Advertisement

Believe it or not, we’re down to the last hundred days before the election. (Wow, time sure flies when you’re not having fun.) Event-wise, this has been the worst lead-in to a presidential election since 1969, and in some ways it’s arguably far worse. Who would ever have imagined that we’d have an election year heading down to the wire with essentially no in-person campaigning, no big national conventions and probably even no debates. (Come on, does anyone really think Joe Biden WON’T get out of debating President Trump?) All this, when the stakes for this country are higher than they have been since, oh, maybe the Civil War.

Elections mean things, and this year, they mean everything. That’s why it’s critical to continue uncovering what was done to try to hijack the last one. Sadly, one of the major ways to influence elections, though it’s not supposed to happen (ha), is through the use –- the misuse –- of the tax-exempt 501(c)3. (To cite the most obvious example, does anyone believe that Media Matters doesn’t concern itself with election outcomes?) Recall that the Obama IRS was clearly weaponized to disqualify Tea Party organizations that had been formed around conservative principles while letting most “progressive” groups sail through to tax-exempt status.

California Rep. Devin Nunes broke some stunning news in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on her FOX BUSINESS NEWS show “Mornings with Maria” about THE most prominent liberal think-tank, the Brookings Institute, a 501(c)3, being involved with...(drum roll, please)...Christopher Steele and the “dossier.”

According to Rep. Nunes, there are direct links between the 2016 president of the Brookings Institute, longtime Clinton loyalist Strobe Talbott, and the creation and distribution of the phony Steele “dossier.”

"I think they have real...questions that need to be answered here,” he told Maria, “about what on earth the president of Brookings was doing texting back and forth to Steele. Why was he accepting the “dossier”?

Nunes returned Sunday to talk with her on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, just as more news broke about the “dossier.” Steele’s main source has been unmasked and is identified as Igor Denchenko (whom I would add is also a close associate of Adam Schiff’s star impeachment witness Fiona Hill). Nunes first offered a little background, saying that a few months ago, he and Sen. Lindsay Graham were saying they saw “three Russians” as possible sources, but that now it turns out that the one finally identified wasn’t really a Russian national, that he lived right here in the U.S. Both the FBI and the media had led Congress –- and the American public –- to believe Steele had some super-secret Russian source, but no.

We've learned something else very interesting about him: Steele’s “Russian” source used to work at the Brookings Institute.

Nunes says the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired while Republicans led the House, had already known through testimony that back in 2016, Strobe Talbott gave a few copies of the “dossier” to a few people. They also know that there were other so-called “dossiers” that mirrored the main one and that these were being passed around at the State Department; Nunes believes there are connections between those other “dossiers” and the president of Brookings as well.

Understand that all this material was completely unverified oppo research bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Reporters actually got Pulitzer Prizes for playing their roles in disseminating that rot. In Nunes’ words, “The whole thing was just some sick fantasy made up by the Clinton campaign. (Once again we can say that when it comes to corruption, all roads lead back to Hillary.)

Nunes says the investigation (I assume he means the Senate investigation) has now been expanded to include the Brookings Institute, specifically as it involves the IRS and a 501(c)3’s legal obligation to stay out of politics if it’s going to remain tax-exempt. He says they “clearly have not done that” and for the last four years have obstructed the investigation “with propaganda,” publicly attacking them “through this kind of phony legal group of ‘fact-checkers’ that they set up.”

The other trouble spot at Brookings is its acceptance of foreign money; this may include even money from foreign governments. So the question is, what foreign countries are we talking about? Were donors acting on behalf of a foreign power to damage Trump and help Hillary?

After Trump and his campaign were looked at upside down and sideways, it became clear that they had not “colluded” with Russia to win in 2016. But now we see that the Brookings Institute was playing politics on the Democrat side, and THEY had foreign donors. Nunes asks, “...are they doing all of this not just to help the Democratic Party, but also any foreign government?”

A report by Julie Kelly in AMERICAN GREATNESS tells more, recalling the Brookings Institution’s 4,300-word defense of the "dossier" on the website LAWFARE (where we looked to see that it's "published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with Brookings") that came out in December of 2018. It said the “dossier” was “a collection of raw intelligence” similar to other forms used by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Kelly's piece --- not the LAWFARE piece, unless you want your head to explode --- is a must-read.

Laughably, Chuck Rosenberg and Sarah Grant wrote for LAWFARE, “The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven. The Mueller investigation has clearly public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.”

Gosh, even Peter Srtzrok, in an internal FBI report, said there was no evidence that members of the Trump campaign had had contact with Russian officials.

"It’s safe to say that LAWFARE acted as the Adam Schiff of the blogosphere,” writes Kelly. That says it all. She also tells how LAWFARE targets Attorney General Bill Barr and Rep. Nunes. (Take a look at the headlines on their website; you'll get the idea.) They slammed Nunes' memo on FISA abuse though we now know it was accurate and Schiff’s was not. The very person who trashed Nunes’ memo for LAWFARE, David Kris, ended up being the person appointed by the presiding FISA judge to offer guidance on cleaning up the FISA process!

Why is it so important now to look at all this? Because there’s a bigger question: If the Democrat Party could go THIS FAR to tip the scales in 2016, what lengths might they go to in 2020 to win? Is there a limit? (That would be a “no.”) What on God’s earth are they doing behind the scenes NOW, under cover of the coronavirus? And how do we prevail? That, in the last hundred days before the election, is what we need to know and act on.

..................................

Incidentally, Sen. Lindsay Graham announced on Sunday that this week, evidence will be released that shows not only did the FBI lie to the FISA court about the reliability of the Steele “dossier,” but they also lied about it in their 2018 testimony to Congress. “And that is a separate crime,” Graham said.

There’s been a huge development related to the story we brought you a few days ago about Peter Strzok’s plan to use President Trump’s first official intelligence briefing to spy on him in January of 2017. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Thursday declassified a memo that details the specifics of an earlier briefing, with then-candidate Trump, in August of 2016. That briefing must have made Strzok very happy, because one can see from this new memo that they were already using such meetings to spy on Trump when he was still a candidate.

In fact, they filed the memo in several very interesting places mostly unrelated to the stated purpose of the briefing: under “Crossfire Hurricane,” code name for the “Trump/Russia” investigation; under “Crossfire Razor,” code name for the investigation of Michael Flynn; under “FARA,” the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and also under the vaguely titled “Russia Sensitive Investigative Matter.”

As reported by John Solomon, the memo shows that agent Joe Pientka attempted to gather evidence against both Trump and Flynn, not just briefing the candidate but also writing down the questions Trump asked during the meeting and scrutinizing the demeanor of attendee Flynn as well.

Recall that Strzok wrote later in an email to his boss Bill Priestap that he was “angry” (his word) he’d been left out of the loop ahead of the January 2017 briefing, as he planned to use it to further his investigation and wanted to offer input beforehand. In other words, this was far more than just an intelligence briefing; it was a set-up to play "gotcha" with the newly-inaugurated President, and his colleagues knew it. Unbelievable.

But true. As for the earlier briefing of then-candidate Trump, a source told FOX NEWS that “...the briefing was used as ‘a cover to listen for any remarks’ by Trump or others about the Russian federation.” See the report by Brooke Singman and Gregg Re here.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/source-says-fbi-agent-used-2016-briefing-on-election-interference-as-cover-to-question-trump-team

This intelligence briefing, held August 17, 2016, was supposedly to brief candidate Trump on foreign election interference. But according to the typewritten notes of FBI agent Joe Pientka, the agent “actively listened” for what was said on certain topics, particularly the Russian federation, using his 13-minute briefing for “cover” to monitor both Donald Trump and Michael Flynn.

The briefing was held at the FBI’s New York Field Office. Also in attendance was Trump campaign adviser and former candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. (As far as we know, all this is news to him.)

It was Pientka’s duty as the one giving the briefing to “warn and tell the candidates what they needed to watch out for.” Yet even with their supposed evidence about the Russians targeting the Trump campaign, Pientka did not tell Trump and/or Flynn that this was happening.

Interestingly, the document written by Pientka and supplied to FOX NEWS shows that it was approved by both Peter Strzok and Kevin Clinesmith. Clinesmith, you’ll recall, is the subject of a criminal referral –- so far the only one we know of –- for altering a document to say that Carter Page had not worked as our own asset for the CIA when he actually had done just that. (Page’s work with the CIA would have been exculpatory evidence for him, but somehow they ‘forgot’ to mention it in the FISA application to spy on him, altered evidence of it, and accused Page of being a Russian agent instead.)

According to the FOX NEWS source, Pientka was at that time also handling the FBI’s investigation into Flynn. (Recall that Pientka and Strzok were the two agents who went to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days into his new job as Trump’s new national security adviser.) The same source told FOX NEWS that the briefing was used as “a cover to listen for any remarks” by candidate Trump or others about the Russian federation.

Note that these officials were really out to get Flynn at that time; this particular incident of spying may have been just as much about snagging HIM as it was about stopping candidate Trump. With all Flynn knew about the inner workings of the intelligence community, they did NOT want him working with Trump. This concern would no doubt become a desperate one after Trump was elected.

Another senior administration official did not hold back in commenting to FOX NEWS, saying that this document “shows the same cast of virulent characters that spearheaded the Russia hoax and set Trump up from ‘jump.’” They were trying to make good on their promise to keep Trump from winning. It was “a scam briefing from a scam crew of miscreants at the FBI.”

Then-FBI Director James Comey later testified that he had assured President Trump he was not personally under investigation. (Recall that Trump at the time was understandably upset that Comey wouldn’t come out and state it publicly.) But Comey was lying to Trump. The FBI had Trump under an electron microscope, both before and after he was in office.

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, on Sean Hannity’s TV show Thursday night, clarified how they conducted that early briefing. “The FBI went to then-candidate Trump...They told him Russia might try to spy on you; what they didn’t tell him is, ‘WE’RE spying on you.” And they did it just 17 days into this investigation. It opens on July 31; August 17, they do this. Thirteen minutes for the ‘defensive briefing,’ the part...you’re supposed to get; and then an hour and 42 minutes where they’re trying to get information and set the [candidate] up.”

Jordan went on to say that this came very shortly after Strzok’s August 8 text to Lisa Page in which he said, “We’ll stop it [Trump’s election],” and his August 15 text to Page about the “insurance policy” discussed in “Andy’s office” (Andrew McCabe). Just two days later, they start implementing that insurance policy.

Gregg Jarrett, also on Hannity’s show, brought up the fact that Pientka has been scrubbed from the FBI website and is now cloistered in the San Fransisco Field Office, where the FBI refuses to make him available after repeated demands by Congress. And who is responsible for that, as well as for the excruciating delays in releasing these memos? Why, that would be current FBI Director Christopher Wray, of course! Every time we have a story that involves slow-walked evidence, we always seem to end up back at Wray’s office door, which is always closed.