Multiple pages of Smirnov Indictment contain a series of texts from May 19, 2020 in VERY large font, which Weiss characterized as "expressing bias against" Biden. Weiss failed to disclose what was happening on May 19, 2020. It was pivotal to subsequent censorship, incl laptop.
on May 19, 2020, Andrii Derkach and Konstantin Kulyk (the Ukrainian prosecutor who recovered $1.5 billion of embezzled funds - the ONLY major recovery ever accomplished) held press conference that released Biden-Poroshenko tapes. Here is a link to video
the Derkach press conference attracted little mainstream attention but was noticed in this corner. E.g. here . @FoolNelson was one of very few people who covered Derkach July 2020 press conference
@FoolNelson in summer 2020, Dems and US security state suppressed Derkach. In Sep 2020, Derkach was sanctioned by Treasury and his social media and website erased. It was part of same operation as subsequent suppression of Hunter laptop.
@FoolNelson Bottom line: Smirnov's texts on May 19, 2020 were about the Derkach-Kulyk press conference of May 19, 2020, which contained lurid and detailed corruption allegations.
@FoolNelson People forget that it was Derkach, who, in October 2019, had been the first person to report - with receipts - that Hunter Biden was getting $83,333 per month ($1 million per year) to be a placeholder at Burisma. (US media reported, but did not credit information to Derkach,)
@FoolNelson Kulyk (see ) was a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been lauded by Tetiana Chornovol for his role in recovering $1.5 billion in embezzled funds, despite obstacles by Biden-backed allies embedded within the Ukrainian government. Kulyk later sanctioned by USthreadreaderapp.com/thread/1700539…
@FoolNelson the Smirnov indictment continues with a May 21, 2020 text about Ukraine opening an investigation into corruption revealed by Derkach and Kulyk. This was correct information: Zelensky announced investigation (but later, under pressure, appears to have shut it down)
@FoolNelson Smirnov then sent a picture of Joe and Hunter Biden golfing with Devon Archer, a Burisma director (and long-time Hunter associate.) He was not the only person who incorrectly identified Devon Archer, a Burisma director, as its CEO.
on June 22, 2020, Derkach and Kulyk held a follow-up press conference in which they provided many further details on corruption allegations involving Burisma and Bidens. en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/6…
next press conference (July 7, 2020) attracted little attention but contained an Aug 2016 Biden-Poroshenko tape that linked both Poroshenko and Biden to the Black Ledger operation that decapitated Manafort as Trump campaign manager. Derkach was then de-platformed by US agencies
as a bit of housekeeping, comparison of the FD1023 (Grassley version) to Indictment shows that Alexander Ostapenko was Associate 1, Burisma 2 = Pozharskiy, Burisma 3= Zlochevsky daughter. Associate 2 is USPER who does not speak Russian and Smirnov's former partner
a few days after the June 22, 2020 Derkach-Kulyk press conference about Biden corruption in Ukraine, FBI Pittsburgh contacted Handler about the previous 1023 report, which had been identified in the course of a preliminary assessment of Ukraine issues commissioned by Deputy AG.
according to the Indictment, on March 1, 2017,
Smirnov reported contact with Burisma, including Pozharskyi's business card. We KNOW that Pozharskyi traveled to Washington and Dallas on March 7-11, 2017, including meetings with Hunter Biden, Cofer Black, Blue Star and Aerotek
then in April 2017, Smirnov and Pozharskyi exchanged emails about how Burisma might do an acquisition of a public company in the US, presumably as a reverse takeover
in May 2017, Burisma informed Ostapenko (Associate 1) that Burisma's objective was a US-based oil and gas company (not an IPO). Ostapenko forwarded email to Smirnov.
in September 2017, there was a (firmly dated) meeting in Kyiv involving Smirnov, Associate 2 (still unknown), Zlochevsky's daughter, at which Burisma declined interest in Associate 2's crypto product. teaser: @walkafyre has something fascinating about this date in Kyiv.
the 2020 FD1023 (see Indictment, para 25) also describes a meeting in Kyiv attended by Associate 2 and Zlochevsky's daughter.
Associate 2's trip to Ukraine in 2017 was his first trip outside the US since 2011. The meeting in Kyiv described in the 2020 FD1023 seems to be a reasonable characterization of the Sept 2017 meeting. However, Weiss accused Smirnov of placing the meeting back in 2015-2016.
@walkafyre (with a typical miracle) connected the Kyiv trip of Smirnov and Associate 2 (his crypto friend) to a crypto conference in Kyiv on Sep 16-19, 2017 - exactly the right dates.
There's a Russiagate easter egg here. Try to find it before reading on starternoise.com/d10e-conferenc…
here's the easter egg. One of the key figures in the Sept 2017 crypto conference in Ukraine that brought Smirnov and Associate 2 to Kyiv was Mike Costache, Sergei Millian's friend. Small world.
Smirnov told the FBI that he and Ostapenko met Zlochevsky in Vienna a couple of months after the meeting with Burisma in Kyiv (with Associate 2 and Zlochevsky's daughter). I've focused here on relative chronology. The Kyiv meeting was in Sept 2017.
The FD1023 cited in the indictment reported that Smirnov "recalled" that the Vienna meeting "took place around the time [Biden] made a pubblic statement about [Shokin] being corrupt and that he should be fired/removed from office". FBI placed the Vienna meeting in late 2015/2016
But watch the pea carefully as to what is explicitly stated and what is assumed.
The Indictment carefully examined travel by key protagonists, but left out one important trip: they didn't discuss when (if ever) Smirnov and Ostapenko visited Vienna? Why not?
If they never visited Vienna, why didnt Weiss include that as a false statement count in indictment?
Here's what I'm wondering - and it's just an idea: placing the Kyiv trip in Sept 2017, Smirnov's relative chronology would place his Vienna meeting with Zlochevsky (if it happened) in late 2017/Jan 2018.
Does that lead anywhere? I think so.
on January 23, 2018, three months after Smirnov's trip to Kyiv with Associate 2, Joe Biden gave his infamous speech about firing Shokin.
the FD1023 placed the meeting in Vienna to late 2015/2016 based on their assumption that the Biden statement about Shokin referred to by Smirnov was Biden's December 2015 demand for Shokin's resignation. This results in inconsistencies and the conclusion that Smirnov lied on date
But if Smirnov was referring to Biden's January 2018 speech, then the dates fall into place. The meeting in Kyiv with Associate 2 and Burisma is then the well-attested Sept 2017 meeting and not some phantom doppelganger meeting in 2015.
To be clear, I know little to nothing about Smirnov; I'm only trying to read the documents precisely. But the more that I think about it, the more plausible this interpretation seems to me.
Let's turn to specific counts. Weiss said, using quotation marks, that 'Defendant's claim that "in late 2015/2016 during the Obama/Biden Administration" he first met with Burisma Official 2...'
But I don't see any DIRECT statement by Smirnov that he met Burisma executives "in late 2015 or 2016". Maybe Smirnov did SAY that, but it is entirely possible (and IMO even probable) that those dates were calculated by the FBI working backwards from an interpretation.
similarly, Weiss' charge relating to the Vienna meeting depends on the interpretation of the Biden speech cited by Smirnov as being the Dec 9, 2015 speech to the Rada, rather than the Jan 23, 2018 speech to the CFR in Washington.
to be clear, this closing part of the thread is speculation. I welcome criticism of the idea presented here.
Kevin Clinesmith's lies about Carter Page and Crossfire Hurricane were much, much worse than the (unproven) allegations that Smirnov got his dates wrong. Why should Smirnov be held without bail on questionable charges?
picking up the thread once again this morning: according to proposed chronology, the Vienna meeting between Zlo, Smirnov [and Ostapenko] took place around time of Joe's notorious CFR speech on Jan 23, 2018. A date which occurs in Weiss narrative without mentioning Joe's speech😄
paragraph 30 is based on documents (not the distorted chronology of the 2020 FD1023). Associate 2 met Smirnov in London on Jan 23, 2018 - the VERY day that Joe Biden made his notorious and boastful speech at CFR about firing Shokin.
Smirnov reportedly told Associate 2 that he had received a call from Zlochevsky about potential business. So Smirnov and Associate 2 made a second trip to Kyiv (first was in Sep 2017), this time meeting with Pozharsky in English. Once again, Burisma wasnt interested in crypto.
as mentioned previously, the Indictment, otherwise very detailed about travel, did not contain ANY information on Smirnov trips to Vienna, and, in particular, around the time of Joe's speech to CFR. However, we now know Smirnov was in London on Jan 23, 2018.
Here's another amazing doppelganger. The document-based narrative (para 31p) reports Smirnov and Associate 2 in London in Jan 2018, when Smirnov reported call from Zlochevsky. The questionable 2020 FD1023 reported Smirnov and Associate 1 in London in 2019 when Zlochevsky called.
Jan 2018 call from Zlochevsky was received when Smirnov and Associate 2 were at Hotel Baglioni in London; at time of "2019" call (questioned by Weiss) from Zlochevsky, Smirnov met Associate 1 near Harrod's, a short walk from Hotel Baglioni.
These details pertain to the count in 57d about an alleged lie about a 2019 phone call between Zlochevsky and Associate 1 (which Weiss refutes.) Question: did the (screwy) 2020 FD1023 garble this date as well? Not obvious that it didn't.
CONCLUSIONS
Let's review the chronology defenses to counts in para 57.
57a: Smirnov did not claim that he met Pozharzky in "late 2015/2016". He met Pozh in Sep 2017 in Kyiv. Meeting was in Russian and presumably Smirnov stands by his claim. Associate 2 didn't speak Russian.
57b: Smirnov arguably met Zlochevsky in Vienna around time of Joe's speech to CFR in Jan 2018 (NOT Dec 2015) and Smirnov stands by his claim
57c. Smirnov's telephone conversation with Zlochevsky in late Feb 2017 was reported to FBI in real time and noted in 3/1/2017 FD1023 (which mentioned references to Hunter Biden but said they were "not relevant"). Smirnov stands by his comments.
57d. Smirnov argues that the 2020 FD1023 is a garbled version of his telephone call with Zlochevsky while in London on Jan 23, 2018 with Associate 2 (and maybe Associate 1) when Joe made his notorious CFR speech. No wonder Zlochevsky thought Smirnov was an oracle.
@PaulGraham11980 The events described in FD1023 prior to the heading "Subsquent" ... are doppelganger descriptions of the late 2017-early 2018 events, as described in the thread.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Climate United Fund, into which Biden EPA appears to have parked $6.97 billion, is a coalition of three 501(c)(3): Calvert Impact Capital, Community Preservation Corporation and Self-Help Credit Union.
Their EPA work plan here: epa.gov/system/files/d…. Their work plan says that they have managed more than $30 billion in private and institutional capital.
I looked very quickly at the financial statements for each of the three participants.
Calvert Impact assets.ctfassets.net/4oaw9man1yeu/6… shows a 2023 balance sheet with $520 million in portfolio investments and $154 million in cash.
Calvert Impact streams money into a large number of smaller (mostly) non-profits, including for example Artspace boutique homes illustrated below.
Community Preservation Corporation 2023 balance sheet shows $847 million invested in mortgage loans; cash and restricted cash of $342 million, $370 million invested in hedge funds, $101 million in unconsolidated subsidiaries for overall assets of $1.8 billion.
Self-Help Corporation has loans of $3.42 billion, with total assets of $4.49 billion.
All three participants are substantial 501(c)(3) corporations, all three are in the lending business. But their total is nowhere near the $30 billion mentioned in their application. I wonder where the $30 billion comes from.
The business to date of the three participants has been loans. Someone is going to benefit from the infusion of $6.97 billion into these three companies. How will that work? Maybe Kamala Harris can explain.
One-quarter of the Climate United Fund will be spent on "electric transportation" - a topic on which the leader of DOGE is well informed.
They propose "Electric and/or plug-in
hybrid electric passenger vehicles replacing existing ICE cars" - 25,000 – 35,000 passenger vehicles electrified. They also propose "Electric medium duty vans
and trucks replacing existing
ICE fleets" - 500-750 vehicles.
What isn't explained is why three Democrat 501(c)(3)'s have any useful role to play in the acquisition of electric vehicles by ICE? Surely that's something that ICA can administer themselves.
Similarly they propose "Electric heavy-duty trucks replacing diesel trucks" and "Electric school buses replacing diesel buses". Whatever the merits of the scheme, how do the 501(c)(3)'s add value?
Victoria Nuland was appointed to Board of Directors of National Endowment of Democracy, the primary US funding agency for overseas NGOs involved in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria.
One can scarcely help wondering what Nuland's input has been in connection with recent NGO activity in Georgia and Syria.
for people unfamiliar with Victoria Nuland, she has been mentioned dozens of times in previous threads here. x.com/search?q=nulan…
reupping a link to Nuland's notorious conversation with US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February 2014, while Maidan insurrection reaching crescendo in Ukraine (precisely as Putin and Russia preoccupied with Sochi Olympics). On February 22, 2014, Yats (Yatsenyuk) Nuland's choice was installed as Prime Minister; Oleh Tiahnybok, leader of the neo-Nazi party, was given a key role in post-coup government, while Klitschko remained mayor of Kyiv, a position that he retained. Precisely as Nuland and Pyatt agreed. Nuland said that Biden would be running point on the operation, which he did, becoming the de facto US regent in Ukraine from 2014-Jan 2017. Worth listening to again. 📷youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6s…… Earlier CA link here x.com/ClimateAudit/s…
Some readers have probably noticed that Microsoft has recently become one of the leading retailers of lurid allegations about "Russian influence operations targeting U.S. elections".
What is being overlooked is the lead author of the Microsoft articles is none other than Clint Watts, the founder (fpri.org/news/2017/08/f…) of the infamous Hamilton 68 dashboard, which was exposed by @mtaibbi in #TwitterFiles 15 (x.com/mtaibbi/status…) as the "next great media fraud".
Taibbi comprehensively exposed the total sham of the Hamilton 68 dashboard. Nonetheless, Clint Watts, the main proponent of the sham Hamilton 68 dashboard, has risen to a more lucrative and more prominent platform at Microsoft, where he continues to propagate the same warmonging claims as he has for more than a decade.
less well known is that Watts also had a curious role in the original Russiagate hoax. Christopher Steele had met Kathleen Kavalec, a senior State Department official on October 11, 2016, where he spun an even more lurid fantasy than the "dossier" itself, adding in Sussmann's false Alfa Bank hoax and naming Millian as a supposed source (notwithstanding his supposed reluctance to identify sources because of "danger".) Kavalec later met with Bruce Ohr, who became Steele's conduit to FBI after November 1, 2016.
Kavalec read Watts' lurid November 6, 2016 article entitled "Trolling for Trump" and, after meeting with Ohr et al on Nov 21, 2016, called Watts in for a meeting on December 7, 2016. warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolli…
Kavalec was so impressed with Watts that she sent a copy of "Trolling for Trump" to Victoria Nuland and other high-level State Department officials including Daniel Fried, John Heffern, Athena Katsoulos, Naz Durakoglu, Jonathan Cohen, Bridget Brink, Eric Green, Christopher Robinson, Conrad Tribble. Earlier in 2016, Brink and Nuland had been involved in the Biden/State Department putsch to remove Shokin as Ukrainian Prosecutor General.
Clint Watts' "Trolling for Trump" article warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolli…, which had so enthralled senior State Department official Kavalec and her associates, said that their interest in "trolls" had arisen as follows: "When experts published content criticizing the Russian-supported Bashar al Assad regime, organized hordes of trolls would appear to attack the authors on Twitter and Facebook."
So who were the "experts" whose feelings had been hurt by online criticism? It turned out to be January 2014 article foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria… co-authored by Watts himself entitled "The Good and Bad of Ahrar al-Sham: An al Qaeda–Linked Group Worth Befriending."
At the time of Watts' article, ISIS was still very new. It was written in the same month as Obama had called ISIS the "jayvee". At the time, U.S. (through separate CIA and DoD operations) and Gulf States allies were funneling cash and weapons to jihadis of every persuasion as the Obama administration attempted to implement its regime change coup in Syria.
But despite Beltway support for arming Al Qaeda and its allies (including Ahrar al-Sham as advocated by Clint Watts), the larger public has never entirely understood the higher purpose supposedly served by arming Al Qaeda and its allies to carry out regime change in Syria. Mostly, they find it hard to believe that U.S. would carry out such an iniquitous policy. So Watts ought to have expected some blowback to his advocacy of arming AlQaeda allies, but instead, Watts blamed "Russia" for online criticism, ultimately falsely accusing simple opponents of US allying with AlQaeda allies as Russian agents or dupes.
actually, the lesson from Helene is the opposite from that being promoted.
In 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority was given the mandate for flood control in the valley of the Tennessee River and its tributaries. Over the next 40 years, they built 49 dams, which, for the most part, accomplished their goal. Whereas floods in the Tennessee were once catastrophic, younger people are mostly unaware of them.
The French Broad River (Asheville) is an upstream tributary where flood control dams weren't constructed due to local opposition.
Rather than the devastation of Hurricane Helene on Asheville illustrating the effect of climate change, the success of the flood control dams in other sectors of the Tennessee Valley illustrates the success of the TVA flood control program where it is implemented.
Hurricane Helene did not show the effect of climate change, but what happens to settlements in Tennessee Valley tributaries under "natural" flooding (i.e. where flood control dams have been rejected.)
I should add that, in its first 40 years, the TVA built 49 flood control dams, of which 29 were power-generating. In the subsequent 50 years, TVA built 0 flood control dams,
However, in the 1980s, they established the Carbon Dioxide Information Centre (CDIAC) under their nuclear division, which sponsored much influential climate research, including the CRU temperature data (Phil Jones) and Michael Mann's fellowship from which Mann et al 1998 derived.
In 1990, the parents of Crowdstrike's Dmitri Alperovich moved from Russia to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where his father was a TVA nuclear engineer. Dmitri moved to Tennessee a few years later.
One can't help but wonder whether TVA's original mandate for flood control got lost in the executive offices, attracted by more glamorous issues, such as climate change research.
If so, one could reasonably say that a factor in the seeming abandonment of TVA efforts to complete its original flood control mandate (e.g. to French Broad River which inundated Asheville) was partly attributable to diversion of TVA interest to climate change research, as opposed to its mandate of flood control.
another thought. As soon as the point is made, it is obvious that flood control dams have reduced flooding. Not just in Appalachia. I've looked at long data for water levels in Great Lakes and the amount of fluctuation (flooding) after dams installed is much reduced.
And yet my recollection of public reporting of climate is that weather extremes, including flooding, is getting worse. But in areas with flood control dams, it obviously //isn't// getting worse than before. It's better. Note to self: check IPCC reports for their specific findings on flooding.
as readers are aware, @walkafyre has a long-term project of decoding the Mueller investigation through the laborious project of identifying the interviewees underneath the redactions. Some of the identifications are so ingenious that it's fun. Yesterday was an interesting example, which I'll narrate since it's interesting. (There are many other equally interesting examples.) It is the identification of the interviewee of Bates number B2997, interviewed on Aug 15, 2018 (302 filed on Dec 17, 2018). The 302 was published in volume 11 (page 92) - online at walkafyre's website here:
The 302 has 6 pages. The last 4 pages are totally redacted of information. All identifying information has been redacted from the first two pages except for the presence of Mueller attorney Aaron Zelinsky. Take a look.
And yet from this meagre information, walkafyre has made a firm identification of the interviewee.
first step. The 302s are in non-proportional font (Courier) and characters can be counted. Last name has 8 characters and praenomen has 9-10 characters.
second step. B2995 previously identified as Ali, Hesham and B3005 previously identified as Bartholomew, Vanessa. 302s are //locally// in alpha order, thus pinning surname to alpha range Ali to Bar.
third step. the interviewee (LN8) interacts with a LN9 frequently.
fourth. the interview was in summer 2018 with Zelinsky in attendance. This indicates that interview was connected to Roger Stone.
fifth, LN9 has given money to "the ___". Probably "the PAC". Public data on Roger Stone's PAC shows that the largest contributor (by far) was John Powers Middleton (9-character last name.)
So the interviewee is a LN8 in alpha range Ali-Bar with some sort of regular connection to Middleton. Walkafyre had this figured out a long time ago, but was stuck.fec.gov/data/receipts/…
a few days ago, @walkafyre took a look at documents related to a sordid lawsuit between Middleton and Roy Lee, an estranged associate. Case number shown below. One of the motions demanded deposition of "Alex Anderson", a Middleton employee. Alexander Anderson had previously made a deposition in support of Middleton.
As a coup de grace, one of the production requests in the pleadings was for "all communications related to Middleton's relationship with Roger Stone".
The redacted interviewee the August 15, 2018 grand jury notice was convincingly Middleton's employee Alexander Anderson.
in 2019 and 2020, there was a huge amount of interest in the Strzok-Page texts, but almost no attention was paid to the fact that the texts had been heavily "curated" before reaching the public and that some key topics were missing.
One of the key topics that was missing from the Strzok-Page texts (as curated) was any mention of the interview of Steele's Primary Sub-Source in late January 2017. Given that the FBI had insisted on inclusion of Steele dossier allegations in the Intelligence Community Assessment dated January 6, 2017, this was a central FBI issue at the time and the lack of any reference in the Strzok-Page texts as originally presented is noteworthy.
Readers may recall that the very first tranche of Strzok-Page texts, released in Feb 2018, contained a long gap from mid-December 2017 to mid-May 2018 - from the ICA to appointment of Mueller. This is the very period in which the Crossfire investigation metastasized into the lawfare that undermined the incoming administration. The fact that this period was separately missing from both Strzok and Lisa Page has never been adequately explained. As an aside, it seems odd that the FBI can retrieve emails and texts from targets, but not from their own employees.
Subsequently, a tranche of texts from the missing period was released, but these were also heavily curated and contained no texts that relate to the Primary Subsource.
However, from an an exhibit in the Flynn case , we //KNOW// that, in the late evening of January 13, 2017, Strzok and Page texted about the Primary Subsource, less than two weeks prior to the interview (which began on January 24, 2017). The message wasn't interpretable in real time, but we (Hans Mahncke) were subsequently able to connect it to the Danchenko interview via the reference to the "Womble" law firm, with which Danchenko's lawyer, Mark Schamel, was then associated. We also learned that Schamel was friends with and namedropped Lisa Monaco.
But other than this single excerpt from the Flynn exhibits, I haven't located anything in any of the other Strzok texts than can be plausibly connected to the critical interviews of the Primary Subsource.
I think that there are some Strzok emails from Jan 19 and Jan 22, 2017 that may refer to the pending Primary Subsource interview, that I'll discuss next.
One useful thing that the Weaponization Committee could do would be to publish a complete and unexpurgated set of Strzok-Page texts. Given the interest created by the highly expurgated version, one wonders what an expurgated and unbowdlerized version might yield.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142…
In the volume of Strzok emails released on October 31, 2019, there was an almost entirely redacted thread dated January 19 and January 22, 2017, a couple of days before the Primary Subsource interview on January 24, 2017, which look to me like they have a good chance of relating to the PSS interview.
The thread began with an email from FBI Office of General Council (OGC) - Sally Anne Moyer or Kevin Clinesmith - to Strzok and a CD subordinate, with a very short subject line.
We know that the PSS interview was lawyered up and carried out under a sweetheart queen-for-a-day deal that was usually only available to highly placed Democrats (Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills etc.) So involvement of OGC in negotiation of the PSS interview is expected.
at 6:47 pm on Thursday, Jan 19, 2017, Strzok's CD subordinate wrote back that "here's what we have to decide ASAP". The issue is totally redacted, naturally. (This is one day before inauguration.)