het Steele-dossier. Ongeacht of de Russen dit dachten of niet, dit gebeurde en dat Donald Trump in diskrediet werd gebracht is een voldongen feit.

In elk geval lijken dit echte inlichtingen te zijn die aan het licht werden gebracht nog voor de opening van Crossfire Hurricane. Echter niemand bij de FBI kwam tot het idee een zaak tegen Clinton te openen. Althans hierover is op dit moment niets bevestigd.
Aan de andere kant werd een paar dagen later Crossfire Hurricane geopend op basis nul officiële inlichtingen.

quote:

Op maandag 21 september 2020 04:51 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Democrats balen van de timing.

House Democrats Ramp Up Effort To Thwart Durham Probe, Call For ‘Emergency Investigation’

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 april 2019 12:57 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Op zijn minst vijf verschillende methodes zijn door de Obama-regering gebruikt om de Trump campagne te bespioneren.

• Via het FISA-bevel
De voormalige Trump campagne adviseur Carter Page was het doel van deze FISA door de FBI vanaf oktober 2016.
Een FISA bevelschrift voorziet in bevoegdheden voor elektronische surveillance, fysieke doorzoekingen en confiscatie, pen register (dit is het tappen van telefoonlijnen), toegang tot bepaalde bedrijfsdocumenten en meldplicht. bron

• Via de zogenaamde unmasking requests
Wanneer Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten terroristen of buitenlandse agenten afluisteren, komen ze vaak informatie tegen over Amerikaanse burgers die niet het doelwit zijn van hun onderzoek.
Deze “incidentele verzameling” is niet illegaal of ongepast, maar de diensten moeten volgens een vaste procedure de privacy van Amerikaanse personen beschermen. Dit proces heet minimization.
De identificatie van personen zal over het algemeen worden uitgesloten in inlichtingenrapporten die verspreid worden naar de inlichtingengemeenschap, inclusief de President's Daily Brief van het Witte Huis. In plaats daarvan verwijzen de rapporten alleen naar “Amerikaanse persoon één”, “Amerikaanse persoon twee”, et cetera.

De House Intelligence Committee is erachter gekomen, dat uit de Obama-regering de nationale veiligheidsadviseur Susan Rice, ambassadeur van de Verenigde Naties Samantha Powers en oud CIA-directeur John Brennan dergelijke verzoeken hebben ingediend. bron bron bron

De Obama-regering verdrievoudigde de unmasking requests in het verkiezingsjaar 2016 van 654 in 2015 naar 1934 in 2016. bron

• Via confidential human sources ofwel informanten/spionnen
De FBI zette Stefan Halper een undercoveragent in om de Trump campagne te infiltreren. Hij zocht contact met Carter Page en George Papadopoulos. bron bron
Halper stond op de loonlijst van de FBI, maar heeft ook banden met de CIA en MI6. bron

• Via zogenaamde National Security Letters (NSL)
Met nationale beveiligingsbrieven kan de FBI klantgegevens van banken, telefoonbedrijven, internetproviders en anderen in het geheim dagvaarden. bron bron
Dat deze NSL's werden gebruikt tegen de Trump campagne werd voor het eerst bekend gemaakt in een artikel van The New York Times op 16 mei 2018.



bron

• Via buitenlandse inlichtingendiensten
De Britse inlichtingendienst GCHQ gaf de CIA al in eind 2015 informatie over de Trump campagne. bron
Waarschijnlijk waren inlichtingendiensten uit meerdere landen betrokken bij het verzamelen van informatie over de Trump campagne.
[img]
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ud8hhbkjph. 13 11.08.jpg[/img]

bron

Verder staat in hetzelfde The Guardian artikel dat het toenmalige hoofd van GCHQ Robert Hannigan persoonlijk informatie bracht naar CIA-drecteur John Brennan, die op zijn beurt het verspreidde in Washington D.C.

Na het verhoor van afgelopen dinsdag van de procureur-generaal William Barr Democrats bedrijven de Democrats vooral politiek en hebben een semantische discussie geëntameerd over het woord spionage.
Dit is totaal niet interessant en is mijn inziens enkel bedoeld om af te leiden.
De feiten zoals ik die hierboven heb omschreven zijn de feiten of deze nu worden geduid als spionage of als “unauthorized surveillance”.

Wat precies is dan wel interessant en belangrijk?
Ik ga even terug naar de brief van William Barr van 24 mei jongstleden met daarin de primaire conclusies en het resultaat van het onderzoek van special counsel Robbert Mueller.



bron

Wat nu naar bijna twee jaar lang collusion delusion gehype door de usual supsects media én een intensief en uitgebreide onderzoek van de special counsel bekend is geworden, is dat er nooit enig bewijs was van een geheime samenspanning tussen de Trump-campagne en Rusland.
Dat werpt de vraag op waarom de FBI, de CIA en buitenlandse regeringen en inlichtingendiensten de overheidsinstrumenten, die ik hierboven heb omschreven, hebben gebruikt om een presidentskandidaat te bespioneren zonder bewijs.
Wat precies was in juridische context de aanleiding? Wat precies was de probable cause? Wat precies waren de officiële inlichtingen die werden verzameld die het contra-inlichtingenonderzoek in gang zette?

Hoewel het belangrijk is dat de hoogste wetshandhaving in de Verenigde Staten publiekelijk heeft erkend dat de Obama-regering “unauthorized surveillance” op haar politieke tegenstanders in het heetst van de verkiezingsstrijd in 2016 heeft uitgevoerd -dit is zo helder als glas, maar de bevestiging is een noodzaak in het proces van het verwerken dat de collusion delusion een hoax was en de aandacht nu verlegd moet worden naar de aanjagers van deze hoax- is het nog belangrijker dat Barr bevestigde dat meerdere inlichtingendiensten betrokken zijn.

Barr Confirms Multiple Intel Agencies Implicated In Anti-Trump Spy Operation

Feit blijft evenwel dat het FISA-bevel tegen Carter Page de Amerikaanse autoriteiten heeft toegestaan om niet alleen alle communicatie van hem te controleren, maar ook van diegenen uit de verkiezingscampagne waarmee hij in contact stond en kwam.
En al deze sms-berichten, e-mails, telefoongesprekken, et cetera mochten retroactief doorzocht worden, dus lang voordat de FISA-aanvraag werd goedgekeurd.
Dit alles werd ondernomen buiten de wetenschap van Carter Page of wie dan ook van de Trump campagne om, dus het anders omschrijven dan datgene dat daadwerkelijk heeft plaatsgevonden is volstrekt ridicuul.

Zeer machtige overheidsinstrumenten werden politiek ingezet op basis van de premisse dat Carter Page een Russische spion was, maar hij werd op geen enkel moment gedurende het onderzoek in staat van beschuldiging gesteld.
Er werd door de overheid bespioneerd en de informatie dat hiermee werd vergaard werd illegaal naar mediabondgenoten gelekt om de presidentskandidaat, president-elect en de zittende president die op rechtmatige manier werd verkozen te ondermijnen.

Dit is een schandaal van epische proporties. Het grootste politieke schandaal uit de geschiedenis van de Verenigde Staten.
Waaraan de DoJ/FBI/Obama/Hillary nexus zich schuldig hebben gemaakt raakt aan het fundament van de constitutionele republiek en dit deden ze met de bijna totale medewerking van de Amerikaanse media.

De kern van Spygate is niet het woordspelletje van de Democrats, maar de vraag wat precies de aanleiding was waarom de diverse inlichtingendiensten zich met deze activiteiten hebben beziggehouden.

quote:

Yes, Hillary Clinton Orchestrated the Russia-Collusion Farce
The Clinton campaign dreamed up, paid for, and peddled the Trump-Russia collusion farce

Did she or didn’t she?

Of course she did. In late July 2016, Hillary Clinton, in an effort to divert attention from the email scandal that was haunting her presidential bid, directed her campaign to peddle a political narrative that Russia’s suspected hacking and leaking of Democratic Party emails was in furtherance of a conspiracy between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to swing the election to Trump.

That is, as I argued in Ball of Collusion, the Clinton campaign dreamed up, paid for, and peddled the Trump–Russia collusion farce. And in promoting it, President Obama’s former secretary of state had a willing and able partner in the Obama administration — very much including its intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus.

Democrats Change Their Tune
It was amazing to watch Democrats play Twister this week, as National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe added documentary corroboration to the disclosure he’d made the week before. In that first revelation, via letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ratcliffe explained that, because our spy agencies have very effective foreign-intelligence-gathering methods, they were able to “obtain insight” into a Russian intelligence analysis that concluded Clinton orchestrated the damaging political narrative. That is, Clinton actually did what she accused Trump of doing: She colluded with Russians (through yet another foreigner she recruited to meddle in the 2016 presidential campaign: the ludicrous former British spy Christopher Steele) in order to damage Trump’s campaign and cinch the election for herself.

As ever with the Clintonistas: When they’re moving their lips, they’re projecting.

Ratcliffe’s initial revelation came with a caveat: While our spy agencies judged Moscow’s analysis about Clinton to be authentic (in the sense of truly being a Russian intel product), they could not vouch for its accuracy (i.e., it might reflect what the Russians really believed, but it might alternatively be exaggeration or fabrication). This was not a wobble. Intelligence agencies sweep up scads of information, and they must always grade its reliability with a skeptical eye to avoid deluding themselves.

But this was all Democrats needed . . . at least at first. At a Judiciary Committee hearing, former FBI director James Comey and Senate Democrats scoffed at Ratcliffe’s frank, professional concession, claiming it discredited his disclosure in its entirety, and called his competence into question. He’d clearly been duped by Russian disinformation . . . said the people who seem to have made a habit of being duped by Russian disinformation.

Did the Russians have a window into the Clinton campaign? It sure looks that way, between Secretary Clinton’s security practices (which even Comey has described as irresponsible) and her retention of Steele, with his stable of Russian oligarch clients and his dossier “primary subsource,” whom the FBI suspected (with copious reason) to be a Russian asset.

But the point here is not whether Russian spies, thanks to Clinton’s own carelessness, had effectively infiltrated her campaign. The point is: Clinton was undeniably doing what, it turns out, the Russians were contemporaneously detecting.

Want to play epistemological acrobatics? Okay, fine. We can spend hours pondering whether Russian spies generated an assessment about what Clinton was up to because they legitimately wanted to inform their Kremlin superiors, or whether they did it because they wanted our spies to see it and to wonder whether the Russians knew that we knew that the Russians knew . . .

I’d prefer to keep my eye on the ball, which has precious little to do with spy games and Russian disinformation. The Russians were able to deduce what Hillary Clinton was up to because it was patently obvious. It did not take a super sleuth to figure this one out. Just eyes to see and ears to hear.

That’s why you might have noticed a shift in Democratic tone when Ratcliffe released more documents.

The second set of disclosures showed that the CIA had taken the Russian information seriously enough that (a) then-director John Brennan quickly briefed President Obama and his administration’s national-security team about it and (b) the agency included the Russian intel about Clinton in a memo to the FBI, which laid out information gleaned by the “Crossfire Hurricane fusion cell” that Brennan had assembled to promote the Trump–Russia storyline.

After Ratcliffe published these documents, we were no longer hearing much about disinformation. Now the talking point became: Well, there was nothing criminal in what Clinton did; she was simply worried about a potentially corrupt conspiracy between Trump and Putin — and who wouldn’t be?

Right . . . worried based on absolutely zero evidence. There was not a shred of proof that Donald Trump and his campaign had any foreknowledge of, much less complicity in, the suspected Russian hack of DNC emails. That, you may remember, was the sinkhole on which the collusion farce was constructed.

Clinton Retains Steele to Craft Trump–Russia Narrative
At this point, Democrats have no choice but to concede Clinton’s catalytic role in the collusion narrative because there is no other rational way to look at what happened — not for any sentient person, never mind Russian intelligence agents.

Let’s look at the timeline.

In spring 2016, the Clinton campaign, through their lawyers at Perkins Coie (an activist Democratic firm that also represents the DNC), retained Steele to compile opposition research connecting Trump and Russia. By June 20, Steele had produced the first of his dossier “reports.” It sets forth the infamous “pee tape” farce, at which any competent investigator would have rolled his eyes, especially if he knew anything about Steele’s self-professed Trump derangement. For Steele, the rumor that Putin has a video of Trump cavorting with prostitutes is not good enough; he figures the story is better if he adds that Trump went out of his way to stage the “golden shower” performance on a bed in which the Obamas — “whom he hated” — had slept.

It’s melodrama, in the now familiar genre of Trump fever-dream. Beyond that, Steele’s “report” could have been written by Clinton or Brennan themselves. It frets over Trump’s by-then-well-documented skepticism about NATO, surmising that such thinking couldn’t possibly be explained by anything other than Trump’s being blackmailed by Putin.

As usual, what’s actually interesting about a Steele “report” is what’s not in it. There’s nothing about emails. That this is a Steele pattern would also have been a red flag for the FBI if its top officials, like other devotees of the progressive international order, had not been as repulsed by Trump’s candidacy as Steele was. None of the seemingly important things Steele reports are verifiable (and some of them are plain false); by contrast, the actually important things that happen are never in Steele’s “intelligence reporting” until after they happen. He was not unearthing information as an intelligence professional; he was a paid political hack conveniently folding reported news into Clinton’s anti-Trump campaign narrative.

Assange Issues a Threat as the Clinton Emails Scandal Intensifies

As Steele might have noted had he been paying attention, over a week before his June 20 “report,” WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange had publicly said, “We have emails pending publication,” which were “in relation to Hillary Clinton.” Western intelligence services have long observed that WikiLeaks has a collaborative relationship with Russia.

At the time, it was not common knowledge that the DNC had been hacked. Nor was it widely known that the FBI and the DNC had been slow to react to the hack, or that the DNC would deny the FBI access to its servers (with the support of the Obama Justice Department, which did not take action to seize them for forensic examination). Thus, anyone who was focused on Assange would have assumed that the emails he was talking about were Clinton’s personal emails — the 33,000 she had declined to surrender to the State Department even though they were rife with official business.

The start of summer was a time of frenzied activity regarding Clinton’s email scandal. The FBI, driven by the political calendar and the Obama administration’s determination that the putative future Democratic president would not be charged with a crime, raced to close its probe-for-show before the Democratic national convention, scheduled to begin on July 25.

In rapid succession: On June 27, Obama attorney general Loretta Lynch had her tarmac tête-à-tête with Mrs. Clinton’s husband (the former president who had first brought Lynch to prominence by appointing her U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York). On Saturday, July 2, the FBI and the Justice Department did their cursory close-out interview of Clinton (which was such a sham that she was permitted to have two other subjects of the investigation present and assisting her as “counsel”). And on July 5, FBI director James Comey held his infamous “exoneration” press conference, which illustrated that there was damning evidence of Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and destruction of government records, and of her promotion of a culture of national-security recklessness at the State Department; but, nevertheless, that the Obama administration would not charge her, even though her conduct violated the literal terms of the espionage statute.

If Director Comey thought his press conference was going to put the email scandal behind the Bureau and the Clinton campaign, it had the opposite effect. Republicans were outraged that the fix was in. Democrats were outraged at the director’s misconduct in going public with the evidence against an uncharged person. At the congressional hearings that immediately ensued, Republicans questioned Comey in excruciating detail about all the disclosures he’d made concerning Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. It emerged that he’d begun preparing his exoneration speech months earlier, even though Clinton had not been questioned, other central witnesses had not been interviewed, and key evidence had not been obtained, let alone analyzed.

Heading into the convention that she’d hoped would be a coronation, Clinton was reeling. Her email scandal was intensifying rather than dissipating. And Assange seemed to be threatening to leak the very emails she had taken pains not just to delete but to destroy — employing the BleachBit program so no one could ever read them. (Of course, as the Clinton campaign had to realize, if a foreign intelligence service had hacked into her non-secure homebrew system to copy the emails and slip them to WikiLeaks, an after-the-fact BleachBit treatment would not have helped.)

The DNC Emails
On July 22, Assange pulled the trigger, but it was not the shot anyone was expecting. He began rolling out thousands of emails. But not Secretary Clinton’s emails. These were the DNC’s emails.

For Clinton, this was manna from heaven.

Even though Assange had characteristically sought to drum up attention by promising emails “in relation to Clinton,” the Democrats’ nominee was not an active participant in the DNC emails. Nor could the hacking of the DNC be blamed on her reckless use of a non-government server system. Although Assange had implied that the emails he was about to release would damage Clinton, they did not damage her at all.

To the contrary, they helped her. Clinton was able to pose as the victim, targeted by a WikiLeaks-Russia scheme; yet she suffered none of the harms of such a scheme, since her own emails were not at issue. In addition, the fact that emails were at the center of the controversy would enable her to conflate her email scandal with the hacking of the DNC. Now, if Trump or other Republicans referred to her destroyed emails, it would be spun as a reference to the DNC emails that Russia was suspected of hacking. When Trump foolishly chided that he hoped Russia found Clinton’s emails, it would be spun as a plea that Russia hack the DNC — even though he was obviously referring to the emails Clinton had purged, and doing so under circumstances where Clinton’s private servers had long been decommissioned and in the FBI’s possession.

Steele and the Campaign Get On-Message

Naturally, publication of the hacked DNC emails was included, post facto, in the Trump-Russia narrative that Steele, at the Clinton campaign’s urging, had already been fabricating for weeks. The well-paid former spy got busy, writing a new “intelligence report.” He thundered about an “extensive conspiracy between TRUMP’s campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at the highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US,” which explained the Kremlin’s responsibility for the “recent appearance of DNC-emails on WikiLeaks.” This, of course, had been done “with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team” — a quid pro quo for Trump’s supposed agreement “to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue.”

After the lurid “pee tape” story, should we be surprised that Steele was just getting warmed up? He related that this “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump campaign and “the Russian leadership” was being coordinated on the Trump end “by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries.”

In fact, Manafort and Page do not know each other. Oh, and what about that “Russian diplomatic staff based in the US” that Steele touted? He pointed to the Russian consulate in Miami as a conspiratorial hub. Alas, there is no Russian consulate in Miami — as any competent FBI agent who was actually interested in assessing Steele’s credibility would have figured out in about five minutes (that’s about how long it took a State Department official to figure it out when Steele subsequently spun this yarn for her).

While Steele was scrivening away, the Clinton campaign staff at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia was wasting no time. On July 24, with revelations from the hacked DNC emails still breaking and the convention about to begin, Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook told CNN:



That was the narrative. We didn’t need to get it from Russian intelligence. We got it from the spokesman for the Clinton campaign itself: Russia hacked emails and strategically leaked them with the intention of undermining Clinton and promoting Trump’s candidacy.

It was a great story for Clinton: She would be delighted to have Americans reading Democratic emails she was not party to, rather than speculating about her own emails. The DNC emails were basically a dud, making explicit the already manifest fact that the party was in the tank for Clinton against Bernie Sanders. More consequential was that they helped the media push the Clinton email scandal out of the limelight for a few days, between the embarrassment of a few top Democrats whose emails were published and the convention drama — speeches by the Obamas and Clintons, and Khizr Khan, the father of a heroic fallen Muslim American soldier, Captain Humayan Khan, blasting Trump’s proposed restrictions on Muslims entering the U.S.

The Political Narrative Seamlessly Becomes an Investigation
Getting her own email scandal out of the public eye was what Clinton wanted. And the Obama administration went right along for the ride.

At exactly the time Clinton was rolling out the Trump-Russia narrative, based on the DNC email hacking, Alexander Downer — an Australian ambassador who once arranged a $25 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation, and who was closely tied to Steele’s British intelligence colleagues — suddenly remembered a conversation two months earlier with a nondescript Trump campaign adviser. That young fellow, George Papadopoulos, had made a vague remark about hearing that the Russians had some kind of compromising information about Mrs. Clinton. Eureka, Downer exclaimed to himself, Papadopoulos must have meant the DNC emails! Whereupon the diplomat sauntered over to the U.S. embassy to alert officials from the Obama State Department that Secretary Clinton used to run.

Quite the leap of logic. Remember, the DNC emails did not involve Clinton. Plus, even Downer admits that Papadopoulos never mentioned the word emails in their barroom conversation. There is not a scintilla of indication that Papadopoulos knew anything about DNC emails or Russia’s suspected hacking of them. Months earlier, he says he had been told by the mysterious Maltese academic, Josef Mifsud, that the Kremlin might have Mrs. Clinton’s own emails from her non-secure homebrew server — which, if the conversation really happened, would have made Mifsud about the zillionth person to so hypothesize on that subject. (See, e.g., Director Comey’s July 5 remarks: “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”)

No matter. At the same time that Hillary Clinton had her campaign proclaim that the DNC emails had been hacked by Russia as part of a corrupt Trump-Putin conspiracy to swing the election to Trump, and Steele dutifully reported that the DNC emails had been hacked by Russia as part of a corrupt Trump-Putin conspiracy to swing the election to Trump, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on — you’ll never guess! — suspicion that the DNC emails had been hacked by Russia as part of a corrupt Trump–Putin conspiracy to swing the election to Trump.

What a coincidence.

quote:

Here is How Joe and Hunter Got Paid

On December 6, 2015, Joe Biden ordered Ukraine President Petr Poroshenko to fire Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, threatening to withhold $1 billion in US aid to the Poroshenko government if he did not do so.

The media has propagated a fictional account of why Biden demanded Shokin’s firing, and that account has been repeated over and over again to the point that it is now conventional wisdom. The reason for the fictional account was to provide a rationalization for Joe Biden’s demand that appeared to support a crackdown on corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs by blaming Viktor Shokin for inaction and thereby justifying Biden’s demand that he be fired.

That story is a lie. It was a cover story offered to divert attention from the fact that Joe Biden demanded the firing of Shokin so that an allegedly corrupt Ukraine oligarch could be quietly exonerated, which was a plan all along because the Oligarch in question was paying Hunter Biden nearly $1 million a year for the benefit of having access to such influence. And we now know that Hunter Biden was the frontman for illicit streams of income going to several members of the Biden family, including Joe Biden himself.

The cover story has been fashioned over time as Joe Biden’s actions have come under more scrutiny. It begins with the freezing of $23 million in an account held by Burisma Holdings at PNB Paribas Bank in London on April 16, 2014.

By 2014 Burisma had become a leading producer of natural gas in Ukraine, holding lease rights or ownership of three of the most lucrative natural gas fields in Ukraine. Burisma was owned by Nikolay Zlochevskyi, a wealthy Ukraine businessman who had been in and out of Ukraine government positions for more than a decade, and at one time held a Minister’s position overseeing all Ukraine’s natural resources, including energy. Controversy had surrounded him for more than a decade over the fact that Burisma managed to acquire some of its leases to national gas resources on government property while he served in that capacity. But over the course of that decade, there were many efforts in Ukraine Administrations through the Ukraine courts to strip Burisma of the holdings – all unsuccessful.

In February 2014, the “Orange Revolution” drove pro-Russian “Party of Regions” President Yanukovych from office in Ukraine, and new elections were set for May 25, 2014. On April 21, 2014, Joe Biden visited Ukraine, and announced anti-corruption aid and technical assistance to help boost Ukraine’s energy output.

Not known publicly at that time, on April 14, 2014, Burisma had made Hunter Biden a member of its Board of Directors.

The Order of the British court freezing the $23 million in a Burisma account came about at the request of the UK’s “Serious Fraud Office” (SFO). Burisma’s CFO had sent instructions to BNP Paribas to transfer the funds to an account at a bank in Cyprus. The Orange Revolution had financial authorities in the West closely monitoring movements of funds connected to Ukraine businesses or individuals. The transfer request caused the SFO to request the UK Court to freeze the assets until the request could be investigated. Without notice to Burisma, the freeze on the funds in the account was ordered on April 16, 2014. Eventually, in January 2015, the UK Court – at the request of the SFO – released the hold on the funds, and the money was transferred to a Cyprus bank as had been previously requested.

The story that has been told in the media is that Prosecutor General Shokin did not adequately cooperate with an investigation in the UK, and the result of his failures was that the UK Court was forced to release the funds. Joe Biden seized on the story that Shokin was corrupt and therefore was to blame for the failure to crack down on corrupt Ukraine oligarchs who had looted Ukraine natural resources under the Yanukovych government. The “proof” was Shokin’s failure to cooperate in the UK investigation of Burisma and its owner between April 2014 when the funds were frozen, and January 2015 when the UK court ordered the funds released due to insufficient documentary evidence provided by the Ukraine Prosecutor General. During his visit to Ukraine on December 6, 2015 – 11 months AFTER the funds were released by the UK Court, Biden demanded that Shokin to be fired, or the Poroshenko government would face the possible loss of $1 billion in US aid to Ukraine if that didn’t happen. Poroshenko obliged, and Shokin was fired.

The cover story is a lie. Shokin was fired because Burisma wanted him fired. Shokin’s replacement met with Burisma’s attorneys, and “resolved” all outstanding matters that Bursima and its owner Zlochevskyi from the time before the Poroshenko government took office.

Here is the timeline for what actually happened leading up to Biden getting Shokin fired.

On March 11 and 25, 2014, Burisma’s CFO sent instructions to PNB Paribas to transfer the funds in the accounts to another bank in Cyprus. The request triggered the UK’s “Serious Fraud Office” (SFO) inquiry as Burisma was already on the radar of governmental entities tracking financial misconduct out of Ukraine.

April 16, 2014: The SFO applied for and was granted by a UK Court the order freezing the funds in the Burisma accounts at PNB Paribas based on a suspicion they were the product of money laundering activity by Zlochevskyi.

According to UK Court records in the case, between December 19, 2012, and August 6, 2014, five separate investigations of Zlochevskyi were opened by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, but none of the five progressed to the point where evidence of wrongdoing was discovered that would have required the Prosecutor General to advise Zlochevskyi that he was suspected of crimes, which was the procedure employed under Ukrainian law. The records showed that search warrants were executed in April and May 2014, but that does not mean sufficient evidence discovered to make Zlochevskyi a criminal suspect.

UK Court records reflect that a three-day hearing on the $23 million was held from December 3 to December 5, 2014. Burisma was represented by British Solicitors (British trial attorneys) who pressed the Court to order the SFO at the end of the second day to produce further records that it was withholding. The SFO denied that it was withholding any such records. However, on December 5 the SFO concluded there were a small number of documents that should have been disclosed, and disclosure was then made. Based on those records, the SFO stated that it agreed that Burisma’s funds should be released. After the Court had a chance to review the newly produced documents, the Court concluded that there is no need for any further hearing, and on January 21, 2015, ordered the funds to be released.

At all times while this case played out in the UK, the Ukraine Prosecutor General was Vitaly Yarema, who had been appointed by President Poroshenko on June 19, 2014, just after assuming the Presidency. To the extent there was any failure – which is a question – by the Prosecutor General’s office to cooperate with the UK Court, it was the fault of Yarema.

On February 10, 2015 — AFTER the UK Court matter was concluded — Yarema was fired and Viktor Shokin was named to replace him.

It was ten months later when Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine and demanded that SHOKIN be fired for being insufficiently aggressive in going after corrupt oligarchs.

The media took up this “false flag” campaign because Biden and the Obama Administration needed someone to blame and deflect attention away from Hunter Biden. The media was fed the story about Shokin being ineffective and corrupt, and Joe Biden was a crusader for cracking down on Ukraine oligarchs.

But the TRUTH was that Zlochevskyi was allowed to avoid prosecution because of Hunter Biden’s position on the Burisma board, Joe Biden’s promises of aid to Ukraine, and due to the efforts of a US-based attorney connected to the very top of the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice.

As noted above, Burisma was represented in the UK Court matter by UK Solicitors. But Burisma was assisted in that regard by attorney John Buretta from the New York firm Cravath, Swaine, & Moore.

Shortly before taking on the Burisma matter, Buretta had been in the Obama Administration DOJ, where he was the “Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General” for the Criminal Division — meaning he was the No. 2 in the DOJ’s Criminal Division for part of the second term of the Obama Administration. The Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division until 2013 was Lanny Breuer, a very important Democrat operative in DOJ, and a former senior official in the Clinton Administration.

Lanny Breuer joined the Clinton White House Counsel’s Office and defended the Clinton White House and President Clinton in the congressional and DOJ investigations into the fundraising practices of the 1996 Clinton campaign. He also defended Clinton in the various independent counsel matters, including Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation. During the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, he defended the President in the impeachment hearings in the House and during the impeachment trial in the Senate.

Buretta was Breuer’s No. 2 and the Chief of Staff for the Criminal Division, overseeing 600 Trial Attorneys. That means Buretta was the immediate supervisor of Andrew Weissman when he was Chief of the Fraud Section of Criminal Division. And, they had both previously been Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Eastern District of New York.

Buretta gave an interview on February 1, 2017, in which he detailed the UK SFO case involving the $23 million in frozen funds. Keep in mind that Buretta worked for Burisma and Zlochevskyi, so you would expect him to provide an accounting of the case that is favorable to Zlochevskyi. But his comments are backed up by the decision of the UK Court releasing the funds:

Q: Why were the cases against Nikolay Zlochevskyi in Ukraine closed? And, what is the relevance of the 2015 decision by the UK criminal court?

A: The U.K. Central Criminal Court held a formal hearing during December 3-5, 2014, and considered voluminous evidence presented by the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and by Mr. Zlochevskyi. The evidence included thousands of pages of material produced by Ukrainian authorities at the request of the SFO, relevant documents produced by financial institutions, and affidavits, and a large volume of documents produced on behalf of Mr. Zlochevskyi. In January 2015, the U.K. Central Criminal Court, in a lengthy written decision, concluded that there was no reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Zlochevskyi’s assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of misconduct while he served in public office. In addition, the U.K. court found that the SFO materially and significantly failed to disclose relevant documents favorable to Mr. Zlochevskyi.

In August 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor General (PGO) opened a criminal proceeding as to the same matters adjudicated by the U.K. Central Criminal Court. With regard to the PGO’s investigation, Mr. Zlochevskyi produced voluminous materials addressing the allegations, as he had before the U.K. Central Criminal Court. Over the next two years, the PGO matter was open, no evidence was presented supporting any claim that Mr. Zlochevskyi had abused his position while in public office. In September 2016, the Pechersk District Court of the City of Kyiv concluded that no criminal procedures should be taken against Mr. Zlochevskyi. In other words, the Pechersk District Court reached the same conclusion as the U.K. Central Criminal Court.

Q: Did you meet Yuriy Lutsenko personally?

A: I met with numerous PGO personnel, including Prosecutor General Lutsenko. I conveyed that Mr. Zlochevskyi had provided voluminous evidence to the PGO with respect to his assets, that a U.K. court had also analyzed a large volume of evidence and found no reasonable basis to conclude that there had been any wrongdoing, expressed Mr. Zlochevskyi’s willingness to cooperate with Ukrainian authorities and noted that the PGO had presented no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Zlochevskyi. I took the same approach on this matter that I would take on a similar matter before any law enforcement authority or court.

Yuriy Lutsenko replaced Viktor Shokin as the Prosecutor General after Shokin was fired following the demand by Joe Biden.

One of the emails released by the New York Post is one to Hunter Biden from a Burisma official in mid-November 2015. The email concerned the contract for Burisma’s hiring of Blue Star Strategies, a Washington DC PR firm headed by two Clinton Administration officials – including Karen Tramontano, who was Deputy White House Chief of Staff – to help with its Ukraine problems. Blue Star Strategies coordinated its efforts in that regard with Buretta.

Joe Biden’s visit to Ukraine on December 6 was a Sunday. On December 2, the Thursday before he departed, Tramontano participated in a conference call among Obama Administration officials finalizing the agenda for Biden’s visit to Ukraine coming up in just four days, and the policy issues that were going to be addressed there.

A FIRM ON THE PAYROLL OF BURISMA PARTICIPATED IN PLANNING JOE BIDEN’S TRIP DURING WHICH JOE BIDEN DEMANDED SHOKIN BE FIRED.

And that’s exactly what happened.

Once Shokin was gone – and could be “publicly” blamed for the failure to bring Zlochevskyi to justice — Zlochevskyi’s American “fixer” attorney, with strong connections to the top leadership in the US Department of Justice, was able to meet with Shokin’s successor, and “convince” him that Zlochevskyi did nothing wrong.

The Ukraine government was happy to agree since that made Hunter Biden’s position on the Burisma board pay off for him, and Hunter Biden being happy made Joe Biden happy.

NOBODY really cared about Zlochevskyi and his $23 million. The only thing that truly mattered was that there be a “story” behind which to hide that fact that Hunter Biden’s board position, for which Zlochevskyi paid him millions of dollars over five years, led to Burisma’s money released and Zlochevskyi getting off the hot seat — all without Joe Biden’s fingerprints being too obvious.

Zlochevskyi had fled Ukraine in December 2014 fearing he was about to be arrested given the proceedings taking place in the UK Court. After Buretta’s efforts with Shokin’s successor, Zlochevskyi returned to Ukraine in February 2018.

The scorecard tells the tale:

• Burisma got its $23 million moved from the UK to Cyprus — meaning Zlochevskyi could access his money anonymously.
• Hunter Biden showed he could “deliver” US influence from the Obama Administration for Burisma’s benefit.
• Joe Biden became a champion for Ukraine’s domestic natural gas production industry — of which Burisma was the leading provider — announcing aid packages from the Obama Administration to aid in increasing production.
• Former Obama DOJ attorney Buretta “persuaded” Shokin’s successor to not continue to pursue corruption charges against Zlochevskyi personally, allowing him to return to Ukraine.
• Viktor Shokin is left holding a bag of excrement with a sign hung around his neck by Joe Biden that Shokin was corrupt and in the pocket of Ukraine oligarchs.

Hunter got paid.

Hunter paid Joe.

quote:

Op zondag 25 oktober 2020 08:51 schreef dellipder het volgende:

In het perspectief van deze berichtgeving over Burisma en andere deals is het pleidooi voor "no fracking" en "no fossil fuels" veel meer begrijpelijk, want dan kunnen er nog meer buitenlandse deals gesloten worden.

Joe Biden: "We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels"

quote:

Hunter Biden-Tied Fund Helped Communist China Obtain a Michigan Auto Parts Maker

As he was sewing up the Democrat nomination this spring, Joe Biden surprised many in foreign policy circles by publishing an essay arguing it was time to “get tough with China” and to stop its “robbing the United States and American companies of their technology and intellectual property.”

For Biden, a four-decade advocate of trade and friendly relations with Beijing, it was a stunning turnabout that signaled the Democrat was concerned President Trump was winning the election-year battle over U.S.-China policy as tensions in the South China Sea, a trade war, and growing espionage cases created a Cold War-like atmosphere with China.

But for U.S. security experts, it was remarkable for another reason: An investment fund named Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) partly owned and directed by Biden’s son, Hunter, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, had just a few years earlier played a vital role in facilitating the sale of the Michigan-based auto parts maker Henniges Automotive to one of China’s main military aircraft makers, Aviation Industry Corporation of China or AVIC.

That 2015 transaction approved by the Obama administration and its Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) came just 15 months after the United States publicly added one of AVIC’s subsidiaries to a Commerce Department blacklist (known as the “Entity List”) and just months before the Obama administration resumed patrols in the South China Sea because of increased Beijing military aggression in the region, where AVIC-built military jets partake in China’s activities.

The timing has left many, including Senate Finance Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), questioning whether the CFIUS decision whitewashed security concerns because the vice president’s son was involved in the transaction. Those concerns were heightened this June when the Pentagon listed the entire AVIC conglomerate on a list of companies subject to future sanctions because of its ties to the People’s Liberation Army.

[...]

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op maandag 2 november 2020 00:55 schreef koosbasterd het volgende:
Hieronder misschien een antwoord voor geïnteresseerden die zich afvragen waarom 'Hillary Clinton and all the other swamp criminals' nog niet gearresteerd zijn.

Finally, people want to know: Why Donald Trump has not arrested Hillary Clinton and all the other swamp criminals. Answer: Because Hillary and all the rest are not US Citizens. Hillary and the gang are State Nationals. Our U.S. admiralty courts and department of justice are only set-ups to convict Federal US citizens. The entire underpinning of the US government along with the US presidential position was stripped from the original and is not legally based--it does not actually exist and insiders like Hillary know the legal maneuvers to make themselves exempt and immune. They can only be brought to justice through the military courts or common law courts.
To understand this every American needs to read Anna Von Reitz's Some Assembly Required

Link staat onderaan in link.
https://www.henrymakow.co(...)nati-girlfriend.html

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op maandag 2 november 2020 00:59 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]



Mensen die niet de Amerikaanse nationaliteit hebben kunnen, voor misdaden begaan in de VS, gewoon door een Amerikaanse rechtbank veroordeeld worden, hoor.

quote:

Key Source in Steele Dossier Identified as Disgruntled Russian PR Exec



A key source in ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s infamous dossier investigating links between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia was a disgruntled Russian PR executive and old friend of Steele’s employee, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation. Olga Galkina, who was working in Cyprus at the time of Steele’s investigations, is a middle school classmate of Igor Danchenko, who helped Steele try to uncover potentially compromising information on then-candidate Trump. She is responsible for some of the dossier’s key allegations, including the accusation that internet service company Webzilla played a central role in the 2016 DNC hack and that its Russian owner, Aleksej Gubarev, was strong-armed into cooperating with Russian security services. Galkina also claimed ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen held a secret meeting with Russian intel officials.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller deemed the dossier unreliable and found no evidence to prove some of its wildest claims. Sources familiar with the matter said Galkina was fired from one of Gubarev’s companies in late 2016 and implicated her former employer weeks later.

The PATHETIC End of RUSSIA-GATE!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 november 2020 22:03 schreef dellipder het volgende:

BREAKING: Trump pardons former national security adviser Mike Flynn

Attorney General William Barr earlier this year asked a federal court to allow the Justice Department to drop the case

quote:

En geef je een pardon als iemand onschuldig is, of geef je hiermee eigenlijk toe dat hij schuldig is?