Tuesday, May 7, 2019

The Few Republicans: To Sow Public Confusion Is To Sow Defeat, Crisis And Dictatorship

last modified 12/13/19

Introduction


After reading the transcript of Mueller's public testimony - The Republican's statement and their questioning, I started to worry about the credibility of my own blog posts in this category specifically and in all other areas of the Blog in general that if the content of this blog WERE to be confronted to Republicans it would subject to the same "Questioning and Attacks".

While writing the posts in this category of the Blog, I wrote them, incorporating selectively the information from the Public Domain beyond Mueller's Report and Testimony with a vital fundamental principle in my mind behind those writings - The Truth Hunt. After hearing Republican's attacks on the Mueller Report, I was firmly convinced tht My personal Truth Hunt could not be over. What I tried to comment and stress here is the principle of writing this type of analysis and research - That I have to have a consistent THEME in my writing which I would perceive as the most close to the TRUTH based on the factual data. I can not include everything on the Net regarding a subject in my posts, the content has to be selective - that was not the same as to something that I am biased because either I hated Trump (because of what he had done to me on my bone or was viscerally opposing his wrong way of doing politics and his lies). In my writings, I intend to reflect the fundamental principles behind Our Constitution and behind the concept of JUSTICE and Righteousness.

In order to preserve the integrity of those posts not being tampered or contradicted or confused, and at the same time to protect myself from being accused of such Republican statement: "when it comes to the operatives/persons for Republican and/or Russia, you (Mueller) spend 3500 words, when it comes to the operatives [author's note: even if these are lies by Republican] for Democrats you [Mueller] mentioned nothing". Here in this blog post, I am going to seriously confront Republicans and make those 'Missing or Omitted' information on certain Subject here and defend myself why they did not appear in the THEME. This is going to be started with the 6/9/16 Meeting - one of the factual evidence of Loose Collusion in the Mueller Report - I perceived was most seriously attacked.

After a careful review of what the Republicans had stated and their questions, I found essentially those are all either Lies or Statements that could not establish itself in the perspective of Logic or Statements that were assumptions with no proof. For example, the statement - "he (refer to Trump) knew he was innocent", this statement was an assumption - that is - by common sense it lacks the proof. How do you (the Republican) or how can you (the Republican) conclude "he knew he was innocent" while Mueller's finding could not exculpate him.

Although in this country, there is the rule that an alleged criminal was presumed innocent until proven guilty; but in the other areas of the World, there was the rule that an alleged criminal or indicted alleged criminal is presumed to be guilty until proven innocent, because in those countries, they might be facing a more significant demand for crime control efficiency; without such measure, the civil society would be the haven for all kinds of criminals. The very inalienable Right to Life, Liberty and Property (or Pursuit of Happiness)would become an empty promise to be realized. (see more theoretical background and explanation in this post about the Crime Control Model).

As a victim, I really appreciated the freedom that I have that I am not subject to rules such as special counsel's statutes, DOJ OLC rules. My speech was/is going to be protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. I can hypothesize, I can make comments whether they are extra prosecutorial or not, I can draw tentative conclusions without the necessity to present solid or to say substantial/sufficient evidence. I do not have to write the topics of evidentiary considerations or citing precedence or criminal codes as long as I perceived my writing is not derailing me on the aim for Truth Hunt.

As a victim, I do not have to be passively merely answering question; I want to question the Republicans as the case in a criminal trial proceeding. But Congress hearing can't be exploited to do the questioning analogous to a criminal court trial; and the Republicans are not personal attorneys. It seems it is the Norm for them (personal attorneys)& to protect their clients no matter whether they themselves knew or believed their clients were criminals or not and asking tricking questions for the witnesses in the attempt to contradict them with their prior statements.

Not only I can say Mueller's Report speaks for itself (the overall theme was facts, analysis and explanation for prosecutorial decision; there was no extra-prosecutorial comments); I can also confidently say the Steele Report speaks for itself as well [in terms of as a raw intelligence report] based on my Research (go to this post) and my common sense analysis of Motive. An overage Joe might do things randomly, but that can't apply to public official with expertise in their respective fields. Why Steele want to make up a report at the first place? as I have believed (from the motive analysis of my own case) - Motive Analysis is an essential element for inferring any conclusive statement. Why Steele would possibly do this [to forge a story about the Russia Interference, if to speak narrowly for now]? Who is the ally of the United States - Britain/NATO or Russia; Why he wanted to risk his career reputation and destroy his own credibility? Why Republicans also selectively cited the information on the Public Domain. Media reports suggested Steele and DNC does not know each other. Between them there was the Fusion GPS, both Steele and DNC was not told about the link between them (add references). Even if this piece of information was not thoroughly prove, why Republicans 'omitted' the fact that - Opposition Research on Trump by Fusion GPS was initially started and sponsored by Republicans before Trump was selected to be the Candidate, the time when Lindsey Graham (perhaps other Republicans as well) was not supporting him.

Why Glen Simpton can't meet with Russia attorney? Three years ago, when the Meddling still was blur to the Public, Would Simpton know or even suspect this Russia Attorney was an intelligence agent? If I were to be a Russia agent, I would meet any types of people from any corners to gather different kinds of intelligence. In Mueller Report, he only mentioned Klimnik as the perceived Russia agent, because FBI did hold some or adequate evidence in their hand. But he did not explicitly say the Russia Attorney was an agent, did not say Mifsud was an agent - Because He (Mueller) was the Prosecutor. (I am not).

The discussion here in this post would be conducted with each individual Republicans in the sequence they appeared in Mueller's Testimony except the Ranking Republican who also made the opening statement (Collins and Nunes) (this leaves flexibility and space to include their questions/comments both before and after the Mueller's Testimony). The discussion here in this post would be also conducted by topics (themes);as well where Republicans' questions will be grouped in a few categories and be commented on and discussed/refuted in pertinent to the 'Issues'.

___________________________________

Table Of Contents


Discussions By Topics (Themes)

Discussions By Individual Republicans

     Department of Justice

_____________________________

Discussions By Topics (Themes)


Attacks On the Origins of The Investigation


FBI Informant Stefan Halper Prior To FBI's Formal Launch (7/31/16) of the Investigation 

(Devin Nunes)

Devin Nunes's blame on Mueller on this issue was that: Mueller's Office did not investigate this aspect of the origin of the investigation and failed to interview Steven Schrage. [Hong Gan's comment] But that aspect regarding the origin of the investigation really was not what Mueller appointed for. That was within the purview of the Inspector General in DOJ. It is common sense - to open an counterintelligence investigation officially (in this case 7/31/16 - The Crossfire Hurricane - the code name FBI gave to their counterintelligence investigation on Russia-Trump case) - FBI had to have preliminary intelligence work done. That is what Stefan Halper had began with in June in the Election year. Nune's point did not appear to attack this role of Stefan Halper, but to blame Mueller for not to investigate this aspect of the Case and his suspicion on the identity of Steven Schrage who invited Page to the a Symposium at the Cambridge University (see further discussion below).

However, Trump had attacked (5/22/18) the Stefan Halper's role in the Russia-Trump Investigation as the Spygate (conspiracy theory) [without providing evidence] in that Obama administration had implanted a spy in his presidential campaign for political purposes - i.e - to undermine his prospect as a Presidential Candidate. Trump attacked that Stefan Halper "was paid a "massive amount of money" for doing so". On 6/5/18, Trump even alleged that a counterintelligence operation into his campaign had been running since as early as December 2015. (Wikipedia had a timeline of Trump's various tweets - his Spygate allegations).

According to New York Times, Wikipedia, and MSNBC, political commenters and high-ranking politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have dismissed Trump's allegations as lacking evidence and maintained that the FBI's use of Halper as an covert informant was in no way improper. NSNBC called Trump's Spygate as Nonsensical. One analysis from Washington Post (5/22/18) explained how Stefan Halper's outreach to Trump Campaign fits into overall investigation. Wikipedia Spygate page recorded the reactions and criticism on the Spygate among which Democrat Adam Schiff has said that Spygate is "lie-gate", a "piece of propaganda the president wants to put out and repeat". He accused President Trump of repeatedly spreading baseless lies by quoting that "people are saying ..." or "we've been told ...". From the Republican side, Trey Gowdy, chair of the House Oversight Committee and a former federal prosecutor, stated his assessment as: "even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got,...."

While Trump had attacked Stefan Halper, now Stefan Halper has been unmasked. The Few Republicans now are trying to question the identity of Steven Schrage (see more about Schrage below). A recent report from Dailycaller 8/1/19 suggested that congressional Republican now are interested in Steven Schrage whom Devin Nunes had questioned on Mueller Testimony and on Fox news interview.  It is unclear if Schrage played a role in the Trump-Russia investigation or if he was aware that Halper was an FBI informant. Devin Nunes is not so reserved. Nunes said in a Fox News interview that he wants to know why Schrage invited Page to Cambridge and whether his contacts with the former Trump adviser were linked to the FBI’s own interests in the Trump campaign. “What we’re trying to figure out is when did the FBI really start to run the investigation, what types of processes did they use, what was the predicate. Because, look, it really appears they were spying on the Trump campaign"

Trump’s Spygate allegations were thoroughly debunked despite renewed interest since 4/18/19 after attorney general William Barr testified to Congress that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign, although his characterization of “spying” was ambiguous and he declined to be specific. Page told the Daily Caller News Foundation he and Schrage remained in contact until after the election. They met at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and in the Washington, D.C., area.. Page said he saw nothing during his encounters with Schrage that made him suspect he was involved in the government’s investigation of him.

In the middle and second half of 2016, Professor Stefan Halper (his cover as professor Cambridge University where he earned one of his Ph.D. degree), a longtime confidential source for U.S. intelligence, began working as a secret informant for the FBI, approaching three Trump campaign advisers (Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Sam Clovis) separately in a covert effort. According to New York Times 4/9/19 report, FBI had asked Halper to approach Page and Papadopoulos. New York Times 5/3/19, report indicated that Page had urged Halper to meet with Clovis and that the FBI was aware of the meeting but had not instructed Halper to ask Clovis about Russia matters. It also reported that the FBI also sent an investigator under the pseudonym Azra Turk to meet with Papadopoulos, while posing as Halper's assistant. The Times stated that the FBI considered it essential to add a trained and trusted investigator Ms.Turk as a "layer of oversight," in the event the investigation was ultimately prosecuted and the government needed the credible testimony of such an individual, without exposing Halper as a longtime confidential informant.

Next we turn to the Nunes' question on Mueller Testimony regarding the Symposium at the Cambridge University on 7/11/16 and 7/12/16. Steven Schrage - a student of Stefan Halper - was the organizer of the event who invited Carter Page and Steven Miller. [But Miller did not go to that meeting]. Shortly before the Symposium, on 7/7/16 Page went to Moscow to give speech at New Economic School [see Mueller Report] a Meeting in which the Steele Dossier alleged Page met secretly with Sechin (CEO of Rosneft). The name of the Symposium was - "Race to Change the World: How the U.S. Presidential Campaign Can Reshape Global Politics and Foreign Policy". Mr. Halper had a central role in the symposium. The event was supported by Cambridge’s Department of Politics and International Studies—Mr. Halper’s department. The event was hosted by the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH), a Cambridge research institute. CRASSH and Mr. Halper’s department share a building where the symposium took place.

According to WSJ, Another noteworthy participant was Sir Richard - a Cambridge alumnus and former chief of M16 who spent a near-40-year career at the British intelligence service (MI6) and who had told the Washington Post that Mr. Steele’s reputation was “superb.”.  Sir Richard is also friendly with Mr. Halper. They were part of a small group that ran the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, an academic forum for researchers and one-time practitioners of SpyCraft. But they both resigned from the organization in Election year, which Mr. Halper told the Financial Times was due to “unacceptable Russian influence on the group.”

Timeline of Halper - Page contacts (according to Washington Post 5/22/18 report)
  • FBI had noticed Carter Page long before he met Halper. Carter Page had been reported both in media and Mueller Report to be the target of recruitment by Russia intelligence officers Victor Podobnyy. 3/x/13 FBI interviewed Page. 3/x/16 FBI interviewed Page again.
  • Late May or early June, Carter Page was invited to attend the Symposium at Cambridge University (Steven Schrage is the organizer of the event see his facebook page on this
  • 7/11/16 and 7/12/16 Carter Page met Halper for the first time
  • 8/20/16 Page next met Halper at his farm in Virginia
  • 9/x/17 last contact - according to an interview Page gave the Daily Caller. That Late September, the warrant to surveil Page, extended three times, expired. Carter Page said that he "had extensive discussions" with Halper on "a bunch of different foreign-policy-related topics", ending in this last contact
Timeline of Halper - George Papadopoulos (according to Washington Post 5/22/18 report)
  • 9/3/16 Halper contacts Papadopoulos offering to pay him to write a paper about oil fields in the Mediterranean and inviting him to London. Papadopoulos does so later that month, receiving $3,000 in payment.
  • 9/15/16 While in London, Papadopoulos has drinks with a woman who identifies herself as Halper’s assistant. He meets Halper at the Traveler’s Club.
  • 9/15/16 Halper asked Papadopoulos if he knew of any Russian efforts to disrupt the election campaign; Papadopoulos denied he did, despite Joseph Mifsud telling him in April that Russians had damaging Hillary Clinton emails [see next section below on Mifsud and George Papadopoulos's Leak] (originally reported by New York Times 5/3/18)

Halper had only met Sam Clovis on either 8/31/16 or 9/1/16. Clovis's attorney said that Clovis and Halper had discussed China during their sole meeting. Halper had requested another meeting, but it did not happen.

[Hong Gan's comment] Nunes' only attack on Halper's role was Halper - Page contact in June which was the only contact between Halper and Trump Campaign before the Crossfire Hurricane (7/31/16). But at that time (before Australian notified FBI and before Steele reporting) DNC was already aware of its computer being hacked in May and CrowdeStrike publicly announced the hacking was by Russia (6/13/16). FBI had alerted DNC for hacker activities way earlier than the operation in Election year.

A natural flow of logic was: why Russia intruded the DNC computer but not Trump Campaign or Republican's computer network. Russia was pro-Trump, anti-Clinton. FBI wanted to keep an eye on the Trump Campaign in general. Halper - Trump Campaign contacts follows naturally. Halper - Page contact was random, the contact was not targeting Page specifically (although Page was under FBI radar since he became the target for recruit by Russia agents long times ago). Initially it was Steven miller who was invited to attend the meeting, but Miller did not want to go. Page was then invited to replace Miller.


Mifsud and George Papadopoulos's Leak which launched or started everything


This is where media, Republican Nunes memo, Mueller Report and FBI have agreed on how the FBI investigation was triggered and launched. Here is the series of events that led to FBI's formal launch of the Russia-Trump Investigation - the Crossfire Hurricane. [for more detailed link between Papadopoulos and Russia, refer to Mueller report]
  • 3/6/16 Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as an adviser on foreign policy issues
  • 3/13/16 Papadopoulos meets in Rome Joseph Mifsud. Until he learned that Papadopoulos was tied to the Trump campaign, Mifsud is uninterested in talking.
  • 3/21/16 Trump publicly identifies Papadopoulos and Page as part of his foreign policy advisory team.
  • As early as 3/10/16 and through April 4/18/16 Russia GRU hacked DNC and DCCC computer and Clinton Campaign emails and documents were stolen.
  • 4/26/16 Papadopoulos was told by Mifsud that the Russians have “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “They have thousands of emails.”
  • 5/10/16 During a night of heavy drinking in London, Papadopoulos leaked to Australian High Commissioner to Great Britain Alexander Downer that Russia has dirt on Clinton.
  • 7/22/16 WikiLeaks released the first batch of stolen Clinton Campaign emails [Clinton emails]
  • 7/26/16 Australian government notified FBI what Papadopoulos had told Alexander Downer
  • 7/31/16 FBI formally Launched Russia Investigation code named as Crossfire Hurricane (5/16/18 New York Times Report this) and also see it on Wikipedia. Four individuals — Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos — were initially investigated During the investigation, the FBI obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters. FBI agents, believing that Trump would lose the election, and cognizant of Trump's claims that the election was rigged against him, tried to avoid allowing the investigation to become public as they feared that Trump would blame his defeat on the revelation of the investigation. [Stefan Halper was tasked to contact Papadopoulos in September] 
Republican's attacking points on Mifsud and Alexander Downer:
  • Mifsud Lied to FBI and Mueller Office, Why He was Not Indicted? (Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes)
  • About Mifsud's Identity (Is he a Russia agent or Western Agent or Both) and His Whereabouts
  • About the Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer who sparked the FBI's Russia Investigation - His alleged tie to Democrats
Republicans Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes sought to portray Mifsud as a central figure in what they asserted was an investigation based on false and politically motivated premises, [while Democrats characterized their assertion as a diversion and conspiracy theory.] They have asserted without evidence that Mifsud was actually a Western intelligence operative who was instructed to entrap Papadopoulos in order to justify the investigation (see reference Here's Why Mueller Kept Getting Asked About a Mysterious Maltese Professor from Time magazine and The enigma of the entire Mueller probe’: Focus on origins of Russian Investigation from Washington Post).

Republican's attacks were not out of vacuum, In a tweet on 4/18/19 (the day Mueller Report was released to the public), George Papadopoulos tweeted: "Facts: an FBI asset named Joseph Mifsud dropped unsolicited info in my lap about “Russians having Clinton’s emails.” I did nothing with this info. Alexander Downer, Stefan Halper and others were spying on me because of my ties to the Israeli energy business. Declass transcripts!"

Here was what Jordan questioned: "And here we are three years later, the country’s been put through this and the central figure who launches it all, lies to us and you guys don’t hunt him down and interview him again and you don’t charge him with a crime." "at the end of that 22 months you find no conspiracy, maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started, maybe it’s to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was lying to the FBI."

[Mueller Report p193 excerpt from Mueller's prosecution decision section V on False Statement and Obstruction applied to several individuals.] On p193 was about Papadopoulos' false statement and indictment on Papadopoulos [because Mueller did not indict Mifsud so there was not a specific section for Mifsud, the information on Mifsud's lie came with the discussion on Papadopoulos.] Interview was made possible because Mifsud visited the United States to speak at a conference - national meeting of Global Ties, an event sponsored by the U.S. Department of State. Here was the original quote in Mueller Report. "During that interview, Mifsud admitted to knowing Papadopoulos and to having introduced him to Polonskaya and Timofeev. But Mifsud denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation. Mifsud also falsely stated that he had not seen Papadopoulos since the meeting at which Mifsud introduced him to Polonskaya, even though emails, text messages, and other information show that Mifsud met with Papadopoulos on at least —April 12 and April 26, 2016. In addition, Mifsud omitted that he had drafted (or edited) the follow-up message that Polonskaya sent to Papadopoulos following the initial meeting and that, as reflected in the language of that email chain (“Baby, thank you!”), Mifsud may have been involved in a personal relationship with Polonskaya at the time. [The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud when he [Mifsud] made these inaccurate statements.]"

These were the facts identified in Mueller Report's description on the link between Papadopoulos and Russia
  • 3/13/16 Papadopoulos met with Mifsud the first time in Rome
  • 3/24/16 Papadopoulos met with Mifsud in London and was introduced to Olga Polonskaya who offered to help Papadopoulos establish contacts in Russia. Polonskaya was a female Russian and former student of Mifsud who had connections to Putin.
  • 4/12/16  Papadopoulos met with Mifsud at the Andaz Hotel in London.
  • 4/18/16 Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos over email to Ivan Timofeev while Mifsud was in a trip to Russia. Joseph Mifsud and Ivan Timofeev participate in an event at the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow on 4/19/16
  • 4/26/16 It was - After Misfud returned from his 4/19/16 trip at Moscow - that Papadopoulos was told by Mifsud that the Russians have “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “They have thousands of emails.” An associate had told CNN that Mifsud repeatedly bragged about how Moscow had "compromising material" on the Clinton campaign in April Election year, contradicting Mifsud's assertion that he never talked about Russian "dirt"
Mueller had consistently refused to answer Jordon's questions on Mifsud, saying he is not going to get into the internal deliberation whether the Office would or would not indict anyone. According to George Papadopoulos Sentencing Memo on 8/17/18, prosecutors suggested that they might have wanted to challenge, detain, or arrest Mifsud if Papadopoulos had told the truth about their interactions" This echoes what Mueller had written in his report "The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud", [before Mifsud disappeared from the scene when he was once a regular on the foreign policy circuit, attending conferences the world over.].

Mifsud left the United States after his interview. According to CNN 11/10/18 report, Mifsud vanished and disappeared from the private university in Rome where he teaches since 11/3/17 or Late October (according to Dailycaller), Repeated attempts to reach him since have been unsuccessful. After 10/5/17 court document (Papadopoulos’ plea deal) was released and confirmed Papadopoulos' meetings with Mifsud, during which he was told of "dirt" on Clinton, and after his name [Mifsud] was leaked to the press in October, he cut off the contact with Ann. In 2018, Mifsud was described as missing. According to Dailycaller 4/19/19 report La Repubblica's 4/18/19 report stated that after Mifsud was first linked to Papadopoulos, he allegedly went into hiding for months, living at a Rome apartment owned by Link International - the company controls Link Campus [where Mifsud and Papadopoulos first met], a university in Rome that partners closely with Western intelligence agencies. Link Campus officials have tried to distance themselves from Mifsud. According to Business Insider 3/3/18 report, Italian prosecutors are also having a difficult time getting in touch with Mifsud. They have been trying to notify him that he is being summoned to appear at a court hearing in response to allegations of financial wrongdoing, but the records at the prosecutor's office in the south of Italy say Mifsud has been "unreachable,"; the Italian court listed his location as "residence unknown". His last public interview was on 11/1/17 by La Repubblica. Mifsud described Papadopoulos' claim that he knew about Russia's material on Clinton as "baloney." "I absolutely exclude the fact that I spoke of secrets regarding Hillary Clinton," he told La Repubblica (see La Repubblica's 11/1/17 report). "The only thing I did was to facilitate contacts between official and unofficial sources to resolve a crisis. It is usual business everywhere. Papadopoulos doesn’t tell the truth". Those were his last words in public on the subject.

His whereabouts since leaving Link Campus are unknown. There has been some speculation that Mifsud had been removed to Russia or that he was dead. These developments raise several questions about Mifsud, including whether he is more closely affiliated with Russia or with the West. Stephan Roh, a friend and adviser/lawyer to Mifsud, has told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Mifsud has some affiliation with Western intelligence agencies and is alive. He has said Mifsud was instructed to lay low until the Mueller investigation blew over. Roh has defended Mifsud in the media against various allegations, steadfastly denying Mueller’s claim that his client ever told Papadopoulos about Clinton emails in Russia. Roh wrote a book last year that first floated the idea of Mifsud as a Western intelligence op.

[Hong Gan's comment] After much debate on whether Mifsud was a Russia Agent or a Western Asset (the entrap theory), it really came out that debate would not change One FACT that the intelligence Mifsud told Papadopoulos - Russia had dirt on Clinton - was True. It is the same true intellegince formed the central allegation in Steele Dossier. As it would be discussed in Steele Dossier, the Truthfulness of this piece of intelligence justify the FBI's launching of the Crossfire Hurricane which was initially operated in secrecy to avoid influence Trump's election prospects. 

One very recent development on the Mifsud case I [Hong Gan, the author of this web site] chose to put in the comment section instead of the summary section of the discussion is because this new development was only reported by John Solomon, none of the mainstream credible media source had reported this. The day before Mueller's testimony, John Solomon published his report in the evening alleging that An investigator [from John Durham’s team (who was tasked by William Barr to investigate the origin of the Russia investigation)] told Swiss attorney Stephan Roh that Durham’s team wanted to interview Mifsud, or at the very least review a recorded deposition the professor gave in summer 2018 about his role in the drama involving Donald Trump, Russia and the Election. About a week after Mueller's testimony, Washington examiner reported later on 8/6/19 an audio-taped deposition of Mifsud' testimony was surfaced and was obtained by Republican investigator Durham  and Solomon loaded a transcript [only one page I can find so far and is the conversation between Steven Roh and Mifsud] of the audio-tape on the Scribe. Solomon's report alleged [Solomon told Hannity from Fox news] that Durham’s team “obtained an audiotaped deposition of Joseph Mifsud, where he describes his work, why he targeted Papadopoulos, who directed him to do that, what directions he was given, and why he set that entire process of introducing George Papadopoulos to Russia in motion in March of 2016.” [but the one page transcript on the Scribe did not have any information on this critical aspect, that transcript was about whether that Russia contact Mifsud introduced to Papadopoulos was or was not Putin's niece and about Mifsud's denial that he told to or he knew in advance of the Clinton dirt] .

[quote original from Solomon's report] "Mifsud was a “longtime cooperator of western intel” who was asked specifically by his contacts at Link University in Rome and the London Center of International Law Practice (LCILP) — academic groups with ties to Western diplomacy and intelligence — to meet with Papadopoulos at a dinner in Rome in mid-March, Roh told me [Solomon]." 

"A few days after the March dinner, Roh added, Mifsud received instructions from Link superiors to “put Papadopoulos in contact with Russians,” including a think tank figure named Ivan Timofeev and a woman he was instructed to identify to Papadopoulos as Vladimir Putin’s niece. " "To back his [Roh] story, Roh provided me [Solomon] a page from Mifsud’s 2018 deposition — the one he plans to provide Durham’s team — in which the professor suggested the woman he introduced in April 2016 to Papadopoulos as Putin’s niece was a setup taken from his campus.

[Hong Gan's comment: continued] the entrap conspiracy theory could not establish itself. FBI or western alliance intelligence tasked Mifsud to reveal to Papadopoulos to launch an investigation or to use the word to spy on Trump campaign for the operation to succeed it has to rely on circumstantial factors. Mifsud revealed to  Papadopoulos about the Clinton dirt:
  • if Papadopoulos is not mouth-tight, he has the tendency to leak it to other entity
    • if Papadopoulos leaked to certain entity (in this case, a foreign diplomat [event A]
      • if that entity informed the FBI [event E], then operation succeed-FBI launch investigation
      • if that entity chose not to inform FBI, then operation failed
  • if Papadopoulos is mouth tight, he would not leak to anyone other than the Trump campaign [event B]
    • if Papadopoulos is mouth tight, he world not leak to anyone including Trump campaign [event C], then operations failed
    • if Papadopoulos is mouth tight, he would not leak to anyone but he told/informed/shared with Trump campaign [event D], then it depend on what Trump Campaign staff would do with the information; this started another round of circumstantial probability of events which could make FBI's operation failed
    • if Papadopoulos is mouth tight, but he accidentally leaked by his own mistake such as over-drunken of liquor to some entity [event F] (this is what happened in reality according to Mueller Report: Australian diplomat Alexander Downer during a heavy drink]
      • if Alexander Downer 's government informed FBI - FBI launch the investigation [event G]
      • if Alexander Downer 's government chose to be quiet, not to inform the FBI, then operation failed [event H]
[Hong Gan's comment: continue] whether Mifsud was Western alliance agent or Russia, I personally believed - my gut feeling was - On this issue, Republican were politically motivated to attempt to identify Mifsud as a Western agent. Because to the few Republicans, this identification was 'Exculpatory' - a word characterized Republican's arguments on the Mueller Testimony. The few Republicans are so desperately wishing Trump being exonerated and cleared of the cloud on him for Collusion. To the few Republicans, to identify Mifsud as a western alliance agent is equivalent to 'No Collusion' instead of what Mueller Report concludes - the investigation did not establish the culpability. 

Both Mifsud and Papadopoulos has the motivation to make false statements in order to clear themselves from the possibility of Collusion. Mifsud denied he told Papadopoulos the Clinton 'Dirt'; while Papadopoulos's tweet on 4/18/19 asserted that "an FBI asset named Joseph Mifsud dropped unsolicited info in my lap about 'Russians having Clinton’s emails.' I did nothing with this info."

In addition, no matter how Republican wanted to characterize Mifsud as a western alliance agent. My gut feeling is telling me that he did not meet the criteria to be an 'intelligence agent'. He must not be a clear cut agent of any side. He was so different from Steele who had shown his professionalism as an intelligence agent/asset. Steele had no fear to publish his Dossier, is not hiding, did not refuse DOJ interview by Inspector General. In contrast Mifsud is no 'Asset'. He has no value and he was not in that profession as an intelligence agent if the term was to be defined in a narrow way. He could be the type of person who is a pendulum swing day one to the left and swing the other day to the right. He might engage from his years of diplomat experience and academic experience in certain activities that made him appear to other people as if he was an 'intelligence agent'. 

I personally believed the most mysterious angle in Mifsud was not his identity, but was about how he became the first person on earth who learned the Clinton 'Dirt' ; - before Steele, and before Democrat's discovery (5/x/16) of the hack and their hired cyber security company later implicated (6/13/16)- it was Russia who was behind the hack. It was months before the hacking operation became public [12/13/16 New York Times Report]. If Mifsud were to be a western agent with the cover as a pro-Russia individual, if Russia revealed this critical intelligence to Mifsud instead of making a mistake leaked to Mifsud the Clinton 'Dirt' by some top inner circle of Putin, then Putin must not know Mifsud was a western agent. It does not make any sense if Putin would reveal a critical intelligence to Mifsud just to wait and let it subject to the increased risk of leak of it even if Mifsud were to be a Russia agent - [and very probably Mifsud was compromised instead of being a devoted and loyal Russia agent]; But it made sense if Putin only used him to try to help Russia to reach out to Trump Campaign staffs and connect them to certain Russian contacts. 

One reasonable explanation could be - he learned about the Clinton 'Dirt' by accident [that is one of the inner circle of Putin who knew the hacking operation made the mistake and leaked the information to Mifsud during his trip to Miscow when he met some of the top Russia official who might know the hacking operation. and when he returned from this trip, he told Papadopoulos the Clinton 'Dirt']. According to Mueller Report, On 4/18/16, Mifsud travelled to ,Moscow for a Valdai meeting, plus other meetings at the Duma. the Duma is a Russian legislative assembly, while “Valdai” refers to the Valdai Discussion Club, a Moscow-based group that “is close to Russia’s foreign-policy establishment. The prestigious Valdai Discussion Club is an elite gathering of Western and Russian academics that meets each year with Mr. Putin. On his 4/26/16 meeting with Papadopoulos, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had met with high-level Russian government officials during his 4/19/16 trip to Moscow and learned the 'Clinton Dirt'. 
Next table lists the facts and all the possibilities of the identity of Mifsud, with additional possibility for 'double agent' and 'neither a western agent , nor a Russia agent'.



Is Mifsud a Western Agent or Russia Agent?:
Mr. Mifsud had boasted of his Russian connections to Mr. Papadopoulos and others. But in interviews, numerous Russia scholars in London and elsewhere said they had never heard of him, and his career had been rocky for years. He had served as the director of London Academy of Diplomacy and - the institutions with grandiose names but no accreditation, and he had left his jobs by suggestions of financial impropriety. “I remember him as a snake-oil salesman,” recalled Manuel Delia, a former Maltese government official who first encountered him in the late 1990s. --- [New York Times 11/10/17]

According to IG Horowitz Report p312, Mifsud was not an FBI CHS (agent) after OIG searched the FBI's Delta File, a database maintained for FBI's CHS (confidential human source). Therefore if Mifsud were to be western intelligence agent, he must be the agent from other western alliance countries. 
Facts Western Agent Russia Agent Double Agent Neither Western Agent Nor Russia Agent
connection to Russia:
member of Valdai Discussion Club. New York Times 11/10/17 report had a description on how Mifsud was introduced to the Club and the history of his tie to Russia		 If Mifsud was a Russia agent. He could be compromised. According to the New York Times 11/10/16 report, his interest in Russia began after he met a Russian named Natalia Kutepova-Jamrom and after his academy [London Academy of Diplomacy] began to stumble financially and after Russia annexted Crimean.  Ms. Kutepova-Jamrom introduced Mr. Mifsud to senior Russian officials, diplomats and scholars. Despite Mr. Mifsud’s lack of qualifications, she managed to arrange an invitation for him to join the prestigious Valdai Discussion Club. Mr. Mifsud’s inclusion in the group was “very, very strange,” said James Sherr,a member of Valdai for nearly a decade.
edited Olga Polonskaya's email to Papadopoulos
connection to Timoofee
connection to Western Alliance: member of London
Link Campus Link University
attended state department event Global Tie
photo of him standing next to Boris Johnson, the new prime minister of Great Britain.
How Mifsud Learned Clinton 'Dirt'

After this lengthy discussion, now I listed several factors that could explain why Mueller did not indict Mifsud, even though Mueller report indicated Mifsud lied three times.
  • According to Mueller Report, [quote] "The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud" According to Papadopoulos’s sentencing memo, prosecutors suggested that they might have wanted to challenge, detain, or arrest Mifsud if Papadopoulos had told the truth about their interactions
  • Mifsud is not a US citizen. Although Russian had been indicted, that was based on their crime [computer crime]. Beside lying, Mifsud did not engage in the underlying crime of the hacking operation.
  • It is not clear Mifsud was a western agent or Russia agent. Mueller Report only stated he had connections to Russia, did not explicitly identify him as a Russia agent. He could be a double agent [see this New York Times 11/10/17 report characterizing Mifsud boasted of his Russian connections to Mr. Papadopoulos and others. But in interviews, numerous Russia scholars in London and elsewhere said his career had been rocky for years. He had left jobs by suggestions of financial impropriety. Mifsud could also be neither a western agent nor a Russia agent. [refere to the discussion in the Table]
  • Mifsud started to hide himself since 11/1/16, it appeared no one knows where he was except his friend/layer Steven Roh.

Attack on Alexander Downer (Nunes)

In addition to the attacks on Mueller Report where Mifsud was related, Republican also questioned the 'problem' they found on Alexander Downer (the Australian diplomat) whom Papadopoulos had leaked the Clinton 'Dirt' to. Devin Nunes claimed that "investigation [Crossfire Hurricane] was not open based on an official product from Five Eyes Intelligence, but based on a rumor conveyed by Alexander Downer. He was actually a long time Australian politician, not a military or intelligence official who had previously arranged million dollar donation to the Clinton Foundation and has previous ties to [former British M16 head] sir Richard." [Hong Gan's comment: Clearly the 'Clinton Dirt' was/is not a Rumor.] Jim Jordan, a Republican (then chair of House Oversight and Government Reform committee, jumped on the link between Mr Downer and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

On the Papadopoulos side, he was still continuing to spread on Twitter his dark storm of the entrapment conspiracy theory. Papadopoulos has alleged Downer was "spying" on him at the bar. He's suggested on Twitter that Downer is an operative of MI6, the British secret intelligence service, and that Downer's companion at drinks - Eric Thompson - was a member of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. According to Daily Caller 9/11/18 report, Papadopoulos wrote on his twitter (9/10/18) [after he was sentenced 9/7/18], "The notion that Downer randomly reached out to me just to have a gin and tonic is laughable. Some organization or entity sent him to meet me,”. Downer dismissed Papadopoulos’s tweet storm, telling Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald, “I’ll leave others to make judgments about the veracity of those tweets.” Papadopoulos fleshed out his belief in his recent book "Deep State Target". According to Papadopoulos, the meetings with both Mifsud and Downer were arranged by others, and he had no knowledge of either person before he was told he should meet them. Papadopoulos's theory is that the plan was for Mifsud to give Papadopoulos information about Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails, and then for Downer to get Papadopoulos to repeat those same allegations to Downer, in order to establish that the Trump campaign was secretly working with the Russians and begin surveillance. Papadopoulos believes that Downer was recording the conversation with his phone in an obvious manner. Downer has denied all of these charges.

According to Dailycaller report, in a little-noticed interview in April (4/x/18) by theaustralian.com.au, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer spoke publicly for the first time about his barroom conversation with Papadopoulos. The meeting took place on 5/10/16 at Kensington Wine Room in London. Days before, an associate of Downer’s named Erika Thompson contacted Papadopoulos requesting the sit-down. Papadopoulos had met Thompson a month earlier through an Israeli diplomat named Christian Cantor. Downer sent a cable back to Australian government authorities immediately after the Papadopoulos encounter. Downer said he felt the information “seemed quite interesting” and “was worth reporting.” Another report 9/22/18 from abc.net.au essentially confirmed what happened during the Meeting. Australian sources describe Cantor, as a "liberal internationalist" who'd be no Trump fan. Australian sources emphatically deny Thompson is an ASIS agent, but a "mainstream DFAT officer". She asked Downer if he'd like to meet Papadopoulos, explaining he was known to Cantor and was part of the Donald Trump campaign. Downer thought it wasn't a bad idea; Trump wasn't yet the Republican nominee, but close to being, and there were things to be learnt about him. So they met at about 6:00pm on 5/10/16 Kensington wine bar chosen by Thompson.

While Papadopoulos told the truth about Mifsud’s remarks about Clinton dirt, Papadopoulos lied about the timing of his encounters with Mifsud and the professor’s Russian associates. In his 10/5/17 guilty plea (statement of offense), "Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor, who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAP ADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the Campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, ... and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about 4/26/16...

Downer's donation more than a decade ago was to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS. The grant money was spread over four years for a project to provide screening and drug treatment to AIDS patients in Asia. The money was initially allocated to the Clinton Foundation but later was routed through an affiliate of the charity known as the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), The Australian Foreign Ministry says the Clinton grant was one of one of its billion annual foreign aid. Downer’s involvement in the million donation from the government of Australia was ex officio, part of his job as Foreign Minister, and not personal. It preceded the Papadopoulos tip by ten years, during which time Downer has worked as Australia’s representative to the UN.

According to SBS News (sbs.com.au) report, Mrs Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill slammed the effort to link Mr Downer and the 2006 grant, calling the link "pathetic" and "laughable". "The idea that this has anything to do with his government deciding a decade earlier to partner on HIV/AIDS work with the Clinton Foundation, or the fact that as a United Nations envoy, he met with Secretary Clinton at the State Department, is laughable," Adam Schiff defended Australia - said that Republicans were attempting "to defame our Australian partners as a way of undermining the Russia probe". Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) issued a statement defending the grant and its "strong outcomes" in fighting HIV-AIDS. "The funding provided to the Clinton Foundation and its affiliate was used solely for agreed development projects," DFAT said.

[recent developments] Lindsey Graham (Senator, not on Mueller Testimony) has claimed lately that Alexander Downer was "directed" in 2016 to contact one of Donald Trump's election campaign advisers and pass the information to the FBI. In his letter to Australia, Linsey Graham floated this 'deep state conspiracy theory' that was immediately knock down by Australian government. [Hong Gan's comment: But Australia did not pass on the information to the FBI immediately after Downer learned of the Clinton Dirt (5/6/16). The information was passed on after 6/15/16 CrowdStrike announced Russia was behind the recently hacking of DNC/DCCC computer network and after 7/22/16 WikiLeaks released the Clinton Dirt (Clinton email) on its web site)].. Papadopoulos has alleged Downer was "spying" on him at the bar. According to 10/4/19 Canberra Times report, Australian Ambassador to the US wrote to Senator Graham saying that "“In your letter you made mention of the role of an Australian diplomat, We reject your characterization of his [Downer] role."

The Credibility of the Steele Dossier And Christopher Steele


How Republican Identified/Characterized Steele Dossier and Steele:
Steele dossier was part of Russia’s disinformation campaign
[Ratcliffe, Matt Gaetz, Mike Johnson, Devin Nunes]
  • Ratcliffe attack and characterize the Dossier as "Steele dossier was part of the Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election" "Steele Dossier was a collusion with Russia or in other word Steele was a Russia Source - Russia's efforts to interfere in the Election."
  • Gaetz on those allegations on Collusion/Conspiracy: "Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn’t find or Russians lied to Steele."
  • the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and specifically referenced in your [Mueller] report. (Mike Johnson)
  • Steele Dossier as "a collection of outlandish accusations that Trump and his associates were Russian agents - developed by Fusion GPS who was funded by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. the Dossier was salacious and unverified (Devin Nunes)
[Hong Gan's comment] Before I would incorporate the discussion about Steele Dossier in the Introduction, I am going to try and attempt to use a 'radical example (just for illustration purpose)' to express my thinking on the significance and credibility of the Steele Report. The US intelligence community received a piece of intelligence report from an intelligence agent from an allied foreign country who had a history to work with and collaborate with our intelligence community. That piece of intelligence is from a witting (undercover of the western alliance) or unwitting source. The content of that piece of intelligence is this: Hitler is going to nuclear bomb the Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on certain dates. The intelligence agent was very confident on the accuracy of the intelligence from his source; but he believed there is only 30% of the probability that this piece of intelligence is true. Upon learning that piece of intelligence, what should we do? [beside a thorough research and assessment on the intelligence]. Should we just ignore it by throwing it into the desk drawer and presume Russia's innocence and wait there to see what would happen until we could prove Russia's guiltiness and the truthfulness of the intelligence? Can we afford to neglect it and do nothing about it - no investigation, no assessment, no preventative measures and wait there to see Hitler would or would not nuclear bomb our Pearl Harbor in Hawaii?

The same reasoning applies here. Steele's self evaluation on his Dossier is to be 70-90% true. Should we just wait to see whether Russia's Cyber-Warfare Army (the Steel-less and Smokeless Armed Force) would or would not invade and break into our land and enter into our Washington DC with no Firewalls, no Resistance; and surrender our Washington DC and welcome them to conquer our Capital?

Why the Republicans ask such Questions in the first place? Did they not know the fundamental difference in the nature of a Raw Intelligence Document and an Investigation Report which has to be based on the Solid Evidence? When they made their conclusion and characterized Steele's Dossier as Lie, what was their evidence? My gut feeling told me they (or a division radical group within the Republican) did this for the sake of advancing merely their partisan power, their partisan interests instead of the national interests.

After a careful review and comparison of the Steele Dossier Allegations and Later Findings. It was impossible or nearly improbable to make up a story of all those allegations in such a coherence and detail if the central and foundational allegation upon which the other elaborated allegations built upon was/is not true - the Election Meddling - that is - the Russia hacked into the DNC/DNCC computer and stole the confidential or classified/unclassified information and then timed the release and the dissemination of those material damaging Hillary Clinton Campaign and favoring Trump Campaign[which was proved in Mueller Report and accepted by the Public as the Facts]. The sets of allegations which built upon this central and foundational allegations included:
  • allegations on The Hacking And Dumping Operation: operatives [this details about hacking operatives, what might be their cover, how they might be recruited and rewarded, the potential elements or categories of them]
  • allegations on Hacking And Dumping Operation: Aim/Objective
  • allegations on Hacking And Dumping Operation: Timing of The Dissemination
  • allegations on Hacking And Dumping Operation: Assessment of its impact and forward prospects)
  • allegations on Hacking And Dumping Operation: Recent Developments relative to the time of the relevant Dossier report
  • allegations on The Political Fallout And The Backlash (from recent western media revelations about Moscow's (extensive) pro-TRUMP and anti-CLINTON operations.) (Russia side)
  • allegations on Cover Up: Russia side
  • allegations on The Divisions In Moscow (arising from the extensive/wider pro-TRUMP operations)
  • and lastly, the most intriguing and hard to prove allegations on Collusion/Conspiracy and the associated Kompromat - all surrounding this central and foundational allegation (Mueller's Report did not establish Conspiracy; but is there Loose Collusions in his findings?)
  • allegations on Trump Campaign's Reaction To The Negative Media Reports And The Tactics Forward
Besides all these allegations, there were allegations on Issues that is more In General but all surrounding the THEME - The Russia's hostility and Russia's approach in Cyber Offensive Operations and Kompromat.

Other Issues Regarding Steele Dossier

Steele As FBI Sources/Informant and The Issue of Leak (Devine Nunes)

Steele Timeline In Parallel to Stefan Halper, Bruce Ohr, Statement Department And Mifsud/Papadopoulos
[Diagram: The making of the Steele dossier by Washington Post]
Timeline: The birth of the Rususia investigation 9/19/18 Washington Post
Russia Hacking timeline - How Obama handled Putin

Date Steele Stefan Halper Bruce Ohr State Department OfficialMifsud and George Papadopoulos's Leak
as early as before 3/1/16 (Feb) Steele went through "admonishment" training and signed confidential agreement with FBI 1/x/16 Ohr and Steele exchanged emails generally focused on Deripaska.
9/x/15-4/x/16
[Republican Primary]		 The Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on multiple candidates, including Donald Trump
3/10/16- 4/18/16Russia GRU hacked DNC and DCCC computer and Clinton Campaign emails and documents were stolen.
4/x/16
(April)		 Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie [the law firm who had represented DNC] and offered to continue the opposition research on Donald Trump Fusion at some point employs Nellie Ohr as a contractor. 4/18/16 Mifsud travelled to Russia, and participated in the event at the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow on 4/19/16. Mifsud learned about Clinton Dirt in this trip; On 4/26/16 after Mifsud returned from this trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos about the Clinton Dirt
5/10/16 (May) 5/10/16 During a night of heavy drinking in London, Papadopoulos leaked to Australian High Commissioner to Great Britain Alexander Downer that Russia has dirt on Clinton.
5/x/16 (May) Clinton Campaign and DNC became aware their computer might be compromised and hired cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to investigate it
6/7/16 Steven Shrage invited Carter Page in an email to the Cambridge Symposium in July
6/15/16 CrowdStrike published their notice on its website describing an attack on the DNC comittee's computer network by groups associated with Russian intelligence.
6/x/16
(June)		 Fusion GPS hired former Christopher Steele and his London-based firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to investigate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. Between June and November, Steele produced 17 memo/reports that were compiled into a 35 page document known as “the Steele Dossier”
7/5/16 Steele met with his Handling Agent 1 in London [and furnished him with report 80. 
7/10/16 - 7/12/16 Halper and Page met at the Cambridge Symposium the first time
7/19/16 Steele produced report 94 alleging the first time that Carter Page met secretly with Russian during 7/7/16-7/8/16 Meeting in Moscow
7/22/16 WikiLeaks released the first batch of stolen Clinton Campaign emails [Clinton emails] (3 days before DNC national convention)
7/26/16
Australian government notified FBI what Papadopoulos had told Alexander Downer
7/31/16 FBI formally launched the counter-intelligence Trump-Russia Investigation code named as Crossfire Hurricane
8/x/16 (late summer) Fusion GPS set up series of meetings between Steele and National Security Reporters to share what had been learned
9/x/16 Steele meets with former MI6 head Richard with the intention that it be passed to U.S. law enforcement officials.
9/19/16: FBI received 6 reports of the Dossier (80, 94,95,100,101,10_)		 Steele briefed Jonathan Winer about the Dossier. Winer created  summary memo and shared internally
9/23/16 Yahoo news  published a report on possible contacts between Page and Russian authorities, based on information collected by Steele [Steele's name was not mentioned] 9/late/16 Sidney Blumenthal passed Cody Shearer Dossier to Jonathan Winer who shared with Steele
10/3/16 Steele met FBI in Rome and shortly afterwards furnished FBI reports 130, 111, 134,135,136 via Handling Agent 1. They met multiple times in October.
10/7/16 U.S. intelligence formally declares that Russia is interfering in U.S. campaign through cyberhacks joint statement DHS and ODNI The impact was distracted by Hollywood Access Tape and Wikileaks' release of Podesta email a few hours later
10/x/16 Steele provided Shearer Dossier to the FBI
10/11/16 Steele met with State Department Official Kathleen Kavalec Steele met Kathleen Kavalec whose notes were made public 8/x/19. Steele discussed about some of the sources in his dossier. Other allegations in the Dossier were also discussed
10/12/16
10/18/16 10/19/16		 Steele produced three reports (134, 135,136) alleging  Michael Cohen's Plague Meeting [and fall victim to Republican's attack on the overall credibility of the Dossier]
10/21/16 The first FISA on Carter Page approved
10/31/16 Media reported on Steele and Steele Dossier leakeed to without the content) to Mother Jones
11/1/16 FBI stopped Steele as an source/informant due to being caught with the leak
11/18/16 - 12/9/16 McCain was briefed on Steele dossier by former U.K. ambassador to Russia David Kramer on 11/18/16. Steele  meets with McCain confidant on 11/28/16. McCain passes dossier to Comey on 12/9/16 12/10/16 Steele gave Ohr his Dossier who then passed on to FBI 
1/5/17
1/6/17		 Comedy briefed Obama (1/5/17) and Trump (1/6/17) about the Dossier
1/6/17 The declassified version of the ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) Report was released to the Public [the same time when Obama and Trump was briefed about the Steele Dossier]
1/10/17 Steele Dossier content was made public [by Buzzfeed.com], last Dossier report 166 (12/13/16) was included.
11/20/16 - 5/15/17 Steele met Bruce Ohr a dozen times Bruce continued to meet Steele a dozen times after FBI officially announced they would not obtain intelligence from Steele on behalf of them on 11/1/16

[Hong Gan's comment] After September (yahoo news report and 10/7/16 joint statement from US intelligence community), Steele produced several more reports (10/12/16, 10/18/16, 10/19/16) alleging Michael Cohen traveled to Prague for a secret meeting to cover up the Collusion - that I had analyzed in this post for Steele Dossier as misinformation and set aside from earlier allegations.


Steele's prior reporting history and FBI's efforts to evaluate Steele during Crossfire Hurricane (an issue raised by IG Horowitz Report)

Context

[the discussion of Steele's prior reporting history was associated with the discussion of FISA application and renewal on Carter Page due to the involvement of Steele reporting as one of the themes supporting the probable cause]
  • 2009, Steele retired from M16 and opened his intelligence firm - Orbis Business Intelligence. He had furnished Ohr with reports produced by Orbis for its commercial clients that he thought may be of interest to the U.S. government.
  • 2010,  Steele was introduced to the FBI agent (Handling Agent 1) by Bruce Ohr and began to furnish information to the FBI, primarily on matters concerning organized crime and corruption in Russia and Eastern Europe. In summer 2010, Steele introduced Handlng Agent 1 to a contact who had allegedly obtained information about corruption in FIFA which contributed to the FBI's opening of FIFA investigation in 2012.
  • 7/x/11, Steele provided another leads in connection with the FIFA investigation - an alleged conversation between then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and then Prime Minister Putin which Putin acknowledged that a Russian oligarch had bribed the President of FIFA so that Russia could win the right to host the World Cup tournament
  • 2012, Steele introduced the FBI to British officials with information concerning Russia's alleged efforts to bribe FIFA executives.
  • 10/x/13, Steele provided lengthy and detailed reports to the FBI on three Russian oligarchs, one of whom was among the FBI's most wanted fugitives. which was deemed by the analyst as "extremely valuable and informative" and determined it was corroborated by other information that the FBI had obtained.
  • 10/30/13 FBI opened Steele as a CHS (confidential human source) who was designated as Source #1 or CHS 1 in IG report, after the volume of Steele's reporting had increased and involved persons of interest to the FBI. His handling agent is designated as Handling Agent 1 in IG Horowitz report.
  • 6/x/15, Steele furnished the FBI with a report that quoted a Kremlin official as having admitted that the Kremlin bribed FIFA executive. 
  • 10/30/13-12/31/15
    • Steele furnished intelligence information that the FBI disseminated, including Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) sent throughout USIC concerning the activities of Russian oligarchs. Handling Agent 1 recalled receiving positive feedback from the USIC in response to some of the IIRs.{note: IIR are raw intelligence reports}. Handling Agent 1 said that the response to the IIRs was that the information was "really good" and there were requests for additional reporting from Steele. {By the time Steele was closed by the FBI as a CHS in 11/1/16, the FBI had disseminated 10 IIRs based on Steele's reporting.}
    • Ohr and Handling Agent 1 asked Steele to inquire whether Russian oligarchs would be interested in entering into discussions with FBI. Steele originally proposed the idea of having him approach Russian oligarchs for the purpose of arranging meetings between the oligarchs and representatives of the U.S. government. Steele had multiple contacts with representatives of Russian oligarchs with connections to Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) and senior Kremlin officials which appears to be associated or contributed to FBI's transnational organized crime intelligence unit (TOCIU) report. A validation evaluation was recommenced but was not done then. Steele facilitated meetings in a European city that included Handling Agent 1, Ohr, an attorney of Russian Oligarch 1, and a representative of another Russian oligarch.
    • Steele's prior reporting to the FBI addressed issues other than Russian oligarchs, including:
      • information on the hack of computer systems of an international corporation
      • information on corruption involving former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
      • introduced Handling Agent 1 to sources with knowledge of Russian athletic doping and obtained samples of material for FBI to analyze and the sample was furnished to NYFO which had an open investigation concerning doping.
Handling Agent 1 recounted a situation that reinforced his view that Steele was "very professional" and primarily motivated by a desire to counter threats posed by Russia. Steele made arrangements for a meeting between the FBI and a [redacted word] individual who had potentially important information. FBI's failure to meet with the individual was the FBI's fault.

In addition, Steele stated that he sometimes provided his work product from his private clients to the FBI at no cost, which he said he did because he believed the information possibly could be helpful to the U.S. government.

On 9/19/16 FBI received first batch 6 of Steele Dossier reports, triggering the FISA application on Carter Page on 10/21/16.

Source Characterization Statement in the FISA Application

".... [Steele's] reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses [Steele] to be reliable.... and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to [Steele]"

{note: After Steele was caught the issue of 'Leak' on 10/31/16, the renewal applications removed the reference to no derogatory information concerning Steele and stated that the FBI continued to assess that Steele was reliable "as previous reporting from Steele has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings."}

OIG stated that he found no documentation in the Woods File indicating that Steele's handling agent, Handling Agent 1, approved this language, as required by FISA SMP PG (FISA Standard Minimization Procedures Policy Guide). Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that he did not
approve this language. Handling Agent 1 said that although he found Steele to be reliable in the past, only "some" of Steele's past reporting had been corroborated and most of it had not. He also stated that Steele's reporting had never been used in a criminal proceeding. IG Report further stated that Handling Agent 1 had provided language on 9/23/16 to Case Agent 1 for the source characterization statement that was substantively different from the final language used in the FISA application -
"CHS has been signed up for 3 years and is reliable. CHS responds to taskings and obtains info from a network of sub sources. Some of the CHS' info has been corroborated when possible." In the Intelligence field, plausible deniability and pre-designed cover up scheme increased the difficulty for corroboration, decrease the amount of intelligence to be corroborated. Putin was/is expert on that.

[Analysis] The source characterization statement in the FISA application actually is not in conflict with the Handling Agent 1's source characterization statement. The Statement "Steele's reporting has been corroborated", although did not indicate quantitatively how much of Steele's reporting was corroborated, it is different from the statement that 'All of the Steele's reporting was corroborated. Again, proof and disproof became the dynamics here. 'Not corroborated' does not equal to the reporting is false. They could be true, if they are not disproved - see wording 'when possible'. Because many of Steele Dossier {IG call them Steele's election reporting to distinguish from Steele's prior reporting} allegations although not corroborated and but they are also not disproved. {actually most of the Steele Dossier allegations are not disproved and quite a few/lot was proved, see this post}.

For the statement 'used in criminal proceedings', Handing agent did not say anything in his original source characterization statmen t back on 9/23/16, though he stated when he was interviewed by IG that Steele's reporting had never been used in a criminal proceeding. But that was AFTER the outcome (Carter Page was not indicted). Even this statement is ambiguous - it should be "Steele's reporting had not been Directly used in a criminal proceeding.

IG stated in his report that "Steele had previously provided FBI that helped FBI to further its criminal investigation." The implication is that Steele reporting was indirectly used in criminal proceeding. For the FIFA case as the example as discussed in detail in the context section, OIG interviewed a prosecutor on the FIFA case who said that Steele did not provide testimony in any court proceeding. Handling Agent 1 also told the OIG that Steele's information was not used to obtain any compulsory legal process in the FIFA case. FBI talk to the contact whose information eventually proved valuable and helped predicate the opening of the FIFA investigation.

In general, it is not proper to evaluate/characterize the reliability/credibility of an asset (only) based on the veracity of the intelligence or more precisely how many of the intelligence were corroborated, (let alone how many was used in criminal investigation and criminal proceedings.) Because raw intelligence report does not guarantee the truthfulness of the Intelligence. Raw intelligence report only guarantee the accuracy of the information from the sub-source. The reliability, professionalism and quality of a Source is also judged by the fact that Steele is never a Fabricator. He never introduced his own opinion, belief, analysis into the reporting, never forge or make up or modified the Intelligence from his sources, never omit or not included the Intelligence he received because he himself assessed or believed that it does not have a high probability to be true. By including the Intelligence with only 50% of chance to be true would in overall reduced the rate of his intelligence to be corroborated. But as long as those Intelligence concerns national security, as long as those intelligence make sense to be included, he did not omit them, for example those allegations about Trump Kompromat.

Therefore, I believed Handling Agent 1's initial characterization statement on 9/23/16 (the time before the FISA application) is a relatively more objective characterization, reflecting his true evaluation on Steele. The statement based on the veracity (or more precisely how many intelligence was corroborated and used on in criminal proceeding was merely for the purpose of get approval to surveil Carter Page because of that 'imminent threat' that unnerved our nerve (as discussed in the IG Report Specific Section - remaining issues. [/Analysis]

Ultimately, for the refutation on the IG report's error and the conclusion that IG amplified the significance of the errors in the FISA based on scientific arguments and theories, go to the specific section on IG report -relevant subsections.

[find out what chapter 8 further discussion on source characterization statement]

Next I review and summarize FBI's effort to evaluate Steele's prior reportiing Post-Election after Steele's Closure as a CHS]

Information from Persons with Direct Knowledge of Steele's Work-Related Performance in a Prior Position

In 11/mid/16 - 12/30/16, FBI officials travelled abroad and met with persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele or had knowledge of his work {Hong Gan's note: prior position should be Steele's position in British M16} with the objective to assess and confirm Steele's reliability. Priestap and Strzok took notes that they received about Steele, some of which was positive and some of which was negative. Positive comments included "smart," "person of integrity," "no reason to doubt integrity". Priestap's impression was that Steele's former colleagues considered Steele to be a "Russia expert" and very competent in his work. Strzok described/summarized the comments as follows:

many of them ... almost without exception said, he is truthful. He has never been accused of, nor did anybody think he is an embellisher, let alone a fabricator. [next portion is about Steele's Judgement and was omitted here and will discuss next}..... But in any event, he was not the type of person who would fabricate something or make something up or mischaracterize it, either intentionally or unintentionally.

{Hong Gan's note: What Horowitz characterized as 'negative' comments on Steele's judgement, in my standards, were not 'negative' at all, it at most labelled Steele's style. Some of the negative conclusive comments were not cited because I personally do not agree with and deemed over-conclusive and for reasons I explained in the IG Report Section, I adopted Strzok's description which I deemed objective and nonconclusive}

Priestap and Strzok also were provided with various comments concerning Steele's judgment. ""[d]idn't always exercise great judgment", "reporting in good faith, but not clear what he would have done to validate."

Here is Strzok's description: If anything, to the extent there were negatives, it was that he was the type of person who would sometimes follow the shiny object without, perhaps, a deep set of judgment about the risk that may or may not be there in terms of following the shiny object.

This is Priestap's interpretation of the comments about Steele's judgment "If he latched on to snomething ... he thought that was the most important thing on the face of this earth. This personality trait doesn't necessarily jump out as a particularly bad or horrible one"

Information obtained from abroad was not memorialized in Steele's Delta file and therefore not considered in a validation review conducted by the FBI's Validation Management Unit (VMU)to be discussed next.

[find out what chapter 8 had said about this topic]
Because Steele's handling agent's remarks on Steele before and after he opened Steele as a CHS are relevant to the topics here. They were cited here.

Based on his past experiences working with Ohr, Handling Agent 1 said he respected Ohr's judgment and had no reason to doubt his representations about Steele. Handling Agent 1 told us that Steele had relationships with reputable clients, and this fact bolstered Handling Agent 1 's view of Steele's credibility. He also said that he had met with some of Steele's clients and knew of others, and that a representative of one of Steele's clients informed him that Steele "was solid and that his reporting was very interesting and good."

Handling Agent 1 said he came away from his first meeting with Steele favorably impressed. Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that Steele was very professional and knowledgeable and "clearly an expert on Russia," including the activities of Russian oligarchs and Russian criminal networks

In the memo when Handling agent 1 opened Steele as a CHS in October 2013, he wrote the following: "Our New York Office is currently working with Christopher Steele, Mr. Steele is providing the FBI with information to support several ongoing criminal investigations involving transnational organized crime organizations. This information, provided primarily through Mr. Steele's privately owned company, Orbis Business Intelligence, is necessary to support our efforts to fully identify subjects with ties to European, Eurasian and Asian organized crime organizations and whose activities directly impact the United States. In order to properly protect this information and Mr. Steele's relationship with the FBI, our New York Office will treat any material provided as information obtained through a Confidential Human Source.

OIG (Office of Inspector General) asked Handling Agent 1 about what information the FBI had corroborated from Steele's reporting prior to spring of Election year and whether Steele had been proven to be a reliable source. Handling Agent 1 said that Steele provided reliable information to the FBI in the past, but that not all of the information Steele furnished had been corroborated and verified. Handling Agent 1 cited several examples of information from Steele that the FBI had been able to corroborate prior to the spring of Election year such as corruption in FIFA's bid selection process, information regarding - Russian oligarchs, and corruption involving Yanukovych, He also told the OIG that he was not aware of any information Steele provided prior to 2016 that had been shown to be false, inaccurate, or problematic. Handling Agent 1 said that the FBI found Steele's information to be valuable.

Human Source Validation Review (HSVR) (3/23/17)

Handle Agent 1's annual reports on Steele depicted Steele positively with no derogatory information noted [except the last one after Steele wsa closed as CHS due to the leak issue, see discussion next section.] The 2015 annual report states that "[s]ource provided relevant and significant intel on activities of Eurasian criminals to include QC [organized crime] members and associates, businessmen/oligarchs
and politicians." The annual reports also noted that some of Steele's information had been corroborated.

A HSVR on Steele was requested and performed in order to ensure the totality of the information being looked at independently by the people outside Crossfire Hurricane - Directorate of Intelligence. {Hong Gan's note: SSA 1 initially requested it on 11/x/16 but was delayed several weeks by CD due to sensitivity of the subject matter, concerns over leaks and uncertainty about whether the assessment would add significant value.}

Validation Management Unit (VMU) completed report on 3/23/17 after evaluating Steele's Delta file, conducting various database searches, and engaging in a limited email exchange with Handling Agent 1 and an agent on the Crossfire Hurricane team. . {Hong Gan's note: Steele's Delta file does not include Steele's intelligence in Transnational Organized Crime Intelligence Unite (TOCIU) reports. There had been a recommendation for a HSVR on Steele's infor in the TOCIU reports but was not performed; Steele's Delta file also did not have the information FBI obtained aborad from his prior colleagues as discussed in the last sub-section}

The validation report made a number of findings. The VMU found no issues regarding Steele's reliability or nothing to suggest that he had fabricated information, and determined that he was "suitable for continued operation" based on his authenticity and reliability. The report also noted compliance issues. {Hong Gan's note: what the compliance issue was all redacted}.

The "Summary" portion of the validation report described the contribution of Steele reporting to FBI's Criminal Program {Hong Gan's note: notice the wording: it was neither Criminal Investigation nor Criminal Proceeding}- "VMU assesses it is likely [Steele] has contributed to the FBl's Criminal Program. VMU makes this assessment with medium confidence, based on the fact that [Steele's] reporting has been minimally corroborated". {Hong Gan's note: the quoted sub-statement "Steele's reporting has been minimally corroborated' is different from Handling Agent 1's statement in IG Horowitz Report. Immediately followed the summary quote, IG report stated "Handling Agent 1 told us that the finding that Steele's past criminal reporting was "minimally corroborated" was consistent with his understanding of the entire collection of Steele's reporting to the FBI." Therefore I would interpret this sub-statement as "[Steele's] criminal reporting has been minimally corroborated". This does not include other types of intelligence (counterintelligence and election reporting). Priestap's reaction and comment supported this.} Priestap, who previously oversaw the work of VMU, explained that "I had always understood that [Steele] had a long, successful track record of reporting, that had withstood, in effect, judicial or court-of-law scrutiny, and so when I saw 'minimally corroborated,' that was different than I had understood it." [find out what Preistap's understood differently in chapter 8]

Next, IG Report stated "the validation report summary did not appear to assess Steele's counterintelligence and election reporting". Although VMU searched inside FBI and U.S. government holdings, including Delta, for such corroboration of Steele's recent election reporting, but VMU assessment did not independently corroborate information in the Steele election reporting. {Hong Gan's note: actually they chose not to document any findings in additon to not to make any conclusion of any potential individual corroboration of steele's various sets of allegations. Validation SSA explained to the IG Horowitz that: "[w]e did not find corroboration for the [Steele election reporting]" from the holdings that VMU examined. Within the validation context, the term "corroboration" means that the FBI has received the same information from a separate source, "uncorroborated" does not mean the information is untrue or provide a basis for closing the source.} When being asked why that findings about Steele's election reporting did not appear in the validation report. Validation SSA explained that "..... what we do is we speak to what we positively find. I think it is a logical way to stay within the bounds of staying with what we know as opposed to telling you all the things we don't know."

The VMU's decision to not include in the validation report that it did not find corroboration for Steele's election reporting came as a surprise to the FBI officials. Priestap's reaction: " .....It's simply the way in which they [should] document their findings. It is beyond me how somebody would undertake that effort and then not document their findings in that regard.". Strzok reaction was:"the validation report's lack of clarity was consistent with his past experience with VMU, and that VMU's work is "frequently ambiguous or perhaps not written with the level of precision and specificity and expertise that might be desired." He also stated that validation reports are "rarely helpful."

Intel Section Chief and Supervisory Intel Analyst simply dsiagreed with the Validation SSA's conclusion that the Steele election reporting was "uncorroborated." [find out what section V of the same chapter related to this topic before quoting their explanation].

Steele's source network and their credibility issue brought by IG Horowitz
Primary sub-source


Steele Media Contact and the Issue of Leak and Bias

A brief timeline on Steele-Media contacts

  • 8/x/16 CIA director briefed Obama
  • Late summer. Fusion sets up off-the-record meetings between Steele and national security reporters to share some of what had been learned. (New Yorker report 3/12/18)
  • 9/early/16 Obama attempted to have Congress Gang of Eight to issue a nonpartisan statement condemning Russia' meddling in the Election to alert the Public. But Mitch McConnell refused to sign the statement.
  • 9/23/16 Yahoo news published report alleging Carter Page's meeting with Sechin in 7/8/16 Moscow trip [information allegedly was from Dossier's 7/19/16 report #94]
  • 10/7/16 Joint Statement (DHS and DNI) was buried by Hollywood Access Type and Wikipedia release of Podesta email
  • 10/28/16 Comey reopen the Clinton email investigation. He announced that there were new Clinton email discovered on Weiner's laptop
  • 10/30/16 Steele leaked his role and Dossier to Mother Jones
  • 11/1/16 Steele was suspended

Republicans had seized on Bruce Ohr's notes that Christopher Steele told Bruce Ohr that he was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president as the evidence for Steele's bias. Steele's gut discomfort about Trump [perhaps] was originated from Steele's work on FIFA corruption investigation in that Trump Tower might had a role in Organized Crime, according to an 3/5/18 article by New Yorker magazine -How the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump’s ties to Russia.. "Steele’s interest in Trump did not spring from his work for the Clinton campaign. He ran across Trump’s name almost as soon as he went into private business, many years before the Election." "His earliest cases at Orbis involved investigating international crime rings whose leaders, coincidentally, were based in New York’s Trump Tower."

"Steele’s first client after leaving M.I.6 was England’s Football Association, which hoped to host the World Cup in 2018, but suspected dirty dealings by the governing body, fifa. England lost out in its bid to Russia, and Steele determined that the Kremlin had rigged the process with bribes. According to Ken Bensinger’s “Red Card,” an upcoming book about the scandal, “one of Steele’s best sources” informed him that the Deputy Prime Minister, Igor Sechin—now the C.E.O. of the Russian state-controlled oil giant Rosneft—is suspected of having travelled to Qatar “to swap World Cup votes.”. Steele had discovered that the corruption at fifa was global, and he felt that it should be addressed. The only organization that could handle an investigation of such scope, he felt, was the F.B.I. Among the people the DOJ indicted on FIFA case who was in connection with million dollars in bribes, one of them was Chuck Blazer, a top fifa official who had embezzled a fortune from the organization and became an informant for the F.B.I. Blazer had an eighteen-thousand-dollar-per-month apartment in Trump Tower, a few floors down from Trump’s residence. "Nobody had alleged that Trump knew of any fifa crimes, but Steele soon came across Trump Tower again. " [quote New Yorker article]

'Several years ago, the F.B.I. hired Steele to help crack an international gambling and money-laundering ring purportedly run by a suspected Russian organized-crime figure named Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov. The syndicate was based in an apartment in Trump Tower. Eventually, federal officials indicted more than thirty co-conspirators for financial crimes. Tokhtakhounov, though, eluded arrest, becoming a fugitive. Interpol issued a “red notice” calling for his arrest. But, in the fall of 2013, he showed up at the Miss Universe contest in Moscow—and sat near the pageant’s owner, Donald Trump. “It was as if all criminal roads led to Trump Tower,” Steele told friends.' [quote New Yorker article]

Burrows told the New Yorker reporter that he and Steele made a pact when they left M.I.6: “We both agreed it was a duty to alert U.K. and allied authorities if we came across anything with national-security dimensions. It comes from a very long government service. We still have that ethos of wanting to do the right thing by our authorities.”

By late summer, Steele had grown so worried about what he had learned from his Russia network about the Kremlin’s plans that he told colleagues it was as if “sitting on a nuclear weapon". Steele believed that the Russians were engaged in the biggest electoral crime in U.S. history, and wondered why the F.B.I. and the State Department didn’t seem to be taking the threat seriously. When John Kerry (State Department Secretary) was briefed (after Steele shared his Dossier with Winer, he didn’t think there was any action that he could take after he was assured that FBI already knew the Dossier. “No one wanted to touch it,” Jonathan Winer said. [Steele - Winercontacts were discussed below in a separate section.] Obama Administration officials were mindful of the Hatch Act, which forbids government employees to use their positions to influence political elections and that's why Crossfire Hurricane went on secretly for 9 months before it made public. Steele felt that President Obama needed to make a speech to alert the country. He also thought that Obama should privately warn Putin that unless he stopped meddling the U.S. would retaliate with a cyberattack so devastating it would shut Russia down.

Steele wasn’t aware that by August, 2016, a similar debate was taking place inside the Obama White House and the U.S. intelligence agencies.
According to an article by the Washington Post, that month the C.I.A. director John Brennan sent “an intelligence bombshell” to Obama, informing him that Putin was directly involved in a Russian cyber campaign aimed at disrupting the Election—and helping Trump win. Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.’s G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the John Brennan on a stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow that had been intercepted. But, CIA’s assessment was not yet accepted by other intelligence agencies.

In the meantime, the White House was unsure how to respond. On a 9/5/16 G-20 summit Obama reportedly warned Putin, “Better stop". But Obama and his top advisers did not want to take any action against Russia that might provoke a cyber war. Because it was so close to the election, they were wary about doing anything that could be construed as a ploy to help Clinton.

In early September, Obama tried to get congressional leaders to issue a nonpartisan statement condemning Russia’s meddling in the election. He reasoned that if both parties signed on the statement couldn’t be attacked as political. The intelligence community had recently informed the Gang of Eight—that Russia was meddling the Election. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed skepticism about the Russians’ role, and refused to sign the statement. After that, Obama, instead of issuing a statement himself, said nothing. [see New Yorker 3/5/18 report].

Steele anxiously asked his American counterparts what else could be done to alert the country. One option was to go to the press. Simpson wasn’t all that worried - "We were operating under the assumption at that time that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, and so there was no urgency to it.” Sampson told the Congress in his testimony. The recent discovered text between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok indicated that Strzok was also worried about this [see 8/15/16 text exchange about 'insurance policy']that he believed Crossfire Hurricane should focus urgently on investigating collusion - as an insurance policy in case Trump was elected.

In late summer, Fusion set up a series of meetings, at the Tabard Inn, in Washington, between Steele and a handful of national-security reporters. The sessions were off the record, he seemed distraught about the Russians’ role in the election. He did not distribute his dossier, provided no documentary evidence, and was so careful about guarding his sources that there was virtually no way to follow up. At the time, neither The New Yorker nor any other news organization ran a story about the allegations. Inevitably, though, word of the dossier began to spread through Washington. Brennan, then the C.I.A. director, also heard about the Dossier. But Brennan said on “Meet the Press,” 3/x/18 that he heard just “snippets” about the dossier “in press circles,” emphasizing that he didn’t see the dossier until well after the election, and said that “it did not play any role whatsoever” in the intelligence community’s appraisal of Russian election meddling. Brennan said of the dossier, “It was up to the F.B.I. to see whether or not they could verify any of it.”

It wasn’t until 10/7/16 that anyone in the Obama Administration spoke publicly about Russia’s interference. DHS and DNI issued a joint statement saying that the U.S. intelligence community was “confident” that Russia had directed the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s e-mails. James Comey, then the F.B.I. director, had reportedly changed his mind about issuing a public statement, deciding that it was too close to the election to make such a politically charged assertion. But the impact of the joint statement was almost instantly buried by the shocking news followed after its announcement. Thirty minutes after the statement was released, the Washington Post brought to light the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump describes how his celebrity status had allowed him to “grab” women “by the pussy.” A few hours after that, WikiLeaks released John Podesta's emails. The intelligence community’s assessment was barely noticed.

As the election approached, the relationship between Steele and the F.B.I. grew increasingly tense. He couldn’t understand why the government wasn’t publicizing Trump’s ties to Russia. He was anguished that the American voting public remained in the dark. Steele confided in a longtime friend at the Justice Department, an Associate Deputy Attorney General, Bruce Ohr and shared Dossier with him. According to people familiar with the matter, Ohr and other officials urged Steele not to be so upset about the F.B.I.’s secrecy, assuring him that, in the U.S., potentially prejudicial investigations of political figures were always kept quiet, especially when an election was imminent.

Next is a brief outline of the Events which led to Steele's suspension with FBI: [block quote from Washington Post review article]

[block quote]Election Day was rapidly approaching, and Steele appeared increasingly disturbed by what he considered a lack of sufficient media attention to Russia’s activities. He made another visit to The Washington Post’s newsroom in October, this time visibly agitated. [hero or hired gun]

Meanwhile, the public was unaware that the FBI was investigating Trump associates. Steele understood the reason: Bureau officials repeatedly told him they were extremely cautious about taking actions that could be viewed publicly as influencing an election, associates said.

So he was stunned on Oct. 28 when then-FBI Director James B. Comey announced that he was reopening an inquiry into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. The announcement plunged Clinton’s campaign into chaos, though he on 11/6/16 Comey made another announcement, clearing her of wrongdoing. Three days later (11/1/16), the New York Times reported that FBI officials had not turned up evidence that the Trump campaign had links to Russia.

To Steele, the F.B.I., by making an incriminating statement so close to Election Day, seemed to be breaking a rule that he’d been told was inviolable. And, given what he—and very few others—knew about the F.B.I.’s Trump investigation, it also seemed that the Bureau had one standard for Clinton and another for her opponent. Steele and Simpson were dismayed, Simpson later testified. “Chris was concerned that something was happening at the FBI that we didn’t understand, and that there may be some political maneuvering or improper influence,” Simpson told the House committee, adding that “we were very concerned that the information that we had about the Russians trying to interfere in the election was going to be covered up.” He and Steele decided that “it would be fair if the world knew that both candidates were under FBI investigation,” Simpson said.

At Fusion’s urging, Steele decided to speak, on background, to the press. he told David Corn, of Mother Jones, that he had provided information to the F.B.I. as part of a “pretty substantial inquiry” into Trump’s ties to Russia. He noted, “This is something of huge significance, way above party politics.”
On 10/31/16, Mother Jones published a story by David Corn headlined, “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.”. The story did not name Steele, but it was based on information he shared, Corn later reported.

The late October events ruptured Steele’s relationship with his FBI handlers. The former intelligence officer was “suspended and terminated” by the bureau after the Mother Jones story, according to the GOP (Nunes) memo. In reality, the break was mutual, precipitated by Steele’s act of conscience. Steele told friends a different version: that he had been in talks to work with the FBI after his contract with Fusion GPS lapsed but that he cut off the discussions in frustration. The FBI, which had agreed to fund his trip to Rome, never reimbursed his expenses, according to people familiar with the situation.

On 11/8/16, Steele stayed up all night, watching the U.S. election returns. The news had one immediate consequence for Steele. He believed that Trump now posed a national-security threat to his country. The election was over, but Steele kept trying to alert American authorities. he authorized a trusted mentor—Sir Andrew Wood, a former British Ambassador to Moscow—to inform Senator John McCain (a Republican) of the existence of his dossier. He asked a former aide, David Kramer, to go to England to meet Steele. On 12/9/16, McCain handed Comey a copy of the dossier. To McCain’s surprise, the F.B.I. had already possessed a copy since the summer. When Kramer learned about this, his reaction was "if they’ve had it all this time, why didn’t they do something?”

On 1/5/17, nation’s top intelligence agencies briefed Obama and some national-security officials for the first time about the dossier’s allegation. As one person present in the meeting later told New Yorker reporter - “No one understands that at the White House we weren’t briefed about the F.B.I.’s investigations. We had no information on collusion. All we saw was what the Russians were doing. The F.B.I. puts anything about Americans in a lockbox.”

James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence), Mike Rogers (N.S.A. Director), Brennan and Comey— shared a highly classified version of an ICA report with Obama that were about to release to the public. The declassified version of this ICA report was released to the public on 1/6/17. The highly classified report included an appendix about the dossier. Steele's name was not mentioned in the report. Obama stayed silent. All through the campaign, he and others in his Administration had insisted on playing by the rules, and not interfering unduly in the election, to the point that, after Trump’s victory, some critics accused them of political negligence.


Fusion GPS and Its Founder Glen Simpson (Steve Chabot)

Republican's attacking point on Fusion GPS/Glen Simpson was about:
  • Omission: Fusion GPS and Glen Simpson was not mentioned in the Report, Mueller did not mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS’ involvement with the Clinton Campaign and who paid Fusion GPS and the Dossier and even saying Glenn Simpson is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee (Matt Gaetz)
  • Not investigate its connections to Russia.
  • Simpson had tie to Russia lawyer. He dined with Russia lawyer before and after 6/9/16 meeting. [go to discussion on the attack on 6/9/16 meeting in the Attack on the Alleged Collusion]
Glenn Simpson is a  former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder of the Fusion GPS which is a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm. The company conducts open-source investigations and provides research and strategic advice for businesses, law firms and investors, as well as for political inquiries, such as opposition research. The "GPS" stands for "Global research, Political analysis, Strategic insight". Fusion GPS was hired in 2012 to do opposition research on U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In August 2015, Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to defensively investigate the veracity of a series of undercover videos.

In 2013, Fusion GPS was hired by Russia Lawyer who represent Denis Katsyv - the owner of Prevezon Holding - whose father was a business associate of Vladimir Yakunin, a confidant of Vladimir Putin. [this case was where Glen Simpson was involved with Russia Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya who was known to be the main actor in 6/9/Meeting. This is why/how Simpson was attacked to have ties with Russia. Prevezon Holding was sued for violating the Magnitsky Act for money-laundering. Because Natalia Veselnitskaya was not licensed to practice in the US, so Katsyv hired the law firm of BakerHostetler to represent Prevezon; BakerHostetler hired Fusion GPS later to provide research help for the litigation. Therefore the statement /claim that Glen Simpson is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee is not accurate. Fusion GPS is a private, commercial company with various type of clients.

Simpson and Steele first meet in 2009, they were introduced by mutual friends, who know they are both interested in Russian organized crime, according to Washington Post. 8/22/17 Simpson was testified before Senate Judiciary Committee. 9/x/17 Simpson and Podesta testified before Senator Intelligence Committee. Simpson was questioned by Congress. The transcript of the interview was released on 1/18/18.

Another angle from which Republicans attacked and attempted to discredit Steele Dossier was that the Dossier was funded and paid by the Clinton Campaign and DNS, next were research from several medias that proved Steele opposition research was not biased in this aspect as well. Simpson - Marc Elias contacts suggested that Clinton Campaign and Steele were not aware of each other.

According to New York Times report- The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who Paid for It, [quote] "Officials from the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. have said they were unaware that Perkins Coie facilitated the research on their behalf, even though the law firm was using their money to pay for it. Even Mrs. Clinton found about Mr. Steele’s research only after BuzzFeed published the dossier, They [Clinton's associates] said that she was disappointed that the research — as well as the fact that the F.B.I. was looking into connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia — was not made public before Election Day."

According to Washington Post, Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Mark Elias at Perkins Coie. [quote] "One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS's role." 9/17/17 Simpson and Podesta testified before Senator Intelligence Committee. Podesta said he had no knowledge of payments to Fusion GPS. CNN also reported this on 10/26/17. Washington Post 10/26/17 report first revealed to the Public who paid to Fusion GPS that hired Steele.

According to New Yorker 3/5/18 report, Podesta had authorized Robby Mook, the campaign manager, to handle budget matters, and Mook had approved Perkins Coie’s budget request for opposition research without knowing who was producing it. Podesta and Mook have maintained that they had no idea a former foreign intelligence officer was on the Democrats’ payroll until the Mother Jones article appeared, and that they didn’t read the dossier until BuzzFeed posted it online. Far from a secret campaign weapon, Steele turned out to be a secret kept from the campaign.

New Yorker magazine 3/5/18 article echoes New York Times And Washington Post Report. [quote] "Rosenberger, meanwhile, had no idea that the Clinton campaign had indirectly employed a Russia expert: Steele. Orbis’s work was sealed off, behind a legal barrier. Marc Elias, the attorney at Perkins Coie who was serving as the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, acted as a firewall between the campaign and the private investigators digging up information on Trump. It’s a common practice for law firms to hire investigators on behalf of clients, so that any details can be protected by attorney-client privilege. Fusion briefed only Elias on the reports. Simpson sent Elias nothing on paper—he was briefed orally."

Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr and His Contacts with Steele

Republican's attack point on Bruce Ohr was: Bruce Ohr’s contacts with Christopher Steele were part of a vast conspiracy to undermine Trump’s presidential candidacy. Trump had put Bruce Ohr's security clearance under review and attacked him publicly. Trump has called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire Mr. Ohr. They have cast Mr. Ohr and his wife as villains, part of a pro-Clinton cabal out to destroy the president. Trump's tweet 8/11/18 on Bruce Ohr: “The big story that the Fake News Media refuses to report is lowlife Christopher Steele’s many meetings with Deputy A.G. Bruce Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly. It was Fusion GPS that hired Steele to write the phony & discredited Dossier, paid for by Crooked Hillary & the DNC.”

Devin Nunes's attack Bruce Ohr on Mueller's testimony was "The FBI investigation was marred by further corruption and bizarre abuses. Top DOJ official Bruce Ohr, whose own wife worked on Fusion GPS’ anti-Trump operation, fed Steele information to the FBI even after the FBI fired him"
Listed next is a brief timeline on Steele - Ohr contacts [before Election]
  • 1/x/16 exchanged email on Deripaska
  • 4/x/16 Fusion GPS hired Nellie Ohr
  • 7/7/16 Steele and Ohr spoke briefly on the phone, subject unknown
  • 7/30/16 met at DC hotel about 'Russia Intelligence had Trump over a barrel'  (a day before Crossfire Hurricane was launched)
  • 8/22/16 Ohr spoke to Simpson about possible intermediary between Russia and Trump
  • 9/23/16 Ohr and Steele met
  • 10/18/16 Steele and Ohr spoke on Skype about Deripaska.
  • 11/21/16 Ohr informed FBI his relationship with Steele and the Dossier Steele shared with him. Ohr met Strzok topics including discussion of continuing to retain Steele as informal source
  • 12/9/16 12/10/16 Steele recommends Simpson  to discuss the Dossier with Ohr. Simpson gave Ohr a flash drive
  • 12/13/16 Steele and Ohr spoke. Steele filed the last Dossier.
  • 11/20/16 - 5/15/17 Steele and Ohr continued to meet for about a dozen times
According to New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Examiner (who published Brue Ohr's congress testimony), Bure Ohr is a career FBI senior official with a credible history, particularly in his fight against Russia Mafia. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Bruce Ohr joined the Justice Department in 1991. As a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, he had won top awards and rose to be chief of the district’s violent gangs unit. He had a knack for managing people and pushing cases forward, former associates said, which led him to be the head of the organized crime and racketeering section. He was associate deputy attorney general and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) before 3/1/18. He is an expert on transnational organized crime and has spent most of his career overseeing gang and racketeering-related prosecutions (Bruce Ohr - Wikipedia).

In nearly three decades at the Justice Department, Mr. Ohr has made a career of supporting and facilitating important cases that targeted Russian organized crime. “Until 9/11, organized crime was one of the main priority criminal programs at the Justice Department,” said Mr. Lowrie a retired FBI official. “Russian organized crime was a focus. Bruce knew a lot of the Russia stuff and traveled there.” A former senior F.B.I. official who worked with Mr. Ohr - Chris Swecker commented on Brue Ohr (according to New York Times): “Occasionally you run across people from the Justice Department who have an air of superiority toward agents, and Bruce had none of that. He was just the opposite." His friends and former colleagues had said Bruce Ohr has a deep understanding of the underworld of Russian organized crime, including raising concerns about at least one oligarch [Oleg Deripaska who had close tie Paul Manafort] whose name has resurfaced amid the scrutiny of contacts between Trump associates and Russia. Co-workers and former associates describe him as a scrupulous government official who cares deeply about the Justice Department. "I view him as someone who would never do anything malicious.” Swecker commented.

Bruce Ohr had prosecuted a case of Pavlo Lazarenko, the former prime minister of Ukraine brought by the United States attorney in San Francisco -  Robert S. Mueller III who was the special counsel on Russia-Trump Investigation.

Bruce Ohr's contact with Steele in Election year was a natural process originated from his earlier years's bond he developed with Steele as part of his work, according to New York Times. He met Steele in 07 who was then still in M16 and developed the bond based on their shared expertise. Both governments approved their contacts. He stayed in touch with Mr. Steele until before the Election year. For the FBI., their relationship would come in handy. Mr. Steele violated his confidentiality agreement with the F.B.I. when he disclosed to a reporter in the months before the Election that he had been working with the bureau and about his findings due to his frustration that his intelligence had gone seemingly nowhere in the F.B.I, According to New York Times, On 11/1/16, FBI officially announced they would not obtain intelligence from Steele on behalf of the FBI.

That did not stop F.B.I. agents from collecting coveted information from Mr. Steele, one former FBI officials said. FBI was eager to assess the dossier as part of their counterintelligence investigation. The F.B.I. also did not have all the reports that Mr. Steele had produced. Bruce Ohr came to be the third party conduit to facilitate that process.

Mr. Ohr met with Mr. Steele almost a dozen times beginning in 11/20/16 through 5/15/17. FBI. agents interviewed Mr. Ohr after the meetings and documented the information [go to link below for declassification of Ohr FBI interview reports]. Brude Ohr, himself, also documented the contacts in 63 pages of unclassified notes and emails. [reference: Bruce Ohr Texts, Emails Reveal Steele’s Deep Ties to Obama DOJ, FBI 8/16/18; DOJ releases Bruce Ohr notes; and Rep. Matt Gaetz reacts to Bruce Ohr's notes ... - Fox News]
That arrangement was not unusual. Senior FBI officials were aware of the Steele meetings, and those involved followed internal guidelines, according to a former FBI official. But Republicans perceived this in an opposite way, they had attempted to ask DOJ to declassify the FBI’s reports. Ohr's contacts with Steele were mentioned in the controversial Nunes memo. [go to Carter Page's FISA warrant for more detail on Nunes Memo]

Nelly Ohr (Bruce Ohr's wife) was also targeted by Republican due to her work for the Fusion GPS. According to Washington Post,  the majority report of the House Intelligence Committee said she was “employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump.” A court filing by Simpson said Fusion GPS contracted with her “to help our company with its research and analysis of Mr. Trump.” According to New York Times, Her contract work at Fusion GPS involved monitoring Russian news media and compiling connections between Mr. Trump and Russia from public documents. She did not work on the dossier.

“It seems that Bruce had sins: He met with Chris Steele and his wife worked for Fusion GPS. None of that seems wrong to me,” Lowrie commented. “Bruce is a straight arrow. He was totally nonpartisan, as we all were expected to be". Bruce Ohr was demoted and was transferred to a less powerful post in late 07 after DOJ learned about his contacts with Mr. Steele and the scope of his wife’s work. According to Washington Post (8/16/18), “When we learned of the relevant information, we arranged to transfer Mr. Ohr to a different office.”,  Rosenstein (then DAG) told the House Intelligence Committee.

On 8/28/18, Ohr gave testimony in a closed hearing to Republican-led House Intelligence and Oversight committees [Republican congressman releases full transcript of Bruce Ohr hearing 3/8/19.] According to Washington Post, Simpson knew Ohr as well, from organized-crime conferences, according to his testimony before Congress. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Simpson said Steele suggested he speak to Ohr after the “very surprising” victory by Trump. “It was not clear to us whether anyone at a high level of government was aware of the information that Chris had gathered and provided to the FBI,” Simpson said. “Chris suggested I give some information to Bruce, give him the background to all this.” The Ohr emails, notes also implicated Russian oligarch - Deripaska who had tie to Putin in the background of the connections between Steele, Ohr, Simpson [refer to 8/8/18 Byron York's publication at Washington Examiner.]

Crawford questioned [appeared to attack] Bruce Ohr did not brief his DOJ supervisor but instead brief his subordinate Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad who later joined Mueller team. According to WSJ, after Bruce met Steele on 7/30/16, he briefed not only Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, he also briefed Andy McCabe (then acting FBI director) and lawyer Lisa Page. In August he took it to Peter Strzok, In the same month, he briefed senior personnel in the Justice Department’s criminal division: Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, lawyer Zainab Ahmad and fraud unit head Andrew Weissman. [Hong Gan's comment: For reasons explained previously in Steele-Media contacts, Crossfire Hurricane went on secretly for 9 months. US Hatch Act had prohibited executive branch official for partisan political activities to influence the Election. FBI's investigation was not briefed to Obama until after the Election on 1/5/16. The Intelligence Community did not announce to the Public about their finding/assessment on Russia Malicious Cyber Offenses before October. DOJ top officials were not briefed on FBI's investigation into Trump-Russia tie initially. Both Andrew Weissmann (a leading prosecutor on the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort) and Zainab Ahmad (one of the prosecutors who handled former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea) were members of team in Crossfire Hurricane.]

Steele's Contacts with State Department Official

Republicans' attack or questions on Steele's state department contacts were about Kathleen Kavalec (Devin Nunes, Crawford) [Hong Gan's note: there were no questions about Jonathan Winer, and Shearer Dossier].
  • Devin Nunes questioned if Mueller was aware of Kathleen Kavalec's involvement, that she had met with Ms. Steele, (Devin Nunes) [Hong Gan's note: Mueller did not appear to know about Kathleen's notes during his Investigation because it was made public very lately 8/x/19]
  • Steele revealed to State Department Official Kathleen Kavalec part of the sources of his Dossier - former Russian intelligence head Trubnikov and Putin adviser Surkov. [for discussion on these particular source in detail, go to this post] "Now, knowing that these are not getting into whether these sources were real or not real, was there any concern that there could have been disinformation that was going from the Kremlin into the Clinton campaign and then being fed into the FBI" (Crawford) [Hong Gan's note: it was not accurate to say that any information was going from Kremlin into Clinton Campaign - see section on discussion of Fusion GPS - Mark Elias contact].
[Hong Gan's comment: Why Crawford tended to associate Steele-Kathleen meeting with disinformation? This was perhaps because of the timing of their meeting 10/11/16 -  immediately prior to Steeles' three October reports (10/12/16, 10/18/16, 10/19/16) which was mainly about the alleged Michael Cohen's trip to Prague which Steele discussed with Kathleen on 10/11/16 according to the released Kathleen Kavalec's notes It is generally believed that Michael Cohen did not go to the Prague Meeting if there were a Prague meeting (see this post for more detail). Steele's meeting with Kathleen Kavalec was mediated by Jonathan Winer. It appeared that Steele took the allegations on Prague Meeting very seriously, State Department was the place where he could verify travel records - whether Michael Cohen had travelled to Prague. As far as why Steele revealed part of his sources to Kathleen, I did not know and could not speculate for now and so far.]

This is a brief timeline on Steele - State Department Official contacts
  • 9/x/16, Steele briefed Jonathan Winer about the Dossier. Winer created a summary memo and shared internally with in State Department
  • 9/late/16, Sidney Blumenthal passed Cody Shearer Dossier to Jonathan Winer who shared with Steele
  • 10/x/16 Steele provided Shearer Dossier to the FBI
  • 10/11/16 Steele met Kathleen Kavalec
Although Devin Nunes did not appear to attack Jonathan Winer on Mueller Testimony (Mueller had no involvement with Jonathan Winer), Devin Nunes did not forget about Jonathon Winer since earlier 1/30/18 when he announced that the next phase [after his memo] of his investigation of the events that led to the appointment of special counsel will focus on the State Department. Nunes' apparent area of interest is Jonathan Winer's relationship with Steele and his role in material that Steele ultimately shared with the FBI [according to Washington post report:[ Devin Nunes is investigating me. Here’s the truth.]

Similar to Bruce Ohr, Jonathan's bond to Steele originated by his role in 1990s as a senior official at the State Department responsible for combating transnational organized crime. Jonathan had explained [quote]: "I became deeply concerned about Russian state operatives compromising and corrupting foreign political figures and businessmen from other countries. Their modus operandi was sexual entrapment and entrapment in too-good-to-be-true business deals". After 1999, Jonathan Winer left the State Department and developed a legal and consulting practice that often involved Russian matters.

In 2009, He met and became friends with Steele, after Steele left M16. Steele had been providing business intelligence on the same kinds of issues Jonathan worked on at the time. In 2013, Jonathan Winer returned to the State Department at the request of the then Secretary of State John F. Kerry. Over the years, Steele and Winer had discussed many matters relating to Russia. After the then assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs - Victoria Nuland - reviewed several of Steele’s reports Winer received from Steele, Winer was asked to continue to send Steele's report to the State Department. Over the next few years, [quote Winer's remarks] "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."

In the summer of the Election year, Steele told Winer 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”. In September, Steele and Winer met in person and discussed his Dossier about the DNC hacking, Trump Kompromat, and ties Trump Campaign with Russia. Winer said in his article published by Washington Post that Steele allowed him to review, but not to keep, a copy of Steele Dossier reports in an attempt to have him to alert the State Department. Winer therefore prepared a summary memo after he reviewed Dossier and share it with Nuland who also believed that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of these reports.

Another independent event went on with Jonathan Winer regarding the Russia-Trump investigation was the Cody Shearer Dossier which was allegations about Trump Kompromat and Trump-Russia tie from sources independent of Steele's'. Several media had reported that Nunes' next phase investigation also focuses on Shearer Dossier.[see this reference Devin Nunes's Next Target.] Republican's attacking point was to discredit Steele's Dossier by exploring whether Steele’s research was shaped by information gathered by Clinton allies (both Shearer and Blumenthal are Clinton associates). In a letter to the Justice Department, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)- wrote that “the fact that “Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility.”
Shearer Dossier was compiled by a former journalist Cody Shearer who independently sets out some of the allegations that essentially same as the allegations in the Steele Dossier. Different from Steele, Shearer is not a professional intelligence agent. According to Guardian's 1/30/18 report (who first reported the existence of Shearer Dossier to the Public), although Shearer lacked the precision and polish of a seasoned spy such as Steele, Shearer has been described as having a large network of sources around the world and the independent financial means to pursue leads. More details about Shearer Dossier content and sources was documented in this DailyCaller report 5/1/18 (although copies of the Dossier could not be found on the internet) The content of the Shearer Dossier consists of:[according to a report "Unpacking the Other Clinton-Linked Russia Dossier" by realclearinvestigations.com]
  • "Donald Trump Background Notes - the compromised candidate" - this report contained the same salacious allegation about the Trump golden shower allegation as in the Steele Dossier
  • "the FSB Interview" - this report is about Trump's tie to Russia from an unnamed FSB source of Cody Shearer. According to Washington Post report - "Hero or hired gun? How a British former spy became a flash point in the Russia investigation", the memo claimed that a source inside the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) spy agency alleged that Trump had financial ties to influential Russians and that the FSB had evidence of him engaging in compromising personal behavior, according to a copy obtained by The Post. The only Trump campaign figures named are Donald Trump himself and his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort/

In late September of the Election year, It was Sidney Blumenthal who passed Cody Shearer Dossier to Jonathan Winer. Jonathan Winer did not know Cody Shearer. Jonathan later shared the Shearer Dossier with Steele. In October Steele presented Shearer Dossier to FBI. Because Steele had no knowledge about the credibility of the Shearer's sources, he wrote in his note to FBI that he 'couldn’t vouch for the claims' in the Shearer dossier when he passed it on to the FBI, although the content of the Shearer Dossier looks strikingly similar and appeared to be corroborative evidence for his own Dossier. According to Washington Post report - "Hero or hired gun?" [quote] “We [Steele and his Obis company] have no means of verifying the sources or the information but note some of their own is remarkably similar to our own, albeit from a completely different sourcing chain,” he [Steele] wrote in his note to FBI.

According to Jonathan's account published by Washington Post, he and Sidney Blumenthal were friends for 30 years. He met Sidney Blumenthal 30 years ago when he was investigating the Iran-contra affair for then-Sen. Kerry. Blumenthal was a reporter at The Washington Post then. Blumenthal was a long associate with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Blumenthal's email had been hacked in 2013 through a Russia server. When Jonathan and Blumenthal discussed about Steele’s reports, Blumenthal showed Jonathan notes by Shearer. Jonathan said "What struck me was how some of the material echoed Steele’s but appeared to involve different sources." Jonathan shared a copy of these notes with Steele in order to ask for his professional reaction. Steele told him "it was potentially 'collateral' information that it was similar but separate from the information he had gathered from his sources. Jonathan explained why he did not share Shearer notes with anyone else except Steele: "Given that I had not worked with Shearer and knew that he was not a professional intelligence officer, I did not mention or share his notes with anyone at the State Department. I did not expect them to be shared with anyone in the U.S. government."

Jonathan lastly emphasized - "He was ALARMED" - that "I was alarmed at Russia’s role in the election, and so were U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials. I believe all Americans should be alarmed — and united in the search for the truth about Russian interference in our democracy, and whether Trump and his campaign had any part in it." [Hong Gan's comment: we could not afford to presume Russia's "innocence"]

On 10/11/16, Steele met with another State Department official Kathleen Kavalec who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of European Affairs in the State Department. Kathleen Kavalec is reportedly a Hillary Clinton donor. Katheleen's involvement with Steele and Russia investigation was very recently revealed (first reported on 5/7/19 by John Solomon who also timed the report before Mueller Testimonly on MIfsud’s audio tape deposition) and her notes was very recently revealed as well [typed notes only on Scrbd loaded by John Solomon, handwritten notes on Scribd, and her handwritten notes in typed format on this forum site]. The memos were unearthed through FOIA litigation by the conservative group Citizens United.

Attorney General William Barr ordered U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead a separate investigation into the origins of the FBI's Russia Investigation. Republican's attack point on this revelation from Steele - Kathleen contact was that Kathleen Kavalec's typed notes mentioned Steele was keen to see his information come to light prior to the Election day, thus they asserted Steele Dossier was ‘politically motivated’. [For discussion on Steele’s leak issue, go to the previous discussion about Steele - Media contact.] Kathleen-Steele contact might be intermediated by Winer, because his name was at the very beginning of her handwritten notes. On 10/13/16 Kathleen might briefed her State Department Colleagues about her Steele contact in an email . (that email was redacted left with only one sentence and the sent to field was blacked out as well)

Kathleen’s handwritten notes indicated that Steele communicated with her a broad range of his Dossier allegations. Her handwritten notes were hard to interpret and she did not appear to be interviewed by either IG or Congress. But her typed notes (the less redacted version released) indicated Steele communicated with her about the travel records regarding Michale Cohen’s Prague travel (was redacted, see my discussion at the beginning) and Steele’s report 111 allegation 5 regarding Putin’s cover up attempt to withdraw diplomat Mikhail Kalugin, the head of the Russian embassy's economics section. Kathleen added her comment on the alleged Russia hacking operative network (in this instance - the Russia Embassy personnel). [quote] “As of late In September 2016, according to DHS electronic records, Mikhail Kalugin did not appear to be in the U.S. His travel history indicates he arrived in the U.S. at Dulles airport on April 4, 2016 and departed at Dulles airport on August 18, 2016. [REDACTED] Andrey Bondarev (who replaced Mikhail Kalugin) appeared to be in the country as of late September 2016. Bondarev's most recent I-94 indicates he arrived on August 29, 2016 at Dulles airport.” [this information confirms the allegation]

Kathleen’s typed notes also revealed some information that was absent in the Steele Dossier. One of them was the allegation on Alpha group/alpha bank. [quote Kathleen notes] “Peter Aven of Alfa Bank has been the conduit for secret communications between the Kremlin and Manafort; messages are encrypted via TOR software and run between a hidden server” managed by Alfa Bank” (see separate paper on this channel)”. [Hong Gan’s note: what/where was the ‘separate paper’ was not disclosed.] Steele Dossier report 11_ allegation 1-3 was about Alpha group/alpha bank contact, but there was no mention about a suspicious computer server. Media revelation was later than Steele (media reports regarding the suspicious computer server was around late October and early November) [see my analysis in this post]. Notes also mentioned that Aven was financially compromised and was vulnerable to Putin pressure. This information was also absent in the Steele Dossier.

Kathleen’s notes revealed the role of Serge Millian (head of chamber of Russian American commerce) whom Mueller Report had documented that he had reached out to George Papadopoulos through the later part of the Election year; and media had reported him as source D/E in Steele Dossier. Steele noted to Kathleen that Millian had left the U.S. and seemed to have disappeared. Millian is connected to Simon Kukes (who took over management of Yukos when Khodorkovsky was arrested.). “Chris said Kukes has some connection to Serge Millian”, Kathleen told Bruce Ohr in an email. The notes also mentioned that Lesin was killed accidentally.

In addition, Steele indicated to Kathleen that the alleged golden shower operation was run by the Kremlin -- former Kremlin COS Sergey Ivanov, Dmitriy Peskov and Putin -- and not by the FSB. Presidential Advisor Vladislov Surkov and Vyacheslov Trubnikov (former head of Russian External Intelligence Service - SVR) are also involved. Kavalec’s handwritten notes also contain a reference to Trubnikov and Surkov as “sources,” but with no additional explanation. [For more details on the potential sources, go to this post]

[recent developments] On 9/12/19 Johnson (chair Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee) and Chuck Grassley (chair Senate Finance Committee) sent a letter to U.S. Department of State Inspector General Steve Linick seeking an explanation as to why his office did not issue a report on its investigation into the 10/11/16 meeting between Christopher Steele, Orbis Intelligence employee Tatyana Duran, and then-Deputy Assistant Secretary Kathleen Kavalec, and then-Special Envoy Jonathan Winer.

On 9/13/19, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz submitted long awaited Draft Report on alleged FISA abuse to Attorney General for review. Kathleen was one of the witnesses. Steele-Kathleen contact was questioned by Republicans due to its timing of 10 days before FBI/DOJ applied for the first Carter Page FISA application. [Hong Gan's comment - 10/11/16 was also the time point prior to Steele's three October Dossier report 10/12/16, 10/18/19, 10/19/16 which was more imminent than the Carter Page FISA application, Steele's allegations on Carter Page was released in his 7/19/16 Dossier report. FBI knew the Carter Page allegations (regarding his 7/8/16 Moscow trip) long before Steele met Kathleen. Did Steele and Kathleen know FBI 's plan to apply the FISA warrant on 10/21/16? They very probably did not know what FBI planned to do.]

Surveillance on American Citizens


Carter Page's FISA

/Republican's attack prior to Horowitz Report/

Republican's attack and concern for Mueller on the alleged FISA abuse on Carter Page was not  -whether the FISA application was abused or not, because Mueller was not actually involved in that process. Their concern for Mueller was whether Mueller knew the role of the Steele Dossier in Carter Page's FISA application: ((Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, Guy Reschenthaler, William Steube)
  • When did Mueller become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page (William Steube) 
  • "the third FISA renewal happens a month after you’re named special counsel. What role did Mueller office play in the third FISA renewal of Carter Page.? 
However long time before the Mueller Report and Testimony, Republicans had started to attack Carter Page's FISA application was an abuse of FISA. The Nunes' memo was the focus on this aspect of the investigation by Republicans. Nunes memo (formally titled Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) was written by Nunes' staff on his behalf and was released to the public earlier last year. The memo alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "may have relied on politically motivated or questionable sources" to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant in 10/21/16 and in three subsequent renewals on Trump adviser Carter Page in the early phases of the FBI's investigation.

Republican legislators who favored public release of the memo argued that the memo presents evidence that a group of politically biased FBI employees abused the FISA warrant process for the purpose of undermining the Donald Trump presidency. They alleged that there was excessive and improper dependence on the Steele Dossier. Political allies of Donald Trump attempted to use the memo to pivot attention away from the Special Counsel investigation. Prior to release of the memo, news media reported that Trump told his associates that release of the memo would discredit the investigation, according to Wikipedia. A social media campaign, under the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo, emerged in mid-January 2018 to publicly release the memo despite some of its classified contents. Journalist and national security advocacy groups reported that Russian-linked bots on Twitter helped spread the controversial hashtag,according to Wikipedia. Trump approved release of the memo over the objections of the FBI and the U.S. Intelligence Community.

In response to Nunes' memo, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee drafted a classified ten-page rebuttal memo (Schiff memo) titled Correcting the Record -- The Russia Investigation, Washington Post provided the annotation on the rebuttal memo - Read the Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes memo, annotated. On 7/21/18,  Justice Department released heavily redacted versions of four FISA warrant applications for Carter Page, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from New York Times. The reactions from credible media generally discredited the Nunes memo. They generally concluded that accusations/assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading, corroborating the rebuttal memo. "FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign" - The rebuttal memo states. In fact, DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page. " "DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet probable cause requirement, by demonstrating:"
  • contemporaneous evidence of Russia's election interference
  • Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign 
  • Page's history with Russian intelligence 
  • Page's suspicious activities in Election year, including in Moscow
The Rebuttal Memo further emphasized that It was not the Steele Report that informed/triggered FBI's decision to launch the formal investigation into Russia-Trump. Nunes memo had drawn selectively on sensitive classified information that included other distortions and misrepresentations that are contradicted by the underlying classified documents [the heavily redacted versions of FISA warrant applications] which Nunes himself chose not to review it. The carter page FISA warrant was approved and later renewed four times by four different judges, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, weakening Nunes' claim of partisan bias. All four judges — Rosemary Collyer, Anne Conway, Raymond Dearie and Michael Mosman — were assigned to serve on the FISA court by Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative.

At the time of the first FISA application, Carter Page was no longer with the Trump campaign. Carter Page was under FBI's radar long before he joined Trump Campaign. He had been the target of recruitment by Russia Intelligence Agency since 2013. DOJ made only narrow use of information from Steele's sources about Page's specific activities in Election year, chiefly his suspected 7/8/16  meetings in Moscow with Russian officials [see Steele Dossier report 94 and report 134 or this post].

The FISA applications also rely on information from the US State Department, interviews Page had with the FBI, and multiple news articles outlining how Page reportedly pushed the Trump Campaign and Republican National Committee to soften its stance on Russia's activities in Ukraine.

The next table summarizes the rebuttal line by line in the Nunes memo, incorporating or citing analysis from credible media sources (see reference list)

Nunes Memo Democrat RebuttalMedia
overall: FISA application/renewal

---The initial warrant application and subsequent renewals received independent scrutiny and approval by four different federal judges

---FISA was not used to spy on Trump or his campaign. (Page was removed from Trump Campaign before DOJ applied for a warrant.

---DOJ's warrant request was based on compelling evidence and probable cause - the multi-pronged rationale for surveilling Page:

Carter Page's connection to Russia

The FBI had an independent basis for investigating Page's motivations and actions during the campaign, transition, and following the inauguration. As early as [redaction] a Russian intelligence officer targeted Page for recruitment. Page showed [Redaction]. Page remained on the radar of Russian intelligence and the FBI. FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian intelligence contacts. The concern about and knowledge of Page's activities therefore long predate the receipt of Steele's information.

Page's Suspicious Activity During The Campaign - It is in this subsection of the application Steele reporting was cited

Subsequent renewal-DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources [heavily redacted]

Carter Page's FISA warrant allowed FBI to gather valuable intelligence [heavily redacted]
The Dossier: (a) the application and renewal did not disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

Dossier: (b) The Dossier: The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actor were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of — and paid by — the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

Dossier: (c) Corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. While the FISA application relied on Steele's past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.		 DOJ's Transparency about Steele

DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele's background, credibility, and potential bias. While explaining why the FBI viewed Steele's reporting and sources as reliable and credible, DOJ also disclosed: Steele's prior relationship with the FBI; the fact of and reason for his termination as a source; and the assessed political motivation of those who hired him.

DOJ was transparent about Steele's sourcing

DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting U.S. citizen information by purposefully not "unmasking" US. person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject of a counterintelligence investigation. [Nunes had earlier accused Obama Administration officials of improper unmasking].

DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by politically-motivated U.S. persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use to discredit Trump's campaign. Contrary to the Nunes's assertion, in an extensive explanation to the Court, DOJ discloses that Steele "was approached by an identified US. Person, who indicated to Source #1[Steele] that a US.-based law firm had hired the identified US. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long standing business relationship.) The identified US. person hired Source #l to conduct this research. The identified U. S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1 's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U. S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate 1's campaign." {identified US person: Glen Simpson; US based law firm: Perkins Coie LLP}

DOJ explained the reasonable basis for finding Steele credible

The applications correctly described Steele as [redaction]. The applications also reviewed Steele's multi-year history of credible reporting on Russia and other matters, including information DOJ used in criminal proceedings. Senior FBI and DOJ officials have repeatedly affirmed to the Committee the reliability and credibility of Steele's reporting. FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele's reporting, including with regard to Page.

DOJ never paid Steele for the Dossier
Although FBI initially considered compensation [redaction], Steele ultimately never received payment from the FBI for
any dossier-related information. DOJ accurately informed the Court that Steele had been an FBI confidential human source since - [redaction], for which he was compensated information of value unrelated to the Russia investigation.

Page's Suspicious Activity During The Campaign - It is in this subsection of the application Steele reporting was cited [Steele report # 094 (7/19/16) alleged that during Carter page's 7/8/16 travel to Moscow for a Meeting (commencement ceremony at New Economic School) he met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin]
On Steele's Leak And Suspension: (a) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a 9/23/16 Yahoo News article. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News — and several other outlets — in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Steele should have been terminated for his undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September — before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October — but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.
(b) Steele's numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling — maintaining confidentiality — and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI. 		FBI properly notified the FISC after it terminated Steele as a source for making unauthorized disclosures to the media.

Nunes' memo cites no evidence that the FBI, actually knew of any allegedly inappropriate media contacts by Steele prior to the Application. Nor do they cite evidence that Steele disclosed to Yahoo! details included in the FISA warrant, since the British Court flings to which they refer do not address what Steele may have said to Yahoo.

DOJ informed the Court in its renewals that the FBI acted promptly to terminate Steele after learning from him (after DOJ filed the first warrant application) that he had discussed his work with a media outlet in late October. The January 2018 renewal further explained to the Court that Steele told the FBI that he made his unauthorized media disclosure because of his frustration at Director Comey's public announcement shortly before the election that the FBI reopened its investigation into candidate Clinton's email use.

DOJ made proper use of news coverage. In fact, DOJ referenced Yahoo news article, alongside another article Nunes failed to mention, not to provide separate corroboration for Steele's reporting, but instead to inform the Court of Page's public denial of his suspected meetings in Moscow.
Steele-Bruce Ohr contacts: In September, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then­-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files — but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
-----------------
Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research. The Ohrs' relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

 Nunes' reference to Bruce 0hr is misleading.
Nunes mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr's role, overstates the significance of his interactions with Steele, and misleads about the timeframe of Ohr's communication with the FBI. In late November 2016, 0hr informed the FBI of his prior professional relationship with Steele and information that Steele shared with him. He also described his wife's contract work with Fusion GPS. This occurred weeks before the election and more than a month before the Court approved the initial FISA application [10/21/16]. Nunes described Bruce 0hr as a senior DOJ official who worked closely with the Deputy Attorney General, Yates and later Rosenstein," in order to imply that Ohr was somehow involved in the process, but there is no indication this is the case. There is no evidence that he would have known about the Page FISA applications and their contents.

George Papadopoulos: The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos.

 DOJ appropriately provided the Court with a comprehensive explanation of Russia's election interference, including evidence that Russia courted another Trump campaign adviser, Papadopoulos. The Reason was to provide the Court with a broader context in which to evaluate Russia's clandestine activities and Page's history and alleged contact with Russian officials. no evidence of a separate conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos was required.

FBI Crossfire Investigation and Strzok/Lisa Page text messages: Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel's Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an "insurance" policy against President Trump's election.		Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages are irrelevant to the FISA application.
Nunes' gratuitously referenced Strzok and Page text messages in an effort to imply that political bias infected the FBI's investigation and FISA applications. In fact, neither Strzok nor Page served as affiants on the applications, which were the product of extensive and senior DOJ and FBI review. Strzok/Page text messages critiqued a wide range of other officials and candidates from both parties; Nunes did not disclose that FBI Deputy Director McCabe testified to the Committee that he had no idea what Page and Strzok were referring to in their "insurance policy" texts; Nunes ignored Strzok's acknowledged role in preparing a public declaration, by then Director Comey, about former Secretary Clinton's 'extreme carelessness' in handling classified information which greatly damaged Clinton's public reputation in the days just prior to the presidential election.

References on Carter Page FISA warrant: After Page FISA application doc (heavily redacted) was released to the Public
After Nunes memo made public
After Rebuttal memo made public

Carter Page's Prior Relationship With Another Government Agency - An Issue Brought By IG Horowitz's 12/9/19 Report

Context (timeline):
  • 7/5/16 Handling agent 1 received report 80, on 7/28/16 He shared report 80, 94 with ASAC 1 in NYFO 3 days prior to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. 
  • 7/31/16 FBI opened Russia election meddling investigation code named as Crossfire Hurricane
  • 8/10/16 FBI opened investigation on Carter Page, FBI first considered the possibility of seeking to obtain a FISA targeting Carter Page
  • 8/15/16 Case Agent 1 sent a written summary by email to the OGC Unit Chief describing Page's Russian business and financial ties, his prior contacts with known Russian intelligence officers, and his recent travel to Russia on 7/7/16-7/8/16)
  • 8/16/16 OGC unit chief emailed Stuart Evan (DAAG in NSD who oversight OI) to advise him of the possible FBI request for a FISA
  • 8/17/16 Another government agency (believed to be CIA) sent a memo to FBI, indicating Carter Page's prior relationship with them as an 'operational contact' from 2008 - 2013, in response to the Crossfire Hurricane team's prior Carter Page name trace request
  • 8/x/16 Page's statement to CHS which is in tension with Steele's report 95 FBI received subsequently (9/19/16) on allegation that Page was an intermediary of Manafort to conspire with Russia. 
  • 8/22/16 FISA application did not proceed. FBI OGC, OI or both believed that more evidence was needed to support probable cause. 
  • 9/19/16 Handling Agent 1 emailed SSA 1 six Steele's reports 80, 94, 95, 100, 101, 10_
  • 9/21/16 OGC Unit Chief contacted the NSD OI Unit Chief to advise him that FBI believed it was ready to submit a formal FISA request.
  • 9/28/16 OI  Attorney emailed Case Agent 1 a draft of the FISA application and inquire about the Page's status with another government agency. 
  • 9/29/16 In response, Case Agent 1 stated that Page's relationship was "dated" and "outside scope."
  • 10/early/16 shortly after Steele's early 'October Meeting' with FBI during which  FBI demanded 3 buckets of information to be provided exclusively to FBI. FBI also shared some Crossfire Hurricane investigation information with Steele. Steele furnished FBI via Handling Agent 1 another 7 reports 130, [redaction - might be report 111], 134, 135,  136,  redaction], [redaction] {According to Washington Post, the meeting was on 10/3/16, due to the fact that IG reported stated that the meeting was held in an European city] 
  • 10/21/16 FISA application filed and was granted on the same day. 
  • 11/22/16 post election, several third parties provided the FBI with additional Steele election reporting, FBI general counsel James Baker was furnished with 9 reports from a reporter (80, 94, 95, 97, 105, 111, 11_, 134, and 136) from Steele 3 of which FBI had not obtained before (97, 105, and 11_) 
  • 12/9/16 McCain furnished FBI with Steele Dossier (80, 86, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 10_, 105, 111, 11_, 113, 130, 134, 135, and 136.), 5 of which Steele had not given to FBI  -  86, 97, 105, 11_ and 113. 
  • 12/10/16 Steele gave Ohr the Steele Dossier - the same as what McCain obtained. except missing report 130. 
  • 1/10/17, BuzzFeed had obtained copies of some of the Steele election reports during a meeting with the McCain Institute staff member and published them. Included in this collection was Report 166, that previously had not been shared with the FBI. It was the  last report in the Dossier that FBI had not previously obtained. 
  • 1/12/17 first renewal application filed
  • 4/7/17 next renewal application filed
  • 4/x/17-5/x/17 Page disclosed to media his prior relationship with the other government agency
  • 5/17/17 Mueller took over the Crossfire Hurricane investigation
  • 6/15/17 - 6/19/17 The other government agency reminded the Crossfire Hurricane about Page's prior relationship with them. FBI OGC Attorney altered an email from the other agency.
    • 6/15/17 FBI OGC Attorney requested information about Page from Other U.S. government agency and was responded by email from the Liason from the other government agency the same day
    • 6/16/17,OGC Attorney forwarded to the OI Attorney the Liaison's 6/15/17 email response with no alteration.
    • 6/19/17,OGC Attorney provided SSA with inaccurate information - information that contradict to what the Liason told OIG that he provided or he is impossible to provide
      • Instant email exchanges betweedn OGC and SSA
      • The OGC Attorney sent SSA an Altered version of the Liaison's 6/15/17 email response
  • 6/29/17 third renewal application filed

Page's Prior Relationship With Another Government Agency - He was Approved as an "Operational Contact" from 2008 -2013

On or about 8/17/16, in response to the Crossfire Hurricane team's prior Carter Page name trace request, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior interactions with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow).

As described in the 8/17/16  Memorandum Page first met with the other agency in April 2008, after he left Moscow (Page had lived in Moscow prior to that). The memo detailed the information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russia intelligence officers. Specifically, Page provided information to the other agency in October 2010 about contacts he had with a Russian intelligence officer (Intelligence Officer 1), which the other agency assessed began in 2008. Page's contacts with Intelligence Officer 1 were among the historical connections to Russian intelligence officers that the FBI relied upon in the first FISA application and subsequent renewal applications. 8/17/16 Memorandum stated that Page told the other agency that he met with Intelligence Officer 1 four times, characterized him as a "compelling, nice guy," and described Intelligence Officer l's alleged interest in contacting an identified U.S. person.  According to the 8/17/16 Memorandum, the employee of the other U.S. government agency who met with Page assessed that Page "candidly described his contact with" Intelligence Officer 1. The other agency did not provide the FBI with information indicating it had knowledge of Page's reported contacts with another particular intelligence officer. The FBI also relied on Page's contact with this intelligence officer in the FISA application.

According to the U.S. government agency, "operational contact," as that term is used in the memorandum about Page, provides "Contact Approval," which allows the agency to contact and discuss sensitive information with a U.S. Person and to collect information from that person via "passive debriefing," or debriefing a person of information that is within the knowledge of an individual and has been acquired through the normal course of that individual's activities. According to the U.S. government agency, a "Contact Approval" does not allow for operational use of a U.S. Person or tasking of that person.

Page appeared to be targeted by Russia Intelligence for recruitment, according to Mueller Report.

FBI had information in its own files indicating that Page had told FBI about meeting with the other U.S. government agency after the period he lived in Moscow and during the period alleged in the FISA application. For example, according to the FBI Electronic Communication (EC) documenting a 6/18/09, FBI interview of Page, Page had informed the FBI agents that "due to his work and overseas experiences, he has been questioned by and provides information to representatives of the other U.S. government agency on an ongoing basis," and that the "interviewing agents acknowledged this fact, and stated to Page that no questions would be asked about Page's dealings with the other U.S. government agency during the interview." According to another FBI EC, Page told the FBI during a June 2013 interview that,  although he had not spoken to the other U.S. government agency for "about a year or so" Page had spoken to them "since his last interview with the FBI." The last contact occurred in 7/x/11.

Omission and Other Issues Regarding Page's Prior Relationship with Another Government Agency

On 8/10/16,  Case Agent 1 received an email, containing an attachment titled "Carter Page-Profile," which had been prepared by a Crossfire Hurricane Staff Operations Specialist (SOS). The profile, dated 8/1/16, quoted the 2009 EC regarding Page's statements to the FBI about his contact with
the other U.S. government agency. We did not find any electronic communications indicating that the FBI provided OI with this Carter Page profile.

On 9/28/16, the OI Attorney emailed Case Agent 1 a draft of the FISA application, In the comment, the OI Attorney asked "do we know if there is any truth to Page's claim that he has provided information to [another U.S. government agency]-was he considered a source/asset/whatever?" On 9/29/16, Case Agent 1 inserted the following comment in the draft: "He did meet with [the other U.S. government agency], however, it's dated and I would argue it was/is outside scope, I don't think we need it in. It was years ago, when he was in Moscow. If you want to keep it, I can get the language from the [August 17 Memorandum] we were provided [by the other U.S. government agency]."

According to IG Horowitz report, Case Agent 1 did not provide accurate and complete information to the OI Attorney concerning Page's relationship status with the other U.S. government agency. FBI did not disclose to OI or the FISC that
  • Page had been approved as an operational contact by the other agency during a five-year period that overlapped with allegations in the FISA application.
  • Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals.
  • The other agency's employee had given a positive assessment of Page's candor. 

IG Report further stated that "FBI also did not engage with the other U.S. government agency to understand what it meant for Page to have been approved as an operational contact, whether Page interacted with Russian intelligence officers at the behest of the other agency or with the intent to assist the U.S. government, and the breadth of the other agency's information concerning Page's interactions with Intelligence Officer 1."

The omissions were not brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application. None of the three renewal applications described Page's prior historical contacts and relationship with the other U.S. government agency. As a result, the Department officials who reviewed one or more of the applications did not have accurate and complete information at the time they proved the applications.

In April and May following news reports that the FBI had obtained a FISA targeting Carter Page, Page gave interviews to news outlets denying that he had collected intelligence for the Russian government and asserting instead that he had assisted the US intelligence community in the past and had shared information that he had learned with the USIC. One of the SSAs supervising Crossfire Hurricane sought additional information about the issue. who was to be the affiant for Renewal Application No. 3 and had been the affiant for the prior renewals, told us that he wanted a definitive answer to whether Page had ever been a source for another U.S. government agency before he signed the final renewal application, because he was concerned that Page could claim that he had been acting on behalf of the U.S. government when engaging with certain Russians. SSA told the OIG that this issue was very important to resolve, because if Page was being tasked by another agency, especially if he was being tasked to engage Russians, then it would absolutely be relevant for the Court to know ... [and] could also seriously impact the predication of our entire investigation which focused on [Page's] close and continuous contact with Russian/Russia-linked individuals. This led to interactions between the OGC Attorney assigned to Crossfire Hurricane and a liaison from the other U.S. government agency.

On 6/15/17, The OGC Attorney contacted the other U.S. government agency to seek clarification and additional information about Page's prior relationship with that other agency, and then communicated back to the OI Attorney and SSA. OGC Attorney emailed the liaison for the other U.S. government agency (Liaison): "We need some clarification on Carter Page. There is an indication that he may be a "[digraph]" source. This is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal (we would not name the [U.S. government agency] of course). ….. Source Check/Is Page a source in any capacity? If he is, what is a "[digraph]" source (or whatever type of source he is)?....." The Liaison told the OIG that the other U.S. government agency uses a specific designation, or digraph, to describe a U.S. person who has been approved by the other agency for operational contact.

The Liaison responded that same day by providing the OGC Attorney with a list of documents previously provided by the other agency to the FBI, including the 8/17/16 Memorandum. The liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison's recollection that Page had a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in 8/17/16 memo. As noted above, that 8/17/16 information stated that Page did, in fact, have a prior  relationship with that other agency and that the last contact occurred in 7/x/11.

In 6/15/17 response email, the Liaison also wrote that "the U.S. government agency uses the [digraph] to show that the encrypted individual...is a [U.S. person]. We encrypt the [U.S. persons] when they provide reporting to us. My recollection is that Page was or is ... [digraph] but the [documents] will explain the details. If you need a formal definition for the FISA, please let me know and we'll work up some language and get it cleared for use." {Hong Gan's note: this is all provided in the IG report for the quote of the email. It appears that the quote was incomplete. With ... between 'is' and '[digraph]', the location where OIG inserted word 'and not a source' after teh word ''[digraph]', it could not be known whether any text in the original email was omitted or not ib this '...' location}

That same day, the OGC Attorney forwarded the Liaison's email response to Case Agent 6 and an FBI SSA assigned to the Special Counsel's Office, without adding any explanation or comment. The next day (6/16/17) he also sent the Liaison's email response to OI without alteration.

On 6/19/17, immediately following a series of instant message exchange, SSA received an email from the 0GC Attorney that appeared to be forwarding [IG report indicated it was a forward, not the copy/paste of the 6/15/17 response email] the Liaison's 6/15/17 response email concerning Page's historical contact with the other U.S. government agency. However, the 0IG determined that this forwarded version of the Liaison's response email had been altered. Specifically, the words "and not a 'source'" had been inserted in the Liaison's 6/15/17 response after the word "[digraph]." Thus, the Liaison's email was altered to read: ."My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] '[digraph]' and not a 'source' but the [documents] will explain the details.". {Hong Gan's note: there is no '...' between 'is' and '[digraph]'. Instead it was replaced with the word '[sic]'.} The OGC Attorney also did not include in the email sent to SSA the initial email inquiry from the OGC Attorney to the Liaison about Page's status as a "[digraph] source". {Hong Gan's note: Liason, after being shown the altered email, said she would not have included the "not a 'source"' language in an email to the OGC Attorney because the Liaison's agency does "not call them sources." The Liaison added that the phrase "not a 'source"' is contradictory to the term [digraph], because [digraph] indicates that the person is providing information to the Liaison's agency.}

However, the email the OGC Attorney sent to SSA did include header information from the 6/16/17 email sent by the OGC Attorney to the OI Attorney, reflecting that the OI Attorney had been provided the Liaison's response email. It therefore appeared that SSA and the OI Attorney had received the same information about Page's past status with the U.S. government agency. However, as described above, the email the OGC Attorney sent to the OI attorney did not contain the altered text that was included in the email that the OGC Attorney sent to SSA.

Relying upon this altered email, that SSA signed the third renewal application. As a result, similar to the first application, the Department officials who reviewed one or more of the renewal applications, did not have that information at the time they approved them. {Hong Gan's note: the 6/15/17 response email OGC sent to OI was not altered and OI also has a central role in the reveiw and approval process of the FISA application. However, it appeared that the difference in the liason's 6/15/17 response email OI and SSA received were not discovered. And OI's version (unaltered) of 6/15/17 email did not reach the Department leaders who ultimately approved the last renewal application. It seemed OI had discussed with OGC and agreed they do not need to address it in the FISA. [see quote of 6/19/17 instant message exchange betweeen OGC and SSA next and in OIG's reply to SSA's 6/19/17 email response "Yes. I actually already did on Friday when [the OI Attorney] said we're good to go."] }

According to IG Horowtiz report, it appeared that OGC got the impression that Page was not a 'source' for the other government agency, althought his accounts to the OIG contradicted with that of the Liason, althought they might not hold the same intepretation for the term[digraph] becasue he told OIG that he "didn't know the details of...the content of the [documents] in Liason's 6/15/17 email" and did not think he was involved in reviewing them. He also said he "didn't have access to the [documents] in the OGC space," but that the investigative team was provided the list of documents and that they would have been reviewing them.

So his impression Page was not a 'source' might came from Liason's response email and their telephone communication. In the instant message OGC Attorney sent to his supervisor, the OGC Unit Chief, he stated that Carter Page was a "U.S. subsource of a source" and that "[digraph]=encrypted USPER." [ie.encrypted US Person] The OGC Attorney said he understood the Liaison's response to mean that Page had not been a sourcewhich the OGC Attorney described as a "recruited asset"-but rather someone who had some interaction with a source for the other U.S. government agency, and not a direct relationship with the other agency. He stated his understanding was that the other U.S. government agency identified that [Page] was ["digraph"], and ["digraph"] refers to a U.S. person ... who's incidentally picked up ... [in] reporting out from a source of theirs. The OGC Attorney told us that- his belief that Page had never been a source for the other U.S. government agency, but instead interacted with a source-was based on telephone conversations with the Liaison. {Hong Gan's note: The Liaison told OIG that she did not recall having any telephone discussions with the OGC Attorney on this issue.}

In his 6/19/17 instant message exchange with SSA, the OGC further expressed his this impressioin [quote] " "[digraph]=Masked USPER." "So, essentially, the real...source was using [Carter Page] as a sub-source" "[Carter Page] was never a source." [SSA asked "You mean the [agency] officer?"] ""Right. Whomever generated the reporting from the [documents]." "It was just liaison with [Carter Page] which resulted in reporting, eventually they closed it out as unhelpful." "So, in discussing with [OI Attorney], he agreed we do not need to address it in the FISA." "[OI Attorney] is always Eeyore in drafting these special FISA applications." "And yes, [the other agency] confirmed explicitly he was never a source." {Hong Gan's note: The OGC Attorney explained that his statement was just "shorthand" for the information provided by the other agency about Page and that he had no particular reason to use the word "explicitly." When OI and the Liason were shown these exchanges, The OI Attorney told OIG that the OGC Attorney's description of Page as a sub-source did not sound familiar to him. Liason told OIG that "I have no recollection of there being any basis for [the OGC Attorney] to reach that conclusion, and it is directly contradicted by the documents."... "to the best of the Liaison's recollection, he did not and would not have characterized the status of a "[digraph]" without either first reaching out to the other agency's experts responsible for the underlying reporting, or relying on the proper supporting documentation for an answer"}

When being asked about the alteration in the email he sent to SSA, the OGC initially stated that he was not certain how the alteration occurred, but subsequently acknowledged that he made the change. He also stated it was consistent with his impression of the information that he had been provided by the Liaison.

The Controversy On The Source Characterization Statement - An issue brought by IG Horowitz Report

Context
The context was provided on the relevant section on Steele's credibility issue - Steele's prior reporting history
Source Characterization Statement [move summarized text only relevant here]

The Reliability of Steele's Source Network - An Issue Brought By IG Horowitz 

Context

The context was provided on the relevant section on Steele's credibility - Steele's source network

The contents of Steele's reporting which constitute the probable cause in FISA -
The Role of the Steele Election Reporting in the Applications

OGC Unit Chief said that it was the Steele reporting received in 9/19/16, concerning Page's alleged activities with Russian officials in the summer of the Election year, that "pushed it over" the line in terms of establishing probable cause. According to IG report, Reports 80, 94, 95, and 10_ supported the probable cause. Only report 94 was all about Page (the alleged secrete meeting and substance of the meeting with Sechin and another Russia officer during the course of his 7//7/16-7/8/16 trip to Moscow). There was no Carter Page anywhere in Report 80, according to IG report, he appeared to indicate that Clinton Dossier allegation had something to do with Carter Page. But that was not the case. Nowhere in report 80 has a mention of Carter Page. Among the 6 allegations in report 80, allegation 5 and 6 was about Clinton Dossier. But no Carter Page was mentioned. Only one sentence saying that "The dossier however had not as yet been made available abroad, including to TRUMP or his campaign team." But Trump Campaign was a very general term including many of other Trump Campaign members.

Among the 6 allegations in report 95, only allegation 1 has a mention of Carter Page. Carter Page was not the focus of that allegation. Instead Manafort was. Here was the quote without omission of allegation 1 in report 95 "Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared." Here Carter Page was not alone, the phrase was "Carter page and others". It was a general allegation again about Trump Campaign.

Report 95, allegation x alleged that "...… in return , the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russia intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and ……"  Again here, no Carter Page was mentioned but the general term 'Trump team'. IG report stated that Page was wrongly accused/alleged of  working behind the scenes to change the Republican Party's platform on providing weapons to Ukraine. The Crossfire Hurricane team did not learn of any information that Page was involved in the platform change and instead developed evidence tending to show that other Trump campaign officials were responsible for the change. But in Steele's report 95, Nowhere Page was implicated as the one who sidelined Russia intervention in Ukraine.

In report 10_, one of the 3 allegations had a mention of Carter Page. Allegation 1 stated that "TRUMP's associate reported that the aim of leaking the DNC e-mails to WikiLeaks during the Democratic Convention had been to swing supporters of Bernie SANDERS away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP......This objective had been conceived and promoted, inter alia, by TRUMP's foreign policy adviser Carter PAGE."

{Hong Gan's note: Steele Dossier contain 16 reports, each with 3-6 allegations. Most reports have or have more than 5 allegations. This does not include the last repot 166 (12/13/16) which was coming out after the Election day. }

[summarize other themes (or elements) that constituted the probable cause]

[add 134 allegations though it was listed in the probable cause) and the involvement of Steele's source  (Primary sub-source and Person 1) in allegations on Carter Page.]

Summary

Summary was written in the IG Report Section with an initial comment, followed by a review of the IG Horowitz 12/9/19 report's Executive Summary and then the section on 'Remaining Issues Brought By Horowitz 12/9/19 Report' where the discussion and refutations were based on scientific theories.



Surveillance on Other Individual - (Jim Jordan)
  • Eric Prince (Devine Nunes)
  • Papadopoulos (Jim Jordan)

Eric Prince

Devine Nunes questioned about the Erik Prince's [Trump side] Seychelles meeting with Kirill Dmitriev [Russia side] during Transition Period [go to this section of this post; or Relevant area in Mueller Report]. "So Erik Prince testified before this Committee that he was surveilled by the U.S. government and the information from the surveillance was leaked to the press. Did you investigate whether Prince was surveilled and whether classified information on him was illegally leaked to the media?" "were you aware that Prince has made these allegations that he was surveilled. He’s concerned that there were leaks about this surveillance. Did you make any referrals about these...?" [Mueller declined to answer these questions]

According to Mueller Report, Erik Prince is a businessman and a Trump Campaign supporter who had relationships with various Campaign Associates, including Steve Bannon, Donald Trump Jr., and Roger Stone. He did not have a formal role in the Campaign. After the election, Prince frequently visited transition offices, primarily to meet with Bannon but on occasion to meet Michael Flynn and others. [Redaction] Nader [Redaction] received assurances that the incoming Administration considered Prince a trusted associate. According to Wikipedia, Eric Prince was also former U.S. Navy SEAL officer and founder of the government services and security company Blackwater USA, now known as Academi.

After Blackwater faced mounting legal problems in the United States, Prince was hired by the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and moved to Abu Dhabi. Prince was no stranger to the Emiratis. He had known bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of the UAE a decade ago. He had assembled an 800-member troop of foreign troops for the U.A.E. An Intercept.com report described a story about How Erik Prince - the Complete Mercenary used the Trump for an improbable comeback.

Mueller Report depicted the Seychelles Meeting between Eric Prince and Kirill Dmitriev on 1/12/17 as Russia's effort to reach out to the Trump Incoming Administration. Kirill Dmitriev is a Russian national who is CEO of - the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF),and is closely connected to Putin. Dmitriev regularly interacted with Nader (who had acted as the intermediary) in connection with RDIF's dealings with the UAE. Putin wanted Dmitriev to be in charge of both the financial and the political relationship between Russia and the Gulf states, because he was educated in the West and spoke English fluently.

On the 1/12/17 Seychelles meeting, Prince described the eight years of the Obama Administration in negative terms, and stated that he was looking forward to a new era of cooperation and conflict resolution. He told Dmitriev that Bannon was effective if not conventional, and that Prince provided policy papers to Bannon.

Prince’s meeting with Dimitriev had drawn intense attention from Congress, the Mueller investigation, and the Press. Prince denied in his 11/30/17 House Intelligence Committee testimony that he had represented the Trump transition or that the Seychelles meeting involved any back-channel - an assertion by Democrats and the Washington Post (4/3/17 report). The testimony contradicts the Post report, quoting unidentified U.S., European, and Arab officials as saying Prince was working unofficially for Trump to create a back channel to Russia.

According to Washington Post report (3/7/18), Prince told lawmakers — and the news media — that his Seychelles meeting with Kirill Dmitriev was an unplanned, unimportant encounter that came about by chance because he happened to be at a luxury hotel in the Indian Ocean island nation with officials from the United Arab Emirates. Prince also stated that he had no formal communications or contact, nor any unofficial role, with the Trump campaign although later in 5/19/18 NYTime reported that Prince arranged an 8/x/16 meeting in Trump Tower, attended by himself, Donald Trump, Jr., George Nader and Joel Zamel, during which Nader reportedly told Trump Jr. the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE were eager to help his father win the election. A criminal referral for perjury was made to the Justice Department after Prince’s testimony on 11/30/17. This Washington post report (4/30/19)  reiterated Prince’s testimony to be contradict with Mueller’s findings after Mueller report was made public.

In his 11/30/17 Congress testimony, Erik Prince was accusing Obama administration officials of illegally ordering electronic surveillance of him during The Seychelles Meeting. When pressed by committee members as to how he knows his meeting was secretly monitored, Prince said: "Well unless the Washington Post has somehow miraculously recruited the bartender of a hotel in the Seychelles, the only way that's happening is through Sigint"—intelligence jargon for electronic signals intelligence. During the hearing, Prince testified that the only way the Post article (4/3/17)could have been produced was through leaks of secret intelligence intercepts provided to the reporters from someone in government. Prince said he has seen a number of reports that the disclosures came from "members of the Obama National Security Council."

Mueller report did not appear to explicitly conclude that the pre-arranged Seychelles meeting was the attempt to establish a backchannel between Russia and the Incoming Trump Administration, although the meeting was planned in advance. A significant amount of information on this topic were redacted due to either investigative techniques or harmful to ongoing matters (HOM). This area of the Report was based largely and mainly on the interview notes of Nader, Bannon, Prince, and text messages between Nader and Dimitreiv, Nader and Prince. Nowhere in this section did Mueller mention that his findings on this topic was based on any leaked information (from media reports) as a result of surveillance. (Mueller declined to answer Nunes' question). In addition, the post - Seychelles Meeting contacts between Prince and Bannon - the email exchanges were all deleted. Both Prince and Bannon told the Mueller office that they did not know how those emails (spans about 3 months of communication) were gone. These facts cast doubt on the Prince’s notion that his Seychelle meeting with Dimitriev was not part of Russia's effort to establish a backchannel communication.

Republican’s contention point also does not appear to be whether Prince-Dimetriev‘s Seychelles meeting was a backchannel attempt of communication with Russia. Republcian was concerned with the alleged surveillance on Prince and questioned whether Mueller was aware of these allegations, whether Mueller investigated them and whether the leak of alleged surveillance (to Washington post) was illegal or not and whether there were classified information was leaked. A TMP report said that Prince had been effectively blacklisted by the Obama Administration post-Blackwater scandal. A TMP (Talking point memo) opinion report titled as - we need to keep a close eye on Prince-, alleging that Prince had attempted to pitch Trump administration to build a private spy network that can go around the intelligence community whom Trump had believed was his deep state enemies to undermine his presidency. Whether Eric Prince was surveilled by Obama administration was not very clear though Prince insisted it in his testimony and stated his reasoning, No media reports had conclusively asserted or confirmed Prince’s belief. Mueller investigation was authorized  to focus on fact finding about Election Meddling and The alleged Collusion , not to make judgment whether a private citizen should or should not be surveilled no matter what background that private citizen had that could justify such surveillance.

Papadopoulos
Jim Jordon questioned: "not FISA but human source , "names such as Halper, Downer, Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places. The FBI even sent -- even sent a lady posing as somebody else, went by the name Azmi Turk, even dispatched her to London to spy on Mr. Papadopoulos." Discussion on Papadopoulos, go to this section

CIA and ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment)


Stefanik questioned Mueller whether he was permitted to access or review the relevant documents and information related to the opening of the CIA investigation. (Mueller did not get into this question and declined to answer the question).

This is a brief timeline on CIA and USIC (U.S. Intelligence Community)'s role and assessment on Russia's Meddling In the Election
  • 5/18/16: Politico report that DNI James Clapper: Cyber threats against presidential campaigns are growing
  • 7/31/16 Crossfire Hurricane was launched; Strzok oversaw this Trump-Russia investigation; within few hours or on 8/1/16, Strzok interviewed Alexander Downer in London [a specific timeline for Strzok's involvement in the origin of the Russia investigation was constructed from his text message in the Section defending the accusation on Mueller Team's bias by Republican]
  • 8/early/16 CIA director John Brennan informed Obama informs the Obama White House about intelligence showing a coordinated effort by Russia to undermine the election. 
  • 8/mid/16 Brennan shared his intelligence with Comey
  • 8/x/16 Robert Hunnigan Briefed John Brennan on the interception of streams of illicit communication between Trump and Russia.
  • 9/5/16 Obama warned Putin about Meddling on G-20 summit
  • 9/early/16 Obama tried to have Congress Gang of Eight to sign/issue a nonpartisan joint statement condemning Russia's meddling in the Election to alert the Public. But the attempt was blocked by Mitch McConnell
  • 9/22/16 Joint Statement from Congress
  • 9/late/16 USIC reached agreement in Russia Election Meddling
  • 10/7/16: Joint Statement (DHS and DNI)
  • 12/29/16: Obama sanctioned Russia for Election Meddling
  • 12/29/16: Joint Analysis Report (JAR) (FBI and DHS) - GRIZZLY STEPPE
  • 1/6/17: A declassified version of The ICA report on "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" was released to the Public.
  • 3/20/17 Comey testified before Congress
  • 5/7/17 Comey was fired
  • 5/17/17 Mueller was appointed as special counsel
  • 5/23/17: John Brennan testified before Congress
Obama administration was first informed and alerted about Russia Interference in the Election by CIA. In early August, CIA director delivered a sensitive package of intelligence to the Obama White House. The material (intelligence) was so sensitive that CIA Director John Brennan kept it out of the President’s Daily Brief. The CIA package came with instructions that it be returned immediately after it was read. It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view. Only until 1/6/17 public was told what was the intelligence Obama administration officials had learned from Brennan in August in a declassified version of the report. - Putin ordered campaign to elect Trump. The intelligence on Putin was extraordinary on multiple levels, including as a feat of espionage.

In August, Brennan received intelligence from GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan - a British Signal Intelligence Gathering Agency about the intercepted streams of illicit communication between Trump and Russia. Government Communications Headquarters, commonly known as GCHQ, is an intelligence and security organization responsible for providing signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance to the government and armed forces of the United Kingdom. According to a 3/5/18 Business insider report - British intelligence reportedly told the CIA months before the election that Trump's campaign had illicit contacts with Russia.

According to a 4/13/17 Guardian report, GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information. ver the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – included Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, Dutch and France. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US.

In Mid August, John Brennan shared intelligence with FBI director Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election. Intelligence agencies began collaborating to investigate that operation. The Crossfire Hurricane team (since 7/31/16) was part of that group but largely operated independently.

Throughout Summer, Officials at the State Department and FBI became alarmed by an unusual spike in requests from Russia for temporary visas for officials with technical skills seeking permission to enter the United States for short-term assignments at Russian facilities. At the FBI’s behest, the State Department delayed approving the visas until after the election. Meanwhile, the FBI was tracking a flurry of hacking activity against U.S. political parties, think tanks and other targets.

John Brennan (CIA director) convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI. The unit functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the intelligence community. The task force gave directions to teams of specialists in CIA, NSA, FBI on where to aim their subsequent efforts to collect more intelligence on Russia, and to brief Obama Administrations.

Despite the intelligence the CIA had produced, other agencies were slower to endorse a conclusion that Putin was personally directing the operation. Some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country. Because of the source of the material, the NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence.

Over that five-month interval [8/early/16 - 1/6/17], Obama administration had secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia. In August, Obama instructed aides to pursue ways to deter Moscow and proceed along three main paths: Get a high-confidence assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies; shore up any vulnerabilities in state-run election systems [Jeh Johnson -DHS secretary was responsible for this] and seek nonpartisan support from congressional leaders for a statement condemning Moscow. The administration encountered obstacles at every turn.

Brennan moved swiftly to schedule private briefings with congressional leaders who encountered resistance initially. It was not until after Labor Day that Brennan had reached all members of the “Gang of Eight”. The F.B.I., the N.S.A. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also held a classified briefing on 9/6/16 for congressional staff members. 9/22/16 Congress published a joint statement.

On a 9/5/16 G-20 summit Obama reportedly warned Putin, “Better stop". But Obama and his top advisers did not want to take any action against Russia that might provoke a cyber war. Because it was so close to the election, they were wary about doing anything that could be construed as a ploy to help Clinton. In early September,[according to New Yorker 3/5/18 report], Obama tried to get congressional leaders to issue a nonpartisan statement condemning Russia’s meddling in the election. He reasoned that if both parties signed on the statement couldn’t be attacked as political. The intelligence community had recently informed the Gang of Eight—that Russia was meddling the Election. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed skepticism about the Russians’ role, and refused to sign the statement. After that, Obama, instead of issuing a statement himself, said nothing.

Spy agency consensus grows that Russia hacked D.N.C. When U.S. spy agencies reached unanimous agreement in late September that the interference was a Russian operation directed by Putin, Obama directed spy chiefs to prepare a public statement (10/7/16 joint statement)summarizing the intelligence. With Obama still determined to avoid any appearance of politics, the statement would not carry his signature.

On 10/7/16: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) published a joint statement asserting that The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The statement was issued around 3:30 p.m., timed for maximum media coverage. However, it was quickly drowned out. At 4 p.m., The Post published a story about crude comments Trump had made about women that were captured on an “Access Hollywood” tape. Half an hour later, WikiLeaks published stolen John Podesta email.

On 12/29/16 DHS and FBI published a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) code named as GRIZZLY STEPPE - Russian Malicious Cyber Activity. Its analysis and determination expands upon the 10/7/16 Joint Statement from DHS and DNI. The JAR provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the USIC, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities.

In late December, Obama approved a modest package to punish Russia - expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of Russian compounds — with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.

On 1/6/17 The ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) report on Russia Meddling was declassified and the declassified version of the report was released to the Public. Declassified report says Putin ‘ordered’ effort to Influence US Election - undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump and New York Times 1/6/17 report - What Intelligence Agencies Concluded About the Russian Attack on the U.S. Election 5/23/17 John Brennan testified before Congress - Former CIA Director Tells Lawmakers About 'Very Aggressive' Russian Election Meddling (NPR report).

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among CIA, FBI and NSA which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. The conclusions are identical to the highly classified version, but the declassified version does not include the full supporting information. Minor edits was made purely to enhance readability and flow. An assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the Election was not made. The assessment relied on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our's. Some of the judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlin-loyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin.

The ICA report concluded that Russian Election year activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations, representing Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order. "We assess that Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments." (CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.). "Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals."

"Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”" We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks." [quote ICA report] "Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying." [quote ICA report] "We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes."


Inspector General (IG) Michael E. Horowitz Report

DOJ Inspector General's 6/16/18 Report - A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the Election was not about FBI and DOJ's handling on Russia-Trump Investigation. The report was about investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. I wrote a Clinton investigation timeline and summary as the background and context for the topic - Trump Campaign's Efforts to Obtain Deleted Clinton Emails - in the Mueller Report which is one of the posts categorized as post-Mueller Russia Collusion Analysis.

DOJ Inspector General released the redacted version of his report - Review of Four FISA  Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation on 12/9/19.

[Hong Gan's comment]

I haven't read it. I am not going to read this report as fast as I read Mueller's report. I am going to write a summary of this report extracting information from the Executive Summary of the report. My current knowledge about this report was from media introduction. The report justified FBI's Russia probe, stating that there was no political bias on the origination of the probe. The report found FBI had some errors on handling one of the Trump Campaign's surveillance. The report calls on reform on the FISA rules. That was about what I could find out about the report from the media.

But I personally was not a worrier about the FISA rules, because I personally always believed over-protection of personal liberty would become a barrier whenever crisis concerning national security arises. Overprotection of personal liberty would always unfavorable for the government to take swift and aggressive measure to efficiently counter crisis concerning national security. The same theory and same crime control model applies to the crisis of national security, the cyber offensive intrusion from hostile foreigner. The more protection on personal liberty, the less efficiency in crime control. (in the Russia  case, is the less effectiveness and efficiency in counter acting Russia intrusion).

In reality, in some foreign countries, the public just takes it for granted that the government is/was authorized to surveil private citizen for investigating or counteracting foreign threats. The same we take it for granted in our norm and in our country, that we can criticize, protest our government, including Trump without being worried that we would be arrested and jailed with intent to subvert the government.

Last word about Cater Page, why Russia long time ago started to try to recruit him?  Mueller report stated the reason. In a recorded conversation on 4/8/13, Podobnyy (the Russia agent who tried to recruit Page) told the other intelligence officer that his method of recruiting foreign sources was to promise them favors and then discard them once he obtained relevant information from them. So Carter Page was chosen because Russia believed he can be cracked down through promising him favors. They can't knock down Christopher Steele. But they believed Page is a possible candidate. An individual of such quality, if his personal liberty and privacy was violated, then what about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page email communication and privacy. FBI disclosed all of their email exchanges which they had never intended to publish. Those emails were disclosed after 3 years. At the time of their writing, Peter Strzok had never intended to leak them and to influence the Election.

The Executive Summary of IG 12/9/19 Report
  • The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane and Four Related Investigations, and Early Investigative Steps (7/31/16-10/21/16)
  • The FBI's Relationship with Christopher Steele, and Its Receipt and Evaluation of His Election Reporting before the First FISA Application (-10/21/16)
  • The First Application for FISA Authority on Carter Page (10/21/16)
  • FBI Activities After the First FISA Application and FBI Efforts to Assess Steele's Election Reporting (10/21/16-)
  • The Three Renewal Applications for Continued FISA Authority on Carter Page
  • Conclusions Concerning All Four FISA Applications
  • Issues Relating to Department Attorney Bruce Ohr
  • The Use of Confidential Sources (Other Than Steele) and Undercover Employees
  • Recommendations
The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane and Four Related Investigations, and Early Investigative Steps (7/31/16-10/21/16)

The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane and Four Individual Cases 

All of the investigative actions taken by the Crossfire Hurricane team, from the date the case was opened on July 31 until October 21 (the date of the first FISA order) would have been permitted whether the case was opened as a Preliminary or Full Investigation.  FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting {Hong Gan's note: here FFG refers to Australia government's tip from Alexander Downer - the predicate for opening a full investigation}. Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening. The Crossfire Hurricane team opened individual cases in August on four U.S. persons Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn. Under the AG Guidelines (Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic Operations) and the DIOG (FBI's Domestic Investigations Operations Guide), the FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or protect against, a national security threat or federal crime, even though the investigation also had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity. We concluded that the FFG information - which provided an articulable factual basis - was sufficient to predicate the investigation. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced CD Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director (AD) Priestap's decision to approve the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

Sensitive Investigative Matter Designation(SIM)

The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was properly designated as a "sensitive investigative matter," or SIM, by the FBI. We concluded that the FBI satisfied the DIOG's approval and notification requirements for SIMs. [We were concerned that] Department and FBI policies do not require that a senior Department official be notified prior to the opening of a particularly sensitive case such as this one.

Early Investigative Steps and Adherence to the Least Intrusive Method

Immediately after opening the investigation, each of these steps FBI taken is authorized under the DIOG and was a less intrusive investigative technique - name trace request, database (law enforcement and CHS - confidential human source) and open source searches, Strzok's interview of FFG diplomat abroad. Thereafter, the Crossfire Hurricane team used more intrusive techniques -  including CHS's monitoring activities. We found that, under Department and FBI policy, the CHS operations were permitted, although first amendment protection was implicated. We determined that the CHS operations received the necessary FBI approvals and review beyond a first-level FBI supervisor was not required by Department or FBI policy. [We found it concerning that] Department and FBI policy did not require the FBI to consult with any Department official in advance of conducting CHS operations involving advisors to a major party candidate's presidential campaign. [FBI did not consult with any Department officials.] In addition, FBI ultimately did not seek a FISA order - the most sensitive and intrusive investigative techniques - at that time {Hong Gan's note: that time - is between August when Carter Page investigation was initiated and 9/19/16 Steele report's allegation on Page}.

The FBI's Relationship with Christopher Steele, and Its Receipt and Evaluation of His Election Reporting before the First FISA Application

Steele is a former British M 16 intelligence officer who is responsible for the Russia desk. In 2013, the FBI completed the paperwork allowing the FBI to designate Steele as a CHS. FBI formally closing Steele as a CHS in November 2016, although FBI continued its relationship with Steele through Ohr. In June 2016, Steele and his firm was hired by Fusion GPS to continue the opposition research on Trump. Steele's work resulted in his producing many reports collectively known as the "Steele Dossier." The Crossfire Hurricane team received the first six reports on 9/19/16.

FBI's Efforts to Evaluate the Steele Reporting

The fact that the FBI believed Steele had been retained to conduct political opposition research did not require the FBI, under either DOJ or FBI policy, to ignore his reporting. After receiving Steele's reporting, the Crossfire Hurricane team began assess those information in earnest. FBI's decision to receive Steele's information for Crossfire Hurricane was based on multiple factors,  including his history of professionalism, his expertise on Russia, his record as an FBI CHS, his reliability in providing helpful information in the past; and most relevantly, the consistency in the themes of Steele's reporting with FBI's knowledge at the time of Russian efforts to interfere in the Election. {Hong Gan's note: I changed the 'however' paragraph in the Exec Summary to the word 'controversy'} . [However, it is controversial that] FBI failed to reassess the Steele reporting relied upon in the FISA applications, and did not fully advise NSD or OI officials. [We also found that] the FBI did not aggressively seek to obtain certain potentially important information from Steele. FBI did not press Steele for information about the actual funding source for his election reporting work.{Hong Gan's note: Steele actually was not aware of the ultimate funding source of his research.} Agents also did not question Steele about his role in a 9/23/16 Yahoo News article.{Hong Gan's note: 9/23/16 report revealed the allegations on Carter Page - almost same or very similar to the Steele's 7/19/16 report (report# 94) on allegations about Carter Page. Steele was not named as the source of the yahoo report, he was attacked on the issue of leak because of the similarity or sameness of his reporting and yahoo's.}

The First Application for FISA Authority on Carter Page (10/21/16)

Decision to Seek FISA Authority

When the Crossfire Hurricane team first sought to pursue a FISA order for Page in August, a decision was made by Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of Intelligence (OI), or both that more information was needed. As a result, FBI OGC ceased discussions with OI about a Page FISA order at that time. On 9/19/16 the same day that Crossfire Hurricane team first received Steele's reporting, the team contacted FBI OGC again about seeking a FISA order for Page. on 9/21/16, the FBI OGC Unit Chief contacted the National Security Division (NSD) OI Unit Chief to advise him that the FBI believed it was ready to submit a formal FISA request to OI relating to Page. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.

Preparation and Review Process

On or about 9/23/16, the OI Attorney began work on the FISA application. The draft application used information principally provided by the FBI case agent assigned to the Carter Page investigation at the time and, in a few instances, by an OGC attorney or other Crossfire Hurricane team members. The application's statement of facts supporting probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of Russia contained five elements:
  • The efforts of Russian to influence the upcoming election
  • Russian's attempted coordination with Trump Campaign, based on the FFG information
  • Page's historical connections to Russia and RIS
  • Page's alleged coordination with the Russian from Steele's reporting
  • Page's statements to an FBI CHS in 10/x/16 that that he had an "open checkbook" from certain Russians to fund a think tank project.
In addition, the statement of facts described Page's denials of coordination with the Russian. The application received the necessary Department approvals and certifications. This application received more attention and scrutiny than a typical FISA application in terms of the additional layers of review and number of high-level officials who read the application before it was signed.

Role of Steele Election Reporting in the First Application

The application relied entirely on the following information from Steele Reports in support of only one of the five elements described above - Page's alleged coordination activities with the Russian in the Election year.
  • Clinton Dossier (report 80) {Hong Gan's note: nowhere in report 80 has a mention of Carter Page. Among the 6 allegations in report 80, allegation 5 and 6 was about Clinton Dossier. But no Carter Page was mentioned. Only one sentence saying that "The dossier however had not as yet been made available abroad, including to TRUMP or his campaign team." But Trump Campaign was a very general term including many of other Trump Campaign members}
  • Page's July Trip to Moscow (report 94)
  • Alleged conspiracy between Trump Campaign and Russia (Manafort and Page) (report 95)
  • Hacking and Dumping operation - whose aim had been conceived and promoted by PAGE (report 10_)
{Hong Gan's note: how Steele reporting exactly stated these allegations, refer to Steele report or this post}

[We determined that] the FBI's decision to rely upon Steele's reporting to help establish probable cause that Page was an agent of Russia was a judgment reached initially by the case agents; and FBI officials at every level concurred with this judgment. According to McCabe, the FBI "felt strongly" that the FISA application should move forward because the team believed they had to get to the bottom of what they considered to be a potentially serious threat to national security, even if the FBI would later be criticized for taking such action because of the concerns expressed by Stuart Evans. McCabe and others discussed the FBI's position with NSD and ODAG officials, and these officials accepted the FBI's decision.

FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele's reporting. OGC and NSD attorneys told us [IG office] that FBI's "Woods Procedures" require only that the agent verify, with supporting documentation, that the application accurately reflects what the CHS told the FBI. The procedures do not require that the agent corroborate, through independent source, that what the CHS told the FBI is true. However, it was particularly important for the FISA applications to articulate the FBI's knowledge of Steele's background and its assessment of his reliability. The
applications advised the court that Steele was believed to be a reliable source for three reasons.

The FISA application also included information on who hired Steele and what the research was about in response to the concerns of potential political bias of Steele's research expressed by Evans and on FBI's speculation that the identified U.S. person [Glen Simpson] may be looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate 1 [Trump].

Relevant Information Inaccurately Stated, Omitted, or Undocumented in the First Application

{Hong Gan's note: the content in this subsection is not consistent with the theme in my Comment Section (my personal view) at the beginning of the review on IG's 12/9/19 report. The mere purpose to include and summarize it is to make the Exec Summary of IG' report an integral part without the purposeful 'omission'}

We IG office] identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation. The problems were primarily caused by the Crossfire Hurricane team's failure to share All relevant information with OI and, consequently, the information was not considered by the Department decision makers who
ultimately decided to support the applications. Inaccuracies and omissions in the first application (10/21/16) included:

  • Omitted information that Page's Prior relationship with another U.S. government agency as an "operational contact" from 2008 to 2013
  • The assertion that 'Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures
  • Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, Steele sub-source {Hong Gan's note: Person 1 is Source E or Source D in Steele Dossier and Source D/E might be Sergei Millian who or whose associate was the source for report 80 (partial), 95, 10_, see this post for reference} 
  • The premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File-Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department.
  • {Hong Gan's note: the CHS in the next three omissions might be Halper}
    • 9/15/16 Omitted that Papadopoulos denied that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with WikiLeaks.
    • 8/20/16 Omitted Page's statement that Page had " literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails. {Hong Gan's note: Manafort was the one alleged in Steele report who colluded with Russia. Page was alleged to be Manafort's associate in the conspiracy theory}
    • 10/x/16 Included Page's statements FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin. {Hong Gan's note: Sechin and Divyekin are the Russia contacts alleged in Steele report 95, 134 whom Page secretly met during his July Trip to Moscow}
None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application (6/16/17). Omission of Page's prior relationship with the other U.S. government agency was particularly concerning. We found no evidence that the OI Attorney, NSD supervisors, ODAG officials, or Yates were made aware of these issues before the first application was submitted to the court. we also found no evidence that Comey had been made aware of these issues at the time he certified the application. Multiple factors made it difficult for us [IG office] to precisely determine the extent of FBI leadership's knowledge as to each fact that was not shared with OI and not included, or inaccurately stated, in the FISA applications. These factors included...

FBI Activities After the First FISA Application and FBI Efforts to Assess Steele's Election Reporting

FBI closed Steele as a CHS on 11/1/16 due to his leak of his reporting to the media on 10/31/16. But the Crossfire Hurricane team continued to obtain information from Steele through Bruce Ohr. Limited information in Steele's reporting was presented in an appendix in 1/6/17 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) report on "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections because of CIA's concern about the corroboration of the allegations in the report while FBI sought to include the reporting in the ICA.

FBI efforts to verify Steele's reporting, and to learn about his source network continued after Steele's closure as a CHS. Information these FBI officials obtained about Steele was both positive and negative, though these information was not placed in his CHS file.

FBI's Validation Management Unit (VMU) completed a human source validation review of Steele. The VMU review's determination about Steele's past criminal reporting was in tension with the characterization in the FISA application. The VMU review also did not identify corroboration for Steele's reporting among the information that the Hurricane team had collected. {Hong Gan's note: IG report's this statement was in contradiction with the analysis presented in this post - at the time of the ICA report, many of the Steele's extensive sets of allegations were Facts or were/could not be DISPROVED.}. VMU did not include this result in its written validation report.

FBI had interviewed Steele and his Primary Sub-source, second sub-source. Interviews of Person 1 revealed inconsistency between Person 1's statement from the interview with certain sections of allegations that was attributed to Person 1. {Hong Gan's notes: Person 1 might be Seigi Millian. IG repot mentioned these were detailed in chapter 6 and 8, pending Hong Gan's further analysis}.

[We (IG office) further determined that] the Crossfire Hurricane team was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations regarding Carter Page. {Hong Gan's note: the specific substantive was not a clear cut word. Steele's allegations was consistent with the time of Page's presence in Moscow and the fact that Page met with Baranov who was close to Sechin and they discussed Rosneft president Igor Sechin also. Although Page denied he met Sechin secretly during that Moscow trip, but his statement could not be proved. see detail in this post}

[Redaction: the next whole paragraph was redacted].

The Three Renewal Applications for Continued FISA Authority on Carte r Page

{Hong Gan's note: the content in this subsection is not consistent with the theme in my Comment Section (my personal view) at the beginning of the review on IG's 12/9/19 report. The mere purpose to include and summarize it is to make the Exec Summary of IG' report an integral part without the purposeful 'omission'}

FBI filed three renewal applications with the FISC. In addition to repeating the errors in the first FISA application, we [IG Office] identified 10 additional errors in the three renewal applications which were detailed in chapter 8:

  • Omitted the fact that Steele's Primary Subsource, who the FBI found credible, had made statements, raising questions about the reliability of allegations included in the FISA applications.
  • Omitted Page's prior relationship with another U.S. government agency. OGC Attorney altered an email from the other agency so that the email stated that Page was " not a source" for the other agency.
  • Omitted information from persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele or had direct knowledge of his work-related performance.
  • Omitted information obtained from Ohr about Steele and his election reporting
  • Failed to update the description of Steele after information became known to the Crossfire Hurricane team, from Ohr and others,
  • Failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA application that FBI did not believe that Steele directly provided information to 9/23/16 Yahoo report about allegations of Carter Page.
  • Omitted the finding from a FBI source validation report (refer to VMU - FBI's Validation Management Unit)
  • Omitted Papadopoulos's statements to an FBI CHS in 10/late/16
  • Omitted Joseph Mifsud's denials to the FBI that he supplied Papadopoulos with the information about the Clinton 'dirt' in the form of thousands emails.
  • Omitted information indicating that Page played no role in the Republican platform change

None of the inaccuracies and omissions that we identified in the renewal applications were brought to the attention of OI before the applications were filed.

Conclusions Concerning All Four FISA Applications

{Hong Gan's note: the content in this subsection is not consistent with the theme in my Comment Section (my personal view) at the beginning of the review on IG's 12/9/19 report. The mere purpose to include and summarize it is to make the Exec Summary of IG' report an integral part without the purposeful 'omission'}

We (IG Office) concluded that the failures described above prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures. We also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified.

That so many basic 'errors' were made raised questions regarding the FBI chain of command's management and supervision of the FISA process. In our view, this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command. Accordingly, we have today initiated an OIG audit that will further examine the FBI's compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications.

Issues Relating to Department Attorney Bruce Ohr

Ohr's Interactions with Steele, the FBI, Simpson, and the State Department

From about 7/31/16 - 5/17/17 - the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Bruce Ohr interacted with Christopher Steele, FBI, Glenn Simpson and the State Department.
  • 7/x/16, Steele contacted Ohr to discuss information from Steele's reports.
  • 8/x/16, Ohr met Simpson to discuss Steele's reports at Steele's suggestion.
  • 10/18/16, after speaking with Steele that morning, Ohr met with McCabe to share Steele's and Simpson's information with him.
  • 11/x/16 Ohr met with senior State Department officials regarding Steele's Reports
  • 12/x/16, Ohr met Simpson who gave Ohr a thumb drive containing numerous Steele reports that Ohr thereafter provided to the FBI.
  • 11/21/16 - 5/15/17, Ohr met with members of the Crossfire Hurricane team 13 times, concerning his contacts with Steele and Simpson.

{Hong Gan's note: the content in this subsection is not consistent with the theme in my Comment Section (my personal view) at the beginning of the review on IG's 12/9/19 report. The mere purpose to include and summarize it is to make the Exec Summary of IG' report an integral part without the purposeful 'omission'}

Department leadership, including Ohr's supervisors, were unaware of Ohr's meetings with FBI, Steele, Simpson, and the State Department until after Congress requested information from the Department regarding Ohr's activities in 11/x/17. We [OIG] did not identify a specific Department policy prohibiting Ohr from meeting with Steele, Simpson, or the State Department and providing the information to the FBI. However, IG’ report attribute Ohr’s activities without briefing his supervisor as ‘error’, arguing that the subject matter of these interactions were beyond his areas of responsibility and that information that Ohr had provided to the FBI and FBI failed to inform NSD and OI and was not included in the FISA applications)

FBI Compliance with Policies

Pursuant to FBI's CHS Policy Guide (CHSPG), a handling agent must not initiate contact with or respond to contacts from a former CHS who has been closed for cause absent exceptional circumstances. While the Crossfire Hurricane team did not initiate direct contact with Steele after his closure, it responded to numerous contacts made by Steele through Ohr, passing along information from Steele. The FBI's CHS policy does not explicitly address indirect contact from a closed CHS. We (OIG office). concluded that the repeated contacts with Steele should have triggered the CHS policy requiring that such contacts be approved by an SSA's determination that exceptional circumstances exist. We found no evidence that the SSAs made considered judgments that exceptional circumstances existed for the repeated contacts.

Ethics Issues Raised by Nellie Ohr's Former Employment with Fusion GPS

C.F.R financial disclosure rules did not require Ohr to list on the form the specific organizations that paid Nellie Ohr as an independent contractor. Federal ethics rules did not require Ohr to obtain Department ethics counsel approval before engaging with the FBI in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane matter because of Nellie Ohr's prior work for Fusion GPS. {Hong Gan's note: next IG statement is not consistent with the theme in the comment section}. We (OIG) found that given the appearance that the existing factual circumstances created, Ohr displayed a lapse in judgment by not to consult with the Department ethics official about his involvement in the investigation.

Meetings Involving Ohr, CRM officials, and the FBI Regarding the MLARS Investigation

Ohr's supervisors in ODAG also were unaware that that Ohr participated in discussions about a money laundering investigation of Manafort from MLARS (Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section) and informed CRM officials Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad about information he was getting from Steele and Simpson about Manafort. From 11/16/16 -12/15/16, Ohr participated in several meetings. The meetings involving Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann (chief of Fraud section) focused on their shared concern that MLARS was not moving quickly enough on the Manafort case. The meetings with Strzok and Page focused primarily on whether the FBI could assess the case's relevance, if any, to the FBI 's Russian interference investigation. None of attendees had supervisory responsibility over the MLARS investigation.

On 1/31/17, Ahmad, after consulting with Swartz and Weissmann, requested a meeting with Strzok, Lisa Page, and an FBI Acting Section Chief the next day to discuss "a few Criminal Division related developments." None of the attendees could explain to us (OIG office) what the "Criminal Division related developments" were. Meeting notes reflect that the group discussed the Manafort criminal investigation and Russia election meddling. MLARS was not at or informed about the meeting. The meetings did not resulted in any actions taken or not taken in the MLARS investigation.

We also did not identify any Department policies prohibiting internal discussions about a pending investigation among officials not
assigned to the matter, or between those officials and senior officials from the FBI. However, we (OIG) believed that the decision by the group of attendees to not to inform the CRM and DOJ leaders for the purpose of avoiding the appearance that an investigation is "politicized," in the absence of concerns of potential wrongdoing or misconduct, fundamentally misconstrued who is ultimately responsible and accountable for the Department's work.

The Use of Confidential Sources (Other Than Steele) and Undercover Employees

Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple consensually monitored interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos and a Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation. The use of a CHS to conduct consensual monitoring can be authorized by a SSA only absent certain circumstances. We (OIG) determined that the these CHS operations received the necessary FBI approvals. We (OIG) found no evidence that the FBI used CHSs or UCEs to interact with members of the Trump campaign prior to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. We (OIG) found no evidence that the FBI placed any CHSs or UCEs within the Trump campaign or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign. We also found no evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI's decision to use CHSs.

There was no applicable Department or FBI policy requiring the FBI to notify Department officials of CHSs operations. However We (OIG) believe that the CHS operation should require, at minimum, Department consultation.

During the meeting between a CHS and the Trump campaign official, campaign official made no comments of note about topics. These topics included: The role of Page, Papadopoulos, and Manafort-in the Trump campaign, public reports concerning Russian election interference, Page's Moscow speech, and the possibility of an "October Surprise.", and [redaction]. Crossfire Hurricane team made no use of any information collected because the information was not "germane" to the allegations.

Through the CHS operations, the investigative team obtained statements from Carter Page and Papadopoulos that denied the allegations about them or about Trump Campaign's alleged collusion with Russia or outside group such as Wikileaks in the release of emails.

We (OIG) also determined that there were other CHSs tasked to attempt to contact Papadopoulos, but those attempts did not lead to any operational activity. We also identified several individuals who had either a connection to Trump or a role in the Trump campaign, and were also FBI CHSs who were not tasked as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. One such CHS did provide general information about Page and Manafort, but he had no further involvement in the investigation.

We identified another CHS who voluntarily provided his/her handling agent with an [redaction] and the handling agent forwarded the material to the Crossfire Hurricane team. {Hong Gan's notes: next part of this long paragraph was redacted. the summary could not be extracted from the unredacted portion}.

While the CHS operations complied with Department and FBI policies, we (OIG) believe that in certain circumstances Department and FBI policies do not provide sufficient oversight and accountability for gathering sensitive information involving protected First Amendment activity.

In August, SSA 1, participated on behalf of the FBI in a strategic intelligence briefing given by Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to candidate Trump and his national security advisors, including Michael Flynn, and in a separate strategic intelligence briefing given to candidate Clinton and her national security advisors. We were told that the decision to select SSA 1 to participate in the ODNI briefing was reached by consensus among a group of senior FBI officials,We (OIG) found that SSA 1 was selected to provide the FBI briefings, in part, because Flynn was the subject of investigation. SSA 1 drafted an EC documenting his participation in the briefing, and added the EC to the Crossfire Hurricane investigative file. No one at the Department or ODNI was informed that the FBI was using the ODNI briefing of a
presidential candidate for investigative purposes, and We(OIG) found no applicable FBI or Department policies addressing this issue. We therefore include a recommendation to address this
issue.

Recommendations

{Hong Gan's note: portions of the content in this subsection is not consistent with the theme in my Comment Section (my personal view) at the beginning of the review on IG's 12/9/19 report. The mere purpose to include and summarize it is to make the Exec Summary of IG' report an integral part without the purposeful 'omission'}

Our report makes nine recommendations to the FBI and the Department to assist them in improving their practice. These include: ensuring adequate procedures are in place; developing protocols and guidelines for sensitive investigative matters; improving administration and assessment of CHSs; clarifying the terms "sensitive monitoring circumstance" and "prominent in a domestic political organization"; ensuring appropriate training on DIOG for constitutional implications of certain monitoring situations; reviewing our findings related to Bruce Ohr; reviewing the performance of all employees involved FISA applications.

Remaining Issues Brought By Horowitz' 12/9/19 Report

Introduction

The Refutation And discussion on the remaining issues brought by Horowitz's 12/9/19 is not any attempt to attack Horowitz either as a lazy-bone or over-biased. His investigation and report is not an Fact Finding investigation report on Russia election and meddling and alleged conspiracy and loose collusion. His investigation is to examine whether FBI during the Crossfire Hurricane operation had or had not complied with DOJ and FBI applicable rules and policy. Overall his report justified the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation. The report's major concern was on the FISA application and renewal for surveillance on Carter Page. He pointed out a list of 'errors' of FBI during the process of FISA application. Some of the issues raised in his report were the first time disclosure. They have never been reported (or leaked) before his report. But they are not 'error's in my standards (except the email-alteration by an OGC staff, see discussions in detail later). In the remaining issues, I am going to elaborate only one three 'errors' in his list. Others are deemed as Petty Omissions and is going to be discussed together. Nothing political formed the basis for my refutation on these three errors (from now on I am going to use the word 'mistake' instead of error).

  • Carter Page’s relationship to another government agency - he was the operational contact of that agent from 08 - 13 (year) is refuted mainly based on the biological mechanism of our thinking and decision making - how it tied to environmental and situational cues. 
  • Steele’s past reporting history - Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceeding- and Horowitz‘s finding that Steele’s prior reporting was minimally used in criminal proceeding was - the refutation was based on the physics relativity laws. Included in this category other evaluation activities FBI had done after the first FISA application and before the renewal application. - FBI went abroad, visited Steele’s prior colleagues and FBI’s CHS validation results) 
  • Steele’s primary source (Primary sub-source) and the reliability of Person 1 (Person I is sub-source of the Primary sub-sauce) (FBI identified Primary sub-source and interviews him). - the refutation is based on the same for the Carter Page’s prior relationship with the another government agency. In addition, a quantitative estimate can be done to evaluate how ‘primary’ the Primary sub-source” was. 

The discussion and refutation has to be based on the assumption that the IG Michael Horowitz' he himself did not make any mistake or made minimal mistake, he did not misrepresent any factual materials he reviewed. Because his position allowed him to access the FBI's confidential database no one else can access. Few people within the FBI can have access to the FBI's secret informational and data system. Steele’s handling agent might only be able to access CHS related databases (Delta File) but not be able to access other FBI confidential databases. And I do not believe his investigation finding can be reviewed by any other entity or authority.

Through reading the executive summary and partial reading and scanning through his various chapters in the report. My personal conclusion is that IG amplified the significance of the ‘errors’ he listed in the report, although his job would make him mechanically compare the factual statements in the FISA application and renewal with the underlying documents prepared by Case agent in the woods file (he organized this in the appendix) and pointing out anywhere that is not perfectly consistent. But his assessment and evaluation was mainly influenced by the outcome of the Russia - investigation and that outcome is that - Mueller did not indict Carter Page, not only on the alleged conspiracy, but also not on anything else in the case of Manafort. It is this investigation outcome that influenced his thinking. But that is the situational cues back to the time when FISA was sought - the time that we did not know whether Carter Page was our reached or not reached by Russia and how much he might compromise himself and fell into the trap of Russia agents and being exploited or not.

Our thinking and decision making process are always tied to the environmental and situational cues. IG Horowitz can not sit in today's seats with that outcome in his mind and use this ‘hindsight’ to go back and put the FBI in yesterday's seats - the time when we did not know whether the conspiracy theory is true or not true.

[we can not - after we found Hitler did not bomb the pearl harbor - but took the time and resource to take measures to prevent it in case that piece of intelligence is true - then we go back to blame those people wronged or complain about them made too many ‘error’ or they bypassed the chain of command, no matter how this piece of intelligence was obtained, how much chance it could be true.]

Why? We can not or it is not necessary or inappropriate to over-blame them? Because in a lot of rules there is one thing called ‘except’ - ‘unless for some exceptional situations’. Then what standards is ‘exceptional situations’, is a foreign threat’ that concerns national security can be deemed as ‘exceptional situation’? Which possibility of the outcome truly ‘unnerves’ our nerve: if cater page was surveiled but he is innocent, nothing found and his civil liberty was compromise; or if we do not surveil carter page, but he is guilty or he is being exploited and he compromised himself either wittingly or unwittingly and made himself, in effect, an Russia agent. Which of the possibilities truly ‘unnerved’ our nerve.? It is the later, at that time, around October in the election and the last renewal in June a month Special Counsel took over the Crossfire Hurricane after Comey was fired by individual 45. Why did the Rodrosenstain appoint a special counsel to continue the investigation? Because we did not believe we have the answer then. [we still do not have the answer for Individual 45 - my stance]

Our thinking and decision making process - a biological process going on in our brain - are always tied to the imminent environmental and situational cues. And short-term memory was very limited, out of 100 items if we see (for ordinary untrained people), we can only capture the attention of only a few (not more than 10) items. When we perceive or anticipate an imminent threat - in this case is - if Cater Page was not surveilled, but if he indeed was being compromised or being exploited and worse he became the Russia agent. It is this imminent threat that is not know to us whether it is true, half true or false at the time that unnerved our nerve.

Double dealing (Double agent) is not a fantasy in the fiction, it is a reality in the intelligence filed.

Carter Page's Prior Relationship With Another Government Agency

IG 12/90/19 revealed for the first time that Carter Page (I did not read any report before his report for this information) From 08-13 year, Carter page was the ‘operational contact’ for another government agent. (I saw some report out there saying that another government agent was CIA; I believe so. But IG’s report did not explicitly say so anywhere in his report). His most solid evidence was a 8/17/16 (before the first FISA application 10/21/16) memo from this ‘other government agency sent to the FBI; but the content of this memo is absent in the report, not in the appendix as well, whether it is classified or not, Horowitz did not mention in his report, and he did not define what is operational contact - what typical interaction with the CIA can be defined as operational contact. I do not believe ever that Carter Page was an asset of CIA. I searched the internet and CIA official web site, I could not figure out a definition that makes sense, no definition on the CIA web site. The only thing we know is that Horowitz stated Carter Page either told or informed CIA about his interaction with the Russia intelligence officer (one of whom he designated as Russia intelligence officer 1) and Horowitz stated that CIA said Page was ‘candid’ in telling them his interaction with Russia intelligence officer.

Nothing about after year 2013 his relationship with CIA. whether between year 13-16 he joined Trump Campaign, his relationship with CIA. Double dealing (double agent) is not a fantasy in the fiction, it is a reality in the intelligence field. My personal judgement on Carter Page - is - he is an opportunist who has no belief and no ideology - the type of person wherever he smells profit (either financially or politically), he would went there. Because of his prior link to the Russia, he was perceived as ‘open’ - vulnerable - susceptible - “to Russia outreach and targeting as documented in the Mueller Report, though he was not indicted. I personally preferred the Mueller’s handling of Carter Page. Whether Mueller knew or have access to the surveillance content when he overtook the Crossfire Hurricane is not known. The contribution of these surveillance content to each renewal application was listed but heavily redacted, I could not extract any information from the IG report. These surveillance content, though contributed to the renewal applications, but are not anything implicate crimes.

Even for those years while he was CIA 'operations contact’, he could be a double agent, in effect. Russia intelligence officer targeted him and tried to recruit him (Mueller report also documented this), He could make himself multi-faced. When speaking to CIA, he display one side of the face and when speaking to potential Russia intelligence officer or his Russia ‘friends’ he could display another face. His pro-Russia policy stance was reflected in his 7/8/16 trip to Moscow where he made the public speech on the New Economic School forum. During the trip, Steele Dossier alleged him met secretly with Sechin (this is going to be discussed in more detail on the remaining issues regarding Steele’s prior reporting history)

Who is More Guilty (OGC staff vs Individual 45)

One of the OGC during renewal (or the first application) altered the email he forwarded to OI (part of NSD) regarding Carter Page’s prior relationship to the other government agency (CIA). To alter a forwarded email requires a specific computer technician, the OGC staff may not have the capability to do it. If he altered the content of an attached PDF document, he can do this by converting it to a word document, modified it, and then convert that modified word document back to PDF file. If he simply copy/paste the content in that email, he can do it very easily.

Is he guilty? [if what IG Report said is true] Yes, he is guilty of fraud. But is he guilty in his intent or motive? Probably not. What did he try to gain? By doing this he is going to gain nothing for his personal interest. The only thing he would gain is the risk of being caught later on and be punished. Why did he still do that? At the influence of that imminent threat ‘unnerved’ us? It could be. He knew here is the rule of law. He knew he could not go around the law (FISA) and the court (FISC) to surveil Carter Page. His action/behavior wronged and he committed crime, but his motive might be totally innocent.

Now we have this mob individual 45. He claimed he can withhold the Ukraine military fund that Republicans admitted it was not appropriate. He claimed he had executive privilege, therefore he can defy any subpoena for witnesses and documents. His behavior/action in appearance was not crime. He claimed he is not guilty. But the intent/motive, in my standard, is self-evident, is plain sight. He is guilty in his intent. His misconduct/crime must affect every one of us. He is not advancing any national interest. He did this for his own political gain.

Who is more guilty? In my standards, the mob individual 45 is.

[This discussion on individual 45 is irrelevant to the topic in this section. The only reason it popped in here is because of the coincidence of time of the writing of this section with the impeachment trial conviction/removal vote looming this week. Republicans called the vote - the acquittal vote. I would never use that word.]

Steele’s prior reporting history and related remaining issues

I drew the same conclusion on IG’s handling of Steele and Steele’s prior reporting history - that he over-amplified Steele’s ‘imperfection’.

The Source Characterization Statement

The FISA application stated ‘Steele’s prior reporting was corroborated and used in criminal proceeding. This statement in the FISA application was severely criticized by IG Horowitz as an ‘error’. He stated that Steele’s handling agent did not approve it. He stated his investigation finding suggested the other way. Steele’s prior reporting was minimally used in the criminal proceeding or even minimally corroborated and none used directly in the criminal proceeding].

When we evaluate how intelligence is being used, if for its contribution to the criminal proceeding, I believed IG Horowitz only take the criminal proceeding in his own country into the consideration. But criminal justice system are not everywhere same. There is a spectrum (this goes into the crime control model again). Our system is ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

[the spectrum graph-image]

The more protection on personal liberty, the less the efficiency in crime control. The less in efficiency in crime control, translates to the more difficulty in entering into the criminal proceeding (i.e. the less probability or chance for an intelligence to be directly used in the criminal proceeding.

Horowitz stated one exception is Steele’s intelligence on FIFA case - a very famous case for Steele that a New Yorker article had reported in detail as well when the author introduced Steele’s history after he left British Intelligence - an organized crime and anti-corruption case. It is through this case Steele’s professional insight contributed to his gut discomfort toward Trump whom he might believed was tied to organized crime (see discussion in this section of the post) and which explained why Steele perceived Trump’s problem and did not prefer him to be elected. His sentiment was known through Ohr’s disclosure and he was colored as ‘biased’ by saying he desperately did not want Trump to be elected. But that is not ‘bias’ - that is professional insight - Trump has problem.

When we make conclusive statement, we have to have a reference. As physics law told us - to measure an object’s speech, we have to have a reference scale. With the speed of light as our reference, a lightening-speed train’s speed is zero. When we evaluate how much criminal proceeding was directly or indirectly invoked by the intelligence reporting, we have to have a reference whether to measure it with presumption of innocence or presumption of guilt or some point in between. Prosecutors can choose not to proceed even if they believed there is crime. Prosecutors can choose not to proceed simply because they do not believe the case can ultimately win. My own experience also indicates the difficulty in entering the criminal justice system. This system inevitably favors the wealthy more established criminal and disfavors victims, especially if they are poor or belong to the more disadvantaged group.

Steele’s prior reporting’s contribution to criminal proceeding is not directly related to Crossfire Hurricane - it is opened as an counterintelligence investigation - The relevant FBI division is CD - the counterintelligence division.

FBI’s Effort To Further Evaluate Steele’s Reporting History

After the first FISA application and before the renewal application, FBI further attempted to assess and evaluate Steele’s history. FBI went abroad, interviewed Steele’s prior colleagues. FBI also conducted the source validation evaluation through their internal validation systm [verify the agency name for doing this]. Why FBI did not do these in year 13 when Steele was opened as CHS and they wanted to do these now? Because of the same thing - it is the imminent uncertain threat unnerved their nerve. They believed it is worth the time and resource to verify Steele’s credibility. Because it is so important that Steele Dossier allegations needs to be either proved or disproved instead of left with unanswered. The result of FBI’s attempt to evaluate Steele’s history did not smear Steele’s credibility but also did not significantly increase his credibility.

FBI went abroad and interviewed his prior colleagues. IG Horowitz stated the comments from Steele’s colleagues - they were both positive and negative. Horowitz cited some example comments. But no name of Steele’s colleagues were disclosed - who they are, whether they were Steele’s superior or subordinate or colleague and how their relationship was or had evolved. Usually when media reports comment on a person, they would cite who they are, their job title and their relationship. Through citing them, the author also carried a weight of their own judgement into it. If they do not believe them, they would not quote them.

The validation evaluation results needs some detail to explain because the result was conservatively produced. Anything FBI not sure about, they also chose not to state them (go to this section)

The Reliance of Steele’s Reporting in the FISA application.

Steele’s reporting constituted one of the five elements that formed the probable cause in the FISA application. Horowitz listed report # 80, 94, 95 and 10_ as the Steele’ reporting that containing information about Carter Page. IG amplified the reliance on the content of Steele’s reporting in the FISA application. I agreed with IG Horowitz that it was Steele’s reporting eventually triggered the FISA application, but I do not agree that FBI relied on Steele’s information to gain approval of the FISA. Although he cited report 80, 94, 95 and 10_, but only report 94 (7/19/16) was a report all about Carter Page. The Steele’s reports are not theme organized, it was chronologically organized, although each report has a title, but they do not always reflect that title for every allegations in the report. Report 80 is not relevant to Carter Page (It is about some general allegation on Russia’s effort to sow discord and Trump Kompromat), only a minor portion has an indirect mention to Carter Page. (quote original allegation). Report 95, only a sub-segment of one of the 6 allegations mentioned Carter Page (quote original allegation) as an intermediary of Manafort who was alleged to be the one for Conspiracy theory (collusion with Russia). Report 10_ (8/10/16) one of the 3 allegations mentioned Carter Page’s name, alleging he is involved in Russia’s attempt to sway supporters of Sander away from Clinton toward Trump.

None of Steele Dossier Allegations Are Public Information

The whole report 94 (7/19/16) and report 134 (10/18/16) was about Carter Page’s July trip to Moscow. Report 134 is a confirmation of the allegations in report 94. Report 134 came to FBI after 9/19/16 the time FBI received the 6 of the Steele’s reports and after the first FISA application. The Trip’s date and time 7/7/16-7/8/16, location and the conference - commencement ceremony at New Economic School (NES) in Moscow - were public information. But the allegations in report 94 is not about the date and time of the Moscow trip. It is about the allegation whether or not Carter Page met ‘SECRETLY’ with Sechin and another Russia officer Divyekin during that trip and the ‘Substance’ of that secret meeting - what they had talked about. Carter Page denied he met secretly with Sechin - CEO of the Rosneft. Can we surveil Cater Page when he was abroad in July? If we can, we would not leave this question/allegation - unanswered - neither proved nor disproved.

Steele’s Source Network



[graph: Steele’s source network]
[FBI] Steele Primary sub-source Person 1 ………. Ultimate Source
Source 1
Or CHS 1


Designations of Steele's Source Network

lG Horowitz used FBI as the reference, he designated Steele’s Primary Source as ‘Primary sub-source. But his naming is very confusing, the reader actually did not have a quantitative idea of how ‘Primary’ the Primary sub-source is to Steele’s Dossier. IG Horowitz stated that FBI knew the identity of this Primary sub-source and FBI had interviewed this Primary sub-source

IG Horowitz designated the source for Primary sub-source as Person 1. He stated in his text Person 1 was Source E (one of the sources in Steele’s first report 80 (6/20/16). Person 1 is not the new disclosure. Long time ago, media had reported that Source E was Sergei Millian who was considered as the Trump side source - he was the president of Russian American Chamber of Commerce. But they could not distinguish between Source D and E. If Source E is Person 1, Source D could be the Primary sub-source.

Steele only designated A-G for sources in his first report. Thereafter none of his reports repeat this designation or provide new designations. Source E reappeared in Report 95 but he was not the most immediate source to Steele. The most immediate source was a ‘confidant compatriot of Source E’. Whether this confidant compatriot of Source E was the Primary sub-source is not known. The allegations attributed to this source in Report 95 was that Carter Page was the intermediary for Manafort who was alleged to be conspired with Russia.

My designation in this post is for my own convenience. I designated this confidant of compatriot of Source E as S(95).A S-stands for source, 95 in the ( ) is the Steele’s report number. The letter after the dot is the source in the order they appeared in the report.

How Primary Is The Primary Source

We assume Primary sub-source must be one of the source A-G from the first report. A table can be created assuming A-G as the Primary sub-source, then all other sources in Steele’s later report will be checked for the description Steele had provided - whether they have the same description or not. For example if one of the source A-G is an foreign ministry office and if S(95).A is also a foreign ministry officer, he might be the same source from the designated one.

Issues Regarding The Credibility of Person 1 and/or Primary sub-source

One issue Horowitz raised is that the FBI interviewed Primary sub-source. He stated that quite a few of the allegations were from a 10-15 minutes telephone call between Steele and him (or between him and Person 1). Horowitz also argued that some of the statements were not facts they learned, but their own analysis. He cited an example, attempting to illustrate it. But Steele Dossier is a raw intelligence report without any basic or rough initial assessment. Steele’s sources may not be aware that Steele was collecting intelligence from them either on telephone conversation or other forms of conversation. As long as Steele he himself did not introduce his own analysis into the intelligence. He can’t control his sources. Steele’s inclusion criteria was not how much chance the intelligence is true. He included the golden shower allegation that he himself believed only 50% chance to be true - the intelligence Source D or E themselves was doubted. IG Horowitz stated that Steele told him that Person 1 is a ‘boaster’, ‘egoist’, ‘embellisher’. Even so, Steele did not choose to omit Person 1’s intelligence. His priority was not his own credibility and/or reputation. His priority was the same thing that unnerved our nerve in FBI’s thinking and decision-making - that possible imminent threat - as he himself said - after learning those allegations he felt as if he was sitting on the nuclear weapon.

Petty Omission

Other Petty Omissions were discussed and refuted based on the simple statistical concept that is scientific and nonpolitical. Unintentional omission and mistake is a normal part of our intellectual activity. Assume I am well prepared for a series similar difficulty exams on a subject. I am intellectually well-oriented, I believed I remembered everything and understood every bits of knowledge for the exam. Can I always score 100? No. It is going to be a statistical distribution. The more exams I took in a short time frame, the closer the average score to the true number that reflect one aspect of my intellectual ability. Suppose my average is 90, Hillary Clinton is 95. Then the statistical distribution for the performance on the exams is as:

[graph statistical distribution on]

Now we came across the issue of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Suppose we only count the pre-classified emails (they were marked and stamped with a symbol not so blatant). We do not count those emails that were classified later on). Once in a while Hillary Clinton did not notice it and forgot to separate them from her own private emails. We have to set a threshold % of such missed emails; for example 1-5%, exceed that threshold we would be hard to believe all of them are unintentional mistakes. Beyond that point (threshold) we would expect there is no incidence that Hillary Clinton would make that many mistakes. 0.1% is the average, corresponding to her intellectual performance on the exam. The other half of the curve could not be observed because Hillary Clinton did not intentionally mix those classified email and did not handle them on to a secure confidential server.

Although in Social Science, we could not experiment [as we can toss the coin 300 times to observe a distribution and compare it to the theoretical one]; we could not have Hillary Clinton to be a State Department Secretary in that time frame to measure the % of classified emails she missed. But we can qualitatively draw a theoretical statistical distribution. So SD (standard deviation) is the only parameter we need. This gave us a range 0.05%-0.15% (0.1%+/-0.05%). Occasionally there could be outliers, we can say not more than 3SD.

Self-Denial Statements Are Not Evidence

FBI may omitted self-denial statements that turned out to be not in conflict with the outcome. FBI omitted self-denial statements from Carter Page from its consensually monitored CHS operations. But self-denial statements - he did not meet Sechin secretly. There is no back-channel communication with Russia - can be served as evidence. Through inclusion introduces a sense of analysis. Because, in the FBI’s FISA application, their own statement is not deemed by FBI as reliable and could not be disproved, they simply chose to omit it at the influence of that imminent threat that ‘unnerved’ their nerve or they simply did not pay attention to it and unwittingly forgot them at the influence of that same ‘imminent threat’.

In IG Report, Horowitz did not define consensually monitored operation (conversation). [Halper was the only FBI informant I knew before IG’s report. He was unmasked. Whether he was one of the other CHS in the IG report is not known. Consensually monitored operation - whether Halper tell Carter Page his true identity or his cover identity (Cambridge University Professor) in the consensually monitored conversation - in whichever way, Carter Page consented to be questioned by the CHS. If Halper did not disclose his identity to Carter Page, can Carter Page be deemed as consented to be monitored? If Halper told him identity (at the risk of being closed as a CHS), Carter Page would tend to lie and not telling the truth about his ties to Russia Intelligence or Russia in general.

(FBI) And IG May Wittingly or Unwittingly Omitted Steele’s Report 134

Report 134 (8/10/16) was a confirmation of the allegations in Report 94 (7/19/16). They came out after FBI received the first batch - 6 reports from Steele on 9/19/16 and after the first FISA application on 10/21/16 and was delivered to FBI either by Ohr or McCain post Election. Report 134 was supportive material for renewable application. Nowhere in IG report [I did not read the FBI application/renewal application document, therefore do not know whether FBI included report 134 to support the probable cause or not] mentioned the inclusion of this report and in his own IG report. Allegations in Report 134 were all about Carter Page’s July Moscow Trip - the secret meeting with Sechin and another Russia officer. In report S(94).A is a source close to Sechin. S(94).B is confidant compatriot to PA S. IVANOV who was colleague of the other Russia officer Carter Page was alleged to meet secretly. In report 134 the source is not exactly the same as in report 94. S(134) is a compatriot of the close associate of Sechin., Therefore S(94).A is the sub-source of S(134), according to Steele’s description in his Dossier. Report 134 does not have the confirmations of allegations for the other Russia officer.


Attacks On Obstruction of Justice

Republican's Contentions On Obstruction

Republicans had attacked Mueller’s Obstruction of Justice on Trump from the following angles:
  • Statutes Contentions (Ken Buck, Ben Cline): They attacked Mueller's legal analysis on Obstruction of Justice Statutes. 
    • Ken Buch attacked that Mueller discussed 10 separate factual patterns involving alleged obstruction and then failed to separately apply the elements of the applicable statutes. He used Flynn matter as the example.(Ken Buck)
    • Ben Cline attacked on the application of 1512-c (2) on Trump. He said Mueller applied 1512 c(2) to ‘lawful acts’ taken by public officials. He said Mueller’s obstruction of justice characterization on Trump was over-criminalization. He said Mueller's analysis broaden the obstruction to cover innocent conduct. "to emphasize how broad his theory of liability is"  (Ben Cline)  
  • Constitutional Contention (William Steube): They argued that president under Constitution Article 1 - he can fire Comey and even fire special counsel, saying Mueller acknowledged president removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers (Mike Johnson)
  • Other Contentions
    • They argued that special counsel’s investigation was not actually impeded or stopped and Trump did not fire the special counsel (Debra Kay Lesko, Mike Johnson)
    • They made these false or assumption statements on obstruction [and also in general]: “Trump knew he was innocent. Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. He knew he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation” (Mike Johnson, Louie Gohmert)
    • They attacked that Mueller’s obstruction of justice characterization did not rely on evidence and documents but instead relied on media reports - “Obstruction of Justice - is mostly regurgitated press stories” (Debra Lesko)
    • They argued that Mueller’s obstruction of justice characterization does not recommend impeachment (Mike Johnson)
  • Omission of Exculpatory Content - (Tom McClintock, Guy Reschenthaler)


Republican's Statute Contentions and Mueller's Legal Analysis

Mueller might perceive this statute defense coming from Trump's attorney if Trump was indicted. So he put into many words to dissect each instances of obstruction conduct and analyzed them in terms of the three elements of the obstruction - that is - obstructive act, nexus, and the corrupt intent. (this post has a summary) [from Mueller Report] Mueller perceived Trump's counsel could raise the statute concerns to defend Trump. The statute concern is whether those obstructive conduct described in the narrative in Evidence section are obstructions. Mueller devoted a whole section (III) to discuss his counter- defense on the Statute (And Constitutional) Defense, extensively citing Supreme Court precedence. He analyzed the applicability and the scope of obstruction statutes in the following line of reasoning (refer to Mueller Report for detail)
•The Text 1512{c){2) Prohibits a Broad Range of Obstructive Acts
•Judicial Decisions Support a Broad Reading of 1512(c)(2)
•The Legislative History of l512(c)(2) Does Not Justify Narrowing Its Text
•General Principles of Statutory Construction Do Not Suggest That Section 1512(c)(2) is Inapplicable to the Conduct
•Other Obstruction Statutes Might Apply to the Conduct

The area of the discussion is going to be based on the statute code and the summary I made in this post - The Table -

Obstruction of Justice Statutes - their Scope and Overlapping


As a brief summary 1512 C(2) [look for the word 'attempt']was relatively more broad and independent of 1512 C(1); while 1503 and 1505 was even more broader than 1512 C(2) [look for the word: 'endeavors']. The difference between the 1503 and 1505 was: (1503) is for judicial proceeding such as Grand Jury proceeding; and (1505) is for administrative proceeding and congressional proceedings such as FBI investigation and Special Counsel Investigation.

When they applied to the Obstruction of Justice on Flynn Case. 1512 C(2) and 1503 and 1505 all applies. Buck's criticism on Mueller's legal analysis on the Flynn case could not establish itself.

Buck's reasoning for 1503 non-compliance was his argument that there was not a grand jury impaneled but the nexus element of the obstruction of justice included pending or contemplated judicial proceeding which Mueller report stated: "Trump could reasonably foresee and actually contemplated that the investigation of Flynn was probably to lead to a grand jury investigation or prosecution"

Buck's reasoning for 1505 non-compliance was that "the Department of Justice criminal resource manual states that the FBI investigation is not a pending proceeding." I have never heard about that and Mueller did not say so either. But even that was the case. There is no evidence to indicate this DOJ rule was equal to or broader than what the statutes indicted: Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees as far as the scope of those term -proceeding - covers. It did not say FBI investigation was not in the scope of the term 'proceeding'.

Buck's reasoning for 1512 C(2) non-compliance was "about tampering with the record and as Joe Biden described the statute as being debated on the Senate floor, he called this a statute criminalizing document shredding". This is a very evident error Buck made. because that reasoning was what 1512 C(1) covers which is much narrower than what 1512 C(2) covers.

Buck's reasoning for 1512 B(3) non-compliance was "intimidation threats of force to tamper with a witness [Flynn]; but the complete quote for this piece of statute also include the text:"......… or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer.......of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or.......... " That was exactly what Trump had done.

Ben Cline attacked on the application of 1512-c (2) on Trump. He said Mueller applied 1512 c(2) to ‘lawful acts’ taken by public officials, exercising their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding. He said Mueller’s obstruction of justice characterization on Trump was over-criminalization. He said Mueller's analysis broaden the obstruction to cover innocent conduct. "to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, I [Cline] want to ask a few examples" - Obama's influence on Hillary email investigation and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe"s influence on Hillary email investigation.

Cline Started with obstruction of justice statute: 1512 c and said: "Section 1512-c is a statute created as part of auditing financial regulations for public companies. It was added as a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding. Your analysis and application of the statute proposes to give clause C2 a much broader interpretation than commonly used. First, your analysis proposes to read clause C2 in isolation, reading it as a free standing all-encompassing provision, prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding if done with an improper motive."

What Cline said next was somewhat misleading and tricky: "And second, your analysis of the statute to apply this way -- proposes to apply this sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials, exercising their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding." [but he did not add 'with improper motive' or 'corrupt intent']. He appeared to imply that Mueller interpreted or broadened the 1512 c2 in a way to prohibit Lawful Acts if those Lawful Acts influenced a proceeding. Then he asked: "You recognize that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitely resolved these issues, correct?" [Mueller answered "correct". this might only apply to the first half of Cline's statement]"You’d agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statutes, correct?" Mueller declined to answer. "In fact, the attorney general himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct?"

Cline cited the example of investigation on Hillary Clinton's private email server and quote Obama's comment as to be influencing the proceeding: 'President Obama said, “I don’t think it posed a national security problem.” And he later said, “I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the investigation, couldn’t President Obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice?'

[Hong Gan's comment] Cline looks very savoy on the LAW and on the interpretation of the LAW. But he forgot one fundamental difference between the Obama Case and The Trump Case. Obama is a third party and nearly an outsider of the Clinton Investigation, though Clinton was someone he appointed. Obama was not the suspect on the Clinton's private email server case. it is Clinton who was being investigated not Obama himself. Obama did not involve in the private email server case. But Trump, is different he was the suspect of the Russia Case, he was the one who accepted the dirt. {in contrast to the Trump Russia case, Clinton investigation did not appear to find anything); but Russia Case found Russia meddling as True and associated fact that Trump accepted and claimed would continue to accept the Dirty). It is Trump himself was under investigation. Therefore, his behavior to thwart the investigation from the beginning to the end had a motive to advance his personal interest to keep himself the power that he obtained either illegitimately or deeply unethically; Trump had an intent out of corruption. Here in the Russia case, there was no dilution of the meaning of the corrupt.

The same reasoning and explanation applies to Cline's another example: [quote Cline] "a very senior DOJ official called FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, expressing concern that FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe. McCabe questioned this official, asking, 'Are you telling me I need to shut down a validly predicted investigation? To which the official replied of course not." "This seems to be a clear example of somebody within the executive branch attempting to influence a FBI investigation. So under your theory, couldn’t that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive?" Mueller essentially refuted Cline - he said - "Well, again, I refer you to the report. But let me say, with Andrew Weismann, he’s one of the more talented attorneys we have on board. Over a period of time he has run a number of units..."


Republican's Constitutional Contention

William Steube questioned about the firing of Comey implying those acts were not obstruction of justice. "Can the president fire the FBI director at any time without reason under Article I of the Constitution?" [Mueller answered yes] "Can’t he also fire U.S. Special Counsel at any time without any reason?" [Mueller refuted the phrase "without any reason": "I know the Special Counsel can be fired, but I’m not certain it extends to for whatever reasons is given."]

Steube's time expired so there is no more discussion. Mueller perceived Trump's counsel could raise constitutional concerns to defend Trump. The constitutional concern is whether it is within the legally defined area that a sitting president was carrying out his Constitutional duty to replace federal officials, instruct or direct his staff or federal appointee to carry out certain commands. To support his finding, Mueller devoted a whole section to discuss his counter- defense on the Constitutional Defense, extensively citing Supreme Court precedence.

Next are a summary from Mueller's analysis: Mueller emphasized that the parallel power of Congress coexists with the Executive power in the Constitution to enact laws that protect congressional proceedings, federal investigations, the courts, and grand juries Against CORRUPT Efforts. When the President's official actions come into conflict with the prohibitions in the obstruction statutes, any constitutional tension is reconciled through separation-of-powers analysis. Mueller said that through applying the Court's framework for analysis [i.e. separation-of-powers analysis], he concluded that Congress can validly regulate the President's exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice. These analysis leads to Mueller's assessment (weighing of interests) in the constitutional balancing process - [he concluded that] - Congress has the authority to impose the limited restrictions contained in obstruction of justice statutes on the President's official conduct to protect the integrity of important functions of other branches of government. A general ban on corrupt action does not unduly intrude on the President's responsibility to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed. To the contrary, the concept of "faithful execution" connotes the use of power in the interest of the Public, not in the office holder's Personal Interests.


Other Contentions On Obstruction

Debra Lesko tried to clear Trump from obstruction of justice by stating the fact that Trump did not fire the special counsel. "Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?" "Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered?" "And in fact, you resigned as special counsel when you closed up the office in late May Is that correct? Mueller provided the respective answers for this series of question. As I had discussed before, obstruction of justice statutes did not require the obstruction to be successful. See this post for a summary of obstruction of justice code, looking for the word 'attempt', 'endeavor'.

Lesko attacked - "I’ve got to say it looks - Obstruction of Justice - is mostly regurgitated press stories. Honestly, there’s almost nothing from the Obstruction of Justice that I couldn’t already hear or know simply by having a $50 cable news subscription. " Mueller did not cite News stories as Evidence. [Lesko's last part of the speech quoting Mueller actually answered the question.] Various news stories were summarized and cited not for the truth of the information contained in the stories but rather to place Candidate Trump’s response to those stories in context." (her time expired, so Mueller did not answered the last question.)

Mike Johnson 'commented' without asking questions - arguing Trump did not commit obstruction of justice. "And yet, President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. He knew he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation and produced more than million pages of information, and allowed over 40 witnesses who are directly affiliated with the White House or his campaign."

[Hong Gan's comment] "He knew he had done nothing wrong" was an assumption. "he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation" was a lie. That was not the case on Flynn, Manafort and Cohen (refer to Mueller Report or this post]. The President sent private and public messages to Flynn encouraging him to stay strong and conveying that the President still cared about him before he began to cooperate with the government. The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to "flip" and cooperate with the government. Before Cohen began to cooperate with the government, the President publicly and privately urged Cohen to stay on message and not "flip." After it was reported that Cohen intended to cooperate with the government, however, the President accused Cohen of "making up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam; and on multiple occasions publicly suggested that Cohen's family members had committed crimes. supporting an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen's credibility once Cohen began cooperating.

"President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation." was also a lie. Trump refused to be interviewed by Mueller Office [Mueller explained why he did not invoke the subpoena.] His written answers were largely untruthful, incomplete, evading (in effect was the lie, but could escape the lying to authority violation].

Johnson continued to comment - "Your report acknowledges [p61] that a volume of evidence exists of the president telling many people privately, quote, “The president was concerned about the impact of the Russian investigation on his ability to govern, and to address important foreign relations issues and even matters of national security.” "your report also acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held, quote, “The president’s removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers -- that is, officers who must be appointed by the president and who report to him directly. The president’s ‘exclusive and illimitable power of removal’ of those principal officers furthers ‘the president’s ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed,’” unquote. And that would even include the attorney general."

[Hong Gan's comment] The p61 quote was in the context on illustration and proof for Trump's corrupt intent. (refer to Mueller Report; add what is omitted by Johnson] [add] Supreme Court quote (refer to Mueller Report)

Look, in spite of all of that [last paragraph], nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel’s investigation. Nobody was fired by the president, nothing was curtailed and the investigation continued unencumbered for 22 long months." [Hong Gan's comment] Comey was fired by the president; the obstruction of justice statutes doe not require the obstruction to be successful as I had discussed. Then Johnson went on to comment "As you finally concluded quote, [The evidence] “did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in any Russian conspiracies or had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official,” unquote. Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged along, the president became increasingly frustrated as many of the American people did with its effects on our country and his ability to govern. He vented about this to his lawyer and his close associates and he even shared his frustrations, as we all know, on twitter."

Then Johnson made the next set of Lies (false statement) in order to clear Trump on Obstruction "The president never affected anybody’s testimony. He never demanded to end the investigation or demanded that you be terminated and he never misled Congress, the DOJ or the special counsel." [Hong Gan's comment] He attempted to affect witness's testimony as discussed above on Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen and he might have affected Cohen's false statement on Trump Moscow Project to the Congress. He attempted to end the investigation by his Efforts to Terminate the Special Counsel. Trump had directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed. He misled at least the DOJ through his Efforts to Have the Attorney General Sessions Unrecused. (refer to Mueller report or this post); and "nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel’s investigation" was false - Trump not only attempted to terminate Mueller, but also tried to curtail his scope of his investigation, The President sought to have Sessions announce and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections.

Johnson's last question was asked in an attempt to get Mueller to say his Report does not recommends impeachment "Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?" "It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?" Mueller refused to say as Johnson expected him to say: "I’m not going to talk about recommendations." "I’m not going to talk about that issue."

Gohmert attacked the intent element of the obstruction of justice violation, attempting to rationalize it by stating that the underlying crime being investigated did not occur by drawing an equating mark between there is not sufficient evidence to establish the 'conspiracy' and 'there is no conspiracy". In order to clear trump from the corrupt intent for the obstruction of justice, he made a vicious lie and assumption statement I have ever saw as Collins: "if somebody [Trump] knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election and they [Trump and Trump Associates] see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person [Trump] coming after them, and then a Special Counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person and he knows he’s innocent, he’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he’s doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice".

"somebody [Trump] knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election" was an assumption statement. Trump could have conspired with Russia and Trump know he conspired with Russia; but Mueller did not have sufficient evidence to establish that conspiracy. "He know he is innocent" was an assumption statement as well [as I had explained on Collins' statement]. "He’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he’s doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice" was the vicious lie Gohmert tried to exonerate Trump. No matter what the opinion the Mueller team member held on Trump, whether they personally hate him or not that does not suggest they might or would sacrifice their objectiveness on an Investigation as their career ethics would require them to act - integrity, responsibility, and accountability. In addition, no matter what their opinion on the Trump were, there are the most material facts described in the report which are independent of anyone's opinion. For example, nothing can eliminate the fact that Trump directed his son and his communications director to issue a false public statement in 6/x/17 about 6/9/16 meeting.

Mueller's legal analysis on obstruction statutes clearly concluded that obstruction of justice crime does not require the underlying crime to occur, neither does it require the obstruction to be ultimately successful. His corrupt intent resides in his motive to protect his personal interest - his fear that people would question the legitimacy of the presidency even if he in truth did not conspire with Russia.


The Attack on Omission of Exculpatory Evidence - John Dowd's Email to Michael Flynn’s Lawyer Rob Kelner

Nunes questioned about John Dowd's phone call to Michael Flynn’s Lawyer Rob Kelner: "Your report omitted John Dowd's phone call which Mr.Dowd calls exculpatory evidence. Are you concerned?”. Tom McClintock argued that Mueller omitted the exculpatory part of the transcript about the message Trump lawyer John Dowd sent to Michael Flynn's lawyer. [McClintock did not remember the date of the call accurately]. McClintock asked “The edited version in your report makes it appear that he was improperly asking for confidential information, and that’s all we know from your report expect that the judge in the Flynn case ordered the entire transcript released in which Dowd makes it crystal clear that’s not what he was suggesting. So my question is why did you edit the transcript to hide the exculpatory part of the message?". Guy Reschenthaler questioned this 'omission' issue in general without citing the name of John Dowd: "Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. correct?" [Mueller refuted all of them: "Well, I actually would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report exculpatory as well."]

The entire transcript of Dowd - Flynn's lawyer conversation on 11/22/17 was released on 5/31/19. [Hong Gan's note: gray area of the text was quoted by Mueller Report]

"Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I-'m-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't...state it in...starker terms, If you have...and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that...implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know...some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So...uh...you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of...protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any...confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal."

Here is a brief description of the Context behind Dowd's phone call to Kelner. (This is one of the 10 instances of obstruction of justice in Mueller Report - the 9th one - Trump's conduct on Flynn and Manafort). The evidence fitted into the broad definition of obstruction of justice - attempts to influence (tamper) the witness.

According to Mueller Report, Flynn began to cooperate with the Investigation in late November. On 11/22/17,  Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement he had with Trump. [Hong Gan's note: see a detailed Flynn - Russia Investigation timeline here]. Flynn’s counsel told the President’s personal counsel and counsel for the White House that Flynn could no longer have confidential communications with the White House or the President. Later that night, the President’s personal counsel left a voicemail for Flynn’s counsel. Mueller's quote on the voice mail was:

I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms. . . . [I]t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with . . . the government. . . . [I]f . . . there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can. . . . [R]emember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains . . . .

According to Mueller Report, on 11/23/17, Flynn’s attorneys returned the call from Dowd , reiterating that they were no longer in a position to share information with Trump under any sort of privilege. According to Flynn’s attorneys, the President’s personal counsel (Dowd) was indignant and vocal in his disagreement. Dowd said that he interpreted what they (Flynn's attorney) said to him as a reflection of Flynn’s hostility towards the President. On 12/1/17, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements. In response to a question about whether the Trump still stood behind Flynn and the possible pardon, Trump responded, “We’ll see what happens."

Mueller report hints at the voicemail as part of the effort by Trump's team to influence Flynn. Mueller believed the call was an attempt to make them (Flynn and his attorney) to reconsider their position to cooperate with the government, because Dowd believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message - Trump would view this position as a reflection of hostility toward him - would be conveyed to the Trump.

On 5/31/19,  Mueller office released transcript. In court documents filed earlier this month (May), government prosecutors described the contact from Trump's attorney, as one of many "potential" efforts by those close to Trump to thwart the investigation -- an effort exposed because of Flynn's 18 month-long cooperation with the special counsel's team.

Dowd resigned as Trump's lead counsel for the Mueller investigation in 3/x/18. He had denied his call was the attempt to make Flynn reconsider his position to cooperate with the government. Flynn dropped Kelner as the attorney on 5/x/19.

[Hong Gan's comment:] In appearance, in 11/22/19's voicemail, Down did said "without you having to give up any...confidential information" and Mueller's quote omitted this partial sentence. But Dowd's implication can be said to be clear - he wants to share any information including confidential information if the information might "implicate Trump'. He said that "he can’t state it in 'starker terms'." In the Kelner's return call when he reiterated that they can no longer share any information (confidential information) with Trump, according to Muller's interview notes with Kelner, Kelner said Dowd's reaction was "Indignant" and "Vocally in Disagreement". That is equivalent to implicate to Flynn to share with them any information that might "Implicate Trump'. He explicitly asked for 'heads up' if there is information that would 'Implicate Trump'. In addition, Trump's behavior fitted the overall pattern of conduct by Trump toward those other witnesses such as Cohen and Manafort. Initially Trump expressed sympathy and warm support asking them to stand strong because he is behind them and the possibility of pardon before they 'flipped' and then immediately went to the other polarization after they began cooperating with the government.

Attacks On Mueller's Prosecutorial Decision On Obstruction
  • attack on Mueller's choice on not making a prosecutorial decision on Obstruction of Justice (John Ratcliffe, Ken Buck, Guy Reschenthaler)
  • attempt to contradict Mueller's testimony with his report  on his answer to Ted lieu's question on prosecutorial decision on obstruction (Debra Kay Lesko).

Attacks On the Alleged Collusion/Conspiracy

6/9/16 Meeting

Republicans' attacking points on the 6/9/16 Meeting: (Steve Chabot Matt Gaetz)
  • Omission: Russia Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Glenn Simpson connection. Republicans claimed that Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS.
  • Trump was not present in the 6/9/16 meeting.
  • Glen Simpson and Russia Lawyer dined the day before the meeting and the day after the 6/9/16 meeting
  • Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya had said [to media: NBC news] she first received the supposedly-incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower describing alleged tax evasion and donation to Democrats from none other than Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner.
Russia Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya had hired Fusion GPS through BakerHostetler to help research  for the litigation on Prevezon Holding whom Natalia Veselnitskaya represented (see discussion on Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson in the origination of the Russia Investigation). Fusion GPS/Glenn Simpson and Natalia Veselnitskaya connection was business-related and commercial (client type). Even though Natalia Veselnitskaya could be a Russia agent, Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson did not know or aware of it. "Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS." was a false statement.

Veselnitskaya represented Pyotr Katsyv's son, Denis, [owner of Prevezon] when Preet Bharara (who was fired by Trump 3/11/17), the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, charged him with money laundering. Federal prosecutors accused Katsyv of using Manhattan real estate deals to launder money stolen from Browder's Hermitage Capital Management. The international money laundering case was settled with Katsyv's company, Prevezon Holdings, paying less than 3% of the amount prosecutors had initially sought (without any admission of wrongdoing).

Veselnitskaya met with Glenn R. Simpson on the day hours before the 6/9/16 Meeting in the Federal courtroom, ostensibly related to hearings that involved their mutual client Denis Katsyv, concerning charges of Russian tax fraud and money laundering originally uncovered by Magnitsky [tax accountant for Browder]. The Simpson–Veselnitskaya meetings before and after the 6/9/16 Meeting were denied by Veselnitskaya herself but confirmed by Simpson's lawyer, according to Wikipedia.

In Simpson's testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson answered on the question - "what were the purposes of these dinners" - "Well, the first one was just an obligatory client dinner (6/8/16)which, you know, when you work on a legal case you get invited to dinner with the clients. The one in D.C.(6/10/16) was more of a social thing. It wasn’t — she was at it, but it wasn’t really about the case. It was just a bunch of Mark Cymrot’s friends. You know, the editor of the Washington Post book section was there..." "Anyway, I saw her the next day (6/9/16) in court at this hearing and I’m sure we exchanged greetings, but, as I say, she speaks Russian and I speak English. I think she was with Anatoli and she left afterwards. I know she didn’t tell me any other plans she had."

Is Natalia Veselnitskaya an Russia agent? According to an interview with NBC News reported by New York Times, Veselnitskaya said that she is both a lawyer and an informant who has provided Yury Chaika, the Russian prosecutor general, with information since 2013. Veselnitskaya is not a major figure in Russia, but she is a well-connected lawyer who represented a Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, in a property case before 2013, according to Reuters. Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, a former Soviet counter-intelligence officer turned Russian-American lobbyist, had worked in an attempt to overturn the Magnitsky sanctions. Rinat Akhmetshin was present in the 6/9/16 Meeting. She had accused Steele Dossier as 'nonsense'. Veselnitskaya had campaigned in an unsuccessful attempt in Washington to repeal the Magnitsky Act and to "keep Mr. Magnitsky’s name off the law". On 1/8/19, Veselnitskaya was indicted in the United States with obstruction of justice for allegedly having attempted to thwart the Justice Department investigation into the money laundering against Katsyv.

On 11/10/17 NBC news reported that Fusion GPS also supplied info stemmed from research conducted by Fusion GPS in 6/9/16 Meeting. This was not the same as the Republican's statement that 'Natalia Veselnitskaya received incriminating information from none other than Glenn Simpson. In an interview with NBC News, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya said "she first received the supposedly incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower — describing alleged tax evasion involving the Ziff brothers, American investors, and Bill Browder and donations to Democrats — from Glenn Simpson" The derogatory Clinton Dirt 'Natalia Veselnitskaya brought to the 6/9/16 was about the donations to the DNC from the Fraud Russia Money. According to the Mueller Report on the analysis of the Campaign Finance Violation for the 6/9/16 Meeting, Mueller himself believed the derogatory Clinton Dirt the Russia lawyer supplied to the 6/9/16 meeting may not have very much value, though he agreed Trump Campaign's wrong doing in embracing the Clinton Dirt. The receiver of the donation did not know the ultimate source of the money and how it came from even though tax fraud money might be evolved. Steele Dossier did not have allegations relevant to the donation money coming from Russia source that was fraud money. The information on the 6/9/16 Meeting does not appear to be related to the Russia hacking and dumping operation - the Clinton email dirt disseminated on 7/22/16 on WikiLeaks.

Because Fusion GPS was also hired to provide research on the litigation of money laundering case by Prevezon. The information could be derived from that research source instead of Steele's research. NBC news stated in this way "A source with firsthand knowledge of the matter confirmed that the firm's [Fusion GPS] research had been provided to Veselnitskaya as part of the case, which involved alleging money laundering by a Russian company called Prevezon.". This account challenged the notion that "Natalia Veselnitskaya was simply carrying talking points to Trump that originated with the Russian government."

Months before she met in June 2016 with Trump Jr., Veselnitskaya said she turned the information she got from Simpson over to Russian Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika, who she said sought to verify it through his own investigation. She provided NBC News with a document she says she prepared for the Trump Tower meeting. The only reference to Clinton in Veselnitskaya's document is part of a reference to the Ziffs. She believes that some of the money they reaped from doing that ended up supporting Clinton and the Democrats, and she wanted the Trump campaign to know that. Employees of Ziff Brothers Investments contributed nearly $1.7 million to various political committees and candidates in the Election cycle — a mixture of Republicans and Democrats. Donations to Clinton's presidential campaign totaled only 1/10 of it. Natalia Veselnitskaya had provided contradictory answers to NBC news on whether she brought any damaging or sensitive Clinton information to the 6/9/16. She denied in an initial interview. In his 11/10/16 interview, she said that because she didn't expect Clinton to be aware of the allegations against the donors. so she denied initially.

In a statement to NBC News, a lawyer [Josh Levy] for Fusion GPS said Fusion's work on the dossier was totally separate from its work on the Prevezon case. Levy said the firm was unaware of the Trump Tower meeting when it happened. "No one from Fusion GPS had any idea Ms. Veselnitskaya would be meeting with anyone from the Trump campaign," attorney Josh Levy said. "Nor did anyone from Fusion GPS know she would be sharing anything she learned from either the company or the Prevezon matter with the Trump campaign. This whole episode came as a complete surprise to Fusion when the news broke this summer." [see NYTimes report 7/9/17 on Meeting and NYTimes report on Damaging Clinton Information] According to a steemit.com report, Fusion has denied claims that it facilitated the meeting between Veselnitskaya and Trump jr. despite having ties to the Russian lawyer and employing someone (Steele) for opposition research within the same time frame of the meeting. [Mueller report: 6/9/16 Meeting was arranged by Rob Goldstone] “Fusion GPS learned about this meeting from news reports and had no prior knowledge of it. Any claim that Fusion GPS arranged or facilitated this meeting in any way is false,” Fusion GPS said.

Lastly, Chabot had implied that Trump was not present in the 6/9/16 meeting. It was true that Trump was absent at the Meeting, but his written answer on this Meeting was more than beyond the reasonable doubt that He knew in advance of the pending meeting and was quite clear he was lying about it and the subsequent attempt to have Trump Jr to forge false statement about the Meeting when confronting Media. [see Mueller Report.] (quote Trump's written answer)
  • "I have no recollection of learning at the time" that his son, Manafort or Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in 6/9/16 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton."
  • "I have no recollection of learning of time and topic of the Meeting at the time; and have no recollection about learning the series of email communications between Trump Jr and Robert Goldstone from 6/3/16-6/9/16"
  •  "At this point in time, I do not remember whether I spoke or met with Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on 6/9/16. My desk calendar indicates I was scheduled to meet with Paul Manafort on the morning of June 9, but I do not recall if that meeting took place."
  • "I have no independent recollection of any communications I had with the Agalarov family or anyone r understood to be a representative of the Agalarov family after 6/3/16 and before the end of the campaign..."
  • "I do not recall being aware during the campaign of communications between Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Robert Goldstone, Natalia Yeselnitskaya (whose name I was not familiar with), or anyone I understood to be a Russian official."
Later Trump attempted to cover up the Meeting: On at least three occasions Trump directed Hope Hicks and others not to publicly disclose information about the 6/9/16 meeting. After the media reported the Meeting, Trump directed his son and his communications director to issue a false public statement in 6/x/17 about 6/9/16 meeting. Trump Jr. was the only Trump associate who participated in that meeting and who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Mueller Office.

Flynn's Alleged Tie To Russia and Kompromat

Flynn - Russia Investigation Timeline

Gen. Michael Flynn is a former senior official in military intelligence
  • 4/17/12: Flynn was nominated as director of DIA by Obama
  • 7/x/12: Flynn became director of DIA 
  • 6/x/13: Michael Flynn became the first U.S. officer to be allowed inside the Russian military intelligence (GRU) headquarters in Moscow, where he arrived at the invitation of the GRU chief 
  • Flynn encountered with Svetlana Lokhova; at approximately the same time, Stefan Halper is the first to raise concern about Flynn - Lokhova encounter. [Halper was an informant prior to Crossfire Hurricane for Russia investigation] After 6 month of encounter, Flynn was fired from head of DIA 
  • 6/x/15, Flynn met Trump for the first time after being invited to do so by his team 
  • 12/10/15 Michael Flynn speaks at conference of the government-backed media outlet Russia Today (RT) in Moscow. He sat next to Putin at a dinner. 
  • Reuters reports that Flynn “has been informally advising Trump” on foreign policy during the presidential campaign. 
  • 8/17/16 Trump receives his first intelligence briefing 
  • 11/10/16 Obama reportedly warns Trump against hiring Flynn. 
  • 11/18/19 Trump selects Flynn as his national security adviser. 
  • 12/1/16 Flynn and Jared Kushner meet with Kislyak [also reported in Mueller Report] 
  • 12/22/16 Flynn calls Kislyak and asks if Russia would delay or defeat an upcoming U.N. Security Council resolution vote 
  • 12/29/16 Obama announces sanctions on Russia Meddling. In a phone call with Kislyak, Flynn asks that Russia refrain from retaliating to the U.S. sanctions. (see detail below) 
  • 1/12/17 The Washington Post reports that Flynn and Kislyak spoke on Dec. 29 
  • 1/22/17 Flynn is sworn in as the national security adviser 
  • 1/x/17 Flynn was interviewed by FBI and lied to FBI 
  • 2/13/17 Flynn resigns. Trump privately meets with FBI Director James Comey, asking comey to ‘let Flynn go’ (to drop the investigation of Flynn) 
  • 5/8/16 Sally Yates and James Clapper testified before Senator. including on Flynn saga
  • 6/6/17 Flynn provides more than 600 pages of documents to the Senate intelligence committee, CNN reports. The committee subpoenaed the documents on May 10. 
  • 11/22/17 Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement he had with Trump.
  • 12/1/17 Flynn pleaded guilty for lying (court filing) 
  • 12/18/19 pending sentencing

The Flynn - Lokhova Saga

Devin Nunes asked about Flynn - "The first Trump associate to be investigated was General Flynn. Many of the allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with the Cambridge Academics' Svetlana Lokhova and that Lokhova was a Russian spy. Some of these allegations were made public in the article written by British intelligence historian Christopher Andrew. Your report fails to reveal how or why Andrew and his collaborator, Sir Richard former head of Britain's MI6, spread these allegations. And you failed to interview Svetlana Lokhova about these matters. Is that correct?" [Mueller said he is not going to get into those matters].

According to guardian, 3/31/17, US intelligence officials had serious concerns about Michael Flynn’s appointment as the White House national security adviser because of his history of contacts with Moscow and his encounter with a woman (Svetlana Lokhova), who allegedly had access to Russian spy agency records. US and British intelligence officers discussed Flynn’s “worrisome” behavior well before his appointment by Donald Trump. The Cambridge encounter was part of a wider pattern of “maverick” behavior which included repeated contacts with Russia. On 11/10/16 Obama reportedly warns Trump against hiring Flynn. Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general, who had told the White House on 1/x/17 that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail by Russian intelligence

Flynn encountered a Russian-British academia - Svetlana Lokhova - an expert on Soviet intelligence in the 1930s,, whom Flynn met at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar (CIS), a gathering of former intelligence officials hosted at Cambridge University. Flynn and Lokhova were introduced to each other at a dinner attended by 20 guests who included Sir Richard – the former head of MI6 – and Prof Christopher Andrew, the official MI5 historian. At the time, Flynn was one of the top US spies and the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which provides information to the Pentagon about the military strengths and intentions of other states and terrorist groups. As DIA chief, Flynn visited the GRU in Moscow in 2013. Flynn did not tell US authorities about the meeting then. He later says the meeting with Lokhova was “incidental” and lasted just 20 minutes. However, Andrew has said Flynn invited Lokhova to accompany him on his next official visit to Moscow to help with simultaneous translation. Flynn and Lokhova remained in email contact for a while , conducted through an unclassified channel.

According to New York Times (5/18/18), Halper was the first to raise concern about Flynn - Lokhova encounter without mentioning Halper and Lokhova's name. Stefan Halper became so alarmed by Flynn’s close association with Svetlana Lokhova that a Halper associate expressed concerns to American authorities that Flynn may have been compromised by Russian intelligence. Washington Post reported (6/5/18) that the former MI6 chief (sir Richard) also raised concerns about Lokhova. Flynn was forced out of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) six months later after Lokhova encounter, although public accounts at the time cited other reasons for his removal, including his management style and views on Islam.

Halper had made allegations of Russian spy infiltration at the University of Cambridge, particularly through events at Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, The CIS was set up by official MI5 historian Professor Christopher Andrew. The concerns emerged after a number of experts unexpectedly resigned from their positions at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar (CIS). They were former MI6 chief Sir Richard (he later returned to CIS), Stefan Halper, historian Peter Martland. Halper said that his decision to leave CIS was due to "unacceptable Russian influence" on the group.

After Flynn resigned from the DIA, Flynn became a contributor to RT, formerly known as Russia Today, the Kremlin’s English-language news channel. On 12/10/15, Michael Flynn spoke at the 10th anniversary conference of the government-backed media outlet Russia Today (RT) in Moscow. He sat next to Putin at a dinner. He was part of a panel discussion for which he was paid. Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event. Flynn will soon become an informal adviser to the Trump campaign, according to Reuters. In remarks at the event, Flynn is critical of the Obama administration’s foreign policy and supportive of working with Russia to battle ISIS.

Svetlana Lokhova - former Cambridge academic - is a historian and an expert on Soviet espionage, she said her forthcoming book makes groundbreaking revelations about Soviet military intelligence operations run by the GRU – Russia’s military spy agency. What alarmed intelligence officials was that Lokhova appears to have gained rare access to previously classified Soviet-era material in Moscow for her forthcoming book. Lokhova also listed Flynn as one of four referees who would provide selective endorsements for her book, which is expected to detail how Russian spies penetrated the US atomic weapons program. Her 'forthcoming' book was later first published in 1/x/18 titled as "The spy who changed history".

However, according to a 5/12/17 BBC report, in an interview with Svetlana Lokhova, she denied she was a Russia agent "I have no formal or informal connections with Russian intelligence. She also denied that she has any kind of "special access" to Russian intelligence archives. she says that because of her work with Prof Andrew, who has worked with defectors from the Soviet Union such as former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin, who smuggled out its secrets, she is viewed with suspicion in Russia. She provided a detailed account of what happened on her encounter with Flynn in her BBC interview.

Svetlana Lokhova, sued Halper on 5/23/19, alleging he had conspired with multiple news outlets to spread the false and salacious narrative that she had seduced Flynn on orders from the Russian government to recruit him. Halper applied for the immunity identifying himself as one of the government agent.

Christopher Andrew, the official M15 historian and cofounder and head of CIS was the first who reported the allegations on Flynn - Lokhova encounter and her alleged role as a Russia agent in Sunday Times of London, although he did not believe Russia's infiltration in the CIS as a serious threat. Followed his initial report, WSJ and Gaurdian published report based on his report with the added details that American intelligence authorities had been tipped off about Flynn’s contact with Lokhova. Christopher Andrew was the mentor of Lokhova. He invited Lokhova to his Ph.D program, specialize in the Soviet-era espionage operaton in the 1930s. As Lokhova had defended herself - Prof Andrew has worked with defectors from the Soviet Union such as former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin, who smuggled out its secrets.

[Hong Gan's comment] That was all I can find on the internet regarding the Flynn-Lokhova saga. No New York Times and Washington Post report had conclusively told a story about this. If Lokhova were to be a Russia agent, there is not sufficient evidence to prove it. The only possible evidence was her specialty area of study and research - the Soviet-era espionage in the 1930s. Her 'forthcoming' book at the time of Flynn encounter was later published - The Spy Changed History (I did not read the book). Halper's and many others' concern must be the fact that in order to produce such a book, Lokhova had to have some access to the spy record archive. Western historians say access to intelligence agency records in Moscow has been severely restricted under Vladimir Putin. “At least with the FSB and SVR [domestic and foreign spy agencies] there are places you can apply to view the archives, but with the GRU there’s not even a place to apply,” the historian said. “...getting into the actual GRU archive is basically impossible.”

One possibility could be - she got those information from her Ph.D mentor Christopher Andrew who was a M15 hisrtorian and whose research was about the Soviet espionage through working with defectors from Soviet. The former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin who smuggled out its secrets was one of the defectors. These could become Lokhova's source of information underlying her book.

Lokhova's conversation with Flynn at the CIS dinner was public, lasting about 20 minutes. In her 5/21/17 BBC interview, she mentioned she only showed Flynn a 1912 postcard from Stalin showing that Stalin was the most spied-upon leader in history as well as the one who later spied on people the most. She claimed that was for amusement. Lokhova also denied that she was asked to travel to Russia and act as his translator. They did not appear to have further interaction beside some email exchanges in which Flynn had signed himself as General Misha (Russian name for Michael).

A few conservative websites criticized Halper's accusion of Lokhova as false and absurd. But Halper was/is not that type. Halper's inclination - his sentiment of suspicion on Lokhova as a Russia agent was originated from Russia's Problem since it annexed Crimea from Ukraine and its alienation of itself from western alliance and its cyber offensive activities since. Halper's anti-Russia Intelligence sentiment was general not specific toward Lokhova in any attempt to derogate her. Halper was unmasked as FBI informant by the New Work Times (5/18/18) and the Washington Post (5/21/18). Halper had the inside knowledge about Russia Intelligence.

Ultimately, Nunes' point of argument is not whether Lokhova was a Russia agent or not, but why Mueller did not interview and investigate Flynn-Lokhova allegations. Mueller's focus was on Russia interference  and collusion in the Election year. Flynn - Lokhova had no contact in the Election year. Nowhere in Mueller Report did her ever implicate Lokhova as a Russia agent. The only Flynn - Russia contact documented in the Mueller Report was Flynn and Kushner's meeting with Kislyak and his phone call exchanges with Kislyak about sanction. Lokhova was not a US citizen (she was British who was born in Russia), what's the sense to interview her.

The Leak of Flynn’s Phone call with Kislyka about the Sanction

Nunes' next question on Flynn was about the leak of phone call between Flynn and Russian ambassador "I know you came after the leak of his phone call with the Russian ambassador Kislyak'. During your time at FBI, wouldn’t it be a major scandal for the leak of the national security advisor and anyone...?" [Mueller disputed the notion: "I can’t adopt that hypothesis."  Nunes had told Fox News that his investigation may reveal who unmasked Flynn and who leaked his phone calls with Kislyak to the Washington Post.

Events Surround The Leak of Michael Flynn’s Phone call with Kislyka about the Sanction:
  • 11/18/16 Trump names Flynn as his national-security adviser
  • 12/28/16 Obama posed sanction on Russia Election Meddling effective the next day (813)
  • 12/28/16 Russian Ambassador Kislyak contacted Fynn (813)
  • 12/29/16 Flynn called senior official of the Transition Team to discuss what to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions and that the members of the Transition Team did not want Russia to escalate the situation. Flynn called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner. Flynn spoke with official to report on the substance of his call with Kislyak
  • 12/30/16 Putin released a statement indicating that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that time
  • 12/31/16 Russian Ambassador called Flynn and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate. Flynn informed Transition Team Russia's decision.
  • 1/12/17 David Ignatius from Washington Post wrote that Flynn and Kislyak spoke several times on 12/29/16
  • 1/x/17 Flynn was interviewed by FBI (Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok) and made the false statements as detailed in the court filing (12/1/17).
  • 1/26/17 Sally Yates warned White House that Flynn could be compromised by Russia because Russia knew he lied about the phone call with Kislyak
  • 2/13/17 Flynn resigned and Trump asked Comey to stop the Russia investigation and let Flynn go
According to plea agreement Flynn signed with Mueller, Flynn admitted lying to the FBI about the phone call he placed to the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergei Kislyak, during the Transition period. During the FBI interview, Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request.

Mueller report documented the detailed events surrounding the Flynn - Kislyak phone call. Trump appeared to know Flynn was calling Kislyak. According to Mueller Report, on 12/29/16 - the day Obama imposed sanctions on Russia Election Meddling , multiple members of the Transition Team exchanged emails about the sanctions and the impact they would have on the incoming Administration, and Flynn informed members of the PTT that he would be speaking to the Russian Ambassador later in the day. Flynn, who was in the Dominican Republic at the time, and K.T. McFarland, who was slated to become the Deputy National Security Advisor and was at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida with Trump and other senior staff, talked by phone about what, if anything, Flynn should communicate to Kislyak about the sanctions. McFarland informed Flynn that incoming Administration officials at Mar-aLago did not want Russia to escalate the situation. At later that afternoon, McFarland sent an email to several officials about the sanctions and informed the group that “Gen Flynn is talking to Russian ambassador this evening.”

Approximately one hour later, McFarland met with Trump  and senior officials and briefed them on the sanctions and Russia’s possible responses. Incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus recalled that McFarland may have mentioned at the meeting that the sanctions situation could be “cooled down” and not escalated. McFarland recalled that at the end of the meeting, someone may have mentioned to Trump that Flynn was speaking to the Russian Ambassador that evening. McFarland did not recall any response by Trump.

The Washington Post's David Ignatius reported 1/12/17 that Flynn "phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on 12/29/16." His source was "a senior U.S. government official." The report questioned whether Flynn had said something to “undercut the U.S. sanctions” and whether Flynn’s communications had violated the letter or spirit of the Logan Act. The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

According to Mueller Report, Trump called Priebus after the story was published and expressed anger about it. Flynn recalled that he felt a lot of pressure because Priebus had spoken to the “boss” and said Flynn needed to “kill the story". To cover up the story, Flynn lied about his phone call with Kislyak to Incoming Administration Officials (Mike Pence, Priebus, Sean Spicer), the Media, and the FBI.  In subsequent media interviews in mid-January, Pence, Priebus, and Spicer denied that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions, basing those denials on their conversations with Flynn and the lies Flynn told them. The public statements of incoming Administration officials - Pence, Priebus, and Spicer - denying that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions alarmed senior DOJ officials (Sally Yates, McCord, McCabe), who were aware that the statements were not true. FBI also believed that Flynn’s calls with Kislyak and subsequent denials about discussing sanctions raised potential Logan Act issues. On 1/26/17 Department of Justice (Sally Yates)  contacted White House Counsel Donald McGahn and informed him their concerns that Russia had leverage over Flynn based on his lies and could use that derogatory information to compromise him.

According to Mueller Report, a week before Flynn was terminated, he had a one-on-one conversation with Trump about the negative media coverage of his contacts with Kislyak. Flynn recalled that Trump was upset and asked him for information on the conversations. Flynn listed the specific dates on which he remembered speaking with Kislyak, but the President corrected one of the dates he listed. Trump asked Flynn what he and Kislyak discussed and Flynn responded that he might have talked about sanctions. On the weekend before Flynn was fired, he accompanied the Trump to Mar-a-Lago. Flynn recalled that on the return flight to D.C.  Trump asked him whether he had lied to the Vice President. Flynn responded that he may have forgotten details of his calls.

According to Mueller Report, after Flynn was forced to resign, the press raised questions about why the President waited so long after the DOJ notification to remove Flynn and whether the President had known about Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak before the DOJ notification. In a press conference a few days after Flynn's resignation, Trump said he did not direct Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak, but “it certainly would have been okay with me if he did. I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it. I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him because that’s his job". About a week later, Trump asked Priebus to have McFarland draft an internal email that would confirm that he did not direct Flynn to call. McFarland told Priebus she did not know whether the President had directed Flynn to talk to Kislyak about sanctions, and she declined to say yes or no.

Nunes' characterization of the leak of the Flynn - Kislyak phone call as a scandal was not acceptable. As Washington Post's motto suggests - Democracy die in the dark. If people are not being informed, particularly if people are not being informed of the wrongdoings of the government, Democracy would inevitably being compromised. Flynn's phone call with Kislyak could violate the spirit of the Logan Act, if there is not enough to bring about the criminal prosecution. His request for Russia to not escalate on the Sanction in transition period have an implication to Russia that once the incoming Trump administration secured on its position, there is a possibility for the ease of the sanctions or even the lift of the sanction. This is a betrayal of our national interest and national security. Trump's tweet about Russia's no escalation move "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart" is one of the pieces of evidence for his pro-Russia foreign policy that against our national interest. It is not in contradiction with the conspiracy allegation between Trump and the Russia. It constitute the vast evidence for the notion of 'Loose Collusion".

John Dowd's Email to Michael Flynn’s Lawyer

Nunes' last question was about Trump Attorney John Dowd's Email to Michael Flynn’s Lawyer and that Mueller omitted the exculpatory content of the email in his report.  [go to previous section for this topic].


Konstantin Kilimnik
Nunes argued that Konstantin Kilimnik had tie to our State Department: "Your report stated that Konstantin Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. The report omits to mention that Kilimnik has long-term relationships with U.S. government officials including our own State Department. I think it is important for this Committee to know if Kilimnik has ties to our own State Department, which it appears that he does." [Mueller declined to answer]

Republican Tom McClintock, on Mueller's testimony, also claimed that Konstantin Kilimnik was actually a U.S. State Department intelligence source learned from news articles and attacked Mueller that he omitted this. He asked whether Mueller ever interviewed Konstantin Kilimnik? [Mueller disagreed McClintock's characterization.]

According to Mueller Report, Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian national, longtime Manafort employee who previously ran Manafort's office in Kiev and who has lived in both Russia and Ukraine and speaks and writes Ukrainian and Russian, had direct and close access to Yanukovych and his senior entourage, and facilitated many of Manafort's communications with his clients, including Yanukovych and Ukrainian oligarchs.and also Deripaska and who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence although Manafort did not believe he was a Russian spy.

Manafort instructed Rick Gates to send Campaign internal polling data and other updates to Kilimnik and in turn, to share it with Deripaska and Ukrainian oligarchs via WhatsApp. Manafort had met Kilimik during and after the Campaign. They had discussed the 'Ukraine Peace' Plan. They had used coded language to write the email communication. Kilimnik was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury on  6/8/18, on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by attempting to tamper with a witness on behalf of Manafort.

The bombshell that Kilimnik was a State Department intelligence source was spreaded by John Solomon. He also claimed that Mueller has possessed all the documents on Kilimnik from FBI a year before his final Report. No major credible news sources published the similar story. [quote 6/6/19 John Solomon Report ] "What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I [Solomon] reviewed." The Solomon Report was filled with detail and referenced with documentary evidence from State Department Ukraine Embassy officials (Alan Purcell, Kasanof) and FBI interviews. But no original documents can be seen online.

After summarizing Mueller and Republican (i.e. John Solomon)'s characterization on Konstantin Kilimnik, here was what Konstantin Kilimnik's response on Mueller Report's characterization on him in an email he wrote to Washington Post on 4/19/19 - a day after the redacted version of Muller Report was made public. He denied he was a Russian Agent “I have no ties to Russian or, for that matter, any intelligence operation.” “I absolutely have zero to do with the Russia interference in the U.S. elections investigated by Mr. Mueller.” He also denied he had passed on to others in Ukraine or Russia about the polling data Manafort sent him and which he described as “pretty much open info, not different in any way from what was discussed by the media."

[Hong Gan's comment: John Solomon is not credible. he has been accused of creating fake controversy. (see Wikipedia review on his pro-Trump opinion pieces and his part in the Trump–Ukraine controversy). He was the spreader of the bombshell immediately prior to Mueller's Testimony about Mifsud's audio deposition. The audio tape was claimed to be obtained last year summer but only to be waited to be disclosed and published on the evening before the day Mueller testified.  John Solomon had published documentary evidence online in Scribd for his other anti-Mueller Report 'bombshells' such as Mifsud's audio deposition [but with only 1 page not the whole thing], Kathleen's notes on Steele contacts. This personal blog post depicts a propaganda laundry pattern and method/source by which John Solomon has consistently been used in the effort to undermine the investigation into Trump this way. The author of the post pen named 'emptywheel' is Marcy Wheel who is an independent journalist and is a senior fellow at GWU (George Wahington University)’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security]

The discussion on the identity of Konstantin Kilimnik (whether he was a State Department source) has to be stopped short here unless John Solomon can disclose the orginal State Department memo and email exchanges and FBI memos by which Solomon has claimed he had reviewed. (Here is one email exchange between Kilimnik and Eric Schultz John Solomon loaded on Scribd. But Solomon's propaganda based off this piece of information (email) was accused by EmptyWheel as faux. Why those documents (memo and email) were leaked to John Solomon and not to other major medias?. If it is to protect the source to withhold those documents, then Solomon's report destroyed this source (Kilimnik)'s value. No Russia or Ukraine would feed Konstantin Kilimnik valuable intelligence any more.

"Trump Is a Russian Agent"

Brad Wenstrup asked Mueller on his Testimony - "So a member of this Committee said President Trump was a Russian agent after your report was publicly released. That statement is not supported by your report, correct?" [Mueller answered correct].

[Hong Gan's comment: Swalwell might be the Democrat whom Wenstrup refer to. Eric Swalwell's characterization on Trump is figurative metaphor. I believed that saying is the equivalent to his belief on Trump's collusion with Russia and on Trump's pro-Russia foreign policy. So his complete statement might be - Trump Is a 'Russian Agent' Who Works on Russia's Behalf. I don't think he is saying Trump was undercover Russia intelligence agent employed by Russia.] (see this post on Trump's Pro-Russia Foreign Policy and The Mystery of Trump-Russia Meetings).

Appearing on MSNBC’s Hardball 1/19/19, MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Swalwell: “Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the Russians?” Eric Swalwell (D-CA) asserted "All Evidence I’ve Seen Shows Trump Is a Russian Agent". Swalwell’s comments came after BuzzFeed published a report claiming that Trump ordered his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. [Though the Mueller office did not agree with the detail as accurate about the lie in the report]. A partial transcript published on breitbart.com indicated that Eric Swalwell and CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS talked about Collusion, Lie and Helsinki Summit where the interpreters’ notes were essentially taken away, no other witnesses in the room, [quote Eric Swalwell] he [Trump] has pulled us out of Syria, he’s tried to take us out of NATO, and he’s easing sanctions against someone who is involved in the Mueller investigation, Oleg Deripaska."..." I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence that he’s not."..." He’s working on behalf of the Russians, yes."

In March this year (shortly after Mueller handed in his report to DOJ and Barr's summary letter before redacted Mueller report was made public), Swalwell reasserted his belief -" yes, I still think Trump is a ‘Russian agent’" on Martha MacCallum’s show who wanted to know if he wanted to revise his past statement he made on MSNBC. Swalwell said - "I saw evidence and the country has seen evidence of collusion. Mueller has said that he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt which I accept but it doesn't mean that there wasn't collusion." [...] “I think he acts on Russia’s behalf and he puts Russia’s interests ahead, too often, of America’s interests,” Swalwell reiterated. [partial transcripts can be found in this reference]


Trump Kompromat - Trump Pee Tape

Republican's - Devin Nunes' - concern about Trump Pee Tape was about "stopping the flow of compromising tapes of Donald Trump." He asked - "An American citizen from the Republic of Georgia, who your report [Mueller Report] misidentifies as a Russians, claims that your report [Mueller Report] omitted parts of a text message he had with Michael Cohen about stopping the flow of compromising tapes of Donald Trump. In the omitted portions, he says he did not know what the tapes actually showed. Is that portion of the exchange left out of the report for a reason?" [Mueller's  answers was - "No. We got an awful lot in the report, but we did not get every intersection or conversation. So I am not familiar with that particular episode you’re talking about."]

The Alleged Trump Pee Tape (also known as Golden Shower) was reported by Steele in his 6/20/16 report in The Steele Dossier (see this post - Section on Kompromat: sexual perversion). The alleged existence of compromising tapes the Kremlin had of Trump – including the alleged “pee tape” – was cited in the redacted version of Mueller Report in an specific area as the underlying evidence. That specific area of discussion was the context events surrounding the first instance of the 10 obstruction of justice by Trump  - investigation on Flynn and his phone call to Russia Ambassor Kislyak about Sanction. The context event was then FBI director Comey's brief to Trump on 1/6/17 about the allegations of Steele Dossier. -  "Comey then briefed the President-Elect on the sensitive material in the Steele reporting" [annotation]

(next was the content of the annotation on Comey's brief on the sensitive material in the Steele reporting) - {Hong Gan's note: citations in the [brackets] was Comey's memo, Comey, Cohen, and Rtskhiladz's interview notes by Mueller Investigators. and Text message Rtskhiladze to Cohen}

[Comey 1/7/17 Memorandum, at 1-2; Comey 11/15/17 302, at 3]. Comey’s briefing included the Steele reporting’s unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On 10/30/16, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know . . . .” [10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen]. Rtskhiladze said “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. [Rtskhiladze 4/4/18 302, at 12.] Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. [Cohen 9/12/18 302, at 13.] Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.  [Rtskhiladze 5/10/18 302, at 7]

[Hong Gan's note]: The Crocus Group was founded by Aras Agalarov - a Russian Oligarch who helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow. Steele Dossier report 113 Allegation 3 said that Aras Agalarov had been closely involved with TRUMP in Russia and will know the details about kompromat of Trump's business dealings in St. Petersburg as well as Moscow.]

On 10/7/16, a video was published showing Trump speaking crudely about women during an interview with radio host Billy Bush about a decade ago. Several women came forward to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct. It would also later be revealed that three days before the Rtskhiladze text message, Cohen had made a secret payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels.

Rtskhiladze was born in Georgia (not Russia), the former Soviet republic, and has lived in the U.S. since 1991. He is now a US citizen. In 2012, the Trump Organization announced plans to build a tower in the Georgian Black Sea town of Batumi with the Silk Road Group, which paid him a $1 million licensing fee. Rtskhiladze was the group’s U.S.-based partner. Plans for the tower were on hold until Trump announced he was pulling out of the project just before he entered the White House.

Blommblerg first reported Rtskhiladze's disputing  on Mueller report's detail on his text messages regarding allegedly compromising tapes of Donald Trump. Rtskiladze accused Mueller of publishing “glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations” about rumors of alleged sex tapes of Trump during a visit to Moscow in 2013. In a letter sent to Attorney General William Barr, his lawyer Bolden called on the Justice Department to retract text message exchange.

Rtskhiladze claims that the report inaccurately quotes his text message with Cohen. He says that additional text messages not quoted in the report show that he was doubtful about a rumor he had heard from an associate in Moscow about the existence of a tape. His lawyer said in the letter  “there was nothing to the rumors of the tapes, and that Rtskiladze did not believe there were any tapes, nor had he seen what was on the tapes, even if they existed.”

Mueller did not quote the whole email exchanges. The omitted portion was shown here, according to a DailyCaller report who obtained the letter Rtskhiladz's lawyer sent to William Barr. The transcript was extracted from the screenshot of email exchange provided in the Dailycaller report. Note: Rtskhiladze actually wrote that he had “stopped flow of some tapes

Rtskhiladze: “Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know . . . .”
Cohen: "Tapes of What"
Rtskhiladze: “Not sure of the content but person in Moscow was bragging had tapes from Russia trip. Will try to dial you tomorrow but wanted to be aware. I’m sure it’s not a big deal but there are lots of stupid people,”
Cohen: “You have no idea,”.

[Hong Gan's comment:] I don't think Mueller had attempted to hide anything for any implication regarding the Trump Pee Tape. All of the annotation was for one short statement in the report - that is - "Comey then briefed the President-Elect on the sensitive material in the Steele reporting". He cited all the underlying sources (memo, email exchange, interview notes] for his annotation. He can't put everything in an annotation.

There was no where in this annotation would imply Rtskhiladze had any direct knowledge of the pee tape, he knew for sure the very existence of the pee tape and he would ever know the content (saw the content of the tape) if the pee tape exists. Mueller only mentioned it as a similar claim as the one in Steele Dossier that Comey was briefing Trump. Mueller cited the interview notes and stated "Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen".

Bolden acknowledged in the letter to Barr that Rtskhiladze’s claim of “stopping the flow” of the tapes “may have been a poor choice of words. He said that Rtskhiladze was using a “colloquialism” to convey to Cohen.


Attack on the Russia was Behind the Meddling

A rare attack by Tom McClintock was whether Russia government was behind the active measure social media campaign outlined in Mueller Report
  • Mueller had no evidence to link IRA troll farm to the Russia Government (Tom McClintock)
  • Whether Russia Meddling had or had not changed voter's vote. (William Steube)

McClintock attacked the credibility of the Mueller report, arguing that Mueller had no evidence to link IRA troll farm to the Russia Government i.e The Russia government might not be behind the Troll Farm who had sow discord. [For details on IRA's active measure Social Media Campaign in Mueller Report, go to this post]. He questioned: "The problem we’re having is that we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence and we’re starting to find out that’s not true. For example, your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet, at a hearing in May in the Concord Management IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated both you and Mr. Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when, in court, you’ve been unable to produce any evidence to support it?" Mueller disputed that claim - "I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that proceeding."

Then McClintock further attacked Mueller: "in fact, the judge considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off, only after you hastily called a press conference the next day in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms." "Did your press conference have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the evidence?" [MUELLER answered No.]

Concord Management and Consulting was one of the three firms indicted by Mueller for its role in the Russia Active Measure Social Media Campaign. 13 individuals and 3 companies were indicted. They were: Internet Research Agency (IRA, the troll farm), Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering. 12 individuals were employees of IRA while Yevgeny Prigozhin was the owner of Concord Group. Concord Management and Consulting is a member of the Concord company group. Based in St. Petersburg, Russia, it owns and operates several restaurants. It is also the parent company of Concord Catering.

According to Mueller Report in the area on - “Structure of IRA” and its “Funding And Oversight from Concord and Prigozhin”, Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA) is a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering (collectively "Concord"). IRA started to hide its funding and activities as early as about 5 years ago. Concord Management and Consulting, had a contract drawn up with IRA in 2013 for 20 million rubles ($650,000). Until at least 2/x/18, Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and "Concord" funded the IRA.. IRA employees were aware that Prigozhin was involved in the IRA's US operation.

According to the indictment court filing, CONCORD funded the IRA as part of a larger CONCORD-funded interference operation that it referred to as “Project Lakhta.” Project Lakhta had multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States. By in or around September the Election year, IRA’s monthly budget for Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles, including approximately one million rubles in bonus payments. To conceal its involvement, CONCORD labeled the monies paid to the IRa for Project Lakhta as payments related to software support and development. To further conceal the source of funds, CONCORD distributed monies to the IRa through approximately 13 bank accounts held in the names of CONCORD affiliates. Prigozhin approved and supported the IRA’s operations, and IRA and their employees were aware of PRIGOZHIN’s role.

Concord Management and Consulting owns 50% of LLC Megaline. Megaline received most of the capital construction contracts for the Russian military. On 6/ 20.17, The Treasury Department added Concord Management and Consulting to the list of companies sanctioned for Russia's military interventions in Crimea and Ukraine.

Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin had ties to putin, he is nicknamed as "Putin's Chef." Prigozhin founded Concord Catering in 1996, and over the years began feeding Moscow children and eventually the Russian military. Putin attended the 2010 opening of Prigozhin’s food factory outside St. Petersburg, designed to supply food to schools, according to Meduza. Mueller report mentioned Numerous media sources have reported on Prigozhin’s ties to Putin, and they have appeared together in public photographs.
According to New York Times report - Yevgeny Prigozhin, Russian Oligarch Indicted by U.S., Is Known as "Putin’s Cook",  “Mr. Prigozhin’s critics — including opposition politicians, journalists and activists, the United States Treasury and now the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III — say he has emerged as Mr. Putin’s go-to oligarch for that and a variety of sensitive and often-unsavory missions” “He is not afraid of dirty tasks,” said Lyubov Sobol of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, an organization established by the prominent opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny to investigate abuse of state contracts and other illicit schemes.“He can fulfill any task for Putin, ranging from fighting the opposition to sending mercenaries to Syria,” she said. “He serves certain interests in certain spheres, and Putin trusts him.” The most notorious venture linked to Mr. Prigozhin, however, is the troll farm that is accused of attacking opposition figures in Russia and seeking to magnify and aggravate social and political divisions in the West. Despite his frequent denials of any involvement, his critics say he had provided a way for the Kremlin to engage in such activities while maintaining a discreet distance. Prigozhin met regularly in 2015 and 2016 with Mikhail I. Bystrov, a leader of the Internet Research Agency, about Project Lakhta, Prigozhin was sanctioned in 12/29/16.

The initial hearing after the indictment was May (5/9/18), Concord management and consulting was only the defendant appeared in the court represented by a US based law firm Reed Smith (Dubelier was the lawyer) . Lawyers for Russian company Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, formally entered a “not guilty” plea. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich agreed with Concord’s request for a speedy trial and rejected Mueller’s request for a delay in the trial. The case was delayed for 90 days by a joint motion to lift the requirement for the speedy trial act due to its complexity. The Russian company’s lawyers intend to invoke “discovery” to obtain U.S. intelligence about what they knew of Russian activities.

After Mueller Report (the redacted version) was released to the public 4/18/19, Defense lawyers for Concord Management, filed a motion in April demanding the judge hold Robert Mueller and US Attorney General Bill Barr in criminal contempt for releasing the redacted special counsel report. Judge Friedrich - a Trump-appointed federal judge - responded to the contempt request in a 23-page opinion and rebuked the special counsel and DOJ for falsely suggesting Concord was tied to the Kremlin. In Friedrich’s 5/28/19 order, she specifically stated:

“ORDERED that to the extent the government makes or authorizes any public statement about the allegations in the indictment, such statement must make clear that - the government is summarizing the allegations in the indictment, which remain unproven, and the government does not express an opinion on the defendants’ guilt or innocence or the strength of the evidence in this case.”

Mueller himself denied his 5/29/19 Presser had nothing to do with potential contempt order in Russian Troll Farm Case.  In Mueller’s 5/29/19 press conference, he stated:

“Let me begin where the appointment order begins”......

“The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber-techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election."

"These indictments contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

"The indictments allege and the other activities in our report describe efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.” {this sentence was emphsized by Hong Gan}

…….[ after a few more paragraph]

“The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election.” {Hong Gan’s note: Mueller did not say at the end of his investigation, the Russia Meddling was still allegations}

[Hong Gan’s comment]: the quote (in italic) appeared at the very beginning of Mueller's press speech. Followed these statement - allegations and presumption of innocence - Mueller stated: these allegations - 'they needed to be investigated and understood". Therefore this initial part of the statements are allegations not the investigation findings.

The federal judge (Dabney Friedrich) was appointed by Trump. I don't believe there was no evidence to link Putin to the Troll farm social media operation; I believed the judge in whatever way denied the sufficiency of that evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt. Again this is the same logical question - in the difference between "did not establish there is the crime" and "there is no crime".

In addition, Mueller’s public statement did have nothing to do with the contempt order and his statement did not imply he did not have a conclusion on the Russia Meddling. He stated them as allegations in the beginning part of the speech before he summarized what was in his Report - his reiteration of these allegations (which was indicted in the beginning of 2018 is in order to point out the significance to appoint a special counsel and to justify the Investigation.

Lastly, In Mueller report, the section on the “Funding and Oversight of IRA by Concord and Prigozhin” was heavily redacted, the information I extracted from this area was scarce when compared to the redaction. The redaction was due to the HOM (harmful for oning matters). Prigozhin may have connection to Russia Intelligence. One Washington Post report had said. “U.S. spy agencies have documented Prigozhin’s links to senior Russian intelligence figures”. . Prigozhin who was nicknamed as Putin’s chef” was a Putin ally in no doubt. This is evidence for Russia being behind the social media campaign. What was debatable might be whether this evidence was sufficient or beyond the reasonable doubt or not.


Attacks On the Mueller and His Team Members About Conflicts, Bias

Mueller


Mueller had no conflict of interest [discussions on this section was based on the Factcheck.org's publication: Trump’s Exaggerated ‘Conflicts of Interest’ Claims [12/7/18] and Debunking Mueller’s ‘Conflicts’[4/19/19] Trump's attack on Mueller's conflict of interests was on these points [based on NYT reporting)
  • Trump claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. [3/3/19 tweets, also see Trump's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on 3/3/19].
  • Mueller had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Manafort, and Ivanka Trump.
  • Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in 5/17/16. [see 11/7/18 Trump's remarks to media and William Steube's question on Mueller Testimony]; In addition These Republican (Lorie Gohmert, Andy Biggs, Tom McClintock) - questioned Mueller's motivation for taking the special counsel position was to get a position instead of to advance public interest.  
  • Robert Mueller and Leakin’ Lyin’ James Comey are Best Friends (12/7/18 twitter - the same day that Mueller was expected to file court papers regarding Manafort and Cohen)
Legal ethics experts factcheck.org interviewed said the president’s arguments don’t hold up. (See analysis next)
  • Golf course fees: Mueller spokesman Joshua Stueve told the DailyMail.com in July that Mr. Mueller left the Golf club in 10/x/11 without dispute. Mueller report also detailed correspondence between the Mueller family and officials at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia. Far from being a “nasty” and “contentious” dispute over membership fees, as the president has repeatedly suggested, the correspondence indicates a routine departure from the club. According to Mueller Report, Mueller informed the club in a letter on 10/12/11, that he would no longer be a member. The letter “noted that ‘we live in the District and find that we are unable to make full use of the Club’ and that inquired ‘whether we would be entitled to a refund of a portion of our initial membership fee,’ which was paid in 1994,” the report said. “About two weeks later, the controller of the club responded that the Muellers’ resignation would be effective 10/31/11, and that they would be ‘placed on a waitlist to be refunded on a first resigned/first refunded basis’ in accordance with the club’s legal documents,” the report said. “The Muellers have not had further contact with the club.”
  • Mueller’s former law firm WilmerHale: Mueller was a partner at WilmerHale but it was another partner Jamie Gorelick, represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Justice Department has said that’s not a conflict of interest. Justice Department ethics officials concluded that Mueller himself was not involved in representing Kushner, Manafort or Ivanka Trump. “Mr. Mueller is permitted to participate in matters involving his former firm’s clients so long as he has no confidential information about the client and did not participate in the representation.
  • Mueller’s interview for Trump’s FBI director: Mueller was not on that interview as a candidate or to get a FBI director position. [Mueller answered: he might talk to the Trump about the FBI Director but not as a candidate]. He was on that interview to talk about [quote Mueller Testimony] . Stephen Gillers [an ethics expert at New York University School of Law] told Factcheck.org via email that “Perhaps Trump is saying that Mueller is so angry about not getting the job that he is unable to act professionally as special counsel but will instead use his powers unlawfully to ‘get even.’ (The ‘golf club dues’ argument would seem to be the same.) There is no evidentiary basis for such a theory. The mere fact of an unsuccessful application by itself means nothing.” Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon told investigators that contrary to Trump’s repeated claims that he interviewed Mueller to be FBI director but turned him down, it was the White House that invited Mueller to the Oval Office to “offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI.” Mueller “did not come in looking for the job,” Bannon said. Mueller himself also answered this issue on his testimony in response to William Steube's question: "My understanding is - I was not applying for that job, I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview you’re [William Steube] talking about. I interviewed with the president and it was about the job and not about me applying for the job."
  • Mueller and Comey relationship: Mueller and Comey have known each other professionally since at least 2003, according to the Washingtonian‘s 2013 profile of their relationship. Mueller became President George W. Bush’s FBI director on 9/4/01, and Comey became deputy attorney general in Bush’s Justice Department on 12/11/03. The fact that they have a prior work relationship, however, is not unusual and does not necessarily pose a conflict. Richard Painter [professor of law at the University of Minnesota and chief White House ethics lawyer for Bush] called Trump’s claim “absurd.” “Of course you are going to have people who know each other. Comey is not a subject of the investigation, he’s a witness.” Stephen Gillers [an ethics expert at New York University School of Law] also commented: “The ‘friends’ issue has been floating around for a while without much clarity on what people mean by that word. For there to be even the possibility of a conflict based on friendship, they would have to be very close (such as “brother”) AND Comey would have to be at real personal risk in the Mueller investigation. Neither of these is true so far as I can tell.”

Jeannie Rhee


Jeannie Rhee was a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama. She was one of the partners from Mueller’s previous law firm, WilmerHale. She was brought on to the special counsel’s team from the outset.

Trump's attack on Jeannie Rhee 's conflict of interest was - [quote Trump 12/7/16 tweet] "Wasn’t the woman in charge of prosecuting Jerome Corsi (who I do not know) in charge of “legal” at the corrupt Clinton Foundation?".

That woman refer to Jeannie Rhee - a prosecutor on the Mueller team. She was on the list of prosecutors who indicted Jerome Corsi [see court document]. Jerome Corsi was the 'Person 1' in Roger Stone's indictment court document and he was an ally of GOP political operative Roger Stone. He was involved in the WikiLeaks's release of Clinton and DNC/DCCC emails. [see this post for detail and the court documents] He and Roger Stone had series of exchange in emails suggesting the Loose Collusion between Trump Campaign and Russia on the dumping of the stolen DNC emails through Roger Stone and Assange - that is - [Roger Stone and Trump Campaign knew in advance about the pending release of the Clinton email.

Trump's claim was false Jeannie Rhee only worked as outside counsel on behalf of the Clinton Foundation on one case. She was not an employee of the foundation. While employed at WilmerHale, Rhee and Jamie Gorelick represented the Clinton Foundation in 2015 in a lawsuit that claimed the Clinton Foundation operated as a racketeering enterprise shaking down donors in exchange for official favors. A conservative legal activist filed lawsuit claiming the former secretary of state used her private email account and the promise of changes in U.S. foreign policy to shake people down for speaking fees and donations to the foundation. It was the former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick who led its defense. The lawsuit was dismissed. A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation told Factcheck.org that while Rhee was retained as outside counsel for that one case, she has never been employed at the Clinton Foundation. At the time of the lawsuit, Scott Curran was the foundation’s general counsel. That position is now held by Amy Sandgrund-Fisher.



Andrew Weissmann


[quote 12/7/18 Trump tweet] "Will Andrew Weissmann’s horrible and vicious prosecutorial past be listed in the Report, He wrongly destroyed people’s lives, took down great companies, only to be overturned, 9-0, in the United States Supreme Court. Doing same thing to people now. "

Republican Ben Cline questioned on Mueller's testimony "prosecutor does not always win their case and does not always interpret legal theory correctly. Andrew Weismann's case were overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by Weismann." Mueller refuted, saying that "with Andrew Weissmann, he’s one of the more talented attorneys we have on board..." "over a period of time he has run a number of units...[Mueller was interrupted]". [Hong Gan's note: Cline's original intention in citing Andrew Weissmann was not to attack his bias or qualification; but to use his example to attack Mueller's legal analysis (i.e his legal theory) on the obstruction of justice statute code 1512 c for detail on that specific issue, go to the discussion by individual Republican - Ben Cline].

Armstrong also attacked on Andrew Weissmann's connection to Hillary Clinton: "Did Weissmann have a role in selecting other members of your team?" "Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party. Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?" [Mueller answered no] [Hong Gan's comment: but he did not donate any money to Clinton Campaign].  Armstrong next questioned: "On 1/30/17, Weissman wrote an email to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating, 'I am so proud and in awe' regarding her disobeying a direct order from the president.' Did Weissman disclose that email to you before he joined the team?" [Mueller declined to answer this question].

Crawford attacked that Weissmann was briefed on Steele Dossier from Brue Ohr. "When Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad joined your team, were you aware that Bruce Ohr, Department of Justice top official, directly briefed the dossier allegations to them in the summer of Election year." [Mueller declined to answer this question.] [Hong Gan's note: this topic was already discussed in the section on Bruce Ohr]

Before joining Mueller's team, Andrew Weissmann was the chief of the criminal fraud section of Department of Justice. Weissmann worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York for about 15 years since 1991. While there he tried more than 20 cases, some of which involved mafia members and members of the Genovese, Colombo and Gambino crime families. He led the prosecution team in the Vincent Gigante case, in which Gigante was convicted. Weissmann had worked at FBI While Mueller was the director after his work on Enron scandal and before he was leading the DOJ's criminal fraud unit. He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home.

"Weissmann is one of the most prominent investigators on Mueller's team. Considered to be an expert on flipping "defendants into collaborators — with either tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one’s perspective. Weissmann is the investigation's "pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit bull" as New York Times wroted in a 10/31/17 report on Andrew Weissman. "If there’s something to find, he’ll find it," Katya Jestin, who used to work with Weissmann in the US attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York, told The Times. "If there’s nothing there, he’s not going to cook something up." "As a fraud and foreign bribery expert, he knows how to follow the money. Who knows what they will find, but if there is something to be found, he will find it," Emily Pierce, a former DOJ spokeswoman under the Obama administration, told Politico. He was regarded by some as a fierce prosecutor known for his strategies of flipping lower-level defendants on bigger targets.

Republican's attack on Weissman's email to Sally Yates was a nonsense. Andrew Weissmann sent an email to outgoing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her for refusing to enforce the first iteration of Trump’s travel ban,” I am so proud and in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respect,” Weissmann’s email read, according to fox news. Trump's travel ban was part of his racist immigration policy and was motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment which violated constitutional Establishment Clause. His travel ban was blocked by federal judge and the executive orders on the travel ban was forced to change several times (see this post on Trump's racism) - executive order 13769 was superseded by 13780, and then superseded by proclamation 9645. The ban was superseded and lifted on some countries but not all.

Andrew Weissmann, was reportedly (12/8/17) in attendance at former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's election night party last year at the Jacob K. Javits Center in New York City. The revelation came days after the conservative group, Judicial Watch, published his email to Sally Yates praising her for refusing to defend Trump's controversial travel ban. According to Business Insider 12/9/17 report, Democrats, however, said these latest attacks (12/5/17) against the Mueller investigation, and individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come with the probe reaching closer to the president after Manafort and Flynn have been charged as part of the Russia investigation. Manafort's associate, Rick Gates, was also indicted, as was early Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos.

Weissmann previously gave $2,300 to Obama’s first presidential campaign, $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee 13 years ago. But he did not donate in the Election year.

Andrew Weissmann was also notable for his work on Enron probe. Weissmann was deputy director and then director of the task force investigating the Enron scandal. His work resulted in the prosecution of more than 30 people for crimes including perjury, fraud, and obstruction including three of Enron's top executives.

In a follow-up case in U.S. District Court, Weissmann also was successful at arguing that auditing firm Arthur Andersen LLP had covered up for Enron. In that case, which resulted in the destruction of Andersen, he convinced the district judge to instruct the jury that they could convict the firm regardless of whether its employees knew they were violating the law. That ruling was later unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, in which the court held that "the jury instructions failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing."

{Hong Gan's comment: Since Cline's original intention in citing Andrew Weissmann's Enron case was not to attack his bias or qualification; but to use this example to attack Mueller's legal analysis (i.e his legal theory) on the obstruction of justice statute code 1512 (c). No matter how controversy Weissmann's Enron case on Anderson firm was, one thing very clear was that the Enron case is not parallel or is improper or inaccurate analogy to the Mueller's analysis on obstruction of justice case 1512 (c). Cline's attack on the over-criminalization on individual 45's obstruction of justice violation was about the lawful acts - [I have to add the word in appearance here] - lawful acts in appearance - but with corrupt intent. While the Enron case was about the over-criminalization of the lawless wrongdoing with no knowledge of the violation. For further discussion go to the section on attack on obstruction of justice}

Summarized here was the controversy in its own right with a possibility to justify Wissmann's legal analysis even though Supreme Court overturned the conviction unanimously. FBI Director Christopher Wray (then assistant attorney general) promoted Weissmann to the top of the DOJ’s high-profile Enron task force. Mr. Wray specifically lauded Andrew Weissmann for obtaining convictions against Enron clients: accounting giant Arthur Andersen and executives at Merrill Lynch. Mr. Weissmann took the lead in prosecuting Andersen for obstruction of justice for destroying confidential material. Andersen’s defense was: It followed company policy on when to destroy confidential material.

Convicted at trial, Andersen appealed. The case went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court overturned the conviction in a 9-0 opinion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion. In essence, Rehnquist said the prosecutor sold the presiding judge on jury instructions that assured conviction. “Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required,” Mr. Rehnquist wrote. “For example, the jury was told that, even if [Andersen] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [Andersen] guilty. The instructions also diluted the meaning of ‘corruptly’ so that it covered innocent conduct.” Mr. Rehnquist wrote that the government (Mr. Weissmann) insisted, over defense objections, that the word “dishonestly” be excluded from the instructions and that the word “impede” be added.

The Merrill Lynch fraud case was similarly overturned by the appeal court. “We reverse the conspiracy and wire-fraud convictions of each of the defendants on the legal ground that the government’s [Weissmann task force] theory of fraud relating to the deprivation of honest services is flawed,” the appeals court said. The opinion said the scheme may have been unethical but did not violate federal fraud laws.

However, Jstice Department in 2013 defended Wissmann against ethics complaints and concluded he did not violate the rules. According to the DOJ, there was no violation of the rules of ethics, even if Weissmann “plainly suppressed” evidence favorable to the defense—as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Enron Task Force did. Mr. Weissmann has pitched his entire ethics defense on the claim that the Rules of Professional Conduct require prosecutors to disclose to the defense team only information that is both favorable and “material.” An appellate court ruled that the evidence was not “material’’ enough to have changed the original guilty verdicts. The convictions of three of the Merrill Lynch executives subsequently were overturned for reasons unrelated to the dispute over the evidence.

The Enron task force conducted its investigations effectively, flipping lower-level employees to build cases against the top bad actors. The Enron team made aggressive and risky moves. Every prosecutor knows this strategy works, but for various reasons today, few put in the painstaking work needed to penetrate the sophisticated legal defenses of highly paid executives. As it proceeded, the task force weathered relentless attacks. First, critics charged it was moving too slowly. Later, white-collar defense lawyers accused the team of intimidating witnesses and overzealously charging executives. The legal establishment particularly criticized the prosecution of Arthur Andersen.

Despite its successes, the Enron Task Force emerged with a mixed legacy thanks to its trial losses and reversals from higher courts. Today, many Department of Justice officials have learned lessons from the Enron experience, accepting the idea that the task force might be overzealous. In subsequent years, the Department of Justice did not assign prosecutors to work solely on financial crisis cases. the Obama department allowed plans to create a similar task force. Yet the 2008 recession did not bring any task force. It was no surprise that the Department of Justice never put any top executives from the biggest financial intuitions in criminal conviction after the financial crisis. Forgetting what went right with the Enron prosecutions has contributed to a problem that still plagues the Department of Justice: It has lost the will and ability to prosecute top corporate executives from the largest corporations. (the discussion on this paragraph was based on the report from Los Angles Times and Pacific Standard Magazine).

[Hong Gan's comment: The conclusion is - Mueller investigation on Russia-Trump Collusion did not bring out any 'overzealous' indictment against any of the Trump Campaign in terms of criminal conspiracy despite that Andrew Weissmann led the raid on Paul Manafort's house in Virginia shortly after he joined Mueller team in June in the Election year.] 

Peter Strzok


Republican's attack on Peter Strzok's bias was originated by discovery of Peter Strzok's email exchanges with Lisa Page. Republican quickly seized the opportunity to discredit Mueller when Peter Strzok And Lisa Page's anti-Trump email exchanges were released. Even though Mueller had swiftly reassigned Strzok to the human resource department in the FBI, after he learned about the content of  Peter Strzok And Lisa Page's, Republicans still suspicious about the time when Mueller got to know Peter Strzok/Lisa Page email, they also accused Peter Strzok/Lisa Page relationship.
  • Cohmert: "when did you first learn of Peter Strzok’s animus toward Donald Trump? You didn’t know before he was hired? But when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was having with Lisa Page?""Did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of their government phones?" [Hong Gan's note: I do not think Peter Strzok/Lisa Page relationship was any 'affair', their email exchanges were all or almost all political views, personal political views which was allowed for FBI employee. Their email exchanges did not have sexual stuffs that can be perceived as impropriety] Mueller answered: he did not know before Strzok was hired and the deletion of the email was within the purview of the inspector general who was investigating it.
  • Gaetz: cited some of the most controversial anti-Trump email exchanges (see discussions next)
  • Amstrong: made an assumption if Strzok/Page text was anti-Clinton contents
  • Johnson: similar to Cohmert
  • Crawford: his attacking point was not on Strzok/Page email exchanges in Election year. but his concern that after 9-10 month of FBI investigation 'there was no big there' and whether Mueller was told about Strzok's text. Whetehr text messages from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's phones from Mueller Office were not retained after they left the Special Counsels Office?
This is a brief timeline on Peter Strzok
  • 7/x/15 (8/4/15)-7/5/16 Strzok led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of private email server 
  • 7/31/16 FBI formally open counterintelligence investigatin on Trump-Russia case code named as Crossfire Hurrican. Peter Strzok oversaw this investigation. Within hours or on 8/1/16 Strzok interviewed Alexander Downer in London 
  • 5/x/17-7/late/17 Strzok joined Mueller team 
  • 7/x/17 Strzok/Page email discovered 
  • 8/x/17 Mueller reassigned Strzok to human resource department in FBI 
  • 12/late/17-1/early/18 Strzok/Page email was publicized by DOJ 
  • 6/13/18 IG report on "A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation andDepartment of Justice in Advance of the Election" Election 
  • 6/15/18 Strzok was escorted out from FBI headquarters as part of the bureau's internal conduct investigations 
  • 6/21/18 Strzok lost his security clearance 
  • 7/12/18 Strzok testified before Congress (complete transcript released 3/13/19)) 
  • 8/10/18 FBI Deputy Director in David L. Bowdich fired Strzok 
  • 8/6/19 Strzok filed lawsuit in an attempt to reinstate in FBI. He asserted in the suit that his sentiments were "protected political speech" 

Peter Strzok was a career employee with the FBI for 22 years before his firing in 8/x/18. Strzok was chief of the Counterespionage Section, a subordinate section of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division since 7/x/15. Strzok became Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, overseeing investigations involving Russia and China. He led the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server and contributed as a team process in the drafting of public statements for then-FBI Director James Comey. He changed the description of Clinton's actions from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless".

He led the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in Election since 7/31/16 when FBI formally launched Crossfire Hurricane. He also oversaw the bureau's interviews with then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Strzok joined Mueller's Trump-Russia Investigation after Comey was fired by Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from the Russia investigation when Mueller became aware of criticisms of Trump contained in personal text messages exchanged between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, becasue the integrity of his Investigation could be smeared by Republican attack.

The revelation of the text messages led Republicans in the Congress and 'right wing' media to speculate that Strzok participated in a conspiracy to undermine the Trump presidency. [Though I, Hong Gan, did not think so. FBI Crossfire Investigation into Russia's interference in the Election went on secret in 9 months to avoid influence the Election; while days before the election when then FBI director Comey announced to the Public to re-open the Clinton private email investigation, Peter Strzok actually supported the re-opening of the Clinton investigation after they discovered new emails. (but he did not support the idea to made it known to the public). In one of his text after 10 month's FBI investigation before Mueller took over, he texted 'there was no big there [as far as collusion was concerned.) Strzok was the one oversaw the Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation on Trump-Russia). He knew a lot of the detail including the Steele Dossier. As he had defended himself on 7/12/18 testimony before Congress, he could 'leak' the investigation to the Public but he did not do it.]

A comprehensive review of Strzok's messages by The Wall Street Journal concluded that "texts critical of Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump".  According to The New York Times, Strzok was "considered one of the most experienced and trusted FBI counterintelligence investigators," as well as "one of the Bureau's top experts on Russia" according to CNN. According to FBI guidelines, agents are allowed to have and express political opinions as individuals. Former FBI and DOJ officials said that it was not uncommon for agents such as Strzok to hold political opinions and still conduct an impartial investigation. Strzok was not punished following his reassignment. Defenders of Strzok and Page in the FBI said no professional misconduct between them occurred. An article published by Atlantic discusses this issue in specific. - There’s not yet any evidence that an FBI agent’s anti-Trump texts prejudiced his work.

6/13/18 OIG report criticized Strzok's text messages for creating the appearance of impropriety. However, the report concluded that there was no evidence of bias in the FBI's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton. At his 7/12/18 public congressional hearing, Strzok denied that the personal beliefs expressed in the text messages impacted his work for the FBI. Strzok added that he knew of information during the presidential campaign that could have damaged Trump but that he never contemplated leaking it. Strzok also said that he criticized politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in his "blunt" text messages. Strzok said that the investigation into him and the Republicans' related rhetoric was misguided and played into “our enemies’ [Russia] campaign to tear America apart. Washington Post published an analysis on 7/12/18 - the day Strozk testified before Congress - Peter Strzok just gave a hard-to-rebut defense of the objectivity of the Russia investigation’s origins. "FBI agent defiantly rejects bias charges at chaotic hearing" (AP News on 7/12/18).

The discovered email exchanges between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page consisted of thousands of text messages between 8/15/15 - 12/1/16. Some of the texts disparaged then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, Chelsea Clinton, Attorney General in the Obama administration Eric Holder, former Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley, and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Bernie Sanders.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page post-election emails between 12/13/16 - 5/17/17 appeared to be deleted [not retained] according to 1/20/18 letter by Republican Johnson in which he stated that the FBI's technical system had failed to preserve five months' worth of texts between Strzok and Page. A Justice Department official later said that the technical lapse had affected thousands of FBI-issued phones, which failed to store text messages for a year. Trump had falsely claimed that 19,000 text messages between Strzok and Page "were purposely & illegally deleted" and that these text messages "Would have explained whole Hoax". There were "No evidence FBI officials' texts were deliberately erased (PolitiFact 12/22/18 report). But it appeared they were recovered later on. The inspector general’s investigation recovered around 9,311 complete text messages sent or received on Strzok’s phone that it was able to date to the period of the FBI's collection-tool failure, and around 10,760 text, messages from the same period from Page’s phone which fill the 5 month Gap with some overlaps. Peter Strzok- Lisa Page text was posted on FBI website. containing emails from 8/mid/15 to 6/late/17.

This is a brief timeline in specific for Peter Strzok involvement in the origin of Russia investigation and Crossfire Hurricane [based on Washington Post report - 9/19/18]
  • 7/x/15 FBI opened Clinton Investigation. One of the agents involved in the investigation is Peter Strzok.
  • 2/x/16 Strzok and Lisa Page discuss the Clinton investigation over text messages. “She might be our next president,” Page says. “The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear.”
  • 3/4/16 Strzok and Lisa Page text about a Republican primary debate. “God Trump is loathsome human,” Page writes. Strzok later calls Trump “an idiot.” He later says he might vote for Trump — jokingly, because Trump disparaged NSA leaker Edward Snowden.
  • 7/x/16 Lisa Page and Strzok discuss U.S. District Court Judge Rudy Contreras’s position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
    Strzok texts, “I need to get together with him.” The FISC grants surveillance warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, one of which would soon be sought by the FBI. Strzok denies discussing any case with Contreras when asked by the Justice Department inspector general.
  • 7/31/16 FBI launch crossfire hurricane. Strzok texts Lisa Page: “damn this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS.” The “other one” refers to the Clinton investigation.
  • 8/1/16  Strzok arrives in London as a first step in the counterintelligence investigation. He interviewed Alexander Downer.
  • 8/8/16. Lisa Page texts Strzok: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responds, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
  • 8/15/16 Strzok texts Lisa Page: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Andrew McCabe]’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
  • 9/Mid/16. Strzok first sees parts of the dossier, passed to the FBI by Ohr. A few days later, Comey is briefed on the material.
  • 10/28/16 Comey reveals to Congress that Clinton emails were found on the Weiner laptop. The news quickly leaks. The letter was drafted, in part, by Strzok. He changed the language in the letter from describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” 13
    11/616 Comey publicly clears Clinton after a review of the Weiner laptop emails. Lisa Page and Strzok had exchanged text messages discussing whether a public statement made sense.
  • 12/20/16 Strzok texts Lisa Page and informs her that a colleague “met with [Ohr] and got more stuff today,”
  • 5/18/17. After the Mueller appointment, Strzok texts Lisa Page about possibly working for the special counsel. “For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business,” he wrote. “I unleashed it with [the Clinton investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” He adds, “you and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”
  • 7/x/17. Lisa Page leaves the Mueller team.
  • 8/x/17. Strzok is removed from Mueller’s team shortly after his anti-Trump text messages with Lisa Page was discovered.
Next I am going to discuss the most attacked email exchanges between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The Context behind the most targeted Strzok/Page email exchanges by republican: Strzok's own explanation - Congress testimony; and media explanation. Released testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok shows that his Trump texts were taken out of context (Dailykos.com)

-----8/x/16 Page: "Trump is not ever going to be president, right? Right?” Strzok replied, “No he’s not. We’ll stop it." [time ]
-----“viva la resistance.”
-----8/15/16: Strzok told Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's (Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI) office that there's no way Trump gets elected—but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." "When excerpts of these texts first became public, Trump defenders such as Trey Gowdy seized on them as proof that the F.B.I. had schemed to devise “an insurance policy” to keep Trump from getting elected. But a reading of the full text chain makes it clear that the agents were discussing whether or not they needed to focus urgently on investigating collusion."

[New Yorker 3/5/18 report] email text about secret society Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: Did the FBI agents really text about forming a secret society? email exchange about Carter Page FISA subject line “Crossfire FISA” to Lisa Page discussing a set of talking points aimed at getting then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to push the Department of Justice (DOJ) to approve a surveillance warrant against Carter Page "the type and extent of President Obama's personal involvement" in the Clinton emails investigation.

Aaron Zelbley


Aaron Zelbley was chief of staff to Mueller [the same job title that Zebley had at FBI while Mueller was FBI director] who was present in Mueller's Testimony. Republican Kelly Armstrong had questioned the integrity of Mueller's team members including Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee and Aaron Zelbley. He implied Aaron Zelbley's bias by stating to Mueller that "the guy sitting next to you [Aaron Zelbley], represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton’s mobile devices". He 'accused' of Mueller's team as biased, arguing that "This isn’t just about you [Mueller] being able to vouch for your team." [it is about ] "not just political conflict of interest but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. It’s just simply not enough that you [Mueller] vouch for your team." "half of them [Mueller's team of lawyers] had a direct relationship, political or personal, with the opponent of the person you [Mueller] were investigating." Mueller responded with the notion that only five out of the 20 attorneys were from outside the DOJ.

[Hong Gan's comment: to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest and to preserve the independence and integrity of the investigation, Mueller removed Peter Strzok and Lisa Page also left, although Mueller might still believe Peter Strzok possess the capability to do the job and do the job quickly without let his personal political view to influence and compromise his work. He can't remove everyone who might have an appearance of relationship to Clinton, particularly if the standards by Trump was used - such as his golf course issue on Mueller himself. Statistically speaking, among the team of attorneys hired by Mueller, there has to be someone the Republicans can trace something out as to be related to Hillary Clinton without sacrificing their job qualifications. If Peter Strzok was chosen to investigate Trump, he also inevitably was chosen to investigate Hillary Clinton's private email server [before Trump's investigation]. Many of the attorneys Mueller hired also came from WilmerHale. He has to hire someone he trusted and familiar with, had worked with in the past].

 According to Wikipedia, Zebley was a special agent in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division for seven years. Zebley later joined the Department of Justice, where he was first an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Alexandria, Virginia-based National Security and Terrorism Unit and later a senior counsel in the National Security Division. Zebley served as chief of staff to Robert Mueller when Mueller was Director of the FBI and followed Mueller to the law firm WilmerHale for three years. Trump had tweeted Zebley as a never Trumpster, attacking "cooper is a‘basement server guy’ who got off free in the Crooked Hillary case." While in private practice at WilmerHale, Zebley was an expert in cybersecurity and represented a wide range of clients, including Justin Cooper Hillary Clinton case. Zebley’s political affiliation, however, isn’t actually known. According to Politifact 3/21/18 report, he’s registered to vote but doesn’t have a listed party affiliation.

Attack On Donations


[quote 12/7/18 Trump tweet] "Will all of the substantial & many contributions made by the 17 Angry Democrats to the Campaign of Crooked Hillary be listed in top of Report".

The table next and discussion was made based on the information from these references:

Mueller Team
Name Party Affiliation Donation To Clinton Campaign ($ in thousands) Donation history to Democrats ($ in thousands) Donation history to Republican ($ in thousands)
Zainab Ahmad Independent (might be Republican at 18)
Eastern District of New York
Greg Andres Democrat
former partner at Davis Polk
former Criminal Division
former Eastern District of New York		 3.7 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and David Hoffman
Rush Atkinson Democrat
Criminal Division’s Fraud Section		 0.2
Ryan Dickey Democrat
Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
Michael Dreeben Democrat
Office of the Solicitor General
Andrew Goldstein Democrat
Southern District of New York		 mid-3.0
Kyle Freeny Democrat
Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section		 0.25 0.5 to Obama (08 and 12 election)
Adam Jed Democrat
Civil Division
Scott Meisler Independent
Criminal Division
Elizabeth Prelogar Democrat
Office of the Solicitor General		 0.25
James Quarles Democrat
former partner at WilmerHale
former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force 		2.713 30 over span 20 years since 1988 (not include Clinton Campaign) total 2.713 former Virginia Gov. George Allen and former Rep. Jason Chaffetz.
Jeannie Rhee Democrat
former partner at WilmerHale
District of Columbia		 5.4 4.8 Obama victory fund
1.75 DNC and senate race
Brian Richardson unknown
National Security Division
Brandon Van Grack Democrat 0.286 Obama 08 campaign
Andrew Weissmann Democrat
Criminal Division’s Fraud Section
Eastern District of New York		 0 [attended Clinton’s election-night party] 2.3 to Clinton's first presidential run;
2.3 Obama Victory Fund
2.0 DNC
Aaron Zebley Independent
former partner at WilmerHale
Aaron Zelinsky Democrat
Eastern District of Virginia

Seven of the registered Democrats have no record (history) of writing checks to federal candidates. Based on federal disclosure data, Quarles is easily the most generous donor on the team, giving in approximate of $33,000 over the last 20 years. He was the only team member to give donations to federal Republican candidates. Only four other staff members gave between $3,000 and $12,000 over a span of several years. Four more gave donations only in the hundreds of dollar. More than half of the total approx $50,000 came from just one lawyer (Quarles) and more than half (approx $30, 000) of it was donated before the Election year. Federal records show that neither Page nor Strzok made any political donations. (for Peter Strzok and Lisa Page — exchanged texts and removal from the team, go to section on Peter Strzok).

Trump is using some sleight-of-hand to say that there are "zero Republicans" on Mueller’s team. The team is led by a registered Republican -Mueller. He was appointed by another Republican, Rod Rosenstein. There may be other registered Republicans working with Mueller whose identities the public simply doesn’t know about. FBI agents are intimately involved in the work Mueller is doing, though their identities and donation and voter registration histories are not known. Mueller insisted he did not consider political affiliation when putting together his team.

Mueller’s team has the legal right to register to vote with a party or by making personal donations. Such activities are protected under the Hatch Act. Both Justice Department policy and the Civil Service Reform Act "prohibit using political affiliation and may also prohibit using certain ideological affiliations in hiring and taking other personnel actions with regard to career attorneys. The career attorneys on the Mueller team are bound by professional codes to pursue justice and rise above partisanship. Every federal employee swears an oath to "support and defend the Constitution" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Brett Kappel, an attorney specializing in political law and government ethics at the firm Akerman LLP, said that in his experience, "Justice Department lawyers tend to skew towards the Democrats while FBI agents are overwhelmingly Republican. Both of them take an oath to dispense justice without fear or favor with regard to political party, and I’ve never seen anyone from either group act in a partisan way." "I don’t think one should ever ask about party affiliation when it comes to prosecutors," Robenalt added. "They come in all stripes. The question is whether they are qualified — and as I understand it, the team assembled is highly qualified."

The special counsel team is composed of veteran white-collar lawyers and prosecutors who are among the most respected in the legal world. They have a broad range of experience in fraud, public corruption, cyber and terrorism cases. Legal analysts have said previously that they could see no significant legal or ethical concerns with the team members' political giving, Robenalt said he wouldn’t advise young Justice Department lawyers to voluntarily eschew all political activity today for fear of getting attacked if they one day join an investigation. "It is a First Amendment right and crucial to our democracy," he said. "My guess is most will stay away from politics, but our country was built on the idea of freedom of belief and expression."

Rod Rosenstein and Others


[quote 12/7/18 Trump tweet] "Wll the scathing document written about Lyin’ James Comey, by the man in charge of the case, Rod Rosenstein (who also signed the FISA Warrant), be a big part of the Report? Isn’t Rod therefore totally conflicted? " "Will all of the lying and leaking by the people doing the Report, & also Bruce Ohr (and his lovely wife Molly), Comey, Brennan, Clapper, & all of the many fired people of the FBI, be listed in the Report?" [Molly should be Nellie who has worked for Fusion GPS.]

Attacks On the Necessity of the Investigation, The Evidentiary Material and the Cost of the Resources

------- Why to Investigate if we know we could not indict Trump? (Jim Sensenbrenner) Mueller over investigated, he publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the target’s dirty laundry without recommending charges (Guy Reschenthaler)
------- The Attack On the Leak
------- Attack on the Resource Waste: "Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged along, the president became increasingly frustrated with its effects on our country and his ability to govern." (Mike Johnson); "You had a team of 19 lawyers, 40 agents and an unlimited budget, correct, Mr. Mueller?" (Devin Nunes)
------- Attack on the Interview Material: Interview cross-examination (Jim Sensenbrenner, Guy Reschenthaler
--------Whether the prior knowledge that the report is going to be made public affect the content or alter the content of the Report (Roby, Guy Reschenthaler)

The Issue Of The Alleged Leak

Stewart introduced his question - actually was his attacked on Mueller team's leaking of the information that is unfavorable to Trump, but not leaking those which favorable to Trump, he posed his question in this way: "I'm holding here in my hand a binder of 20 or more examples of leaks that occurred from the special counsel's office from those who associated with your work, dating back to as early as a few weeks after your inception of the beginning of your work and continuing to a few months ago. All of them, have one thing in common. They were designed to weaken or embarrass the president. Never was it leaked that you had found no evidence of collusion. Never was it leaked that the Steele dossier was a complete fantasy nor that it was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign. I could go on and on." Stewart also complained about the leak of Raid in Roger Stone to CNN. “Mr. Mueller, are you aware of anyone from your team having given advance knowledge of the raid on Roger Stone’s home to any person or the press, including CNN?”

Mueller declined to answer his question instead he defended his team by emphasizing that the Speed of his investigation was to not to have those persons who should not be in the cloud to be relieved (but he did not implicate Trump). After Stewart questioned Mueller about the leak of his letter to Barr which criticized that Barr failed to capture the Context, Nature and Substance of his report. Mueller said "I do not believe we would be responsible for the leaks. I do believe we have done a good job in assuring that no leaks occur." Finally Mueller concluded: "From the outset, we've undertaken to make certain that we minimize the possibility of leaks, and I think we were successful over the years that we were in operation."

[Hong Gan's comment] Stewart's statement 'you had found no evidence of collusion' was a false statement. Mueller report identified many evidence for Loose Collusion or even Collusion. These include Trump's written answer. Mueller Report only stated: the Investigation did not establish the Collusion but not 'there is no collusion".

Stewart's statement 'Steele dossier was a complete fantasy' was also a false statement. As a raw intelligence report, Steele Dossier is credible (see discussion on Steele Dossier section in this post). Steele Dossier was leaked to the public (Buzz Feed published it on 1/10/17) long before Mueller took over the Russia Investigation on 5/17/17. The Steele - Fusion GPS - Mark Elias - Clinton Campaign relationship was revealed by Media (New York Times on 12/21/17) which is long before Mueller Report was made public. Therefore Stewart's statement 'Never was it leaked that the Steele dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign" is also a blatant lie.

According to Vox.com, Mueller and his team had done something remarkable for Washington — prevented almost anything of real substance from leaking. Mueller and his team had reached surprise plea deals with several Trump Campaign aides increasingly close to Donald Trump, including George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Rick Gates, with reporters in the dark until just before their court appearances. That’s probably because Mueller is a man uniquely qualified to keep secrets, with a history of minimizing his own interactions with the press. He’s also someone who has spent part of his post-FBI career literally trying to find leakers (Vox cited the example of the NFL case Mueller had worked on).

“Bob Mueller runs a very tight ship, and that ship does not leak,” David Kris, a former assistant attorney general for national security who worked closely with Mueller for years, told Vox.com. “He’d rather do his talking through his work.” He’s been in high-profile positions for decades, culminating in a 12-year stint as FBI director. And during that time, he did not warm to the press, according to Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor who worked with Mueller at the Justice Department. “He’s a serious guy, and he hates people who talk to the press,” Zeidenberg said. “It’s anathema to him.” Vox reported

Reuters reported in March (3/22/19)on the measures Mueller’s team took to prevent leaks. Before entering the office suite, everyone had to secure their phones in a locker outside. The workspace was designated a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, which must comply with strict requirements to prevent the unauthorized release of classified and sensitive information. Witnesses interviewed by the special counsel were picked up by staff and driven to the office, where they entered through a secure garage to minimize public attention. “The office’s location was not publicly revealed but was discovered by journalists. Still, it has not been widely publicized,” Reuters reported, noting that “Mueller’s team has asked media outlets not to publish the exact location for security purposes.”

TPM (talking point memo) requested and obtained a copy of Stewart's list of alleged leaks by Mueller team and published the list in their report. which TPM viewed as weak after their review. TPM reporter concluded - "The list Stewart’s office provided includes leaks related to Mueller’s probe, but not leaks that were definitively sourced to Mueller’s office. In other words, plenty of people could have leaked these tidbits to the press, not only people on Mueller’s team."

Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told Reuters that any leaks about the investigation appeared to have come from witnesses or their lawyers.

"Despite much speculation from politicians and media pundits, there is no evidence to pin any of the leaks associated with the Mueller investigation on the special counsel’s office" A govnment executive (govexec.com) report also concluded.


Post - Report Issues - Mueller's Letter To Barr and His Public Statement 
  • Statement who drafted the Mueller's statement on his report (Louie Gohmert)

___________________________________________________________

Discussions By Individual Republicans


[Hong Gan's Notes] this list of Republican was mainly the problematic Republicans from the Mueller Testimony and the content was mainly in response to their questioning on the Mueller Testimony. Three republicans on the Mueller Testimony were relatively neutral and benign. They are Conaway who quitted and gave his time to another Republican, Roby' whose questions were relatively neutral and Hurd whose questions are without problem. These three republicans do not belong to the 'Few Republican' Group. Other problematic Republican such as  Mitch McConnell in the Senator were not here in the post yet. [note: Links on t each Individual Republican was internal to this post. They are not links to their official gov site.

Index


William Barr (Department of Justice Attorney General)

See discussion in this open letter to William Barr Barr's summary letter on Mueller's Report before the release of the Redacted version of the Report to the public was characterized by Mueller and his team as failed to capture the Context, Nature and Substance of the Report Barr's Warning Letter Before Mueller Testimony Here is a reference to see legal experts' comments on the letter ‘Bizarrely Adversarial’: Legal Experts React to DOJ Letter That Told Mueller What He Can’t Say

Doug Collins (R-GA)


-----Collins' attempt to clear Trump from obstruction

Collin tried to implicate - the investigation was extensive and unhampered and that Trump did not use his authority to close the investigation. He asked Mueller - "At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?" It is a simple fact that obstruction of justice criminal code does not require obstruction to be successful (refer to this post on obstruction of justice statutes and look for the word 'attempt', 'endeavors').

-----Collins' attempt to imply Mueller has conflict of interest

-----Collins' attempt to clear Trump on collusion/conspiracy.

He tried to characterize that - Trump Campaign was passively (Collins used the word "be Tricked") instead of actively embracing and welcoming Russia's offer. He said Russia "by tricking campaign insiders into revealing protected ....." He then made a false statement (LIE): "The investigation also reviewed whether Donald Trump sought Russian assistance as a candidate to win the presidency. Mr. Mueller concluded he did not. His family or advisers did not. In fact, the report concludes no one in the president’s campaign colluded, collaborated or conspired with the Russians."

Mueller Report, in no where, concluded Trump did not welcome Russia's help. Instead Mueller's conclusion is that there is not sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy. Trump actively sought Russia's help in July shortly after Wikipedia's first release of Clinton email on 7/22/16, Trump tried and attempted to seek Russia's help in finding the deleted Clinton email from her private email server: "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily".

Next Collins made some assumption statements on whether Trump is innocent or not: "The president watched the public narrative surrounding this investigation that assumes his guilt while he knew the extent of his innocence." "Mueller’s report details the president’s reaction to a frustrating investigation where his innocence was established early on."

-----Collins' attempt to imply that No evidence was missing or damaged on the alleged Collusion.

Collins emphasized that Mueller's investigation is very thorough by citing how many people were there in his team, how many subpoena had been issued and tried to imply that [no evidence is missing or damaged] (quote) "All right, a lot of search warrants, a lot of things, so you are very thorough." Again he was trying to equate 'did not establish the culpability' with 'innocence'.

He is confusing the public when he put the "=" between 'did not establish (or did not have sufficient evidence to establish) that Trump conspired with Russian' and 'Trump did not conspire with Russia'. Collins drew this equation mark that is logically wrong. There could be a conspiracy but evidence was destroyed.

The truth is - Many evidence are not complete. For example, Trump declined the interview. His written answer was generally incomplete and many of them are untruthful and he used 'no recollection' in his answer to evade the false statement i.e. lie to the authority; but they are very much equal to lies. The thing he claimed as 'no recollection' was very probably the facts.  Congress so far could not obtain the contents on what he and Putin secretly discussed during their meetings (see this post contain the 'Mystery of Trump -Putin Meeting').

Steven Bannon's emails (see LINKs ON Kirill Dmitriev's Transition-Era Outreach to the Incoming Administration) were gone but he said he did not delete them. (quote from Mueller Report) "Bannon. by contrast, told the Office that he never discussed with Prince anything regarding Dmitriev, RDIF, or any meetings with Russian individuals or people associated with Putin." ["The conflicting accounts could not be clarified. Neither of them was able to produce any of the messages they exchanged in the time period surrounding the Seychelles meeting. Both Prince and Bannon denied deleting any messages but claimed they did not know why there were no messages on his device."]. If those information are being intercepted or made exposed, (as Mueller wrote:) "it might shed new light on drawing the conclusion."

Next he made another sets of assumption statements: "We’ve had the truth for months: No American conspired to throw our election." The truth is: we did not establish that Whether Trump Campaign conspired or not conspired with Russia. The Truth is: Trump campaign accepted the offer and knew in advance more Wikileaks release was to come and tried to cover up and lied about their acceptance of the Russia's offer.

----- attempt to ask for the terminology of collusion and conspiracy (appeared to try to contradict Mueller's answer to what he had said in the report).

Next Collins questioned whether collusion and conspiracy were same or not. They are synonyms when collusion is defined in some law dictionary. But they are different because only conspiracy is the word used in criminal code. Collusion is not a specific word appeared anywhere in criminal conspiracy statute codes.

That's why Mueller initially answered no, because Collusion are not the word used to discuss criminal violation of conspiracy. He later answered yes, because Collusion's definition in some law dictionary are very similar or the synonyms to conspiracy, but it is not adopted in any federal criminal code.

-----attempt to undermine Mueller Report via attacking on the origin of the investigation

"I look forward to Mr. Mueller’s testimony about what he found during his review of the origins of the investigation." He attacked the investigation was launched from 'baseless gossip'. (quote) "the inspector general continues to review how baseless gossip can be used to launch an FBI investigation against a private citizen and eventually a president." Media report suggested inspector general interviewed Steele in June and generally concluded Steele Dossier was found credible (see references:).

The intelligence Mifsud told George Papadopoulos who then leaked to an Australian diplomat was nothing baseless gossip but the very central allegation that was proved by Mueller Investigation and was accepted by the Public. (quote from Mueller Report) Immediately after Mifsud's return from Moscow, the next day (4/26/16) Mifsud met and told Papadopoulos that he had met with high-level Russian government officials during his recent trip to Moscow and he learned that the Russians had obtained "dirt" on candidate Hillary Clinton. And the "dirt" was in the form of "Emails of Clinton," and that they "have thousands of emails". In early May, he leaked the intelligence to an Australian diplomat which is known as the event that triggered FBI's investigation later after Australian learned report that Russia might hack the DNC/DNCC computer and informed FBI what he had learned from George Papadopoulos.

Next, Collins made a false statement (he attacked that) - "FBI originated the investigation is to weaponize their power against the constitutional rights guaranteed to every U.S. citizen. "

He then attack the investigation as a waste of the resources: "we must agree that the opportunity cost here is too high. The months we have spent investigating from this days failed to end the border crisis or contribute to the growing job market. Instead, we have gotten stuck and it’s paralyzed this committee and this House."

Mueller investigation on Manafort 's financial fraud recovered for the government millions dollar which bring in Effect the cost of the Investigation in zero balance. As far as the opportunity cost on the Time is concerned, [as I had argued in the Introduction], can we afford the consequence not to investigate an attack on our political system, on our democracy by assuming Russia is innocent? Do we really have a border crisis at the US-Mexico border or do we have a constitutional crisis that - Individual 45 declared a fake national emergency to advance his personal interest and that he abused the national emergency power and that he usurped of Congress's appropriation power. Is Individual 45 the one responsible for a booming market and economy? The answer is no: Clinton administration brought a booming market without budget deficit; the potential negative impact of trade war, and labor statistics suggests employment rate did not increase on non-white employees. (go to this post on Trump's economy for elaboration).


John Ratcliffe (R-TX)


7/31/19 Ratcliffe was reported to be nominated by Trump to replace the Dan Coats the Director of National Intelligence Agency perhaps by his 'performance in the Mueller Testimony'. Coats had been reported to have constantly clashed with Trump as regard to Russia's meddling in our Election. Ratcliffe's resume was questioned by Democrats as being inflated on his role as a prosecutor on an anti-terrorism case. Ratcliffe has little credential in the field of intelligence area as the case for Kushner who was granted security clearance that the intelligence community suggests is wrong. Trump has a habit of practicing nepotism and his criteria for picking nominee are personal loyalty to him not their professional credentials. Coats resigned and is leaving on 8/15/19. (later report indicated that Ratcliffe withdrew from this nomination.

Questions In The Judiciary Committee Session

He first Attacked Mueller by saying that he (the special counsel's job) is not allowed to make a statement about whether he can or can not exonerate Trump. He tricked his question in this way: he asked - "So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?". After seeing Mueller was hesitating there and did not know what to respond, he (Ratcliffe) provided the "Answer": "It doesn’t exist." "nowhere does it say that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him" "It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC opinions. It’s not in the Justice Manual. And it’s not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution." "it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him." "Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. Prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it."

Then he went on to attack the Mueller that he has to either make a prosecutorial decision or a declination decision, he is not allowed to adopt a strategy of not make a traditional prosecutorial decision [even though DOJ has a policy that a sitting president can not be indicted - Hong Gan's notes]. He Questioned "the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision." "So respectfully, Director, you didn’t follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, “Write a confidential report about decisions reached.” "Nowhere in here does it say, “Write a report about decisions that weren’t reached.”" "You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided."

Finally he attacked Democrats as "Socialist as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle." and went on to say that - [Obstruction] "was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary."

After summarizing Ratcliffe's series of garbage questions, a philosopher from 3000 years ago who invented field of formal logic in general and the syllogism in particular - Aristotle - came out into my vision and is laughing at this Ratcliffe's incompetency and lack of training in logic on inductive and deductive inferences. Did Mueller tell you [Ratcliffe] this obstruction of justice case was unprecedented that the offender was a 'sitting president'? Did Mueller tell you [Ratcliffe] DOJ has a policy that 'a sitting president' can not be indicted" - in other words - even if Trump was found not innocent, he could not be indicted?

Here is the Logic:

If A then
   {if B then C
    if not B then D}
If not A then E

A= found violated the obstruction of justice criminal code
B= sitting President
C= could not be indicted; but could not be exonerated, could not decide (even a sealed indictment is not allowed according to Mueller Statement)
not B = negation of B = not a president or a president who already left the office
D= indicted
not A = negation of A = found not violated the criminal code or not sufficient evidence to establish the culpability
E= not indicted

Therefore - The report was authorized to be written and was in comply with DOJ rules. That [could not be indicted and could not be exonerated, and no decision] is also a prosecutorial decision - that decision is = [make no decision]

Coming after those accusations I had summarized just now, here came the most vicious LIE by Ratcliffe I have ever saw: "I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, “Donald Trump is not above the law.” He’s not. But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where this Obstruction Writing puts him." Here is what I draw on the scale of above, equal to, and blew the law:

-above the Law:  Trump violated the obstruction of justice law, but  was exonerated for his wrong doing.
-where LAW stands: either [Trump violated the obstruction of justice law, but was not indicted (restricted by OLC rule) but was (could) not  exonerated]; or [there is not sufficient evidence to establish that Trump obstructed justice and he was not indicted]
-below the Law: Trump did not violate the obstruction of justice (trump was innocent) law, but he was either not exonerated or being indicted.

Mueller Report identified Trump's case as - "Trump violated the obstruction of justice law, but was not indicted (restricted by OLC rule) but was (could) not  exonerated" which is where LAW stands.

Questions in the Intelligence Committee Session

-----His first attempt was trying to contradict Mueller's testimony to what was written in the Report. He approached the questions by beginning with "You [Mueller] said at your press conference that  [the Report] was the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. ..... the special counsel's office has closed, and it has no continuing jurisdiction or authority. So what would be your authority or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions or determinations to the special counsel's written report?" [Mueller answered: "I don't know or expect changes in conclusions that we included in our report."].

Then he asked his real question: "you [Mueller] addressed one of the issues [refer to Democrat Lou's Question) which some construed as a CHANGE to the written report." Ratcliffe then cited Lou's Question and Mueller's Answer: {"The reason you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president," to which you [Mueller] responded, "That is correct." } Ratcliffe went on to attack: "That response is inconsistent." [Hong Gan's comment: "That response is inconsistent." - Ratcliffe refereed to Mueller Report's saying - The Office did not make a decision on whether president committed a crime which in nuances was different from Lou's statement which implies - president was determined to have commit the crime but not indicted due to OLC rule.  Ratcliffe must have believed - saying not making a decision on the culpability would be better than saying Trump committed the crime but not indicted due to OLC rule]

Ratcliffe went on to say: "I want to be clear that it is not your intent to change your written report. It is your intent to clarify the record today?" Muller answered: as I started today, this afternoon, what I wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability in any way. We did not start that process" [Mueller made his Testimony not contradicting the Report]

-----Ratcliffe's next series of question were about Steele Dossier. He attacked Steele Dossier as part of Russia's Interference in Election. Mueller declined to answer these question as he had been for the whole duration of the Testimony. Ratcliffe posed his questions in this way: "As part of that full and thorough investigation [Mueller Investigation], what determination did the special counsel office make about whether the Steele dossier was part of the Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election?" "I want to find out if Russia interfered with our election by providing false information through sources to Christopher Steele about a Trump conspiracy that you determined didn't exist." "why this is important is an application and three renewal applications were submitted by the United States government to spy or surveil on Trump campaign Carter associate - or Carter Page, and on all four occasions" "Now the basic premise of the dossier was that there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but the special counsel investigation didn't establish any conspiracy, correct?" He attacked Steele Dossier was a collusion with Russia or in other word Steele was a Russia Source - Russia's efforts to interfere in the Election.

Ratcliffe's final questions was: "But you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well-developed one?" MUELLER did not say YES. Instead he said : "Again, I pass on answering that question." Ratcliffe: "The special counsel did not charge Carter Page with anything, correct?" MUELLER said: "The special counsel did not." [Hong Gan's comment] I had discussed this already.[see the notion on why Putin would self-incriminate himself] Here I believed this Republican picked the areas of the Steele Dossier that might be the misinformation. I had explained in this post: After perhaps the Dossier were leaked to the media or within the intelligence community, the last few reports regarding Michael Cohen might be misinformation Putin created in order to shield the truth. Conspiracy was one set of allegations although Muller report did not establish it. The conclusion that 'it did not establish..." was not equal to the conclusion that there was no collusion. [See discussion on Alleged Conspiracy and Loose Collusions]. The notion "a Trump conspiracy that you determined didn't exist" was an assumption statement. It is not the same as - there was not sufficient evidence to establish Conspiracy. Carter Page warrant can be justified through the proof of many other sets of Steele Dossier allegations - particularly the central foundational allegation that many other allegations were built upon, as I have discussed in the theme section. We can not afford to ignore this central allegation by assuming Russia' innocence without doing something, and we can not neglect the consequence of the possibility of the existence of a Collusion on attacking our political system. The basic premise of the Dossier was not "there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government." The basic premise was Russia's cyber warfare and the central allegation - now the proven truth - Russia's hacking and dumping operation during the Election year.


Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)


Sensenbrenner attacked the Mueller in much the same way Ratcliffe did, it is the other side of the coin. He questioned: "Now, since you decided under the OLC opinion that you couldn’t prosecute a sitting president, meaning President Trump, why do we have all of this investigation of President Trump that the other side [Democrats] is talking about when you know that you weren’t going to prosecute him?" After Mueller explained to him: "you don’t know where the investigation’s going to lie [be], and OLC opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the president." Sensenbrenner attacked Mueller's investigation as Fishing: "OK, well if you’re not going to indict the president then you just continue fishing. That’s my observation."

Then Sensenbrenner went on to attack Mueller's Evidentiary Material - his Interview material - for those "individuals who have never been cross-examined" and "which did not comply with the special counsel’s governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declination decisions reached". Mueller declined to answer his question and stated "This is one of those areas which I decline to discuss..." [Hong Gan's notes: Mueller Report had mentioned the Office interviewed all the relevant individuals they could find except Trump. Those interview materials were not made public. Only members of Congress could go to the DOJ to review those parts of evidence. Whether what he implied as to cross-exam was not clear. Because only on a court trial proceeding, witness or defendant can cross examine other witness or the plaintiff. ]

Next Sensenbrenner switched his topic: he was citing the case of Clinton impeachment [which he was a member of the committee then] in an attempt to deny that the obstruction of justice conducts described in the Mueller Report are impeachable conducts. He stated: "while I recognize that the independent counsel statute under which Kenneth Starr operated is different from the special counsel statute, he, in a number of occasions in his report, stated that the -- “President Clinton’s actions may have risen to impeachable conduct, recognizing that it is up to the House of Representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable.” "You [Mueller] never used the term “raising to impeachable conduct” for any of the 10 instances [of obstruction of justice]. Is it true that there’s nothing in the report that says that the president may have engaged in impeachable conduct?" Mueller explained that the center of their investigation was not to determine whether to impeach or not to impeach Trump. The center of their investigation was the Mandate - that is - "developing the report and putting the report to the attorney general." and he explained that Mandate "does not go to other ways of addressing conduct." This implies that although the Report did not comment on Trump's obstruction of justice conducts in terms of 'impeachable conduct', that does not mean that Trump's obstruction of justice conducts are not 'impeachable conducts.'


Steve Chabot (R-OH)


-----Chabot attacked the Steele Dossier and Fusion GPS the company Steele had worked for. He tricked his question and implication in this way: "Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document widely known as the Steele dossier that started all this [investigation], and the owner of Fusion GPA (sic) was someone named Glenn Simpson. Are you [Mueller] familiar with..." "Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in your report, was he?" "At the same time Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it also was representing a Russian-based company, Probison, which had been sanctioned by the U.S. government. Are you aware of that?".

He further asked: "we know that the Clinton campaign did pay Fusion GPS to gather dirt on the Trump campaign, from persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesn’t mention a thing about Fusion GPS in it, and you didn’t investigate Fusion GPS’ connections to Russia.(see next section about Steve Chabot's question)" "Can you see that from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS’ involvement with the Clinton campaign, to focusing on a brief meeting at the Trump Tower that produced nothing, to ignoring the Clinton campaign’s own ties to Fusion GPS, why some view your report as a pretty one-sided attack on the president?" and "The things left out of the report tended to be favorable to the president?" Mueller declined to answer and comment on this series of Questions, saying this topic was outside his purview and was handled by other division in the DOJ.

[Hong Gan's comment] Because Steele Dossier is a Raw Intelligence Report, it might influence the investigation but it has never been applied by Mueller as Evidence in his Report. As I had explained the difference in Nature of a Raw Intelligence Report and an Investigation Report, although Mueller did mention Steele Dossier in his report (rarely), but he has never intended to claim the Steele Dossier as Evidentiary materials. It left to analysts to address whether the finding facts in Mueller Report proved or not disproved Steele Dossier's Allegations. Therefore there is no need to mention the owner and the name of the firm Fusion GPS.

Fusion GPS's opposition research on Trump started with the sponsorship from within Republican (The Washington Free Beacon - a conservative website) before Trump became the Candidate when quite a few of Republicans did not support him including Lindsey Graham who had commented Trump as 'unfit'. [See this reference: List of Republicans who opposed the Trump presidential campaign; and  12 Times Lindsey Graham Rebuked Donald Trump’s Candidacy] It was after Trump became the Candidate the opposition research was sponsored by Democrats and Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. As far as I know it, Steele did not know who sponsored him and Democrats did not know their opposition research was done by Steele. [See this reference: The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who Paid for It]. [quote from the reference] "Officials from the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. have said they were unaware that Perkins Coie facilitated the research on their behalf, even though the law firm was using their money to pay for it. Even Mrs. Clinton found about Mr. Steele’s research only after BuzzFeed published the dossier, They [Clinton's associates] said that she was disappointed that the research — as well as the fact that the F.B.I. was looking into connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia — was not made public before Election Day."

-----Next Chabot attacked the credibility on 6/9/16 meeting in Mueller Report by questioning the connection between the Russia Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Glenn Simpson. He asked "Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS. Are you aware of that?" "But you [Mueller] didn’t mention that or her connections to Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS in your report at all." Next he quoted NBC news: “Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly-incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower describing alleged tax evasion and donation to Democrats from none other than Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner.” "You didn’t include that in the report..."

"Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS. Are you aware of that?" appears to be a false statement. The Russia Lawyer had her clients. Her clients include Pyotr Katsyv, an official in the state-owned Russian Railways, and his son Denis Katsyv.  According to steemit.com, Fusion has denied claims that it facilitated the meeting between Veselnitskaya and Trump jr. despite having ties to the Russian lawyer and employing someone for opposition research within the same time frame of the meeting. “Fusion GPS learned about this meeting from news reports and had no prior knowledge of it. Any claim that Fusion GPS arranged or facilitated this meeting in any way is false,” Fusion GPS said.

-----Lastly, Chabot implied that Trump was not present in the 6/9/16 meeting. It was true that Trump was absent at the Meeting, but his written answer on this Meeting was more than beyond the reasonable doubt that He knew in advance of the pending meeting and was quite clear he was lying about it and the subsequent attempt to have Trump Jr to forge false statement about the Meeting when confronting Media. [see Mueller Report.] (quote Trump's written answer) "I have no recollection of learning at the time" that his son, Manafort or Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in 6/9/16 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton. "I have no recollection of learning of time and topic of the Meeting at the time; and have no recollection about learning the series of email communications between Trump Jr and Robert Goldstone from 6/3/16-6/9/16" "At this point in time, I do not remember whether I spoke or met with Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on 6/9/16. My desk calendar indicates I was scheduled to meet with Paul Manafort on the morning of June 9, but I do not recall if that meeting took place." "I have no independent recollection of any communications I had with the Agalarov family or anyone r understood to be a representative of the Agalarov family after 6/3/16 and before the end of the campaign..." "I do not recall being aware during the campaign of communications between Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Robert Goldstone, Natalia Yeselnitskaya (whose name I was not familiar with), or anyone I understood to be a Russian official."

Later Trump attempted to cover up the Meeting: On at least three occasions Trump directed Hope Hicks and others not to publicly disclose information about the 6/9/16 meeting. After the media reported the Meeting, Trump directed his son and his communications director to issue a false public statement in 6/x/17 about 6/9/16 meeting. Trump Jr. was the only Trump associate who participated in that meeting and who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.


Louie Gohmert (R-TX)


----- Gohmert started with the question regarding who drafted the Mueller's statement on his report in May. He asked: "who wrote the nine-minute comments you read at your May 29th press conference." Mueller refused to answer by saying that "That’s internal deliberations of the Justice Department."

----- Next he attacked Mueller's motivation for accepting the special counsel position. He tricked question in this way: "when you talked to President Trump the day before you were appointed as Special Counsel, you were talking to him about the FBI Director position again. Did he mention the firing of James Comey?" Mueller answered: he might talk to the Trump about the FBI Director but not as a candidate. Mueller had a long successful career as the FBI Director which qualified him to the Special Counsel position and was appointed by Rod Rosenstein (the acting Attorney General at the time). He was FBI Director for Bush for 12 years, why would he eyeing for a FBI position?

----- Next he attacked the credibility on Mueller's team members, in particular Peter Strzok. He asked "So most prosecutors want to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety, but in your case, you hired a bunch of people that did not like the President. Now let me ask you, when did you first learn of Peter Strzok’s animus toward Donald Trump?" "You didn’t know before he was hired for your team?" "But when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was having with Lisa Page?" "Did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of their government phones?"

Peter Strzok is a former FBI agent. Strzok was the Chief of the Counterespionage Section. It was later revealed that he and another FBI official, Lisa Page, wrote anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages to one another, calling into question his objectivity in the Mueller investigation into Trump’s campaign and Russia. On 7/12/18, he was questioned by members of Congress and heatedly denied that his texted opinions about Trump influenced the investigations into the president and Hillary Clinton. Mueller responded to the Gohmert's attacking question denying he knew Peter Strzok’s animus toward Donald Trump before he was hired and Mueller emphasized that he acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere in the FBI when he did find out that. Mueller said he did not order to investigate the deletion of those text messages. Mueller said: "there was an IG (Inspector General) investigation ongoing." This issue was discussed in detail in the Theme section.

----- Lastly, Gohmert attacked the intent element of the obstruction of justice violation. In order to clear trump from the corrupt intent for the obstruction of justice, he made a vicious lie and assumption statement I have ever saw as Collins: "if somebody [Trump] knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election and they [Trump and Trump Associates] see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person [Trump] coming after them, and then a Special Counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person and he knows he’s innocent, he’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he’s doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice"

"somebody [Trump] knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election" was an assumption statement. Trump could have conspired with Russia and Trump know he conspired with Russia; but Mueller did not have sufficient evidence to establish that conspiracy. "He know he is innocent" was an assumption statement as well [as I had explained on Collins' statement]. "He’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he’s doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice" was the vicious lie Gohmert tried to exonerate Trump. No matter what the opinion the Mueller team member held on Trump, whether they personally hate him or not that does not suggest they might or would sacrifice their objectiveness on an Investigation as their career ethics would require them to act - integrity, responsibility, and accountability. In addition, no matter what their opinion on the Trump were, there are the most material facts described in the report which are independent of anyone's opinion. For example, nothing can eliminate the fact that Trump directed his son and his communications director to issue a false public statement in 6/x/17 about 6/9/16 meeting. To ask somebody to make false public statement to misleading the public opinion is minimally deeply unethical and is corrupt conduct.

Martha Roby (R-AL)


Her questioning was relatively neutral compared to many of the other Republicans who clearly were deeply corruptly wrong.

----- She asked whether Mueller had provided Barr any redacted version of his report beside his report. "Had the attorney general asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?" "Did he ask you for a version where the grand jury material was separated?" "Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?" Mueller responded with: "We (Mueller and Barr) worked on the redacted versions together", though he said he is not going to get into details [about these].

----- She next asked Mueller why he did not try to go to the court to ask permission to un-redact grand jury materials which Starr had done so that Congress could view these materials. Mueller answered: "We had a process that we were operating on with the Attorney General’s Office."

----- She next asked the potential influence of the expectations on redaction and publicity on the tone and substance of the report. She asked "Did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly?" "At Attorney General Barr’s confirmation hearing, he made it clear that he intended to release your report to the public. Do you remember how much of your report had been written at that point?" "Were there significant changes in tone or substance of the report made after the announcement that the report would be made largely public?" Mueller answered: "we did not have an expectation. We wrote the report understanding that it was demanded by the statute and would go to the attorney general for further -- further review."'; he refused to get into that [whether there were significant changes in tone or substance of the report after Barr announced in his confirmation hearing that the report would be made largely public?

----- Next she asked whether Mueller or his team member had reviewed all the underlying evidence. Mueller explained he personally reviewed all of the underlying evidence gathered in his investigation. But he also agreed with Roby that - in an investigation as comprehensive as this, it’s normal that different members of the team would have reviewed different sets of documents and few, if anyone, would have reviewed all of the underlying evidence. As regarding to the question: "How many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the Special Counsel’s Office did you attend personally?" MUELLER said: "Very few".

----- Lastly she questioned Mueller's letter after Barr released his summary letter on The Report in March. She asked who drafted that letter (characterize Barr's summary as failed to capture the context, nature and substance of the report), and whether Mueller authorized the letter’s release to the media or was it leaked. She further asked: "Was this letter written and leaked for the expressed purpose of attempting to change the narrative about the conclusions of your report?" "Was anything in Attorney General Barr’s letter referred to as the principal conclusions inaccurate? Mueller tried not to answer this series of questions, apparently he perceived Barr's summary letter was sowing public confusion; but he did not intend to contradict Barr on the hearing setting.


Jim Jordan (R-OH)


----- Jim Jordan attempted to discredit the Mueller Report on the origination of the investigation targeting Mifsud. In his series of questions he asked why Mueller did not charge Mifsud with a crime after he lied [and omitted] at least three times to the FBI when he was interviewed by FBI."when the Special Counsel’s Office interviewed Mifsud, did he lie to you guys too?" "Did you [Mueller] interview Mifsud?" "Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?". Mueller said he can’t get into that, perhaps indicating that he did not have solid evidence to prove Mifsud was a Russia intelligence.

Then Jordan attacked: "A lot of things you can’t get into. What’s interesting, you can charge 13 Russians no one’s ever heard of, no one’s ever seen, no one’s ever going to hear of them, no one’s ever going to see them, you can charge them, you can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him." Mueller refuted: "I’m not certain I agree with your characterizations."

Jordan further attacked: "And here we are three years later, July of 2019, the country’s been put through this and the central figure who launches it all, lies to us and you guys don’t hunt him down and interview him again and you don’t charge him with a crime." "at the end of that 22 months you find no conspiracy [the president was falsely accused of conspiracy.] they [Democrats] want to keep investigating, they want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action, maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started, maybe it’s to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was lying to the FBI." "Here’s the good news, that’s exactly what Bill Barr and John Durham doing, they’re going to find out why we went through this three year..."

Mifsud indeed was the first one who leaked the intelligence that Russia had dirt on Clinton to Papadopoulos who then leaked to an Australian diplomat who informed FBI and sparked the formal investigation on 7/31/16. Later on Steele dossier had shaped the direction and focus on the investigation, particularly it was accused to be the basis for obtaining FISA to surveil on Carter Page. As had been discussed in this post and for reasons illustrated in the Introduction of this post, Steele Dossier was generally found credible, it accurately described the proven Russia's Hacking and Dumping Operation. We could not afford to neglect such cyberwarefare - cyber offensive operation - allegation.

As far as why Mueller did not charge Mifsud for lying to the FBI, I had a lengthy discussion on this concern. For context, go to this specific section. Next is a summarized reiteration on why Mueller did not charge Mifsud.
•According to Mueller Report, [quote] "The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud" According to Papadopoulos’s sentencing memo, prosecutors suggested that they might have wanted to challenge, detain, or arrest Mifsud if Papadopoulos had told the truth about their interactions
•Mifsud is not a US citizen. Although Russian had been indicted, that was based on their crime [computer crime]. Beside lying, Mifsud did not engage in the underlying crime of the hacking operation.
•It is not clear Mifsud was a western agent or Russia agent. Mueller Report only stated he had connections to Russia, did not explicitly identify him as a Russia agent. He could be a double agent New York Times 11/10/17 report said  "Mifsud boasted of his Russian connections to Mr. Papadopoulos and others. But in interviews, numerous Russia scholars in London and elsewhere said his career had been rocky for years. He had left jobs by suggestions of financial impropriety." Mifsud could also be neither a western agent nor a Russia agent. It could be true that Mifsud was neither a western agent nor a Russia agent.
•Mifsud started to hide himself since 11/1/16, it appeared no one knows where he was except his friend/layer Steven Roh.

The statement "you find no conspiracy [the president was falsely accused of conspiracy.]" was an assumption statement and false statement; and logically it contradicts to (is not equal to) the statement "there were not sufficient evidence to establish that Trump conspired with Russia." 

----- At the same time he did not ask a question but stated [clearly attempt to deny the legitimacy of spying on Carter Page] that "the FBI did something they probably haven’t done before, they spied on the American citizens associated with a presidential campaign. George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. With Carter Page they went to the FISA court, they used the now famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the warrant and spy on Carter Page for a better part of a year. With Mr. Papadopoulos, they didn’t go to the court, they used human sources, all kinds of -- from about the moment Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign, you’ve got all these people all around the world starting to swirl around him, names like Halper, Downer, Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places. The FBI even sent -- even sent a lady posing as somebody else, went by the name Azmiturk, even dispatched her to London to spy on Mr. Papadopoulos. ----- this question was asked in [Guy Reschenthaler's session "the third FISA renewal happens a month after you’re named special counsel. What role did your office play in the third FISA renewal of Carter Page.? Mueller declined to answer that question: "I’m not going to talk to that."


Matt Gaetz (R-FL)


______ attack on the credibility of Steele Dossier

----- He began with the attack on the credibility of the Steele Dossier via the question: "can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia’s disinformation campaign?" Mueller refused to answer this (he actually refused to comment on any question regarding the Steele Dossier as he stated in his opening statement) He said "that (the Steele Dossier) part of the building of the case predated me (Mueller) by at least 10 months." This answer was quickly being exploited. Gaetz went on to say "this Steele dossier predated the attorney general [Barr] and he didn’t have any problem answering the question when Senator Cornyn asked the attorney general the exact question I asked you, The attorney general said, - 'no. I can’t state that with confidence, and that’s one of the areas I’m reviewing. I’m concerned about it and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative." "Now, something is not entirely speculative that it must have some factual basis, but you identify no factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility that it was part of the Russia disinformation campaign."

As I have analyzed in this post regarding Steele Dossier, Steele Dossier was impossible to be Russia's disinformation Campaign, because that central and foundational allegation - Russia's hacking and dumping operation - was proved to be true. As I have discussed in the 'Discussion by Topic', many other allegations were built upon this central allegation; and in addition there are allegations in general about Russia' cyber-warfare operations tracing back to the time when Russia became hostile to Western alliance. Why would Russia launch a disinformation campaign to expose and admit something central - the meddling [the cyber offensive operation]- that was later proved to be true; why they would expose and admit their cyber offensive operations since they annexed Crimea from Ukraine and was sanctioned (see this Dossier report 86 - A SYNOPSIS OF RUSSIAN STATE SPONSORED AND OTHER CYBER OFFENSIVE (CRIMINAL) OPERATIONS).

According to New York Times, "Before Steele Dossier was made public (1/10/17), it had already been leaked or circulated inside intelligence and media community, therefore as a strategy to discredit the Dossier, Russia might leak on purpose some misinformation in the last few reports - allegations about Michael Cohen on Prague meeting which I believed was not true. The identity of the alleged Prague meeting was questioned, according to media report. The factual basis [as mentioned in Gaetz's question] in the Dosser was exactly that central and foundational allegation - Russia's hacking and dumping operation - which was later found to be the TRUTH.

----- Next he attempted to deny Steele Dossier by extracting those allegations regarding Collusions: "Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian foreign ministry figures along with other Russia had told him that there was a - and I’m quoting from the Steele dossier - “extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin.” "So here’s my question. Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele or did he just make it all up and was he lying to the FBI?" After Mueller answered "Steele Dossier was outside his purview", Gaetz went on to argue - as if he (Gaetz) did not know the difference in nature between a RAW Intelligence Report and an Investigation Report as I had discussed in the Introduction - "No it is exactly your purview Director Mueller and here’s why. Only one of two things is possible, right? Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn’t find or Russians lied to Steele. Now if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected president, that would seem to be precisely your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia’s interference but you weren’t interested in whether or not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele and if Steele was lying then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people. But you say nothing about this in your report."

[Hong Gan's comment] Again Gaetz's line of reasoning was logically wrong because the premise those arguments based on was a false statement that logically speaking, is false. Because Gaetz again as other deeply corruptly wronged Republican had done: They draw the equal mark '=' between the statement A and statement B

statement A: The Evidence we have for now did not or could not Establish The Criminal Conspiracy [but there was loose collusion; it was possible there was criminal conspiracy but we do not have sufficient evidence to establish that culpability]

statement B: The Evidence we have proved -There was no criminal Conspiracy

Did Gazet really not know the difference in the Nature between a raw intelligence report and an investigation report?. Steele Dossier allegations are from many Sources (see this post for a list). The raw intelligence report only guarantee the accuracy of information from Various Sources. Whether those sources received real truthful intelligence or misinformation was not guaranteed. According to the standard for intelligence reporting, an accuracy of 70-90% which Steele self-evaluated would be viewed as exceptionally credible. As far as the allegations on Collusion, [to set aside the allegations on Michael Cohen as I had explained in the comment of this post], those allegations on Collusion were not disproved. Mueller Report only concludes that the report DID NOT Establish The Criminal Conspiracy. That conclusion was not the same as 'NO Conspiracy". As I had discussed in the - Discussion by Topic - it is impossible for Steele to make up a story when the central foundational allegation was TRUE. Why would Russia lie and interfere through Steele by self-admitting himself (Putin) sponsored the hacking and dumping operation and the most devastatingly by self-incriminate himself (Putin) he colluded/conspired with Trump while confronting the public and media Putin had never acknowledged there were any collusion?

________ attack on 6/9/16 Meeting Gaetz went on to attack the 6/9/16 meeting by pointing out the connection between Glen Simpson and The Russia lawyer. He questioned - "You [Mueller] write 3,500 words about the June 9 meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya. You write on page 103 of your report that the president’s legal team suggested and I’m quoting from your report, “that the meeting might have been a set up by individuals working with the firm [Fusion GPS, Glen Simpson] that produced the Steele reporting.” So I’m going to ask you a very easy question Director Mueller, on the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya meet with more frequently, the Trump campaign or Glenn Simpson who is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee?"

The statement that - Glenn Simpson is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee - is a false statement. As far as I know it, Fusion GPS specializes on Opposition Research with a variety range of clients (find proof) and Trump's opposition research were initially paid and sponsored by a conservative 'right' leaning website: the Washington Free Beacon (which might owned or sponsored by a wealthy donor who might not support Trump'. Quite a few Republicans were not supporting Trump in the Republican primary before Trump became the Candidate. As far as the connection between Glen Simpson and the Russia Lawyer. One thing must be true that three years ago Glen Simpson must not know whether the Russia Lawyer was or was not a Russia intelligence agent. [see further reasoning on the comment on Rick Crawford's Questioning]


Ken Buck (R-CO)


----- attack on Mueller's choice on not making a prosecutorial decision on Obstruction of Justice He questioned "By listing the 10 factual situations and not reaching a conclusion about the merits of the case, you unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the president, forcing him to prove his innocence while denying him a legal form to do so."

Then He went on to attack the Mueller's legal analysis on Obstruction of Justice. He continued to comment: "As a former prosecutor, I’m also troubled with your legal analysis. You discussed 10 separate factual patterns involving alleged obstruction and then you failed to separately apply the elements of the applicable statutes." "I looked at the 10 factual situations and I read the case law and I have to tell you just looking at the Flynn matter for example, the four statutes that you cited for possible obstruction, 1503, 1505, 1512 B3 and 1512 C2." When I look at those concerning the Flynn matter, 1503 is inapplicable because there wasn’t a grand jury or trial jury impaneled and Director Comey was not an officer of the court as defined by the statute. Section 1505 criminalizes acts that would obstruct or impede administrative proceedings, those before Congress an administrative agency, the Department of Justice criminal resource manual states that the FBI investigation is not a pending proceeding. 1512 B3 talks about intimidation threats of force to tamper with a witness. General Flynn at the time was not a witness and certainly Director Comey was not a witness. And 1512 C2 talks about tampering with the record and as Joe Biden described the statute as being debated on the Senate floor, he called this a statute criminalizing document shredding, and there’s nothing in the -- in your report that alleges that the president destroyed any evidence. then he went back to question the same issue he posed in the beginning "But when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick, and that is fundamentally unfair. [not to make a prosecutor or declination decision]"

Mueller disagreed with him: "Because the OLC opinion -- Office of Legal Counsel - indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. So one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there." "I would not agree to that characterization at all. What we did is provide to the attorney general in the form of a confidential memorandum our understanding of the case." "OLC opinion says that the prosecutor while he cannot bring a charge against a sitting president, nonetheless he continue the investigation to see if there are any other person who might be drawn into the conspiracy."

------lastly he asked the most dumb question I had seen on the Mueller Testimony and got the damn answer of that he asked: "but the -- could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?" "You [Mueller] believe that he committed -- you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office." Mueller answered: Yes

Buck's criticism on Mueller's legal analysis on the Flynn case could not establish itself. The area of the discussion is going to be based on the statute code and the summary I made in this post - The Table -

Obstruction of Justice Statutes - their Scope and Overlapping


As a brief summary 1512 C(2) [look for the word 'attempt']was relatively more broad and independent of 1512 C(1); while 1503 and 1505 was even more broader than 1512 C(2) [look for the word: 'endeavors']. The difference between the 1503 and 1505 was: (1503) is for judicial proceeding such as Grand Jury proceeding; and (1505) is for administrative proceeding and congressional proceedings such as FBI investigation and Special Counsel Investigation. When they applied to the Obstruction of Justice on Flynn Case. 1512 C(2) and 1503 and 1505 all applies.

Buck's reasoning for 1503 non-compliance was his argument that there was not a grand jury impaneled but the nexus element of the obstruction of justice included pending or contemplated judicial proceeding which Mueller report stated: "Trump could reasonably foresee and actually contemplated that the investigation of Flynn was probably to lead to a grand jury investigation or prosecution"

Buck's reasoning for 1505 non-compliance was that "the Department of Justice criminal resource manual states that the FBI investigation is not a pending proceeding." I have never heard about that and Mueller did not say so either. But even that was the case. There is no evidence to indicate this DOJ rule was equal to or broader than what the statutes indicted: Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees as far as the scope of those term -proceeding - covers. It did not say FBI investigation was not in the scope of the term 'proceeding'.

Buck's reasoning for 1512 C(2) non-compliance was "about tampering with the record and as Joe Biden described the statute as being debated on the Senate floor, he called this a statute criminalizing document shredding". This is a very evident error Buck made. because that reasoning was what 1512 C(1) covers which is much narrower than what 1512 C(2) covers.

Buck's reasoning for 1512 B(3) non-compliance was "intimidation threats of force to tamper with a witness [Flynn]; but the complete quote for this piece of statute also include the text:"......… or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer.......of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or.......... " That was exactly what Trump had done.


Andy Biggs (R-AZ)


---- He began his questioning trying to point out that Mueller had reached his conclusion - there was not sufficient evidence to establish the conspiracy [or the investigation did not establish .....] - way in advance of his final report. He asked: "My question now is when did you personally reach that conclusion?" "You were ongoing and you wrote it at some point during the investigation period. But at some point, you had to come to a conclusion that there’s not a conspiracy going on here. There was no conspiracy between this president and I’m not talking about the rest of the president’s team - and the Russians." So Andy Biggs still tried to clear Trump from the possibility of the collusion but he did not try to clear this from the rest of the Trump team which is a little better than other corruptly wronged Republicans. The statement he made is what he thinks to be true but may not be true - There was no conspiracy between this president and the Russia - is an assumption statement. Mueller provided his answer: "And when you make a decision on a particular case depends on a number of factors. And so I cannot say specifically that we reached the decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time." After Biggs tried to insist that "But it was sometime well before you wrote the report. Fair enough?" Mueller refuted: "Well, I’m not certain I do agree with that" "there are various aspects of the development of an [investigation]"

-----the next part of Biggs questioning was regarding the origin of Mueller's appointment by DAG (deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein [in an attempt to question Mueller's motivation on being appointed] He questioned: "evidence suggests that on 5/10/17 six days before the DAG appointed you special counsel, Mr. Rosenstein called you and mentioned the appointment of a special counsel, not necessarily that you would be appointed, but that you had a discussion of that. Is that true?" MUELLER answered he does not have any knowledge of that occurring. Then Biggs continued to ask: "Evidence also suggests that on 5/12/17 you met with Mr. Rosenstein in person. Did you discuss the appointment of special counsel then, not necessarily you but that there would be a special counsel?" "Evidence also suggested, on May 13th, four days before you were appointed special counsel, you met with former Attorney General Sessions and Rosenstein and you spoke about special counsel. Do you remember that?" [Mueller said no] "And on May 16th, the day before you were appointed special counsel, you met with the president and Rod Rosenstein. Do you remember having that meeting? [Mueller said yes] "And the discussion of the position of the FBI director took place. Do you remember that?" [Mueller said yes] "And did you discuss at any time in that meeting Mr. Comey’s termination?"[Mueller said no]" Mueller refused to answer the questions Bigges kept asking in the end:"Did you discuss at any time in that meeting the potential appointment of a special counsel? Not necessarily you, but just in general terms? How many times did you speak to Mr. Rosenstein before May 17, which is the day you got appointed, regarding the appointment of special counsel?"

[Hong Gan's Comment] Mueller refused to answer the last few questions. Mueller's motivation for taking the special counsel position is out of patriotism, righteousness, accountability and out of the aim to advance public interest and not personal interest. Even while sitting at the hearing testifying, he worried and said that "they [Russia] could do it [hacking and meddling] now while we sit here' and he warned and  mentioned his fear that 'this could become Normal.'


Tom McClintock (R-CA)


----- He posed the same concern as Biggs did. "You had three discussions with Rod Rosenstein about your appointment as special counsel May 10, May 12, and May 13, correct?" [Mueller answered yes]"Then you met with the president on the 16th with Rod Rosenstein present. And then on the 17th, you were formally appointed as special counsel. Were you meeting with the president on the 16th with knowledge that you were under consideration for appointment of special counsel?" [Mueller answered no]

----- He said Mueller omitted the exculpatory part of the transcript about the message John Dowd sent to Michael Flynn's lawyer on 11/22/17. This question was discussed in detail in the Theme section. For comparison of the original transcript and Mueller's quotation on it also refer to the Theme section. Next was a summary for the discussion on the issue. Here was just one reiteration of the most important context behind this call - It was made on the next day (11/22/17) after Flynn dropped the joint defense agreement with Trump and began to cooperate with the government (Mueller Office).

[Hong Gan's comment:] In appearance, in 11/22/19's voicemail, Down did said 'without you having to give up any...confidential information" and Mueller's quote omitted this partial sentence. But Dowd's implication can be said to be clear - he wants to share any information including confidential information if the information might "implicate Trump'. He implicated that he can’t state it in starker terms." Because in the Kelner's [Flynn's attorney] return call when he reiterated that they can no longer share any information (confidential information) with Trump, according to Muller's interview notes with Kelner, Kelner said Dowd's reaction was "Indignant" and "Vocally in Disagreement". That is equivalent to want Flynn to share with them any information that might "Implicate Trump'. He explicitly asked for 'heads up' if there is information that would 'Implicate Trump'. In addition it was the pattern of conduct by Trump toward those other witnesses such as Cohen and Manafort. Initially was the expression of sympathy and warm support asking them to stand strong because he is behind them and the possibility of pardon before they 'flipped' and then immediately went to the other polarization after they began cooperating with the government.

----- He next asked questions regarding Konstantin Kilimnik in an attempt to deny him as a Russia intelligence agent: he claimed Konstantin Kilimnik was actually a U.S. State Department intelligence source and attacked Mueller that he omitted this. see quote "you extensively discussed Konstantin Kilimnik’s activities with Paul Manafort. And you described him as, quote, 'A Russian/Ukrainian political consultant,' and, 'longtime employee of Paul Manafort, assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian intelligence.' we’ve since learned from news articles that Kilimnik was actually a U.S. State Department intelligence source, yet nowhere in your report is he so identified. Why was that fact omitted?" Mueller declined to answer and refused to credit what McClintock said had occurred. He said "I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of what we had in the course of our investigation." Then McClintocka asked: "did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?" Mueller refused to answer this queston - "I can’t go into the discussion of our investigative moves."

This issue was discussed in detail in the Them section as well, Republican's allegation that Konstantin Kilimnik was a state department source could not be proved. John Solomon claimed he had documents from FBI and the intelligence community to prove Konstatin Kilimnik was a state department source. But he did not load those documents to Scribd - the place he usually disclose many of the other documents . Also no credible major media was publishing anything Solomon claimed he had possession of and conclusively reporting on it.

-----Next McClintock went on to attack the credibility of the Mueller report by Mueller had no evidence to link IRA troll farm to the Russia Government i.e The Russia government might not be behind the Troll Farm who had sow discord. He questioned: "The problem we’re having is that we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence and we’re starting to find out that’s not true. For example, your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet, at a hearing in May in the Concord Management IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated both you and Mr. Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when, in court, you’ve been unable to produce any evidence to support it?" Mueller disputed that claim - "I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that proceeding." Then he further attacked Mueller: "in fact, the judge considered holding prosecutors [Mueller and Barr] in criminal contempt. She backed off, only after you hastily called a press conference the next day in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms." "Did your press conference have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the evidence?" [MUELLER answered No.]

This topic was discussed in detail in the Theme section as well. Next is a summary of that discussion.
According to Mueller Report, Russia troll farm - Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA) is a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering (collectively "Concord"). IRA started to hide its funding and activities as early as about 5 years ago.

Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin had ties to putin, he is nicknamed as "Putin's Chef." Prigozhin founded Concord Catering in 1996, and over the years began feeding Moscow children and eventually the Russian military. Putin attended the 2010 opening of Prigozhin’s food factory outside St. Petersburg, designed to supply food to schools, according to Meduza. Mueller report mentioned Numerous media sources have reported on Prigozhin’s ties to Putin, and they have appeared together in public photographs.

According to New York Times report - "Yvgeny Prigozhin, Russian Oligarch Indicted by U.S., Is Known as "Putin’s Cook", “Mr. Prigozhin’s critics — including opposition politicians, journalists and activists, the United States Treasury and now the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III — say he has emerged as Mr. Putin’s go-to oligarch for that and a variety of sensitive and often-unsavory missions” “He is not afraid of dirty tasks,” said Lyubov Sobol of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, an organization established by the prominent opposition leader Aleksei A.

The federal judge (Dabney Friedrich) was appointed by Trump. I don't believe there was no evidence to link Putin to the Troll farm social media operation; I believed the judge in whatever way denied the sufficiency of that evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt. Again this is the same logical question - in the difference between "did not establish there is the crime" and "there is no crime".

In addition, Mueller’s public statement did have nothing to do with the contempt order and his statement did not imply he did not have a conclusion on the Russia Meddling. He stated them as allegations in the beginning part of the speech before he summarized what was in his Report - his reiteration of these allegations (which was indicted in the beginning of 2018 is in order to point out the significance to appoint a special counsel and to justify the Investigation.

-----Lastly he went on to characterize Mueller Report as "the fundamental problem is that, as I said, we’ve got to take your word, your team faithfully, accurately, impartially and completely described all of the underlying evidence in the Mueller report. And we’re finding more and more instances where this just isn’t the case. And it’s starting to look like, you know, having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead. You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran." Mueller refuted this time assertively: "I don’t think you reviewed a report that is as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us."


Debra Kay Lesko (R-AZ)


----- first she attempted to contradict Mueller's testimony from his Report for Mueller's answer of Ted Lieu's question. "Mr. Lieu was asking you questions. I quote, “the reason you didn’t indict the president was because of the OLC opinion. And you answered, that is correct. But that is not what you said in the report and it’s not what you told Attorney General Barr. In fact, in a joint statement that you released with DOJ on may 29th after your press conference that said, 'the attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice. The office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other whether the president committed a crime...' So Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement with DOJ you issued on May 29th as you sit here today?"

Mueller did not immediately respond to this 'contradiction' he said "I would have to look at it more closely before I say I agree with it.". But in the afternoon hearing on his opening statement, in order to not to contradict his testimony with his report and his press conference statement, he was passively made the adjustment on his statement regarding how to say about on the prosecutorial decision. Instead of saying he did not indict Trump because of OLC rule which implying he (would) have found Trump committed obstruction justice. He changed to not to reach a determination whether Trump committed the crime (obstruction of justice.) [find original quote]

----- next she tried to clear Trump from obstruction of justice by stating the fact that Trump did not fire the special counsel. "Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?" "Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered?" "And in fact, you resigned as special counsel when you closed up the office in late May Is that correct? Mueller provided the respective answers for this series of question. As I had discussed before, obstruction of justice statutes did not require the obstruction to be successful. See this post for a summary of obstruction of justice code, looking for the word 'attempt', 'endeavor'.

----- Next she tried to ask Mueller to agree with Barr's summary letter and Barr's press conference before the release of the redacted version of the Mueller report "on 4/18/19, the attorney general held a press conference in conjunction with the public release of your report. Did Attorney General Barr say anything inaccurate either in his press conference or his letter to Congress summarizing the principle conclusions of your report?" Mueller refuted by pointing out Barr's summary of the Report failed to capture the context, nature and substance of the Report. The letter, in effect, sowed public confusion. Mueller responded: "Well, what you are not mentioning is the letter we sent to Mr. Barr that raised some issues. And that letter speaks for itself."

-----Next, she tried to point out Mueller Report did not rely all on evidence and document. Somewhere his reported also relied on media reports. she asked: "rather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents, I think you relied a lot on media. I’d like to know how many times you cited “The Washington Post” in your report." "How many times did you cite “The New York Times”? "How many times did you cite Fox News?" [Mueller answered he did not know], she lastly attacked - "I’ve got to say it looks - Obstruction of Justice - is mostly regurgitated press stories. Honestly, there’s almost nothing from the Obstruction of Justice that I couldn’t already hear or know simply by having a $50 cable news subscription. " Mueller did not cite News stories as Evidence. [Lesko's last part of the speech quoting Mueller actually answered the question.] Various news stories were summarized and cited not for the truth of the information contained in the stories but rather to place Candidate Trump’s response to those stories in context." (her time expired, so Mueller did not answered the last question.)


Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA)


----- He started with the expired independent counsel statute in an attempt to attack that - Mueller's lengthy report without making a presocutrial or declination decision [on obstruction] was over investigate - did not meet the practice and tradition of American law enforcement. She posed her opinion by saying: "are you familiar with the now expired independent counsel statute. It’s a statute under which Ken Starr was appointed." "Well the Clinton Administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after Ken Starr’s investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. Even President Clinton’s A.G. Janet Reno expressed concerns about the final report requirement and I’ll quote A.G. Reno. She said, “On one hand the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. On the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law enforcement. Under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases be made public only if there’s an indictment and prosecution not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry and it also creates yet another incentive for an independent counsel to over investigate in order to justify his or her tenure and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned.” "Again, Mr. Mueller, those are A.G. Reno’s words. Didn’t you do exactly what A.G. Reno feared? Didn’t you publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the target’s dirty laundry without recommending charges?"

Mueller refuted: "I disagree with that and ..." Clinton's case was very different from Trump's case. Clinton's case essentially was about his personal quality on the matter of his private life. It essentially would not pose any national security and national interest questions. Trump's Russia case is of paramount implication in our national security and it is not something about Trump's morality on private life. There is no privacy issue in this case. As I had explained we can not afford to presume Russia's innocence, nor we should ignore the allegations on collusion, at the time when we have no clue where the investigation would possible go, we have the responsibility to find that out. The nature of this case demand us to make an thorough investigation and the nature of this case would shift the balance between 'on one hand" and "on the other hand' toward 'on one hand" that is - the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials -. It was not the length of the final report matters; it is how much thoroughly we could prove Trump's culpability matters in this case. Corruption is the number one killer for democracy and national security. Even though a sitting president could not be indicted that should not prevent us from finding out the truth - whether we can or can not exonerate him. And the Mueller Report's conclusions are - We could not exonerate him on obstruction of justice. That is why Mueller refuted firmly: "We operate under the current statute not the original statute so I’m most familiar with the current statute not the older statute."

----- Next he questioned the same thing as some other Republicans had done on the issue of witness cross-examination in an attempt to question the credibility of the evidence - in particular - the interview material He asked: "Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined?" "Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized?" Mueller answered: "I’m not going to get into that."

----- the next question was also some other Republican (Roby) had already asked. "Given that A.G. Barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of your report public as possible, did you write your report knowing that it would possibly be shared with the public?" [Mueller answered no]. "Did you know that the report could be made public, did that alter contents you would include?

-----next question was also related to questions from some other Republicans (McClintock) regarding omitting the exculpatory evidence "Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. correct?" Mueller refuted: "Well, I actually would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report exculpatory (inaudible) as well..."

-----next question was also a familiar one: "isn’t it true that you state when you’re quoting the statute the obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute?" Mueller answered: "generally that is the case. Although most cases are not done in the context of the president." implying if the case is not about the president, that is true. "We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not." next he reiterate the question he started with: "So essentially what your report did was everything that A.G. Reno warned against?" Mueller refuted: "I can’t agree with that characterization."

----- he further attacked the Mueller report: "you compiled nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation who happens to be the President of the United States and you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges and that the report would be made public." Mueller refuted: "Not true"


Ben Cline (R-VI)


---- He started with obstruction of justice statute: 1512 c and tried "Section 1512-c is a statute created as part of auditing financial regulations for public companies. It was added as a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding. You analysis and application of the statute proposes to give clause C2 a much broader interpretation than commonly used. First, your analysis proposes to read clause C2 in isolation, reading it as a free standing all-encompassing provision, prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding if done with an improper motive." the next part he said was somewhat misleading and tricky he further said - "And second, your analysis of the statute to apply this way -- proposes to apply this sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials, exercising their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding." [but he did not add 'with improper motive' or 'corrupt intent']. He appeared to imply that Mueller interpreted or broadened the 1512 c2 in a way to prohibit Lawful Acts if those Lawful Acts influenced a proceeding." "you recognize that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitely resolved these issues, correct?" [Mueller answered "correct". this might only apply to the first half of Cline's statement]"You’d agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statutes, correct?" Mueller declined to answer. "In fact, the attorney general himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct?"

----- next he tried to remind the public that prosecutor does not always win their case and does not always interpret legal theory correctly "And you would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law, correct?" "And members of your legal team in fact have had convictions [against auditing firm Arthur Anderson] overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct?" he then cited an example of it - One of Mueller's top prosecutors, Andrew Weismann's case were overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by Weismann. He then quote Supreme Court's explanation: "Now I’ll [Cline] read from the decision of the Supreme Court unanimously reversing Mr. Weismann, when he said, “Indeed, its striking how little culpability the instructions require. For example, the jury was told that even a petitioner who honestly and sincerely believed that his conduct was lawful, the jury could convict. The instructions also diluted the meaning of ‘corruptly,’ such that it covered innocent conduct.” "Your report takes the broadest possible reading of this provision in applying it to the president’s official acts, and I’m concerned about the implications of your theory for over-criminalizing conduct by public officials" "So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, I want to ask a few examples." Mueller essentially refuted Cline - he said - "Well, again, I refer you to the report. But let me say, with Andrew Weismann, he’s one of the more talented attorneys we have on board. Over a period of time he has run a number of units..." [Mueller was then interrupted]

This issue was discussed in detail in the Theme section regarding the credibility of Mueller's team members - Andrew Weismann. The case cline mentioned was the Enron case handled by Andrew Weismann. Weissmann was deputy director and then director of the task force investigating the Enron scandal. His work resulted in the prosecution of more than 30 people for crimes including perjury, fraud, and obstruction including three of Enron's top executives.

In a follow-up case in U.S. District Court, Weissmann also was successful at arguing that auditing firm Arthur Andersen LLP had covered up for Enron. In that case, which resulted in the destruction of Andersen, he convinced the district judge to instruct the jury that they could convict the firm regardless of whether its employees knew they were violating the law. That ruling was later unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, in which the court held that "the jury instructions failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing."

{Hong Gan's comment: Since Cline's original intention in citing Andrew Weissmann's Enron case was not to attack his bias or qualification; but to use this example to attack Mueller's legal analysis (i.e his legal theory) on the obstruction of justice statute code 1512 (c). No matter how controversy Weissmann's Enron case on Anderson firm was, one thing very clear was that the Enron case is not parallel or is improper or inaccurate analogy to the Mueller's analysis on obstruction of justice case 1512 (c). Cline's attack on the over-criminalization on individual 45's obstruction of justice violation was about the lawful acts - [I have to add the word in appearance here] - lawful acts in appearance - but with corrupt intent. While the Enron case was about the over-criminalization of the lawless wrongdoing with no knowledge of the violation. For further discussion go to the section on attack on obstruction of justice}

Summarized here was the controversy in its own right with a possibility to justify Wissmann's legal analysis even though Supreme Court overturned the conviction unanimously. Mr. Weissmann took the lead in prosecuting Andersen for obstruction of justice for destroying confidential material. Andersen’s defense was: It followed company policy on when to destroy confidential material.

Convicted at trial, Andersen appealed. The case went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court overturned the conviction in a 9-0 opinion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion. In essence, Rehnquist said the prosecutor sold the presiding judge on jury instructions that assured conviction. “Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required,” Mr. Rehnquist wrote. “For example, the jury was told that, even if [Andersen] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [Andersen] guilty. The instructions also diluted the meaning of ‘corruptly’ so that it covered innocent conduct.” Mr. Rehnquist wrote that the government (Mr. Weissmann) insisted, over defense objections, that the word “dishonestly” be excluded from the instructions and that the word “impede” be added. However, Jstice Department in 2013 defended Wissmann against ethics complaints and concluded he did not violate the rules.

Despite its successes, the Enron Task Force emerged with a mixed legacy thanks to its trial losses and reversals from higher courts. Today, many Department of Justice officials have learned lessons from the Enron experience, accepting the idea that the task force might be overzealous. In subsequent years, the Department of Justice did not assign prosecutors to work solely on financial crisis cases. the Obama department allowed plans to create a similar task force. Yet the 2008 recession did not bring any task force. It was no surprise that the Department of Justice never put any top executives from the biggest financial intuitions in criminal conviction after the financial crisis. Forgetting what went right with the Enron prosecutions has contributed to a problem that still plagues the Department of Justice: It has lost the will and ability to prosecute top corporate executives from the largest corporations. (the discussion on this paragraph was based on the report from Los Angles Times and Pacific Standard Magazine).

[Hong Gan's comment: The conclusion is - Mueller investigation on Russia-Trump Collusion did not bring out any 'overzealous' indictment against any of the Trump Campaign in terms of criminal conspiracy despite that Andrew Weissmann led the raid on Paul Manafort's house in Virginia shortly after he joined Mueller team in June in the Election year.]

-----Next he cited the example of investigation on Hillary Clinton's private email server and quote Obama's comment as to be influencing the proceeding: President Obama said, “I don’t think it posed a national security problem.” And he later said, “I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the investigation, couldn’t President Obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice? Cline then cited another example: [quote Cline] "a very senior DOJ official called FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, expressing concern that FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe. McCabe questioned this official, asking, 'Are you telling me I need to shut down a validly predicted investigation? To which the official replied of course not." "This seems to be a clear example of somebody within the executive branch attempting to influence a FBI investigation. So under your theory, couldn’t that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive?"

[Hong Gan's comment] Cline looks very savoy on the LAW and on the interpretation of the LAW. But he forgot one fundamental difference between the Obama Case and The Trump Case. Obama is a third party and nearly an outsider of the Clinton Investigation, though Clinton was someone he appointed. Obama was not the suspect on the Clinton's private email server case. it is Clinton who was being investigated not Obama himself. Obama did not involve in the private email server case. But Trump, is different he was the suspect of the Russia Case, he was the one who accepted the dirt. {in contrast to the Trump Russia case, Clinton investigation did not appear to find anything); but Russia Case found Russia meddling as True and associated fact that Trump accepted and claimed would continue to accept the Dirty). It is Trump himself was under investigation. Therefore, his behavior to thwart the investigation from the beginning to the end had a motive to advance his personal interest to keep himself the power that he obtained either illegitimately or deeply unethically; Trump had an intent out of corruption.

Here in the Russia case, there was no dilution of the meaning of the corrupt. Mueller might perceive this statute defense coming from Trump's attorney if Trump was indicted. So he put into many words to dissect each instances of obstruction conduct and analyzed them in terms of the three elements of the obstruction - that is - obstructive act, nexus, and the corrupt intent. (this post has a summary) [from Mueller Report] Mueller perceived Trump's counsel could raise the statute concerns to defend Trump. The statute concern is whether those obstructive conduct described in the narrative in Evidence section are obstructions. Mueller devoted a whole section (III) to discuss his counter- defense on the Statute (And Constitutional) Defense, extensively citing Supreme Court precedence. He analyzed the applicability and the scope of obstruction statutes in the following line of reasoning (refer to Mueller Report for detail)
  • The Text 1512{c){2) Prohibits a Broad Range of Obstructive Acts
  • Judicial Decisions Support a Broad Reading of 1512(c)(2)
  • The Legislative History of l512(c)(2) Does Not Justify Narrowing Its Text
  • General Principles of Statutory Construction Do Not Suggest That Section 1512(c)(2) is Inapplicable to the Conduct
  • Other Obstruction Statutes Might Apply to the Conduct


William Steube (R-FL)


------ he started with a familiar question - FBI director position "Mr. Mueller did you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as Special Counsel?" "So you don’t recall on 5/16/17 that you interviewed with the president regarding the FBI director job?" Mueller's response: "My understanding I was not applying for that job, I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview you’re talking about." "I interviewed with the president and it was about the job and not about me applying for the job."

----- next he questioned whether Russia Meddling had or had not changed voter's vote. "Given your 22 months of investigation, tens of millions of dollars spent and millions of documents reviewed, did you obtain any evidence at all that any American voter changed their vote as a result of Russia’s election interference?" Mueller declined to answer, he said: "that was outside our purview." "the impact of that meddling was undertaken by other agencies." I believed Steube used improper word - evidence - on addressing this issue "Did you obtain any evidence, based on all the documents reviewed", There were no evidence on this, because we can't do a parallel social experiment to find out and compare whether voter changed their vote or not by holding an Election without Russia Meddling. We can only assess the impact of that meddling based on whatever analysis including poll the voter, and indeed this type of assessment research is outside the scope of special counsel responsibility.

----- next he questioned Mueller on Steele Dossier as many other Republican had done He tricked and misled his question as follows: "you stated in your opening statement that you would not get into the details of the Steele Dossier. However multiple times in your report, you mentioned the unverified allegations." "How long did it take you to reach the conclusion that it was unverified?" [Mueller, as stated in his opening statement at the outset, declined to answer the question regarding Steele Dossier] Steube made a false statement or assumption about Mueller's alluding to Steele Dossier. Mueller did not conclude Steele Dossier was unverified. Here is original quote in Mueller Report's (p23): "Several days later, BuzzFeed published unverified allegations compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele during the campaign about candidate Trump 's Russia connections under the headline "These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia. In a press conference the next day, the President -Elect called the release "an absolute disgrace and ....."

So the Context for this is to describe Trump's reaction to negative media report on the alleged Russia Meddling and his tie to Russia.(see this post) in Transition Period in this case. It was not After the Investigation, Mueller concluded Steele Dossier was unverified, but he is saying - The Steele Dossier was then unverified - that is - in the Election year, Steele reporting was unverified intelligence document. The other areas of the Mueller Report which alluded to the Steele Report was in the Context in the series of events which Mueller provided to discuss the Obstruction of Justice incident on Michael Flynn in broad sense and the particular event - President-Elect Trump is Briefed on the Intelligence Community's Assessment of Russian Interference in the Election - in the narrow sense.(see this same post but different table - table titled Conduct Concerning the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn).

Here is the original quote in Mueller Report "On 1/10/17 the media reported that Comey had briefed the President-Elect on the Steele reporting, and BuzzFeed News published information compiled by Steele online, stating that the information included "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives." The next day, the President-Elect expressed concern to intelligence community leaders about the fact that the information had leaked and asked whether they could make public statements refuting the allegations in the Steele reports". Again that wording is to say Steele Dossier was then unverified allegations, not after Mueller's Investigation and any time point after the whole duration of the Mueller Investigation. Mueller Report unarguably verified the MEDDLING.

Next he questioned Carter Page's FISA application as based on the credibility of past relation with FBI. He said: "When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page?" "Your team interviewed Christopher Steele, is that correct?" "The FISA application makes reference to Source 1, who is Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele Dossier. The FISA application says nothing [on] Sources 1’s reason for conducting the research into Candidate 1's ties to Russia. Based on Source’s 1 previous reporting history with FBI, whereby Source One provided reliable information to the FBI. The FBI believes Source One’s reporting herein to be credible. Do you believe the FBI’s representation that Source 1’s reporting was credible to be accurate? Mueller declined to answer. As said so in the FISA application Christopher Steele did collaborate with FBI and was credible in his previous reporting with FBI.

Next question, Steube asked: "not once [during Mueller's Investigation] did you consider it worthy to investigate how an unverified document that was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition political campaign. Did you do any investigation in that way" Mueller refuted: "I do not accept your characterization of what occurred.". As I [Hong Gan's comment] had discussed in the Discussion by Topic, Steele and Clinton Campaign or Democrat does not know each other's relation then. He made a 'comment' to conclude his question by saying Attorney General Barr and Inspector General was investigating this 'very basis of the this investigation "I can guarantee that the American people want to know and I’m - and I’m very hopeful and glad that A.G. Barr is looking into this and the inspector general is looking into this because you’re unwilling to answer the questions of the American people as it relates to the very basis of this investigation into the president and the very basis of this individual who you did interview, you’re just refusing to answer those questions." As I [Hong Gan's comment] had discussed in this post and in the Introduction of this post - why Steele Dossier - speaks for itself

----- next he switched topic to question about the firing of Comey implying those acts were not obstruction of justice. "Can the president fire the FBI director at any time without reason under Article I of the Constitution?" [Mueller answered yes] "Can’t he also fire U.S. Special Counsel at any time without any reason?" [Mueller refuted the phrase "without any reason": "I know the Special Counsel can be fired, but I’m not certain it extends to for whatever reasons is given."]

Steube's time expired so there is no more discussion. Mueller perceived Trump's counsel could raise constitutional concerns to defend Trump. The constitutional concern is whether it is within the legally defined area that a sitting president was carrying out his Constitutional duty to replace federal officials, instruct or direct his staff or federal appointee to carry out certain commands. To support his finding, Mueller devoted a whole section to discuss his counter- defense on the Constitutional Defense, extensively citing Supreme Court precedence.

Next are a summary from Mueller's analysis: Mueller emphasized that the parallel power of Congress coexists with the Executive power in the Constitution to enact laws that protect congressional proceedings, federal investigations, the courts, and grand juries Against CORRUPT Efforts. When the President's official actions come into conflict with the prohibitions in the obstruction statutes, any constitutional tension is reconciled through separation-of-powers analysis. Mueller said that through applying the Court's framework for analysis [i.e. separation-of-powers analysis], he concluded that Congress can validly regulate the President's exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice. These analysis leads to Mueller's assessment (weighing of interests) in the constitutional balancing process - [he concluded that] - Congress has the authority to impose the limited restrictions contained in obstruction of justice statutes on the President's official conduct to protect the integrity of important functions of other branches of government. A general ban on corrupt action does not unduly intrude on the President's responsibility to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed. To the contrary, the concept of "faithful execution" connotes the use of power in the interest of the Public, not in the office holder's Personal Interests.


Kelly Armstrong (R-ND)


He questioned the integrity of Mueller's team members - they are biased, have conflict of interest - (Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, Aaron Zelbley). He started his series of questioning with "how many people on your staff did you fire during the course of the investigation?" "You fired, Peter Strzok was let go, correct?" [Mueller answered: "Yes, and there may have been other persons on other issues that have been either transferred or fired."]

----- regarding Peter Strzok

 "Peter Strzok testified before this Committee 7/12/18 that he was fired because you were concerned about preserving the appearance of independence. Do you agree with this testimony?" "Did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence of the investigation?" Mueller answered: "No. He was transferred as a result of instances involving texts." (see previous discussion on Strzok's text message incidence in Gohmert's session and the discussion on this topic in the Theme section.)&

A comprehensive review of Strzok's messages by The Wall Street Journal concluded that "texts critical of Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump". According to The New York Times, Strzok was "considered one of the most experienced and trusted FBI counterintelligence investigators," as well as "one of the Bureau's top experts on Russia" according to CNN. According to FBI guidelines, agents are allowed to have and express political opinions as individuals. Former FBI and DOJ officials said that it was not uncommon for agents such as Strzok to hold political opinions and still conduct an impartial investigation. Strzok was not punished following his reassignment. Defenders of Strzok and Page in the FBI said no professional misconduct between them occurred. An article published by Atlantic discusses this issue in specific. - There’s not yet any evidence that an FBI agent’s anti-Trump texts prejudiced his work.

6/13/18 OIG report criticized Strzok's text messages for creating the appearance of impropriety. However, the report concluded that there was no evidence of bias in the FBI's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton. At his 7/12/18 public congressional hearing, Strzok denied that the personal beliefs expressed in the text messages impacted his work for the FBI. Strzok added that he knew of information during the presidential campaign that could have damaged Trump but that he never contemplated leaking it. Strzok also said that he criticized politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in his "blunt" text messages. Strzok said that the investigation into him and the Republicans' related rhetoric was misguided and played into “our enemies’ [Russia] campaign to tear America apart. Washington Post published an analysis on 7/12/18 - the day Strozk testified before Congress - Peter Strzok just gave a hard-to-rebut defense of the objectivity of the Russia investigation’s origins. "FBI agent defiantly rejects bias charges at chaotic hearing" (AP News on 7/12/18).

----- regarding Andrew Weissmann (also questioned by Crawford)

 "Andrew Weissmann is one of your top attorneys?" "Did Weissmann have a role is selecting other members of your team?" MUELLER answered "He had some role but not a major role." "Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party. Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?" [Mueller said no] "On 1/30/17, Weissmann wrote an email to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating, “I am so proud and in awe regarding her disobeying a direct order from the president.” Did Weissmann disclose that email to you before he joined the team?" "Is that not a conflict of interest?" [Mueller said he is not going to talk about that.]   

The discussion on Andrew Weissmann was detailed in the Theme section. Weissmann is the investigation's "pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit bull" as New York Times wroted in a 10/31/17 report on Andrew Weissman. "If there’s something to find, he’ll find it," Katya Jestin, who used to work with Weissmann in the US attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York, told The Times. "If there’s nothing there, he’s not going to cook something up." "As a fraud and foreign bribery expert, he knows how to follow the money. Who knows what they will find, but if there is something to be found, he will find it," Emily Pierce, a former DOJ spokeswoman under the Obama administration, told Politico. He was regarded by some as a fierce prosecutor known for his strategies of flipping lower-level defendants on bigger targets.

Republican's attack on Weissman's email to Sally Yates was a nonsense. Andrew Weissmann sent an email to outgoing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her for refusing to enforce the first iteration of Trump’s travel ban,” I am so proud and in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respect,” Weissmann’s email read, according to fox news. Trump's travel ban was part of his racist immigration policy and was motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment which violated constitutional Establishment Clause. His travel ban was blocked by federal judge and the executive orders on the travel ban was forced to change several times (see this post on Trump's racism) - executive order 13769 was superseded by 13780, and then superseded by proclamation 9645. The ban was superseded and lifted on some countries but not all.

Andrew Weissmann, was reportedly (12/8/17) in attendance at former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's election night party last year at the Jacob K. Javits Center in New York City. Weissmann previously gave $2,300 to Obama’s first presidential campaign, $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee 13 years ago. But he did not donate in the Election year.

----- regarding Jeannie Rhee

"Are you aware that Ms. Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal emails originating from Clinton’s time as Secretary of State?" [MUELLER said Yes]

Jeannie Rhee was a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama. She was one of the partners from Mueller’s previous law firm, WilmerHale. She was brought on to the special counsel’s team from the outset.

Jeannie Rhee only worked as outside counsel on behalf of the Clinton Foundation. Se was not an employee of the foundation. While employed at WilmerHale, Rhee and Jamie Gorelick represented the Clinton Foundation in 2015 in a lawsuit that claimed the Clinton Foundation operated as a racketeering enterprise shaking down donors in exchange for official favors. A conservative legal activist filed lawsuit claiming the former secretary of state used her private email account and the promise of changes in U.S. foreign policy to shake people down for speaking fees and donations to the foundation. It was the former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick who led its defense. The lawsuit was dismissed. A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation told Factcheck.org that while Rhee was retained as outside counsel for that one case, she has never been employed at the Clinton Foundation. At the time of the lawsuit, Scott Curran was the foundation’s general counsel. That position is now held by Amy Sandgrund-Fisher.


----- regarding Aaron Zelbley

"Aaron Zelbley, the guy sitting next to you, represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton’s mobile devices." He 'accused' of Mueller's team as biased, arguing that "This isn’t just about you [Mueller] being able to vouch for your team." [it is about ] "not just political conflict of interest but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. It’s just simply not enough that you [Mueller] vouch for your team." "half of them [Mueller's team of lawyers] had a direct relationship, political or personal, with the opponent of the person you [Mueller] were investigating." Mueller responded with the notion that only five out of the 20 attorneys were from outside the DOJ.

The discussion on Aaron Zelbley was detailed in the Theme section. Aaron Zelbley was chief of staff to Mueller [the same job title that Zebley had at FBI while Mueller was FBI director] who was present in Mueller's Testimony. While in private practice at WilmerHale, Zebley was an expert in cybersecurity and represented a wide range of clients, including Justin Cooper Hillary Clinton case. Zebley’s political affiliation, however, isn’t actually known. According to Politifact 3/21/18 report, he’s registered to vote but doesn’t have a listed party affiliation.

----- team member made donation to Clinton Campaign

"you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton. I’m not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other democrats, just the donations to the opponent who was the target of your investigation."  

The Table in the Theme section on this issue summarized the donation by the Mueller Team. Here was a summary out of that table. Seven of the registered Democrats have no record (history) of writing checks to federal candidates. Based on federal disclosure data, Quarles is easily the most generous donor on the team, giving in approximate of $33,000 over the last 20 years. He was the only team member to give donations to federal Republican candidates. Only four other staff members gave between $3,000 and $12,000 over a span of several years. Four more gave donations only in the hundreds of dollar. More than half of the total approx $50,000 came from just one lawyer (Quarles) and more than half (approx $30, 000) of it was donated before the Election year. Federal records show that neither Page nor Strzok made any political donations. (for Peter Strzok and Lisa Page — exchanged texts and removal from the team, go to section on Peter Strzok).

Mueller defended his hiring practice: "We strove to hire those individuals that could do that job." "I have been in this business for more than 20 years, and in those years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity."

Armstrong tried to refute Mueller's defense: " This isn’t just about you being able to vouch for your team. This is about knowing that the day you accepted this role you had to be aware that no matter what this report concluded that half of the country was going to be skeptical of your team’s findings, and that’s why we have recusal laws that define bias and perceive bias for this very reason. There is not just political conflict of interest but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. It’s just simply not enough that you vouch for your team. The interest demand that no perceived bias exists. I can’t imagine a single prosecutor or judge that would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team had a direct relationship - political or personal -to the opponent of the person being investigated."

Mueller's refuted: "of the 19 lawyers over the period of time [investigation], Only five came from outside, so we did not have..." [Mueller was interrupted by Armstrong.]

[Hong Gan's comment: to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest and to preserve the independence and integrity of the investigation, Mueller removed Peter Strzok and Lisa Page also left, although Mueller might still believe Peter Strzok possess the capability to do the job and do the job quickly without let his personal political view to influence and compromise his work. He can't remove everyone who might have an appearance of relationship to Clinton, particularly if the standards by Trump was used - such as his golf course issue on Mueller himself. Statistically speaking, among the team of attorneys hired by Mueller, there has to be someone the Republicans can trace something out as to be related to Hillary Clinton without sacrificing their job qualifications. If Peter Strzok was chosen to investigate Trump, he also inevitably was chosen to investigate Hillary Clinton's private email server [before Trump's investigation]. Many of the attorneys Mueller hired also came from WilmerHale. He has to hire someone he trusted and familiar with, had worked with in the past].

Lastly he used an assumption that no other assumption was as dumb as this one. "I wonder if not a single word in this entire report was changed but rather the only difference was we switched Hillary Clinton and President Trump. If Peter Strzok has texted those terrible things about Hillary Clinton instead of President Trump, if a team of lawyers worked for, donated thousands of dollars to, and went to Trump’s parties instead of Clinton’s, I don’t think we’d be here trying to prop up an obstruction allegation. My colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the Trump campaign and we couldn’t trust a single word of this report. They would still be accusing the president of conspiracy with Russia and they would be accusing your team of aiding and embedding with that conspiracy."

[Hong Gan's comment] Such an assumption could not stand for itself, because the premise does not exist: - no one individual can be equated to another individual . My expectation was: Hillary Clinton is not going to embrace and accept Russia's dirt , in this assumption case - that is the dirt on Trump. Hillary Clinton is not going to lie the way Trump has/had been lying. Clinton might report Russia's dirt to the Authority for which Trump not only did not do but would claim continue to accept the dirt, claiming every one does this [that is Trump's assumption].


Mike Johnson (R-LA)


----- He started with the same issue as Armstrong - Mueller team member's bias "Millions of Americans today maintain genuine concerns about your work, in large part, because of the infamous and widely publicized bias of your investigating team members, which we now know included 0 Republicans." [Mueller attempted to answer but was interrupted by Johnson who said: "it's my time"; he went on to 'comment without asking specific questions] "That team of Democrat investigators you hired donated more than $60,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates. Your team also included Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which have been discussed today, and they had the lurid text messages that confirm they openly mocked and hated Donald Trump and his supporters, and they vowed to take him out." "The president believed from the very beginning that you and your special counsel team had serious conflicts this is stated in the report and acknowledged by everybody." [Hong Gan's note: this statement - this is stated in the report and acknowledged by everybody - is a Lie, a false statement; Mueller Report had never acknowledged that his cancellation of a membership in a Golf course owned by Trump was conflict of interest]

------ Next, he just went on to 'comment' without asking questions - arguing Trump did not commit obstruction of justice. "And yet, President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. He knew he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation and produced more than million pages of information, and allowed over 40 witnesses who are directly affiliated with the White House or his campaign."

[Hong Gan's comment] "He knew he had done nothing wrong" was an assumption. "he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation" was a lie. That was not the case on Flynn, Manafort and Cohen (refer to Mueller Report or this post]. The President sent private and public messages to Flynn encouraging him to stay strong and conveying that the President still cared about him before he began to cooperate with the government. The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to "flip" and cooperate with the government. Before Cohen began to cooperate with the government, the President publicly and privately urged Cohen to stay on message and not "flip." After it was reported that Cohen intended to cooperate with the government, however, the President accused Cohen of "mak[ing] up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam; and on multiple occasions publicly suggested that Cohen's family members had committed crimes. supporting an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen's credibility once Cohen began cooperating.

"President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation." was also a lie. Trump refused to be interviewed by Mueller Office [Mueller explained why he did not invoke the subpoena.] His written answers were largely untruthful, incomplete, evading (in effect was the lie, but could escape the lying to authority violation].

----- Next Johnson continued to comment - "Your report acknowledges [p61] that a volume of evidence exists of the president telling many people privately, quote, “The president was concerned about the impact of the Russian investigation on his ability to govern, and to address important foreign relations issues and even matters of national security.” "your report also acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held, quote, “The president’s removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers -- that is, officers who must be appointed by the president and who report to him directly. The president’s ‘exclusive and illimitable power of removal’ of those principal officers furthers ‘the president’s ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed,’” unquote. And that would even include the attorney general."

[Hong Gan's comment] The p61 quote was in the context on illustration and proof for Trump's corrupt intent. (refer to Mueller Report; add what is omitted by Johnson] [add] Supreme Court quote (refer to Mueller Report)

-----Look, in spite of all of that [last paragraph], nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel’s investigation. Nobody was fired by the president, nothing was curtailed and the investigation continued unencumbered for 22 long months." [Hong Gan's comment] Comey was fired by the president; the obstruction of justice statutes doe not require the obstruction to be successful as I had discussed. Then Johnson went on to comment "As you finally concluded quote, [The evidence] “did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in any Russian conspiracies or had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official,” unquote. Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged along, the president became increasingly frustrated as many of the American people did with its effects on our country and his ability to govern. He vented about this to his lawyer and his close associates and he even shared his frustrations, as we all know, on twitter."

----- Then Johnson made the next set of Lies (false statement) in order to clear Trump on Obstruction "The president never affected anybody’s testimony. He never demanded to end the investigation or demanded that you be terminated and he never misled Congress, the DOJ or the special counsel." [Hong Gan's comment] He attempted to affect witness's testimony as discussed above on Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen and he might have affected Cohen's false statement on Trump Moscow Project to the Congress. He attempted to end the investigation by his Efforts to Terminate the Special Counsel. Trump had directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed. He misled at least the DOJ through his Efforts to Have the Attorney General Sessions Unrecused. (refer to Mueller report or this post); and "nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel’s investigation" was false - Trump not only attempted to terminate Mueller, but also tried to curtail his scope of his investigation, The President sought to have Sessions announce and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections.

----- His last section of his 'lengthy comment'(without asking questions) was on Steele Dossier "There will be a lot of discussion I predict today and great frustration throughout the country about the fact that you wouldn’t answer any questions here about the origins of this whole charade, which was the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and specifically referenced in your report." As I had already discussed on Steele Dossier, Steele Dossier speaks for itself as a raw intelligence report. Its central and foundational allegation - Russia Meddling - was proved to be TRUE. therefore Johnson's comment 'the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus' is a LIE, an false statement.

------ his last question was asked in an attempt to get Mueller to say his Report does not recommends impeachment "Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?" "It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?" Mueller refused to say as Johnson expected him to say: "I’m not going to talk about recommendations." "I’m not going to talk about that issue."


Devin Nunes (R-CA) (Rankig Member of the House Intelligence Committee)


This part was written (5/13/19) before Mueller Testimony in response to an attack on Mueller Report before Mueller Testimony (see this original report - Nunes: Mueller Report "Cherry-Picked" Information To Portray Mifsud As Russian Agent, He Was Really A Western Agent A letter written by a Republican Devin Nune irresponsibly trying to discredit Mueller Report to be a Mueller Dossier (implicating the Steele Dossier – a raw intelligence report regarding the allegations of Russia’s interference in US election and Collusion)– an evident partisan wrangling I had saw since the Congress was having trouble with this Individual 45’s ignorance of Congress’s Voting results -from the fight on the funding of a Mexico wall, to deny Congress’s vote to end the government shut down, a fake national emergency, the veto on national emergency termination resolution to the Republican’s attempt to clear individual 45 of any wrongdoing and an attempt to investigate the investigators by neglecting the fact that:
  • Mueller Investigation turned the allegation of Russia’s interference in the Election to the widely publicly accepted truth/fact –Russia Did Interfered with the Election
  • The Russia Interference of The Election is a Threat to the independence of our Sovereignty
  • a Threat to the fairness of one of our Democratic Process – Election
  • a Threat to the Western Alliance (and/or NATO) since the time Putin had been showing hostility after both NATO and EU are expanding Eastward all the way to the Russia border

After the Barr’s summary was criticized by Mueller as ‘Sow Public Confusion’, this Republican Senator (Devin Nune) is continuing this attempt to keep the American People being fooled by this Individual 45 – a Liar Disguised in a Graceful Clothing, making it difficult to remove this criminal by the Voters, if impeachment proceeding could not get out of the House (2/3 majorly for Senator to try a impeachment; and making it a dim prospect that My Case would ever alert those of the Republicans [they are not out of fear from the threat implicated by my case] who continued to embrace this terribly wronged Individual 45 who might has a tie to the organized crime groups outside the executive branch. Ironically, the letter itself is demonstrating as The most typical example of CHERRY PICKING act. It cherry picked the Mifsud as one of the many links Mueller had identified as incredible, because in his earlier career he actually was associated with western allies (Devin Nune was suspicious of him as having ties to western intelligence instead of to Russia intelligence). But a search of internet revealed that in his later years He had been frequently going to Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, backed by the Kremlin and attended by Vladimir Putin.
_______________________________________________________________________

Nunes's Statement and Questions On Mueller Testimony  

Nunes's Statement

Outline of Nunes' Opening Statement
  • attack on the origin of the investigation
    • Steele Dossier
      • Steele and Bruce Ohr contact
    • How the investigation was launched (Mifsud) 
    • Carter Page FISA application 
  • attack on Mueller team members
    • implied Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (but did not mention their name)
  • attack on collusion -
    • false accusation of the collusion between Russia and the Democratic party.
      • Democrats as Russia Source [Glen Simpson and Steele]
    • 6/9/16 Meeting: Russia Lawyer - Glen Simpson connection
    • false statement on the Trump-Russia Collusion
    • attack on this Hearing as political theater 

    [Hong Gan's comment] During perhaps his long 'professional' career as a politician, this Republican - Devin Nunes developed the 'talented skill' to make white 'black' and make black 'white', just as Individual 45 during his long 'profession' in the business developed the 'talented skill' in 'Rhetoric' public speaking to decorate his face, inflate his credit and disguise his all time LIEs including those lies on attacking any entity who criticized him or disagreed with him.

    The Attacks on the Origin of the Investigation

    Nunes attacked Steele Dossier as "a collection of outlandish accusations that Trump and his associates were Russian agents - developed by Fusion GPS who was funded by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign". Next he attacked those Dossier allegations as absurdities which was being fed to media whom Nunes attacked as naïve and partisan. Then he went on to attack the legitimacy of the FISA warrant on Carter Page. He made the false statement that Carter Page FISA warrant was obtained based only on the Steele Dossier allegations.

    Steele Dossier and Steele - Bruce Ohr Contacts

    As I have explained: Trump's opposition research was started by Fusion GPS before Trump became the Candidate which was then funded by pro - Republican conservative website - Washington Free Beacon. After Trump became the Candidate, DNC and Clinton Campaign continued and sponsored the opposition research by Fusion GPS, Steele - Clinton Campaign was not aware of each other. Marc Elias, the attorney at Perkins Coie who was serving as the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, acted as a firewall between the campaign and Steele This particular issue was discussed in detial in the theme section.

    That characterization - Steele Dossier as a collection of outlandish accusations that Trump and his associates were Russian agents - was inaccurate. The Collusion/Conspiracy allegations were only one of sets of allegations in the Dossier. See this post for many other sets of allegations among which quite a lot of allegations were proved, particularly the allegations on Russia Meddling, and history of Russia's cyber offensive operations.

    Media reporting on the Russia Meddling [allegations initially, later more factual truth] were widespread, They are not limited in any one specific major media, it was impossible all of them are biased. Individual 45 attacked almost all the major media except one such media - fox new and fox new friend in particular. The Fact of this 'Minority' itself was the proof that the one who attacked the media were Liars. It is because of the media reporting that many of the attempts of Collusion/Loose Collusion between Trump and Russia was inhibited.

    Next Nunes went on to attack that the Dossier was salacious and unverified. Only the golden shower and Trump's other Kompromat on his private life were said to be salacious and Steele held only 50% of the probability for the golden shower allegation to be true. The overall credibility of the Steele Dossier was discussed in detail in the them section.

    Nunes then attacked Steele as "a foreign ex-spy, one who admitted he was desperate that Trump lose the election and who was eventually fired as an FBI source for leaking to the press."

    [Hong Gan's comment] FBI did not fire Steele, FBI formally open the investigation on 7/31/16 and stopped to rely on Steele as a source for intelligence after 11/1/16 officially due to the issue of 'Leak', but FBI may continue to be receiving intelligence from Steele via conduit Brue Ohr who was also widely attacked by the Republicans for bias. Why Steele did not strictly comply with his Confidential agreement with the FBI - the Issue of Leak- prompting FBI to cut off their contact with him to the Public? I believed the analogy of the difference between malicious lie and white lie might apply to this situation after a careful review and research of what type of person Steele is and same was true for Bruce Ohr as well. See discussion on Steele Media Contact and the Issue of Leak and Bias in the theme section

    Nunes then attacked Brue Ohr: "The FBI investigation was marred by further corruption and bizarre abuses. Top DOJ official Bruce Ohr, whose own wife worked on Fusion GPS’ anti-Trump operation, fed Steele information to the FBI even after the FBI fired Steele." For this issue, see discussion on - The Role of Bruce Ohr and His Contacts with Steele in the theme section.

    Attack on Mifsud

    Nunes attacked on the origin of the investigation through targeting Mifsud: "the entire investigation was open based not on Five Eyes intelligence, but on a tip from a foreign politician about a conversation involving Joseph Mifsud. He’s a Maltese diplomat who’s widely portrayed as a Russian agent, but seems to have far more connections with Western governments, including our own FBI and our own State Department, than with Russia." Nunes had a lengthy statement on this topic in his questioning session (see discussion on his question to Mueller next). This topic was discussed in detail in the theme section.

    Carter Page FISA Application

    Nunes made the false statement that Carter Page FISA warrant was obtained based only on the Steele Dossier allegations. Long time before the Mueller Report, Republicans had started to attack that Carter Page's FISA application was an abuse of FISA. The Nunes' memo was the focus on this aspect of the 'Investigation of the Investigators'. Nunes memo (formally titled Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the DOJ and FBI) was released to the public earlier last year. The memo alleges that FBI "may have relied on politically motivated or questionable sources" to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant in 10/21/16 and in three subsequent renewals on Carter Page in the early phases of the FBI's investigation. They alleged that there was excessive and improper dependence on the Steele Dossier.

    In response to Nunes' memo, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee drafted a classified ten-page rebuttal memo (Schiff memo) titled Correcting the Record -- The Russia Investigation. On 7/21/18, Justice Department released the heavily redacted version of four FISA warrant applications for Carter Page, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from New York Times. [But Nunes did not read it.] The reactions from credible media generally discredited the Nunes memo. "FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign" - The rebuttal memo states.

    The Rebuttal Memo further emphasized that It was not the Steele Report that informed/triggered FBI's decision to launch the formal investigation into Russia-Trump. DOJ made only narrow use of information from Steele's sources about Page's specific activities in Election year, chiefly his suspected 7/8/16 meetings in Moscow with Russian officials. It is in this subsection of the application - "Page's Suspicious Activity During The Campaign" - that Steele reporting was cited.

    DOJ's warrant request was based on compelling evidence and probable cause - the multi-pronged rationale for surveilling Page: At the time of the first FISA application, Carter Page was no longer with the Trump campaign. Carter Page was under FBI's radar long before he joined Trump Campaign. He had been the target of recruitment by Russia Intelligence Agency since 2013. The FISA applications also rely on information interviews Page had with the FBI, and multiple news articles outlining how Page reportedly pushed the Trump Campaign and Republican National Committee to soften its stance on Russia's activities in Ukraine and Page's public denial of his suspected meetings in Moscow.

    This issue was also discussed in detail in the theme section. That section provided a summary of the rebuttal with line by line comparison to every attacking angle in the Nunes memo.

    Attack on Collusion

    False Accusation of Collusion between Russia and the Democratic Party

    Next was his 'make white black, black white' attack: he said Democrats and Clinton Campaign colluded with Russia. "There is collusion in plain sight, collusion between Russia and the Democratic party." He attacked: Democrats colluded with Russia Source [appears to imply Fusion GPS/Glen Simpson and Steele] to develop the Steele Dossier and The Russia lawyer colluded with Glen Simpson (founder of Fusion GPS)."

    Why would Democrats collude with Russia to bring about allegations that would adversely influence their prospects in winning the Election? Why Democrats wanted to develop a Dossier with allegations on Meddling (the collusion allegations does not apply for this statement) which would be anti-Clinton (themselves) but pro-Trump (their opponent) operations whose goal was to help their opponent to win the Election and 'help' themselves to 'lose' the Election? Why Democrats wanted to collude with Russia and told Russia to hack their own computers or in other words, open their computers to Russia's access and then stole their confidential information and 'dirt' or in other words, gave Russia those confidential and dirt as free gifts merely to help their opponents to win the Election and failed themselves?

    Attack Steele was Russia source

    I already discussed about the attack on Steele as a Russia Source in some other Republican's Question - why would Putin self-incriminate himself by leaking the hacking and dumping operation to Steele and admit Russia was behind that while Putin, in the public media, had never acknowledged Russia Meddling.

    Russia Lawyer and Simpson

    AS far as the Russia Lawyer and Simpson collusion, Glen Simpson must not know whether the Russia lawyer was a Russia agent three years ago. If the Russia lawyer was a Russia agent, she would be expected to reach out to any types of American people to gather different kinds of intelligence. Glenn Simpson and Natalia Veselnitskaya relationship were private client relationship. Russia Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya had hired Fusion GPS through BakerHostetler to help research  for the litigation on Prevezon Holding whom Natalia Veselnitskaya represented as detailed in the theme section on 6/9/16 Meeting.

    False Statement about the Collusion

    Nunes made a long statement about 'no collusion found' -  "Then when no collusion was found in Mr. Mueller’s indictment, the Democrats said we’d find it in his final report. Then when there was no collusion in the report, we were told Attorney General Barr was hiding it. Then when it was clear Barr wasn’t hiding anything, we were told it will be revealed through a hearing with Mr. Mueller himself."

     Again as I have already discussed. Nunes equated or put a '=' mark  between the statement - 'No Collusion' and the statement - 'There is not sufficient evidence to establish Collusion/Conspiracy' [but there could be collusion, evidence could be destroyed or not discoverable]. William Barr in his summary letter, he drew the same '=' mark as did other Republicans had done in the Hearing.

    Attack on Mueller'sTeam Members - Peter Strzok

    Nunes attacked -"The top FBI investigator and his lover, another top FBI official, constantly texted about how much they hated Trump and wanted to stop him from being elected." This accusation referred to/implied Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (but he did not mention their name). This topic was a focus of another Republican Kelly Armstrong. The topic was also discussed in detail in the theme section on attacks on Mueller and his team's conflict of interest and bias.

    Attack on the Hearing as the political theater

    Lastly, Nunes attacked the Hearing as the political theater. "In other words, this hearing is political theater" This whole post was devoted to refute this statement. In contrast, it is the Republicans who were have this Hearing as a political theater through making false statements (lies), making assumption statements, and making malicious attacks that were deeply corruptly wrong.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nunes's Questions


    Questions Regarding Stefan Halper

    Nunes's concern was - the Trump - Russia investigation was began before 7/31/16 the official announcement on the opening of the Russia Investigation by FBI. Nunes asked: "The FBI claims the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began on 7/31/16. But in fact, it began before that. In 6/x/16 before the investigation officially opened, Trump campaign associates Carter Page and Stephen Miller, a current Trump advisor, were invited to attend a symposium at Cambridge University in 7/12/16. Your office, however, did not investigate who was responsible for inviting these Trump associates to this symposium. Your investigators also failed to interview Steven Schrage, an American citizen who helped organize the event and invited Carter Page to it. Is that correct? [Mueller's answer was: "In those areas, I am going to stay away from."]

    But that aspect regarding the origin of the investigation really was not what Mueller appointed for. That was within the purview of the Inspector General in DOJ. It is common sense - to open an counterintelligence investigation officially (in this case 7/31/16 - The Crossfire Hurricane)  - FBI had to have preliminary intelligence work done. That is what Stefan Halper had began with in June in the Election year.

    Nunes' implication was that Halper - Trump Campaign contacts occurred before the official launch - a time when there was not enough evidence to justify the spying - that is - a time before the Australian informed FBI of the tip leaked by George Papadopoulos' that Russia had possessed Clintin dirt in the form of thousands of email. This issue was discussed in detail in the theme section on Stefan Halper.

    Trump had attacked (5/22/18) the Stefan Halper's role in the Russia-Trump Investigation as the Spygate. According to New York Times, Wikipedia, and MSNBC, political commenters and high-ranking politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have dismissed Trump's allegations as lacking evidence and maintained that the FBI's use of Halper as an covert informant was in no way improper.

    Halper - Page contact in June and 7/12/16 was the only contact between Halper and Trump Campaign before the Crossfire Hurricane (7/31/16). But at that time (before Australian notified FBI and before Steele reporting) DNC was already aware of its computer being hacked in May and CrowdeStrike publicly announced the hacking was by Russia (6/13/16). FBI had alerted DNC for hacker activities way earlier than the operation in Election year.

    A natural flow of logic was: why Russia intruded the DNC computer but not Trump Campaign or Republican's computer network. Russia was pro-Trump, anti-Clinton. FBI wanted to keep an eye on the Trump Campaign in general. Halper - Trump Campaign contacts follows naturally. Halper - Page contact was random, the contact was not targeting Page specifically (although Page was under FBI radar since he became the target for recruit by Russia agents long times ago). Initially it was Steven Miller who was invited to attend the meeting, but Miller did not want to go. Page was then invited to replace Miller.

    Questions Regarding Flynn - Lokhova Saga

    Nunes asked "The first Trump associate to be investigated was General Flynn. Many of the allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with the Cambridge Academics' Svetlana Lokhova and that Lokhova was a Russian spy. Some of these allegations were made public in the article written by British intelligence historian Christopher Andrew. Your report fails to reveal how or why Andrew and his collaborator, Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain's MI6, spread these allegations. And you failed to interview Svetlana Lokhova about these matters. Is that correct?" [Mueller said he is not going to get into those matters to which you refer.]

    Flynn - Lokhova Saga was discussed in detail in the theme section. According to guardian (3/31/17), US intelligence officials had serious concerns about Michael Flynn’s appointment as the White House national security adviser because of his history of contacts with Moscow and his encounter with a woman (Svetlana Lokhova). US and British intelligence officers discussed Flynn’s “worrisome” behavior well before his appointment by Donald Trump. Flynn encountered a Russian-British academia - Svetlana Lokhova - an expert on Soviet intelligence in the 1930s,, whom Flynn met at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar (CIS), a gathering of former intelligence officials hosted at Cambridge University.

    Svetlana Lokhova - former Cambridge academic - is a historian and an expert on Soviet espionage, she said her forthcoming book makes groundbreaking revelations about Soviet military intelligence operations run by the GRU – Russia’s military spy agency. What alarmed intelligence officials was that Lokhova appears to have gained rare access to previously classified Soviet-era material in Moscow for her forthcoming book. Lokhova also listed Flynn as one of four referees who would provide selective endorsements for her book.

    According to New York Times (5/18/18), Halper was the first to raise concern about Flynn - Lokhova encounter without mentioning Halper and Lokhova's name. Stefan Halper became so alarmed by Flynn’s close association with Svetlana Lokhova that a Halper associate expressed concerns to American authorities that Flynn may have been compromised by Russian intelligence.

    Christopher Andrew, the official M15 historian and cofounder and head of CIS was the first who reported the allegations on Flynn - Lokhova encounter and her alleged role as a Russia agent in Sunday Times of London. Followed his initial report, WSJ and Gaurdian published report based on his report with the added details that American intelligence authorities had been tipped off about Flynn’s contact with Lokhova. Christopher Andrew was the mentor of Lokhova. He invited Lokhova to his Ph.D program, specialize in the Soviet-era espionage operaton in the 1930s. As Lokhova had defended herself - Prof Andrew has worked with defectors from the Soviet Union such as former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin, who smuggled out its secrets.

    [Hong Gan's comment] That was all I can find on the internet regarding the Flynn-Lokhova saga. No New York Times and Washington Post report had conclusively told a story about this. If Lokhova were to be a Russia agent, there is not sufficient evidence to prove it. The only possible evidence was her specialty area of study and research - the Soviet-era espionage in the 1930s. Her 'forthcoming' book at the time of Flynn encounter was later published - The Spy Changed History (I did not read the book). Halper's and many others' concern must be the fact that in order to produce such a book, Lokhova had to have some access to the spy record archive. Western historians say access to intelligence agency records in Moscow has been severely restricted under Vladimir Putin. “At least with the FSB and SVR [domestic and foreign spy agencies] there are places you can apply to view the archives, but with the GRU there’s not even a place to apply,” the historian said. “...getting into the actual GRU archive is basically impossible.”

    One possibility could be - she got those information from her Ph.D mentor Christopher Andrew who was a M15 hisrtorian and whose research was about the Soviet espionage through working with defectors from Soviet. The former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin who smuggled out its secrets was one of the defectors. These could become Lokhova's source of information underlying her book.

    Lokhova's conversation with Flynn at the CIS dinner was public, lasting about 20 minutes. In her 5/21/17 BBC interview, she mentioned she only showed Flynn a 1912 postcard from Stalin showing that Stalin was the most spied-upon leader in history as well as the one who later spied on people the most. She claimed that was for amusement. Lokhova also denied that she was asked to travel to Russia and act as his translator. They did not appear to have further interaction beside some email exchanges in which Flynn had signed himself as General Misha (Russian name for Michael).

    A few conservative websites criticized Halper's accusion of Lokhova as false and absurd. But Halper was/is not that type. Halper's inclination - his sentiment of suspicion on Lokhova as a Russia agent was originated from Russia's Problem since it annexed Crimea from Ukraine and its alienation of itself from western alliance and its cyber offensive activities since. Halper's anti-Russia Intelligence sentiment was general not specific toward Lokhova in any attempt to derogate her. Halper was unmasked as the FBI informant by the New Work Times (5/18/18) and the Washington Post (5/21/18). Halper had the inside knowledge about Russia Intelligence.

    Ultimately, Nunes' point of argument is not whether Lokhova was a Russia agent or not, but why Mueller did not interview and investigate Flynn-Lokhova allegations. Mueller's focus was on Russia interference and collusion in the Election year. Flynn - Lokhova had no contact in the Election year. Nowhere in Mueller Report did her ever implicate Lokhova as a Russia agent. The only Flynn - Russia contact documented in the Mueller Report was Flynn and Kushner's meeting with Kislyak and his phone call exchanges with Kislyak about sanction. Lokhova was not a US citizen (she was British who was born in Russia), what's the sense to interview her.

    Questions Regarding Resource Cost of The Investigation

    Nunes attempted to imply Mueller Investigation consumed a lot of resource. He asked "You had a team of 19 lawyers, 40 agents and an unlimited budget, correct, Mr. Mueller?" Mueller defended: "I would not say we had an unlimited budget."

    Questions Regarding Mifsud, Papadopoulos, Alexander Downer and the Launch of Crossfire Hurricane

    Questions Regarding Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer

    Nunes returned to the topic about the origination of the investigation and attacked Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer who informed FBI about Clinton dirt (Clinton emails) leaked from George Papadopoulos. In his lengthy statement he attacked that the Australian politician conveyed a rumor to the FBI and implied the ties the Australian politician has to the Clinton.

    Nunes said: "Supposedly on 7/31/16, the investigation was not open based on an official product from Five Eyes Intelligence, but based on a rumor conveyed by Alexander Downer [the Australian politician). But he was actually a long time Australian politician, not a military or intelligence official who had previously arranged a $25 million donation to the Clinton Foundation and has previous ties to Dearlove. So Downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between Papadopoulos and Joseph Mifsud. " 

    The Rumor statement was a false statement. The Rumor Nunes tried to characterize the information conveyed by the Australian Politician was no longer an allegation any more. This is the central foundational allegation appearing in the Steele Dossier that was proved to be true by Mueller Report, acknowledged by DOJ as the Russian's Meddling operation.

    Australia did not pass on the information to the FBI immediately after Downer learned of the Clinton Dirt (5/6/16). The information was passed on after 6/15/16 CrowdStrike announced Russia was behind the recently hacking of DNC/DCCC computer network and after 7/22/16 WikiLeaks released the Clinton Dirt (Clinton email) on its web site.

    Downer's donation more than a decade ago was to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS. The grant money was spread over four years for a project to provide screening and drug treatment to AIDS patients in Asia. The money was initially allocated to the Clinton Foundation but later was routed through an affiliate of the charity known as the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), The Australian Foreign Ministry says the Clinton grant was one of its billion annual foreign aid. Downer’s involvement in the million donation from the government of Australia was ex officio, part of his job as Foreign Minister, and not personal. It preceded the Papadopoulos tip by ten years, during which time Downer has worked as Australia’s representative to the UN.

    According to SBS News (sbs.com.au) report, Mrs Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill slammed the effort to link Mr Downer and the 2006 grant, calling the link "pathetic" and "laughable". Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) issued a statement defending the grant and its "strong outcomes" in fighting HIV-AIDS. "The funding provided to the Clinton Foundation and its affiliate was used solely for agreed development projects," DFAT said.

    Questions Regarding Mifsud and George Papadopoulos

    James Comey has publicly called Mifsud a Russian agent, yet your report does not refer to Mifsud as a Russian agent. Mifsud has extensive contacts with western governments and the FBI. For example, there is a recent photo of him standing next to Boris Johnson, the new prime minister of Great Britain. What we're trying to figure out here, Mr. Mueller, is if our NATO allies or Boris Johnson have been compromised. So we're trying to figure out Comey says Mifsud is a Russian agent, you do not. So is - do you stand by what's in the report?" Mueller said (answered) he stand by that which is in the report and not so necessarily stand with that which is not in the report.

    In the theme section, I discussed in detail regarding Mifsud - Papadopoulos contact and how the investigation was launched due to the intelligence Mifsud told Papadopoulos and then was leaked to the Alexander Downer. Whether Mifsud was a Russia agent or western alliance agent was also discussed. The fact that Mueller report did not conclude or say Mifsud was a Russia agent does not suggest Mifsud must not be a Russia agent. He could be a Russia agent but Mueller either believed evidence was not sufficient or as I had discussed in the theme section - that Mifsud could be a double agent or that he was neither a Russia agent nor a Western alliance agent.

    Whether Mifsud was Western alliance agent or Russia, I personally believed - my gut feeling was - On this issue, Republican were politically motivated to attempt to identify Mifsud as a Western agent. Because to the few Republicans, this identification was 'Exculpatory' - a word characterized Republican's arguments on the Mueller Testimony. The few Republicans are so desperately wishing Trump being exonerated and cleared of the cloud on him for Collusion. To the few Republicans, to identify Mifsud as a western alliance agent is equivalent to 'No Collusion' instead of what Mueller Report concludes - the investigation did not establish the culpability.

    No matter how Republican wanted to characterize Mifsud as a western alliance agent. My gut feeling is telling me that he did not meet the criteria to be an 'intelligence agent'. He must not be a clear cut agent of any side. He was so different from Steele who had shown his professionalism as an intelligence agent/asset. Steele had no fear to publish his Dossier, is not hiding, did not refuse DOJ interview by Inspector General. In contrast Mifsud is no 'Asset'. He has no value and he was not in that profession as an intelligence agent if the term was to be defined in a narrow way. He could be the type of person who is a pendulum swing day one to the left and swing the other day to the right. He might engage from his years of diplomat experience and academic experience in certain activities that made him appear to other people as if he was an 'intelligence agent'.

    According to New York Times 11/10/17 report, "Mr. Mifsud had boasted of his Russian connections to Mr. Papadopoulos and others. But in interviews, numerous Russia scholars in London and elsewhere said they had never heard of him, and his career had been rocky for years. He had served as the director of London Academy of Diplomacy and - the institutions with grandiose names but no accreditation, and he had left his jobs by suggestions of financial impropriety. “I remember him as a snake-oil salesman,” recalled Manuel Delia, a former Maltese government official who first encountered him in the late 1990s."

    Then after another lengthy statement appearing to suggest that both Alexander Downer and Mifsud denied there was the conversation about the dirt on Clinton emails. Nunes asked: "I want to return to Mr. Downer. He [Alexander Downer] denies that Papadopoulos mentioned anything to him [Alexander Downer] about Hillary Clinton's e-mails and in fact Mifsud denies mentioning that to Papadopoulos in the first place. So how does the FBI know to continually ask Papadopoulos about Clinton's e-mails for the rest of Election year?"

    It is true that Mifsud denied mentioning the Clinton 'Dirt' to Papadopoulos. But it is false that Alexander Downer denies that Papadopoulos mentioned anything to him. Both Mifsud and Papadopoulos has the motivation to make false statements in order to clear themselves from the possibility of Collusion. Mifsud denied he told Papadopoulos the Clinton 'Dirt'; while Papadopoulos's tweet on 4/18/19 asserted that "an FBI asset named Joseph Mifsud dropped unsolicited info in my lap about 'Russians having Clinton’s emails.' I did nothing with this info."

    While Papadopoulos told the truth about Mifsud’s remarks about Clinton dirt, Papadopoulos lied about the timing of his encounters with Mifsud and the professor’s Russian associates. In his 10/5/17 guilty plea (statement of offense), "Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor, who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAP ADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the Campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, ... and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about 4/26/16...

    Also Papadopoulos did not deny he leaked the Clinton 'Dirt' intelligence to Downer. But he accused that Downer was sent to meet him, spreading his tweet storm implicating the entrapment conspiracy theory. Papadopoulos wrote on his twitter (9/10/18) [after he was sentenced 9/7/18], "The notion that Downer randomly reached out to me just to have a gin and tonic is laughable. Some organization or entity sent him to meet me,”. Downer dismissed Papadopoulos’s tweet storm, telling Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald, “I’ll leave others to make judgments about the veracity of those tweets.”

    Next, he attacked the Mueller's sentencing memo on Papadopoulos, accusing Mueller why he did not detain Mifsud and indict Mifsud "Even more strangely, your sentencing memo on Papadopoulos blames him for hindering the FBI's ability to potentially detain or arrest Mifsud. But the truth is, Mifsud waltzed in and out of the United States in December 2016. The U.S. media could find him, the Italian press found him, and he's a supposed Russian agent at the epicenter of the reported collusion conspiracy. He's the guy who knows about Hillary Clinton's e-mails and that the Russians have them. But the FBI failed to question him for half a year after officially opening the investigation. And then according to Volume 1, page 193 of your report, once Mifsud finally was questioned, he made false statements to the FBI. But you declined to charge him. Is that correct, you did not indict Mr. Mifsud? [Muelller answered: true but he refused to comment on Nunes' other articulations "I'm not going to speak to the series of happenings as you articulated them."]

    After a lengthy discussion in the theme section on Mifsud, listed here are several factors that could explain why Mueller did not indict Mifsud, even though Mueller report indicated Mifsud lied three times.
    •According to Mueller Report, [quote] "The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud" According to Papadopoulos’s sentencing memo, prosecutors suggested that they might have wanted to challenge, detain, or arrest Mifsud if Papadopoulos had told the truth about their interactions
    •Mifsud is not a US citizen. Although Russian had been indicted, that was based on their crime [computer crime]. Beside lying, Mifsud did not engage in the underlying crime of the hacking operation.
    •It is not clear Mifsud was a western agent or Russia agent. Mueller Report only stated he had connections to Russia, did not explicitly identify him as a Russia agent. He could be a double agent [see this New York Times 11/10/17 report characterizing Mifsud boasted of his Russian connections to Mr. Papadopoulos and others. But in interviews, numerous Russia scholars in London and elsewhere said his career had been rocky for years. He had left jobs by suggestions of financial impropriety. It could be the fact that Mifsud was neither a western agent nor a Russia agent. Mueller said in his Testimony that he "cannot get in to either classified or law enforcement information without a rationale for doing it"
    •Mifsud started to hide himself since 11/1/16, it appeared no one knows where he was except his friend/layer Steven Roh.

    [Nunes last series of questions after Stefanik and Hurd]

    He continued to question regarding Mifsud "why you [Mueller] didn't indict Joseph Mifsud?" [Mueller answered: "I think you understand that you cannot get in to either classified or law enforcement information without a rationale for doing it and I have said all I'm going to be able to say with regard to Mr. Mifsud."]

    Questions Regarding Steele - State Department Official Contacts

    Nunes questioned: "Were you aware of Kathleen Kavalec's involvement, that she had met with Ms. Steele," [Mueller declined to answer]. [Hong Gan's note: Mueller did not appear to know about Kathleen's notes during his Investigation because it was made public very lately 8/x/19]. Nunes did not appear to discredit Steele Dossier because of Steele - Kavalec contact. But another Republican Rick Crawford did and I discussed this issue in his (Crawford) section. The purpose of Steele's contact with Kavalec was to verify the travel record before he released his three October (10/12/16, 10/18/16, 10/19/16) reports on allegations of Michael Cohen's Prague trip.


    Questions Regarding Carter Page FISA Renewal

    His next question was about FISA on Carter Page - the last renewal - "The Carter Page FISA warrant was reupped three times, the last time it was reupped was under your watch -- so were you in the approval process of that?" [Mueller answered No]

    In Nunes' question on Carter Page FISA, he did not mentioned the legitimacy of the obtaining of the Carter Page FISA warrant, he only questioned about the last renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant and whether Mueller has a role in it. Some other Republicans also posed the similar attack. (See discussions on Jim Jordan, Guy Reschenthaler, William Steube)

    Questions Regarding Erik Prince's Seychelles Meeting With Kirill Dmitriev

    Nunes questioned about Erik Prince's [Trump side] Seychelles meeting with Kirill Dmitriev [Russia side] during Transition Period [go to this section of this post; or Relevant area in Mueller Report]. "So Erik Prince testified before this Committee that he was surveilled by the U.S. government and the information form the surveillance was leaked to the press. Did you investigate whether Prince was surveilled and whether classified information on him was illegally leaked to the media?" "were you aware that Prince has made these allegations that he was surveilled. He’s concerned that there were leaks about this surveillance. Did you make any referrals about these...?" [Mueller declined to answer these questions]

    The issue posed in this question - the alleged surveillance of private US citizen and the leak of that allegation to the media - Washington Post - was discussed in detail in the theme section. According to Mueller Report, Erik Prince is a businessman and a Trump Campaign supporter who had relationships with various Campaign Associates. He also had a close tie to the Crown Prince of UAE and had managed merceneray for UAE. Mueller Report depicted the Seychelles Meeting between Eric Prince and Kirill Dmitriev on 1/12/17 as Russia's effort to reach out to the Trump Incoming Administration. On the 1/12/17 Seychelles meeting, Prince described the eight years of the Obama Administration in negative terms, and stated that he was looking forward to a new era of cooperation and conflict resolution. He told Dmitriev that Bannon was effective if not conventional. 

    Prince’s meeting with Dimitriev had drawn intense attention from Congress, the Mueller investigation, and the Press. Prince denied in his 11/30/17 House Intelligence Committee testimony that he had represented the Trump transition or that the Seychelles meeting involved any back-channel - an assertion by Democrats and the Washington Post (4/3/17 report). According to Washington Post report (3/7/18), Prince told lawmakers — and the news media — that his Seychelles meeting with Kirill Dmitriev was an unplanned, unimportant encounter that came about by chance

    In his 11/30/17 Congress testimony, Erik Prince was accusing Obama administration officials of illegally ordering electronic surveillance of him during The Seychelles Meeting. When pressed by committee members as to how he knows his meeting was secretly monitored, Prince said: "Well unless the Washington Post has somehow miraculously recruited the bartender of a hotel in the Seychelles, the only way that's happening is through Sigint"—intelligence jargon for electronic signals intelligence. During the hearing, Prince testified that the only way the Post article (4/3/17) could have been produced was through leaks of secret intelligence intercepts provided to the reporters from someone in government. Prince said he has seen a number of reports that the disclosures came from "members of the Obama National Security Council."

    Mueller report did not appear to explicitly conclude that the pre-arranged Seychelles meeting was the attempt to establish a backchannel between Russia and the Incoming Trump Administration, although the meeting was planned in advance. A significant amount of information on this topic were redacted due to either investigative techniques or harmful to ongoing matters (HOM). This area of the Report was based largely and mainly on the interview notes of Nader, Bannon, Prince, and text messages between Nader and Dimitreiv, Nader and Prince. Nowhere in this section did Mueller mention that his findings on this topic was based on any leaked information (from media reports) as a result of surveillance. (Mueller declined to answer Nunes' question). In addition, the post - Seychelles Meeting contacts between Prince and Bannon - the email exchanges were all deleted. Both Prince and Bannon told the Mueller office that they did not know how those emails (spans about 3 months of communication) were gone. These facts cast doubt on the Prince’s notion that his Seychelle meeting with Dimitriev was not part of Russia's effort to establish a backchannel communication.

    Republican’s contention point also does not appear to be whether Prince-Dimetriev‘s Seychelles meeting was a backchannel attempt of communication with Russia. Republicans was concerned with the alleged surveillance on Prince and questioned whether Mueller was aware of these allegations, whether Mueller investigated them and whether the leak of alleged surveillance (to Washington post) was illegal or not and whether there were classified information was leaked. A TMP report said that Prince had been effectively blacklisted by the Obama Administration post-Blackwater scandal. A TMP (Talking point memo) opinion report titled as - we need to keep a close eye on Prince-, alleging that Prince had attempted to pitch Trump administration to build a private spy network that can go around the intelligence community whom Trump had believed was his deep state enemies to undermine his presidency. Whether Eric Prince was surveilled by Obama administration was not very clear though Prince insisted it in his testimony and stated his reasoning, No media reports had conclusively asserted or confirmed Prince’s belief. Mueller investigation was authorized  to focus on fact finding about Election Meddling and The alleged Collusion , not to make judgment whether a private citizen should or should not be surveilled no matter what background that private citizen had that could justify such surveillance.

    Questions Regarding The Leak of Flynn’s Call with Kislyka about the Sanction

    Nunes questioned about the leak of phone call between Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak: "I know you came after the leak of his phone call with the Russian ambassador Kislyak'. During your time at FBI, wouldn’t it be a major scandal for the leak of the national security advisor and anyone...?" [Mueller disputed the notion: "I can’t adopt that hypothesis."]

    In the theme section on this issue, I documented a timeline of events surround The leak of Michael Flynn’s phone call with Kislyka about the sanction. Mueller report also documented the detailed events surrounding the Flynn - Kislyak phone call. According to Mueller Report, on 12/29/16 - the day Obama imposed sanctions on Russia Election Meddling , multiple members of the Trump Transition Team exchanged emails about the sanctions and the impact they would have on the incoming Administration, and Flynn informed members of the Transition Team that he would be speaking to the Russian Ambassador later in the day. Members of the Transition Team did not want Russia to escalate the situation. Flynn called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner. On 12/31/16 Russian Ambassador called Flynn and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate. Flynn informed Transition Team Russia's decision.

    The Washington reported on 1/12/17 that Flynn "phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on 12/29/16." His source was "a senior U.S. government official." The report questioned whether Flynn had said something to “undercut the U.S. sanctions” and whether Flynn’s communications had violated the letter or spirit of the Logan Act. The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

    According to Mueller Report, Trump called Priebus after the story was published and expressed anger about it. Flynn recalled that he felt a lot of pressure because Priebus had spoken to the “boss” [Trump] and said Flynn needed to “kill the story". To cover up the story, Flynn lied about his phone call with Kislyak to Incoming Administration Officials (Mike Pence, Priebus, Sean Spicer), the Media, and the FBI. The public statements of Pence, Priebus, and Spicer denying that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions, basing those denials on their conversations with Flynn and the lies Flynn told them, alarmed senior DOJ officials (Sally Yates, McCord, McCabe). On 1/26/17 Department of Justice (Sally Yates) contacted White House Counsel Donald McGahn and informed him their concerns that Russia had leverage over Flynn based on his lies and could use that derogatory information to compromise him.

    After Flynn was forced to resign, the press raised questions about why the President waited so long after the DOJ notification to remove Flynn and whether the President had known about Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak before the DOJ notification. Trump asked Priebus to have McFarland draft an internal email that would confirm that he did not direct Flynn to call. McFarland told Priebus she did not know whether the President had directed Flynn to talk to Kislyak about sanctions, and she declined to say yes or no.

    Nunes' characterization of the leak of the Flynn - Kislyak phone call as a scandal was not acceptable. As Washington Post's motto suggests - Democracy die in the dark. If people are not being informed, particularly if people are not being informed of the wrongdoings of the government, Democracy would inevitably being compromised. Flynn's phone call with Kislyak could violate the spirit of the Logan Act, if there is not enough to bring about the criminal prosecution. His request for Russia to not escalate on the Sanction in transition period have an implication to Russia that once the incoming Trump administration secured on its position, there is a possibility for the ease of the sanctions or even the lift of the sanction. This is a betrayal of our national interest and national security. Trump's tweet about Russia's no escalation move "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart" is one of the pieces of evidence for his pro-Russia foreign policy that against our national interest. It is not in contradiction with the conspiracy allegation between Trump and the Russia. It constitute the vast evidence for the notion of 'Loose Collusion".

    Questions Regarding U.S. Government Informants

    Nunes' question was: "Did your report name any people who were acting as U.S. government informants or sources without disclosing that fact?" [Mueller declined to answer the question].

    Questions Regarding Konstantin Kilimnik

    Nunes argued that Konstantin Kilimnik had tie to our State Department: "Your report stated that Konstantin Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. The report omits to mention that Kilimnik has long-term relationships with U.S. government officials including our own State Department. I think it is important for this Committee to know if Kilimnik has ties to our own State Department, which it appears that he does." [Mueller declined to answer]

    Constantin Kilimnik was the only Russian that Mueller Report explicitly identified as a Russia agent with a list of evidence FBI had in possession. He was the longtime Manafort employee who has lived in both Russia and Ukraine and speaks and writes Ukrainian and Russian, had direct and close access to Yanukovych and facilitated many of Manafort's communications with his clients, including Yanukovych and Ukrainian oligarchs and also Deripaska. Manafort had sent Campaign internal polling data and other updates to Kilimnik and who in turn, to share it with Deripaska and Ukrainian oligarchs. He had been in contact/meeting with Manafort throughout the Election years and after until 3/x/18 to advance the pro-Russia Ukraine 'peace plan'. They had used coded language to write the email communication.

    The bombshell that Kilimnik was a State Department intelligence source was spreaded by John Solomon. He also claimed that Mueller has possessed all the documents on Kilimnik from FBI a year before his final Report. No major credible news sources published the similar story. [quote 6/6/19 John Solomon Report ] "What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I [Solomon] reviewed." The Solomon Report was filled with detail and referenced with documentary evidence from State Department Ukraine Embassy officials (Alan Purcell, Kasanof) and FBI interviews. But no original documents can be seen online.

    A day after the redacted version of Muller Report was made public, Konstantin Kilimnik wrote in an email to Washington Post on 4/19/19 denied he was a Russian Agent “I have no ties to Russian or, for that matter, any intelligence operation.” “I absolutely have zero to do with the Russia interference in the U.S. elections investigated by Mr. Mueller.” He also denied he had passed on to others in Ukraine or Russia about the polling data Manafort sent him and which he described as “pretty much open info, not different in any way from what was discussed by the media."

    [Hong Gan's comment]: John Solomon is not credible. He has been accused of creating fake controversies. (see Wikipedia review on his pro-Trump opinion pieces and his part in the Trump–Ukraine controversy). He was the spreader of the bombshell immediately prior to Mueller's Testimony about Mifsud's audio deposition. The audio tape was claimed to be obtained last year summer but only to be waited to be disclosed and published on the evening before the day Mueller testified. John Solomon had published documentary evidence online in Scribd for his other anti-Mueller Report 'bombshells' such as Mifsud's audio deposition [but with only 1 page not the whole thing], Kathleen's notes on Steele contacts. This personal blog post depicts a propaganda laundry pattern and method/source by which John Solomon has consistently been used in the effort to undermine the investigation into Trump this way. The author of the post pen named 'emptywheel' is Marcy Wheel who is an independent journalist and is a senior fellow at GWU (George Washington University)’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security. I

    The identity of Konstantin Kilimnik - whether he was a State Department source - can not be conclusively made at this point unless John Solomon can disclose the original State Department memo and email exchanges and FBI memos by which Solomon has claimed he had reviewed. (Here is one email exchange between Kilimnik and Eric Schultz John Solomon loaded on Scribd. But Solomon's propaganda based off this piece of information (email) was accused by EmptyWheel as faux. Why those documents (memo and emails) were leaked to John Solomon and not to other major medias?. If it is to protect the source to withhold those documents, then Solomon's report destroyed this source (Kilimnik)'s value. No Russia or Ukraine would feed Konstantin Kilimnik valuable intelligence any more.

    I do not believe Konstatin Kilimnik was State Department source. If FBI possessed contradictory evidence, Mueller must have evaluated them and the list of evidence in Mueller report must be the outcome of that assessment. I would choose to trust Mueller because of his longtime credential as FBI director instead of John Solomon who could not disclose all the documentary evidence he had claimed he saw or reviewed. This included his claim on Mifsud's audio tape - one page, nothing more as he claimed he had seen. His 'findings' has never been corroborated or confirmed or echoed by any credible major medias in the past.

    Questions Regarding John Dowd's Phone Call With Flynn's Attorney

    Nunes attacked that Mueller omitted exculpatory evidence on obstruction. He questioned about John Dowd's phone call to Michael Flynn’s Lawyer Rob Kelner:: "Your report omitted John Dowd's phone call which Mr.Dowd calls exculpatory evidence. Are you concerned...[Mueller refuted: "I’m not certain I would agree with that characterization"]

    This topic was discussed in detail in the theme section. The entire transcript of Dowd - Flynn's lawyer conversation on 11/22/17 was released on 5/31/19. [Hong Gan's note: gray area of the text was quoted by Mueller Report]

    "Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I-'m-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't...state it in...starker terms, If you have...and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that...implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know...some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So...uh...you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of...protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any...confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal."

    Here is a brief description of the Context behind Dowd's phone call to Kelner. (This is one of the 10 instances of obstruction of justice in Mueller Report - the 9th one - Trump's conduct on Flynn and Manafort). The evidence fitted into the broad definition of obstruction of justice - attempts to influence (tamper) the witness. Mueller report hints at the voicemail as part of the effort by Trump's team to influence Flynn. Mueller believed the call was an attempt to make them (Flynn and his attorney) to reconsider their position to cooperate with the government.

    The reason the omitted portion of the transcript (the bold underlined text) is not exculpatory evidence reside in the timing of this call. According to Mueller Report, Flynn began to cooperate with the Investigation in late November . On 11/22/17, Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement he had with Trump. [Hong Gan's note: see a detailed Flynn - Russia Investigation timeline here]. Flynn’s counsel told the President’s personal counsel and counsel for the White House that Flynn could no longer have confidential communications with the White House or the President. Later that night, the President’s personal counsel left a voicemail for Flynn’s counsel. Mueller's quote on the voice mail was the grey text.

    According to Mueller Report, on 11/23/17, Flynn’s attorneys returned the call from Dowd , reiterating that they were no longer in a position to share information with Trump under any sort of privilege. According to Flynn’s attorneys, the President’s personal counsel (Dowd) was indignant and vocal in his disagreement. Dowd said that he interpreted what they (Flynn's attorney) said to him as a reflection of Flynn’s hostility towards the President. On 12/1/17, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements. In a response to a question about whether Trump still stood behind Flynn and the possible pardon, Trump responded, “We’ll see what happens."

    In appearance, in 11/22/19's voicemail, Down did said "without you having to give up any...confidential information" and Mueller's quote omitted this partial sentence. But Dowd's implication can be said to be clear - he wants to share any information including confidential information if the information might "implicate Trump'. He said that "he can’t state it in 'starker terms'." In the Kelner's return call when he reiterated that they can no longer share any information (confidential information) with Trump, according to Muller's interview notes with Kelner, Kelner said Dowd's reaction was "Indignant" and "Vocally in Disagreement". That is equivalent to implicate to Flynn to share with them any information that might "Implicate Trump'. He explicitly asked for 'heads up' if there is information that would 'Implicate Trump'. In addition, Trump's behavior fitted the overall pattern of conduct by Trump toward those other witnesses such as Cohen and Manafort. Initially Trump expressed sympathy and warm support asking them to stand strong because he is behind them and the possibility of pardon before they 'flipped' and then immediately went to the other polarization after they began cooperating with the government.

    Questions Regarding Trump Pee Tape

    Nunes questioned about Trump Pee Tape: "An American citizen from the Republic of Georgia, who your report misidentifies as a Russian, claims that your report omitted parts of a text message he had with Michael Cohen about stopping the flow of compromising tapes of Donald Trump. In the omitted portions, he says he did not know what the tapes actually showed. Is that portion of the exchange left out of the report for a reason?" [MUELLER answered: "No. We got an awful lot in the report, but we did not get every intersection or conversation and the like. So I am not familiar with that particular episode you’re talking about."

    The Alleged Trump Pee Tape (also known as Golden Shower) was reported by Steele in his 6/20/16 report in The Steele Dossier. The alleged existence of compromising tapes the Kremlin had of Trump – including the alleged “pee tape” – was cited in the redacted version of Mueller Report in an specific area as the underlying evidence. That specific area of discussion was the context events surrounding the first instance of the 10 obstruction of justice by Trump  - investigation on Flynn and his phone call to Russia Ambassor Kislyak about Sanction. The context event was then FBI director Comey's brief to Trump on 1/6/17 about the allegations of Steele Dossier. -  "Comey then briefed the President-Elect on the sensitive material in the Steele reporting" [annotation]

    (next was the content of the annotation on Comey's brief on the sensitive material in the Steele reporting) - {Hong Gan's note: citations in the [brackets] was Comey's memo, Comey, Cohen, and Rtskhiladz's interview notes by Mueller Investigators. and Text message Rtskhiladze to Cohen}

    [Comey 1/7/17 Memorandum, at 1-2; Comey 11/15/17 302, at 3]. Comey’s briefing included the Steele reporting’s unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On 10/30/16, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know . . . .” [10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen]. Rtskhiladze said “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. [Rtskhiladze 4/4/18 302, at 12.] Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. [Cohen 9/12/18 302, at 13.] Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.  [Rtskhiladze 5/10/18 302, at 7]

    Rtskhiladze was born in Georgia (not Russia), the former Soviet republic, and has lived in the U.S. since 1991. He is now a US citizen. In 2012, the Trump Organization announced plans to build a tower in the Georgian Black Sea town of Batumi with the Silk Road Group, which paid him a $1 million licensing fee. Rtskhiladze was the group’s U.S.-based partner. Plans for the tower were on hold until Trump announced he was pulling out of the project just before he entered the White House.

    Blommblerg first reported Rtskhiladze's disputing on Mueller report's detail on his text messages regarding allegedly compromising tapes of Trump. Rtskiladze accused Mueller of publishing “glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations” about rumors of alleged sex tapes of Trump during a visit to Moscow in 2013. In a letter sent to Attorney General William Barr, his lawyer Bolden called on the Justice Department to retract text message exchange.

    Rtskhiladze claims that the report inaccurately quotes his text message with Cohen. He says that additional text messages not quoted in the report show that he was doubtful about a rumor he had heard from an associate in Moscow about the existence of a tape. His lawyer said in the letter  “there was nothing to the rumors of the tapes, and that Rtskiladze did not believe there were any tapes, nor had he seen what was on the tapes, even if they existed.”

    Mueller did not quote the whole email exchanges. The omitted portion was shown here, according to a DailyCaller report who obtained the letter Rtskhiladz's lawyer sent to William Barr. The transcript was extracted from the screenshot of email exchange provided in the Dailycaller report. Note: Rtskhiladze actually wrote that he had “stopped flow of some tapes

    Rtskhiladze: “Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know . . . .”
    Cohen: "Tapes of What"
    Rtskhiladze: “Not sure of the content but person in Moscow was bragging had tapes from Russia trip. Will try to dial you tomorrow but wanted to be aware. I’m sure it’s not a big deal but there are lots of stupid people,”
    Cohen: “You have no idea,”.

    [Hong Gan's comment:] I don't think Mueller had attempted to hide anything for any implication regarding the Trump Pee Tape. All of the annotation was for one short statement in the report - that is - "Comey then briefed the President-Elect on the sensitive material in the Steele reporting". He cited all the underlying sources (memo, email exchange, interview notes] for his annotation. He can't put everything in an annotation.

    There was no where in this annotation would imply Rtskhiladze had any direct knowledge of the pee tape, he knew for sure the very existence of the pee tape and he had ever known (seen) the content of the tape if the pee tape exists. Mueller only mentioned it as a similar claim as the one in Steele Dossier that Comey was briefing Trump. Mueller cited the interview notes and stated "Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen".

    Bolden acknowledged in the letter to Barr that Rtskhiladze’s claim of “stopping the flow” of the tapes “may have been a poor choice of words. He said that Rtskhiladze was using a “colloquialism” to convey to Cohen.


    Mike Conaway (R-TX)


    He began with "did anyone ask you to exclude anything from your report that you felt should've been in the report?" [Mueller answered no] He than quit and gave his time to Ratcliffe. (It appears Ratcliffe was in the Intelligence committee as well) (continue onto Ratcliffe on the Judiciary Committee session)


    Michael Turner (R-OH)


    All his questions were about the word 'exonerate'. He went around back and forth multiple times playing word games all for one purpose - Mueller does not have the authority to apply and mention the word 'exonerate' in his Report, because exonerate is not a legal term in whatever sense. Here was a brief summary of his multiple rounds of 'REASONING'- in his attempt to clear Trump:

    "Mr. Mueller, I want to talk about your powers and authorities. .... Now, the attorney general has no ability to give you powers of authority greater than the powers and authority of the attorney general. Correct?" [Mueller said correct] "Mr. Mueller, I want to focus on one word in your report. It's exonerate. The report states accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him. Now, in the judiciary hearing in your prior testimony, you've already agreed with Mr. Ratcliffe that exonerate is not a legal term,... Mr. Mueller, does the attorney general have the power or authority to exonerate?... we even went to your law school [Case Western University] and we got the criminal law textbook from your law school. Mr. Mueller, nowhere in these is there a process or description on exonerate. There's no office of exoneration at the attorney general's office. Mr. Mueller, would you agree with me that the attorney general does not have the power to exonerate?" [Mueller declined to answer from this point on] ...

    "The one thing that I guess, is that the attorney general probably knows he can't exonerate ... if the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate, then you don't have the power to exonerate ... If your report is to the attorney general, and the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate -- and he knows you do not have that power, you don't have to tell him that you're not exonerating the president. He knows this already. So then that kind of changes the context of the report." [After Mueller refuted him on this point: "We included in the report for exactly that reason. He may not know it"] "So you believe that Attorney Bill Barr believes somewhere in the Department of Justice, there's an office of exoneration?" "Well I believe he knows and I don't believe you put that in there for Mr. Barr. I think you put that in there for exactly what I'm going to discuss next" "Trump could not be exonerated ... in that no one can be exonerated. Mr. Mueller, you can't be exonerated. In fact, in our criminal justice system, there is no power or authority to exonerate... Now, this is my concern, what you know is that you can't say 'Mueller exonerated Trump.' Because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate Trump, So the problem that I have here is that, since there's no one in the criminal justice system that has that power ... the statement about exoneration is misleading and it colors this investigation; one word, out of the entire portion of your report, and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning and it has colored your entire report." [then Turner's time expired.

    [Hong Gan's comment] But one bottom line was the principle of JUSTICE. [quote a justice]"Our judicial system should be empowered not for the purpose to win the case, Our judicial system should b empowered to execute Justice", to execute the fundamental principle which govern our humanity, the fundamental principle behind our Constitution. When a sitting president, if committed the crime, but could not be indicted due to OLC rules. It is the fundamental concept and principle of JUSTICE that empower and authorize the prosecutor to not to exonerate him, if the prosecutor chose not to make a traditional prosecutorial decision on his culpability.


    Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)


    -----He started with the questions on Collusion: "is it accurate that your investigation found no evidence that members of the Trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign-related emails?" [Mueller answered: "I don't know"] {Hong Gan's comment: because the answer could be yes or no. Mueller report did not have sufficient evidence to establish that Trump Campaign conspired with Russia in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign-related emails, but that conclusion does not still exclude the possibility of such conspiracy; should new evidence be uncovered, they might shed new light on the conclusion of this issue. In fact, Trump Campaign was involved in the publication/release of Clinton email on Wikileaks. There was evidence to show Assange and Roger Stone was involved} His next question in this set of questioning on conspiracy was his attempt to get Mueller to say his Conclusion [Wenstrup used the word 'finding'] on Collusion/Conspiracy was NOT open to doubt. "Volume 1, page 5, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. So it would therefore be inaccurate to describe That Finding as open to doubt?" [Mueller responded without saying yes: "that matter does not fall within our jurisdiction or fall within our investigation."]

    He next asked about whether George Papadopoulos had told any Trump Campaign about the dirt on Clinton email he heard from Mifsud: "Is it accurate to say the investigation found no documentary evidence that George Papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign about Joseph Mifsud's claims that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton?" [Mueller answered yes] "It's therefore inaccurate to conclude that by the time of the 6/9/16 Trump Tower meeting, quote, 'the campaign was already unnoticed [? unnoticed or noticed] via George Papadopoulos's contact with Russian agents that Russia, in fact, had damaging information on Trump's opponent'. [Mueller answered: I'd direct you to the report.] [Hong Gan's note: There does not appear to be such a statement in the Report as far as I can remember the content on 6/9/16 meeting; verify and find out]

    His next question was the attack on Democrats: he claimed a member of Democrats said Trump was a Russian agent. He asked: "So a member of this Committee said President Trump was a Russian agent after your report was publicly released. That statement is not supported by your report, correct?" [Mueller answered correct]

    Swalwell is the one Wenstrup refer to. But I believed that saying is the equivalent to his belief on Trump's collusion with Russia and on TRump's forgien policy favoring Russia, so the complete statement was Trump Is a 'Russian Agent' Who Works on Russia's Behalf. That Russian Agent has sub qoatation mark - that was figurative metaphor. I don't think he is saying Trump was undercover Russia intelligence agent employed by Russia.

    Appearing on MSNBC’s Hardball 1/19/19, MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Swalwell: “Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the Russians?” Eric Swalwell (D-CA) asserted "All Evidence I’ve Seen Shows Trump Is a Russian Agent". Swalwell’s comments came after BuzzFeed published a report claiming that Trump ordered his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. [Though the Mueller office did not agree with the detail as accurate about the lie in the report]. A partial transcript published on breitbart.com indicated that Eric Swalwell and CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS talked about Collusion, Lie and Helsinki Summit where the interpreters’ notes were essentially taken away, no other witnesses in the room, [quote Eric Swalwell] he [Trump] has pulled us out of Syria, he’s tried to take us out of NATO, and he’s easing sanctions against someone who is involved in the Mueller investigation, Oleg Deripaska."..." I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence that he’s not."..." He’s working on behalf of the Russians, yes."

    In March this year (shortly after Mueller handed in his report to DOJ and Barr's summary letter before redacted Mueller report was made public), Swalwell reasserted his belief -" yes, I still think Trump is a ‘Russian agent’" on Martha MacCallum’s show who wanted to know if he wanted to revise his past statement he made on MSNBC. Swalwell said - "I saw evidence and the country has seen evidence of collusion. Mueller has said that he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt which I accept but it doesn't mean that there wasn't collusion." [...] “I think he acts on Russia’s behalf and he puts Russia’s interests ahead, too often, of America’s interests,” Swalwell reiterated

    Next his question was about whether Manafort had met with Assange before WikiLeaks released DNC email "Multiple democrat members have asserted that Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange before WikiLeaks released DNC emails implying Manafort colluded with Assange. Because your report does not mention finding evidence that Manafort met with Assange, I would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting. Is that assumption correct?" [Mueller did not say yes: "I'm not certain I agree with that assumption."] "But you make no mention of it in your report. Would you agree with that?" [Mueller answered: yes] [Hong Gan's comment: no mention in the Report can only imply insufficiency of evidence, it could not imply the falsity of the statement - Manafort met with the Assange before WikiLeaks released DNC emails] Next question was about kompromat of Trump: "Does your report contain any evidence that President Trump was enrolled in the Russian system of Kompromat as a member of this Committee once claimed?" [Mueller answered yes] "Well, and to what I can speak to is information and evidence that we picked up at the special counsel, and I think that's accurate as far as it goes."]

    -----His last portion of the question was about whether Mueller had requested to DOJ to expand the scope of his Investigation: "Did you ask the Department Justice to expand the scope of the special counsel's mandate related to 8/20/17 scoping memoranda?" [Mueller responded: "without looking at the memoranda I could not answer that question."] "Let me ask you did you ever make a request to expand your office's mandate at all?" [Mueller said yes] "And was that ever denied?" "Does expanding the scope come from the acting attorney general or Rod Rosenstein or does it come from you or can it come from either?" [Mueller declined to answer these]


    Chris Stewart (R-UT)


    Before this republican posing his first question, he made a long comment on how much the damage had done on Trump. "I want you to know that I agree with this statement that no person is above the law. But there's another principal that we also have to defend, and that is the presumption of innocence. And I'm sure you agree with this principle... For going on three years, innocent people have been accused of very serious crimes, including treason, accusations made even here today. They have made their lives disrupted, and in some cases destroyed, for false accusations for which there is no basis other than some people desperately wish it was so."

    [Hong Gan's comment]: I personally do not think the 'presumption of innocence' was a principle, It is the Execution of JUSTICE that is a fundamental principle. 'Presumption of Innocence' is a choice after weighing the balancing force on the spectrum of the Crime Control Model as theorized and detailed in this post - it is a choice after weighing out the balancing force between the Crime Control Efficiency and the Protection of Personal Liberty. It was a zero-sum theory. The more the protection of personal liberty, the less the crime control efficiency. The presumption of innocence is the choice for our country because our political system and our developed economy and standard of living level "Allowed" us to enjoy more personal liberty without the damning risk of an uncontrolled rampant crime in the society. The cost of the presumption of innocence was the less efficiency in controlling crimes - real criminals escape the punishment,[because every criminal would maximize their effort on destroying the evidence, shielding the evidence from being uncovered.] Insufficiency in evidence does not imply there was no crime. During the anti-terrorism era immediately after 911, we have to stringent our choice of presumption of innocence on suspicious terrorism criminals, ordinary citizen's privacy and liberty was being restricted. Government's monitor on citizen communication became legal. Suspects of potential terrorist was allowed to be detained without proving their innocence. We have the example to make that presumption of innocence more restrictive toward the benefits for more efficient crime control.

    Now the crime involved president who was empowered by constitution to have access to WEAPONS no other entity could have. When the president abused that power using that Weapon to commit crime against citizen - he fracture my femur bone using that Invisible Weapon - if he is presumed to be innocence, the risk that he would continue to commit the crime to harm the victim and possibly harm any other people who he hates - increases. The unprecedence of this crime created a barrier for proving his guiltiness, it is not right that we just let this criminal continue to enjoy the 'liberty' for which he does not suppose to enjoy.

    Next Crawford made the same assumption statement as many of his Republican colleagues had made : "But your report is very clear. No evidence of conspiracy, no evidence of coordination. And I believe we owe it to these people who have been falsely accused, including the president and his family" [Hon Gan's comment] "No evidence of conspiracy, no evidence of coordination" was a false statement. It was an assumption statement which draw an equation mark between statement [There is not sufficient evidence to establish that there was conspiracy] and the statement [there is no conspiracy]. AS far as collusion was concerned, there is sufficient evidence for Loose Collusion as I had elaborated in this post, and there could be a conspiracy scenario which I hypothesized in this post.

    Next, he introduced his question - actually was his attacked on Mueller team's leaking of the information that is unfavorable to Trump, but not leaking those which favorable to Trump, he posed his question in this way: "I'm holding here in my hand a binder of 20 or more examples of leaks that occurred from the special counsel's office from those who associated with your work, dating back to as early as a few weeks after your inception of the beginning of your work and continuing to a few months ago. All of them, have one thing in common. They were designed to weaken or embarrass the president. Never was it leaked that you had found no evidence of collusion. Never was it leaked that the Steele dossier was a complete fantasy nor that it was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign. I could go on and on." Mueller declined to answer his question. Instead he defended his team saying: "I'm not going to talk about specifics. I will talk more a moment about persons who become involved in an investigation. And the understanding that in a lengthy, thorough investigation some persons will be under a cloud that should not be under a cloud. And one of the reasons for emphasizes as I have the speed of an investigation is that so those persons who are disrupted as a result of that investigation. [Mueller's answer was interrupted by Stewart, he abruptly stopped Mueller's talking and saying "But I do have a series of questions".] Later on Mueller said in an media interview: "It was in the public interest for the investigation to be complete, but “not to last a day longer than was necessary.

    Steward went on to ask: "And you're right, it is a cloud, and it's an unfair cloud for dozens of people. But to my point, are you aware of anyone providing information to the media regarding the raid on Roger Stone's home" [Mueller declined to answer]

    [Hong Gan's comment on 'Cloud'] In a investigation of such length and thoroughness, Mueller admitted there was some people was under the Cloud and disruption that they might be innocent of collusion. But That situation does not apply on Trump. AS I have discussed in this post's introduction: - the cloud could not possibly be lifted. Trump casted too many self-imposed Cloud, these including his multiple acts of obstruction of justice, his rejection for an interview by the Mueller office, his almost apparent Lies in his written answer to Questions from Mueller Office, and his unpatriotic foreign policies to Russia against our national interest; and his fearness for the public to know the content of his several or all of the secret meeting with Putin (see this post), Congress requested these information but was refused, the content of those secret meeting are the information belong to this country. Roger Stone is very probably the major actor who facilitated the release of DNC emails by WikiLeaks. He was the one believed to be Colluded with Russia who knew in advance of the timed release of the DNC emails by WikiLeaks (see this post for discussion)

    [Hong Gan's comment on 'Leak'] Stewart's statement 'you had found no evidence of collusion' was a false statement. Mueller report identified many evidence for Loose Collusion or even Collusion. These include Trump's written answer. Mueller Report only stated: the Investigation did not establish the Collusion but not 'there is no collusion".

    Stewart's statement 'Steele dossier was a complete fantasy' was also a false statement. As a raw intelligence report, Steele Dossier is credible (see discussion on Steele Dossier section in this post). Steele Dossier was leaked to the public (Buzz Feed published it on 1/10/17) long before Mueller took over the Russia Investigation on 5/17/17. The Steele - Fusion GPS - Mark Elias - Clinton Campaign relationship was revealed by Media (New York Times on 12/21/17) which is long before Mueller Report was made public. Therefore Stewart's statement 'Never was it leaked that the Steele dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign" is also a blatant lie.

    According to Vox.com, Mueller and his team had done something remarkable for Washington — prevented almost anything of real substance from leaking. Mueller and his team had reached surprise plea deals with several Trump Campaign aides increasingly close to Donald Trump, including George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Rick Gates, with reporters in the dark until just before their court appearances. “Bob Mueller runs a very tight ship, and that ship does not leak,” David Kris, a former assistant attorney general for national security who worked closely with Mueller for years, told Vox.com.

    Reuters reported in March (3/22/19) on the measures Mueller’s team took to prevent leaks. “The office’s location was not publicly revealed but was discovered by journalists. Still, it has not been widely publicized,” Reuters reported, noting that “Mueller’s team has asked media outlets not to publish the exact location for security purposes.”

    TPM (talking point memo) requested and obtained a copy of Stewart's list of alleged leaks by Mueller team and published the list in their report. which TPM viewed as weak after their review. TPM reporter concluded - "The list Stewart’s office provided includes leaks related to Mueller’s probe, but not leaks that were definitively sourced to Mueller’s office. In other words, plenty of people could have leaked these tidbits to the press, not only people on Mueller’s team." Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told Reuters that any leaks about the investigation appeared to have come from witnesses or their lawyers.

    Next series of the Question was about the Leak of Mueller's letter to Barr after Barr released his own version of summary of Mueller Report which Mueller believed was failed to Capture the Context, Nature and The Substance of his report. "Mr. Mueller, you sent a letter to Attorney General Barr in which you acclaim the attorney general's comments did not capture the context of the report. You stated earlier today that response was not authorized. Did you make effort to determine who leaked this confidential letter?? [Mueller answered: "I do not believe we would be responsible for the leaks. I do believe we have done a good job in assuring that no leaks occur."

    Stewart continued to attack on the Leaks: "We have examples here of where you did not do a good job. I'm not accusing you at all, but where your office did not do a good job protecting this information. Do you know anyone who anonymously made claims to the press that Attorney General's Barr's summary letter to Congress had been misrepresented or misrepresented your basis of your report?" [Mueller said no] "given these examples as well as others, you must have realized that leaks were coming from someone associated with the special counsel's office." [Mueller answered: "I do not believe that."] "Your office is the only one who had information regarding this. It had to come from your office. Putting that aside, which leads me to my final question, did you do anything about it?" Mueller answered: "From the outset, we've undertaken to make certain that we minimize the possibility of leaks, and I think we were successful.



    Rick Crawford (R-AK)


    His questions are about the origin of the investigation - he began with Strzok text message and continued with Fusion GPS and eventually the credibility Steele Dossier

    "Days after your appointment, Peter Strzok texted about his concern that there's, quote, "no big there there in the Trump campaign investigation." Did Strzok or anyone else who worked on the FBI's investigation tell you that around 10 months into the investigation the FBI still had no case for collusion?" [Mueller said no] "Is the inspector general report correct that the text messages from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's phones from your office were not retained after they left the Special Counsels Office?" [Mueller answered: "No. I don't -- it depends on what you're talking about. An investigation into those -- Peter Strzok went on for a period of time, and I'm not certain what it encompasses, and they will have encompassed what you're referring to." "Did you ask the department to authorize your office to investigate the origin of the Trump Russia investigation?" [Mueller declined to answer, saying "It goes into internal deliberations."] Crawford went on to say - "So the circumstances surrounding the origin of the investigation have yet to be fully vetted then. I'm certainly glad that Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Derum are looking into this matter."

    [Nunes interrupted with a question before Crawford continued.] Nunes attacked the Fusion GPS: he made the false statement (Lie) accusing Fusion GPS works for Clinton and DNS only. Nunes said: "Mr. Mueller, I want to make sure you're aware of who Fusion GPS is. Fusion GPS is a political operations firm that was working directly for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee. They produced the dossier, so they paid Steele who then went out and got the dossier. And I know you don't want to answer any dossier questions, so I'm not going there." [Hong Gan's notes: quote from Wikipedia - Fusion GPS is a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm based in Washington, D.C. The company conducts open-source investigations and provides research and strategic advice for businesses, law firms and investors, as well as for political inquiries, such as opposition research. The "GPS" initialism is derived from "Global research, Political analysis, Strategic insight".]

    Nunes went on to attack on the 6/9/16 Meeting. He said: "but your report mentions Natalia Veselnitskaya 65 times. She meets in the Trump Tower. It's this infamous Trump Tower meeting that's in your report. You've heard many of the Democrats refer to it today. The meeting was shorter than 20 minutes, I believe. Is that correct?" [Mueller responded: "I think what we have in our report reflects it was about that length."]

    Crawford then continued with his question [that other Republcians had already asked]: "so, Fusion GPS, the main actor of Fusion GPS, the president of the company or owner of the company is a guy named Glenn Simpson who's working for Hillary Clinton. Glenn Simpson -- do you know how many times Glenn Simpson met with Natalia Veselnitskaya?" [Mueller answered no.] [Hong Ga's note:] Crawford made the same false statement that "Glenn Simpson, the owner of Fusion GPS, is working for Hillary Clinton only".

    He went on to ask: "Would it surprise you that the Clinton campaign dirty ops arm met with Natalia Veselnitskaya more times than the Trump campaign did?" [Mueller declined to answer this question: "This is an area I'm not going to get into as I indicated at the outset."] "Did you ever interview Glenn Simpson?" [Mueller said: "I'm again going to pass on that."] The way Republican tried to discredit Glen Simpson by implying his connection to the Russia Lawyer who could be a Russia agent was in order to discredit Steele Dossier. As I have explained Simpson could not possibly know that The Russia Lawyer might be a Russia agent three years ago, even Mueller Report was not sure about that. Even if she was Russia Agent, she has the motivation to try to reach out to Simpson for whatever intelligence she could obtain - where is the opposition research going is critical for Putin in order to damage the credibility of that research, and critical for Putin to spread misinformation to shield the true leaked intelligence from Kremlin. Isn't it equally important that Russia know what their opponent or adversary already knew about themselves to that Russia reached out to the potential targets - Trump Campaign- for what information to share with them on the Meeting? At the same time, this issue was elaborated in the theme section on Glen Simpson and Steele Dossier and on 6/9/16 meeting. Russia Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya had hired Fusion GPS through BakerHostetler to help research for the litigation on Prevezon Holding whom Natalia Veselnitskaya represented (see discussion on Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson in the origination of the Russia Investigation). Fusion GPS/Glenn Simpson and Natalia Veselnitskaya connection was business-related and commercial (client type).

    Crawford went on to attack the Steele Dossier: "According to notes from the State Department Official Kathleen Kavalec, Christopher Steele told her that former Russian intelligence head Trubnikov and Putin adviser Surkov, were sources for the Steele dossier. Now, knowing that we are not getting into whether these sources were real or not real, was there any concern that there could have been disinformation that was going from the Kremlin into the Clinton campaign and then being fed into the FBI?" [Mueller: "As I said before, this is an area that I cannot speak to."]

    [Hong Gan's comment] As regard to the accusation of Steele Dossier as the disinformation from Russia, I had discussed in detail in the theme section. I believed misinformation mainly was in the last few reports from Steele regarding Michael Cohen.

    I also discussed Steele - State Department Official contacts in detail in the theme section and explained why Steele met Kathleen Kavalec on 10/11/16, immediately prior to his three October reports (10/12/16, 10/18/16, 10/19/16) on allegations regarding Michael Cohen and Prague meeting. Steele took these allegations very seriously. The purpose of his contact with the State Department official was to verify the travel records in an attempt to check whether Cohen had travelled to Prague. Although it turned out that Michael Cohen did not go to Prague, this is interpreted as Putin's misinformation campaign at the later stage of the Steele research when his earlier intelligence report was leaked within the Intelligence Community and Media. Putin's intention is to cover up those true intelligence in the Steele Dossier.

    Crawford went on to ask: "When Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad joined your team, were you aware that Bruce Ohr, Department of Justice top official, directly briefed the dossier allegations to them in the summer of Election Year?. [Mueller : "Again, I'm not going to speak to that issue."] "But it involved your investigation." [Mueller answered: "It involved persons involved in my investigation."

    [Hong Gan's comment]: Both Andrew Weissmann (a leading prosecutor on the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort) and Zainab Ahmad (one of the prosecutors who handled former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea) were members of team in Crossfire Hurricane. Crossfire Hurricane (the code name for the official FBI investigation on Trump-Russia case launched on 7/31/16)went on secretly for 9 months. US Hatch Act had prohibited executive branch official for partisan political activities to influence the Election. FBI's investigation was not briefed to Obama until after the Election on 1/5/16. The Intelligence Community did not announce to the Public about their finding/assessment on Russia Malicious Cyber Offenses before October. DOJ top officials were not briefed on FBI's investigation into Trump-Russia tie initially.

    According to WSJ, after Bruce met Steele on 7/30/16, he briefed not only Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, he also briefed Andy McCabe (then acting FBI director) and lawyer Lisa Page. In August he took it to Peter Strzok, In the same month, he briefed senior personnel in the Justice Department’s criminal division: Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz.

    Crawford's last question was: "Before you arrested George Papadopoulos in July, he was given $10,000 in cash in Israel. Do you know who gave him that cash?" [Mueller: "Again, that's outside our questions. Such as that, you go to the FBI or department."]

    Papadopoulos Told Feds He Received
    Papadopoulos Suggests “Sleazebag” Weissmann Behind
    Consultant Who Paid Papadopoulos $10K Denies Being Foreign Agent


    Elise Stefanik (R-NY)


    She started her questions about the origin of the investigation - Steele Dossier and whether Mueller Office had reviewed or had access to documents regarding the origin of the investigation from FBI and CIA. She asked: "Mr. Mueller, as special counsel did you review documents related to the origin of the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign?" [Mueller answered: "on occasions"] "You were tasked as special counsel to investigate whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign associates to interfere with the 2016 election and the FBI, we know, has relevant documents and information related to the opening of the CIA investigation. Were you and your team permitted to access all of those documents?" [Mueller answered: "I can't get into investigation materials.] "was there any limitation in your access to documents related to the counterintelligence" {investigation into Trump Campaign.} [Mueller provided the same response: "That's such a broad question, I have real trouble answering it."

    Obama administration was first informed and alerted about Russia Interference in the Election by CIA. In early August, CIA director delivered a sensitive package of intelligence to the Obama White House. The material (intelligence) was so sensitive that CIA Director John Brennan kept it out of the President’s Daily Brief. The CIA package came with instructions that it be returned immediately after it was read. It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view. Only until 1/6/17 public was told what was the intelligence Obama administration officials had learned from Brennan in August in a declassified version of the report. - Putin ordered campaign to elect Trump. The intelligence on Putin was extraordinary on multiple levels, including as a feat of espionage.

    The source of CIA's intelligence might be random. In August, Brennan received intelligence from GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan - a British Signal Intelligence Gathering Agency about the intercepted streams of illicit communication between Trump and Russia. Government Communications Headquarters, commonly known as GCHQ, is an intelligence and security organization responsible for providing signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance to the government and armed forces of the United Kingdom. According to a 3/5/18 Business insider report - British intelligence reportedly told the CIA months before the election that Trump's campaign had illicit contacts with Russia.

    According to a 4/13/17 Guardian report, GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information. Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – included Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, Dutch and France. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US.

    In Mid August, John Brennan shared intelligence with FBI director Comey. John Brennan (CIA director) convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI. Brennan moved swiftly to schedule private briefings with congressional leaders. It was not until after Labor Day that Brennan had reached all members of the “Gang of Eight”

    On 1/6/17 The ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) report on Russia Meddling was declassified and the declassified version of the report was released to the Public. But this declassified document was a rewritten one. There were no redaction and no original CIA intelligence packet which CIA brought to Obama in August in Election year was in the declassified report. Mueller refused to answer Republican's question though he said he had access to the document 'on occasion'.

    It seems that Republican attempted to target CIA on the origin of the investigation on Russia - Trump case no less than they targeted FBI. This report (6/13/19) indicated that DOJ (William Barr) was to Question CIA on Probe Into Russia's Alleged Election Meddling. Barr wants to learn how the CIA has come to the conclusion that Russia attempted to sabotage the 2016 election and to know more about the CIA's sources and contacts with FBI. Some of the CIA officers whom the Justice Department wanted to question have already been interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee and it found no violations in their work.

    Her questions on Steele Dossier: "Was the Steele dossier one of those documents that was reviewed." [Mueller answered: "Yes and I can't discuss that case."] "I'm just asking a process question. Have you read the Steele dossier?" [Mueller provided the same response.]"Did the special counsel's office undertake any efforts to investigate and verify or disprove allegations contained in the Steele dossier?" [Mueller answered: "Again, I can't respond."]"it's apparent that the Steele Dossier formed part of the basis to justify the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. As we know it was used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page. This is why I'm asking these questions. Did your office undertake any efforts to identify Steele's sources or sub-sources?" [Mueller provided the same response: "Again, the same answer."] "Did your office consider whether the Russian government used Steele's sources to provide Steele with disinformation." [Mueller: "Again, I can't speak to that."] "Were these tasks referred to any other agencies?" [Mueller provided the same response]

    As I have explained many times about Steele Dossier, Steele dossier as a Raw Intelligence Report speaks for itself because of the coherence in the sets of allegations, and because of the truthfulness of its central and foundational allegation - Russia's Meddling in the Election - their cyber offensive operation - the hacking and dumping operation - that Mueller investigation verified. Other sets of allegations were built upon this central allegation and its generalization - Russia's cyber offensive operations. The Tricky part of the allegations on collusion fit the themes of Loose Collusion [Manafort's sharing of Campaign polling data with Russia, Cater Page's alleged meeting with Sechin, though he denied but he met many Russians that comparable to Sechin.] Although the allegations on Michael Cohen - the last few reports dated after October - was not believed by me to be True. Those October reports on Michale cohen came after Steele Dossier's previous reports and contents had reportedly been circulated within the intelligence community and the media. A natural and reasonable response by Putin was to "meddle" this Steele Dossier the same way he meddled the election - to spread misinformation to shield those intelligence that are true; as I have explained we can not afford and we should not neglect this central foundational allegation by presuming Russia's innocence. I illustrated this in the theme section using a radical example of the intelligence - Hitler's alleged bombing on Pearl Harbor.

    Her next part of the Questions were about whether members of Mueller Team had travelled abroad. "did any member of the special counsel's office staff travel overseas as part of the investigation?" [MUELLER answered: "Yes, but I can't go further than that."] "to which countries?" [Mueller declined to answer] "Did they meet with foreign government officials?" "Did they meet with foreign private citizens?" "Did they seek information about a U.S. citizen, or any U.S. citizens?" [Mueller declined to answer these question.]

    [Hong Gan's note: Based on the discussion in the Theme Section] - Immediately after FBI officially opened the investigation on Trump-Russia case - Crossfire Hurricane, Peter Strzok went to London to interview Alexander Downer - The Australian diplomat who relayed the Mifsud's intelligence on Clinton email from George Papadopoulos.

    Will Hurd (R-TX)


    Hurd's questions were about some media reports that Mueller Report mentioned nothing about [though there were relevant allegations in the Steele Dossier]. He asked about the alleged Michael Cohen's Prague Trip "On 4/13/18 McLatchy reported that you [Mueller] had evidence Michael Cohen made a secret trip to Prague during the Election year. I think he told one of the Committees here in Congress that was incorrect, is that story true?" [MUELLER answered: "I can’t go in to it."].

    [Hong Gan's comment]: Allegations about Michael Cohen's Prague trip appeared in the very last few reports from Steele Dossier that I set aside while I analyzing the Steele Dossier. they might be the blurring intelligence Putin injected to mess up the overall integrity of Steele reporting as a raw intelligence reporting. [go to this section of the post]. Only on this alleged Prague meeting, I saw the media reportings which disputed the identity of the individual who was at the meeting if such alleged meeting did occur. One saying is another person who also named Michael Cohen went to the Meeting; another saying was Trump Jr instead of Cohen went to the Meeting. Although there was media report [McClatchy’s Peter Stone and Greg Gordon] regarding special counsel's having evidence on whether Cohen had traveled to Prague or not in August (4/13/18), but in Mueller Report, there were no mention of anything about Cohen except his involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow Project. Mueller's evidence was the detection outside Prague of Cohen's cell phone signal in the timeframe of the alleged meeting. But later findings confirmed that the cell phone was a Cohen-supplied or registered burner phone which many criminals could use to eliminate the trace of the activities. In the April (4/x/18) FBI Raid in Cohen's office, there were a dozen of burner cell phone found in Cohen's drawer [why Cohen did not throw away these burner phones instead kept them in his drawer, here was an explanation]. The burner cell phone could be the cell phone Trump Campaign had shared with. His next question was about the alleged collusion via alpha bank: "On 10/31/16, Slate published a report suggesting that a server at Trump tower was secretly communicating with Russia’s alpha bank. And I quote, “akin to what criminal syndicates do.” Do you know if that story is true?" [Mueller said he does not know whether this was true]. "So did you not investigate these allegations that are suggestive of potential Trump/Russia...{collusion}" [Mueller answered: "Because that - 'I believe it is not true' - doesn’t mean it would not be investigated. It may have been investigated, but my belief at this point is not true."] This alpha bank story was also appeared in the Steele Dossier. [go to this section of the post]. Alfa Group is one of Russia's largest privately owned investment groups, comprising of a portfolio of companies. Petr Olegovich Aven is an International businessman, economist and politician who heads Alfa-Bank, Russia's largest commercial bank who is VERY close with Putin. Media reporting had revealed the existence of an Unusual Computer Server [Trump server] seeming communicating with Russia through alpha bank. There were several theories being proposed after the computer server was analyzed by groups of computer scientists, some of them were innocuous, but suspicions was indicated by some analyst, particularly the fact that the server was immediately shut off after the issue being inquired by the media. see these references:

    Although Mueller report mentioned no name of Petr Aven in Links between Trump Campaign and Russia in the Campaign Period, but in the Transition Period, Aven was the one of the main figures in Mueller report who was identified as the alternative channel (to the government) - the oligarchy Russia business - who were trying to reach out the Trump Transition team.

    [Hong Gan's notes: Hurd's next set of questions were relatively neutral and benign. This is the only Republican who questioned Mueller that is not unpatriotic]. he was actually asking for advice from Mueller on how we should prevent Russian intelligence and other adversaries from doing this -Meddling - again. Mueller emphasized the importance for our intelligence agencies - the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the rest - who should pursue aggressively early to work together in this arena. He next mentioned the potential threat by Russia's Internet Research Agency (IRA) who not only launched the active measure social media campaign but also organized the political rallies; Hurd further emphasized this committee issued a report saying that Russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity and including their expanded use of groups such as the IRA. He asked Mueller: In your investigation, did you think this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election, or did you find evidence to suggest they’ll try to do this again?" Mueller responded: "It wasn’t a single attempt. The doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign."

    Posted by at
    Labels:

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Crimes Logged by Victim Hong Gan