Fire Hydrant of Freedom

The Hill's article explaining the WaPo.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/409089-american-bar-association-questioned-kavanaughs-professional-experience-freedom

In 2006, when Senate Republicans finally hoped to advance Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after three years of Democratic opposition, the ABA downgraded its endorsement of the George W. Bush nominee.

The group’s judicial investigator had interviewed dozens of people in the legal field who had worked with Kavanaugh, some of whom raised concerns regarding “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness," the ABA said in its May 2006 report.

One judge remarked about the nominee's "sanctimonious" presentation in court, arguing that Kavanaugh showed "experience on the level of an associate." One particular lawyer argued that Kavanaugh "dissembled" in a different court proceeding.

The result was a downgrading of the group's previous "well qualified" endorsement — its highest rating — to “qualified,” meaning he met the ABA’s standards to be a federal judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.

The Washington Post, which first highlighted the ABA's move 12 years ago compared to this week, noted that a day after the ABA downgraded its endorsement in 2006, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for Kavanaugh to appear before them again.

Senators gathered to discuss how seriously they should weigh the new endorsement, with Democrats saying it should be taken seriously while Republicans accused the ABA of bias or downplayed the importance of the endorsement.

Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 2006 and eventually reclaimed a “well qualified” endorsement, which he has maintained throughout his tumultuous nomination to the Supreme Court. He touted the endorsement during his appearance before the Judiciary panel on Thursday.

The ABA weighed in again on Kavanaugh's nomination late Thursday after a rollercoaster day on Capitol Hill when Christine Blasey Ford delivered gripping testimony before the Senate panel about her allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, followed by the nominee forcefully defending himself.

After Ford and Kavanaugh testified in back-to-back appearances, the ABA called for the Judiciary Committee to postpone a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until the FBI could investigate assault claims against him, drawing new questions about his nomination.

“We make this request because of ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” ABA President Robert Carlson said in a letter to the committee.

"The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI."

President Trump on Friday ordered the FBI to open a weeklong, "supplemental" investigation into the allegations after Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and others threatened to withhold their final confirmation vote if such an investigation wasn’t opened.

The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary noted in a letter to committee leaders on Friday that the group's "well qualified" rating for Kavanaugh remains unchanged.

Here is a link to the actual ABA report from 2006.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/scfedjud/statements/kavanaugh.authcheckdam.pdf

********************************************************************
Remember, this was back in the day when the ABA's committee on the federal judiciary was decidedly anti-Bush.  And was still anti-Ken Starr.  What they said was that Kavanaugh was not a good litigator.  They spoke to the fact that he had never tried a case to verdict, and was young and inexperienced when he tried cases.  Others called him "insulated" due to his 2006 position as staff secretary to Pres GW Bush.  They were concerned that he would remain partisan or would he remain fair and balanced as a judge.  However, the reports notes his superior writing skills. The 2006 ABA was split, but the majority thought him Qualified versus a minority that thought him Well Qualified.

Now, forward to 2018, 12 years later, and the same committee of the ABA reiterated its Well Qualified rating even after the President of the ABA wrote individually to ask for an FBI investigation into the womens' allegations.

Redacted transcript of Senate Judiciary Committee interview with Judge Kavanaugh dated yesterday.  This covers all accusations known as of 10 pm EDT on Sept 26.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted).pdf

In addition, Avenati's accuser has been subjected to a restraining order for threatening an ex-boyfriend after she broke up with him.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348

Today's WSJ writes:

"In 1993, she filed a criminal harassment complaint with state prosecutors in Maryland against a podiatrist and his wife, alleging repeated phone calls, according to court records, but the case was withdrawn two months after it was filed.

In 2001, Ms. Swetnick was the defendant in a domestic-violence case filed by Richard Venneccy in Miami-Dade County, Fla. The case was dismissed when both parties failed to appear in court in March of that year, according to court documents reviewed by the Journal.

Roughly a decade ago, Ms. Swetnick was involved in a dispute with her former employer, New York Life Insurance Co., over a sexual-harassment complaint she filed, according to people familiar with the matter. Representing her in the complaint was the firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer currently representing Dr. Ford. The company ultimately reached a financial settlement with Ms. Swetnick, the people said."

In the linked Malkin blog, she mentions the University of Michigan Law School's false conviction and exoneration project.  Sexual assault convictions are the second most prevalent cases of wrongful convictions leading to exoneration.  Here is the link to the map and an interactive graph with cases by State, crime and other criteria.

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exonerations-in-the-United-States-Map.aspx

Most people don't realize that, like Judge Kavanaugh,  Keith Ellison is a graduate of a Jesuit prep high school.  Ellison's was in Detroit, MI. 

So, all of the lefties who are condemning Kavanaugh for his elitist all-boys' high school education producing anti-feminist behavior are also condemning Ellison.  Wonder if they realize that?

IMO, if you are trying to learn why this woman suddenly came forward with Judge Kavanaugh's name in 2018, the previous articles concerning Mark Judge's novel about his high school years offer a reasonable explanation.

Her anti-Trump animus is the motivation.  And the fictional Bart O'Kavanaugh is the means to her end.  There are three possible explanations here.

1.  She did experience the incident about 36 years ago, but:  a) only knew Mark Judge; or, b) did not know either of the boys.  In 2017, when Kavanaugh's name begins to percolate as a possible replacement for Scalia, articles about Judge and the fictional Bart O'Kavanaugh begin to appear in some publications.  This triggers a false memory in the woman about the identity of the boys.  This is no different than a bad line-up by the police when trying to get a witness to identify the crook.

2.  She made up the incident in couples' counseling to justify some of her behavior towards her husband.  As resistors to all conservatives, especially Trump, after she and her husband remain together, they decide to embellish the story using the Mark Judge fictional story as proof that Judge Kavanaugh is the ficitional Bart O'Kavanaugh.  (BTW, that is the left wing storyline now.)

3.  She made up the entire story in June-July when Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump as a committed member of the Bernie Sanders resistance knowing about Judge's book and knowing that she could use the fictional character to justify her "memories."

But the use of Mark Judge's name is telling.  Why would she remember his name if she cannot remember when and where the party occurred?  Why would the therapist not write down the name of her assailant if she actually provided the name?  Those names would be important to use to help the woman recover.  Why would the woman say she received medical treatment when her story only includes counselling?  She has a PhD and teaches in the field of psychology.  You learn the difference between psychology and psychiatry in Psych 101.  Why would she claim that she only came forward because of last week's leaks when she hired counsel in August and underwent a lie detector exam in August?  And why would she make the same claim when she wrote to Feinstein that she wanted to remain confidential until she had a chance to speak with DiFi?  All of this suggests a pattern of embellishments and lies.  Just because a woman's claim sounds plausible does not make it believable.  And I dislike how journalists interpose the word credible for plausible.

One more thing.  I am very attuned to this type of witness behavior due to a case in which, as court-appointed counsel, I represented successfully a young man accused of criminal sexual conduct (used to be called rape).  This case was tried in the early 1980s. The woman took a consensual sexual relationship and made a false rape claim to protect herself when she got back together with her boyfriend who had been away from home.  That woman exhibited many of the same inconsistencies in her testimony as this professor has exhibited to date.  This experience makes me much more skeptical of many #MeToo claims than the average pandering politician.  My increased skepticism makes me look for things like the factors I have listed above. 

So ... the Senate Judiciary Committee is now going to "investigate" a woman's claim of unsuccessful clothing removal by the current nominee for Supreme Court justice that allegedly occurred 36 years ago during a high school era party when all principals were juveniles and when lots of kids danced "The Bump" to such classic songs as "Brickhouse" by the Commodores, "Superfreak" by Rick James, and "Disco Duck."  It was such an innocent time. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/was_the_strange_language_in_michael_cohens_guilty_plea_a_setup.html

If reporters actually read the Information (Complaint) filed on Tuesday together with Cohen's plea agreement, you learn these important facts.

1.  The National Enquirer's Chairman, David Pecker, met with Cohen and an unnamed campaign official in August 2015 and offered to alert them to any potentially negative stories about Trump and women. (Paragraph 27 of Information)

2.  In June 2016, Pecker called Cohen and alerted him to the fact that Linda McDougal was offering to sell her story of a one year affair with Trump in 2006-07. (Par. 29)

3.  Cohen encouraged Pecker to buy the story by reminding him of his August 2015 offer to help Trump.  (Par. 29)

4.  Cohen promised to reimburse the National Enquirer for any money paid to McDougal. (Par. 29)

5.  The Enquirer bought McDougal's story on August 5, 2016 for $150,000.  (Par. 30)

6.  About 4 weeks later, Pecker and Cohen signed an agreement for Cohen to buy McDougal's story from the Enquirer for $125,000; but Pecker changed his mind before Cohen wired him the money.  (Par. 31)

7.  On 8 October 2016, Stormy Daniels' agent contacted the Enquirer and offered to sell her story of sex with Trump.  Her agent and lawyer were put in contact with Cohen by the Enquirer.  Over the next few days, Cohen negotiated a deal directly with Daniels' lawyer to pay her $130,000 in return for an NDA.  (Par. 32)

8.  Cohen didn't do anything more for about 2 and 1/2 weeks.  Then on the evening of October 25, 2016, Daniels' lawyer told the Enquirer that Cohen had not closed the deal and that Daniels was close to selling her story to a rival media outlet.  Pecker and his editor then called Cohen and told him about the problem and Cohen called Daniels' attorney and agreed to pay the money right away. (Par. 33)

9.  The next day, Cohen set up a new corporation.  The day after that, Cohen deposited $131,000 into the corporation's bank account.  This money came from Cohen's home equity line that was the subject of the Count VI bank fraud allegations. And Daniels was paid on November 1, 2016 when Cohen wired $130,000 of his home equity loan proceeds from the corporation's bank account to the account of Daniels' attorney. (Par. 34)

10.  In January 2017, Cohen sought reimbursement of the Stormy Daniels money, the $35 wire fee and a $50,000 tech consulting fee from Trump's company (not his campaign).  (Par. 37)

11.  The Information claims that Cohen was part of the Trump campaign because he had an email address at the campaign, sometimes advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press, and made media appearances on behalf of the campaign.  (Par. 25)

****************************
The basic theory of the government's case was that Cohen was part of the campaign; therefore, anything expenditure he made that could possibly benefit the candidate was a campaign expenditure even if there was a legitimate non-campaign reason to make the expenditure and even though Cohen also never had a formal title on the campaign.  The "at the direction of the candidate" were Cohen's words in his plea allocution on Tuesday.

The unnamed campaign officials were never identified.  Remember that Trump is identified as "Individual-1" in the Information.

Cohen also wore other hats in relation to Trump.  He was an officer in Trump's company.  And he acted as Trump's personal attorney on some matters.  

According to the Information, he National Enquirer people never spoke to anyone but Cohen about the two womens' stories.  The government does not allege that the Enquirer spoke to Individual-1.  Nor does the government allege that the Enquirer spoke to the other unnamed campaign officials mentioned vaguely in paragraph 27.  

Trump settled two disputed claims for money.  He denies having an affair with McDougal.  He denies having consensual sex with Clifford aka Daniels.  In the presidential campaign, both women came forward with their stories not for political purposes but for the purposes of getting paid for telling them.  Both claims involve acts alleged to have occurred in about 2005-06.  Both women had hired their own lawyers to pitch their stories to the tabloid media.  Both women sought to use the presidential campaign as leverage  in order to make their stories more valuable to them.

Neither woman was paid with any funds from the Trump campaign.  Cohen drew funds from his home equity line of credit to set up a corporation that paid Clifford.  The National Enquirer paid McDougal.  The fed complaint alleges that both payments were made with the expectation of reimbursement from Trump.  At the same time, Cohen was a VP in a Trump corporation.  He was reimbursed by the same corporation for an amount of money needed to reimburse him for paying Clifford, the amount needed to reimburse the National Enquirer for paying McDougal, and a bonus for his work in securing the NDA settlements.  The amount was grossed up for tax purposes so Cohen had enough after-tax money to make the reimbursements.

Preet Bharra's successor alleges that these transactions constitute campaign contributions because they were done, in part, to influence the 2016 election.  Of course, Preet Bharra himself had asserted in the recent past a now discredited and overly broad theory about what constituted insider trading.  His office used this theory to extract guilty pleas from certain traders.  When his theory was challenged in court by a defendant who chose not to plead guilty, it was overturned by SCOTUS.  Just because a prosecutor alleges that certain actions violate a statute does not mean that the prosecutor is correct.

The US Atty's theory of the case is that any time a person becomes a candidate for any office governed by federal campaign finance laws, that person cannot instruct his or her lawyer to settle disputed claims confidentially through intermediaries even when no campaign funds are used because the advancement of funds for the settlement by the intermediary is a campaign contribution.  That is absurd.

Compare to DNC, Fusion GPS and Steele Dossier

Remember that Fusion GPS was hired by a law firm in which a DNC officer or director was a partner.  The DNC was billed by the law firm and reimbursed the firm for the retainer fee paid to Fusion GPS.

Fusion GPS then hired Steele and was reimbursed by the law firm for the costs of hiring Steele.  The law firm, in turn, was paid by the DNC.  The purpose of these transactions was to influence the 2016 election.

Under the SDNY theory, the funds advanced by the law firm to pay Fusion GPS would constitute campaign contributions.

Compare to Hillary and Email Destruction

Hillary Clinton hired a third party to destroy those 33,000 emails on her server with BleachBit so they could not be used against her in her presidential campaign.  Under the SDNY theory, these payments would constitute campaign contributions. 

We face grave danger from corrupt prosecutors from within our own legal system when they abuse their powers in order to use unproven legal theories in order to embarrass a political opponent.  I am much more concerned about these abuses of prosecutorial discretion than I am about whether Trump had consensual sex one time with a porn star more than 10 years ago.

Illegal alien charged with murdering the Iowa girl who disappeared last month.  Developing ...

Apparently, he confessed.

A lot of people are criticizing Trump for not saying that he believes the intelligence assessment of Russian interference over Putin's denials.

I think that Trump handled the issue properly, but not artfully.

Mueller's Friday the 13th indictment of those 12 Russian operatives turned a counterintelligence issue into a matter of US criminal procedure.  As Andy McCarthy noted correctly, because the indictment asserts US jurisdiction over their actions, the Mueller indictment granted those 12 Russian defendants the full protection of the US Constitution.  For federal court defendants, this involves especially Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  And this also includes the presumption of their innocence.

If Trump answers that question by saying that he believes the US intelligence assessment over Putin's denials, then he has prejudged the case and Mueller's ability to prosecute those 12 defendants successfully would have been reduced significantly.

Whether or not Trump had thought the matter through this far is unimportant.  Whatever the motivation for his answer, the answer was the correct one.  Trump cannot have an official opinion about the evidence against these 12 defendants now that Mueller made the matter one of criminal justice instead of counterintelligence.

Rick:

Good to see you here!

Flesh this out for me please:

"3.  Wikileaks and Julian Assange were very likely acting in concert with the Russians.  Wikileaks may claim being an unwitting here.  I have my doubts."

Marc

Marc, if he is not an unwitting, then what is he? 

http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-assange-wikileaks-and-russia-2013-8

Could be crass with a lisp.  Or crash with 2 "s's".

Kinda reminds me of "The Oneders" in the movie "That Thing You Do."

Well maybe a CIA asset was used first and then the info "distributed" to the Bureau in order for the original CRASS(H) action to become obscured.

The reason they want to prove collusion is to prove a predicate to an ancillary crime like violations of FEC reg's; e.g., the Stormy Daniels trial balloon at that tactic.  This is all part of a cover-up to hide the abuses of our counterintelligence powers committed by many members of the Obama administration during the 2016 campaign.

The timeline becomes important because if the counterintelligence investigation began in March-April 2016, then the original stories about Page and Papadopoulis fall apart.  And the likely reason was Paul Manafort's involvement in the Trump campaign.  From March-June 2016, Manafort led the effort to secure enough delegates to win the Republican nomination.  But during that time, stories began to appear about his connections to pro-Russian interests in Ukraine.  Manafort was Trump's campaign chairman only from mid-June to mid-August 2016.  Manafort resigned August 19, 2016.  And it was during this time that the first FISA application was made, the Steele dossier was first published, and the FBI counterintelligence investigation was launched. 

What I think occurred is that some legitimate initial concerns about Manafort morphed into an excuse to spy on Trump's entire campaign - even after Manafort left on August 19th.  But with Manafort having left the Trump campaign months before the election, the temptation to use these concerns as a pretext to abuse our national security apparatus became too great for many members of the Obama administration who wanted to keep their jobs under Clinton.  So, they kept doubling down on their abuses of power and kept upping the alleged facts of Russian collusion in order to cover-up their own abuses of power.  When Trump won the election, they decided to try and cover-up their own abuses of power by screaming Russian collusion and Manafort.

We need to see all warrant requests made to the FISC by DOJ or other government agencies that involved Carter Page - not just the initial one that was granted in October 2016.  Were there requests made before October 2016 that were not granted by the FISC? 

We need to learn the identities of all US citizens who were subjected to federal investigation, surveillance, or any other inquiries by any agency of the federal govt (not just the Special Counsel) as a result of information learned through the Page FISC-authorized surveillance.  Whose bank records were seized?  Whose neighbors, friends, or business associates were interviewed?  In other words why was the surveillance re-authorized 4 more times? 

Were subsequent requests for extension of the Page FISC order also supported by the intercepts of Flynn and others talking to the Russian ambassador?

In other words, there exists strong probable cause to believe that Comey, Strzok and Page leaked to the press certain information learned from the counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.  How were they acquiring all of this information in that investigation?  Certainly, not just from the Page surveillance. 

If these actors would go to these lengths to get FISC authorization for surveillance on Page, what else were they doing under color of federal law once the investigation commenced in mid-2016? 

One main assessment that can be made here is that the entire story of Trump collusion with Russia was a deliberate disinformation effort concocted to conceal a lot of other really bad stuff.  Human behavior patterns do repeat themselves. 

The last time that a major Sunni power fought a war in Yemen, many unanticipated bad things followed.  That was Egypt in the 1960's.  I'm more concerned about the Saudi-Iran conflict and the various proxy wars that could spin out of this conflict than I am concerned about the Nork's.

Egypt's failures in Yemen led it to gin up conflicts - one of which was the Six Days War.  Just sayin' ...

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-gates-campaign-aide-indicted-along-manafort/

what is truly amazing there is nothing here that cannot be said of Clinton,  Podesta, and Schultz and one or more of the lawyers

Nothing !

If these allegations are true, then Manafort and Gates will not be the first to have tried such a scheme ... and they will not be the last as long as the US taxes worldwide income regardless of where the income was earned.  There was a local married couple near me who tried the same thing with income earned from the operation and sale of medical schools located on several Caribbean islands.  You are OK until you try and bring the money back into the US without declaring the relevant portion of it as income.  Any transaction of any size creates reports at your receiving US banks that get filed with FinServ at Treasury. 

The Swiss banks used to provide very specific advice to their clients on setting up off-shore companies like these in order to avoid the tax.  Then, the US went after them and held their ability to do business in the US hostage until they agreed to abandon their long-term commitment to customer confidentiality. 

Also, what is also weird here is that the US had provided an amnesty window for filing FBAR reports on foreign bank accounts.  Manafort and Gates could have escaped most all liability here if they had filed accurate FBAR's during that amnesty period. 

I heard somewhere recently that O'Reilly, who was divorced in 2011, had been dating Lis Wiehl.  And then there was a falling out between the two.  There could have been business relationships intertwined with their personal relationship.

The only thing I would note about the timing of the complaints is that these women complainants appear to play this card when their contracts are up for renewal.  Fatal Attraction was big at the box office in the late 1970's.  I guess the lesson of that movie has been forgotten by many - even those old enough to have seen it during its original release.    

I wonder if Bill Kristol hired Fusion GPS.  Or if he had enough money to hire them.  Just speculating here.

Well. Well. Well.

From the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.e22b156b7b91

By Adam Entous, Devlin Barrett and Rosalind S. Helderman October 24 at 7:21 PM

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

Fusion GPS gave Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role.

The dossier has become a lightning rod amid the intensifying investigations into the Trump campaign’s possible connections to Russia. Some congressional Republican leaders have spent months trying to discredit Fusion GPS and Steele and tried to determine the identity of the Democrat or organization that paid for the dossier.

Trump tweeted as recently as Saturday that the Justice Department and FBI should “immediately release who paid for it.”

Elias and Fusion GPS declined to comment on the arrangement. Spokesmen for the Clinton campaign and the DNC had no immediate comment.

Some of the details are included in a Tuesday letter sent by Perkins Coie to a lawyer representing Fusion GPS, telling the research firm that it was released from a ­client-confidentiality obligation. The letter was prompted by a legal fight over a subpoena for Fusion GPS’s bank records.

People involved in the matter said that they would not disclose the dollar amounts paid to Fusion GPS but that the campaign and the DNC shared the cost.

Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier is a compilation of reports he prepared for Fusion GPS. The dossier alleged that the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and that the Kremlin was engaged in an effort to assist his campaign for president.

U.S. intelligence agencies later released a public assessment asserting that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to aid Trump. The FBI has been investigating whether Trump associates helped the Russians in that effort.

Trump has adamantly denied the allegations in the dossier and has dismissed the FBI probe as a witch hunt.

Officials have said that the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier. Other details, including the most sensational accusations, have not been verified and may never be.

Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries, when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate magnate’s background.

Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter.

When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue. The Democrats paid for research, including by Fusion GPS, because of concerns that little was known about Trump and his business interests, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Those people said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.

The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in “legal and compliance consulting’’ since November 2015 — though it’s impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS.

At no point, the people said, did the Clinton campaign or the DNC direct Steele’s activities. They described him as a Fusion GPS subcontractor.

Some of Steele’s allegations began circulating in Washington in the summer of 2016 as the FBI launched its counterintelligence investigation into possible connections between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Around that time, Steele shared some of his findings with the FBI.

After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports.

The dossier was published by BuzzFeed News in January. Fusion GPS has said in court filings that it did not give BuzzFeed the documents.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that Steele was respected by the FBI and the State Department for earlier work he performed on a global corruption probe.

In early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele’s dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump. In May, Trump fired Comey, which led to the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel investigating the Trump-Russia matter.

Congressional Republicans have tried to force Fusion GPS to identify the Democrat or group behind Steele’s work, but the firm has said that it will not do so, citing confidentiality agreements with its clients.

Last week, Fusion GPS executives invoked their constitutional right not to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee. The firm’s founder, Glenn Simpson, had previously given a 10-hour interview to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Over objections from Democrats, the Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), subpoenaed Fusion GPS’s bank records to try to identify the mystery client.

Fusion GPS has been fighting the release of its bank records. A judge on Tuesday extended a deadline for Fusion GPS’s bank to respond to the subpoena until Friday while the company attempts to negotiate a resolution with Nunes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/18/paul-manafort-wiretapped-during-trump-campaign/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTUdRNE5qWmlZamd4T0RRdyIsInQiOiJkd2JuOFdOeGJjZ3JhRGpvTW1aek84YUZ2VVhhQlNlTmJlOW8xTVwvN20zMUdMdWVlTlhKNXJtdEN5VlR5NW1xM05QdVhCOGoydytZUFhRN090Y2RhVDY2eXA1dEd2QUFZQkg1ZHNLaHdKZ2hSSHF4eWRWWExpSWRIbVgweXYwQVEifQ%3D%3D

Well. Well. Well.  Trump Tower was indeed wiretapped.   

We have seen this story in the past.  For example, Germany from 1917 to the mid 1920's.

Spain in the mid-1930's.

Unless people are willing to acknowledge that antifa and the nazis are equally evil, we will descend in the same manner as Germany and Spain.

I heard Hayes say the same thing.  And Krauthammer.  People forget that Stalin and Hitler were allies from August 1939 until June 1941.  They carved up Poland together.  There is little difference in concept between the two forces.  They just choose different groups against which to spew their hate.

Len Blavatnik is not exactly a secretive person.

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001326628

Blavatnik's investment company's office is on the 20th floor of a large office building across the street from Trump Tower.  So is the Argentine Consulate and many other business.

The gist of the professor's article is that because Blavatnik may know Deripaska and because Deripaska is connected to Putin and other pro-Putin oligarchs, ergo, Blavatnik's donations to the Republican PAC's are motivated by pro-Putin interests rather by Blavatnik's interest in maintaining good relations with the party that might control the SEC and other regulators that have authority over his US based investment business. 

The author's bio

http://www.udallas.edu/cob/about/faculty/may-ruth.php

I am unimpressed with her reasoning in the article.  For example, 48% does not constitute a majority stake in any company.  I thought a CFP and a business professor would know that.  Also, it appears that she is connected with many of the same Ukrainian characters that attempted to assist Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign.  In other words, she does not seem all that more credentialed than many posters on this forum.  Yet, she published a sloppily written column designed to make a political point. 

When one follows the money to Fusion GPS and the phony "Russian dossier" that it pushed to anti-Trump people, one can see the links to Putin and his efforts to rescind the Magnitsky Act.  All you need know here is that the retired Brit who authored the "dossier" defended a libel action against him in the UK by claiming that he thoroughly disclosed to Fusion GPS that his sources were Russian. 

Comey, McCain, and a cast of thousands were duped by that dossier because it confirmed their pre-existing opinions of Trump.  Comey likely used the dossier to ratchet up the counterintel investigation of Trump people.  Information in it was used to obtain a FISA warrant against certain Trump associates. 

Of course, the Russians had the other alternative covered.  If Hillary had been elected, then we'd be having investigations into the emails, servers, and other stuff.  I am confident that Russian intel operatives were behind the leak of the Podesta emails to Wikileaks; but I am not confident that they did the original phishing scam on Podesta. 

The most likely scenario here is that Putin outfoxed the DC swamp and the swamp does not want to admit it.  Hence, it is in full cover-up mode.  And, its cover-up consists mainly of attacking Trump in order to deflect the spotlight from them.

So, Putin and Russian intel has suceeded in neutralizing Trump with a special counsel investigation based upon a phony dossier that was spoon-fed to anti-Trump oppo research peeps by Russian operatives.  And the entire meeting with Trump Jr was a set-up designed to ascertain whether his group would be friendly to Russia and its efforts to overturn Magnitsky.  When Trmup Jr, Kushner and Manafort walked away, the effort shifted to the current effort to undermine Trump by using political opponents as unwittings.

It turns out that "the Russians" who met with Trump Jr., are also connected to Fusion GPS, the company that commissioned the fake British dossier.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/07/14/shocker.-wont-believe-employed-former-soviet-counterintelligence-official-trump-meeting/

Trump, Jr. declined to collude with these Russians and declined their "help" against Hillary.  Shortly afterwards, a dossier of alleged Trump Sr. indiscretions began to circulate.  And Senator McCain was somehow linked to requesting this info.  In addition, this dossier gets to the FBI and Comey.

Fusion GPS is at the center of all of these "collusions." 

The Russia interference scenario is a corollary of the "Manafort is a Russian dupe" scenario that was directed at Trump beginning in May or June 2016. 

This was their pre-emptive strike against the Clinton Foundation and the uranium deal argument that they knew would be an issue in the campaign.  As well as a pre-emptive strike against the Podesta was phished problem.  If the Dems could blame that whole debacle on sophisticated Russian spies instead of Podesta falling for an obvious phishing scheme, then they can escape responsibility for their own failures.

If you recall, the anti-Trump Repub's and the Dem's went all in against Trump because Manafort had previously consulted for the preferred Russian political leader in Ukraine.  This is why Ukraine operatives tried to help Clinton in the 2016 election.  The argument went something like this: because Manafort had once consulted for pro-Russian politician, ergo Trump must be pro-Putin.

Then, the AZ airport meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton was revealed.

Then, Comey held his first press conference at which he announced that he would recommend against not indicting Hillary over her email issues, but during which he made serious allegations against Hillary's email security.
 
The Mnafort line of attack stopped working after the Trump campaign replaced Manafort with Bannon and Conway.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/paul-manafort-resigns-from-trump-campaign-227197

Afterwards, when it became clear that Wikileaks had obtained Podesta's emails and would be releasing them, the Dem's began to shift the emphasis of this towards Russian hackers having illegally obtained these emails.

The shift in Dem talking points also occurred about the same time, August 2016, when Obama first learned of Russian attempts "to interfere in the election."

And, today, we learn that it was Sen. McCain who first sought to use the fake dossier on Trump.