Former Officials Give Conflicting Accounts of Kerry State Dept’s Handling of Trump Hoax Dossier

by AARON KLEIN  14 Feb 2018

TEL AVIV – Seeming discrepancies between the claims of two former officials in John Kerry’s State Department about actions taken involving the infamous, 35-page largely discredited anti-Trump dossier raise immediate questions about the State Department’s possible role in the sordid affair.

The dossier, which contains wild and unproven claims about Trump’s campaign and Russia, was authored by ex-British spy Christopher Steele on behalf of the controversial Fusion GPS firm and was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

The dossier was reportedly utilized by the FBI to launch its probe into Trump. According to House Republicans, the questionable document was used by Obama administration officials to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign. The political origins of the dossier and issues relating to Steele’s credibility as a source were kept from the FISA court, a House Intelligence Committee memo documents.

Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who worked under the Clintons and served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs under Kerry, described in a recent Politico podcast interview what she claimed was her reaction when she was presented with Steele’s dossier information at the State Department.

She said that she offered advice to “those who were interfacing with” Steele, immediately telling the intermediary or intermediaries that Steele “should get this information to the FBI.” She further explained that a career employee at the State Department could not get involved with the dossier charges since such actions could violate the Hatch Act, which prevents employees in the executive branch of the federal government from engaging in certain kinds of political activities.

In a second interview, this one with CBS’s Face The Nation, Nuland also stated that her “immediate” reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.

Here is a transcript of the relevant section of her February 5 interview with Susan B. Glasser, who described Nuland as “my friend” and referred to her by her nickname “Toria”:

Glasser: When did you first hear about his dossier?

Nuland: I first heard — and I didn’t know who his client was until much later, until 2017, I think, when it came out. I first heard that he had done work for a client asserting these linkages — I think it was late July, something like that.

Glasser: That’s very interesting. And you would have taken him seriously just because you knew that he knew what he was talking about on Russia?

Nuland: What I did was say that this is about U.S. politics, and not the work of — not the business of the State Department, and certainly not the business of a career employee who is subject to the Hatch Act, which requires that you stay out of politics. So, my advice to those who were interfacing with him was that he should get this information to the FBI, and that they could evaluate whether they thought it was credible.

Glasser: Did you ever talk about it with anyone else higher up at the department? With Secretary Kerry or anybody else?

Nuland: Secretary Kerry was also aware. I think he’s on the record and he had the same advice.

Nuland stated that Kerry “was also aware” of the dossier, but she did not describe how he was made aware. She made clear that she told “those who were interfacing” with Steele to go to the FBI since any State Department involvement could violate the Hatch Act.

Nuland’s Politico podcast interview was not the only time she claimed that her reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.

On Face The Nation on February 4, Nuland engaged in the following exchange in which she stated her “immediate” reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI (emphasis added):

MARGARET BRENNAN: The dossier.

VICTORIA NULAND: The dossier, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, “This is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI, if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate.”

And that was our reaction when we saw this. It’s not our — we can’t evaluate this. And frankly, if every member of the campaign who the Russians tried to approach and tried to influence had gone to the FBI as well in real time, we might not be in the mess we’re in today.

Nuland gave the two interviews after her name started surfacing in news media reports involving Kerry’s State Department and the dossier. Her name also came up in relation to a criminal referral of Steele to the Justice Department in the form of a letter released last week and authored by Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The Grassley-Graham criminal referral contains redacted information that Steele received information from someone in the State Department, who in turn had been in contact with a “foreign sub-source” who was in touch with a redacted name described as a “friend of the Clintons.”

Numerous media reports have since stated that the source of information provided to the State Department that was in turn passed onto Steele was Cody Shearer, a controversial figure tied to the Clintons who is also an associate of longtime Clinton friend Sidney Blumenthal. According to sources who spoke to CNN, Shearer’s information was passed from Blumenthal to Jonathan Winer, who at the time was a special State Department envoy for Libya working under Kerry. Winer says that Kerry personally recruited him to work at the State Department.

It is Winer’s version of events that seems to conflict with Nuland.

In an oped last week published in the Washington Post, Winer identified Nuland as the State Department official with whom he shared Steele’s information. Winer writes that Nuland’s reaction was that “she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.” He does not relate any further reaction from Nuland.

Winer wrote at the Washington Post (emphasis added):

In the summer of 2016, Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. He did not provide details but made clear the information involved “active measures,” a Soviet intelligence term for propaganda and related activities to influence events in other countries.

In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the “dossier.” Steele’s sources suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.

I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.

That was the extent of Winer’s description of Nuland’s reaction upon being presented with Steele’s dossier claims. Nuland’s public claim that her “immediate” response was to refer Steele to the FBI since State involvement could violate the Hatch Act seems to conflict with the only reaction that Winer relates from Nuland – that she felt Kerry should be made aware of the dossier information.

In Winer’s Washington Post oped, he writes that Steele had a larger relationship with the State Department, passing over 100 reports relating to Russia to the U.S. government agency through Winer. Winer wrote that Nuland found Steele’s reports to be “useful” and asked Winer to “continue to send them.”

He wrote:

In 2013, I returned to the State Department at the request of Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whom I had previously served as Senate counsel. Over the years, Steele and I had discussed many matters relating to Russia. He asked me whether the State Department would like copies of new information as he developed it. I contacted Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who was then assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and shared with her several of Steele’s reports. She told me they were useful and asked me to continue to send them. Over the next two years, I shared more than 100 of Steele’s reports with the Russia experts at the State Department, who continued to find them useful. None of the reports related to U.S. politics or domestic U.S. matters, and the reports constituted a very small portion of the data set reviewed by State Department experts trying to make sense of events in Russia.

Last month, Nuland was appointed CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which describes itself as “an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit organization that develops strong, pragmatic, and principled national security and defense policies.”  “As CEO, Ambassador Nuland will lead CNAS’s efforts to develop bold, innovative, and bipartisan solutions to the most pressing national security and defense issues,” the Center said in a statement.

She previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Senators question Susan Rice about an odd email – and it was written on Trump’s inaugural

Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice is being questioned by Republican senators over an odd email she sent to herself on the day of President Donald Trump’s inauguration. (Image Source: YouTube screenshot)

By Carlos Garcia

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are questioning an odd email written by former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice — and it was composed on the day of President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Here’s what it said:

The email is an account of a meeting between herself and former President Barack Obama, his Vice President Joe Biden, then-FBI Director James Comey, and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. They were discussing the progress in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present,” the Rice email read.

“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective,” it continued.

“He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book,” she added. “From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia…”

“The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would,” the note concluded.

Odd details

Rice wrote the email about the meeting more than two weeks after the meeting occurred, on January 5, 2017. The email was written on the day of Trump’s inauguration, and was sent to Rice herself.

Grassley and Graham sent an email to Rice asking that she answer 12 questions about the email, one of which was the following: “Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email memorializing President Obama’ s meeting with Mr. Comey about the Trump/Russia investigation? If so, who and why?”

Another asks, “When and how did you first become aware that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded Mr. [Christopher] Steele’s efforts?” referring to the author of the controversial “Trump dossier.”

The last question asks, “Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr. Comey, Ms. Yates, or other government officials about the FBI’ s investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russia? If so, when did these occur, who participated, and what was discussed?”

A pattern of abuse?

Rice was the Obama administration official who was sent to Sunday talk shows in order to blame the Benghazi attack on a YouTube movie about the origins of Islam. Many accuse her of lying about the cause in order to shield the administration from criticism over security at the consulate.

Rice was later accused of illegally “unmasking” Trump officials, a charge which she vehemently denies.

Fake News Firehose: Science Proves ‘Impartial’ Journos Are Not Making ‘Honest Mistakes’ About Trump

by JOHN NOLTE12 Dec 2017

The settled science informs us that the more often you flip a coin, the more likely it is that there will be a 50/50  split of heads to tails. In other words, if you flip a coin 20 times, the probability of achieving a ratio of 8 heads and 12 tails diminishes greatly if you flip it 40 or 60 times. The closer you get to 100 coin flips, the closer you will get to a perfect 50/50 split of heads to tails.

Naturally, in order to achieve this perfect split, in order to conduct the experiment accurately, good faith must be involved. The person flipping the coin must show no bias and no personal investment towards the outcome. The coin-flipper must be interested in only one thing — an outcome that reveals objective truth.

Therefore, through the use of dispassionate science and math, the only conclusion one can come to when observing the national media’s relentless fire-hosing of fake news is that these are not “honest mistakes,” but instead deliberate lies — attempts from a biased and partisan media to destroy President Trump through a propagandistic crusade of calculated disinformation.

What allows us to safely come to this conclusion?

Well, what would you think of a scientist who came to you with a coin-flipping experiment that resulted in 0 heads and 100 tails?

That is easy, you would know the experiment had been rigged, that he is lying. And you would know this because a 0/100 outcome is impossible without a corrupting influence, without a conscious act of bias. Moreover, you would know that an insistence that the experiment was ethical was an attempt to make a fool of you.

And that is what the media believe we are — fools, which is why proven liars, chief among them CNN’s Chris CillizzaBrian Stelter, David Frum, and Jim Acosta, continue to make the audaciously anti-science argument that, all of the fake news we have seen over the last two years, is the result only of “honest mistakes” from reporters who “work hard to get it right.”

Well, everyone knows that honest mistakes are like coin flips. The more honest mistakes one makes, the more the ratio of those mistakes will end up 50/50.

So, if 100 honest mistakes are made in reports about Trump, we should see something very close to a 50/50 split in these reports. Half of these honest mistakes will get it wrong to Trump’s benefit; the other half will be damaging to Trump. Meaning…

For every piece of MSM fake news that is unfair to Trump, we should see a piece of MSM fake news that is too soft on Trump, that gives him too much benefit of the doubt, that clears him of wrongdoing prematurely, soft-pedal his mistakes, or overestimates his popularity, crowd size, and political victories.

Just as an honest and unbiased scientist interested only in an outcome of objective truth will achieve a 50/50 split, so too would honest and unbiased journalists interested only in an outcome of objective truth.

But that is not what we are seeing from our national media, and already we are waywayway beyond 100 coin flips. In just the last 10 days, the national media have been caught red-handed telling no fewer than 11 consequential lies. And…

Every honest mistake comes up tails for Trump.

Every.

Single.

One.

It is just a fact that coin flips and honest mistakes do not fall like this — and anyone who argues otherwise is either a liar or a science denier.

Furthermore, recent history is achingly clear in informing us that these are not “honest mistakes,” because this never happened to Barack Obama. We never saw anything even close to this unrelenting assumption of the worst when it came to Bill Ayers’s pal.

Whether it was the IRS abuses against conservatives, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Veterans Administration death list, the Solyndra subsidies, the DOJ refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers, the wiretapping of Trump’s campaign, Hillary’s secret email account, spying on journalists, Bowe Bergdahl, or the EPA polluting the Colorado River — the media did everything in their power to make it comes up heads for their Precious Barry.

Everything the media could do to downplay Barry’s scandals, to give him the widest benefit of the doubt, to dismiss and move on, was done, even by a CNN staffer during a consequential presidential debate.

For Obama the media always made it come up heads.

For Trump, it is always tails.

If you believe in science, math, and history, the only conclusion you can come to is that these not honest mistakes; rather, these are deliberate and calculated lies told by deliberate and calculating liars.

Benghazi Liar Schiff Now Lies about Uranium One

Capture

By Daniel John Sobieski

When the Democratic anti-Trump mantra of “Russia, Russia, Russia” was in its infancy, House Intelligence Committee off ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff from the People’s Republic of California was in high dudgeon over Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes daring to report to the public and the press that, yes, members of Team Trump were in fact surveilled and the contents of their conversations and their names were recorded and disseminated.

Rep. Schiff had no problem with intel leaks to the New York Times, but an intelligence committee chairman giving the President a heads-up that his transition team was in fact caught up in surveillance by his own government is out of bounds? Schiff insisted it was, and claimed Nunes was not acting as a committee chair but as a surrogate of Team Trump:

At his own news conference later that afternoon, Schiff sharply criticized Nunes, given that his committee is in the middle of an active investigation that includes the question of whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia’s suspected attempts to meddle in last year’s election.

“The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House, because he cannot do both,” Schiff told reporters.

Schiff has no problem acting as a surrogate for Team Obama or Team Hillary. That deafening silence you hear is the outrage he has expressed over the leaking of classified information to the press designed to fatally wound the Trump transition. Schiff had no problem repeating claims without evidence that Team Trump was colluding with the Russians. But he was troubled by Nunes citing reports proving President Trump was right about his team being monitored, creating a kerfuffle that forced Nunes to recuse himself from active leadership of his committee.

Fast forward to Uranium One and Fusion GPS and evidence of actual collusion and coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the Russians, and we find ranking member Schiff once again acting as a surrogate for both President Barack Hussein Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. He cannot do both. Nor can he ignore evidence that Team Hillary conspired with the Russians to both influence our elections and to engage in arguably treasonous pay-for-play in exchanging control of 20 percent of our uranium supply, the raw material for nuclear weapons, for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Yet that is what Schiff is doing, whistling past his party’s political graveyard and ignoring evidence of crimes that, yes, make Watergate look like a third-rate burglary and the treason of the Rosenbergs look like a misdemeanor, He calls Uranium Onepolitically-motivated “distraction”, showing how unserious the Democrats are about real corruption and collusion and why these “bipartisan” investigations are a sham by definition

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, accused the Trump administration, Breitbart News and Fox News of promoting news first reported by The Hill last week regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Uranium One deal.

The 2010 deal, covered extensively in Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” gave Russia control of a significant portion of U.S. uranium.

Schiff denounced the new attention as a “partisan effort to distract” and accused House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) of being a part of it given three House committees — Judiciary, Government Reform and Intelligence — were involved.

Schiff, as we know, is no stranger to partisan efforts to distract and is a veteran of using lies, false charges, and obfuscation to distract the American people from the crimes and corruption of Team Obama and Team Clinton. He shamelessly defended the incompetence and criminal negligence of Obama and Clinton in Benghazi

Schiff was the individual who called the heroes who fought off terrorists from the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi liars for their account of the Obama/Clinton administration’s denying security improvements, ignoring warnings of the attack, and the issuance of a stand-down order for any rescue, an order they ignored. As Investor’s Business Daily recounted in 2014:

The California Democrat who suggested that his party boycott the Benghazi Select Committee as a waste of time now accuses those who fought on the CIA annex roof of lying “to promote a new book.”

The last we heard from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, was in May. That’s when he told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” he thought the planned select committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attack was a “colossal waste of time.”

Calling the yet-to-be-approved committee a “tremendous red herring,” Schiff said: “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”…

… Schiff apparently is still not happy about the hearing, which pointed out the State Department’s pre-Benghazi neglect of security, ignoring the security recommendations after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania….

The hearing came right after Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen, three CIA contractors who on that night fought terrorists from the roof of the CIA’s Benghazi annex building, confirmed that there was indeed a stand-down order given that caused a critical half-hour delay….

Schiff, who was not in Benghazi that night, says Paronto, Geist and Tiegen are making up a tale to sell their book, as if their story is less plausible than the proven lie that the Benghazi attack was caused by an inflammatory YouTube video, a myth promoted both by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama.

After seeing clips of Schiff saying the contractors were trying to sell their book and Smith claiming a stand-down order “was never given,” Geist said he “would like to invite Mr. Schiff to a debate… we can talk about it.” He wondered if Schiff wished to “say that to my face.”

Schiff thought the Benghazi heroes was making it up, and now he thinks Nunes and Team Trump are making up the fact that investigations into Team Trump and the Russians, and the creation of a Special Counsel, were prompted by a fake dossier put together by the Russians and paid for by Hilary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. He claims it is a distraction to point out the truth that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration sold out American national security in exchange for more Clinton cash.

Rep. Adam Schiff, have you no shame?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/10/benghazi_liar_schiff_now_lies_about_uranium_one.html#ixzz4wjJosQja
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Dobbs, Fitton – Corruption Permeates FBI, DOJ – No Case Solved Since Fast and Furious

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 3.39.49 PM

By Rick Wells

Lou Dobbs points out that Fusion GPS, the opposition research and creative writing company that Democrats hired to do compile dirt on President Trump and which created the discredited Trump Russia dossier is fighting back against Congressional subpoenas.

Dobbs describes the lawyers representing the Fusion scumbags sarcastically as “noble” in their arguments that, “The House Intelligence Committee is acting in bad faith,” and threatening to “plead the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify.”

Dobbs also references thirty documents related to the Bill ClintonLoretta Lynch tarmac meeting that the FBI had previously claimed didn’t exist but that a similar suit for information from the DOJ revealed, through their correspondence with the FBI, actually did exist.

He asks if perhaps Judicial Watch was being lied to when the FBI told them the documents didn’t exist earlier this year, and discusses that point and others with Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Fitton says he doesn’t think the changing story at the FBI was an oversight or an honest mistake, saying, “I think we caught them, we caught them red-handed, and now they’ve had to fess up to the documents.”

Dobbs says, “This sort of tell you what the problem is. The American people have a government that is corrupt. The American people have a government, and it’s not necessarily because someone takes money, although I’m sure there’s lots of that, but is so politicized it’s politically corrupt and ideologically corrupt.”

Dobbs asks when will the documents be forthcoming and “will there be words actually still on the pages when you get them?” Fitton replies, “Well, that’s the big question. The government says they need up until November 30th to turn the documents over to us.”

An outraged Lou Dobbs jumps in, “Thirty pages, they can’t read thirty pages in less than a month and a half.” Fitton takes a turn at the sarcasm saying that the new FBI Director, the good old boy who has been a Mueller – Comey crony for decades, Christopher Wray, “might want to ask questions about what went on here.”

He says, “The idea they didn’t know they had documents just strains credulity. And this is why Wray and Jeff Sessions, to the degree he’s not recused, because he may be recused from this, I don’t know, Rod Rosenstein, whoever the responsible official is needs to take a look at this.”

“This is a fundamental question, “says Fitton, “of whether we can trust our nation’s law enforcement agency, the FBI and the Justice Department, not to break the law and not to be dishonest.  We’re in the middle of a court case here and they tell us they don’t have documents.”

He says, “You know, what are we supposed to do, go to the court every time saying the FBI is lying? We’ve got to rely on the FBI and the Justice Department to tell us the truth from time to time.”

Dobbs asks why the “people should have any other belief about the FBI now than that’s where investigations go to die?” He says, “I can’t think of a major scandal that has been resolved by the investigation of the FBI, can you Tom?”

He continues, “I’m talking about going back to Fast and Furious, you name it, they never reach a conclusion. Benghazi, they never reach a conclusion, there’s never a report, this is something rancid and wrong at Justice.”

Fitton adds the IRS scandals to the list of unresolved claims and says, “Especially when the Justice Department or the FBI are implicated in the scandals, you’re never going to get the truth or it’s going to be difficult to do so

He cites an example, saying, “Just last week we’re asking for the Comey memos, we sued for the Comey memos that he supposedly wrote. The Justice Department came in and said  we can’t have one of them, any of it, because it would interfere with Mueller’s investigation.”

He adds, “So now this Justice Department is working with Mueller to keep information that Comey leaked to the New York Times away from the American people, unbelievable.

Dobbs gets the last word, noting, “And the Republican Senate leadership and the Republican House leadership haven’t got the guts to say ‘enough’ and end it now.”

One case they solved was Edward Snowden – likely because they feared he had the goods on them.