Saturday, February 15, 2020

Lee Smith's Good Interview Re Info Sharing, McCabe

Author Lee Smith, The Plot Against The President, did a good interview on Fox last night regarding Eric Felton's bombshell article about the FBI doing "info/intel sharing" with Chris Steele and Fusion GPS.

Smith phrases things very well in the interview. For example, he points out the middleman "liaison" role of Chris Steele and how that sheds light on the FBI's role in the Russia Hoax vis a vis the Clinton campaign. The fact that the information flow was bi-directional means that not only was the Clinton campaign (Fusion GPS) sharing with the FBI and the FBI was using that oppo research to target Trump. But that bi-directional flow also means that the FBI was sharing with the Clinton campaign (Fusion GPS, again). Steele, in effect, becomes the FBI liaison to the Clinton campaign. And, as we saw yesterday, the FBI knew that that's what they were doing.

Smith also lets drop that Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap, High Bureau Officials as I put it yesterday, were involved in the intel sharing with Steele. Yesterday I suspected that when Horowitz referred to a "Section Chief" that would logically be Strzok. Smith, with better sources, has apparently nailed it down that the Section Chief in question was, in fact, Strzok.

Smith also appears to agree with me that the purpose of the information flow to Steele from the FBI was so that Steele could use that information to feed "source information" back to the FBI for use in the FBI application. We've seen similar information laundering operations involving media accounts, in which leaks to the media were presented by the FBI to the FISA court as independent corroborating information.

All of this goes toward proving and fleshing out the Big Picture conspiracy of the Russia Hoax--a conspiracy that involved key players at the top of the FBI, State, CIA, DoJ, the White House, and the Clinton campaign.

At the end of the interview a very important point is made regarding Andrew McCabe's excuses re the FISA applications, in which McCabe tries to push the blame off on the field agents, when in fact the whole Russia Hoax operation--as Felten documents--was very closely held at FBIHQ:

I know there was some news about the non-prosecution of McCabe, but if you think McCabe is out of the woods on this one he's got another think coming, because between Barr and Durham and the things that are going on at the Department of Justice, this show is not yet over.

Watch it--you'll be glad you did:


  1. The natives, already restless because “there have been no indictments!!!”, went into apoplexy over the McCabe announcement. They clearly do not understand what he was charged with relative to what lies ahead for him and Comey and a flock of others. Their anger at Barr has to be a symptom of serious ignorance, lack of information or lack of comprehension.

    1. Or the fact that one side (Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulos, Stone, Lokhova) are languishing in the wilderness with vague promises of a relief mission while the other side (Brennan, Clapper, Powers, McCabe, Vindman, dine to applause in fine restaurants and tell "their stories" of daring do in the Resistance on TV and we're wondering if this is just another bait and switch.
      Is there a pea under any of these shells?
      Tom S.

    2. "They clearly do not understand what he was charged with relative to what lies ahead for him and Comey and a flock of others."

      That's it. I do what I can, but there's so much uninformed opinion as well as deliberate disinformation out there. Also, frustration and mistrust that's been building for years.

    3. @Tom S

      "...while the other side (Brennan, Clapper, Powers, McCabe, Vindman, dine to applause..."

      Not to mention Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton.

    4. Problem is, McCabe has been charged with NOTHING. "Investigated" by Democrat ex-colleagues. Stern letter issued. But don't worry people - Barr is now on the job! And he brought his bag-pipes with him!

      OK, I needed to vent. I HOPE the problem is that Barr simply isn't interested in McCabe and his gang of mid-level loons. Barr seems more interested in pursuing prey his own size - Mueller, Brennan, Clapper, Obama, etc. He very quickly smacked down Mueller and his show. I imagine, given Barr's age and temperament, he cares only about top-level criminality. He certainly has expressed "interest" in it.

    5. Bebe writes-->"Their anger at Barr has to be a symptom of serious ignorance, lack of information or lack of comprehension.<--

      The following is an extension of Bebe's thought--not a criticism of the comment.

      The anger is also self-defeating, as much as it might be ignorance, incomprehension, etc. Cable TeeVee "news" is filled with disinformation and propaganda. They are in the entertainment business--whatever it takes to get you to watch. It's the evening soap opera. They need to sell advertising.

      Media furiously banging the drum on Russia, Russia, Russia, then Mueller, Mueller, Mueller, then Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, then impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, are going to supply viewers with the straight scoop now??

      Hell freezes over first.

  2. Asking respectfully and with apologies if this was already covered.

    Why are "people" like McCabe told "there will be no charges filed about X" rather than letting them stew and sweat which the other investigations continue? It seems like scared fools are more likely to make mistakes or make public / legal pronouncements they later regret.

    (rant, sorry) I have had to actively avoid anything (written or audio) coming from McCabe as he *paints himself as a victim* in all this. What a scumbag. (and don't get me started on Page's "wine toasts" to him.) These people are sociopaths (Page, etc.) psychopaths (McCabe, Strozk, etc.) and tyrants (all of 'em). (deep breath, serenity now) --MR

    1. "rather than letting them stew and sweat"

      Because that's the right way to treat ANY defendant, not just sympathetic ones. Barr is trying to restore ethical standards at DoJ, and that includes being fair to McCabe in one case, even as different investigations of McCabe are being pursued. Same standards for all.

      Despite the bold public face, McCabe KNOWS he's not outta the woods. If he didn't know, his lawyers will have told him.

    2. It's also not ethical to send someone a "target" letter (the implication of which is indictment is imminent,) but not notify them if prosecutors change their minds. The target may have attorneys on retainer for big $, awaiting the imminent indictment that never comes. Meanwhile, the attorney's keep billing the client for their retainer every month.

      It's not ethical to withhold from a person you told was a target that they are no longer a target in that investigation.

    3. Yes, thanks for the extra explanation.

    4. Yes thanks for sharing both your thoughts on that.

      It does seem like yet another thing the DOJ as been doing which only applies to one side in this fight. "We ethically need to tell the triple-damned scumbags when they are no longer being investigated so they can hop onto CNN and brag about it."

      I sincerely hope that if/when the bell tolls for them, the judge will "factor in" their public lack of remorse for defrauding the American people.

  3. It's my opinion that there are too many bad guys in the FBI and Justice Dept. If McCabe is under investigation for something else, he knows it. So therefore, I doubt it.

    1. Hard to argue with that theory. There are good FBI agents, but I can tell you that, contrary to the old "rotten apple here and there" excuse, the FBI on the whole has become a barrel of rotten apples with a "good apple here and there."

    2. I don't like what's become customary, the business of saying: "Thanks for your service" to government bureaucrats who get paid well for their service, get a good retirement and benefits, and often have very human motives for what they do. If it were pure service motivating them, we wouldn't have these problems. Life is just way too complicated too allow such nonsense to govern our perceptions.