Monthly Archives: January 2020

Carter Page is Due Big Money, Manafort May Get Relief

Posted on by

The FISA Court released a few days ago a ruling that at least 2 (the last 2) of the 4 secret surveillance applications against Carter Page were in valid. The first 2 applications are under review and may see the same ruling.

So, former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are for sure on the legal hot seat as is Dana Boente. At the Department of Justice, at the time Rod Rosenstein had the final signature relying on the lower level FBI certifications of validations.
Carter Page has an excellent case now against the government for violations by the government for illegal search/surveillance/wire-tap(s) warrants and based on the timing, now in-prison Paul Manafort may have a case against the government as well. The Manafort case is not yet resolved based on timelines and use by the Mueller investigation.

This places more layers to the operatives in government perhaps as directed by the Democrat Party to use government power and people for explosive political missions. A new plateau of government collusion it seems.

The timing of this release appears to have some purpose and will affect the impeachment trial in the Senate where the Trump defense team may just use this information to their advantage and the House impeachment managers (Schiff/Nadler) and Speaker Pelosi will be working overtime to draft a twisted defense response.

Image result for fisa court carter page photo source/Forbes

Federalist: Authority granted to the federal government to secretly wiretap and spy on former Trump affiliate Carter Page was “not valid,” the nation’s top spy court noted in a secret ruling penned earlier this month. The order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was created and authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), was initially signed and issued on January 7, 2020, but was not declassified and released until Thursday afternoon.

Judge James Boasberg, the current federal judge presiding over the FISA court, wrote in his order that at least two of the four FISA applications against Carter Page were unlawfully authorized. Additionally, according his order, the Department of Justice similarly concluded following the release of a sprawling investigate report on the matter by the agency’s inspector general that the government did not have probable cause that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. The FISA law states that American citizens cannot be secretly spied on by the U.S. government absent probable cause, based on valid evidence, that an American is unlawfully acting as a foreign agent.

“DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power,’” Boasberg wrote, referring to the final two of the four FISA applications to spy on Page. “The Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court’s authorizations in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679 were not valid.”

Boasberg’s ruling noted that DOJ had not yet taken a position on the lawfulness of the first two applications against Page, but was currently collecting information to assess whether those two spy applications were also invalid. The invalid applications specified by Boasberg were dated April 7 and June 29 of 2017. The false and invalid April 7 application was personally signed by James Comey, while the false and invalid June 29 application was signed by Andrew McCabe. Both men were referred for criminal prosecution by the inspector general. Former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who is alleged to have offered to wear a wire against President Donald Trump, also signed off on the false June 29 FISA warrant against Page.

The FISA court order also noted that it is a federal crime for any federal official to “intentionally…disclose[] or use[] information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having any reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized” by law. The following sentence of Boasberg’s ruling is redacted, raising questions about whether the government used any information obtained pursuant to the now-invalid Page surveillance warrants in other cases.

The final warrant against Page overlapped with former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The final three-month authorization to spy on Page was signed nearly six weeks after Mueller was appointed, meaning that Mueller may have had real-time access to and utilized nearly five months worth of surveillance of Page during the course of Mueller’s investigation. If his office used any of the information in subsequent cases, the declaration that the final two spy warrants against Page were invalid could potentially nullify previous or future convictions sought by Mueller’s office.

Surveillance under FISA is not limited to the individual targeted, as the government also surveils individuals with whom the target communicates, and individuals with whom those individuals communicate. That process is called the “two-hop” rule and allows the government to spy on and collect information and communications from individuals who are two degrees separated from the actual surveillance target. Therefore, even if Page never personally spoke to Trump on the phone, the government could still eavesdrop on Trump’s conversations if Page spoke to someone who had spoken to or electronically communicated with the president. It is not known whether the government used the two-hop process on Page to sweep up information from former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, or even the president himself.

In his January 7 order, Boasberg directed DOJ to retain and sequester all information and evidence relevant to both the Carter Page applications, the inspector general investigation of FISA abuse, and any additional DOJ investigations related to or spawned by the inspector general’s report. Boasberg told DOJ to provide all of the required information to the FISA court no later than January 28.

Context of US Aid to Ukraine, Schiff’s Team is Teeming with Deception

Posted on by

Ever heard of an organization called U.S. Ukraine Foundation? The organization has Directors and and Advisory Board that lobbies Congress and does a good job at that apparently. The organization calls itself a ‘do-tank’ with headquarters in Washington DC., that works for fostering a legitimate human rights, democratic government that enhances Ukraine’s stability and place in the community of nations.
After Russia invaded Ukraine five years ago, reliance of monetary and military aid to Ukraine has been critical to fight back against Russian aggression on several fronts. Since 1992, the United States has given Ukraine more than $7.2 billion from many domestic agencies that include: the Department of Defense, USAID, Energy, Agriculture, Justice and Commerce. Smaller U.S. agencies have also been quite involved in Ukraine including Peace Corps. All these resources are to ‘bolster civil society supporting the reform process where anti-corruption is a priority.
USAID, which operates under the U.S. State Department manages all assistance programs for Ukraine shoring up vulnerabilities of the country. Ukraine obviously does need help but control and oversight of U.S. assistance is tantamount. Seems since the Obama administration, it had none.

There actually is a USAID audit report for Ukraine found here.

Image result for usaid ukraine

Impeachment is hardly deserved and below proves that fact. Gotta wonder what the real posture of Col. Vindman actually was. Further, did anyone in Congress go back and read congressional records as they related to Ukraine or tap the State Department, Ukraine desk for a summary of diplomatic efforts including corruption and what our own Justice Department or FBI did and is doing still for the benefit of Ukraine? Ah perhaps Lev Parnas is part of that eh?
Published on the website for this organization is the following in part:

The Ukrainian American community and other friends of Ukraine have long advocated for U.S. government aid and for a few years in the mid-1990s, under the Clinton administration, Ukraine was one of our largest recipients of bilateral aid. Some readers may recall that the current Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, championed Ukraine assistance in his capacity as chairman of the relevant appropriations subcommittee, and was sometimes referred to as “Mr. Ukraine” at the time. He enjoyed bipartisan support back then, and, thankfully, assistance to Ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support to this day, despite the difficult budget climate.

U.S. assistance, which increased substantially following Russia’s invasion, was backed by the Obama administration and funded by Congress. With the proposed severe cuts in foreign assistance called for by the Trump administration, there were fears that Ukraine aid, too, would be affected. Based on my sources, it looks as if assistance to Ukraine for Fiscal Year 2018 will most likely be maintained at levels similar to the last two fiscal years – underscoring the importance that the United States attaches to Ukraine. And while there is always room for improvement in how it is implemented, U.S. assistance has been substantial and vital to Ukraine – a good use of taxpayer money. Friends of Ukraine, including the Ukrainian American community, need to make sure that this practical, consequential support for Ukraine remains a priority for the United States.

The importance of those two paragraphs is the fact that President Trump questioned foreign aid to Ukraine long before the phone call with the newly elected Ukraine president Zelensky, in fact going back to the summer of 2018. When President Trump inquired what other countries were doing on behalf of Ukraine was and is the right question then and now. It is no wonder aid was held given facts, context, conditions and future plans and estimates for the country.

Focusing on Pending Ukraine-Related Action on Capitol Hill August 2018: Members of the Friends of Ukraine Network (FOUN), the Ukrainian-American community, the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation and other supporters of Ukraine met on August 7th to discuss pending and future legislative action on Capitol Hill regarding Ukraine.

The lobbying on The Hill went into overdrive and members of Congress visited by members of the organization clearly know/knew of all conditions in Ukraine and how sending U.S. taxpayers dollars to the struggling country should be circumspect because of human-trafficking, financial corruption, military hostilities and Ukraine military doctrine effectiveness along with split loyalties within the Ukraine government, security challenges and reforms across the board.

Day 1 of Impeachment Trial in the Senate

Posted on by

After many hours, more than 12, the day was over. A long slog it was with summaries presented on each of Senator Schumer’s amendments to the rules. There was only one Republican defection vote on one amendment by Susan Collins of Maine. Even Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah stayed the course with the Republicans with all the votes they cast.

The historic impeachment proceedings against Trump begin ...
Perhaps the reason for full party line votes are as a result of the letter sent to the Senate by 21 State Attorneys General found here. It is a great read even for those on the Democrat/liberal side of the ledger and have already made up their minds to remove Donald Trump from the presidency.

State AG letter to Senate o… by Fox News on Scribd


The House impeachment articles managers/team, led by Congressman Adam Schiff and Gerald Nadler filled the 12 hours with repeated emotional and passionate summaries full of twisted and selectively chosen assertions while negating full truths and context. President Trump’s team did not sway from the initial briefing they filed and made their positions short and cogent on each amendment.
For the most part the day was filled with lawyers of all distinctions warring with each other and the polarization of the Federal government was on full display to only stay with our nation for many years to come.

Adam Schiff introduced Lev Parnas several times in his intense statements when Parnas was not part of the House impeachment inquiry at all. That bit of scandal came after the House voted on the final resolution to impeach. While I am not a lawyer, one must question if that was even a lawful introduction in the first place.

Lev Parnas is a turncoat political opportunist and likely a plant infecting U.S. politics for reasons still being uncovered. Parnas has been injecting himself relationships both in Ukraine and the United States by ingratiating his cunning tactics with people such as Rudy Giuliani, John Solomon, Victoria Toensing, Joe DiGenova, Trump family members and even Yuri Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general. Presently, Parnas and his business partner, Igor Fruman and two others have been charged with conspiring to violate straw and foreign donor bans by the Southern District of New York.

Going forward, the argument to watch for is the matter of ‘executive privilege’. All presidents have this privilege to protect interactions and conversations that involve matters of national security and diplomatic architecture. In a matter of criminal action, privilege cannot be asserted, yet that was in fact the case in the previous scandal of Fast and Furious when President Obama gave AG Eric Holder privilege protection and he was found in contempt of Congress for that. Moving on however…

The embedded message the impeachment managers will continue to use in their summaries will be “corrupt motives”. A president is responsible for foreign policy and is the top steward/protector of taxpayer money, not government money as to where it goes and how it is spent. One question that is not asked and should be is when Congress appropriated and approved the military aid for Ukraine in the NDAA legislation, was there a clause to fully document the status of previous military aid and to make designations of caution and sanction to Ukraine if the equipment and money did not reach or be applied for the intended use. That answer is no. The Congress relied on the Department of Defense to make a statement, which it did but only to declare that the Ukraine military had taken reform steps to address corruption, that is not a certification.

Carry on good and well informed voters.

 

Rosenstein Authorized Release of Strzok-Page Texts

Posted on by

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein acknowledged in a court filing Friday that he authorized the release of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to media outlets.

Image result for strzok text messages source

Rosenstein said in a declaration filed in response to a lawsuit Strzok has pending against the Justice Department and FBI that he authorized releasing the text messages to media outlets Dec. 12, 2017, the eve of his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

“The disclosure obviously would adversely affect public confidence in the FBI, but providing the most egregious messages in one package would avoid the additional harm of prolonged selective disclosures and minimize the appearance of the Department concealing information that was embarrassing to the FBI,” said Rosenstein, who left the Justice Department in May 2019.

Strzok, the former deputy chief of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, sued the Justice Department and FBI on Aug. 6, 2019, for unlawful termination, infringement of due process, and violations of the Privacy Act. He said he consulted with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Affairs, which determined that there was no legal basis preventing the release of the messages, and the authorized the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs to provide 375 messages to a group of media outlets.

Rosenstein asserted that Strzok and Page’s privacy interests were not violated by releasing the messages because they “were sent on government phones with the knowledge that they were subject to review by FBI” and because they “were so inappropriate and intertwined with their FBI work that they raised concerns about political bias influencing official duties.”

*** Image result for strzok text messages source

The Justice Department argued that Rosenstein did his due diligence by having his aides consult with the DOJ’s top privacy official Peter Winn on the release of the text messages, and cannot be held responsible for violating the Privacy Act because there was no willful intent.

“Even if [the] Plaintiff could show that the disclosure was somehow inconsistent with the Privacy Act — the Department did not intentionally or willfully violate the statute,” the court filings read. Strzok and Page, who were both members of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team, were caught exchanging messages that were disparaging of President Trump and highly partisan in nature throughout 2016.

Page, who eventually resigned from the Bureau, sued the DOJ last month over the release of the text messages, claiming it violated the Federal Privacy Act. She said she has suffered numerous damages including therapy costs and “permanent loss of earning capacity due to reputational damage.”

Image result for strzok text messages

Strzok also sued the DOJ last month, claiming his First Amendment Rights had been violated. He is seeking reinstatement on the basis that his firing was unconstitutional. Rosenstein’s declaration was part of the government’s defense in Strzok’s lawsuit.

Rosenstein resigned from his post with the DOJ in April and is now with a corporate law firm in Washington, D.C.

Iran Refuses to Release Black Box of Downed Ukraine Plane

Posted on by

(Reuters) – Ukraine will press Iran to hand over the black boxes from the crash of a Ukrainian passenger plane at a meeting with a visiting Iranian delegation on Monday, Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters.

Ukraine would convey the message to visiting Minister of Roads and Urban Development Mohammad Eslami, that returning the black boxes would show that Iran wanted an unbiased investigation of the crash, Prystaiko said.

“His main task is to apologize and acknowledge what happened. We hope that we can go a little further than just political discussions and discuss practical problems. Among them in particular is the return of the black boxes,” Prystaiko said.

Iran has appeared to reverse course after its earlier decision to send abroad the black box flight recorders from the Ukrainian jetliner shot down earlier this month, saying Tehran would first review the audiotapes.

Hassan Rezaeifar, who is leading the investigation into the tragedy, was cited by the state-run IRNA news agency on Sunday as saying: “The flight recorders from the Ukrainian Boeing are in Iranian hands and we have no plans to send them out.”

“We are trying to read the black boxes here in Iran. Otherwise, our options are Ukraine and France, but no decision has been taken so far to send them to another country,” he added.

A day earlier, another Iranian news agency, semi-official Tasnim, cited Rezaeifar as saying that it was not possible to interpret the recordings in Iran, and that the black boxes would be sent to Kyiv, where French, American and Canadian experts would help analyze them.

Image result for ukraine plane  source

***Gotta wonder if the Iranians protesting against the regime know this.

A slew of influential Iranian artists, television personalities and sports stars have publicly broken with Tehran after the government denied for days that it shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane this month.

“Apologies for lying to you for 13 years,” Gelareh Jabbari, a host on the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting TV network, wrote last Monday in an Instagram post. The post has since been deleted, but it was seen by

“It was very hard for me to believe our people have been killed, forgive me for believing this late,” Jabbari, the anchor of the lifestyle show “Good Morning Iran,” added in an apparent reference to the 82 Iranians who were among the 176 passengers and crew members killed.

Iran initially denied that a missile had struck the plane on Jan. 8 shortly after it took off from Tehran, the capital, only to reverse course and admit that it had shot the plane down by mistake.

Many students and middle-class Iranians took to the streets in protest. In Tehran, some students refused to trample on paintings of U.S. and Israeli flags in an apparent rejection of the government’s attempts to deflect blame.

Those in more influential positions used their sway to send a message.

The government’s handling of the incident has served only to “confirm an existing sense of moral bankruptcy that the Islamic Republic is accused of,” said Afshin Shahi, an associate professor of Middle East politics at Bradford University in England.

“The Islamic Republic is facing the worst legitimacy crisis in its 40-year history, and the pressures are mounting from every angle,” he said, adding that state repression, censorship and the country’s economic woes in the last three years had created a profound sense of disillusionment. “The gap between the state and society has widened to an extreme extent.”

In a sign of how seriously Iranian authorities are taking the backlash, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivered a sermon at last week’s Friday prayers praising recent strikes on Iraqi bases hosting U.S. forces.