Stephen McIntyre Profile picture
Feb 22 50 tweets 18 min read Read on X
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.


Image
Image
Image
Image
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) Image
@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.

Image
Image
Image
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…


Image
Image
Image
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 Image
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.
Image
Image
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

Image
Image
Image
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 Image
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. Image
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. Image
the 2020 FD1023 (see Indictment, para 25) also describes a meeting in Kyiv attended by Associate 2 and Zlochevsky's daughter.
Image
Image
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. Image
@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…

Image
Image
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.
Image
Image
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.
Image
Image
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 Image
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.

Image
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 Image
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...' Image
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. Image
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. Image
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😄 Image
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. Image
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.
Image
Image
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.

Image
Image
Image
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. Image
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. Image
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 Image
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. Image
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.
Image
Image
Q.E.D.
McCarthy discusses strange handling of Weiss case from a different and just as troubling angle.
nationalreview.com/2024/02/david-…
@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
 

Keep Current with Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre 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 @ClimateAudit

May 12
in April 2022, Mark Steyn, on his GB News show
,
commented on recently released UK COVID data, claiming "the third booster shots so zealously promoted by the British state, and its groupthink media has failed, and in fact exposed you to significantly greater risk of infection, hospitalization and death."
Steyn showed images of five tables from official statistical publications to support his claims.
In April 2023, Ofcom, which, in addition to its ordinary regulatory role, had taken a special interest in vaccine advocacy, ruled that Steyn's "presentation of UK Health Security Agency data
and their use to draw conclusions materially misled the audience. In breach of Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code" - a very damaging finding that Steyn has appealed.


I haven't followed this case. However, as it happens, I had taken an interest in UK COVID data about 3 months earlier, as it was one of the few jurisdictions that published case and hospitalization rates by vaccination status.


Also, to refresh readers on the contemporary context, early 2022 was the period in which COVID lockdowns and overall alarm began to decline.

At the time, I observed that the UK data showed that the case rate for triple vax was //higher// than among unvax. Three months later, Steyn (as discussed below) made a similar claim, for which he was censured.

Although the UK authorities conspicuously refrained from including this result in their summary or conclusions, they were obviously aware of the conundrum, since their publication included a curious disclaimer by UK authorities that actual case data "should not be used" to estimate vaccine effectiveness. I pointed this odd disclaimer out in this earlier thread, also noting that health authorities in Ontario and elsewhere had previously used such data to promote vaccine uptake and that the reasoning behind this disclaimer needed to be closely examined and parsed.

All of these issues turned up later in the Ofcom decision re Steyn.

Ofcom ruled that Steyn's presentation was "materially misleading" because
(1) he failed to take account of "fundamental biases" in age structure of vax and unvax groups i.e. unvax group was skewed younger, vax group skewed older; and
(2) he failed to include the disclaimer that "This raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness as the data does not take into account inherent biases present such as differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations”.steynonline.com/mark-steyn-sho…
ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/…
Image
in this thread, I'll re-examine Steyn's analysis. I've transcribed all the numbers in the tables and done further calculations to check his claims.

First, case rates. Steyn first showed an important table showing the population by 5-year age group and vax status, observing that the total population of triply vax (boosted) was approximately equal to the population of unboosted, observing that this facilitated comparison. Steyn: "Let's take a look at this, as you can see from a pool of 63 million down at the bottom there, 63 million, there are 32 million who are triple vaccinated. That leaves just under 31 million, who are either double single or unvaccinated. So we have two groups of similar size, 31, 32 million. So it's relatively easy to weigh the merits of the third shot upon Group A versus group B."

He then showed a table of cases by age group and vax status, pointing out that the total number of boosted cases was approximately double the number of unboosted cases: "So the triple vaccinated in March were responsible for just over a million COVID cases and everybody else 475,000 COVID cases. So the triple vaccinated are contracting COVID at approximately twice the rate of the double, single and unvaccinated. Got that? If you get the booster shot, you've got twice as high a chance of getting the COVID. In the United Kingdom, there's twice as many people with the third booster shot who got the COVID, as the people who never had the booster shot."Image
Image
Ofcom purported to rebut Steyn's analysis as shown in excerpt below. They observed that proportion of unvax in younger age groups was much higher than in older age groups and that the "simple comparison between the two groups made by Mark Steyn failed to take into account these inherent biases".

However, Ofcom failed to show that there would be a different outcome in the more complex analysis in which age groups were allowed for.

As it turns out, in regard to case rates, Steyn's conclusions, if anything, under-stated the phenomenon, as shown next.Image
Read 11 tweets
Apr 19
here is a thread from 2023 in which Eric Ciaramella's "yikes" is placed in a more detailed context.

In this thread, I suggested that the linkage was connected to Jan 21, 2016 meeting of Ukrainian prosecutors with State Dept officials, noting that Jamie Gusack (reporting to Bridget Brink) had distributing the first demand for Shokin's head (Nov 22 TPs)Image
Image
as pointed out in that thread, Gusack (State Dept) had been coordinating with Ciaramella (NSC) prior to arrival of Ukr prosecutors in Jan 2016, referring to Shokin replacement.

State Dept cited "diamond prosecutors case" as big deal. But what happened to it next? A long story. Image
Bridget Brink, Jamie Gusack's boss, reported to Victoria Nuland. Brink was appointed Ambassador to Ukraine in April 2022. Unanimous approval by Senate in early days of war at the exact time that US and UK were sabotaging the peace deal negotiated in Istanbul Image
Read 4 tweets
Mar 17
as observed yesterday, , after 2014 US coup, the tsunami of billion dollar US/IMF loans was associated with unprecedented embezzlement by Ukr oligarchs thru corrupt Ukr banking system. Rescues of failed banks (mostly unnoticed in west) were markers
in today's thread, I'll provide a short bibliography of articles (mostly Ukrainian language via google translate) on the Ukr banking corruption crisis that began and exploded after the 2014 US coup, while Biden, Blinken, Nuland et al were running Ukraine
once one searches specifically for the topic, there are interesting references, but the topic has received essentially next to zero coverage in the west. I'll take myself as an example. Despite following Ukr affairs quite closely, my prior knowledge was three vignettes.
Read 15 tweets
Mar 16
May 25, 2021: US DOJ announced indictment & arrest of Austrian banker Peter Weinzierl


Mar 13, 2024: we learn that Alexander Smirnov was an FBI informant against Weinzierl and had lured Weinzierl to UK on behalf of FBI for arrest justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/t…
archive.is/zO1rt

Image
Image
the DOJ charges against Austrian banker Weinzierl, filed during first six months of Biden admin, pertained to allegations that payments made via Meinl Bank in Austria by Brazilian construction company Odebrecht were connected to evasion of taxes in Brazil. Image
if the concern of US DOJ and FBI with administration of Brazilian tax collection seems somewhat quirky, there may be an ulterior motive: Meinl Bank had a central role in the looting of Ukrainian banks during the 2014-2016 Biden administration of Ukraine. Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 3
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, named by NYT as architect of 2014 post-Maidan takeover of Ukrainian intelligence by CIA, is former head of Ukrainian SBU. His comments on Biden corruption deserve attention, but have been ignored.archive.is/zXXQV
on October 10, 2019, early in the Trump impeachment saga, Nalyvaichenko published an op ed in Wall St Journal saying "alliance with US depends on answering questions about Bidens and election interference" [by Ukraine] archive.is/wsrjP
Image
in that editorial, Naluvaichenko, the former SBU hear, stated that Ukraine had responsibility to investigate allegations that Ukraine interfered in 2016 election (a separate issue from Russian interference) and whether Burisma hired Hunter Biden for "cynical purposes". Image
Read 6 tweets
Mar 1
as Svetlana @RealSLokhova explained to us, intelligence fabricators (like Halper) begin by juxtaposing two targets in the same room and using that juxtaposition for their smear.

But, Weiss' Smirnov operation did exactly the opposite. I'll explain. twitter.com/search?lang=en…
Image
Smirnov had multiple Burisma contacts in 2017-Jan 2018, that are provable by email and travel records. See diagram below.
But, according to Weiss, instead of attaching narrative to provable meetings, Smirnov attached his narrative to non-existent contacts in 2015-16 and 2019. Image
Obvious question: why would Smirnov attach his narrative to fabricated meetings/telecons, when he had multiple real meetings/telecons to which he could have attached the narrative just as easily?
Read 7 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!

Follow Us!

:(