Perhaps someone will explain to them that under Roberts Rules, "reclaiming time" applies to fellow representatives and doesn't apply to witnesses...

Is this "Sworn Testimony" nail her ass if she lies to Congress!

Yates says the Russians reached out to Papadopoulos to help the Trump campaign.

AG Barr, Please, please find out about Joseph Mifsud. Where is he ? Who directed him in April 2016 ?

Boy he nails this one.

Sally Yates double talk
  

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...ps-campaign-n2573792

Ted Cruz:

"Ms. Yates, when did you first become aware that the Obama Administration was surveilling the Donald Trump campaign?"

SY: "The Obama Administration was not surveilling the Donald Trump campaign,"

Stefan Halper, FISA warrant covering past communication and 2 step process


TC: "So a FISA application is not surveillance,"


Yates said the FISA warrants were for Carter Page who was no longer a member of the Trump campaign.

"So your testimony is that the investigation into Carter Page had nothing to do with the Donald Trump campaign? Cruz asked.

"No, you asked me if we were surveilling the campaign...," Yates began to respond

"You don't get it both ways. Is it the campaign or not?" Cruz interjected.

"Senator, I’m trying to give you what is the accurate information here. Carter Page was a former member of the Trump campaign at the time that the FISA was initiated," Yates said, adding the reason for the FISA warrants were started for a "number of reasons. First, we had gotten information...that the Russians had made the overture that they wanted to be able to assist the Trump campaign."

"Now hold on, you said it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign," Cruz said.

"I said that he was not a member of the Trump campaign at the time that we initiated the FISA," Yates replied.

Yates told the Judiciary Committee she would not have signed off on the FISA applications if she had known they did not meet the required standards. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has also said the same thing.

Her testimony, what little I watched, sounded to me like they are going to try to make sanctimonious Comey the fall guy.

Comey wasn't the only one who "...went rogue...". Regards 18DAI

DC Circuit Directs Gen. Flynn, DOJ, and Judge Sullivan to Be Prepared to Answer Questions Regarding Judge Sullivan’s Bias and Lack of Impartiality

A VERY significant development has just happened today with regard to the upcoming oral argument in the en banc hearing on the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, set to take place next Tuesday, August 11, 2020.

When the Circuit Court issued the Order last week that the Court would rehear the matter en banc, the Order referenced only one issue that was to be addressed, whether “mandamus” relief was the only remedy available to Gen. Flynn and that there was no other remedy available by which he could obtain the relief he sought. That reference addressed the one significant weakness in the Flynn Petition for Mandamus, and the decision of the three-judge panel granting the petition and “mandating” to Judge Sullivan that he grant the D.O.J. motion to dismiss the case.

In the original petition filed by Gen. Flynn, his counsel had sought as one ground of relief if the case were sent back to the District Court for further proceedings, that the case be reassigned to another district court judge due to Judge Sullivan’s conduct, arguing that his conduct was such that his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455.

In supporting Gen. Flynn’s petition, D.O.J. did not join in the request to have the case reassigned to another district court judge. At the oral argument before the three-judge panel, none of the attorneys who argued the case raised the issue, and the Panel decision did not address the question in a meaningful fashion other than to deny that relief — it was not necessary since the Panel decision ordered Judge Sullivan to grant the pending motion.

I had previously started to write a story about the standards for the disqualification of a federal judge, as there is a specific statute that covers the issue, Sec. 455 mentioned above. But when the parties seemed to drop the issue, I stopped working on the piece. I’ll go back to that now as a preview of what the legal arguments and standards are ahead of next week’s hearing.

But for today’s purposes, I think the significance of the Court’s new order is that it suggests the D.C. Circuit is looking for an avenue that sends the case back to the district court for further proceedings on the pending motion to dismiss under Rule 48(a), while at the same time not continuing or encouraging the “circus” process that Judge Sullivan has set in place and repeatedly expressed a desire to engage in.

As I have suggested on Twitter and here, in my view, two crucial “institutional” considerations are of concern to the Circuit Court. By that, I mean, there are two issues of significance which have nothing to do with whether the motion to dismiss should be granted or denied on its merits.

First, the granting of mandamus relief by the panel here under very unique circumstances — by which I mean the notoriety and profile of the case — creates a precedent for resorting to “mandamus” as an ordinary avenue of relief by criminal defendants unhappy with a district court judge’s decision. An old adage at the appellate level is the saying “bad facts make bad law.” In this instance it means that the unique circumstances of this case are driving a decision-making process on Rule 48(a) motions — and other motions as well — which the Court may very well come to regret in the future because it is likely to generate innumerable more such petitions in much more ordinary circumstances. Those future petitions might not have otherwise been filed without this precedent to rely upon. Responding to such petitions takes time and court resources. So there will undoubtedly be an “institutional” cost in the future due to a decision by the Court which tells defendants in criminal cases “If you don’t like a Judge’s ruling on a motion — for failure to rule on a motion — file for mandamus relief.”

The second institutional consideration, which I believe is of concern to the Circuit Court, is that the Panel decision can be interpreted as undermining the “fact-finding” process of district court judges, which is typically accomplished in hearings on motions. Judge Sullivan has corrupted that “regular order” process with his appointment of an amicus counsel to argue against an unopposed motion, and the suggestion that a far-reaching inquiry into the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch — may be including affidavits or testimony under oath by government officials — is warranted by the motion.

This would be another instance of “bad facts making bad law” if the Appeals Court were to overrule Judge Sullivan by mandamus because Judge Sullivan has turned the case into a circus. It would undermine the “regular order” fact-finding process that the Circuit Court is dependent on in 99.999% of all the cases that come before it. Appeals Courts do not, as a general matter, add to the evidence of the case that is generated in the trial court below. They review the proceedings in the trial court and make determinations on whether errors were made, and what remedies are necessary to correct those errors. That requires that the proceedings in the trial court be as clear and complete as possible. That means encouraging trial courts to develop clear and complete records before the case is sent up on appeal.

But Judge Sullivan has turned that “regular order” process into his own Captain Ahab-esque quest to find the “White Whale.” The Circuit Court needs to preserve the “regular order” process while at the same time disapproving of how Judge Sullivan has conducted himself in the case.

The Order today suggests that two possible paths to this outcome are under consideration. One would be to simply find that Judge Sullivan’s conduct has created a circumstance where his partiality can reasonably be called into question. That is a basis for mandatory reassignment under Sec. 455 that I referenced above.

The second option would be the more benign approach of finding that in pursuing the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Judge Sullivan has now made himself a nominal “party.” As such, he can no longer preside over the case.

I’ll have more later on the legal standards that related to both these questions.

https://www.redstate.com/shipw...ack-of-impartiality/

comment on above post

the article was written by "shipwreckcrew". This author has written some really good commentary on the Flynn case. He/she is a class act.

The "two possible paths" at the end of the article both lead to replacing Judge Sullivan w another judge.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...to-carter-page-fisas

An important part of today's testimony by Sally Yates (SY):

Sen Kennedy asked if the dossier by Steele was "critically important" to the FISA applications

SY: “ Yes it was . It was information with respect to Carter Page.”

Pressed on whether the series of memos, which contained salacious allegations about the Trump team's ties to Russia, were "junk,"

SY: "I think that there is certainly evidence now that there was not at the time that calls into question the reliability of many portions of the Steele dossier.”

bit of an understatement. And known by the FBI to be junk in late Jan 2017

Comey to Brett Baier in Apr 2018:

Baier: “You called the dossier ‘unverified’ and ‘salacious.’ Why did you use that to the FISA court to ask for surveillance for Carter Page? Not only use it, but you led with it, a bulk of that FISA application deals with that dossier. Why?”

Comey: "My recollection was it was part of a broader mosaic of facts that were laid before the FISA judge to obtain a FISA warrant," “My recollection was there was a significant amount of additional material about Page and why there was probable cause to believe he was an agent of a foreign power, and the dossier was part of that but was not all of it or a critical part of it. ”

IG Horowitz: the chief of the FBI’s office of general counsel, who had told an FBI case agent in September 2016 that the FISA application was "essentially a single source FISA” — meaning Steele’s claims were the most important part of the court submission.

Yates said Wednesday she was “shocked” by the Horowitz report and said, “The conduct that was reflected there was terrible.” She pointed to “errors and omissions” and testified that “I believe that the Department of Justice and the FBI have a duty of candor with the FISA Court that was not met.” Yates also said Comey went "rogue" with the FBI's interview of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

Declassified footnotes indicate the bureau became aware that Steele’s dossier may have been compromised by Russian disinformation, and recent revelations include that Steele relied on a subsource who employed shady Russian subsources and who contradicted Steele’s research.

quote:

Originally posted by 18DAI:
Her testimony, what little I watched, sounded to me like they are going to try to make sanctimonious Comey the fall guy.

Comey wasn't the only one who "...went rogue...". Regards 18DAI

One guy ain't gonna cut it.....

Remember super goon prosecutor Andrew Weissmann ?

now he calls for DoJ to resist AG Barr's investigation into the coup attempt that Weissmann was part of

Andrew Weissmann:

As Rachel Maddow said tonight, the NYT piece, below, notes DOJ personnel have a duty -- and a variety of means -- to resist any effort by Barr to take impermissible political actions prior to the election.

So Weissmann wants DOJ employees to commit obstruction of justice so that his ass can be saved...

Yeah sure - sign me up. What could possibly go wrong.

Go intercourse yourself Andrew. Go home and wait for your indictment to be issued and your subpoena delivered.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Remember super goon prosecutor Andrew Weissmann ?

now he calls for DoJ to resist AG Barr's investigation into the coup attempt that Weissmann was part of

Andrew Weissmann:

As Rachel Maddow said tonight, the NYT piece, below, notes DOJ personnel have a duty -- and a variety of means -- to resist any effort by Barr to take impermissible political actions prior to the election.

I sincerely hope this turns out to be false. I guess we'll find out.

John Brennan escapes prosecution in John Durham investigation: Report

Quote:
"Still, while Brennan may escape an indictment, he may yet be harshly criticized in a report."

https://www.washingtonexaminer...investigation-report

I am done with reports. I am done with congressional hearings. I believe Barr has a strong sense of the law and what is right, and I hope he will see this through and do what needs to be done. Time is rapidly running out and there needs to be some movement sooner rather than later.

quote:

I am done with reports. I am done with congressional hearings. I believe Barr has a strong sense of the law and what is right, and I hope he will see this through and do what needs to be done. Time is rapidly running out and there needs to be some movement sooner rather than later.

Sara Carter agrees with you:

Russia Hoax: Are We All Being Played? Put Up or Shut Up.
Sara Carter
Aug 6, 2020

Many people have asked me why I haven’t written a book since the start of my reporting on the FBI’s debunked investigation into whether President Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia.

I haven’t done so because I don’t believe the most important part of the story has been told: indictments and accountability. I also don’t believe we actually know what really happened on a fundamental level and how dangerous it is to our democratic republic. That will require a deeper investigation that answers the fundamental questions of the role played by former senior Obama officials, including the former President and his aides.

We’re getting closer but we’re still not there.

Still, the extent of what happened during the last presidential election is much clearer now than it was years ago when trickles of evidence led to years of what Fox News host Sean Hannity and I would say was peeling back the layers of an onion. We now know that the U.S. intelligence and federal law enforcement was weaponized against President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and administration by a political opponent. We now know how many officials involved in the false investigation into the president trampled the Constitution.

I never realized how terrible the deterioration inside the system had become until four years ago when I stumbled onto what was happening inside the FBI. Those concerns were brought to my attention by former and current FBI agents, as well as numerous U.S. intelligence officials aware of the failures inside their own agencies. But it never occurred to me when I first started looking into fired FBI Director James Comey and his former side kick Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that the cultural corruption of these once trusted American institutions was so vast.

I’ve watched as Washington D.C. elites make promises to get to the bottom of it and bring people to justice. They appear to make promises to the American people they never intended to keep. Who will be held accountable for one of the most egregious abuses of power by bureaucrats in modern American political history? Now I fear those who perpetuated this culture of corruption won’t ever really be held accountable.

These elite bureaucrats will, however, throw the American people a bone. It’s how they operate. They expect us to accept it and then move on.

One example is the most recent decision by the Justice Department to ask that charges be dropped on former national security advisor Michael Flynn. It’s just a bone because we know now these charges should have never been brought against the three-star general but will anyone on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team have to answer for ruining a man’s life. No, they won’t. In fact, Flynn is still fighting for his freedom.

Think about what has already happened? From former Attorney General Jeff Session’s appointment of Utah Prosecutor John Huber to the current decision by Attorney General William Barr to appoint Connecticut prosecutor John Durham to investigate the malfeasance what has been done? Really, nothing at all. No one has been indicted.

The investigation by the FBI against Trump was never predicated on any real evidence but instead, it was a set-up to usurp the American voters will. It doesn’t matter that the establishment didn’t like Trump, in 2016 the Americans did. Isn’t that a big enough reason to bring charges against those involved?

His election was an anomaly for the Washington elite. They were stunned when Trump won and went into full gear to save their own asses from discovery and target anyone who supported him. The truth is they couldn’t stand the Trump and American disruptors who elected him to office.

Now they will work hand in fist to ensure that this November election is not a repeat win of 2016. We’re already seeing that play out everyday on the news.

But Barr and Durham are now up against a behemoth political machine that seems to be operating more like a steam roller the closer we get to the November presidential elections. Barr told Fox News in June that he expects Durham’s report to come before the end of summer but like always, it’s August and we’re still waiting.

Little is known about the progress of Durham’s investigation but it’s curious as to why nothing has been done as of yet and the Democrats are sure to raise significant questions or concerns if action is taken before the election. They will charge that Durham’s investigation is politically motivated. That is, unless the charges are just brought against subordinates and not senior officials from the former administration.

I sound cynical because I am right now. It doesn’t mean I won’t trying to get to the truth or fighting for justice.

But how can you explain the failure of Durham and Barr to actually interview key players such as Comey, or former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, or former CIA Director John Brennan. That is what we’re hearing from them.

If I am going to believe my sources, Durham has interviewed former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, along with FBI Special agent Joe Pientka, among some others. Still, nothing has really been done or maybe once again they will throw us bone.

If there are charges to be brought they will come in the form of taking down the subordinates, like Strzok, Pientka and the former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application against short term 2016 campaign advisor Carter Page.

Remember DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report in December, 2019: It showed that a critical piece of evidence used to obtain a warrant to spy on Page in 2016 was falsified by Clinesmith.

But Clinesmith didn’t act alone. He would have had to have been ordered to do such a egregious act and that could only come from the top. Let’s see if Durham ever hold those Obama government officials accountable.

I don’t believe he will.

Why? Mainly because of how those senior former Obama officials have behaved since the troves of information have been discovered. They have written books, like Comey, McCabe, Brennan and others, who have published Opinion Editorials and have taken lucrative jobs at cable news channels as experts.

It’s frankly disgusting and should anger every American. We would never get away with what these former Obama officials have done. More disturbing is that the power they wield through their contacts in the media and their political connections allows these political ‘oligarchs’ unchallenged power like never before.

Here’s one of the latest examples. Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann just went after Barr in a New York Times editorial on Wednesday. He went so far as to ask the Justice Department employees to ignore any direction by Barr or Durham in the Russia investigations.

I think Barr and Durham need to move fast if they are ever going to do anything and if they are going to prove me wrong. We know now that laws were broken and our Constitution was torched by these rogue government officials.

We shouldn’t give the swamp the time-of-day to accuse the Trump administration of playing politics or interfering with this election. If the DOJ has evidence and is ready to indict they need to do it now.

If our Justice Department officials haven’t done their job to expose the corruption, clean out our institutions and hold people accountable then it will be a tragedy for our nation and the American people. I’m frankly tired of the back and forth. I’m tired of being toyed with and lied to. I believe they should either put up or shut up.

From Weissmann’s New York Times Opinion Editorial

"Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That’s because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.

Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. At least two developing investigations could be fodder for pre-election political machinations. The first is an apparently sprawling investigation by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, that began as an examination of the origins of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other, led by John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, is about the so-called unmasking of Trump associates by Obama administration officials. Mr. Barr personally unleashed both investigations and handpicked the attorneys to run them."

But Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.

https://saraacarter.com/russia...d-put-up-or-shut-up/

Lindsay G on with Maria Bartiromo just now.

wray’s FBI lied to the Senate Intel Cmte. Surprised? But Lindsay vows to get to the bottom of this... strongly worded letter to Wray to follow.


https://twitter.com/MariaBarti...303999897602/photo/1

I wish I could say I trusted Durham, but I'm a subscriber to the theory that the best way to predict future behavior of an individual is to examine his/her past behavior. Durham's appointment was bolstered by the claim that he was a "bulldog" regarding his prosecution of disgraced FBI Agent John Connolly in the James "Whitey" Bulger matter. Connolly admitted receiving bribes from Bulger and passing on to Bulger info he (Connolly) received from other LE investigators about citizens that had dared to report crimes Bulger had committed. After receiving this info, Bulger then killed the "snitches" so he could continue his business as usual. Connolly would later be tried and convicted for murder on state charges for his complicity, but before that happened, Durham prosecuted this lone agent for "Obstruction of Justice", hence establishing his credibility as a "bulldog."

A couple of problems with Durham's reputation: First, he gave FBI agent John Morris (Connolly's immediate supervisor) immunity from prosecution, even though Morris admitted receiving at least $7,000.00 from Bulger in bribe money. Durham's "investigation" never resulted in senior FBI officials being charged, even though former FBI supervisor Robert Fitzpatrick publicly claimed he'd tried to shutdown the Bulger-FBI connection with managers, who'd disregarded the whistle-blower's claim that Bulger wasn't even providing the Bureau with information as a "Confidential Human Source"(CHS). Connolly and Morris didn't operate in a vacuum and it's impossible (for this investigator) to believe that their managers weren't complicit.

Beyond the fact that Connolly was only charged and convicted of a relatively minor offense (Obstruction of Justice) and was the sole member of the Bureau held accountable criminally for anything , Morris (his supervisor) wasn't even dealt with administratively (fired) by the Bureau or DOJ. He was allowed to remain with the FBI, transferred to the Los Angeles Office (about five miles from where Bulger was allegedly "hiding" in Santa Monica), and promoted to Assistant Agent in Charge of an anti-corruption unit there until he retired. This favorable treatment to Morris is incredible considering his admissions of receiving bribes from Bulger apparently occurred under the directorship of none other than Robert Mueller, who's among those being "investigated" by Durham. If Durham had prosecuted Morris or threatened to do so, it's difficult to believe that culpability up the chain of command (rather than merely Morris's subordinate) wouldn't have become known and managers' subjected to criminal prosecution too. Was Durham incompetent, did he knowingly cover up for corrupt FBI managers, or were FBI higher ups ignorant of Bulger's influence?

How relevant is the treatment of the Bulger matter by FBI and DOJ personnel (including Durham) to the "Russian Collusion" case? Just read Page One of the report released in 2019 by OIG:

The clock is still ticking and so far, not one indictment. The democrats would have had trials and jailed people by now, were the shoes reversed.

The democrats fight better than the rinos and Republicans. A lot of valuable time appears to have been wasted, at this point.

And hearing Linsey Graham talk about "...people need to be jailed!" rings kind of hollow after his deferential treatment of Sally Yates during last weeks hearings. I would like to say I expect some justice to be done. But, sadly, I agree with Sarah Carter.

Durham needs to hurry up and shit or get off the pot. Allegedly, he has not even interviewed Clapper or Brennan yet! WTF!? I think its all Kubuki theater at this point. Regards 18DAI

As soon as I saw this name, Steven Schrage , I was interested. Schrage was suspected to be key in setting up Carter Page. (see page 102 from Dec 2019)



https://www.powerlineblog.com/...hijacked-america.php



Schrage:

There is far too much to tell in a single article. In the next several weeks I plan to reveal what I know, including: the comedy of errors leading to a Cambridge Four member meeting and targeting the FBI’s main surveillance excuse Carter Page;

the information given to an FBI source in August 2016 should have immediately ended their investigation alleging Page was a master spy linking top Trump officials to Putin;

how a secret anti-Trump source sought one of the world’s most powerful positions that could undermine the president;

and how official statements by FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane officials to the DOJ Inspector General were factually inaccurate or wildly inconsistent with other evidence, raising the question of if those officials risked criminal prosecution to conceal their acts.

I always thought Schrage was part of the set up of Carter Page. Looks like I was wrong on that. Schrage fell into it w good intentions, and then got used

Heads up : CTH thinks Schrage is a distraction story. Sundance does not trust Schrage.


https://taibbi.substack.com/p/...who-hijacked-america

part 1 of 7

Scrage's article is one that deserves a full print out

Serious stuff

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/...who-hijacked-america

The Spies Who Hijacked America

Global scandals now labeled Russiagate, Spygate, and what President Trump calls “Obamagate” shook the political world, but hit me closer to home. I’m the reason the so-called FBI “spy” at the center of Spygate, Stefan Halper, met Carter Page, the alleged “Russian Asset” in Russiagate’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

On May 19, 2018, this realization blindsided me in London as I was about to fly out for my wedding. The New York Times, NBC News and other sources had outed my PhD supervisor, Stefan Halper, as a spy known to the UK’s MI6 intelligence service as “The Walrus.”

It didn’t seem real. Could a former professor I once trusted as a mentor have betrayed his word, profession, and country to start these disasters? I had moved to England to pursue an academic career and leave DC’s politics behind, only to have my PhD supervisor throw me back into the most outrageous political firestorms I could imagine. Just my luck. Then an even worse question began nagging at me. Did I unintentionally light the match that started it all?

As I started to piece together what happened over the next few months, I realized something. The stories that The New York Times, Washington Post, and others were pushing didn’t add up. Many seemed planted to cover up or advance the agendas of several individuals whose tentacles secretly ran through these scandals, and who each had longstanding ties to intelligence services like the FBI, CIA, and MI6. I call these individuals the Cambridge Four.

Strangely, all four were linked through that sleepy British academic town thousands of miles from the alleged “ground zeroes” of Russiagate’s conspiracies, Moscow and DC. In addition to the central “Spygate” figure Halper, they include the central source of “Russiagate’s” fake conspiracy theories, Christopher Steele; former MI6 Director Sir Richard Dearlove; and Halper’s and Dearlove’s partner in a Cambridge Intelligence Seminar linked to titillating — but false — tales of a “Russian spy” seducing Trump’s top national security advisor. My years of work with Halper provided an inside view of how their four networks interconnected.

The more I dug up new pieces of this puzzle, the more I saw how these individuals’ seemingly separate acts might fit together in an absurd picture of how these scandals really started.

Armed with first-hand knowledge and evidence, I quietly sought to help federal investigators uncover these scandals’ mysteries. It wasn’t my first rodeo. After witnessing the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11, I led G8 and State Department international crime and terrorism efforts with Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, and intelligence officials and had worked for decades in White House, Congressional, and presidential campaign roles.

This helped me keep a stiff upper lip when I was falsely accused in 2019 by the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Republican and others on television as being part of a secret anti-Trump cabal. As much as I wanted to defend myself, I knew our best shot of exposing the real forces behind these scandals was for me to remain publicly silent and not let those under investigation know what I knew or was willing to say.

Y et a few weeks ago, I asked to speak to the DOJ lead investigator John Durham to give his team a heads up. I would continue to offer help, but my time for waiting for government to act was over. Recently, I had discovered and flagged for Durham disturbing recordings. One involved one of the Cambridge Four, Halper, and raised serious questions about the origins of what has been called the “kill shot” against Trump’s first national security advisor, General Michael Flynn.

2 of 7

On January 12, 2017 a felony leak about phone calls between the Russian Ambassador and General Flynn was published by The Washington Post. This led to Flynn’s downfall and reignited the Trump-Russia investigations still tearing our nation apart. 48 hours before the leak was published, my former supervisor Halper eerily laid out what was about to happen to Flynn, something he had no independent reason to know. Halper described how Flynn’s “so called enemies” would make Flynn “blow up…he’s really fucked.”

The next legal hearing on Flynn’s prosecution is this Tuesday. Yet for four years government officials have withheld key materials and blocked individuals like Halper from testifying about the real genesis of these scandals and the felony leak on Flynn. While I once worked in Republican politics, I know Americans of every affiliation believe citizens deserve a fair trial without the government concealing evidence.

The remaining mysteries of Russiagate are too important to be turned into a game of political football, or buried until after the election when unsubstantiated allegations could be dug up to sabotage Vice President Biden if he is elected president — as I believe was done to President Trump.

Nor should they be used as a cynical, last-minute Republican “October Surprise” to disrupt the election. Nothing excuses foreign meddling in U.S. elections. Yet it is hypocritical and absurd to use that as an excuse to hide abuses by U.S. intelligence, law enforcement, and political officials against our own citizens.

I know the consequences of my speaking out. America is now in a political “UnCivil War” where individuals—even at outlets like The New York Times and Washington Post that profess objective journalism—are personally attacked if their facts don’t fit entrenched narratives.

Key politicians and intelligence figures would like the facts surrounding Russiagate’s origins classified and buried for decades, as with past U.S./MI6 intelligence scandals. I can’t let that happen. After all, I inadvertently helped jump-start it. Even if this story is hidden now, it will ultimately impact Trump, Biden, the 2020 election, and our country for years.

There is far too much to tell in a single article. In the next several weeks I plan to reveal what I know, including: the comedy of errors leading to a Cambridge Four member meeting and targeting the FBI’s main surveillance excuse Carter Page; the information given to an FBI source in August 2016 should have immediately ended their investigation alleging Page was a master spy linking top Trump officials to Putin; how a secret anti-Trump source sought one of the world’s most powerful positions that could undermine the president; and how official statements by FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane officials to the DOJ Inspector General were factually inaccurate or wildly inconsistent with other evidence, raising the question of if those officials risked criminal prosecution to conceal their acts.

This is not a position I ever sought. As I worked with government investigators it seemed inconceivable that key facts could be covered up until now. Yet with both Flynn’s hearing and the election approaching, whatever the consequences, everyone impacted deserves to know the truth.

Conspiracy of Dunces

People who convince themselves that they’re really smart often do the dumbest things. I’ve fallen prey to this dynamic myself in the past. Yet perhaps no one in history is a better example of this than the Cambridge Four. Their story is both a tragedy and a farce—think Jason Bourne meets Austin Powers — with larger-than-life characters that might be equally at home in a Saturday Night Live skit or a John Le Carré spy thriller. Yet the damage they did is deadly serious.

The Cambridge Four’s most mythical, larger-than-life character — both literally and figuratively — is my former advisor, Halper. Codenamed “the Walrus,” in person he appears well over 300 pounds, and carries himself with grandiose airs, evoking fictional anti-heroes like Ignatius O’Reilly of Confederacy of Dunces or Shakespeare’s Falstaff.

At first, I was drawn to and respected him for his bold books opposing brain-dead Republican orthodoxies on the Iraq War and China policy. It seemed his real-world government experience eerily mirrored my own. I had yet to discover his checkered past, including: his reported role in organizing ex-CIA operatives to steal Jimmy Carter’s 1980 debate materials; 1990’s crack cocaine arrest; and FBI firing in 2011 for “mercurial” behavior, demanding more “compensation” and “questionable allegiance to [intelligence] targets.”