redfish
5 hours ago
Fake news. He's not suing me or my mother. //

houdini1984 David B
4 hours ago
I believe that it is fairly well settled law that there is an implied exception to the statute of limitations when bad actors fraudulently conceal their misdeeds. In this case, the defendants, federal law enforcement, and other bad actors all did their utmost to prevent any discovery of the truth.

Given that many of these facts have only recently been confirmed by Durham, I would think that the statute of limitations would have been tolled during that cover-up period. //

PubliusCryptus
4 hours ago
Why not sue? The criminal part of our justice system is now thoroughly criminal, it isn't going to help. It is run by criminals to protect certain criminals instead of protecting common people from criminals. //

Rockhound267
4 hours ago
Yes, there is a strong likelihood that Trump will lose this case. (I hope he doesn’t. I hope he wins and takes all of these people to the cleaners.). However, even if he does lose, he is still extracting a measure of justice from these charlatans. He is forcing them all to hire lawyers to defend themselves. That’s going to cost them a lot of money. So, even if Trump loses the suit, he is still getting some justice. //

Taylor Lake
3 hours ago
I have studied RICO law, including its private cause of action provisions. I think The Donald has a decent shot at winning.

The key to a successful RICO case is to establish the existence of a criminal enterprise. For a private cause of action, the plaintiff needs to show quantifiable harm as a result of the enterprise activity.

A criminal enterprise could be something like Person A authorizing the payment to Person B to pay Person C to offer false information to the FBI about an American citizen and a political opponent, with the purpose of causing a criminal investigation of that person. That's a federal crime right there. It can involve others who knowingly act in furtherance of the enterprise, including the "foot soldiers" who run the sham criminal investigations, get surveillance warrants based on lies, and leak their existence to the media.

You know, people like Evita Clinton, and Mark Elias, and Steele, and Comey, and the FBI adulterers... the list goes on.

If you are ever going to get the Clintons - and the Bidens, for that matter - you have to be able to punch through their veil of "plausible deniability" in getting their minions to do their dirty work for them. RICO was the antidote to Mafia crime family leaders like Al Capone who could run massive criminal enterprises but never themselves do anything chargeable.

In a RICO cause of action, all Trump needs to do is to tie Evita to the criminal enterprise that acted on her behalf. Once that's done, the beauty of RICO is that everyone in the organization becomes collectively liable for every criminal act committed by every other member, even ones they personally had nothing to do with.

When Al Capone was told of the Valentine's Day Massacre, he said, "I'll send flowers." When Evita Clinton was confronted with questions about wiping computer drives that likely contained evidence against her and her enterprise, she said, "What, with a cloth?" Both of these people let their arrogance and hubris shine through in moments like these. The difference is, RICO didn't exist in Capone's day.

Trump sues everyone and their dog involved in the Steele dossier and Russia collusion hoax //

"John Does 1 through 10"...

A newly obtained document includes Manos Antonakakis’s synopsis of what he told the special counsel’s team about the Alfa Bank hoax.

A Georgia Tech researcher’s candid reaction to the indictment of a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer hints at an intriguing development in the Russia collusion scandal. Two days after the indictment dropped, the researcher told a university lawyer and other higher-ups that the special counsel had lied in the indictment about the Alfa Bank hoax, according to a document first obtained by The Federalist on Thursday.

But the details the Georgia Tech researcher explained instead reveal a more damning scenario concerning his peers’ potential access to data from the Executive Office of the President, or EOP, during the Trump transition period.

Now, fair notice: I’m heading pretty deep into the weeds here, so here’s the TL;DR:

In paragraphs 2 through 7, under the heading FACTUAL BACKGROUND, Durham details important points about the indictment that show Sussman working with Rodney Joffe and his firm Neustar, who passed information to researchers under a DARPA contract at Georgia Tech and coordinated an effort to build up a falsified case for investigating Trump’s connections to Russia. This also involved the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel — a familiar name, Marc Elias. This data was, to put it gently, massaged in order to make an incriminating case against Trump that fed into the Clinton campaign’s other efforts, like the “dossier,” and thus into the fraudulent FISA warrants and more intelligence operations against the Trump campaign.

You can see why this caused a lot of agitation on the Democrats’ side: Durham is laying out a case that Perkins Coie, through Sussman and with the active participation of Mark Elias, purposefully manufactured evidence against Trump that factored into the four-year investigation into “Russian collusion”.

I’ve talked to several lawyer friends, and frankly, this appears to indicate many violations of law — too many to list. But plenty that would send mere politically unconnected mortals to Leavenworth for the rest of their lives.

Now, into the weeds.

Last week saw the corrupt media spinning explosive revelations from Special Counsel John Durham’s office as a big ol’ nothingburger. Yet, as I explained on Friday, none of the narratives pushed by the Durham deniers countered the evidence in court filings showing that “enemies of Donald Trump surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge.”

Although The New York Times, CNN, and other legacy media outlets failed to refute the significance of the details revealed in Durham’s latest filing, their concerted efforts highlighted their previous lack of coverage of the investigation and the many stunning revelations that have come from Durham’s team to date.

One of the most significant aspects of the ongoing investigation ignored or downplayed by the supposed standard-bearers of journalism concerns the extensive role the Hillary Clinton campaign played in the Russia collusion hoax.

Durham is going public with more details of his investigation into the Russia Collusion Hoax, but will the courts will stop him? //

The details included in the latest filings, when coupled with revelations in earlier court documents, make it politically impossible at this point for Attorney General Merrick Garland to pull the plug on Durham.

The Special Counsel’s office may instead (or may also) be using the speaking court filings to ensure the investigation is not prematurely shut down by the Biden Administration. The details included in the latest filings, when coupled with revelations in earlier court documents, make it politically impossible at this point for Attorney General Merrick Garland to pull the plug on Durham.

Another possibility is that the Special Counsel’s office wants those inside the government rattled. If so, the tactic worked beautifully.... //

Soon after the public filing of the “discovery update,” the OIG’s apparently complained to Durham’s team about the details included in the court document, trying to justify its failure to turn over Baker’s cell phones. But in doing so, the OIG revealed it had other cell phones that might be of interest.

Or maybe Durham is merely attempting to keep the public informed, in a legal way, with the end goal being restoring some semblance of trust in the DOJ,

“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham states. “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”

Durham also writes that during Sussmann’s trial, the government will establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (DNS) internet traffic pertaining to “(i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).”

Now the sources are telling Fox that former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe met with Durham multiple times and told him there was “enough evidence” in intelligence to support the indictments of “multiple people” in his investigation into the Russia probe. Ratcliffe had provided almost 1000 pages of material to Durham to help his effort.

The sources pointed to one key piece of declassified intelligence, which Fox News first reported in October 2020, revealing that intelligence community officials within the CIA forwarded an investigative referral on Hillary Clinton purportedly approving “a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Sources told Fox News that the CIA memo, also known as a Counterintelligence Operational Lead (CIOL), was properly forwarded to the FBI, and to the attention of then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok.

Few political operations have been more evil and dirty than the operation to smear President Donald Trump by the Clinton campaign.

As we previously reported, the Durham probe has been unraveling a lot of the dirt. They had indicted Michael Susman who worked for Perkins Coie, the firm that represented both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That in and of itself was huge — that the investigators were going after the person who had been the lawyer for the Clinton campaign. Plus, they were alleging he lied about the fact that he was paid by the campaign to push the information about Trump.

But then came an even bigger move regarding Clinton, in a filing regarding the case against Michael Sussman. Durham alleged in the filing that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid an internet company to “infiltrate” servers at Trump Tower and the White House to link Donald Trump to Russia. This is John Durham saying there was not only alleged spying on Trump to smear him, but that it continued after he got into the White House.

I’m not sure there’s ever been an equivalent to how wrong that Russia collusion smear was, and how much they tried to divide the country over it — then kept it up for years.

This is big news. But the media has largely failed to cover it, except for Fox News and conservative media. Instead, they’ve tried to focus on ridiculous stories from a new book claiming they found documents in the toilet in the Presidential residence when Trump was there. From “sources.” What is this now, the billionth ‘story’ of how ‘we’re got him now’?

It’s nonsense but the left is falling for it again. They were all over Special Counsel things when it involved Mueller, even though he had nothing. But here, when they have a big finger pointing right at the Clintons alleging a huge thing, they are completely ignoring it.

Kash Patel, the former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia investigation for the House Intelligence Committee under former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), told Fox News that the filing “definitively shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia.”

“Per Durham, this arrangement was put in motion in July of 2016, meaning the Hillary Clinton campaign and her lawyers masterminded the most intricate and coordinated conspiracy against Trump when he was both a candidate and later President of the United States while simultaneously perpetuating the bogus Steele Dossier hoax,” Patel said.

Felix Sater claims the Kazakhstan players were seeking to interfere in the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton.

While Vindman may achieve an early victory in this case, first with the positive PR he is garnering and second by fending off any attempt by the defendants to have the case immediately tossed as frivolous, he may soon regret his decision to sue.

Unlike the House proceedings in which Schiff and other defendants ran cover for Vindman, allowing him to refuse to respond to relevant questions, federal discovery will not be so limited. And there will be much the defendants will want to know, such as with whom Vindman discussed the telephone call.

The defendants will also be entitled to question under oath a variety of other witnesses, including the whistleblower. Questions of Vindman’s bias will be fair game as well. Then there will be evidence the defendants will seek to gather to establish Trump had legitimate concerns about Hunter Biden’s involvement with the corrupt Ukrainian company Burisma.

In short, Vindman might just give Trump the impeachment trial he needed, with the witnesses he needed, to establish Vindman worked with the whistleblower and the whistleblower with Schiff to launch the Ukraine hoax.

Will Carter Page succeed in fending off dismissal of his case against the DOJ, FBI, and litany of Crossfire Hurricane agents?

To summarize, the flow of information likely went from McFarland to Hill to Wallander. Once inside the White House, it went from Wallander to Rice to Obama (and later onto Ignatius at the Washington Post).

The Bottom Line: Wallander possessed a virulent anti-Trump sentiment, motive, access, and credibility because of her senior position and experience – she had it all. She’s the leaker. Prove me wrong.

According to the New York Post, Vice President Joe Biden met at a dinner with Ukrainian, Russian, and Kazakhstani business associates of his son’s in a Georgetown restaurant on April 16, 2015, emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop reveal.

An email from Vadym Pozharskyi, a Ukrainian executive at Burisma, thanked Hunter for introducing him to his father.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together,” Pozharskyi wrote on April 17, 2015.

“It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”

Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma at the time. //

So basically not only is Joe Biden a big liar when it comes to never talking about Hunter’s business, but we have to ask: Why is he lying unless there’s a lot to cover up here?

In reporting on apparent CIA involvement in spying on an American citizen, RedState’s Bonchie observed:

If this were a Republican implicated, it’d be treated as the largest political scandal of the last hundred years.

And so it would. Therefore: Let’s treat it as the largest political scandal of the last hundred years.

During today’s White House press briefing, McEnany was asked by CBS News Radio correspondent Steven Portnoy to explain what “Obamagate” was and what crimes were allegedly committed because apparently he’s been asleep at the wheel for the last three-plus years as this story has unfolded, with many of the players being exposed – no thanks whatsoever to the leftists in the mainstream media. //

“I’m really glad you asked because there hasn’t been a lot of journalistic curiosity on this front. And I’m very glad that you asked this question,” McEnany said.

“Look, there were a number of questions raised by the actions of the Obama administration. The Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee, the opposition political party to the president, was used to obtain FISA warrants to listen in on conversations of people within the Trump campaign.

There was the unmasking, the identity of Michael Flynn. And we know that in a January 5th meeting in the Oval Office with President Obama, Sally Yates from the Department of Justice learned about the unmasking – not from the Department of Justice or for the FBI. She learned about it from President Obama and was stunned and can barely process what she was hearing at the time because she was stunned of his knowledge of that.

We know that there was a lot of wrongdoing in the case of Michael Flynn. The FBI notes, for instance, that said we could ‘get him to lie’ as they pontificated their strategy. We know that the identity of this three decade general was leaked to the press, a criminal leaked to the press of his identity in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.”

“These are very serious questions, they’ve been ignored by the media for far too long,” McEnany continued to a flustered Portnoy, who seemed to be stunned she would suggest such a thing.

She went on to talk about the wrongdoing of the other players in the scandal, like “Andy McCabe leaking to the Wall Street Journal and then lying about it.” She also noted that she’d be “happy to talk about James Clapper lying before Congress saying the NSA does not monitor phone calls,” which she stated was “an inaccuracy, to say the least.”

The oligarchy that sucks its money, power, and prestige from America will never forgive the America First president for exposing its corruption. And since they are outnumbered and unloved, the US-based elite comprising big tech, corporate media, the intelligence bureaucracy, and senior Democratic Party officials must stay on offense as long as possible—which is why they continue to hunt Donald Trump and his allies.

On Friday, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported that former Trump administration official Kash Patel is “facing Justice Department investigation for possible improper disclosure of classified information.” The 40-year-old lawyer from Queens, New York served in several senior posts under Trump, including National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism, senior advisor to the Director of National Intelligence, and Pentagon chief of staff.

Patel was first forced into the spotlight in 2017 after he joined Congressman Devin Nunes’ investigation of crimes and abuses committed during the FBI’s operation targeting the Trump campaign. An aggressive former federal prosecutor, Patel knew where to look for evidence of FBI and Department of Justice wrongdoing at the top levels. As he began to document their illegal activities, Democratic Party operatives leaked his name to the press in an effort to intimidate him. Friday’s story is a continuation of a four-year offensive against a patriot who helped uncover the scandal underlying Russiagate, the Third-World-style combined media and intelligence operation smearing Trump and his aides as Russian agents in order to spy on them. //

U.S. officials are zeroing in on Patel because he exposed their rot. Now they’re employing the same tactics with which they prosecuted the Crossfire Hurricane operation—leak to the press to kick off a politicized investigation during which they will manufacture evidence to vilify, or even prosecute, an adversary. And so American intelligence and federal law enforcement continue their tragic spiral downwards, through corruption and toward irrelevance.

A frequent media mouthpiece for the intelligence community who published the classified leak that launched the Russia collusion hoax is retaliating against the senior government official who debunked it.

In a meandering Washington Post column, first mocking the idea of a “deep state” before repeatedly and effusively praising it for its work thwarting the will of the elected government, David Ignatius uses anonymous sources to attack Kashyap Patel for exposing misbehavior by intelligence officials, holding them accountable, and mostly for the crime of behaving as if the duly elected President Donald Trump, not unelected bureaucrats, was the real head of the executive branch of government. //

Ignatius ends by unambiguously praising appointees and bureaucrats for thwarting the elected president’s will. That’s a story that doesn’t just sound bad, but worse than many feared.

As RedState reported, former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who was working with Robert Mueller, was given probation and a $100 administrative fee for his role in falsifying an email to renew the already illegally obtained FISA warrant on Carter Page. //

Out of all the nefarious, obviously corrupt figures surrounding this saga, Clinesmith was the only one charged. Figures like Andrew McCabe and James Comey were named in credible criminal referrals, not by politicians, but by the Inspector General, and the DOJ did nothing. In the end, Clinesmith got sentenced for less jail time (in this case none) than George Papadopoulos, whose only “crime” was mixing up a date on a harmless meeting he still admitted to having. To recap, you can forget a date talking to the FBI and have a special counsel crack your skull, but if you work for the FBI, forge a document, and lie about it in order to try to spy on a political opponent, you get probation and glowing media coverage. Laughably, it’s not even a long probation period either. Single mothers caught with weed in their car have gotten more than 12 months probation.

Fiona Hill, a top Russia expert in the Trump administration, was the person who introduced former British spy Christopher Steele to a former think tank analyst who would serve as the primary source for an infamous dossier he compiled on President Donald Trump, according to newly declassified FBI notes. //

skeptic62
2 hours ago
I can no longer count the many Democrats who have perjured themselves, but is remains very easy to count those who have been punished.

Zero.