Share this page!

Jeff Carlson Profile picture
Twitter logo
Feb 15 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Durham Filing Detailing Spying on Trump White House Raises National Security Implications

New from @HansMahncke & Myself
theepochtimes.com/durham-filing-…
Durham also notes an email exchange re: the Alfa allegations involving former Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias and three Clinton campaign officials: communications director Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and senior foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan.
That email exchange w/Elias, Sullivan, Palmieri and Mook re: the now-disproven Alfa Bank allegations took place on Sep. 15, 2016, only four days before Sussmann took the Alfa information to the FBI.
When questioned by HPSCI Sullivan implied he had no direct knowledge, stating that Elias would “occasionally give us updates on the opposition research they were conducting.” Sullivan testified that he “didn’t know what the nature of that effort was” or “who was funding it.”
Sullivan also downplayed any specific insights from Elias, telling House investigators that the information provided by Elias “tended to be pieces of information that I’d heard from reporters as well.”
Despite these claims, Sullivan played a material role in disseminating information regarding the Alfa allegations.

A Clinton tweet included a statement from Sullivan claiming “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.”

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Jeff Carlson

Jeff Carlson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @themarketswork

Jeff Carlson Profile picture
Feb 2
1) Durham Filing Rebuts Inspector General Horowitz’s Claims on Missing Cellphones, Hints at Growing Rift

Durham-Horowitz: Part II

From @HansMahncke & myself

Thread includes an abbreviated timeline of events, as follows:
theepochtimes.com/durham-filing-…
2) Dec. 17, 2021

Horowitz informed Durham that in March 2017 Sussmann told an OIG SAG that one of his clients had observed that a specific OIG employee’s computer was “seen publicly” in “Internet traffic” and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country.
3) At the time Horowitz provided this report to Durham on December 17, 2021, Horowitz represented to Durham & team that it had “no other file[s] or other documentation” relating to this cyber matter.
Read 12 tweets
Jeff Carlson Profile picture
Jan 29
1) Based on Durham's new filing it seems Horowitz felt compelled to respond - perhaps because Durham's Jan 25th filing was so damaging.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel’s Office’s public filing, the DOJ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) brought to our attention..."
2) Horowitz's response as detailed in Durham's new filing appears weak - and does not seem to be backed by much evidence.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3) Horowitz says OIG records show that Baker's two cell phones were "likely" discussed during a call on Feb. 12, 2018.

Durham says he does not remember either this call or the discussion of Baker's cell phones.

Note: OIG did not gain possession of phones until Feb 15, 2018.
Read 10 tweets
Jeff Carlson Profile picture
Jan 11
We already knew that Daszak continued his work under his NIH grant until April 2020. May even have gone beyond. This was revealed in Daszak's response letter to NIH. See below.

The question is, was ANY work done/funded under Daszak's 2018 proposal.
theepochtimes.com/daszaks-ecohea…
The 2018 proposal, provided by DRASTIC, is separate (technically) from Daszak's NIH-funded work.

2018 proposal (funding denied) contained remarkable similarities to Covid pandemic but the Murphy report needs more vetting from what I've seen.
theepochtimes.com/research-propo…
As noted last night, it's entirely possible there's conflation between Dasak's NIH-funded work & his 2018 proposal.

It's also possible that Veritas report is correct but we need more.

Seems almost too neat, too perfect. Raises questions.

Waiting for more info before judgment.
Read 4 tweets
Jeff Carlson Profile picture
Jan 11
This is in direct relation to documents previously released by DRASTIC.

The rejection letter referred to was included in the DRASTIC release.

BUT this does re-raise the very valid question as to why this proposal from Daszak was buried.

See:
theepochtimes.com/research-propo…
Note that the DRASTIC release was already authenticated by Linfa Wang, one of the scientists who was involved in Daszak’s proposal.

DRASTIC release here: drasticresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/main-d…
See also:
Read 4 tweets
Jeff Carlson Profile picture
Dec 5, 2021
Hi @ggreenwald

Important to note that they DID NOT recant within days.

We know because this same group aggressively pushed their Natural Origin narrative to National Academy of Sciences in Feb.

Also, 1st draft of Proximal Origin was completed same day as Fauci Feb 1 call.
This details how Fauci & other scientists tried to shape the narrative of a NASEM response to the White House in Feb 2020.

2 days after Fauci was told it was a lab leak, his group pushed Natural Origin narrative that was written SAME day as Fauci call.
theepochtimes.com/behind-the-sce…
There was a very direct and orchestrated cover-up.

1) Feb 1, 2020 - Fauci told lab leak was 70-80% likely

2) 1st draft of Proximal Origin completed same day

3) Feb 3, 2020 - Fauci presents to NASEM. Daszak & Andersen there

4) Fauci scientists push Natural Origin to NASEM
Read 4 tweets
Jeff Carlson Profile picture
Nov 21, 2021
1) It's suddenly become conveniently fashionable for the same journalists who promoted Steele's Russia- Collusion nonsense to claim that:

1) They never did any such thing

2) Yes, the dossier was flawed but look at the ICA. Or [fill in blank here]...
2) Or claim that:

1) "The notion that the media started questioning Trump’s ties to Russia because of the Steele dossier is even more preposterous."

Because

2) "The report was faulty, but Trump was very, very guilty."
nymag.com/intelligencer/…
3) The Steele dossier laid groundwork for claims of Russia-Collusion.

And the Intelligence Community Assessment was an attempt by Brennan, Clapper & Comey to fortify those claims - w/ridiculous reports of "Facebook something"

In some respects, the Steele dossier WAS the ICA.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @themarketswork has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @themarketswork!

Read all threads by @themarketswork

:(