Michael Shellenberger reminds us of the Peter Gleick wire and computer fraud and document forgery that was ignored by Democrat prosecutors since Gleick had Democrat privilege,
2/ Gleick was not only a criminal, but a dumb criminal. @stevenmosher spotted him as author of the forgery because the name of the vain and idiotic Gleick was placed prominently in the forged document. Mosher and I are friends; we were in regular communication as Gleick was outed
5/ re-reading, it's funny to see that line in forged memo which triggered Mosher's identification of Gleick's involvement in fraud was praised by Andy Revkin of NYT (who is a very decent person, much more decent than Gleick) as supposed recognition of Gleick's impact on debate
6/ oddly, I'd been thinking about the Gleick incident recently as I was trying to write up a thorough narrative on the identification od Danchenko and his "network". At one time,I'd tried to interest Mosher who's v sharp on styles, in PSS project, but he was otherwise busy
7/ one common thread in both Gleick and Danchenko cases is the corruptness of Democrat dominated US attorneys in shutting their eyes to crimes committed by people with Democrat privilege.
8/ Gleick committed multiple felonies, but was never charged. A stark contrast to the vendettas in the US "justice" system against the political opposition (Trump supporters).
9/ consider the serious sentences issued even to young hackers. Now consider what Gleick did. He set up an email account fraudulently using the name of a Heartland Board member, then asked that board materials be copied to this email account in addition to the legitimate one.
10/ Heartland duly sent confidential board materials to the fraudulent email address - hacking by social engineering. However, nothing in the board documents was particularly interesting, so Gleick (tho he never conceded this) forged a lurid document that he passed as Heartland.
11/ Gleick then disseminated the forgery, together with uninteresting actual documents, to Guardian, NYT and others. Big article in Guardian here theguardian.com/environment/20… featuring forged document
2/ The Guardian, needless to say, was major - and perhaps most committed - purveyor of Christopher Steele's fraudulent claims. Luke Harding being a particular dedicated stenographer of Steele's lies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
a German writer has examined and translated radio traffic leading up to landing of Ryanair flight at Minsk. Based on this article, it appears that US/NATO fabricated allegations that Belarus forced plane to land in Minsk. anti-spiegel.ru/2021/alle-jahr… anti-spiegel.ru/2021/komplette…
2/ in saying this, I have no knowledge or information on who sent email threat to airports or what their motive was. But there doesn't seem to be ANY evidence that Belarus threatened to send MIGs to force airplane down, as alleged in many stories.
3/ it is, of course, possible that Belarus sent email to airports to induce the flight to land at Minsk, but, to my knowledge, no proof of that has been adduced so far. Maybe we'll find out more.
savage commentary in WSJ today about the "grifters" and the dossier archive.is/vpkcP. But even this editorial under-states and mis-identifies the much more serious issue in relation to the dossier which Meier neglected and even misdirected away from.
archive.is/vpkcP Editorialist Holman Jenkins recognizes the flimsiness of Steele's supposed "network", but it's worse than he says. "Millian's role" wasn't "inflated"; it was fabricated. Neither Steele nor Danchenko ever met or had contact with Millian. Meier ignored this
3/ the most alarming allegations of collusion, set out in their most gory detail in Report 95 (which was delivered less than a week after Wikileaks drop as intel porn fulfilling Dem fantasies) were based on supposed "network". They were fabricated in Beltway and/or UK.
1/ @BarryMeier's exemplar Steele dossier incident - both in book and Isikoff interview - was the Michael Cohen in Prague incident, rather than the memos attributed to "Millian" that were relied on in ICA and Page FISA.
2/ it prompted me to reflect a little on Steele reports on Cohen incident, which I haven't thought much about, since Cohen visit to Prague was disproved early on, tho McClatchy later published allegation of Cohen phone being pinged in Prague. mcclatchydc.com/news/investiga…
3/ Cohen's name is first mentioned in Steele memos on three consecutive days in October (18, 19, 20), then again in the non-DNC memo on Dec 13.
@shipwreckedcrew the person most responsible for burying the Danchenko information was SIA Brian Auten. He appears to have disseminated 2-page summary memo, which concealed inconsistencies arising from Danchenko interview, while not distributing
the 57-page memorandum on Danchenko, other than
@shipwreckedcrew 2/ placing it in the Crossfire case file, where it appears to have remained unread until re-discovered by Horowitz. At least, all FBI officials senior to Auten profess ignorance of the document and that they know nothing except what was in 2-page memorandum.
@shipwreckedcrew 3/ this seems surprisingly incurious to me, but not impossible. From a professional perspective, how plausible is it that information in Auten's 57 page memo did in fact remain unknown to FBI officials?
@mtaibbi the ICA is the key. Focus on Carter Page FISA has been Look Squirrel distraction. Steele info did not meet IC quality standards but included anyway because Obama (orally) said to include "everything", which McCabe used as authorization/instruction to include Steele fabrications
@mtaibbi 2/ many questions about ICA remain unanswered and even unasked. There does not appear to be any purpose for including Steele "information" other than to leak it. (as I recall) Strzok/Page speculated in early Jan on leaks from senior WH.
@mtaibbi 3/ was there any purpose in such a rushed ICA other than to boobytrap and undermine the incoming administration? Everyone involved is smart and cunning, so each step undoubtedly has a color of right, but net result of ICA was to commence resistance against Trump.
@ReginaMourad@BarryMeier@HansMahncke@MonsieursGhost Meier talked to me. He discusses our Twitter work in a section of his book, but manages to get almost every nuance wrong. He's a good journalist but misunderstood our perspective almost totally.
@ReginaMourad@BarryMeier@HansMahncke@MonsieursGhost my initial reaction to @BarryMeier was over-focused on frustration with some unfairness to our twitter corner. To be balanced, I should also have pointed out that his critique of Steele et al (and I intend to read book) appears to be very severe in MSM terms.
@ReginaMourad@BarryMeier@HansMahncke@MonsieursGhost 2/ Meier pointed out that Steele's supposed role in Litvinenko affair had much inflated (just as his role in FIFA was.) The Litvinenko affair was a long-standing interest of his.