File "everyone wanted Shokin fired" under "repeat a lie often enough".
On Nov 2, 2015 Burisma demanded from Hunter that the cases be closed. On Dec 7, 2015, Joe was in Ukraine ordering the prosecutor to be fired. At the time no international organization was making that demand.
The IMF put out a vague statement about corruption much later, on Feb 10, 2016. Nothing about Shokin. Entirely possible that Biden's crew were the ones who elicited the statement and that this was the best they could get.
The EU ambassador to Ukraine merely put out a platitudinal statement on his Facebook *after* Shokin had already been fired.
The World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development made no announcements about Shokin.
The whole idea that everyone wanted Shokin fired was cooked up by Biden's crew and the media repeated it often enough that people now think it's true. @kausmickey
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ The most egregious aspect to the latest Flynn document drops is that Strzok obtained National Security Letters against Flynn in February and March 2017 based on the same Papadopoulos bullshit which they had already investigated Flynn for and found nothing. But it gets worse.
2/ Here's cast iron proof that Strzok lied to get the National Security Letters issued. The reason for investigation Flynn–according to Strzok's book–was that FBI didn't know who on the campaign the Russians had communicated with. But Papa told them in Jan 2017 that it was Papa!
3/ Strzok obtained National Security Letters against Flynn in March 2017 based on the claim that Flynn might be the person on the campaign who received the Russian info.
In fact, Papadopoulos had already told the FBI in Jan 2017 that it was Papa himself who got the Russian info.
1/ This one paragraph from Strzok book sums up his failures.
Strzok was completely fixated on finding the person who had made the offer of assistance to the campaign (UNSUB–unknown subject). It was his "unwavering lodestar".
The problem is, how can an UNSUB be an "unwavering..
2/ lodestar" before you even know whether the UNSUB exists?
The evidence that there might not be an UNSUB is right there in Strzok's book. *Either directly or indirectly* the Russians *appeared* to have communicated.
Not exactly conclusive evidence that such a person exists.
3/ Strzok saying it "appeared" fits with the language we saw in Mueller and Horowitz, that there was a "suggestion of a suggestion".
The appearance of a suggestion of suggestion is the opposite of an unwavering lodestar.
1/ If you were wondering what all the fuss was about with @ChuckRossDC watching Christopher Steele's trial on Zoom (the defamation case brought by Gubarev), it's much ado about nothing. Here's a lengthy account of the story.
2/ TLDR is that the trial was public and outsiders were allowed to watch. But due to the virus they had to either watch via Zoom link in a neighboring courtroom or remotely but only with the judge's approval. The problem was that they forgot to make the Zoom link private.
3/ This meant that anyone who had the link could watch, without asking for approval. The judge said it wasn't done deliberately so the lawyers who shared the link will probably get a slap on the wrist. Nothing to do with Ross though.
1/ Whoever wrote the Feb 14, 2018 briefing for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence needs to be in jail. The whole thing is a litany of lies.
Right off the bat, in paragraph one, there's a major lie. Danchenko is held out as "one of" Steele's primary sub-sources.
2/ That lie is betrayed later in the briefing document, where it is revealed that Danchenko is actually the only such source. This is crucial because one of the FBI's excuses for the fact that Danchenko's story didn't match Steele's was that Steele must have had other sources.
3/ The briefer also holds the sub-sources out as somehow being in major peril. We now know from having identified all five, that none of them was in peril. They were all total nobodies who knew nothing. Their only mistake was that they agreed to have drinks with Danchenko.
Danchenko told the FBI that the Steele dossier claim of July 2016 that Page met Sechin did *not* come from him.
That's as good evidence as you can find that Steele fabricated the story and later parallel constructed the same story via Source 5, thereby setting up Danchenko.
Alternatively, Danchenko parallel constructed the story much later because Steele needed something to back up the earlier fabrication. Either way, it was parallel constructed ex post facto.
Long story short is how did Danchenko magically come up with a story in October to back up what Steele had fabricated and reported in July? I can see only two options. Either Source 5 was sent in to tell Danchenko or Danchenko put the words in Source 5's mouth to please Steele.