09:50 – Doesn’t Add Up. Never Has. Never Will. 09:50 The FBI Lied, Not Steele…

Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News for an interview with Maria Bartiromo.  99.99% of the interview is country club Senator Graham repeating the same South Carolina white wine spritzer talking points he’s famous for.  That is to say lots of words amounting to nothing. The gastric equivalence of cucumber and mayonnaise triangle sandwiches on crust-less Wonder bread with a side of celery.

However, there is a reminder at 09:50 of a key and important point that tries to surface yet continues to get whacked down by the annoying duplicity of swamp creatures and a media that completely ignores the obvious.  Lindsey Graham claims Christopher Steele lied and told the FBI he never talked to media.

We do not know this to be true, and neither does he.


It is far more likely the FBI:… #1) Ignored Chris Steele talking to media because they needed his Clinton-Steele dossier for a false FISA application; and #2) the FBI later told congress they didn’t know about Steele talking to media, but they really did; and #3) the FBI falsified FD-302 reports of their interview with Chris Steele to cover their tracks.

Here’s how we know:

Christopher Steele had no motive to lie to the FBI about his media contacts.

The FBI had tons of motive to lie about their knowing Steele talked to the media.

It’s just common sense.

Christopher Steele wasn’t meeting in secret with the media, it was well known.  He was traveling around to meet them in August and September 2016.  Why would he lie to the FBI about such transparently well known action in October?  Answer: He wouldn’t.

Toward the end of December, the FBI provided the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, with FBI investigative documents (likely FD-302’s) from their contacts with Christopher Steele.  According to most reasonable timing we can discover Steele met with FBI officials sometime around October 1st, 2016.

From the U.K. lawsuit against Christopher Steele (pdf here), Steele admits to having shopped the Clinton-Steele dossier to U.S. media outlets “in person” in late September (New York Times, WaPo, New Yorker and CNN), and mid-October, 2016 (New York Times, WaPo, and Yahoo News), per instructions from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS):

(Source – Page #8, pdf)

Additionally, in late October, 2016, Christopher Steele briefed Mother Jones via Skype.

According to the HPSCI intelligence memo, the FBI sought a FISA application based on the Steele Dossier on October 21st, 2016.  From the evidenced  UK court records at least two briefings with reporters, containing five outlets, took place prior to the FBI using the Clinton-Steele dossier in their FISA application.

The “late September” briefings with the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, New Yorker and CNN took place prior to Christopher Steele meeting with FBI officials early October.

The implication therein is that the FBI had to know prior to their October 21st, 2016, court application that the information they were presenting to the FISA court was being heavily shopped to media outlets. This would be immediately disqualifying.

However, in the released HPSCI memo, it is noted that Christopher Steele lied to the FBI about those media engagements taking place.  See:

The HPSCI memo notes the FBI relationship with Christopher Steele was terminated after the FISA application (Oct. 21st, 2016), as a result of the Mother Jones article from October 30th, 2016.  Media contact by an FBI material witness is immediately disqualifying.

The question is: did the FBI submit the FISA application under false pretenses?  Did the FBI actually know Christopher Steele was shopping the dossier to the media prior to their FISA court submission?

The HPSCI memo gives the FBI the benefit of doubt by presuming the FBI were unaware or “lied to“.

The FD-302’s (FBI investigative interview notes), which appear to have been turned over to Senate Chairman Chuck Grassley, could contain the evidence to support the FBI being duped; – OR – show the FBI knew, and proceeded in using the dossier despite disqualifying knowledge of media involvement; – OR – the FBI could have manipulated the FD-302’s.

These important questions loom over the FBI classified documents behind the Grassley criminal referral.

In an effort to get the answer to those questions into sunlight; and with the understanding that Chairman Grassley has the FBI documents; Grassley produced a memo for declassification that facilitates understanding how the FBI claims it used the Clinton-Steele dossier during their investigation.

On January 5th, 2018,  The Grassley Memo approach surfaced. Grassley issues a statement on the reason for the criminal referral. He lets us know that he ALSO has a classified memo that he is trying to get released! Unlike Nunes he needs to go through DOJ:

January 24th, 2018, Grassley Speech: “Hiding From Tough Questions” – In his 17 minute speech Grassley reveals important details about his investigation into Steele and the FBI.

Thanks to the brilliant work of DaveNYviii we can walk through this carefully, and watch the outline in a logical sequence.

FIRST – The Criminal Referral:


SECONDThe Discrepancies:

“If those [FBI] documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one.”


The FBI, via Agent Peter Strzok, was already caught (text messages with his co-hort Lisa Page) admitting to falsifying FD-302 material during this exact time frame.

At first, the context behind the September 10th, 2016, message was elusive, however it is now clear.

On September 2nd, 2016, during the (pre-election) apex of the FBI providing the documents behind their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal email, and the subsequent decision by FBI Director James Comey not to pursue criminal charges therein, the FBI released their investigative files:

September 2nd, 2016 FBI Press Release:

“Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI’s investigation into this matter.

We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI’s electronic FOIA library.” (link)

The FBI was under pressure to release their investigative documents.  On Sept 2nd, 2016 the release included the FBI investigative notes (FD-302’s) from the questions and answers during Hillary Clinton’s interview.  This investigative release was big news at the time.

The 302’s are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.

Inside the September 2nd, 2016, FBI release were two files:

•One file was 47 pages (full pdf here) and includes a full summary of the Clinton email investigation.

•The second file is 11 pages (full pdf here) and is the actual FBI investigator notes during the Hillary Clinton interview.

This second file is the “FD-302” (embed at the bottom for reference).  This is the 302 file FBI Agent Peter Strzok is referencing in the text message to Lisa Page.  Remember, Peter Strzok was one of the FBI people who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton.

What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.

Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302’s would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions.   In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.

According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are “very INFLAMMATORY things” within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will “absolutely inflame” them.

Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:

…”I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves.”

•”Jim” is likely James Baker, the disgraced Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey.  He was busted out of a job right before congressional questioning.

•”Trish” is likely Trisha Beth Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI.  [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder’s law firm.]

•”Dave” was likely David Laufman the Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence.  Laufman sat in on the questioning of Hillary Clinton and resigned RIGHT AFTER these Strzok/Page text messages were released. [SEE HERE]

•And “Mike” was almost certainly Mike Kortan, the FBI Communications Director who also resigned right after the Nunes memo was released, when confronted by FBI Director Christopher Wray about an unauthorized FBI statement which attempted to undermine the HPSCI memo content. [See HERE and HERE]

So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, in addition to Lisa Page the DOJ attorney assigned to the staff of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, were all legally aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated by the FBI to conceal part of Hillary Clinton’s questions and answers.

Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold “inflammatory” Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.

Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: “because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”.  However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:

Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. (link)

They felt obligated only to release information about “classified” or “improperly stored or transmitted” information.   That’s a rather disingenuous investigation.

There’s no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.

We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage.  There was no investigative intent to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.

If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,  the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However, the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld something, likely “inflammatory”, per FBI Agent Strzok.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.

Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold  information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.


File #1 of Document release – Investigation Summary:

File #2 – The Summary of Interview – The 302’s:


This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, Jeff Sessions, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Russia, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, TowerGate, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

313 Responses to 09:50 – Doesn’t Add Up. Never Has. Never Will. 09:50 The FBI Lied, Not Steele…

  1. It makes me sick! What does the FBI have on Graham?


  2. Grassleygirl/Breitbartista says:

    Never made sense ! That C.Steele was so motivated to prevent DJT from becoming Potus. So obsessed that he and he alone initiated this dossier.


  3. Lucille says:

    This is one cover-up instance where “it’s all about me”–Hillary’s mantra–truly fits.

    Sundance: “There’s no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.”

    What was the real reason Hillary used a personal email server? What was the reasons she gave–convenience? Mmmm…how about to make it easier for the foreign actors she supplied (Russia? China? Iran? Others?) to get the information they blackmailed her for. Obama knew about her use of the private server since he corresponded with her. Lynch knew. What were they up to? And how much money was involved as possible payoff or blackmail?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. CountryClassVulgarian says:

    “Senator Graham repeating the same South Carolina white wine spritzer talking points he’s famous for. That is to say lots of words amounting to nothing. The gastric equivalence of cucumber and mayonnaise triangle sandwiches on crust-less Wonder bread with a side of celery.”

    Oh Sundance!!!! You are so charming to Miss Lindsay…

    Liked by 17 people

    • chinstrap says:

      September 2016. At this point, ‘everyone’ in D.C. thought Hillary was going to win. The FBI had absolutely no incentive to expose the criminal activity of a potentially incoming president. No incentive at all. The elections were 7 weeks away.

      They did, however, have every incentive to paint this situation in as good a light as possible. Even if it meant lying; which they did. Then, they had to cover it up, obfuscate, play word games after Hillary lost. They then had to manipulate a situation to incriminate Trump so that he would not be able to serve his full term.

      I can only imagine what Hillary threatened the FBI with during those interviews. She probably admitted everything, then threatened FBI personnel with public evisceration after her coronation. She thought she had it in the bag. Imagine pure arrogance on display.

      Now, instead of telling the truth, they keep perpetuating the myth they fabricated because if they don’t, it destroys the justification for the FISA application. It also probably means prison time. Buh-bye pensions, hello soap-on-a-rope.

      So, the person / person’s behind this operation hasn’t been exposed yet.

      WHO has the motivation and means to hurt Trump?
      WHO has been around for decades… and knows where all the bodies are buried?

      Just my speculation…

      Liked by 6 people

      • jimsung says:

        Let’s be clear about this. This was being coordinated with the Obama White House team. Watch the wives. One of them was physically meeting the WH around the time this was all beginning.

        IMHO, (1) Obama was exposed because he probably sent classified info to Hillary’s server. At a minimum, he knew of it. (2) He wanted to continue on with his Marxist agitator policies. (He had created his domestic army, such as BLM and Antifa.) (3) He needed Hillary to cover up his crimes (Fast and Furious, IRS targeting of opponents, ect.)
        (4) He had an axe to grind with Trump for several reason, including the birth certificate issue. (Revenge makes people do crazy things.)

        The FBI is the easiest to break because they have been so careless. However, some (perhaps all in the end) will talk and this will reach the DoJ (where Ohr and his wife are already caught and probably talking). Eventually, this will lead to some WH people.

        Don’t be surprised to find out that tech companies are involved. An example is Google physically visiting the WH an average of once per week over a period of time. Why does a tech company need to do that in the age of video teleconferencing. The answer: they know how vulnerable digital communications are and were hand delivering dirt on Obama’s enemies and this could possibly involve this issue.

        I could go on…

        Liked by 4 people

      • Simon says:

        It was Meuller et company’s job to obscure facts until deleted and prevent incoming DOJ from discovery. Stating the obvious. But what is of interest is the amount of Republican support and coordination with regard to these matters. Email server, Benghazi, Senate Intelleigence committee, and BHO would all be implicated. Its interesting that it was the House Intelligence committee that has led to investigation into the Clinton-Obama scandal.


      • Perot Conservative says:

        Hillary Clinton is incapable of telling the truth.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Pied Piper says:

      Graham is an oily little man of dubious substance. My skin crawls at the thought of sharing an elevator with him

      Liked by 4 people

  5. Cathy M. says:

    I swear these people are dumber than rocks & blinded by their arrogance! As every law enforcement person knows-

    “If it ain’t on paper (texts, etc), it didn’t happen.”

    (originally coined to mean, i.e.- You read a suspect their rights & did not include that in your report or Rights form, It didn’t happen, etc.) That makes it easier for a defense atty to put doubt in a jury’s mind.

    (the new gang that couldn’t shoot straight)

    One thing’s for sure, Strzok, Page, Comey, Clapper, Brennan would be impeached per the Giglio decision if they were ever called to testify in any criminal trial concerning Pres.Trump.

    Giglio concerns the disclosure of potential impeachment information of govt.witnesses, including law enforcement, to the U.S. Attorney or AUSA before trial.

    The AUSA must provide Giglio material to defendants. 2 examples of Giglio material are- “information that may be used to suggest that a witness is biased.” & “ specific instances of conduct of a witness for the purpose of attacking the witness’ credibility or character for truthfulness”

    Special Agents were warned about being mindful of what you say in e-mails when discussing a case w/ an AUSA exactly because of Giglio back in 2007 or 2008.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lftpm says:

      JDG said it best: in a REAL criminal investigation, you empanel a grand jury. You don’t “negotiate” the defendants’ turnover of their computers in exchange for a promise to destroy them. You issue subpoenas, and in some cases raid their homes and offices to collect the evidence before defendants can destroy it.

      You don’t have three defendants and their atty in an “interview, you take each defendant, one by one, in front of the grand jury, with no atty present.

      FBI interviews do not tape the proceedings, but interviewers subsequently write 302s. In a grand jury proceeding, a court reporter transcribes testimony, word for word, with no possibility of post-hoc interviewer memory lapses or intentionally altering material to create a false “narrative”.

      Heck, in a grand jury action, Cheryl Mills would not have been “attorney” for the defendants, she would have BEEN A DEFENDANT.

      My take: if this whole “matter” was a fix-is-in setup, I think it may be possible to reverse the immunities granted (including to the Platte River server eraser), arguing the immunities were part of a criminal conspiracy involving FBI personnel, and try the whole lot. Preferably in a military tribunal, not involving biased swamp-rat DC district judges and 99% Obama/HRC voters for jurors.

      Liked by 9 people

      • AustinPrisoner says:

        Such wisdom, especially the last paragraph.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Perot Conservative says:

        I love the retrial idea.

        When were the last noteworthy times a military tribunal was held to prosecute civilians?

        Is it more plausible to utilize an unconventional venue since the major players are FBI, DOJ, NSA and civil servants?


  6. czarowniczy says:

    And who’s surprised the long-time-politicized Bureau repurposed the truth on anything?

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Chris Four says:

    Here is something I found that is very curious. Senator Ron Johnson is looking at the same list of FBI personnel that Sundance listed. Sen. Johnson is the Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. These FBI personnel have curious links to other people and cases.

    So, for a few minutes, we’re going to splash our way through this crazy list of people that [ Senator ] Ron Johnson [Chairman, Senate Homeland Security Committee] is looking into.


    Liked by 7 people

    • ladypenquin says:

      That is quite a read. Names we know and others flying under the radar.

      Liked by 1 person

      • BobInFL says:

        Small Group is getting pretty darn big isn’t it??

        Liked by 1 person

        • Perot Conservative says:

          More than half of these Democrat lawyers are married to lawyers, who also work for the Feds… you can’t tell me there isn’t constant pillow talk, strategy, and mutual hatred of the GOP / Trump.

          I know a very intelligent attorney, now working for the Feds in a non-legal capacity, and she is reflexivly Liberal… whacky ideas… emotion based… even when confronted witj mon-political facts. One example was the 1500 systematic rapes and more by Pakistani Muslim cab drivers of young, poor white foster children in one UK town… her reply was “That is what men do.” …


    • czarowniczy says:

      Let’s not forget that DHS didn’t just appear in a puff of smoke, staffed with clear and clean Fed employees. It was created in a desperate situation, overnight by melding existing Federal agencies together – forgiving all of their sins of commission, omission and incompetence overnight. Worse yet they had to create their doctrine and procedures on-the-fly, and it’s hard for Feds to follow top end feed direction never mind thinking on the run.
      Those DHS emplyees came to work in the new agency on Monday morning with all of the issues and problems they had on Friday went they were in their old agencies and it’s inevitable that much of that legacy was worked into the DHS’s daily operations. It’s just another Federal agency stuffed with subunits that violate our privacy, assist in eroding our fast disappearing rights and has yet more Fed gun-toters authorized to shoot ‘when necessary’.
      On the bright side they’ve saved us from untold numbers of savage attacks by crazed terrorists, foreign and domestic, but as we’ve been told they’re classified and they can’t talk about them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • jimsung says:

      We know who most of the big fish are. However, the big fish come up with plans and the rank and file execute their orders. That’s a big vulnerability that few discuss. Those folks will be more willing to talk. Strzok is mentioned often, but he had a “team”. All of them did.

      Let’s not forget the secretaries who tend to know where all the bodies are buried.

      The little guy/gal is not going to be willing to take the fall.


  8. Mickey Wasp says:

    I realize the focus on this thread is corruption by the DOJ, FBI and St Dept., and the issue at hand of crushing and exposing the Deep State – thus forth.

    However, my blood boiled well before the 9:50 mark. When Maria was going through the list of things the Omnibus did not have to provide funds for (1:05) … and everyone agrees that the military should have proper funding. That snake Graham starts his ‘sequestration’ spill… where the hell were you Graham? What a damn lame excuse – 51/49…

    Then this is where my blood boiled … it started at the (1:33) mark …
    Lindsey Graham stated, “We are not in debt because of discretionary spending. We are in debt because of Medicare and Social Security spending and entitlement spending is 2/3rds of the debt.”

    Let me tell you what Lindsey and others – I pay into Social Security and Medicare and I’m not the one that rob’s these accounts / trusts of the people for a general fund that you pull from and leave IOU’s in …

    This warmongering idiot went along with every regime change profiteering that the MIC profited from and sucked our treasure and blood. The same blood and treasure that Americans put into during our working careers and we cannot leave to our progeny should we fail to live beyond our 70’s – if ever.

    Liked by 7 people

    • MustangBlues says:

      Well Stated: grahamesty is a hate American rino, sold out to the globalists;

      uses his Southern Drawl to sound serious and sincere; just a jive talker, shameful.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Mickey Wasp says:

        Mustang Blues … cool name – wish I’d thought of that one.
        What pizzes me off to NO END is that the politicians proclaim that 2/3rds of our debt is because of entitlements we as American workers pay in to. Whaaa…?

        Never mention the 7 plus trillion dollars spent on unwarranted wars.

        Liked by 2 people

        • chrystalia99 says:

          In a major way– they are right. Attend:
          1. Social Security was designed to fail from the outset. Had it been designed to *work*, then the money you paid in would be under your number, and managed by private investment firms or banks. At retirement time, you would sit with a gov’t advisor who would give you options– x for 10 years, y for 15 years, z for 20. And if you got hit by a bus, the money would roll over to your children, or go into the general funds of the government after the bankers got their cut. This didn’t happen.

          2. Currently, last I checked, not only do millions of people get benefits that only paid the minimum in, they also get far more than they paid in plus interest. So, that excess money paid to them is sucked from people currently paying. It was *never meant to be your sole support in old age to begin with*. Add in people who get SSDI etc that are not citizens, or never worked at all (minors), or used all they paid in in the first 5 years… Disaster is a polite work here.

          3. We only pay into 2 entitlements: SS and Medicare. Where does food stamp money come from (it’s an entitlement)? What about SSDI? From the same failed fund. The fund actually failed way back when they made contributing mandatory– at that point we had passed the point of any viability. Anyone who hasn’t been squirrelling away spare change since then is facing a real issue at retirement time, because even without the wars and the funds being raided to pay for other crud, *there was not enough money. People live longer, and costs have risen.*

          4. And of course the government stole the cash long ago to “balance the budget” etc. So all we have is a pile of IOUs in there, plus whatever the young folk are paying. ALL of this comes to far more than our 7 trillion on wars, not that I want us at war.

          Just saying– I was told by my grandmother (who got SS) when I started working at 9, not to rely on the money being there. Despite having only a 9th grade formal education, she did the math way back in the late 60’s. And I am not counting on that cash being there for me in a few years at all– and never have.

          My grandmothers and father all taught me one thing, over and over– never, ever, *ever trust the government to do what it promises to do. Only a total fool does that.* And they were right.

          Liked by 3 people

          • USMCLt says:

            Oh, the money is still out there. It’s just been misplaced…into thousands of personal accounts belonging to politicians, active and retired. The government has been kind enough to keep track of every dollar “contributed” into the Social Security “Trust Fund”. I know this because I receive quarterly statements from Social Security showing all of my earnings since I was a teenager. Those who had fiduciary responsibility over that Trust Fund (politicians) need to be held accountable for any and all shortfalls. It would be a simple matter of determining a date certain when politicians began siphoning funds out of the Trust Fund. Any federal politicians serving on that date and afterwards should be held personally liable for every dollar, plus reasonable interest, that has disappeared from the fund. Anyone out there willing to join me in a class action lawsuit???

            Liked by 1 person

            • chrystalia99 says:

              I get the statements also– and as I figure it, based on their letter concerning potential benefits, I would be one of the people who would likely get more than I put in and deserve.

              The IOUs are there– the money, not so much *chuckle*. Typical Washington. And as to the lawsuit, as soon as you find a lawyer count me in! I am more than willing to sue the feds into oblivion if we can’t get rid of them any other way.

              Liked by 2 people

        • czarowniczy says:

          One wonders how big that ‘entitlement’ bill would be had Congress not raided the Social Security piggy bank to fund Vietnam and tossed the money to the winds when DoD couldn’t ‘repay’ it. Then we have the huge numbers of welfare recipients that include the cash payments, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security ‘disability’ payments fed to welfare recipients to pad their take – and how much of this is given to legal and illegal immigrants bought and paid for by the Rats.


  9. distracted2 says:

    Oh, Lindsey knows the truth, too. He and his friends don’t have our backs but they will always have each other’s – at all cost.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. mikebrezzze says:

    If a woman ever touched Lyndsey below the belt, he’d run to the CIA begging them to shoot him with the heart attack gun! 😁


  11. Oback Arama says:

    It looks as if the questions and answers at the HRC interview on classified emails strayed into areas unanticipated, and the note takers were not briefed on which areas to leave out of the written record. My guess would be obstruction of justice items, or exposure of classified material, particularly top secret data, to multiple actors on the HRC team including clerical, legal, technical, and multiple other folks who had either zero classified document clearance, or clearances below the top secret level, and/or people who had exactly zero need to know the classified data to which they were exposed. Sixty thousand emails had to be reviewed for classified data, a huge task, and many people had to be inolved. How many do you think had top secret clearance and a need to know? Most likely none. The reason for this alleged illegal and unethical activity by investigators, was not just protection of Hillary’s campaign for president, but protection of large numbers of people caught in the web of HRC deceit. If true, it’s a coverup on top of a coverup.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Yancey Ward says:

      Yes, this. By admitting that her lawyers and her staff as of 2015-16-when she was no longer SoS!- read through 60,000 of her SoS e-mails, she is admitting that confidential and classified material was shared with people without clearances. This is a clear cut violation of the law that Comey gave her a pass on with the “no intent” clause. However, she can’t claim to have no intent in allowing uncleared people troll her SoS e-mails- she can’t claim that she didn’t know they didn’t have clearances to troll the database. I am guessing this was part of the Q&A, and is the part that was redacted out in FOIA request.

      Liked by 2 people

      • G. Combs says:

        Hillary had her FOREIGN BORN MAID print out classified documents so she could read them in hard copy! 😱

        Also Hillary left hard copies all over the place like in hotel rooms in CHINA and in cabs in India. link

        Liked by 5 people

      • lee says:

        Miss Hi$$ary always plays the “try to remember” card…..I can just hear the screech now.


    • Sugarhillhardrock says:

      Likely, lots of emails with President Obumbes who obviously knew about her email address and communicated to it anyway about classified matters. That would also constitute gross negligence.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. 196ski says:

    Once again thank you Sundance, I have learned more here than from all other sources, combined. Please keep up the amazing work.

    Liked by 5 people

    • I have come to read this blog on a daily basis because it is the only one that gives links to actual source documents that I can read in PDF format. In addition, Sundance helps to connect a lot of the dots in what would otherwise be total information overload.

      I feel like I am getting an education in Government and Politics 101. Better than any college course or continuing ed.

      Many thanks.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. 196ski says:

    They simply could not conceive of Hilary losing. It was beyond their imagination given their existence within the sphere of Washington.

    Liked by 1 person

    • nimrodman says:

      “All of their lawlessness could have come to an end after Comey exonerated Hillary on July 5, 2016. But that’s just about when they all doubled down …”

      Yes, but they’ve told us in their own words: they wanted “an insurance policy”.

      Sometimes things don’t need to remain a mystery.
      Sometimes they tell us outright.

      We should make things simple and just believe them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mickturn says:

      The only good news here is that Comey did not have the authority to effectively pardon Hitlery with his personal exoneration letter. She is still liable for her crimes. I wait for the day to see that BWitch in PRISON!…and of course BillyBoob Clintoon will be true to her…snicker…snark, GFAAAAWWW!


    • none other says:

      YOU ARE WRONG. They had a huge issue . A 99 page FISC Court ruling October 26 2016 . The facts are. Illegal spying happened from November 2015 to April 2016 which was Caught by NSA Rodgers. The FISC 99 page ruling lays out the crimes by THE DOJ/FBI ect ( REAL CRIMES not opinions) . This was not going to go away EVEN if Hillary won ..

      Thats is the First crime.. 11 Months of warrant-less spying . Nov 2015 Until The warrant was issued in October 21st 2016

      The FISA warrant is the COVER UP to the above crimes…

      That Warrant was REQUIRED so he Hillary Presidency could claim the 11 prior months of WARRANT-LESS SPYING WAS PROBABLE CAUSE … The swamp has ZERO Options and had to provide a “Benghazi video defense” AFTER SHE WON.

      So with all due respect , no mater who won , Rodgers & Chief Justice Roberts where going to get to the bottom of those 11 months . And someone was going to have to explain who the Fuk gave them permission to data mine anyone connected to Trump with out warrants..


  14. Ginny says:

    I agree 196ski, I have learned so much from this site. This is my go to if I want real info

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I have a recollection of reading online somewhere that one of the beefs with McCabe is that he changed the 302’s. Anything on that factoid out there?


  16. susanphd says:

    FANTASTIC information, with lots of supported evidence and documentation – but i think we’ve gone over this before. it’s so frustrating that the authorities appear to be slow-walking on indicting and prosecuting these people. if crimes were committed in this regard, then FLYNN, MANAFORT & GATES AND TRUMP need to be exonerated, released, pardoned or whatever and Mueller needs to be fired. all of these indictments fall under the fruit of the poisenous tree. investigations were manipulated to cause an outcome that was deliberately unfair to these people. this is un-constitutional and only happens in banana-republics. JEFF SESSIONS needs to act now.


  17. WSB says:

    “The HPSCI memo notes the FBI relationship with Christopher Steele was terminated after the FISA application (Oct. 21st, 2016), as a result of the Mother Jones article from October 30th, 2016. Media contact by an FBI material witness is immediately disqualifying.

    The question is: did the FBI submit the FISA application under false pretenses? Did the FBI actually know Christopher Steele was shopping the dossier to the media prior to their FISA court submission?

    The HPSCI memo gives the FBI the benefit of doubt by presuming the FBI were unaware or “lied to“.”

    I am reading the opposite. This is why I questioned the bold type face of the words “in September” as the letter was originally written, in the original thread on this subject.

    It seems as though the HPSCI fully well understands FBI protocol with regard to paid subcontractors. That is why the authors of the letter bold the month. Yes, Steele is referred for criminal inquiry, but to me he is being dangled out as cheese. Graham seems not to understand the nuance of the letter and its relationship to Grassley’s verbal cues.

    From Grassley’s own presser, he states that if the FBI is the party who is lying, we have bigger problems. If he were naive to this fact, he would never have said that, IMO.


    • Chewbarkah says:

      Here’s how I parse this:
      1)The main source for Michael Isikoff’s Yahoo article was Christopher Steele.
      2) The FBI/DoJ was familiar with Steele’s information before seeing Isikoff’s article.
      3) The FBI/DoJ are either a) brain dead; or, b) recognized the congruence. Anyone not brain dead would “strongly suspect” that Steele was Isikoff’s source and thus had been “talking to the media”, which would have disqualified Steele as an FBI source. (Of course they knew it directly from Steele, but please play along).
      4) If the FBI/DoJ did not know that Steele was “talking to the media” based on the Yahoo article, they had a duty to investigate whether that was the case.
      5) Despite knowing or “strongly suspecting” this, the FBI submitted Isikoff’s Yahoo article as evidence in its FISA application, casting it as independent corroboration of Steele’s dossier. They either knew, or should have known, that claim was false. They either knew or should have known that Steele was paid to distribute political dirt, and was actively doing do, since they included the evidence in their own FISA application. Yet they used Steele as their main source and vouched for Steele’s credibility in the FISA application. Steele is a liar, but he is not alone.

      So if the question is: Did the FBI submit the FISA application under false pretenses?”, The answer is YES. HPSCI/Lindsay Grahame make themselves look devoid of common sense by “giving the benefit of the doubt” to obvious liars.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Mickturn says:

        BINGO, Chewbarkah gets the Gold Ring!

        It is patently obvious the FBI was doing all of this to Get Trump! Lying is part of that game! It is also obvious they are all now playing CYA because they have been caught. Now all we have to wait for is to see if OUR DOJ/Congress officials will put all this SCUM In PRISON!

        Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        Yes, my take as well. Graham is the one sewing.

        Remember those Fusion GPS bank statements? Maybe we should have Steele’s as well?


        • Mary Morse says:

          I’d like to the contracts:
          DNC contract with Perkins coie
          Perkins Coie contract with Fusion GPS
          Fusion GPS contract with Orbis Intelligence
          FBI contract with Orbis

          The contracts would define the scope of services in all cases.

          Liked by 1 person

          • WSB says:

            You bet, unless there is no contract.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Mary Morse says:

              Wow, never thought of that, but now I am.
              The contracts were requested but denied, I believe. We’re they ever subpoenaed?

              If there aren’t contracts and this was done w/a wink-wink/nudge-nudge, then they likely failed to pay taxes. Send in the IRS.

              However, if this was a government intel operation (ie. CIA, FBI, foreign intel) there wouldn’t be taxes, other than on individuals claimed resultant income (saleries), right?

              Since the CIA cannot domestically spy, it might begin to explain the curious partnership of a private law firm representing a political candidate, the FBI, the CIA, and British intel.

              Follow the money…

              Liked by 1 person

    • Mary Morse says:

      Of course they did, IMO. The SHTF about this time. The WSJ article was published 11/2/16, and Comey’s staff meeting regarding leaks was 10/31/16. The concerns were with the NY FBI rank and file leaks that resulted in the WSJ negative press about the Clinton Foundation investigation. They were ok with the Isikoff leaks, I believe, and the spinning leaks of Page. This is where the seeming discrepancies between McCabe and Comey’s accounts originate, I think.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Richard says:

    Has any one given any thought to the fact that the LAWYERS AND MEDIA are the only ones gaining anything from dragging this kind of thing out this long. It only hides the other thing that crooked politicians are doing!


    • Sugarhillhardrock says:

      Patience is a virtue in criminal investigation.
      This is a simple story, but it involves high, likely highest, members of the prior administration.
      The professional prosecutions to come have to be conducted in a procedurally impeccable manner given the perpetrators status. The story has to be unfolded in a way that will be credible and valid to the American populace, as some very large game animals from one of the two main political parties are about to be trapped.
      The ramifications will potentially involve public violence if things are not unfolded in an air tight and comprehensible fashion.
      Sundance has unpacked the complicated facts and evidence surrounding this criminality in a logical and presentable manner. He should be considered for a Pulitzer, and if his reporting helps restore the integrity of leadership in our republic an award of much greater value than that.

      Liked by 4 people

  19. DD_SC says:

    As soon as it was becoming clear a non-Swamp critter was going to become the Republican nominee. They knew GOPe like Bush, Kasich etc … would most likely lose, or just roll with it if they won. Someone like Trump – maybe Rand Paul? – was an actual threat, so you create the insurance policy.


  20. MACAULAY says:

    Sundance does his usual outstanding job of enlightening the Citizens (the less than 50% who want to be enlightened)…with logical conclusions based on solid evidence explained with forensic eloquence…which to me shows deep institutional corruption in our DOJ/FBI…the most dangerous kind of corruption–political corruption—a Clinton/Obama Crime Cartel in control.

    And Lindsay Graham, supposedly on the side on the Good Guys—in the tape above—describes this deep corruption as “running a few stop signs”.

    If the Republican Senator from Deep Red South Carolina can relegate this sinister evidence of the Obama/Clinton Cartel’s undermining of our country….to the level of a minor traffic violation….if the deep state still has the power to drag this matter out month after month, year after year by Stonewalling…until the limited public attention moves on… and if the national media is not going to cover it, and we kn ow they are not…I fear that Sundance’s Truths are going to be like a tree crashing down in a forest so remote than no one is around to hear.

    No, I do not deny the work or the truths Sundance; Yes, I am a pessimist—made so by watching the decline of our institutions: societal, educational, governmental…carefully for 50 years.

    McCabe’s firing gave me a few days of hope, but, regrettably, Sundance cannot produce what is desperately needed here:

    Handcuffs, Perp Walks, Long Jail Sentences.

    I don’t have the patience of Job; and by the way Job did a fair sum of bitching while he waited for Justice. Graham describes this conduct as a minor traffic violations? He ought to be shot for desertion.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Mike in Cinci says:

    I keep waiting for Wray to institute the taping of interviews. That would eliminate several of these issues.

    We are 2 decades into the 21st century. Why is the FBI 100 years behind?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Justice Warrior says:

    Excellent writing! Good on ya mate!


  23. redline says:

    Graham and McConnell both severely creep me out. The idea of these two swamplings wielding so much power, for so long, is extremely unsettling.


  24. D J says:

    The IG Report keeps getting put off, meaning they keep finding more and more.

    And it is likely that a Grand Jury has been at work on this for some time now, as Sundance explained a few days ago.


    Liked by 1 person

  25. SharkFL says:

    Thank you Sundance for the relentless detail and dot-connecting that you provide. We see your hard work and we note the amount of time it must take to research, write and publish your information. You were MVP last year and you are going for a two-fer.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Pyrthroes says:

    In 2022, when CTH’s definitive history of this disgraceful, faithless, seditious episode lies open like a spread turducken, layer-on-layer, we guarantee that not one squeaking Rat subversive will say or do a thing to jeopardize his weenie-dom safe-space.

    Absent any slightest self-awareness, Generation Wuss is writing itself off. Paradoxically, the more inane their dulcinella media exposure, the more invisible these pussy-riot Antifa, BLM, OWS brownshirt/red-armband types become. Unwinding this worst covert danger-from-within since the late 1940s is not a legalistic technicality but a matter bearing on American democracy per se.

    Meantime, “concerned citizens” who know enough to care will treat this Gangrenous-MzBill Axis’s peculating chicane as an OODA Loop preempting future coups.


  27. Perot Conservative says:

    Which explains the chummy dinner with Sessions, Rosenstein, and a third man (Google images).


  28. Perot Conservative says:

    Multiple sources have hinted at other investigations.

    McCabe’s lawyer said the evidence used for his ouster was cleaved off of a larger investigation.

    We can hope.


  29. none other says:

    Might as well post I am with Her….Your entire summation is so far off in left field that it is utterly stunning. How you come to these completely wrong conclusions can only be understood if you are in fact a liberal shrill. No other conclusion can be made. So you may want to post stuff like you have here on a CNN or MSNBC sites.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s