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.

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/…

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1485801171336019968

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."

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)

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1705979759484653694

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.

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

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1769062912155328978

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

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


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.

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

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…
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.

NYT () has major article on how CIA constructed "a network of spy bases [in Ukraine that] includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border", which @aaronjmate has drawn attention to. A couple of interesting chronology points in today's thread.archive.is/zXXQV first NYT "hero" is Valentyn Nalyvaichenko who, despite Ukraine's constitutional neutrality, on Feb 24, 2014, on first evening of Maidan coup that had overthrown the democratically elected president of Ukraine, as incoming "spy chief", colluded with CIA and MI6 station chiefs

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

https://twitter.com/CredibleUFO/status/1686221768829378560

@mtaibbi Mifsud was tracked down early on and interviewed by an Italian newspaper. Why do you think that he has ANYTHING relevant to Russiagate? Consider the chronology of key events to see why he doesnt. The DNC emails were not hacked until May 23-25, 2016. @mtaibbi Papadopoulos met Downer on May 10, 2016 and Erika Thompson prob on May 6, 2016. It's far from clear what Papadop actually told Downer on May 10. Durham interviewed Downer and, in ignored section of Durham Report, Downer seems to try to walk back his story.

CNN's article contains some new claims about the binder that are new. While 99% of the binder is provably nothingburger, CNN cites material not previously mentioned. So I should have addressed this before responding in kneejerk way.cnn.com/interactive/20… CNN article itemized contents of the dossier. All of this sounds sonorous, but these are the documents previously released by Grassley, Judiciary etc and are a nothingburger.

Climate-interested readers may recall the superb work by @detgodehab demonstrating fatal flaws in the PAGES2K "signal-free" methodology - see

He has also made an important new discovery on Mann et al 1998 - see my article here

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1653853347625959428

climateaudit.org/2023/11/24/mbh… He resolved several longstanding issues: (1) Mann has withheld results of his individual steps (thus frustrating statistical analysis) for more than 25 years. He only archived a splice of the 11 steps. Nature to its discredit acquiesced in Mann's obstruction.

Soros-backed prosecutors in the U.S. have attracted much, mostly adverse, attention. So one would think that any involvement of Soros (and Soros-backed organizations) in firing Ukrainian prosecutor general Shokin would have attracted attention.

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1719447629183189300

the November 5, 2020 State Department memorandum on Conditions Precedent for the $1 billion ("third") loan guarantee then under consideration and ultimately controversial contained no mention of firing Shokin.

continuation of long thread . Hochstein said that his meeting with Joe Biden was in October 2015 following a meeting in the West Wing on a different subject. Can we locate this meeting?

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1704856826012168344

in the White House logs, three Hochstein visits in Oct - all in first half; two alone with McDonough. Oct 15 meeting was with two Dept of Commerce officials.

In May 2020, a Ukrainian parliamentarian asked a question that is once again being revisited: a few months before Biden's demand for Shokin's resignation, Poroshenko, Europe and State Dept had all positively assessed progress of Prosecutor General Office. What caused change? needless to say, the two prominent Ukrainians who asked that question were subsequently sanctioned by the US security state. Under the so-called "Trump administration" and remain censored to this day. But question was and is valid.

@themarketswork the first mention of this meeting was in agenda dated Oct 23, 2015: bidenlaptopemails.com/biden-emails/e… @themarketswork so what led Burisma's Pozharkyi to meet with Hunter and Blue Star in Washington in late October 2015? I note that Paul Sonne of WSJ had sent questions to FTI about Burisma and Zlochevsky and Hunter board membership. bidenlaptopemails.com/biden-emails/e…

in March 2014, following US-backed coup in Ukraine, US announced FBI and Treasury agents would help recover "some of the billions it says went missing" under previous govt. voanews.com/a/washington-r…


@MarthaJenniferT I realize that these names and backstories are hard to follow, but anyone interested in the Ukraine controversies ought to be patient. It's a different story about Shokin and Kulyk than the one in controversy, but sheds light on character and motives.

Durham reported on, but did NOT DISCUSS, Downer's amazing statement in Oct 2019 interview that Papadopoulos “made no mention of ... any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance”. supposed report by Papadopoulos to Australians of a "Russian offer to assist" was essential to Crossfire predicate. Term mentioned over dozen times in Strzok memoir Compromised. Napolitano and others speculated Russia had Hillary emails, but "offer to assist" needed for Crossfire

a few months ago, I discussed the Biden-Poroshenko during 2016 transition in which Biden re-assured Poroshenko not to worry about FBI doing anything about Onyshchenko (Poroshenko's fugitive bagman who had the tapes) meeting with FBI.

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1643278116641488896

in that thread (which is worth re-reading), I had noted a contemporary Ukrainian news article (cited in a FOIAed State Dept email) which stated that Onyshchenko's deal with FBI involved Andrew Weissman

my recommendation for Durham research priority would have been investigation of Feb-May 2017 FBI "mis-statements, irregularities and omissions" (AFTER Danchenko interview) for "bad faith". In other words, what Barr said that Durham would do and was already doing. I would have urged that the primary issue be stated as what duties of "full, true and plain disclosure" applied to FBI briefings of senior DOJ officials, congressional leaderhip and White House and whether they discharged such duties.

As readers are well aware, for years now (against much pushback from readers) I said that Russiagate hoax should have been investigated as an "intelligence failure" and that exclusive criminal track focus would be a disappointment. Look at this Durham finding. within one year, the WMD Commission, unencumbered by criminal focus, produced a cogent analysis of how U.S. intel agencies had got their WMD assessment so wrong. The agencies admitted the intelligence failure.