KASH PATEL EXCLUSIVE: Speaker Paul Ryan and His Team Rigged Our Russiagate Investigation Before He Started It

The single greatest criminal fraud perpetrated by the DOJ/FBI, in conjunction with their conspirators in the mainstream media and the Hillary Clinton campaign, was the creation, utilization, and submission of the Steele Dossier for unlawful surveillance purposes.

In June 2016, the Steele Dossier was commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign, using campaign dollars laundered through their law firm Perkins Coie. These funds were paid to Fusion GPS, which hired Christopher Steele—a former MI-6 operative—to create this fabricated dossier.

Steele was simultaneously an FBI informant on the government payroll and on the Democratic Party’s bankroll. At the time, no one outside of the DOJ/FBI cabal knew what the Steele Dossier was or that it was used in all four Trump-world FISAs.

In the beginning of 2017, then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan commissioned his select committee on intelligence to investigate all Russia collusion claims—what became known as the Russia Gate investigation.

Through then-chairman Nunes, we reported directly to Ryan and required his office’s consent on all steps taken; that’s what it means to be a select committee of the Speaker.

After BuzzFeed leaked the Steele Dossier in January 2017, the mandates of our investigation expanded at the direction of Speaker Ryan- uncover the origins of the Steele Dossier: to determine its truth, who created it, and who funded it.

1. Yes. If he read the first item about the hookers and pee tapes, that should have done it for anyone with a rational capacity. It became clear from the first sentence the whole thing was total BS, that the idea he was helped by Russia was the dumbest idea ever attempted to be put forth as some kind of truth. Nothing after that came out that didn't confirm what I just said. If you believed it, you were just plain stupid.

2. It was discovered in early fall of 2017 that Hillary and the DNC paid for it, even the NYT wrote an article saying that in October 2017. He should have known that earlier, probably did.

3. Kash P explains he had to have known early. But said nothing. Pretty damning IMHO.

4. The fact that he knew so much way before the Mueller investigation found nothing implies (strongly) that he let this go because it was hurting Trump, and he let it slide rather than blow the whistle for his own nefarious aims.

I am taking at face value you asked those questions in order to enlighten rather to exonerate Paul Ryan. It strikes me as possible that is not true, so I await your reply on this statement.

What did [Paul Ryan] know and when did he know it?

This question has become so pervasive that it is become part of the American manner of speech. My questions 1. Through 5. Essentially ask, what did Paul Ryan know and what did he do about it?

I am astonished that anyone who puts these questions forward will then find his motives questioned. If the questions were good enough for for Senator Sam Ervin half a century ago and have continued to be for virtually everyone since, they are good enough for me.

You have a series of assertions outlined in your reply which are reasonable but which are not certain, therefore not dispositive. Let's see what the author asserts that is relevant since it is the author himself, Kash Patel, who is the actor in the drama. This is his chance to nail down the assertion that Paul Ryan "rigged the Russian investigation."

Patel tells us:

At the time, [June 2016] no one outside of the DOJ/FBI cabal knew what the Steele Dossier was or that it was used in all four Trump-world FISAs.

So, presumably, Ryan did not know about steel dossier or its misuse for FISA.

Patel then tells us:

All this tells us is that Paul Ryan initiated an investigation, exactly what he should have done.

Next, the author asserts:

All this tells us is that, again, speaker Ryan did what he should have done, "determine the truth."

Subsequently Patel informs us that Patel and the committee were "not allowed to discuss the use of the dossier for FISA because it was classified." He does not assert that the classification was wrongly made. Perhaps it was, I don't know at this point simply by reading Patel's article.

The core of the complaint seems to be:

.THE PRESS REPORTED IN DECEMBER 2018 THAT RYAN’S TOP ADVISOR AND LATER CHIEF OF STAFF JONATHAN BURKS, RYAN’S MAIN INTERLOCUTOR WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, GOT AN EARLY LOOK AT THE ENTIRE STEELE DOSSIER.

Okay, strange but so far no explicit harm. At this point the obvious question is, what did Paul Ryan do with the information?

Patel tells us:

Every time I went to the Speaker’s office to get a subpoena authorized, every time we tried to force the DOJ/FBI to produce documents and witnesses, and every time we were blocked from access, Paul Ryan made the calls.

What calls? Patel only says, "every time we tried to force the DOJ/FBI to produce documents and witnesses and every time we were blocked from access, Paul Ryan made the calls."

This is Patel's opportunity to cite facts but he did not.

I have no brief whatsoever for Paul Ryan who is a snake, a despicable model of a Rino who has discredited the Republican Party and undermined the country. But we owe Xit to ourselves as conservatives to judge matters, not as you have done in your first point with bland assertions, but by rigorous analysis of the facts. What exactly did Ryan Block?

So what did Paul Ryan know and when did he know it and, more important, what did he actually do about it. These are honest questions asked in the time honored history of our Republic since Watergate.

You dealt with NONE of my points. Start with 1. Explain how he didn't know the God awful stupidity of the Steele Dossier, or the claims Trump was a Russian asset from the beginning.

Go ahead. Explain. I'll wait.

I did not feel when I wrote my reply, nor do I feel any compunction now, to deal with any of your "points." My reply was in response to your insinuation:

I am taking at face value you asked those questions in order to enlighten rather to exonerate Paul Ryan. It strikes me as possible that is not true, so I await your reply on this statement.

You were not required to wait too long for my reply which came quite detailed and sourced and showed that the author, Patel, did little to prove that Ryan "rigged the Russia investigation," beyond showing that Ryan did not reveal his knowledge about the dossier and that Ryan evidently "blocked" Patel's application for disclosure of documents and witnesses.

But Patel does not specify what documents or which witnesses. Nor does he flush out the assertion that somehow withholding his knowledge of the provenance of the dossier somehow "rigged" the investigation.

So one who is interested in pursuing the facts of a matter, rather than indulging one's penchant for unsupported charges, would ask these questions I listed in my original reply on this thread. It is not that Ryan is in need of exoneration of charges when those charges are not explicit but that Patel must meet his burden of proof.

Patel could have done that with a bill of particulars telling us where Ryan actually obstructed or "rigged" the investigation. He he failed even to attempt to do that.

I am trying to elevate the inquiry to a standard of proof that I can take in debate to a leftist and tell him, chapter and verse, incident after incident, where Paul Ryan "rigged the investigation." That reveals not a want of conservative commitment in me but a respect for truth and a yearning for proof.

Your argument in 1, for example, describes that which is possible but it is not real proof. To believe that Trump was having a fling in a hotel in Europe with hookers is not at all inconsistent with his actual personal history. Do we have to go through the details of Stormy Daniels, do we have to talk about grabbing pussies?

I want to see Paul Ryan implicated, convicted and crucified but let's not substitute sweeping conclusionary but empty allegations for proof. Patel is a very smart and a very accomplished man and it is completely within his powers of description to catalog each and every one of the acts which he complains were done by Ryan to "rig" the investigation.

He did not.

To believe that Trump was having a fling in a hotel in Europe with hookers is not at all inconsistent with his actual personal history. Do we have to go through the details of Stormy Daniels, do we have to talk about grabbing pussies?

Your petulant and snarky response is saying a lot about you. Do we have to go through the details about the sickness of believing you're the smartest person in the room and your racist avatar?

You may politely intercourse yourself.

As to your claim the pee tape was the norm of Donald Trump's lifestyle, that's an extraordinarily tainted take on your part. You do know at the time of the dossier nobody (maybe you did, just guessing) knew who Stormy was, right? So how could Ryan possibly think this was real then? Even now, how does anyone with a rational brain cell believe that he paid hookers to pee on a bed Obama was in?

Yep, maybe you did, and maybe you are as dumb and treacherous as Paul R.

As to "grabbing pussies" (you brought this up, not me)....you do know his quote is not about him doing so, but about how some women would let you grab it if you're a celebrity. I know, you believe that groupies don't exist right? You do know nobody has ever come forward from all those beauty pageants he was a part of and said he did that don't you? Not one.

Yet you bring it up as if it's a fact.

All of which points to you being a silly nevertrumper who writes long, seemingly (the key word) erudite prose on a forum without knowing your own personal weakness.

Go ahead, defend Ryan again. Go ahead pretend that my first point was not a good one because Trump grabbed pussies, romped with prostitutes consistent with his lifestyle, and is just horribly flawed.

You have convinced me by your reply that my suspicion about why you asked those questions was valid. I think you outed yourself on this one. For that, I am thankful.

Any reader who has waded through this thread to this point will have begun to understand how Lakeshark plays the game. There is no need to recite my explicit and sourced arguments on the merits in this thread. Equally, there is no need to defend myself against the scurrilous charges that have erupted from the dark corners of Lakeshark's mind.

Rather, I will simply let Lakershark's own words expose himself:

petulant and snarky response is saying a lot about you.

Do we have to go through the details about the sickness of believing you're the smartest person in the room

and your racist avatar?

You may politely intercourse yourself.

maybe you are as dumb and treacherous as Paul R.

you being a silly nevertrumper

who writes long, seemingly (the key word) erudite prose on a forum without knowing your own personal weakness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.