Replies

H/T JOHN SOLOMON——There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside the State Dept that could
substantially alter the public’s understanding of what happened in the Hunter Biden-Joe Biden-Obama-era Ukraine.
President Trump should ordered these released:

<><> Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine’s new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies about Zelensky’s ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president’s daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine corruption and U.S. foreign aid? CNBC, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully considered during the impeachment proceedings.

<><>State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko’s account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?

<><>State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors’ concerns legitimate?

<><> Transcripts of Joe Biden’s phone calls and meetings with Ukraine’s president and prime minister from April 2014 to January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma? Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden’s role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies to justify Biden’s threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn’t fired?

<><> All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. The U.S. government’s main whistleblower office is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct described by the whistleblower? OSC has concluded there is a “substantial likelihood of wrongdoing” involved in these activities.

<><>All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?

<><> All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department’s foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma’s corruption reputation.

Did Hunter Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end? What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?

<><> All cables, memos and documents showing State Department’s dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016. We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home of the company’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma’s American representatives were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter Biden’s name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma’s efforts to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?

<><> All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden’s office concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department officials believed Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president, and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden’s office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies tell Joe Biden’s office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?

<><> All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy’s request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?

<><> All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they react? What were these federal agencies’ reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?

<><> All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures.

<><> Did anyone in these U.S. government agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in 2016 on Trump and Manafort?

AG Barr’s been using the word “counter-intelligence” lately——here’s why.

On January 13th, 2017, a few days before Trump took Office, Obama issued an executive order saying ALL 17 US security agencies could have total access to each other. In other words, they were free to engage in collusion...and that’s exactly what they did.

Pres Obama’s maneuver of January 3, 2017-——his signing of NSA Data-Sharing Order Section 2.3 out of AG Lynch’s office ——is the coupe d’etat to blow out The Deep State. Obama’s original ex/order contains some unusual language particularly the convoluted language WRT “The Strategic Delay of Section 2.3 of Obama’s Executive Order 12333.”

NOTE WELL: Prior to the formal signing of Section 2.3, greater latitude ALREADY existed within the White House in regards to collection of information – especially in relation to the Trump Campaign.

However, once signed, Section 2.3 granted broad latitude to inter-agency sharing of information.

But by the time Obama’s new executive order was signed on January 3, 2017, all that information was already in the possession of Obama White House.

Thus, Susan Rice’s January 20, 2017 email to herself takes on an even greater significance b/c no one was ever supposed to know about the REAL meaning of Obama’s retroactive actions.....until Rice (who was to be replaced by Gen Flynn) stupidly laid it all out in an official email.

When Susan Rice stupidly wrote a memo to herself, she inadvertently confessed to a series of crimes that added the time line and inferences about what the outgoing Obama administration illegally concealed from incoming President Trump and his aides.

After-the-fact memos are rarely a good idea....they reveal things the author never intended——as did Susan Rice in her now-infamous email to herself on Trump’s inauguration day.

Obama puppet, Susan Rice (scared stiff her successor Gen Flynn would find the dirt) skipped down the Yellowbrick Road, along with the mental midgets of the Obama Administraton.
Obama’s FBI, DOJ, ODNI, CIA and intelligence officials flipped a finger at protocol....and even worse ....they were intentionally dishonest with incoming President Trump and key members of his new administration.

Obviously their lack of honesty was a serious issue.......but flipping off established protocol had serious ramifications.

This was a “justification memo”......outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice (to be replaced by Gen Flynn) needed to explain why there have been multiple false and misleading statements given to the incoming President Trump and all of his officials.

This is not a “CYA” memo, this is a justification memo for use AFTER the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy narrative collapsed; if the impeachment effort failed.

Her intellectually facile “By-The-Book” reference -refers to both she and then-President Obama being told by CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, that President host of crimes.

What people miss about Susan Rice and her need to write that last memo is her attempt to craft a record of a ‘COUNTER-INTEL’ operation that was ongoing and that Obama had instructed that everything be done ‘by the book’.

What THEY DONT DARE SAY is that during a counter-intel investigation, it is permissible to lie, or in official terms ‘to disseminate disinformation’.

As long as the Obama spying was characterized as a counter-intel operation, it was legal to have words and actions left in place that might be discovered as untrue.

In other words, Rice’s final memo was an attempt to carve out a last minute get-out-of-jail pass for all those involved in the spying.

Rice likely foresaw that Congressional hearings might uncover false and perjured statements on the part of persons in the spy operation to which the response would be “So what? It was a Counter-Intel operation.”

This is why it was IMPERATIVE for Barr and Durham to investigate the ORIGINS because if the origins revealed no predicate, no basis, no genuine probable cause for launching a counter-intel operation, then Rice’s feeble stay-out-of-jail memo would fall apart.