James Wolfe was confronted about his leaking by the FBI in December of 2017. At the same time the FBI were investigating Wolfe and the SSCI, the FBI was also investigating Wikileaks and Julian Assange. This matters because it shows what the mindset was within the DOJ in late 2017 and early 2018.
In both examples, Wolfe and Assange, the actions by the DOJ reflect a predisposition to hide the much larger background story:
• A prosecution of Wolfe would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and the United States senate. Two branches of government essentially working on one objective; the removal of a sitting president. The DOJ decision protected multiple U.S. agencies and congress.As soon as Robert Mueller was going to release his Russia report, the EDVA shut down Assange with the DOJ indictment; in a similar way the DOJ shut down Wolfe with a weak plea agreement.
• A non-prosecution of Assange would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and a host of political interests who created a fraudulent Russia-collusion conspiracy with the central component of Russia “hacking” the DNC. If Assange were allowed to show he received the DNC emails from a leaker, and not from a hack, the central component of the Russia interference narrative would collapse. The DOJ decision protected multiple U.S. agencies and Robert Mueller.
Again, the key takeaway here is the timing. Both DOJ operations were taking place at the same time (Fall 2017 through spring/summer 2018). Both hold a similar purpose.
What we can see from both DOJ operations is an intentional effort by Main Justice not to expose the epicenter of a multi-branch effort against the White House.
Some people within the FBI were obviously participating along with people within the DOJ. However, not all Washington DC FBI agents/officials were involved. We know there were genuine investigators, at least in the Wolfe case, because their investigative evidence shows Wolfe was leaking classified information. If they did not present the investigative evidence that proves Wolfe leaked, quite simply we wouldn’t have it to show you.
Unfortunately, in hindsight we can see something internally within the DOJ happened because the FBI evidence against Wolfe was buried. Some high-level group inside the DOJ in Washington DC, in the Summer of 2018, was making decisions on what NOT to do.
These two events highlight corruption within the DOJ that existed despite the presence of AG Jeff Sessions, and apparently with the participation of DAG Rod Rosenstein.
The decisions in the Wolfe case are critical. That’s the fork in the road. If the Wolfe prosecution had continued it would have undoubtedly surfaced that key government officials and politicians were working together (executive and legislative).
The ramifications of the Wolfe case are stunning. Had the prosecution continued it’s very likely a seditious conspiracy would have surfaced.
♦ I often field a question: If you know this; if all of this information is in the public sphere; then why didn’t any member of the media cover it?
Here’s the answer: They couldn’t…. At least they couldn’t cover it and still retain all of the claims they had been making since March 2017 when journalist Ali Watkins gained a fully non-redacted copy of the Carter Page FISA application and first renewal.
Politico, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post are all implicated in the James Wolfe leak to Ali Watkins. They had the FISA information since March 2017, yet those media outlets were disingenuously falsifying their reporting on the actual content of the FISA application despite their actual knowledge.
Remember all of the media denials about what Devin Nunes wrote in the “Nunes memo”? Remember the media proclaiming the Steele Dossier was not part of the FISA application?
How was the media fifteen months later (July 2018) going to report on the Wolfe leak to Watkins without admitting they had been manufacturing stories about its content for the past year-and-a-half?
It was in the media’s interest NOT to cover, or dig into, the Wolfe story.
Additionally, from both the DOJ and Media perspective, coverage of the Wolfe leak would prove the senate intel committee (SSCI) was, at a minimum, a participating entity in the coup effort. That same SSCI is responsible for oversight over the CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD, ODNI, DNI, and all intelligence agencies.
Worse yet, all officers within those agencies require confirmation from the SSCI (including Chair and Vice-Chair); and any discussion of the Wolfe leak would highlight the motive for ongoing corruption within the SSCI in blocking those nominations (see John Ratcliffe).
Stunning ramifications.
There was a clear fork in the road and the DOJ took the path toward a cover-up; which, considering what the DOJ was simultaneously doing with Mueller and the EDVA regarding Assange, is not entirely surprising.
Was that decision wrong? Oh hell yes, it was corrupt as heck. .
Were the decisions done with forethought to coverup gross abuses of government? Yes.
Where the DOJ is today is directly connected to the decisions the DOJ made in 2017 and 2018 to protect themselves and internally corrupt actors from discovery.
It is often said: “the coverup is always worse than the crime.” This is never more true than with these examples, because where we are today… now miles down the path of consequence from those corrupt decisions… is seemingly disconnected from the ability of any institutional recovery. That’s now the issue for Bill Barr.
If Bill Barr wanted to deal with the issue he would not be telling President Trump to stop talking about the corruption; instead he would be holding a large press conference to explain to the American people about that fork in the road.
That type of honest sunlight delivery means taking people back into the background of the larger story and explaining what decisions were made; with brutal honesty and without trepidation for the consequences, regardless of their severity and regardless of the friends of Bill Barr compromised by the truth.
Here’s a big reason why Bill Barr should take that approach: We Know.
We know; the DOJ trying to hide it doesn’t change our level of information.
Regardless of whether Bill Barr actually admits what surrounds him, there are people who know… We know…. You know…. AG Bill Barr shouting ‘don’t tweet‘ into the microphone like the Wizard of Oz doesn’t change the fact the curtain has been removed.
Turn around Bill, it’s time to come clean.
Politics turned Parody from within a Conservative Bastion inside the People's Republic of Maryland
Monday, February 17, 2020
The Quango Coup Cover-up - Year 4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Quote: When Mike Pompeo became CIA director, he and Jeff Sessions "unleashed an aggressive campaign against Mr. Assange, reversing an Obama-era view of WikiLeaks as a journalistic entity".
Dotard's own people are involved in the "coup"? LOL.
The victims of the coup knew the plot/plotters? How?
Hillary Clinton met Putin during the course of her job. And she met Dotard previously (socially) before they met on the debate stage. That is "how" the coup victim (Hillary Clinton) knew the plotters (Dotard and Putin).
Hillary was the victim of a DNC staffer, not Putin. Just ask Julian Assange. Oh, wait you can't... you've got him on "ice".
The Seth Rich conspiracy theory has been debunked. Assange lied. And the Dotard/Barr DOJ is making the decisions re the Assange case.
No, CIA Director Brennan is the liar, and Julian Assange can prove it.
LOL! The oranges trials should be starting soon then. With Assange as a star witness. Certainly Dotard will pardon Assange of any offenses if he can help out.
British Intelligence won't release Assange until 2025. He's their "insurance policy" insurance.
Quote: According to the DSM-IV-TR, persecutory delusions are the most common form of delusions in paranoid schizophrenia, where the person believes "he or she is being tormented, followed, tricked, spied on, or ridiculed", or that their food is being poisoned. They are also often seen in schizoaffective disorder and, as recognized by DSM-IV-TR, constitute the cardinal feature of the persecutory subtype of delusional disorder, by far the most common. Delusions of persecution may also appear in manic and mixed episodes of bipolar disorder, polysubstance abuse, and severe depressive episodes with psychotic features, particularly when associated with bipolar illness. [end quote].
Polysubstance abuse could definitely explain Dotard's persecutory delusions. What explains yours?
Perhaps Tom Fitton will explain once his FOIA request returns:
A public affairs official whose name was redacted opens the WFO email chain, writing:
"Various news outlets are reporting today that Julian Assange suggested during a recent overseas interview that DNC Staffer, Seth Rich was a Wikileaks source, and may have been killed because he leaked the DNC e-mails to his organization, and that Wikileak’s was offering $20,000 for information regarding Rich’s death last month. Based on this news, we anticipate additional press coverage on this matter. I hear that you are in class today; however, when you have a moment, can you please give me a call to discuss what involvement the Bureau has in the investigation."
An unidentified WFO agent responds: “I’m aware of this reporting from earlier this week but not any specific involvement in any related case.”
An unidentified WFO agent subsequently writes deputy assistant director in the bureau’s Counterintelligence Division Jonathan Moffa and Strzok: “Just FYSA. I squashed this with [redacted]”.
Strzok then forwards the email chain to Page.
WFO = FBI Washington Field Office
FYSA = For Your Situational Awareness
from Wiki: Shared SA[edit]
Shared situation awareness can be defined as "the degree to which team members possess the same SA on shared SA requirements" (Endsley & Jones, 1997, p. 47; 2001, p. 48). As implied by this definition, there are information requirements that are relevant to multiple team members. A major part of teamwork involves the area where these SA requirements overlap—the shared SA requirements that exist as a function of the essential interdependency of the team members. In a poorly functioning team, two or more members may have different assessments on these shared SA requirements and thus behave in an uncoordinated or even counter-productive fashion. Yet in a smoothly functioning team, each team member shares a common understanding of what is happening on those SA elements that are common—shared SA. Thus, shared SA refers to the overlap between the SA requirements of the team members, as presented in Figure 3. As depicted by the clear areas of the figure, not all information needs to be shared. Clearly, each team member is aware of much that is not pertinent to the others on the team. Sharing every detail of each person's job would only create a great deal of "noise" to sort through to get needed information. It is only that information which is relevant to the SA requirements of each team member that is needed.
Quote: Rich's parents condemned the conspiracy theorists and said that those individuals were exploiting their son's death for political gain, and their spokesperson called the conspiracy theorists "disgusting sociopaths". They requested a retraction and apology from Fox News after the network promoted the conspiracy theory, and sent a cease and desist letter to the investigator Fox News used. The investigator stated that he had no evidence to back up the claims which Fox News attributed to him. Fox News issued a retraction.
Law enforcement stated that the conspiracy theories were unfounded, while fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com, Snopes.com, and FactCheck.org came to the conclusion that the theories were false and baseless. ... People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election.
Other news organizations revealed Wheeler was a Donald Trump supporter, a paid Fox News contributor, and according to NBC News had "developed a reputation for making outlandish claims, such as one appearance on Fox News in 2007 in which he warned that underground networks of pink pistol-toting lesbian gangs were raping young women. [end quote].
Funny how that happens, crimes that go uninvestigated for political reasons gather so little evidence...
They did investigate. And found evidence disproving the Seth Rich conspiracy. btw, "a new FBI report found that roughly 40 percent of the nation's slayings went unsolved last year" [2017].
The did? The FBI said they quashed it (above).
Because their job is to find the truth. Squashing false conspiracy theories is something they should be doing.
Before they investigate a murder? Who knew?
They investigated that and found it was false.
Quote (from my comment above): People who worked with Rich said he was not an expert computer hacker helping to leak information to foreigners. Andrew Therriault, a data scientist who had mentored Rich, said although he had recently been working as a programmer, this "wasn't his background", and another co-worker said Rich was very upset when he heard hackers associated with Russian intelligence services had broken into the DNC computers and could be interfering with the election.
Where's the report?
...and how hard is it to "hack into" the DNC's servers when you spend 12 hours a day working as a "computer voting specialist" At DNC HQ?
All the hacking code required is "Copy c:\ to a:\"
The FBI never investigated the murder.
The DC police investigated Seth Rich's murder. They had jurisdiction. CrowdStrike handled the DNC breach because the FBI doesn't help hacking victims recover from attacks. You keep insisting the FBI not doing things that aren't it's job proves a conspiracy. It does not.
All the hacking code required is "Copy c:\ to a:\"
There is no workplace where everyone has access to everyone else's emails and all the data on all the servers. Such data is password protected and can't be copied so easily. What a moronic comment.
Post a Comment