Former NSA Head Lawyer Hints At Scorching Testimony On Spygate
(Liberty Bell) – You certainly wouldn’t know it just from following the mainstream media, but the United States has been embroiled in the biggest political scandal our nation has ever seen for four years.
If you’ve wondered why on earth the Democrats are so desperate to control the narrative and seemingly endorsing widespread civil unrest and dangerous narratives on the coronavirus pandemic, this could be why.
The facts remain, despite all the spin or flat-out denial from the mainstream press, that the Obama intelligence agencies spied on the Trump campaign in 2016 and used information from a political opposition research dossier to do so.
This is just a fact.
Meanwhile, a mountain of evidence has been compiled over the last three years that suggests this was a decided plot to undermine the Trump candidacy, and then the presidency.
If we had a fair and honest media complex, those involved in this alleged plot would have been destroyed politically years ago.
That’s just how bad this whole thing looks.
But we do not have a fair and honest media complex, and one of the men who may have been involved at the very top, former Vice President Joe Biden, is running for president.
The Bongino Report has revealed that, despite all the denial of the mainstream media, damning facts are still coming to light.
The former National Security Agency general counsel, Stewart Baker, recently wrote on the Lawfare blog that he will be testifying before the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) on the Spygate scandal.
The PCLOB is an independent agency that is part of the Executive Branch and exists as a check on government surveillance following the establishment of the Patriot Act.
In his blog, Baker gives a few hints of his testimony before the PCLOB. His testimony, the Bongino Report notes, suggests that “Like It or Not, Trump Has a Point: FISA Reform and the Appearance of Partisanship in Intelligence Investigations.”
Here are some of the key points of his explosive testimony:
- Campaign Mudslinging: Baker contends that the Hillary Clinton campaign, in an attempt to deflect from the FBI investigation into her handling of the private email server, sought to tarnish the Trump campaign with an FBI investigation of its own. “The Clinton Campaign, like any other, had assembled opposition research files on Trump. Focusing some of that research on his disturbing affinity for Vladimir Putin was not an exactly original idea.”
- Steele Dossier: The DNC’s general counsel, Mark Elias, paid Glenn Simpson’s firm, Fusion GPS, $60,000 per month of DNC funds for opposition research. DNC funds were used to pay Christopher Steele, a “free-lance former British intelligence officer with credibility at the FBI on Russian issues.” Elias then instructed Glenn Simpson to report his research only to Elias so as to be protected under attorney-client privilege. As part of Steele’s work, he recruited a Russian in Washington, D.C. as a sub source who in turn provided what the Senate Intelligence Committee referred to as part of “a Russian disinformation campaign.”
- Steele Lobbied the National Security Agencies: After the FBI terminated its relationship with Christopher Steele over a leak, Steele used a backchannel through Bruce Ohr. Ohr, who was associate deputy attorney general at the FBI, laundered his information the FBI top-brass Andrew McCabe, the then Deputy Director of the FBI, who acted as an informal conduit for Steele to later provide more information.
- The Carter Page FISA Application: The first FISA application on Carter Page relies on the Steele Dossier. “Fully a third of this section is based on Steele’s reports, and the dossier provides the only support for the central allegation of the application – that Russia hacked and leaked Clinton campaign emails as part of an agreement with members of the Trump campaign.” This allegation was never corroborated by the FBI or by Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel. Further, Baker alleges, “All these were grounded on false statements in a dossier paid for by the party in power and designed to discredit the party trying to unseat it.”
- Reverse Targeting with FISA: The Obama Administration understood that it could monitor Russian Ambassador Kislyak’s conversation with Trump Transition team member Michael Flynn if Kislyak was the “target of the surveillance.” This sort of monitoring coincides with the Obama Administrations’ 2015 wiretapping of Israeli officials that “offered a rich vein of political intelligence about where Republicans stood, what they were planning, and even whether they had the votes to overturn the administration’s policies.” As it turns out, the Israelis suspected that “they were being spied on.”
- Targeting of Michael Flynn: Baker writes of the Michael Flynn conversations with the Russian Ambassador, “in all of the accounts of the meeting, there’s no sign any of the participants cared what the ambassador had said; as with the Israeli intercepts, it was the American side of the conversation that had the Obama White House exercised.” Further, the Logan Act implications of Flynn’s conversation is “preposterous,” as “it certainly doesn’t prevent an incoming administration from talking to foreign leaders before inauguration day.” The Obama Administration had a certain dislike of General Flynn. Baker writes, “President Obama himself raised questions at the meeting about whether intelligence should be withheld from the incoming team; Flynn was the only candidate for such an exclusion.”
- Leaking FISA Contents: “It is not unreasonable to conclude that the White House had not only encouraged a criminal investigation of Flynn under the Logan Act but had also leaked his exposure to the press – along with the contents of a wiretap.” Baker further notes that the leak of FISA wiretap contents “to attack an American was unprecedented,” and this inevitably ended Flynn’s career.