🧵So, the entire "Prohibited Access" revelation prompted me to pull up the transcript from former Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady's closed-door testimony. Brady you'll recall was charged with screening evidence re Ukraine corruption, i.e. Biden family pay-to-play. 1/
2/ I've been pondering how FBI can actually do a thorough investigation given Prohibited Access functionality & immediately thought of that screening b/c same FBI supervisor Tim Thibault involved in Nellie Ohr case w/ Prohibited Access documents at issue involved in investigation of Biden.
3/ More I read of that release from Grassley the more I think that the "restricted access" referenced was actually "Prohibited Access" but that no one "got" that there were 2 different categories & difference was with Prohibited Access you couldn't even see that a file existed.
4/ Re-read point 3 above as I think that might be a huge forthcoming revelation. But returning to the Brady investigation of Ukraine corruption: Brady testified he asked FBI to review their holdings.
5/ The FBI agents doing that review, though, would NOT have access to the "Protected Access" subfiles so a review of the holdings would show NOTHING existed, even if it did!!
6/ Let this sink in for minute: United States Attorney General directed United States Attorney to oversee vetting of evidence of corruption related to Ukraine, including of presidential candidate, but FBI agents running search queries in Sentinel weren't getting accurate results.
7/ Sentinel would return "no documents" to search queries when in fact there could be documents that were within the "Prohibited Access" area. And this is NOT like "restricted access" where FBI would know they exist & would seek access, they'd believe there were no documents.
8/8 Folks, this scandal is
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Holy BEEP! Wading through the HPSCI report on ICA which I had previously exclusively reported revealed corruption was much worse than what CIA report on ICA revealed. Hitting points here.
2/ Here's the link if you want to read along, but there are so many threads that need to be wove together to understand, which I'll do below. justthenews.com/sites/default/…
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration files petition for writ of mandamus in 9th Cir. to check district court. (Layman's terms: Trump asked the federal appellate court to tell the lower court judge he can't do something. It is not an appeal and thus case is against the "court.") 1/
🔥🔥🔥Obama ordered the fraudulent ICA on Russia influence in 2016 before IC pulled PDB that @DNIGabbard released yesterday, declassified emails show! Working on deep-dive of release & just discovered this detail!
2/ Until now, everyone (unless I missed someone who already caught this) assumed Obama ordered the ICA during the 12/9/2016 meeting, but NO, this email from day before (12/8/2016) referenced that ordered ICA, noting goes to Obama 1/9. AND 12/8 email referenced upcoming 12/9 "PC" meeting.
3/ "PC" per @DNIGabbard release is “National Security Council Principals Committee," which met on 12/9, at which Obama reportedly gave order for ICA that @CIADirector found fraudulent & manipulated. BUT that order came on 12/8! Why does that matter?
🚨BREAKING: Lawyers in Alien Enemies Act case representing aliens removed to El Salvador now want Trump Administration to bring them back from Venezuela where they are now, to provide them habeas. IF they want asylum, though, they can seek from Venezuela. 1/
2/ If citizens, they could show and come without habeas (and none are). And none of the others have a right to be in U.S., plus they'd be nuts to agree to come back to U.S. now. Trump Administration also has stronger argument that they are enemies given Venezuela wanted them.
😡😡😡Holy BEEP! So, I've been re-reading yesterday's report at Real Clear Investigations teasing an upcoming release of Russia-collusion hoax info and this passage sent me back to the Durham report. Well, what did Durham say about the ICA? 1/
2/ Durham frickin' cited the ICA as one of those "careful examinations" in footnote 19!!! (Still digging in so maybe he makes note of issues later BUT if he does WTF is he including it in this footnote as a see also and if not, did Durham not know of it?)
3/ Durham's report later discusses politicalizing of intelligence, noting the IC Omnibus person noted a couple instances but didn't mentioned the Carter Page FISA. But Durham makes no mention of the 2016 ICA either, suggesting he remained in dark about that politicalizing.