1) This older (& lengthy) article resulted from a project in April '18.
I selected articles surrounding significant events re: Trump-Russia Narrative, pulled out specific passages and provided background as needed. themarketswork.com/2018/04/26/a-s…
2) Dates span from May 2016 to Dec 2017. Majority occur 10/16 - 4/17.
Will prove interesting to some. For others tedious. Possibly useful to researchers.
It may make you mad.
A compelling story emerges as articles are viewed sequentially & DNC Media collusion becomes obvious.
3) "Given the clear relevance of journalists to Fusion GPS’s activities, the Requested Records therefore include records related to nine payments to three journalists." – November 21, 2017 Court Filing scribd.com/document/36520…
4) FBI employees, at all levels of the organization, with no official reason to be in contact with media, were in frequent contact with reporters.
We have profound concerns about the volume & extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we uncovered. - IG Horowitz
5) An early attempt to establish loose Russian ties to the Trump Campaign.
Sater’s role as an FBI Informant is unexpectedly reminiscent of Carter Page who provided evidence – and possibly served as an informant – in the Evgeny Buryakov case. washingtonpost.com/politics/forme…
6) First direct attempt by WAPO to establish Trump-Russia connections.
Article written by same authors of article on Sater.
It’s this article that established the three Trump Campaign targets of the Left – General Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. washingtonpost.com/politics/insid…
7) 3rd appearance by WAPO reporter Tom Hamburger.
Article focused on Carter Page.
By this point Page was already chosen target of FISA Warrant the FBI would obtain on 10-21-16
17) CNN article comes out directly after CNN Dossier article. Clearly coordinated.
Comey's refusal to comment specifically reported.
Comey knew his silence would reverberate quite loudly. Comey could have provided clarification. He chose not to do so. cnn.com/2017/01/11/pol…
18) Susan Hennessey & John Schindler in article
This: "fact that nation’s top intelligence officials chose to present a summary version of the dossier to both Obama and President-elect Trump, indicates they may have a relatively high degree of confidence" vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/d…
19) Prior to signing, greater latitude existed in regards to collection of information.
Obama seems to have delayed signing until final days of Administration.
Once signed, Section 2.3 granted broad latitude to inter-agency sharing of information. nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/…
20) Another interview with Dossier author Steele.
Fusion GPS showed reporter Wood the dossier in early Nov '16.
On July 23, 2023, Eisen published a far longer 264 page report, titled "Trump on Trial: A Model Prosecution Memo for Federal Election Interference Crimes Second Edition" justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…
Eisen: This model prosecution memorandum (or “pros memo”) assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election.
Solomon went to WH on evening of Jan 19, 2021 where he reviewed docs.
Plan was to fully disseminate to public on morning of the 20th.
But Solomon received a call late that night from someone w/in WH asking for their return for "additional redactions."
Here's what happened next
"On his initiative and without the President’s knowledge or consent, one of the President’s subordinates decided that redactions consistent with the standards of the Privacy Act should be applied to the binder before it was publicly released, the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion notwithstanding."
We know from an email sent by George Kent, deputy chief of mission in Kyiv, that a $7mm bribe was paid to the office of Ukrainian chief prosecutor Vitaly Yarema some time in latter part of 2014.
Yarema's office issued a Dec 25, 2014 letter to the UK Courts - who had been investigating Zlochevsky - stating there was no longer an active Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky.
This letter forced the UK Court to drop case.
Yarema and his staff were fired ~one month later.
Yarema's replacement was Viktor Shokin - who reopened the Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky & Burisma.
At the time of the bribe, Hunter was — per Burisma — in charge of Burisma’s legal affairs. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…
Two days after Joe Biden's newly disclosed Dec 4, 2015 conference call w/Hunter & Burisma owner Zlochevsky, Biden's staff crafted answers to potential questions Joe might get re: Hunter's involvement w/Burisma
One of those questions:
Do you think Zlochevsky is corrupt?
Biden's defenders like @RepDanGoldman have claimed Joe Biden didn't know these individuals - or anything about them.
But Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine wrote to Biden's staff on Dec 6, 2015, "I assume all have the DoJ background on Zlochevsky."
It's beyond any doubt that Joe Biden knew exactly who Zlochevsky was - and the significance of participating in a conference call w/Zlochevsky.
Biden's staff was obviously worried - and it's unlikely they even knew of the conference call w/Zlochevsky less than two days prior.
Here, Kent describes UK Investigation - and how it ended in late Dec 2014 because Yarema told UK Courts "there was no active case open on Zlochevsky"
Kent also mentions the $7mm bribe paid to Yarema's office.
Yarema resigned shortly after on Feb 9, 2015. Shokin replaced him.
There's another big problem as well. Goldman makes crazy claim that Shokin was an asset to Burisma - therefore Joe Biden's actions to fire Shokin ran counter to Burisma's interests:
"as Goldman articulated it...Shokin’s ouster put Burisma and Zlochevsky at more risk, not less."
2) Most are familiar w/sequence of events leading to the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Víctor Shokin - as the direct result of political and financial pressure from then-VP Joe Biden.
This thread, which focuses on Shokin timeline, is a good refresher: