Advertisement

Kash Patel, former lead investigator for the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, appeared on EPOCH TV over the weekend to talk about the Sussmann indictment. This video provides a concise overview of what we’ve been talking about the past week and offers additional details as well.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/kashs-corner-more-indictments-are-coming-unraveling-the-origins-of-the-russia-collusion-hoax_4015931.html?utm_source=ATLNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-02-19

For example, Patel said that Sussmann and Marc Elias were the two top lawyers at Perkins Coie overseeing all legal issues of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Sussmann is not some peon.

He also commented, as we have, about the unusual length of the indictment, saying this is not at all a typical indictment for one count of making a false statement, which might run a couple of pages, This runs 27 pages and is what’s known as a “speaking indictment.”

Sussmann and Elias brought in “tens of millions of dollars” to handle “everything from election law to campaign finance to any criminal allegations that might come up, to state law...” Indeed, we saw how Elias jetted around to different states before the election with a brigade of attorneys filing lawsuits to change state election laws.

Patel described Perkins Coie as a “behemoth.” It had to be one, to handle all the legalities –- and illegalities, ha –- of the Democrats’ run for President. These two attorneys also went out and hired “internet research” (campaign dirt) firm Fusion GPS, paying founder Glenn Simpson million of dollars for whatever his team could come up with, including the “Russia” stories. Of course, Simpson hired Christopher Steele. As you and I knew, it all traces back to Hillary Clinton.

Patel laid all this out in a most understandable way, so if you know people who are confused by all the twists and turns, just send them our summary, which includes the link, above.

He noted that opposition research is a normal part of political campaigns, and I can tell you from experience that this is true. Candidates even run oppo research on themselves, just to see what comes up. If they find something that might be an issue, their opponent certainly will.

It was just a few days before the election that the phony Alfa Bank story hit. And Hillary tweeted: “It’s time for Trump to answer some serious questions about his ties to Russia.” There was no basis in fact here at all, but the tweet included these fake bullet points:

1. Donald Trump has a secret server. [Aside: I know. That was HRC!]

2. It was set up privately to communicate with Putin-tied Alfa Bank.

3. When a reporter asked about it, they shut it down.

4. One week later, they created a new server with a different name for the same purpose.

As we now know, the FBI used this information in its FISA request for surveillance. Sussmann was the one who passed it to them. And then he lied about working on anyone else's behalf.

In examining what happened, Patel did what we like to do, which is to turn it around and ask “what if” the Trump campaign were found to have hired a law firm to research and “find” a connection between Clinton campaign headquarters and the Russian government, created a fake story about the Clinton campaign “pinging” back and forth through a bank to coordinate with the Russians, and released this to the media and the FBI right before the 2016 election?

“That would’ve been international headline news,” he said, and we all know that’s true. But it’s just the opposite when the CLINTON campaign is found to have done this. The media give it the tiniest bit of coverage possible. But Patel doesn’t think they can get away with that much longer.

He noted in this interview that Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation was charged with (among other things) finding out how the Alfa bank story fit in and if there was really anything to it. The House Intelligence Committee was looking into this at the same time and hadn’t come out with their report, as they were “just staffers on the Hill,” operating without subpoena power, etc. Mueller had sweeping subpoena power and cooperation from law enforcement.

Patel puts this Sussmann indictment together with that of Kevin Clinesmith, whom you’ll recall was charged with altering an official record that was used against Carter Page in the FISA warrant to spy on him. When looking at both of these, he sees that together they cover “two big components” of the investigation into the Russia Hoax. The former deals with the phony media campaign, outside the government, and the latter with the phony investigation going inside the government. “So, I think there’s a larger conspiracy at play here,” he said.

He sees this in the long “speaking indictment” that Durham has filed. Though most of the conspirators aren’t named, he's pretty confident of most of those identities, “if not all of them.”

“I think he’s just started,” Patel said of Durham.

IMPORTANT POINT: One thing the media are saying right now is that Durham’s investigation has gone on so long, he’s coming to the end of his official funding in just a few days and needs to wrap it up. (They wish!) According to Patel, the investigation cannot be shut down because Durham has just issued a federal indictment and this case has to be adjudicated in some fashion, by plea or by trial, which typically takes 12-18 months. In the meantime, Durham gets to continue his work. “So, I laugh at anyone in the media who tells me they’re worried about Durham being defunded,” he said. “He literally CAN’T, because he’s in the middle of a federal prosecution.”

It occurs to me that this might be another reason for Durham’s under-the-wire timing of the Sussmann indictment.

One concern Patel does have is a potential conflict of interest for the judge assigned Sussmann’s case: U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. His wife, prominent DC attorney Amy Jeffress, is a former top aide to then-Attorney General Eric Holder. She has represented...(drum roll, please)...Lisa Page, who reported to Andrew McCabe and, along with him, is one of the most central figures in this scandal. She worked for FBI general counsel James Baker, who is the one who reviewed the FISA applications, and also teamed (very closely) with Peter Strzok, who led “Crossfire Hurricane”!

I’m sorry, but that big a conflict just will not fly. How did this judge GET the case, anyway?

As Patel pointed out, Lisa Page might very well be a witness in Sussmann’s trial. (I would add that apparently there WILL be a trial, as Sussmann has already pleaded “not guilty.”) Conflicts of interest can be cited simply over the possibility of such things happening. As wild as it seems, unless the case is reassigned, we could easily have a situation in which a witness in the case has been represented by the judge’s wife.

The judge should recuse himself, or the attorney general should reassign the case. But with Merrick Garland at the helm, how do we trust this process?

There’s something odd about the Maricopa County, Arizona, Final Audit Report. We’re making no accusations at this point but would like some answers.

It has been reported that part of the Executive Summary has undergone some editing. A draft that was released by Patrick Byrne before the final presentation on Friday contained this passage:

“In the 2020 presidential election, the margin of victory was only 10,457 votes, a small fraction of the 57,734 ballots with known issues. Again, this is almost 6 times the margin of victory in the presidential race and is multiples of the margin of victory in other races. Based on these factual findings, the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable.”

That last statement about certification was apparently edited out of the final report. If that’s the case, we would just like to know who was responsible for this change and why they did it, given the accuracy of the statements that preceded it. Do the reported results sound reliable to you? Really?

Again, no accusations, just a call for answers. It would also be nice to know what else might have been altered. THEN we might have some accusations…

Arizona Audit Final Report Was Watered Down: Reports from Cyber Ninjas Were Edited, Most Damning Statements Removed - What Else Was Removed?

THE EPOCH TIMES has an updated report on what was presented Friday during the Arizona Senate hearing. It has details regarding the anomalies that were found. Highly recommended reading...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/arizona-senate-president-releases-audit-results_4015286.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-09-26-3&mktids=1303fcab08678bc0f60020ce8ecaafdb&est=uTMlpTQj7EU3jFRqIkZENMSz6mJO0h4J9W3q4b4zf3wMvD2jAEX4ZFkvrulMAQiXORf72w%3D%3D

Senate President Karen Fann sent a letter Friday to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, calling for further investigation and outlining her concerns about the following:

--- signature verification for mail-in ballots

--- voter roll accuracy

--- security of election systems

--- record-keeping of evidence after elections

Brnovich’s office issued a statement that said they had no comment on specific allegations at this time and that they would “thoroughly review the Senate’s information and evidence.” We’ll see.

The recount that was done as one part of the audit found little difference in the vote tallies, but that was just recounting the same ballots over again. Nevertheless, mainstream media reports picked up on that as if it were the only finding, because that’s the story they wanted to tell. Sen. Fann said evidence was found of numerous problems that affected tens of thousands of ballots, including laws being broken and chain of custody not being maintained.

Arizona Democrats responded by (what else?) attacking Cyber Ninjas, one of the teams working on the audit. Democrats obviously have no interest in identifying problems and reforming the system, no matter how much of a mess it is shown to be, as long as that system benefits them.

Here’s more commentary on President Biden’s speech this week to the UN, pointing out how removed from reality it was, and how antithetical to the interests of the United States.

https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-83-second-video-absolutely-devastating-joe-bidens-presidency/

I’m linking to this because it makes the point that Biden’s speech was built around his belief in solving all problems through “international diplomacy.” Indeed, he took it even further, declaring, “We’re opening a new era of relentless diplomacy.” Can you imagine anything that would irritate other nations more than a relentless diplomat?

Even since I started this political commentary racket, I’ve looked for inspiration to a great American, Will Rogers. His commentaries were read by both the powerful and regular working people, because he had a way of using humor, common sense and plain talk to cut through all the baloney and tell the truth. Recently, TCM aired “The Story of Will Rogers,” and I was again amazed at how many things he said in the early 20th century seem to apply just as well in the 21st. For instance: “Diplomats have this thing called ‘diplomatic language.’ It means they have a hundred ways to say nothing, but no way to say something.”

One reason the leftists hated Trump so much was that they accused him of being undiplomatic. But after seeing the results of a century of diplomacy, I think I prefer blunt truth. Judging from this Administration, I can only assume “relentless diplomacy” means having a thousand ways to say nothing instead of a hundred ways.

Friday, the findings were announced from the Arizona Senate audit of the 2020 Presidential vote in Maricopa County. The way it was reported reminded me of the classic movie “Rashomon,” which invented the concept of completely different versions of the same story being told by different narrators.

Conservative outlets focused on the many irregularities that the audit turned up, such as over 17,000 duplicate ballots, 23,344 mail-in ballots voted from people’s prior addresses, 2,382 in-person voters who’d moved out of the county outside the window of eligibility, and other issues. The total ballots that had something questionable about them was 57,734, far more than Biden’s 10,457-vote margin of victory in Arizona.

https://www.westernjournal.com/az-auditors-say-17000-duplicate-ballots-found-maricopa-county-1-5-times-biden-won/

Meanwhile, liberal outlets trumpeted the finding that the hand recount of ballots that were accepted in the county showed Biden did win, even picking up a few hundred more votes than originally reported. This wasn’t unexpected, since they were just recounting votes that had already been recounted (and I’ve noticed that whenever you do that, the Democrat total always increases for some reason.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maricopa-county-gop-audit-confirms-biden-2020-victory-in-arizona/ar-AAONkSM?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Incidentally, does anyone else find it amusing that after months of attacking the auditors as crazy, unqualified, unreliable hacks who shouldn’t be listened to, that when they produced a finding Democrats liked, liberal media outlets trumpeted the news as, “Audit vindicates Biden!”

So what conclusion can be drawn from this? Frankly, nothing solid, other than that Arizona needs to get a firm grip on its election procedures going forward. The auditors were blocked from obtaining all the data they needed, and while they found a lot of suspicious irregularities, they also found no hard proof that Biden didn’t win. None of this is going to undo the 2020 election results, no matter how much a growing number of Americans wish it would.

So I’ll just remind you of what I’ve said on several occasions since the November election: it’s not necessary to believe in rigged voting machines or stuffed ballot boxes or any other elaborate chicanery with the altered voting rules to conclude that this was not a fair election. Even if you put all that aside, we know it wasn’t fair because the people who ensured it was unfair not only admitted it, they bragged about it.

We’ve all read about how news outlets and social media platforms proudly threw out any pretense of objectivity to become organs of the Biden campaign, censoring conservative voices, trumpeting any negative news (even fake) about Trump and casting doubt on anything positive about him. Meanwhile, they promoted Biden relentlessly and hid damaging stories like the Hunter Biden laptop revelations from the voters (they called that “disinformation” until Biden was safely elected, and now it’s just “information.”) The media collusion with the Democrats alone was enough to certify this as a blatantly unfair election.

And if anyone on the left protests that their collusion with the Democrats is not rigging an election, remember: they still cling to the claim that the 2016 election was rigged because Trump colluded with Russia to manipulate the media, and that didn’t even turn out to be true.

We recently reported on the fact that Jake Sullivan, one of the players in the anti-Trump “Russia Hoax” being investigated by John Durham, is now a member of the current administration, working as Biden’s national security adviser. In a new piece for REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS, investigative reporter Paul Sperry looks deeper into Sullivan’s role in the hoax. Sperry’s sources tell him that this has grown into a full-blown conspiracy case.

Consider Sperry’s report your weekend reading assignment, one that focuses on Sullivan’s involvement in a “confidential project” within Hillary’s campaign to link Trump to the Kremlin “through dubious email-server records” provided to intel agencies. These so-called records must relate to those phony communication “pings” between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank.

Sullivan isn’t identified by name in Durham’s 27-page indictment of Sullivan, but his campaign position is provided, so we know it’s him.

There’s also more detail on what we reported concerning the use of university researchers to collect data for the Clinton campaign. They were working from a five-page document dubbed the “Trump Associates List” to compile a “digital dossier” on several Trump officials, including Gen. Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. According to Sperry, “This effort exploited highly sensitive, nonpublic Internet data related to their personal email communications and web-browsing...” Are you getting sick yet?

Look, I know politics gets dirty. I’ve always said that no one should run for office who can’t stand the sight of his own blood. But this crosses the line into outright surveillance. Still, it's hard to say if this is a new low for Hillary, because she operates down there all the time and always has. The Clinton machine soils everything it touches. And even if Hillary slips away from the law, we will all know what she did, and what she is.

According to Sperry’s sources, Sullivan is in legal trouble over this because he lied about it to investigators. Apparently, Durham has emails between Sullivan and Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias about the Alfa Bank scheme. Sullivan denied in congressional testimony that he knew anything about Fusion GPS and their involvement in the Alfa Bank opposition research. He said he didn’t know what the nature of their work was or who was funding it.

Sperry’s report is quite detailed. You’ll see how the Alfa Bank story was exploited long after the FBI had determined there was nothing to it. Sullivan and another anti-Trump hoaxer named Daniel Jones formed a nonprofit group called --- get ready --- the Democracy Integrity Project. I am not kidding. It raised $7 million or so, mostly from Silicon Valley Tech executives, and used it to hire computer researchers, as well as more "oppo" researchers and Christopher Steele (again) to try to “prove” the rumors in the Steele “dossier.” Then they would feed information to the media, leading Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the FBI.

I think we’ll be hearing a lot more about Daniel Jones in the near future. For now, just read Sperry’s piece when you have some time, and see how disgusting politics can be when it’s in the service of Hillary Clinton.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/23/biden_security_adviser_sullivan_tied_to_16_clinton_plan_to_co-opt_cia_and_fbi_to_tar_trump_795498.html

President Biden doesn’t want to get tough on illegal immigrants – in fact, the Administration has ordered an end to horseback Border Patrols, further reducing our already crippled ability to deal with the surge he’s caused, because of a fake story that they were whipping Haitian migrants (it was their leather reins flying.) I’m tempted to start a rumor that he signs his executive orders with a pen attached to a whip, so he’ll give up signing any more of those.

Biden also doesn’t want to get tough with our enemies, as he’s proven by rolling over for China and letting the Taliban take over Afghanistan (and here’s how trusting them to be a new, more “moderate” Taliban is working out.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/taliban-founder-says-strict-punishment-amputations-to-return-to-afghanistan/ar-AAOKK3k

But you have to give it to Biden and his people in one regard: they’re certainly tough on our own military members. After first accusing them of being white supremacists, they now want to impose court martials and dishonorable discharges that would revoke all military pensions and other benefits for troops who refuse to take the COVID vaccine. This is the kind of punishment usually reserved for deserters, spies and murderers.

https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-treat-troops-refuse-vax-deserters-spies-murderers/

They also want to remove a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that allows only honorable discharges for refusing the vaccines (apparently, being discharged isn’t enough; they also must be PUNISHED!!!) They even want to eliminate a provision allowing those who’ve already had COVID and have natural immunity to refuse the vaccine.

If this Administration could bring even a fraction of the aggressiveness to dealing with the Taliban, China or the Mexican cartels that it levels against our own troops, maybe it wouldn’t be the historically weak failure that it’s shaping up to be.