I have reason to hope (hope, not expect) that the State Department's (heavy) role in Spygate, including the ICA, will become better known within the next 4 weeks. I was thinking to prepare a thread of materials to help put this in context. Is there is any interest? 100 likes=yes.
Okay. I’ll prepare a backgrounder thread on State Dept involvement in Spygate. Hopefully tomorrow. What is prompting me to do is State’s saying that after 2 years I’ll be getting a response on 4/4/22 to this foia request. And I think other Spygate foias may get responses too.
As things stand now, State hasn’t released a single Winer memo or email for over a year. I figure they were stalling until a statute of limitations expired, and I told them as much. 😎
1/ So here's a quick backgrounder on the State Department's role in Spygate (in bits and pieces when I have time to add to it). Bit # 1: What Jonathan Winer told us about his, and State's, relationship with Christopher Steele: web.archive.org/web/2018020902…
/2 The fact that Winer constantly received Steele's reports, particularly on the subject of "Ukraine policy," and that he shared them with Nuland (who appreciated them), is now well documented and indisputable. foia.state.gov/Search/Results…
3/ It is also a fact that both Steele AND Winer, had done private work for Russian (or "Eurasian") oligarchs. Steele, for his part, never really stopped.
4/ Zoom ahead to the 2016 election. As Winer explains it, in September of 2016, he met with Steele, was allowed to review his dossiers, and then Winer prepared a brief memo to Nuland regarding their contents. [Foia request pending for that memo].
5/ One thing Winer fails to mention, however, is that he also shared his dossier memo with others at the State Department (Finer and Patterson), who presumably told or showed SOS Kerry. (Or perhaps Steele informed Finer and/or Patterson directly? See the vague sentence below).
6/ For reasons best known to him, Winer (and the Senate report as far as I can tell on a quick skim) leave out Fusion's role in Winer getting access to the dossiers. But it happened. (h/t @walkafyre for image from Simpson book). foia.state.gov/Search/Results…
7/ Another thing Winer didn't mention, but which is now known, is that he arranged for Steele to come into the State Department and meet/brief Kathy Kavalec. See Kavalec's notes of this meeting here: thespygateproject.org/ocred_docs/doc…
8/ Yet another thing Winer didn't mention was that, shortly after the Winer-arranged Kavalec/Steele meeting took place, where the Trump/Alfa Bank narrative was discussed, Winer gave Kavalec an "online" piece on Trump/Afla, which she shared with the FBI. foia.state.gov/Search/Results…
9/ It seems likely that the Alfa article Winer/Kavalec passed onto the FBI was among the materials that Sussmann gave Baker back on 9/19/2016, as described in the Sussmann indictment. Dunno specifically who told Winer about it.
10/ Winer also played a role it the Cody Shearer version of the dossier making its way through Steele to the FBI. Winer apparently did not the State Department to that material. The Shearer material was eventually referenced in the addendum to the ICA, in an obscure way.
11/ In any event, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that, somewhere under a few redactions, we'd learn that Steele's communications with the State Dept. were cycled through the FBI and into the Carter Page FISA applications.
12/ In addition to whatever the State Department told the FBI in Sept-Dec 2016, traces of Steele's allegations bounced around certain top people and likely impacted on their thinking in the runup to the ICA and Congressional investigations into Russiagate.
13/ Certainly Steele's allegations continued to influence Kathy Kavalec and Bruce Ohr, as they worked together on the "Malign Influence Group" to counter actual or suspected Russian influence on Western politics and elections.
14/ Another Kavalec/Ohr email exchange from 11/21/16, after another Ohr/Kavalec/MIG. Ohr met with the FBI the same day, including Peter, Lisa and Andy. Busy day ...
15/ Ultimately, the Malign Influence Group, which was primarily a State Department project, became a source of Russiagate info for Senate inquiries. Everybody in MIG had been swayed by Steele, etc., in one way or another. foia.state.gov/Search/Results…
16/ Certainly Kavalec and Winer took an interest in the 1/10/2017 DNCNN/IC leak-a-thon. Note the highlighter sentence in the email to Winer from Steny Hoyer’s national security advisor.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I promised a thread, with receipts, on why I regard the Durham report and investigation as minimalist shams. I never got to it because of (i) life, and (ii) other more pressing and timely matters. But now that Trump is staffing up, and now that there may be an opportunity to expose more of the abuses that our government has strained to cover up, this subject has become more pressing and timely. I’m still busy, but can deal with that by drafting this thread in parts over time and trying to keep it brief and focused (and full of typos).
2/ I concede that Durham’s prosecutions and report did result in revealing a lot of important evidence. But, as with Robocop’s Secret Directive Four (Google it if you don’t know), there were lines he would not cross, at least not beyond the bare minimum. One of those Durham reveals in footnote 8 of his report and the (terse) accompanying text. Specifically, Durham was delegated certain authority by the AG to “use classified information” BUT Durham “has not used this authority.” 🤯
3/ I don’t have a copy of AG Order 4942-2020 in which the AG delegated this (UNUSED 🤯) authority to Durham. If anyone does, please share and I will update this post. I’ll wait a while before continuing this thread in the hope someone can provide a copy of Order 4942.
In the meantime, here is a copy of the underlying order showing what authority the AG had to delegate on the use of classified information.
See here: trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-a…
The FBI foia vault today released additional evidence of .@JakeSullivan46 using personal emails for top secret matters and his failure to help prevent Ambassador Stevens’s murder in Benghazi despite actual knowledge of the danger posed to him. vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-cli…
Jake may have sent but just in case. Benghazi/Stevens/Hillary.
The US State Dept’s foia website posted 1249 documents on Friday. Let’s take a quick look 👀. foia.state.gov/Search/Results…
One foia request (not mine) ending in 07153 yields some interesting stuff on Russia/Ukraine. Including Director of Policy planning David McKean’s wife apparently invested with Rosement (Seneca?!?), and Kathy Kavalec enjoying Atlantic Council anti-Russia emails just before the 2016 election. foia.state.gov/Search/Results…
A short thread on .@jaketapper moderating the first Trump/Biden debate. 1/ Tapper is a smart, aggressive reporter. Among CNN’s top talent. But he also was one of the main participants in the collusive (really, insurrectionist) nexus between Dem operatives, the partisan IC, and the press, in trying to undo the 2016 election or, at a minimum, hobble the incoming Trump administration. Specifically, Tapper was front and center in breaking the “dossier briefing” story on January 10, 2017.
2/ It’s obvious that the intent of the IC briefing Obama, Biden and Trump on the dossier allegations, adding a two page addendum to the ICA on that topic, and then massive IC leaks to the press, was to hurt Trump. Comey acknowledged to his buddies that CNN was looking for a “news hook” to turn the shaky, discreditable dossier into a story via FBI involvement. As in “Please don’t leak this. Wink wink, nudge nudge.” Then Strzok and pals eagerly awaited the story breaking specifically on CNN, which they undeniably knew was coming, right after Comey finished his Congressional testimony. This is all established in writing.
3/ Tapper, for his part, acknowledged in emails to Ben Smith that he was angered by Smith’s reporting, because it rendered CNN’s scoop less impactful. Tapper compared this to Smith stepping on Tapper’s d*ck. Again, this is all in writing.
Remember when the CDC said they didn’t get/keep the data allegedly supporting its ridiculous “study” stating that everyone, including the naturally immune, needed vaxing ASAP? Because the data reminded with a private contractor? Well, I got a foia response to my request for a copy of that contract. Anyone want to see it? Will try to post later today.
Okay. Here’s a link to the subject CDC contract. Thank you to .@walkafyre for posting it on line for me. A few comments. First, I have learned that the contract was modified twice prior to the “study” that was the subject of my request (see images below). These mods were not included in the foia production, so I just went back and requested those. For now, we only have a partially redacted copy of the original, unmodified contract. Even so, it’s interesting (to me) in a couple of respects, both as to what is redacted, and what is not. More comments to follow shortly below. scribd.com/document/72183…
As to what ISN’T redacted, there are two points of interest. First, the original contract states right in it that it relates solely to high risk patients. So why use this contractor’s data to make vax recommendations for literally everyone?!? Second, the contract appears to require the contractor to keep archives of its data available. Yet, when I filed a foia request for the data allegedly supporting the CDC’s ridiculous “study”, the response was, in substance: “sorry, Charlie, we don’t have the data.”