Reinforcing Russiagate

A bit this Sunday morning. From Sundance at CTH a Dan Bongino Presentation of “Spygate”… 36 minutes, and well worth the time:

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit: It Was a Team Effort! George Papadopoulos Accuses British Embassy in DC of Illicit Spying on Trump Team! I think this is pretty well established by the fact that the Brits are opposing the declassification of the Carter Page FISA warrant. "Tyler Durnden" at Zero Hedge: Kunstler Exposes "The Core Truth" Of The 2016 Russia Collusion Story

Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. The Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But if he’d uncovered anything substantial in the way of “collusion” between Mr. Trump and Russia, the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So it’s hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse “process” convictions for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it’s quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016 contest against Mr. Trump — and to defame him after he won. There’s also the Hieronymus Bosch panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It’s a little hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious ‘splainin’ to do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.

Is Mueller Probe of Manafort Actually Looking Into Russian Oligarch Deripaska? More like taking orders from.

Russian billionaire who hired Christopher Steele in 2012 previously interacted with FBI’s Andrew McCabe and DOJ’s Bruce Ohr in quest for visa into US
. . .
As previously discussed, Deripaska parted ways with Manafort and Gates sometime in late 2008 or early 2009, with Deripaska claiming that both men owed him millions of dollars.

It was at this point that Deripaska turned to Washington lawyer Adam Waldman and his firm, the Endeavor Group. Deripaska hired Waldman in May 2009, placing the Endeavor Group on a $40,000-a-month retainer. Waldman, who also began work for the Russian government in 2010, would remain in the employ of Deripaska until April 5, 2018, when he terminated his relationship following renewed sanctions on Deripaska.

The Mueller team just happened to indict two people who Derispaska claims owe him millions of dollars.

Sundance at CTH on Jerome Corsi in Negotiations With Mueller for Plea Deal…

Jerome Corsi is famous for his research, analysis and theories surrounding the life story of President Obama. In most mainstream media circles Corsi was labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist’.  Then again, some conspiracies are not theory; and seeing the Washington Post take lead against Corsi only cements Mueller’s deep state allies are feeding the info.

As word spreads about Robert Mueller snaring Corsi inside his investigative quicksand, don’t be surprised to find people wondering if Corsi’s work into the background of Obama isn’t the real motive behind snare deployment.

I certainly wondered that. Speaking of conspiracy theories, here's one from Sundance: A Deep State Motive Behind Conspicuous Releases?…

Just like the questions about who redacted information inside the 600 pages text messages between DOJ/FBI Lawyer Lisa Page and FBI investigator Peter Strzok; putting the downstream data-points together leads to a series of questions that remain the subject of much speculation through today:

• How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages?
• Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?
• Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from?
• Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media? Why?
• Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information?
• Why be so specific about details within the Wolfe indictment; then dismiss them?
• Who made the decision (FISA ap) NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp?
• Where is all of this “unofficial” evidence/information coming from?
• Why?

For a long time CTH has looked at these questions from the position that the information was adverse to the interests of the DOJ; therefore we operated on the assumption that someone within the apparatus of government was leaving a trail of information with good intention. However, over time – and with the absence of any accountability being delivered, there is also another motive that deserves attention and review.

There is a flip-side motive to these releases.

It is entirely possible this information was made public in an effort to tip-off a wide net of corrupt officials who participated in the largest abuse of power in history. . . .

And hope for Democrats and Anti-Trumpers  from Joshua Zoffer at the Atlantic: Mueller and a Blue House Could Bring Down Trump, But the president’s supporters won’t make it easy.

We believe our argument will soon be proved correct; hellfire and brimstone are imminent.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has picked off a few campaign aides and charged Russian operatives, but it has yet to breach the inner sanctum of the Oval Office. If Mueller follows existing Department of Justice precedent, Trump will remain safe from indictment. A Democrat-controlled Congress, however, will show no such restraint when it comes to the president and those closest to him.

Democratic control will bring two new advantages in the war on Trump. First, congressional committees hold an arsenal of investigative tools that can be called on with only majority-party assent. Chief among them is Congress’s subpoena power—its ability to compel the production of documents or the sworn testimony of witnesses in furtherance of a congressional investigation. That power can be exercised to produce anything from Trump’s much-discussed but as yet unseen tax returns to public testimony from his senior staff and family members (especially those who fit both descriptions). Moreover, due to a 2015 rule change pushed through by House Republicans, most House committees can now issue subpoenas on the authority of the chairperson alone, including three of the committees most likely to go after Trump: Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs.

Fortunately perhaps, Eric Holder and Obama set the precedent for ignoring Congressional subpoena's which James Comey is reinforcing.

Second, Congress has the power to draw the results of any investigation into the harsh light of public scrutiny. The Watergate hearings were instrumental in bringing down Nixon because they forced Republicans to contend with damning testimony from the president’s closest aides, broadcast in prime time. Only once his approval among Republicans sank into the 50s were GOP congressmen willing to join the impeachment effort. Removing Trump from office before his term expires would require a similar loss of intraparty support. Since Democrats today don’t control the Senate—let alone hold the two-thirds majority required for conviction on House impeachment charges—it’s all the more important for them to erode the president’s base of support before attempting impeachment. Republicans’ impeachment of Bill Clinton increased his approval rating as those on the left rallied around him. Today, Democrats would do well to keep their fingers off the trigger until the president’s approval has begun to crumble.

Hence the media war on Trump.