[RealClearInvestigations] White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan figures prominently in a grand jury investigation run by Special Counsel John Durham into an alleged 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign scheme to use both the FBI and CIA to tar Donald Trump as a colluder with Russia, according to people familiar with the criminal probe, which they say has broadened into a conspiracy case.
Sullivan is facing scrutiny, sources say, over potentially false statements he made about his involvement in the effort, which continued after the election and into 2017. As a senior foreign policy adviser to Clinton, Sullivan spearheaded what was known inside her campaign as a “confidential project” to link Trump to the Kremlin through dubious email-server records provided to the agencies, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Last week, Michael A. Sussmann, a partner in Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of making false statements to the FBI about his clients and their motives behind planting the rumor, at the highest levels of the FBI, of a secret Trump-Russia server. After a months-long investigation, the FBI found no merit to the rumor.
The grand jury indicated in its lengthy indictment that several people were involved in the alleged conspiracy to mislead the FBI and trigger an investigation of the Republican presidential candidate -- including Sullivan, who was described by his campaign position but not identified by name.
The Clinton campaign project, these sources say, also involved compiling a "digital dossier” on several Trump campaign officials – including Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page. This effort exploited highly sensitive, nonpublic Internet data related to their personal email communications and web-browsing, known as Internet Protocol, or IP, addresses.o
To mine the data, the Clinton campaign enlisted a team of Beltway computer contractors as well as university researchers with security clearance who often collaborate with the FBI and the intelligence community. They worked from a five-page campaign document called the "Trump Associates List."
The tech group also pulled logs purportedly from servers for a Russian bank and Trump Tower, and the campaign provided the data to the FBI on two thumb drives, along with three “white papers” that claimed the data indicated the Trump campaign was secretly communicating with Moscow through a server in Trump Tower and the Alfa Bank in Russia. Based on the material, the FBI opened at least one investigation, adding to several others it had already initiated targeting the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016.
The indictment states that Sussmann, as well as the cyber experts recruited for the operation, "coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton campaign with regard to the data and written materials that Sussmann gave to the FBI and the media."
One of those campaign agents was Sullivan, according to emails Durham obtained. On Sept. 15, 2016 – just four days before Sussmann handed off the materials to the FBI – Marc Elias, his law partner and fellow Democratic Party operative, "exchanged emails with the Clinton campaign’s foreign policy adviser concerning the Russian bank allegations," as well as with other top campaign officials, the indictment states.
The sources close to the case confirmed the "foreign policy adviser" referenced by title is Sullivan. They say he was briefed on the development of the opposition-research materials tying Trump to Alfa Bank, and was aware of the participants in the project. These included the Washington opposition-research group Fusion GPS, which worked for the Clinton campaign as a paid agent and helped gather dirt on Alfa Bank and draft the materials Elias discussed with Sullivan, the materials Sussmann would later submit to the FBI. Fusion researchers were in regular contact with both Sussmann and Elias about the project in the summer and fall of 2016. Sullivan also personally met with Elias, who briefed him on Fusion's opposition research, according to the sources.
Sullivan maintained in congressional testimony in December 2017 that he didn’t know of Fusion’s involvement in the Alfa Bank opposition research. In the same closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, he also denied knowing anything about Fusion in 2016 or who was conducting the opposition research for the campaign.
"Marc [Elias] ... would occasionally give us updates on the opposition research they were conducting, but I didn't know what the nature of that effort was – inside effort, outside effort, who was funding it, who was doing it, anything like that," Sullivan stated under oath.
Jake Sullivan's December 2017 House testimony may put him in perjury jeopardy.
Lying to Congress is a felony. Though the offense is rarely prosecuted, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller won convictions of two of Trump’s associates on charges of that very offense.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
09/26/2021 11:05 Comments ||
fallout from a very successful smear campaign. How many millions did the USG spend in an investigation all tied to winning an election. The Clintons are modern political organized criminals. Their actions are seditious and they are an embarrassment to our nation.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/26/2021 19:19 Comments ||
[Yahoo via Flipboard] In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in Ecuador’s embassy in London, the CIA plotted to kidnap the WikiLeaks founder, spurring heated debate among Trump administration officials over the legality and practicality of such an operation.
Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request "sketches" or "options" for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred "at the highest levels" of the Trump administration, said a former senior counterintelligence official. "There seemed to be no boundaries."
The conversations were part of an unprecedented CIA campaign directed against WikiLeaks and its founder. The agency’s multipronged plans also included extensive spying on WikiLeaks associates, sowing discord among the group’s members, and stealing their electronic devices.
While Assange had been on the radar of U.S. intelligence agencies for years, these plans for an all-out war against him were sparked by WikiLeaks’ ongoing publication of extraordinarily sensitive CIA hacking tools, known collectively as "Vault 7," which the agency ultimately concluded represented "the largest data loss in CIA history."
President Trump’s newly installed CIA director, Mike Pompeo, was seeking revenge on WikiLeaks and Assange, who had sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape allegations he denied. Pompeo and other top agency leaders "were completely detached from reality because they were so embarrassed about Vault 7," said a former Trump national security official. "They were seeing blood."
Pay no attention to the border fiasco - AFG debacle - stagflation - Milley's treachery - skyrocketing black murder rate - creeping Communism - admissions that Biden & his family are indeed the most corrupt presidential family we've ever seen ... LOOK! Over there--St. Julian ASSANGE IS BEING MARTYRED AGAIN !!
I note that after all this, Assange is still alive and the CIA conspired to run Trump out of office.
View this story from that viewpoint.
In the intel business, it's called 'walking back the cat'. Look at yesterday's events through today's knowledge.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
09/26/2021 11:04 Comments ||
This leak took place during the Obama administration. So we are now told that Trump's man, Pompeo, was so upset by it, that instead of investigating the source of the leak within the CIA, he was determined to punish the publisher of the leak.
It seems to me that the leakers themselves would be the ones who wanted to eliminate Assange to avoid Pompeo making a deal with him that might expose them.
This at least would be consistent with the extreme anti-Trump behavior of a segment of the CIA, which undoubtedly included opposition to Pompeo.
And it is completely consistent with this present leak.
[JPost] This week, Democratic Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Betty McCollum
...D-MinneapolisSt. Paul, Democratic House Whip, seriously Progressive former social studies teacher...
pressured the Democratic party to remove $1 billion for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system from a bill to keep the US government-funded. This is a particularly sinister move. These funds were intended to replenish Israel’s stock of these defensive receptors that protect our civilian populations and were depleted when Hamas fired 5,000 missiles and rockets at our towns in May. (Democratic leadership announced later in the day it will bring to the House floor a stand-alone vote on $1 billion in emergency funding for Iron Dome.)
This move followed Ocasio-Cortez’s introduction last week of an amendment to the US defense budget bill which would suspend the transfer of $735 million worth of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) to Israel. JDAMs are kits that convert unguided bombs into precision-guided munitions.
Lord Garth's probably right as far as specific congressional districts are concerned; I'm just saying I've always remembered both cities being mentioned in the same breath - Minneapolis / St. Paul. A distinction without a difference, in other words.
She read somewhere that most of Bath House Barry's votes as a state legislator were "present" and decided to give it a whirl.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/26/2021 10:51 Comments ||
I laughed at AOC's blubbering, but it occurs to me that blubbering is how she communicates with her base. If she had stepped to the podium and offered three good reasons not to fund Iron Dome, she would have exceeded her followers' twenty-second attention span and none of them would have remembered a word of it anyway. But now they know that those mean men made AOC cry.
I'm curious as to what made AOC change her vote from "no" to 'present'
I understand she had a direct order from Nancy Pelosi. But the New York Times had a different take, according to Jewish Journal (I avoid giving the New York Times et al any clicky attention if I can avoid it):
The New York Times appeared to remove a line from a September 23 article stating that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) had changed her vote from “no” to “present” on the Iron Dome funding bill because of “influential lobbyists and rabbis.”
The article stated that Ocasio-Cortez “tearfully” decided to change her vote after a meeting with her fellow Squad members, which the article initially said “underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party, such as influential lobbyists and rabbis.” It was subsequently changed to say that the matter “underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party.” As of this writing, the article does not provide an editor’s note explaining the change.
Thanks, tw. I interpret that as Mom Nancy telling little AOC to knock it off before she scares the big-money donors. The sobbing is amusing, but I get it - to be caught between your 'principles' and money... *shudder*
[ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] Despite the oil tankers coming from Iran, supermarkets with Iranian goods, and all the Iranian-made medicine flooding its pharmacies, Hezbollah is still failing to maintain the Shia support and loyalty. Despite all efforts to shield the community from major shifts in public opinion and politics, an increasing number of Shia are turning against Hezbollah.Hunger, shortages of basic needs, and the lack of accountability, have all hit the Shia communities in the same way they’ve hit others. One thing is certain, every Lebanese person is looking for alternative politicianship.
Take the Iranian fuel as an example. All of Hezbollah’s propaganda and broadcasting machines were dedicated to portray the event as another divine victory against a "US siege," which does not exist.
Its social media army, WhatsApp groups’ managers, and popular websites, all geared their efforts to prepare and cover the event of the oil tankers crossing the Syrian-Lebanese borders last Thursday.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/26/2021 00:00 ||
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
If you stand in a neighborhood, and continuously yell "Shoot at ME", at some point the neighbors are going to get tired of it.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
09/26/2021 12:46 Comments ||
[AlAhram] 'The other reason for these frictions is the increasing so-called 'revolutionary' trend in Iran, which seeks to quickly find an ideological and partisan base in Yemen ...an area of the Arabian Peninsula sometimes mistaken for a country. It is populated by more antagonistic tribes and factions than you can keep track of... that believes in the doctrine of Welayat-el-Faqih'.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.