Canada Free Press: ‘Deep State Playbook: Comparing Plamegate and Russiagate’
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
The Report On Mueller
By Lee Cary & Marty Watters
The only “Mueller Report” that matters was not written by Robert Mueller III. It’s written about him, and his co-conspirators.
Long before the Russiagate hoax began, the authors examined the Special Counsel methods of then FBI director Robert Mueller, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and once U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, before and during Plamegate.
We found that all three acted with an intent to serve and protect the Deep State.
Their modus operandi (M.O.) reflects Mueller’s Fake Investigation Playbook.
The M.O. of the Playbook was evident during the George W. Bush administration in Plamegate. Then, before and during the first term of the Trump administration, it was replicated.
Below is a step-by-step comparison of the Playbook’s 10 steps during two Special Counsel episodes.
BigLeaguePolitics.com opens big “Special Counsel Mueller” can of worms
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
During his twelve-year reign as FBI Director, Robert Mueller not only protected his criminal friends by silencing those who could expose their bad acts, he projected his friends’ crimes onto others in order to fraudulently appoint a Special Counsel. And the FISA court judge Reggie Walton — who was hacked by Obama officials John Brennan and James Clapper, according to whistleblower evidence — has been involved in more than one of these plots.
There is no better Deep State tool for punishing your enemies than a fraudulent Special Counsel (who is not accountable to anyone) with an unlimited budget and no deadline. Mueller is responsible for two such Special Counsel appointments.
First, there is Uranium One – the only genuine Russian Collusion case.
EXCLUSIVE: Hacked Judge Reggie Walton Sat On Bench For Multiple Mueller-Comey Operations
Why did Dennis Hastert agree to pay Curtis T Williams $3.5 million?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in Chief
Why did former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert agree to pay Curtis T. Williams (Individual A), a former student and son of a close family friend, $3.5 million?
According to Hastert, it was because Williams was blackmailing him!
However, the Feds and their sock puppets at the Chicago Tribune insist that Williams was just extracting "hush money" in return for remaining silent about the fact that Hastert molested him decades ago.
Is there a difference?
Blackmail:
The action, treated as a criminal offense, of demanding money from a person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person.
Synonym: extortion.
The only difference is that if they called it what it really was, blackmail, Curtis Williams would have been charged with a crime and been forced to testify that Hastert, a known pederast, gave him cash-stuffed envelopes totaling $1.7 million.
Now why would the Feds, including former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, not want Williams to testify against a known pederast?
Could it be that the Deep State was trying to hide something big?
Related:
ALERT: The Hastert story is about to take a wild turn!
The “REAL” Dennis Hastert Scandal!
The Department of Justice Blueprint for Fake Investigations
Posted by Ernie Souchak
The Department of Justice Blueprint for Fake Investigations
By Lee Cary
A National Review article, posted December 4, 2017, written by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, entitled “It Is Now an Obstruction Investigation: Which means that it’s an impeachment investigation,” affirmed what’s long been obvious to many.
The purpose of the Mueller Investigation is not now, nor has it ever been, to prove collusion between Russia and the Trump Presidential Campaign. That stated objective was, and remains, a red herring.
What the McCarthy article fails to address is the real motive behind the Mueller investigation.
Mueller’s investigation, based on the choreographed dissemination of a fake dossier, was designed to: (1) discredit the election of Trump and hinder his efforts to govern, and (2) misdirect the media’s attention – easily done – in order to distract attention away from an investigation related to Uranium One, as well as several other questionable behaviors that suggest possible criminal acts conducted by the Clintons.
In short, the Mueller Investigation is a set piece, misdirection-by-distraction operation.
And daily, more Americans are beginning to see that it is – fake.
The pattern for the current operation was used in a previous “special counsel” puppet show: Plamegate. Two of the same players, Comey and Mueller, who starred in that marathon special counsel investigation that led to the process-crime indictment of “Scooter” Libby, kicked-off this latest show.
Here’s how the operation runs:
Rod Rosenstein, as Assistant Attorney General appointed by President Obama to serve under then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, has a history concerning Uranium One. According to The Hill, leading the news outlets exposing the Uranium One scandal, “Obama administration figures involved in the 2009-15 investigation of [the Uranium One deal] include Robert Mueller, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe — all of whom are involved in some fashion in the current investigation of President Donald Trump alleged collusion with Russia.”
The closer President Trump moves toward accomplishing major tax reform, the bigger the media headlines will chant the mantra of his inevitable impeachment. Daily, they become more desperate to damage Trump, as The Swamp runs scared.
And, all those involved in the current and past DoJ Blueprint are Swamp creatures.
Every…single…one.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/department-of-justice-blueprint-for-fake-investigations
Related articles:
Judith Miller blows the whistle on “Special Counsel” Patrick Fitzgerald
Obama nominates “Big Brother” lawyer to be FBI Director
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
In the midst of a host of scandals plaguing the FBI, ranging from spying on Americans to intimidating their political foes, the Obama regime's solution is to put James B. Comey, former Deputy Attorney General (AG) in the Bush II administration, in charge of the FBI.
http://youtu.be/x7p15h0xNsQ
http://youtu.be/dG1CnZxJzQE
Comey was the Deputy AG who, along with former AG John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, was praised for taking an unsuccessful stand against including warrantless wiretaps in the Patriot Act.
What you will not hear from the Obama-friendly media, and our somnolent members of Congress, is this: Not only was the Patriot Act expanded under the supervision of Comey, Mueller and Ashcroft, when Comey left the AG’s office in 2005 he went to work as the top lawyer for…wait for it…"Big Brother" himself – Lockheed Martin.
When most people hear Lockheed Martin they think military contracts. Well, welcome to 1984. "Big Brother" is another name for Lockheed Martin, and security and surveillance is their game. They've been working closely with the National Security Agency (AKA: NSA, as in No Such Agency) for many years.
So ask yourself: Why would the Obama regime appoint a new FBI Director who works for a prime contractor that sells NSA the technology to spy on Americans? Would PETA hire a fur coat distributor?
Oh, by the way, where’s John Ashcroft today? Why he’s on the Board of Directors of Blackwater USA, which now goes by the harmless sounding name – Academi – conjuring up images of ivy-covered buildings and lounging intellectuals.
So in the days ahead, when the media and politicians tell you that James B. Comey will stand up for your civil liberties as FBI Director (citing a hospital room performance over the Patriot Act), remember: If Comey didn't support spying on Americans, why would he work for a leading company that sells the government the tools to spy on Americans?
Are the manufacturers of hunting rifles against hunting?
Comey and Ashcroft - Lockheed Martin and Blackwater: Defenders of our civil liberties?
Ya think?
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s war against the truth
Editorial Staff
At IP2P, we've addressed several articles about Patrick Fitzgerald's idea of truth.
However, the piece that may prove to be our most important chronicle is ahead. It involves a book titled Triple Cross.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's attack on investigative reporter and novelist Peter Lance, and his book Triple Cross, was Fitzgerald's war against the truth.
The Department of Justice declared war against the First Amendment when it allowed Fitzgerald to conduct his war on Lance, and on the publisher of his book, from within the U.S. Attorneys Office in Chicago.
Read about Fitzgerald's Attempts to silence Lance here:
U.S. Attorney Tries to Kill Triple Cross. Fitzgerald threatens to sue
Triple Cross is a must read for anyone who wants a truthful look at our government's actions, and lack of actions, that led to 9-11.
And, perhaps equally important, Triple Cross revealed that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the man touted as the most likely candidate to replace FBI director Robert Mueller, has no problem employing Gestapo tactics on citizens who tell the truth about his, or his accomplices', actions in a significant cover-up.
In Triple Cross you can learn, thanks to old-fashion investigative work done by Peter Lance, the truth about Patrick Fitzgerald. He is no Elliot Ness. And the thought of Patrick Fitzgerald ever becoming FBI Director should alarm all freedom-loving Americans.
Lance's work is a road map to understanding how we've come to a point in American history where the Justice Department routinely tramples on our constitutional rights, and now insists that it is within the President's power to kill American citizen's without due process.
Learn more from Peter Lance here: http://peterlance.com/wordpress/
More ahead on this.
The truth about the Valerie Plame case. (10 years later)
Hugo Floriani, Investigative Reporter
We're going into the final year of a decade since the Valerie Plame case burst into the national news, and still the truth remains untold by key persons involved. Why is that?
Is Richard Armitage telling the truth when he says he didn't tell President Bush that he was the leaker in the Valerie Plame case because of U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald?
In an interview with CBS News national security correspondent David Martin, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he didn't come forward as the source of the leak because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request".
Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel on December 30, 2003.
Let's examine Armitage's claims.
Armitage has stated that reporter Bob Novak's column, published October 1,2003, caused him to (1) immediately meet with the FBI and confess to being the leaker, and (2) then call Secretary of State Colin Powell and tell him he was Novak's source and, therefore, responsible for leaking the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA employee.
According to court records Richard Armitage went to Marc Grossman, the Undersecretary of State, on the evening of October 16, 2003 and told Grossman that he, Armitage, was the leaker. Armitage did this knowing that Grossman was scheduled to be questioned by the FBI the next day.
Undersecretary Marc Grossman is the author of the memo that started it all by identifying who Valerie Plame was to his superiors at the State Department - Armitage and Powell.
So, what do we know?
(1) We know that as of Oct. 16, 2003 the top three officials at the State Department and the FBI knew that Richard Armitage was the person who divulged Valerie Plame's identity to the press.
(2) We know that, between Oct. 16 - Dec. 30, it was not Patrick Fitzgerald who was keeping the three top officials in the U.S. State Department from divulging that Armitage was the leaker.
And (3) we know, that, if in the time between Oct. 16 - Dec 30, any one of the State Departments top three officials (Powell, Armitage or Grossman) or the FBI would have gone public with what they knew, Patrick Fitzgerald would have never been appointed Special Counsel.
Consequently, New York Times reporter Judith Miller would not have spent nearly three months in jail, and Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, would not have been prosecuted.
As this unfolds, ponder this:
Did our current FBI director Robert Mueller keep the identity of the "leaker" Richard Armitage from his boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft?
And, if not, did John Ashcroft neglect to tell President George W. Bush?
To be continued....
“Golden,” the whitewashing of a Department of Justice crime spree
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief, Illinois PayToPlay & Hugo Floriani, Investigative Reporter
Chicago Tribune reporters Jeff Coen and John Chase wrote a 486-pages book that packs tedious and mundane details about former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s life, from birth to prison, around one key chapter that documents the role of former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in leaking information about his investigation of the ex-governor known nationwide as “Blago”.
The whitewash begins on the second page of the foreword entitled “Authors’ Note”: “We quote heavily from the recordings that federal agents made on phones used by the governor and others. All of those quotes come from transcripts of those phone conversations or the recordings themselves. We are grateful to those who provided case material that was outside of the public record.” (For ease of reading, we will italicize all quotations from the book.)
Those persons “who provided case material that was outside of the public record” remain unidentified throughout the book. But it soon becomes clear where they worked.
In an article written by Ernie Souchak posted on this website last September 14, we noted how the judge’s protective order, covering the transcripts of Blago’s phone conversations, stipulated that nothing prohibited Blago and his lawyers from telling his version of those recorded conversations. Blago and his attorneys were, though, ordered not to disseminate the transcripts that the feds gave them. Only the feds had permission to do that.
So, apparently, Coen/Chase secured those transcripts and recordings mentioned in the “Authors’ Note” from the feds. Here’s a question: Why was the information given to them?
Hold that thought.
The problem for the book’s core narrative – the arrest, trial and conviction of Blago – unfolds in Chapter 14 (pp. 257-295) entitled “I’ve got this thing…”
Background
On October 16, 2011, we concluded a ten-article series concerning U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, which first posted here in on September 19, 2011, with this summary:
“So, what are the facts and circumstances that we know that collectively tend to prove, or sustain by their consistency…the hypothesis that Patrick Fitzgerald is a politically-driven, not jurisprudence-driven, prosecutor whose image as an intrepid, unbiased crime fighter is a media-created fabrication?
Here are a few headlines from Parts 1-9:
Fitzgerald acknowledged that someone leaked information to the Chicago Tribune, via a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, while the reporter, John Chase, sat mute in the front row of the news conference where the arrest of Blago was described as an effort to stop a crime spree. (Chase has told a source known to this writer that he would not identify who leaked him the information on First Amendment grounds.)
In fact, (1) Blago’s crime spree had, with Fitzgerald’s knowledge, been going on for several years. (2) Chase has not been called to account for tipping off Blago that his conversations were being recorded by the feds. (3) Eric Holder’s Department of Selective Justice has taken no steps – like that taken by Fitzgerald when he jailed Judith Miller of the New York Times in the Valerie Plame Case – to force Chase to reveal the source of the leak. And, (4) Fitz’s demeanor in discussing the leak in a press conference can be accurately described as disinterested.
The urgency to arrest Blago was manufactured out of whole cloth. The leak had to originate out of the DoJ. And, the closest outlet for the DoJ to the Chicago Tribune is Fitzgerald’s office. You connect the dots.
In retrospect, we know now that Richard Armitage was the confessed leaker in the Valerie Plame Case. We also know that Fitzgerald knew of Armitage’s confession before undertaking a long and costly investigation that convicted a key staff member of Vice President Cheney of a crime not connected to the Plame leak. And, that this media event, upon which the foundation of the Untouchable myth was built by the main stream media, was politically-driven.
The Plame “investigation” boiled down to a surrogate WWF-like wrestling match between two Big Beltway Boys: Armitage representing Powell – Libby for Cheney. With Fitzgerald as the biased referee. And, it will be so chronicled by unbiased historians in the future.
The arrest of Blago was timed, not to stop a crime spree, or the selling of a Senate seat – since the latter notion is built on the myth that, once Blago got paid for appointing someone, the act was immediate and irrevocable. The arrest was timed to save Congressmen Jesse Jackson, Jr., from criminal prosecution for bribing a governor in order to receive a Senate appointment. Connect the dots. It was about saving J.J., Junior.”
Chapter 14 – The Whitewash
The narrative here is significant, not just for what it reveals, but more for what it conceals.
The authors do not reveal the source for the information that Chase telephonically conveyed to Blago’s Spokesman, Lucio Guerrero, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Friday, December 4, 2008, namely, that the feds were listening in on Blago’s phone conversations.
Consequently, this question remains unanswered: Who leaked the information that Blago’s phone conversations were being wiretapped by the feds to the Tribune and Chase? Plus, why was that revelation leaked to the paper?
Then, why did Fitzgerald show no interest in tracking down the leaker?
We’re no closer today to answers to those questions after the 486 pages of whitewash.
Now, for the information in Chapter 14 that substantiates our October 2011 summary above:
Page 264: “Again, prosecutors noted the gravity of what Blagojevich had said. They were aware of the Balanoff meeting but had not recorded it.” (Tom Balanoff is president of the Service Employees International Union, Illinois Council, and the Vice President of its International Executive Board.)
How did the Coen/Chase know this information unless someone in the U.S. Attorney’s office gave them a blow-by-blow description of the investigation? Of course that’s what happened. The authors were scripted by the feds.
Page 267: “At the FBI’s listening room, there continued to be a mixture of thrilled disbelief and newfound resolve at what was being caught on the recordings. Agents believed they were capturing the sitting governor in incriminating conversations, and they played the calls for supervisors.
At one point, the FBI’s national director, Robert Mueller, was in town for a Chicago event. Having heard about the success of the Blagojevich operation, Mueller wanted to hear some of the recordings for himself. He stopped at the FBI’s Chicago headquarters on Roosevelt Road on the West Side near Ogden Avenue and took a seat in Rob Grant’s office. Agents had put together a disc of some of their favorite snippets for Mueller to hear.
Who was the guy dropping the F-Bombs? Mueller asked.
Well, that was the governor of Illinois, agents explained.
“You’ve got to be kidding me,” Mueller said, shaking his head, clearly pleased with how investigators were doing.”
This sounds like the testimony of an eyewitness to the event, given all the illustrative details. That eyewitness would be an employee of the FBI, or, someone from Fitzgerald’s office involved in the USAO’s investigation of Blago. This information clearly didn’t come from an audio tape or transcript of one of Blago’s intercepted calls, or from the building’s janitor.
It comes from a source intimately involved in the investigation.
Page 281: This portion of Chapter 14 explains the nature of the alleged urgency that caused the USAO to arrest Blago to, as Fitzgerald later claimed, stop an on-going crime spree.
“Fitzgerald had grown concerned that they had a sitting governor who had yet to make an appointment after working for weeks to see what he could get for himself in a deal for the Senate seat. They could let things go a little further, but it was starting to get risky that Blagojevichwould actually make a choice. Schar [Reid Schar, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, NDIL] said it would be derelict of those in the room to allow Blagojevich to make a decision. Everyone in the meeting believed the process had been corrupted, no matter how Blagojevich finally acted. To do something before he made a pick and out the investigation would at least make that corruption known, and the political could react to any pick by the governor.
In the end, there was agreement. Very soon, they would act, and likely on the morning of December 9, a Tuesday, the day before Blagojevich’s birthday and after a possible meeting the governor had been talking about with Jesse Jackson, Jr.”
What does “at least make that corruption known” mean? The USAO had been investigating Blago for years, and had compiled a substantial amount of evidence of corruption. At least, the goal should have been to arrest Blago when he accepted a bribe, and, also, arrest whoever paidthe bribe.
The real “risk” in letting Blago close a deal with the briber(s) negotiating with him on behalf of Jesse Jackson, Jr., was that they, too, would be implicated in a crime along with Blago. Whatever happened to the notion of intent to commit a crime? Blago went to jail – the briber(s) skated. That was the goal.
Pages 286-288: “’Jackson was the ‘uber African American,’ Blagojevich reminded Harris. He would consider what it would mean in black politics and how it would strengthen him, Blagojevich said, and don’t forget, third parties had offered him $1.5 million in fund-raising help.” (p. 286)
“’There’s tangible, concrete, tangible stuff from [Jackson’s] supporters,’ Blagojevich said, as Yang [Fred Yang, a pollster hired by Blagojevich] pressed him for more detail. ‘Well like, you know. You know what I’m talking about,’ the governor finally told him. ‘Specific amounts and everything.’” (p. 287)
“When prosecutors heard Blagojevich make the ‘tangible’ remark, they believed the Jackson proposal was in fact the way the governor was going to go.” (p. 288)
So, according to Coen/Chase, the feds believed that Blago was about to do a deal that would yield him $1.5 million for appointing Jesse Jackson, Jr. as a U.S. Senator from Illinois. That means that Blago was arrested to stop the commission of a specific crime, rather than to stop a crime spree.
If the USAO would have waited, both the bribee and the briber would have been caught and prosecuted. But the trap was sprung prematurely – for a reason.
Robert Blagojevich had a meeting scheduled with Jackson's money man Raghuveer Nayak on Friday, December 5. After learning from Chase, on the evening of December 4, that his conversations were being intercepted by the feds, Blago instructed his brother Robert to cancel that meeting.
The Duck Rule
If it looks like a duck; waddles like a duck; and quacks like a duck – face it, it’s a duck.
As we wrote back in October 2011: “The arrest was timed to save Congressmen Jesse Jackson, Jr. from criminal prosecution for bribing a governor in order to receive a Senate appointment. Connect the dots. It was about saving J.J., Junior.”
Remember that Jackson was the ’08 Co-chair of Obama’s Presidential Campaign Committee.
Conclusion
The book entitled Golden, written by two Chicago Tribune reporters who were granted special access to information coming from inside the investigation, is a 486-page apologia in defense of an improbable explanation behind the timing of the arrest of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
It is a duck.
Was there a quid pro quo deal here? Did the USAO inside-leaker(s) say, “Guys, we’ll give you exclusive access to all this information, and in exchange you tell the story the way we want it told. We gotta deal?”
Don’t forget that Roland Burris, the man Blago appointed to the U.S. Senate, was the 60th vote in favor of ObamaCare. Had Blago, and those bribing him, both been arrested after the money was exchanged, would there have even been a second Senator from Illinois in the U.S. Senate when the ObamaCare vote was taken?