These are two separate interviews (May 8th and May 9th) with John Solomon regarding some documents and information being made public through the freedom of information act (and other sources). Yes, you have to sit through the screeds of Sean Hannity, but the legal acumen of Gregg Jarrett (part of the May 8th interview) and the investigative reporting of Mr. Solomon, make for a worthy 30-minutes.
Steele’s Stunning Pre-FISA Confession: Informant Needed to Air Trump Dirt Before Election (THE HILL)
FBI’s Steele Story Falls Apart: False Intel and Media Contacts Were Flagged Before FISA (THE HILL)
Also, Jim Jordan’s recap the other day is worth watching:
As TGP previously reported in February, according to Mike Cernovich, McCabe altered far left FBI investigator Peter Strzok’s 302 notes on his interview with General Michael Flynn.
And then McCabe destroyed the evidence.
In early May Senator Grassley demanded the FBI and DOJ produce the transcript of Flynn’s intercepted calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak and the 302’s by May 25th.
The DOJ and FBI ignored him. Grassley then concluded his letter by reiterating his request to schedule an interview with the second special agent who was present at Flynn’s interrogation, Joe Pientka, after push back from the DOJ….
As GATEWAY further notes… Joe Pientka’s name was redacted in the newly released 302s:
As noted above, Special Agent, Joe Pientka, who was present during the interrogation of General Flynn. He has been ready to give testimony regarding circumstances surrounding the ambush interview (GATEWAY PUNDIT | SARA CARTER). Investigative reporter, Sara Carter says Pientka, if issued a subpoena, will discuss how forthcoming Flynn was about very specific sensitive information that Flynn could not have possibly known the investigators already knew, which may give additional insight into Flynn’s veracity and willingness to tell the truth.
SARA CARTERnotes that with these new revealed documents, that some internal document discrepancies are noted… and it is because of the changed 302 we know Strzok had written:
The Special Counsel’s Office released key documents related to former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller’s office had until 3 p.m. to get the documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn’s attorney’s that led to serious concerns regarding the FBI’s initial questioning of the retired three-star general.
The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.
The documents also include the FBI’s “302” report regarding Flynn’s interview with anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview but an August, 2017 report of Strzok’s recollections of the interview.
Flynn’s attorney’s had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which would’ve have warned him of penalties for making false statements.
“The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview,” the Flynn memo says. According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”
The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.
Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the documents are guarded against tampering…..
JOHN SOLOMON also is in the mix as he dropped a bombshell of information:
As the NATIONAL SENTINEL continues in their posting, we see the Judge in Flynn’s case
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Emmitt Sullivan demanded to see the FBI’s 302s — interview summaries — of agents’ ambush interview with Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017, just a few days after POTUS Trump was inaugurated.
According to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton: “Big: Judge Sullivan, who is overseeing General Flynn’s case, demands to see the infamous FBI 302 and other FBI doc about the ambush Flynn interview set up by Yates, McCabe, and Strzok.”
DAN BONGINO also joins the fun by letting us know about the destruction of key evidence to another investigation (seperate from Mueller’s of course) that hints at something damning is being hidden:
The 11-page report reveals that almost a month after Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team, his government-issued iPhone was wiped clean and restored to factory settings by another individual working in Mueller’s office. The special counsel’s Record’s Officer told investigators that “she determined it did not contain records that needed to be retained.”
“She noted in her records log about Strzok’s phone: ‘No substantive texts, notes or reminders,’” the report states.
When the OIG obtained his old cell phone in January, it had been issued to another individual within the agency and investigators were unable to recover any text messages sent or received by Strozk on that device.
Two weeks after Page departed Mueller’s team on July 15, 2017, her government-issued iPhone was also wiped and restored to factory settings and had not been reissued to another person within the agency. No one within the special counsel’s office or the Justice Management Divisions of the agency had any records as to who cleared all the data from the iPhone.
Some of their most memorable texts (there are too many to list them all) include:
Page: “Trump’s not going to become president, right?” Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
Page: “God Trump is loathsome human.” Strzok: “Yet he many win.”
Strzok: “God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.” Page: “I know”
Strzok: “I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.”
Page resigned from the FBI in May of 2018 and Strzok was fired in August.
I guess they were learning from Hillary Clinton? As Trey Gowdy noted about the HIllary:
Hillary Clinton’s lawyers used a special tool to delete emails from her personal server so that “even God can’t read them,” House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy said on Thursday.
Gowdy (R-S.C.) said the use of BleachBit, computer software whose website advertises that it can “prevent recovery” of files, is further proof that Clinton had something to hide in deleting personal emails from the private email system she used during her tenure as secretary of state.
“She and her lawyers had those emails deleted. And they didn’t just push the delete button; they had them deleted where even God can’t read them,” Gowdy said Thursday morning during an interview on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “They were using something called BleachBit. You don’t use BleachBit for yoga emails or bridemaids emails. When you’re using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”…
BTW, to be clear, I am neither a fan or Corsi or Stone. I think both men are wacko conspiracy guys (one of my stated issues with Trump and his going on the Alex Jones Show). But that aside, we will see in the end where Corsi’s refusals lead… to the truth? This upload may disappear at some point (not because of a conspiracy, but because of copyright issues.) Good analysis starts at the 30-minute mark.
John Solomon, Sara Carter, and Gregg Jarrett were on Hannity’s radio show yesterday and the latest news about Rod Rosenstein wearing a wire to record the President is the topic de-jure. There seems to be more-and-more damaging information coming out that lays bear just how political the FBI and DOJ have gotten. I INCLUDE the segment from FOX NEWS at the end of the audio from the radio program.
“THE LAST REFUGE” has an excellent article on the subject. Here is the latest from GATEWAY PUNDIT (and remember, those two sites aren’t necessarily my favorite… but these two posts fill in some blanks):
Last week, Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-NC), who previously filed articles of impeachment against Rosenstein, called for the Deputy Attorney General to appear before Congress under oath this week.
But today Rosenstein notified Congress he will not turn over the subpoenaed memos and will not appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday….
“He will have the full authority of a federal prosecutor,” said Richard Painter, former chief ethics attorney for President George W. Bush. “If he looks at this and finds someone in the DOJ lied to a government official, he would be able to convene a grand jury, compel testimony and even prosecute them.”
“The leaks that have been coming out of the FBI and DOJ since 2016 are unconscionable,” said retired FBI supervisory special agent James Gagliano. “There’s a difference between whistleblowing and leaking for self-serving or partisan purposes.”
“Former Obama officials and their press allies can call it a ‘conspiracy theory’ or whatever they want,” a senior U.S. official — familiar with how Obama holdovers and the media jointly targeted Trump figures — told RCI. “But they can’t say it’s not true that former Obama officials were furiously leaking to keep people close to Trump out of the White House.”
People forget that there is a Grand Jury in session and they are hearing about all this (and more) that will surely kick off a second Special Council where criminal proceedings against James Comey, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, and others will filter out. AMERICAN THINKER describes the below video thus:
The former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Joe DiGenova, knows what he is talking about when it comes to legal liability, and he has the guts to lay out in straight talk what really happened with the conspiracy to swing a presidential election, cover up the effort, and take out a duly elected president.
Questions surround the work of U.S. Attorney John Huber, who is playing a key role in one of the multiple investigations surrounding President Trump and the Justice Department.
Known as a no-nonsense prosecutor whose primary experience is fighting violent crime, the U.S. attorney for Utah is an appointee of President Obama whose job was saved by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) when Trump asked state attorneys to resign so that he could field a new slate of professionals.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions quietly tapped Huber — apparently last fall — to work in tandem with the Justice Department’s inspector general to determine whether conservative allegations of abuse at the FBI and the Justice Department merit investigation.
It’s an unusual arrangement, and one that fall short of demands from the right that Sessions name a second special counsel. That idea has generated controversy, with critics saying the second appointee would inevitably impede the work of special counsel Robert Mueller….
Remember, both WOODWARD AND STARR said they have not seen COLLUSION in all the evidence and investigating they have done. Also, there is as of yet no evidence of OBSTRUCTION either. Here is CNN and Kenn Starr:
CNN: “Do you think there is a case there?”
STARR: “It’s too soon to tell. From what I’ve seen — and of course we don’t know a whole lot — the answer is no. But it is going to be investigated and so we will soon know.”
“Obstruction of justice is really a very hard crime to make out. It’s not just you want the investigation to go away, you suggest that the investigation goes away. You’ve got to take really affirmative action and Director Comey said in his testimony that even though the expression was hope, he took it as a directive.”
“But what we know is, he didn’t do anything about it, right? That is that he did not dismiss the investigation or curtail the investigation. There’s an expression of hope, so it becomes an interpretation.”
STARR: “We’re going to the intent of what is it that the President had in mind? He was expressing, his literal language was ‘hope.’ And, I think that redounds to the benefit of the President. That to me, just the language, is far removed from a directive.”
“My point is, the Director of the FBI then didn’t act on that. He rather just continued as before and reported and memorialized it. But he did not then say, ‘ok, ladies and gentlemen of the FBI, we’re getting rid of this investigation at the direction of the President.”
So, still no there “there” yet… but damning info comes out almost daily on the DOJ and FBI’s interactions with trying to throw an election. And the MANFORT plea deal is bad news for Republican and Democrat super lobbying machines. THE SWAMP IS GETTING CLEARED A BIT:
Two lobbying firms, including one owned by Democratic superlobbyist Tony Podesta, knowingly worked with Paul Manafort at the direction of the Ukrainian government, according to an indictment released Friday by the special counsel’s office.
The indictment, which was released ahead of an expected plea deal for Manafort, the former chairman of President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, says that as a part of his “lobbying scheme,” Manafort solicited two lobbying firms in February 2012 to lobby on behalf of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
“Various employees of Companies A and B understood that they were receiving direction from MANAFORT and President Yanukovych, not the Centre, which was not even operational when Companies A and B began lobbying for Ukraine,” reads the indictment. The Centre is a reference to the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels-based non-profit that the government says was used to support Yanukovych.
Company A has been identified as Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying shop operated by former Minnesota Republican Rep. Vin Weber. Company B has been identified as Podesta Group, the firm that Tony Podesta founded with his brother, John, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign….
I will admit, if Podesta is brought into Mueller’s grasp, my thinking about Mueller will change. BUT BACK TO the topic at hand… new text messages released show collusion between the DOJ/FBI and the media to change the outcome of an election and presidency:
SEE CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE’S latest post for more:
I think it was Prager or Elder… but they were saying that it is only Justices put on the court by Republicans that slide Left. A Justice put on the court by a Democrat typically stays reliably Left. So, I am worried about Kavanaugh. Mark Levin doesn’t like him. Neither does Ben Shapiro. But these two, while right on on a lot of things, are not my favorite shot-callers.NATIONAL REVIEW has a good response to Shapiro.
Here are some headlines that make me happy (from NEWSBUSTERS):
ABC Knocks Kavanaugh as ‘Not a Slam Dunk’ Will Cause ‘Battle Royale’
MSNBC Immediately Freaks Over ‘Right-Wing,’ ‘Conservative’ Kavanaugh
…Kavanaugh is well-known in D.C. legal circles. There’s wide agreement among the people I know who know him that, in terms of judicial philosophy and temperament, he falls somewhere between Chief Justice Roberts and the late Justice Scalia. Some say he’s closer to Roberts. Others say he’s closer to Scalia.
Either way, Kananaugh will make a good Justice, if confirmed, though I hope the folks who say he’s closer to Scalia are right….
BREITBART however notes the solid reasoning that most likely pushed Trump in Kavanaugh’s direction:
…But it is Kavanaugh’s consistent rulings on immigration, the central issue of Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, that set him apart from the other top candidates for the Supreme Court. Always referring to illegal immigrants as such, he explicitly sided with American workers in his major immigration opinions. “[A]n illegal immigrant worker is not a lawful ’employee’ in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote in a dissent in which he would have excluded illegally employed aliens from American union elections.
In 2014, another Kavanaugh dissent, Fogo de Chao v. Department of Homeland Security, expounded an understanding that American immigration laws exist to protect American workers and rejecting the “jobs Americans won’t do” ideology of open-border groups and the pro-cheap-labor business lobby:
But the “Americans can’t learn to cook” proposition is a factually unsupported stereotype that finds no home in the specialized knowledge visa program. And the “Americans won’t cook” proposition in the end is just an economic argument.
Like other restaurants, Fogo de Chao must compete in the chef market by offering better wages or benefits to attract quality chefs. Fogo de Chao undoubtedly would save money if it could simply import experienced Brazilian chefs rather than hiring and training only American chefs to cook at its steakhouses here in the United States.
These attitudes helped Kavanaugh rack up the support of advocates for America’s “forgotten men and women” like Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance and conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter. White House Counsel Don McGhan, the president’s most senior lawyer, also reportedly pushed Kavanaugh as his favorite among the president’s shortlist.
As Loyola University Maryland political science professor Jesse Merriam put it Friday in a Real Clear Politics op-ed, “Judge Kavanaugh is the only candidate with a demonstrated legal understanding of the political issues that inspired millions of forgotten Americans to come out to the polls and vote for Donald Trump. Judge Kavanaugh is the America First choice.”……
Like a headless turkey running around in circles, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation is dead, even if he does not yet realize it. While his investigation stumbles onward, with life support provided by the biased media, from a legal perspective the viability of any criminal case that Mueller could possibly bring has been effectively gutted thanks to the news (suppressed for months by Mueller’s team) that the FBI’s “key agent” in both the Russia investigation and the Clinton email probe was an ardent Hillary supporter with an anti-Trump bias.
As a result, in any prosecution brought by Mueller against a Republican target, defense counsel would be entitled under the Constitution to all evidence in the government’s possession relevant to exploring the apparent biases of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his animosity toward Trump and the Republican Party. This, in and of itself, could be a case-killer because it is very unlikely that Mueller or the DOJ would want defense counsel poring through all the records and documents, emails, and texts in the DOJ’s and Strzok’s possession revealing the agent’s biases since this could fatally undermine any other cases or investigations the agent has worked on—such as the FBI’s decision to recommend charging General Flynn with lying to federal agent seven though Hillary Clinton’s besties, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, were given a free pass despite apparently doing the same thing.
Significantly, the fatal damage done to Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation does not only rest in the fact that defense counsel will be able to conduct an unlubricated prostate examination on the FBI’s key agent at trial. Instead, the real reason why Mueller will not risk a criminal trial is the lasting damage that would be done to the FBI’s reputation by having Strzok’s baggage brought into the daylight.
To expose the agent’s biases, defense counsel would have the opportunity to cross-examine the agent and his apparent mistress, an FBI lawyer who also worked on Mueller’s investigation and the Clinton email probe, about their exchanged messages showing support for Clinton and hostility to Trump. Additionally, the agent’s wife, a high-profile attorney at another federal agency, apparently was a member of several pro-Obama and pro-Clinton Facebook groups and is a follower of a Facebook page called “We Voted for Hillary.”
One can only imagine the fun that an aggressive defense attorney would have shredding Strzok’s credibility by grilling him to see if he shared his wife’s posted political views………….
Gregg Jarrett: If you look at the special counsel statute it says you cannot serve as special counsel if you have a personal relationship with someone who is central to the case. If this Washington Post story is true, it’s now Trump against Comey. Comey is now the star witness, the key witness against Trump. Well, guess what? Comey and Mueller are longtime close personal friends, partners, allies. They were joined at the hip at the DOJ and FBI. It’s a mentor-protege relationship. How is this fair to Donald Trump because Mueller is now going to decide whether to believe his good friend or the man who fired his good friend…This is the kind of stuff over which lawyers get disbarred. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)