Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Ukraine Convergences: Financial And Policy Interests

It seems very clear to me that, beyond Trump himself, the Ukraine Hoax is all about policy differences. And by policy differences I mean mostly MONEY. There are lunatics out there like John Bolton who believe the stuff they peddle, but the bottom line for the politicians is that Ukraine is a code for MONEY. Follow it and you'll understand. And look for George Soros' hand behind this, too. Well, that's MONEY as well.

I prefer to offer opinion, rather than retransmitting facts, but we're in a slow stretch. So I offer this twitter thread. Basically it identifies attendees at a White House dinner in October, 2016. Now, mere attendance at such a dinner doesn't mean everyone in attendance is on a first name basis with everyone else. Nor do we know everyone else who may have been in attendance. There are clearly outliers from the Ukraine Hoax. Leonardo DiCaprio?

Nevertheless, if you look for an intersection of two groups--those with financial/campaign connections to Ukraine and those with policy preferences re Ukraine that diverge from Trump's--you will find a remarkable convergence. And when people have a convergence of interests they tend to talk to one another. And sometimes to plot with one another when they also have a common enemy.

Who that's named had financial ties to Ukraine? One way or another, sometimes through close family ties, we can certainly name Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, the Podesta brothers. Those with decided pro-Ukraine policy views would include Ciaramella, Misko, Grace, Kupchan.

And then you have the congenital plotters: Brennan, Comey, Clapper. It's quite a mix. Keep those names in mind.

Follow the link for photos:

Greg Rubini@GregRubini 

 1. imagine if at a dinner in Washington DC, in Oct 2016, you had: - John Brennan, Director of the CIA - Susan Rice, Obama's Nat. Security Adviser together with Eric Ciaramella - the Adam Schiff 'whistleblower'...

 [THREAD] please retweet .

 2. imagine if at that dinner in Washington DC there were also: - Joe Biden - Nancy Pelosi - John Kerry - Obama's Secretary of State - Loretta Lynch - Obama's Attorney General

 3. imagine if at that dinner in Washington DC there were also: - John Podesta - Tony Podesta - Valerie Jarrett (obama's nanny) - Samantha Powers - Leonardo DiCaprio (???)

Monday, October 14, 2019

Marie Yovanovitch Was A Total Headcase

Really--this is the kind of goof that the Dems didn't want Trump to fire? This is the type of person they think they can bring forward as a credible witness in an impeachment trial? They simply can't be serious. It's theater--and bad theater, at that. Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch has obtained information indicating Yovanovitch may have violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to target certain U.S. persons using State Department resources. Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: Biden, Giuliani, Soros and Yovanovitch.  Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department and will continue gathering facts from government sources.
Prior to being recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in the spring Yovanovitch reportedly created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means.  Ukraine embassy staff made the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. After several days, Yovanovitch’s staff was informed that the request was illegal and the monitoring either ceased or was concealed via the State Department Global Engagement Center, which has looser restrictions on collecting information. 
“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” according to a senior State Department official. If the illicit operation occurred, it seems to indicate a clear political bias against the president and his supporters. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who has also led American embassies in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016. She was recalled by the State Department in May and remains a State Department employee in Washington D.C.

And here are the people on that list--this may not be exhaustive:

Jack Posobiec 
Donald Trump Jr. 
Laura Ingraham 
Sean Hannity 
Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia) 
Dan Bongino 
Ryan Saavedra 
Rudy Giuliani 
Sebastian Gorka 
John Solomon 
Lou Dobbs 
Pamella Geller 
Sara Carter

What Did Obama Know--And When?

An alternative title might have been: The Russia Hoax Lives! But I decided to go with the more or less real news.

Glenn Simpson, of Fusion GPS fame, is coming out with a book in November: Crime in Progress--The Secret History of the Trump-Russia Investigation. I doubt that it's a "tell all"--you could knock me down with a feather if it were. Nevertheless, we're being teased with something rather interesting:

Obviously, Obama had to have known that the Steele memos were Hillary funded oppo research. Aside from other considerations, knowing that the Steele guff came from Glenn Simpson, could Obama have imagined it was anything else but oppo research? As POTUS, he had an absolute obligation to get to the bottom of where this nonsense was coming from--was it true or not? Consider what the publisher, Penguin Random House says:

In the autumn of 2015, the founders of the US political research firm Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, were hired by a Republican presidential candidate to look into the records of Donald Trump. What began as a march through a mind-boggling trove of lawsuits and sketchy overseas projects soon took a darker turn, as they became the first to uncover Trump's disturbing ties to the Kremlin and the crimes that since have plagued his presidency. 
To help them decipher this alarming evidence, they engaged the services of an old acquaintance, the former British MI6 agent and Russia expert Christopher Steele. Steele would produce the notorious dossier which disclosed that the Trump team was deeply compromised by a hostile foreign power bent on disrupting the West and influencing the US presidential election. 
In Crime in Progress, the authors - and Steele - break their silence for the first time, chronicling their high-stakes investigation and their desperate efforts to warn both the American and British governments, the FBI and the media, to little avail - and no matter the costs. Yet when the dossier finally exploded onto the world stage after a leak, a ten-person research firm above a Starbucks in Washington was thrust into the centre of the biggest news story on the planet - a story that would lead to the Mueller report and disrupt Trump's secret planned rapprochement with Putin's Russia that could have re-ordered the western alliance. After four years on his trail, the authors' inescapable conclusion is that Trump is an asset of the Russian government, whether he knows it or not.

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Is This Why Barr Asked Trump To Call Oz?

Barr has asked Trump to request various foreign governments--"allies"--to cooperate with his investigation into the Russia Hoax. The Brits, the Italians, and the Aussies. We've all heard about Alexander Downer and his London meets with George Papadopoulos, but could Oz's role in the Russia Hoax go a bit deeper that that? Is that why Trump had that chin wag a bit over a week ago with Aussie PM Scott Morrison? The NYT, with it's own unique spin, assures us that, yes, Trump did discuss the Russia Hoax with Morrison: Trump Pressed Australian Leader to Help Barr Investigate Mueller Inquiry’s Origins.

Aussie state visits to the US are very rare--as other news outlets noted. On the other hand, Barr is a busy man and couldn't be bothered going all that way to Oz. So when Trump told Morrison to get his ass to Washington ASAP, Morrison jumped! But, would Trump have really had Morrison come all this way if it was ONLY about Alexander Downer?

Gateway Pundit posted some intriguing tweets just this evening. It's totally speculative, maybe just coincidence. But maybe not: James Comey and Joseph Mifsud were in Australia, of all unlikely places, at the same time in March, 2016. I can't wait for more:

Impeachment--Is It Real?

I suppose I should be writing something about this nonsense Impeachment Theater the Dems are going through. But it seems basically pointless. One way or another, at this point Trump is going to run on it. His recent rallies make that pretty clear, and beyond the shabbiness of the Kangaroo Court impeachment there will be the disturbing revelations that will be coming from the various DoJ investigations. I continue to believe that Biden will ultimately be forced out and the Dems will be left with an unelectable far left loony to run against the President who will have so many accomplishments--now including a trade deal with China.

So why pretend to take this seriously? The Washington world will do their thing, but in the end the GOP is now Trump's party.

Here are some comments that cover everything in their essence.

Sean Davis has this absolutely right, and this is exactly how the American people will see it:

Great catch by Julie Kelly--Sheldon Whitehouse, total loon from Rhode Island leading the way to national consensus? Hard to believe, but here it is:

But on a more serious note:

Dems Worried If Impeachment Fails They'll Have To Nominate Electable Candidate
October 4th, 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats are beginning to grow worried that if their impeachment effort fails, they'll have to resort to plan B: nominating an electable candidate and winning an election. 
"The real danger here," said Nancy Pelosi in a meeting of top Democrats, "is that the normal way of getting rid of a president---impeachment---fails. Then, we'd have to try to find someone who isn't a smug, smarmy doofus and get the public to like them." 
"What about Andrew Yang? He's pretty nice," said one aide, who was then asked to leave the room for such reckless hate. 
"I could run for president. I'm pretty electable," said Chuck Schumer.
"Oh, cut the crap. You're insufferable," said Pelosi, rolling her eyes. "Ocasio, any ideas?" 
"What if we just, like, seized the means of production and executed all the leaders?" Ocasio-Cortez asked, looking up from a comic book about herself she was reading. "That would be so fetch." 
"Stop trying to make fetch happen!" Pelosi replied, clearly irritated now. "Alright, so getting elected is out. Let's just put all our eggs in the impeachment basket and hope it works out. Maybe we can pass impeachment first so we can find out what things Trump did that are impeachable."

UPDATED: Bill Barr Speaks--And How!

Sometimes it seems as if Bill Barr has as much energy as Trump himself. When he's not traveling the world in search of the origins of the Russia Hoax he's giving big picture addresses. And he shows the same willingness to fearlessly grasp media designated third rails. Who thinks he didn't anticipate the reaction of "legal experts" to this speech. Guess what--Bill Barr IS a legal expert. And he knows it and isn't afraid to flaunt it. The full text isn't readily available yet, but to make up for that you get Pema Levy's editorializing. It's good for comic relief. Bill Barr is like Honey Badger--he just don't care. For less comical commentary, but more balanced reporting, The Daily Caller: Bill Barr Flames ‘Unremitting Assault’ On Religion, Traditional Values During Notre Dame Visit. This was October 11, 2019:

Attorney General Barr Rages Against Secularist “Assault” on Religion

Barr blames society’s problems, including “a deadly drug epidemic,” on a lack of faith.


Experts blame grim economic conditions and the predatory practices of pharmaceutical companies for the current opioid epidemic. Unrest and violence on the part of young men is often attributed to economic conditions and accessibility of fringe ideologies online. But Attorney General Bill Barr apparently has a different theory for both of these problems: not enough religion.

In a speech at University of Notre Dame’s law school Friday, Barr blamed “secularists” and “so-called progressives” for wreaking havoc on American society. Barr’s depiction of a war between the non-religious and people of faith shocked legal experts, who saw Barr’s defense of religious freedom as an assault on the First Amendment’s protection against the government’s establishment of any religion.

“This is not decay,” Barr said. “This is organized destruction. Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion & traditional values.” (Barr spent years profiting off of these same industries he is attacking. He served as general counsel at Verizon for eight years, held a had a paid position on the board of Time Warner for nine, and represented telecoms giant GTE in the 1990s.)

In his address Friday, Barr thundered against what he described as a “moral upheaval.” “Virtually every measure of social pathology continues to gain ground,” he said. “Along with the wreckage of the family we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence and the deadly drug epidemic.”

Barr pointed particularly to public schools, according to an account of the speech from the Indianapolis Star. “Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools,” Barr said. “To me this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty today.” There is decades of Supreme Court caselaw removing religion from public schools because the First Amendment bans the government from establishing or giving primacy to a religion.

This isn’t the first time Barr has decried secular culture. He has been an advocate for more religion in American government, schools, and law for decades and has a history of involvement with conservative religious groups including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which litigated the Hobby Lobby case that allowed employers not to cover contraception coverage to employees. In 1995, for example, Barr penned an essay blaming “a steady and mounting assault on traditional values” since the 1960s for “soaring juvenile crime, widespread drug addiction and skyrocketing venereal diseases.”

Barr’s comments come as he is under a cloud of scandal for his active involvement in trying to find evidence of the unproven theory that Ukraine colluded with Democrats during the 2016 election—an effort that took Barr to Italy this year and may have dragged him into the Ukraine scandal that set of an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

On Twitter, legal experts reacted to Barr’s speech with dismay.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the full 40 minute video of Barr's address for anyone interested, care of commenter Gideon:

Bill Barr In Rome

From a link I got at GP, which summarizes a NYT story--William Barr and John Durham’s visit to Italy:

The exclusive disclosure made by InsideOver on 28 September has been confirmed: William Barr, Attorney General of the United States, was in Italy for a few days from 25 until 27 September to gather evidence relating to “Spygate”. As George Papadopoulos, former member of the foreign policy advisory panel in Donald Trump’s presidential election campaign in 2016 told us, Barr was in Rome, at Palazzo Margherita – where the US embassy is located – in a particularly feverish few days for the US administration as Nancy Pelosi announced the launch of the impeachment proceedings against the President on account of the Kievgate scandal. 
As the New York Times confirms, William Barr arrived in Italy around 25-26 September and met  Italian government officials on Friday 27 September. According to former Justice Department officials, the justice ministry asked several foreign countries, including Italy, to cooperate and hand over certain documents relating to the 2016 elections. Attorney General Barr’s trip to Italy was also confirmed by the Washington Post: the US Justice Department asked officials of the Conte government to provide whatever support was necessary to United States Attorney John Durham who was appointed to investigate the murky origins of Russiagate. According to the Washington Post, this was not Barr’s first visit to our country. 
According to a report in the Daily Beast, when Barr arrived at the US embassy in Palazzo Margherita in Rome he asked for two things: a conference room to meet high level Italian security agents where he could be sure that nobody could listen in and a chair for United States Attorney John Durham who was appointed by Barr to cast light on Russiagate.
That's significant. No chairs for FBI or CIA reps--because they weren't there.

Saturday, October 12, 2019

The Ukrainian Gold Rush

Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University, but one of those strange liberals who has a thing about rule of law and the constitution, has an interesting article at The Hill--He who must not be named: How Hunter Biden became a conversation-stopper. As the title indicates, he's concerned with the refusal of the liberal media to acknowledge that maybe--just maybe--there could be some problems with the way that the Bidens, father and son, enriched themselves during the vice-presidency of Joe Biden. It's a fun read, if you get off on liberal hypocrisy.

However, within that story there are a few paragraphs that graphically illustrate why Ukraine is a bit of a third rail in US politics these days--a bi-partisan third rail, but one that Trump insisted on grasping. The dirty secret is that both Democrats and Republicans have enriched themselves in the corruption rife environment of Ukraine:

Ukraine is widely considered one of the more corrupt places on Earth, where paying the children and spouses of powerful people is routine. Indeed, it is quite common in this country, too — and I’ve criticized that practice for more than 30 years in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. 
Yet Ukraine was a virtual gold rush for Washington’s elite. Paul Manafort made millions working for Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s corrupt former president. Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig and his law firm tapped into Yanukovych, too. Tony Podesta, Democratic powerbroker and brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman, were implicated in Ukraine dealings. 
Hunter Biden’s quest for Ukrainian gold took him to one of Yanukovych’s most controversial and corrupt associates, Mykola Zlochevsky, who leveraged his post as minister of ecology and natural resources to build a fortune. Before fleeing Ukraine, Zlochevsky paid Hunter Biden and several other Americans to be directors of his energy company, Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden had no experience in the field — but he did have a notable connection to the vice president, who publicly has bragged about making clear to the Ukrainians that he alone controlled U.S. aid to the country.

You can be sure that there are many more Americans of both parties who joined the Ukrainian gold rush. And when you understand that you'll understand why Washington hates and fears Donald Trump.

And Matthew Continetti weighs in on the same theme--We Are All Ukrainians: How wealth and cronyism transformed American democracy--and best of all he works that theme directly into Impeachment Theater:

In a sense it is fitting that a former province of the Soviet Union beset by corruption, cronyism, and war has become the crux of Democratic efforts to impeach Donald Trump. This beleaguered country is not only a crossroads between West and East, Europe and Eurasia, NATO and Russia. It is also a field from which America's bipartisan elite has reaped considerable bounties in contracts and directorships, in consulting and lobbying. What has been happening in Ukraine for decades is emblematic of the self-dealing and self-seeking that has exhausted voting publics and inspired populists across the world. Unexpectedly, Trump's relation to Ukraine threatens the viability of the movements it helped create. 
... It takes the willing suspension of disbelief to argue that politics had nothing to do with the appointment of the son of the vice president to the well-compensated board of an oil and gas giant two months after he was kicked out of the U.S. Navy for cocaine abuse. 
And it requires unblinking partisanship to deny that both Republicans and Democrats, from Paul Manafort to Greg Craig, from BGR Group to the defunct Podesta Group, have profited from connections to Ukraine's various governments and officials. "If you want me to leave the U.S. on Monday 6/16 and return on Friday 6/20," Democrat Tad Devine wrote Republican Rick Gates in reference to a Ukraine job in 2014, "that would be 5 days at $10G/day for $50,000.00. You would need to make the travel arrangements, and transfer the $50G before the trip." That's top dollar for someone who once consulted a socialist. 
For decades, the economies that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Empire have been playgrounds for American political professionals to deploy their tricks of the trade, their skills at campaign management and public relations, in lucrative arrangements. Perhaps we should have expected these politicos might return home with pieces of post-Soviet political culture in their carry-ons: love of intrigue, of information operations conducted in digital and social media, of conspiracy theories, of national populism and of socialism, of high-dollar payouts made against the backdrop of gray-zone conflict between authoritarian and democratic states. The vocabulary of American politics has appropriated Russian terminology: maskirovka and kompromat, nomenklatura and czar. 
This influence is manifest in the conduct of impeachment so far. Anonymous whistleblowers from within the intelligence services trigger investigations of the president. The speaker of the House announces an impeachment inquiry but does not call the roll. The quasi-official status of the investigation allows the Democratic majority to minimize Republican involvement. Hearings are secret. Selective leaks to media drive the impeachment narrative and consolidate partisan support for the president's removal. To speak of narratives rather than evidence is to acknowledge our postmodern condition, where interpretations are more powerful than facts.

Hope--And Fear--In This Impeachment Season!

Impeachment is in the air--or so we're being told. I remain skeptical. Let's review the reasons for hope for the republic, and then the reasons for fear.

Hope: Bill Barr's Recent Travels

Bill Barr is a major reason for hope, for a number of reasons. Here's a video in which Tony Shaffer explains that Barr's travels with John Durham to Western European capitals is a sign that their investigation into the Russia Hoax coup attempt is proceeding at a "furious pace." What's also interesting about Barr's trip to Rome and London is that it was done without leaks in the media and, especially, without informing the Department of State or--as far as we can tell--any other of what would ordinarily be considered to be agencies with relevant expertise and concerns. I mean the FBI and CIA, both of which have major presences in both London and Rome that handle Foreign Police and Foreign Intelligence Cooperation. Clearly Barr knows the lay of the land, knows whom he can trust and whom he cannot.

What did Barr and Durham discuss in these foreign climes? Well, we don't know--and that's part of the point. It's pretty clear from that fact that Barr and Durham are surrounded by a very tight lipped and disciplined cadre. They are running quite the efficient operation.

How worrying is all this to the Deep State and ruling elites? Very worrying. Because, while they may have inklings of what Barr is up to behind the scenes, count on it--they don't know nearly as much as they'd like to know. And then, hard on the heels of Barr's return from these very worrying jaunts, we got one of those very rare leaks from Barr's DoJ: Durham's investigation, we were told, was expanding to include the early months of the Trump administration, including the time period during which the Mueller Witchhunt was ramped up by Rod Rosenstein and Andy McCabe. That was a leak that sent a message to the entire political class of Washington, D. C.

Friday, October 11, 2019

Who Is Eric Ciaramella?

This morning in a comment, Mike Sylwester linked to a blog at American Thinker that discussed possible "whistleblower" candidates: Who is the whistleblower? Eric Ciaramella is the third candidate discussed. There's some shocking material available about Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protege and was brought into the White House by H. R. McMaster, a truly disastrous appointment. Of course I have no idea whether Ciaramella is Sammy #1. I merely offer here some material re Ciaramella to show what Trump has been up against throughout his first term. These are excerpts only--the portions that pertain to Ciaramella--of longer blogs:

Trump’s reshuffle: the McMaster Chronicles — Part 2

On May 15, Alex Jones and Roger Stone wondered if McMaster was leaking information to save his jobJones tweeted:

Mc Master Caught Leaking to Make Himself Indespensible

On June 11, Cernovich posted again on Medium. The Right News has a copy (emphasis mine):

Meet Eric Ciaramella — H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal Aide

This is an explosive article, excerpted below (emphases in the original):

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Briefly Noted: What You Should Know About Marie Yovanovitch

Marie Yovanovitch is the former ambassador to Ukraine who was removed for anti-Trump activity. Devin Nunes tells you what you need to know:

Rep. Devin Nunes: It was well known. We’ve had both former officials and current officials come and tell us that this was a very partisan ambassador. This was somebody who was not only supporting the Clintons, when Clinton was running, telling the people that Clinton was going to win, prognosticating about it. But also once Trump won was badmouthing the Trump administration in Ukraine, to Ukrainians and State Department staff… We would want to get her on the record, did she support the Trump administration? Did she really say these negative things about the Trump administration? Was she looking at journalists? Was she monitoring journalists in the United States? These are all questions that we want answers to… My guess here is that this is someone who the Democrats have been coordinating with. Let’s not pretend that this ambassador hasn’t been working with the Democrats. That’s been happening.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline adds an interesting angle. John Solomon has reported:

the U.S. embassy in Kiev had been refusing to provide Ukrainian law enforcement officials with visas so they can deliver their evidence of election meddling and corruption to Washington.

Mirengoff adds:

For what it’s worth, I have heard rumors that Yovanovitch has said privately that she blocked the visas at the behest of Joe Biden. This is third-hand information and should be viewed as such.

UPDATE: Really important interview with John Solomon: John Solomon Exposes Fired Ukrainian Ambassador's Links to Radical Soros Group. The video is about 8 minutes long but Solomon comes on about half way through. Very interesting. Solomon also speaks about the indictments by DoJ of the two Ukrainian associates of Rudy Giuliani:

Andrew McCabe Is An Idiot

Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller has a nice article that summarizes public remarks recently made by disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The remarks were made at an event hosted by journalist Carl Bernstein. McCabe, according to Ross, defends "the FBI’s handling of the Steele dossier" and also describes "in the most detail to date how the FBI decided who to initially investigate as part of Crossfire Hurricane, the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign." You can read Ross' full account here: Andrew McCabe Opens Up About Steele Dossier, Origins Of Trump-Russia Probe.

I personally was amazed at the indiscretion of McCabe's remarks, especially given that he is undoubtedly a target of the Barr/Durham investigation. His remarks reveal him to be an idiot who seems to have thought that FBI regulations and guidelines didn't apply when he was targeting people based on his personal political biases. That's about the most charitable way to describe his "defense" of what he actually did, because his remarks reveal that there really was no justification for his actions.

To start with, McCabe is continuing to put forward what we all know is a lie:

McCabe said the FBI opened its case in late July 2016 based on information about Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.

The Crossfire Hurricane is now established to have been an "enterprise counterintelligence investigation." While it's possible that "information" about Papadopoulos--really, inventions based on OCONUS targeting of Papadopoulos that had no rational basis (which is why the targeting was done in the UK, not the US)--could have formed part of the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, multiple witnesses have made it abundantly clear that Crossfire Hurricane was primarily, overwhelmingly, predicated on Brit ex-MI6 operative Christopher Steele's "dossier." That dossier, of course, was produced at the direction of the Hillary Clinton campaign and was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Steele was a foreign operative in the pay of the Clinton campaign (his continuing close ties to MI6 were never a secret).

From that point we can proceed in two directions. The direction that Crossfire Hurricane took and the further use that was made of the Steele dossier in obtaining a FISA on Carter Page.

Regarding the investigation itself, McCabe makes the following remarkable statement: