How The CIA Spied On President Donald Trump

 

I’ve read Crooked Hillary is using the Dem-Marxist tactic that goes something like, “Nothing to see here, just move along and ignore the facts coming to light.” Crooked Hillary might also whisper, “Adding to the Clinton body-count will vindicate me.”

 

[Even Dem-Marxists & Big Tech Clients work overtime to bury the Clinton Body Count, the list is quite vast and nothing legally ties any member of the Clinton family. It is the incredulous numbers of deaths that have proven a legal boondoggle for the Clintons it persists. So here’s places I was able to locate (not from Google) if your curiosity is piqued:

 

o   Clin­ton Body Count; author listed as ETHER ZONE; Ether Zone (last active 2017); dated listed “21 years ago” 2001

 

o   Clinton "Friends" Who Knew Too Much; The Patriot Post; no date

 

o   List Of Clinton Associates Who Allegedly Died Mysteriously Or Committed Suicide Before Testimony; Cape Charles Mirror; 12/1/19

 

o   Clinton Body Count Grows: Reporter Found Dead; Posted by Ryan James; FreedomWire; 6/14/21

 

o   Clinton body count; Conservapedia; Last moderated 7/27/21 08:40]

 

Even so, let’s look at some known Durham details Crooked Hillary wants you to ignore.

 

JRH 2/18/22

I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to overcome expenses:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

***********************

How The CIA Spied On President Donald Trump

 

By Techno Fog [Substack Profile Page]

February 17, 2022

Great Game India

 

On Friday, Special Counsel John Durham filed a motion relating to a defense firm’s potential conflict of interest in the Michael Sussmann case. The conflict itself is certainly intriguing, with Sussmann’s lawyers at Latham & Watkins LLP (Latham) having represented potential witnesses in the case, including Perkins Coie, former Perkins Coie (and Clinton Campaign general counsel) Marc Elias, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and Hillary for America.

 

 

CIA Spied on Trump

 

The issue that made more noise, however, was Durham’s disclosure that Rodney Joffe – a contractor with deep ties to the Clintons, and what appears to be a deep hatred for Trump – had exploited Executive Office of the President of the United States data he obtained from a “sensitive arrangement” with the U.S. Government to damage President Trump. Here is our initial post on the topic.

 

And here is the talented Lee Smith providing a great explanation on Tucker:

.@LeeSmithDC says he keeps hearing people comparing the scandal to Watergate when it doesn’t compare to Watergate at all. We are talking about some of the most secure communications in government been Surveiled by political operatives. pic.twitter.com/f22h5V92vV

— The Dirty Truth (Josh) (@AKA_RealDirty) February 15, 2022

 

Yet the data from the Executive Office of the President wasn’t all that Joffe had obtained. He also collected domain name system (DNS) internet traffic pertaining to a healthcare provider; Trump Tower; and Trump’s Central Park West apartment building.

Durham Filing screen Capture 1

 

Yesterday, February 14, Sussmann’s attorney’s disputed the Durham filing – to an extent. They said Sussmann provided the CIA with Executive Office of the President data from “when Barack Obama was president.”

 

I have a theory about this.

 

If Sussmann’s attorney is telling the truth (never a given), then we suspect the Executive Office of the President data included that from the 74 day the Trump transition period (between the November 8, 2016 election and the January 20, 2017 inauguration) – which would still be spying on the incoming Trump Administration.

 

For background, the Executive Office of the President includes a number of Executive councils (National Security Council, Office of Management and Budget, etc.) that support the President. It is involved generally in the transition from one president to the next.

 

What about the data involved with the Trump transition? On August 1, 2016, Trump reached an agreement with the General Services Administration (GSA) “for telecommunication and internet technology services for both the pre- and post-election transition period.” This is the agreement. Fool Nelson pointed out to me that Joffe’s other company, Packet Forensics, has a 2010 – 2025 contract with GSA. I wonder if Joffe’s company, Neustar, helped the GSA in the execution of the transition agreement. Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not sure it matters, as Neustar already had an agreement to provide “DNS resolution services” to the Executive Office of the President.

 

Regardless, the “transition theory”, if we can call it that, matches the timeline in the Sussmann indictment, which states that Joffe and his team continued to target “Trump-related computer networks” in late 2016 and early 2017. And it makes sense in context of Sussmann’s conduct, as Sussmann tried to put this information out there in late December 2016.

 

 

Durham Filing screen Capture 2 Sussmann False Statement

 

Anyway, back to the point of this post.

 

According to Durham, Joffe and his associates manipulated that data to make it seem like Trump, and those in Trump’s world, had suspicious interactions with internet protocol (IP) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider. They then combined those allegations with the Alfa Bank hoax materials (the subject of Sussmann’s Fall 2016 meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker).

 

This damaging information, purporting to demonstrate at least circumstantial evidence of Trump/Russia collusion, was presented on February 9, 2017 to what Durham describes as U.S. Government “Agency-2.”

 

That agency was the CIA. We know for sure that Sussmann met with the CIA General Counsel. We learned in January 2022 that, if Sussmann is to be believed, there were two other CIA employees at that meeting.

 

In other words, a Clinton supporting contractor (Joffe) obtained sensitive information (perhaps unlawfully) about the Office of the President of the United States (Trump), manipulated the information, passed it to a DNC/Clinton lawyer (Sussmann), who then delivered it to the CIA.

 

All on American soil.

 

This is important because the CIA is generally prohibited from conducting domestic operations. The FBI explains:

 

“The CIA collects information only regarding foreign countries and their citizens. Unlike the FBI, it is prohibited from collecting information regarding ‘U.S. Persons,’ a term that includes U.S. citizens, resident aliens, legal immigrants, and U.S. corporations, regardless of where they are located.”

 

In the CIA’s own words:

 

“The FBI is responsible for coordination of clandestine collection of foreign intelligence through human sources or human-enabled means and counterintelligence activities inside the United States.”

Yet when it came to Trump, here was the CIA doing what it is prohibited: “collecting information regarding U.S. persons” inside the United States. (See also the CIA’s bulk surveillance program.)

 

A top CIA official answered the call of a DNC lawyer who alleged that these suspicious internet “lookups” proved “that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Accusations that were baseless, according to Durham.

 

In other words, the secret police was more than willing to accept politically damaging information against the President. I’m curious what they did with it. It seems naive to think the information stayed at the CIA. I bet it was passed onto the FBI or DOJ, who may have used it to further the Trump/Russia investigation.

 

The scandal we are seeing come to light just isn’t about Hillary and Joffe and Sussmann. It’s not limited to Fusion GPS, FISA abuse, or Igor Danchenko.

 

It’s also about the willingness of U.S. intelligence to target the President. And on that topic, the CIA has some serious questions to answer.

 

Techno Fog is a Lawyer, Writer, and Researcher. Also seen at twitter.com/techno_fog. This article was originally published on Substack.

 

We need your support to carry on our independent and investigative research based journalism on the Deep State threats facing humanity. Your contribution however small helps us keep afloat. Kindly consider supporting GreatGameIndia.

 

SUPPORT GREATGAMEINDIA

 

© Copyright 2020 – GreatGameIndia - Journal of Geopolitics and International Relations.

 

ABOUT GreatGameIndia

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science

Americans are becoming aware of the Left Stream Media’s Fake News. Now Americans should examine the evidence of the Fake Science that global Leftists promote to ram the Climate Change hoax down our throat.

JRH 2/10/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

****************

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science

By Julie Kelly

FEBRUARY 10, 2017

The Federalist

The scientific community and media outlets that claimed Trump will silence scientists are now attacking one of their own for speaking up.

Congress is ramping up its investigation into a key climate study, now under further scrutiny after a federal whistleblower raised more questions about it this week. The scandal some are referring to as “Climategate Two” (you can learn about the first Climategate here) is quickly escalating after Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), exposed how an ex-colleague mishandled a report on global warming right before a major international climate conference in 2015.

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said during a Tuesday hearing that NOAA “has deceived the American people by falsifying data to justify a partisan agenda.” He will now push for all documents related to the climate study, materials he requested via subpoena in 2015 after Obama Administration officials refused to disclose them.

What Bates Revealed About a Famous Climate Study

The explosive allegations from Dr. Bates were detailed in the Daily Mail and on the scientific blog, Climate, Etc. on February 5. Bates accuses Tom Karl, former director of the NOAA office responsible for climate data, of manipulating temperature readings, failing to archive data, and ignoring agency protocols to rush publishing his study that debunked the well-known pause in global warming at the beginning of this century.

At the time, climate activists were in a panic because the premier scientific body in charge of climate science—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—admitted the rise in global temperatures had basically stalled from 1998 to 2012. This bombshell was included in the IPCC’s 2013 report, which would serve as the main primer leading up to the United Nations’ Climate Conference in Paris two years later.

World leaders were poised to obligate their countries (er, taxpayers) into paying hundreds of billions to ease climate change. The inconvenient truth that plenty of evidence showed the planet was not significantly warming would be hard to climatesplain away. To give the climate leaders a big assist, Karl worked with a team of scientists to prove the pause didn’t happen, and claim global temperatures were rising just as fast as they had been at the end of the twentieth century.

Karl specifically cites the IPCC report in the introduction of his paper published in Science in June 2015, a few months before the Paris conference. Under the headline, “Walking back talk of the end of warming,” the authors said, “Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the IPCC. These results do not support the notion of a slowdown in the increase in global surface temperatures.”

The paper concludes that “the IPCCs statement is no longer valid.” In other words: settled.

The Climate Change Study Was Rigged

But Bates says the researchers “put a thumb on the scale” to reach their conclusions. He reveals other alarming details, like how the computer used to process the data suffered a complete failure. Chairman Smith responded immediately to Bates’s allegations, thanking him for “exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

Shortly after Bates’ exposé was posted, climate skeptics and conservative outlets began reporting on it—including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times (my piece in NRO is here). And of course it wasn’t long before climate activists and their media propagandists seized on Bates, attacking his credibility and motives while insisting Karl’s report was indeed credible and backed up by other scientists.

True to form, the same media that helped promote Karl’s study before the Paris climate conference overlooked key parts of Bates’s account. Neither the Washington Post, New York Times, nor the Associated Press mentioned IPCC as the source for the global warming pause, the main reason for Karl’s rebuke. Nor did they mention Bates’ shocking claim that the computer used to process the data had crashed.

Media Rushes to Defend Karl’s Study

Other lowlights from that group include the following.  New York Times headline: “No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say.” Reporter Henry Fountain starts by smearing the Daily Mail reporter who wrote Bates’ exposé, excusing away the accusations and claiming the global warming pause became a “cause célèbre among climate change denialists.” Fountain then cites a few scientists who support Karl and finishes up insisting the study had no impact on the Paris accord.

Associated Press headline: “Major Global Warming Study Again Questioned, Again Defended.” Reporter Seth Borenstein referred to the scandal as “bickering,” a “kerfuffle,” and a mere “hubbub” about data management and storage.

Washington Post headline: “As the Planet Warms, Doubters Launch a New Attack on a Famous Climate Change Study.” Do you really need anything after that? Reporter Chelsea Harvey refutes every point of Bates’s account and cites “multiple” scientists who support the Karl study. (Bates said in his blogpost he first offered his story to the Washington Post last year and they declined. Shocker.)

The Media Weren’t The Only Study Apologists

The media weren’t the only Karl study apologists. Rush Holt, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) which publishes Science, testified at Smith’s hearing on Tuesday. Holt brushed off the allegations—this was about 48 hours after the article posted, basically no time to check the veracity—calling it an “internal dispute” and concluding it’s “not the making of a big scandal.” Another committee member warned Holt to withhold judgement on the matter until the matter was fully investigated.

There’s a little (a lot?) of irony to this whole affair. The very same scientific community and liberal media outlets that have been hysterical since November 8, claiming the Trump Administration will silence scientists and have a chilling effect on science, are the very same people now attacking one of their own for speaking up. Chalk this up as one more example of liberal hypocrisy, exposed thanks to Donald Trump.

______________

Julie Kelly is a National Review Online contributor and food policy writer from Orland Park, Illinois. She's also been published in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and The Hill.

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.