Remember all this?
>>9337092 lb Hey THIS is for you NOW DO SOMETHING with it!
We need answers to these questions THE [MSM] will see once we EXPOSE themt to light.
< Non-descriptive not repeating
Why did the DoJ learn about the FBI's interest in Flynn's conversations with the Russian Amb. from a CONVERSATION WITH OBAMA in the Oval Office?
< See Image Obamagate 1
< See Images Obamagate 3- (1-3)
>"President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn."
>('Hey Comey, are you saying we should hide Russia issues from Flynn?') "potentially" #ObamaKnew Jan 5 2017
1b. How did the illegal spying on Flynn originate?
Strange that Obama knew of the FBI's interest in Flynn's talk w/ the Russian Amb. before the DoJ knew.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IMPLIES?
>>> That the spying was directed by Obama.
>It appears that the illegal spying was DIRECTED BY OBAMA.
>We don't have direct evidence, but the indirect evidence is strong.
>HOW would Obama have known that the FBI planned to wiretap Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador for the purpose of either (1) trying to catch Flynn in some purported illegal act or (2) trying to get Flynn fired because Flynn's position (DNI) and his potential or actual knowledge (of the Obama admin's illegal acts) was a DANGER to the success of their coup plot to overthrow the government and prevent President Trump from governing.
>HOW would Obama have known that, unless he was involving in the planning, origination, or direction of that part of the plot?
>And if Obama knew about or directed the BEGINNING of the plot, it's safe to say that Obama knew EVERYTHING about the plot from start to finish.
>It's an inference, but a very strong inference.
>Remember the Page/Strzok texts?
>"POTUS WANTS TO KNOW EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING"
< See image in >>9353946 pb
>This could be a great chant for when we are protesting in the street.
>KNEW ABOUT THE COUP!
>KNEW ABOUT THE COUP!
>repeat until teargassed
Why was Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn unmasked by Obama's chief of staff, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, and others?
< Covers Some content below no repost
>Did they suspect Flynn of collaborating with an adversary? (NOthat was a red herring, not the real reason)
>–Was it a fishing expedition, hoping to find dirt on Trump so they could obstruct his presidency? (POSSIBLY, but that wasn't the fundamental reason either?)
>–Were they trying to create a cause of action for the eventual appointment of a special counsel to continually investigate a President (and his NSI, Flynn) who had done nothing wrong? YES!
>Their plan required demolishing the Trump presidency.
>It was bad enough that the people actually elected Trump.
>They had to either (1) impeach Trump during his 1st term (they tried), or (2) prevent Trump from having a 2nd term.
>They had to create a fake narrative that would make Trump look bad.
>Although [they] actually collaborated with individuals in Russia and elsewhere (e.g. Hillary selling the uranium and selling classified military secrets and Clinton Foundation receiving a $200M payment from Browder's Russian company AFTER Hillary arranged for the uranium sale, and Bill Clinton receiving a ridiculously large honorarium for giving a brief speech in Russia), their tactic was to attribute Russian collaboration to Trump. To deflect it from themselves. So that if Trump tried to defend himself with the truth (did not collaborate with Russia to win 2016 election), [they] could say, "Look, Trump is trying to shift the blame". So the accusations against Trump were 180 degrees opposite of what really happened and this was totally on purpose, contrived, anticipating how the defense against baseless accusations would go in a fake hoaxed-up indictment proceeding.
>No doubt they had the indictment in mind when unmasking Flynn. They HAD to create a pretext to surveil Flynn and 2nd-hand and 3rd-hand associations also scooped up in the illicit spying, hopefully scooping up all of Donald Trump's and his family's comms as well.
>The criminal case against Flynn was also part of the plan. They had to paint Flynn as a bad guy, a traitor, in order to smear Trump.
>The court proceeding also perhaps enabled some of the documentation to remain secret for a longer time than otherwise.
>Rosenstein and Mueller's special counsel also managed to drag the thing on longer so that if Trump publicly unearthed proof that the allegations against him were false, and the allegations against [them] were true, [they] could deflect by saying Trump said this solely for political reasons because he was under examination by Mueller's special counsel.
Why was Michael Flynn's identity leaked—a CRIMINAL ACT—to the press?
< See image Obamagate 3-0
>>9310582 pb (Answer)
3b. Who leaked his name and those conversations to the press?
>Anyone who unmasked after 29-Dec-16 is a suspect.
>>9323072 pb (Follow up Questions)
>WHY was Flynn's ID leaked to the press?
>(Considering that leakage is a criminal act and the individual who leaked it likely knew they were breaking the law.)
>–WHAT did that individual hope to accomplish?
>–Did they leak to a known press ally with the intent that the leaked ID be published?
>–Was it to create a harsh public perception of the good General?
>–Was it to "launder" the info so it would seem to come from a journalist instead of directly from an Obama WH insider?
>–Was it to create a pretext for FBI interviewing Flynn?
>We KNOW from other declassified docs that the FBI set up Flynn. They wanted to frame him. They wanted to get him to lie and get him fired.
>–So WHY did they want Flynn fired?
>–Exactly HOW was Flynn a threat to their plans to usurp power and dump Donald Trump from the presidency by force? (I.e. a COUP)
>–What exact info / experience / contacts / plans did Flynn have that was detrimental to the Obama WH and/or detrimental to their plan to obstruct Trump's presidency?
>Let's do REAL JOURNALISM.
>The MSM is not going to answer these questions. They are too weak and stupid and corrupt. Their only motivation is to keep covering up the truth. We need anons to step up and do REAL JOURNALISM and dig into this puzzle and keep pulling the yarn until the pieces all come together.
Why did James Clapper, John Brennan, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice privately ADMIT UNDER OATH that they had no evidence of collusion, WHILE SAYING THE OPPOSITE PUBLICLY?
>>9356583 pb SEE IMAGE
>We can do better. Real journalism requires facts, not just assertions.
>"When a person is prosecuted, there are separate federal regulations for perjury specifically and lying to the feds generally. Under the United States Code, title 18, section 1001, a person who knowingly or willingly makes a material statement that is false, or fraudulent, to the feds, is guilty of a crime. What comes as a surprise to many is that unlike section 1621, section 1001 does not require that a person be under oath.
>The difficulty that comes in prosecuting these crimes is the requirement that the statements be made knowingly or willingly. This allows those being accused of, or investigated for, perjury, to assert a lack of knowledge at the time of the statement that the statement was false. However, this may not be compelling enough to defeat or avoid a prosecution if contradictory evidence exists. Additionally, individuals who lie out of fear, or provide evasive answers, during a federal investigation, frequently find themselves facing the threat of federal prosecution."
>Trying to teach anons how to think.
>Are there some lazy minds here?
>I'll cut anons a break. Maybe some anons never saw real journalism.
>You grab a thread and start pulling on it. You ask questions and pull on all of them too. You construct the logical connections and write down what you find and what the proof is.
>Then you are RIGHT and you can WRITE.
>February 17, 2017
>Obama loyalists working in Washington set the wheels in motion to take Flynn down before Obama was even out of office.
>The Washington Post may have accidentally spilled the beans on this in a recent article.
>“Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.”
>“At the time of the calls” means these officials were in office during the Obama Administration.
That means it was nine Obama officials who leaked the calls.
>Until those phone call transcripts get released, not sure how much interest OG will continue to generate.
>DJT's got everyone running down rabbit holes with the Morning Joe story.
>Got to accept it's an old story and gets stale easily without fresh meat.
>If there were 9 sources for the Flynn leak as the Post claims, that would be a statement by them.
>Ballsy move that achieved its objective - got Flynn out of WH.
>And each could provide cover for the other - safety in numbers.
>With Rice's memo as icing on the cake for Hussein - giving him and them an added layer of insulation.
>Bet they thought their names would never be exposed though.
>9 sources for the Flynn leak as the Post claims
They wanted to make SURE the leak got out. Getting Flynn's name published must have been CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to their plan.
>Because they had nothing to back up their Russia collusion claims and even unmasking him didnt prove a crime committed.
>So they leaked to the press because then that could be used to back up their investigation, as false evidence.
>They still never could charge him with a crime pertaining to Russia, or election meddling etc. And as Priestap's notes said the goal was to get him to lie or trick him because it was THAT important to remove him
>>9334329 pb << SEE IMAGES IN PB
>The FBI documents that put Barack Obama in the ‘Obamagate’ narrative
>Agents fretted sharing Flynn intel with departing Obama White House would become fodder for ‘partisan axes to grind.’
>Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House.
>Strzok had just engaged in a conversation with his boss, then-FBI Assistant Director William Priestap, about evidence from the investigation of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, codenamed Crossfire Razor, or “CR” for short.
>The evidence in question were so-called "tech cuts" from intercepted conversations between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to the texts and interviews with officials familiar with the conversations.
>Strzok related Priestap’s concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic.
>“He, like us, is concerned with over sharing,” Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating his conversation with Priestap. “Doesn’t want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and potentially makes enemies.”
>Page seemed less concerned, knowing that the FBI was set in three days to release its initial assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election.
>“Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially larger distribution than just the DNI,” Page texted back.
>Strzok responded, “The question is should we, particularly to the entirety of the lame duck usic [U.S Intelligence Community] with partisan axes to grind.”
>That same day Strzok and Page also discussed in text messages a drama involving one of the Presidential Daily Briefings for Obama.
>“Did you follow the drama of the PDB last week?” Strzok asked.
>"Yup. Don’t know how it ended though,” Page responded.
>“They didn’t include any of it, and Bill [Priestap] didn’t want to dissent,” Strzok added.
>“Wow, Bill should make sure [Deputy Director] Andy [McCabe] knows about that since he was consulted numerous times about whether to include the reporting,” Page suggested.
>Is it perjury to lie to a Congressional committee?
>Did these individuals give sworn testimony before Congress? When?
>Are the transcripts public? Where?
>Can we identify where in their sworn statements they denied any evidence of (Trump-Russia) collusion?
>Can we identify the public statements asserting that there WAS (Trump-Russia) collusion?
>If these statements differ as alleged,
>is that perjury?
>Is it a criminal offense?
>What's the penalty if found guilty?
Why did the Obama administration use opposition research— funded by a political organization and filled with foreign dirt—to spy on members of the Trump campaign?
>Here's a little bit of research establishing that opposition research funded by a political organization was indeed used:
>The [anti-Trump rag] Washington Post admitted on Oct 25, 2017 that the DNC and Hillary’s presidential campaign helped pay for the opposition research that resulted in the discredited “dodgy dossier” alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/debra-heine/2017/10/25/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-oppo-research-led-discredited-anti-trump-dossier-n54220)
>According to the Washington Post, the opposition research firm Fusion GPS was retained in April 2016 by Marc Elias (of law firm Perkins Coie), a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Fusion GPS then hired former British spy Christopher Steele to conduct the research (i.e. to assemble false rumors and innuendo into a "dossier" of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election). (I hate that word "dossier" because the word itself implies a package of credible evidence on a person.)
>The FBI used "dossier" - in conjunction with a Yahoo News report - in their fraudulent application for a FISA warrant. A version of the "dossier" was leaked to Yahoo News, which in turn wrote an article; this article was used in an attempt to create credibility for the "dossier" in a process that we could call "intelligence laundering", i.e. a circuitous route that tries to conceal the actual source of intel.
>None of the dossier’s allegations of collusion have been verified. Lawyers for Steele admitted in court filings in April 2017 (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html) that Steele's work was not verified and was never meant to be made public.
>The Federalist reported that OFA, Obama’s 2016 campaign arm, paid nearly $800,000 to Perkins Coie in 2016 alone, according to FEC records. The first 2016 payments to Perkins Coie, classified only as “Legal Services,” were made April 25-26, 2016, and totaled $98,047. A second batch of payments, also classified as “Legal Services,” were disbursed to the law firm on September 29, 2016, and totaled $700,000. Payments from OFA to Perkins Coie in 2017 totaled $174,725 through August 22, 2017. (https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/)
>So the next questions we need to get into are
>- "filled with foreign dirt" (i.e. what was in the dossier and can we prove that it was false? Perhaps somebody admitted it was false?)
>- WHY was the dossier used by the Obama admin?
>Any budding journalists want to step up?
>Almost got this thing nailed…