by Ruby Henley
I have a little bit of everything in this report. Too little time, but so much to say.
A little tidbit of information I find interesting is what is in the McClatchey Report – Quote –
Mueller says Michael Cohen was not in Prague in 2016, BUT WHAT ABOUT HIS PHONE?
The Mueller report states Cohen was not in Prague: “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false,” the report says on page 139. That statement is part of a review of Cohen’s testimony to the investigators and is included in a section about what the Mueller team called Cohen’s “false statements to Congress minimizing the Trump Tower Moscow Project.”
The report was silent on the issue of a device linked to Cohen pinging from the Czech Republic, and whether the investigation was ever presented with such evidence…
“The Mueller report states Mr. Cohen was not in Prague. It makes no statement on whether the investigation ever had evidence that Mr. Cohen’s phone pinged in or near Prague, as McClatchy reported,” said Kristin Roberts, McClatchy’s East Region Editor.
McClatchy’s Dec. 2018 reporting was based on information from five individuals with foreign intelligence connections, who all requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information shared and concerns about sources and methods. Each obtained their information independently from each other. McClatchy stands by the reporting.
In December of 2018, months after its initial report, McClatchy had a follow-up stating that the evidence of Cohen’s travel to Prague was a ping to his phone:
A mobile phone traced to President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen briefly sent signals ricocheting off cell towers in the Prague area in late summer 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, leaving an electronic record to support claims that Cohen met secretly there with Russian officials, four people with knowledge of the matter say.
During the same period of late August or early September, electronic eavesdropping by an Eastern European intelligence agency picked up a conversation among Russians, one of whom remarked that Cohen was in Prague, two people familiar with the incident said.
It sounds pretty damning but again Cohen wasn’t there. That 2nd paragraph actually raises some interesting questions. Why were Russians talking about Cohen in Prague if Cohen was never there? Were they fooled by the same cell phone ping? Or did McClatchy get taken in by multiple, unreliable sources, all of whom claimed to be independent? At this point, it seems settled that Cohen wasn’t in Prague, but the question of why anyone thought he was remains an interesting mystery. End Of Quote
Are you laughing yet? Probably so, as the tangled web of the Mueller Report is not a web at all, it is a mountain fortress that will never really be penetrated by the truth! Now, Cohen was recorded in his luxury prison by his inmate buddy, Tom Arnold, saying everything he told Mueller was a lie. Really?
And who does he think would believe him now or ever again? Talk about a college education being thrown down the drain.
But the Dems may have gotten something they wanted afterall. 20 States seem to be taking Trump off the 2020 ballot. Anything to be concerned about if you are a Trump supporter? The truth is we are living in a reality which is slowly dwindling down to nothing but constant bad news. Create your own reality away from this if you desire any quality time before you pass from this world.
In the below video, President Trump speaks about John Brennan and other high-ups working in a coup to overthrow the government and the Trump Presidency. Of course, we know that is the truth, but it will never be taken as such.
Quote – Connecticut could end up ending one of the most heated political debates in Washington, or it could end up leaving President Donald Trump off of the 2020 ballot altogether.
Connecticut is one of 18 states with a proposal to mandate that anyone running for president has to disclose their federal tax returns in order for that person to appear on the state ballot. In Connecticut, the proposal also extends to candidates running for governor.
Sen. Mae Flexer, (D – Killingly), who chairs the Government and Elections Administration Committee in the Connecticut General Assembly, acknowledges that the bill exists because President Donald Trump broke the norm of providing several years of tax returns in the lead up to the 2016 election.
Flexer said she thinks it’s possible that lawmakers approve the measure this year. She said voters have a right to know what financial interests candidates have.
“Obviously President Trump is a strong case why the American people need to understand the financial interests of their president but we’re looking actually at a proposal that would do the same thing for gubernatorial candidates in our state as well,” she said. End of Quote
Now, let’s talk about two different cases in which client/attorney privilege is center stage. First of all, client/attorney privilege is no longer applicable in our daily lives. Honestly, this frightens me, and I think it is similar in protecting your source in journalism. You are looking at two shelters in society which no longer exist. Think about that. It means more abuse, more chaos, and less clarity in our daily lives. Just as the Internet has exposed your secrets, you cannot hide who you are, or what you are. My answer to this downgrade on our privacy, just don’t worry about it. Just be yourself, and walk one with God.
In the first days of May, we will be seeing some reaction from all those on Capitol Hill to the Mueller Report. Congress, or at least the House, will want to hear from Mueller—and it eventually will. It is not clear whether the president will seek to invoke executive privilege on some theory to protect against or limit the Mueller testimony.
With Barr and Mueller testifying, the president’s lawyers should also have to appear and answer questions under oath about their own document—if indeed that document is released. The counter-report, for this reason, would probably not be the public relations masterstroke that Giuliani may have in mind.
The president’s lawyers have constructed a report setting forth factual claims for the public, and why would they not?
The president and his lawyers might try to invoke attorney-client privilege to prevent such testimony. But both President Trump and his talkative lawyer Giuliani have little to sustain a claim of privilege.
The first problem they would face becomes immediately apparent from the nature of this counternarrative. It will not be a document prepared in anticipation of litigation, or for legal defense of the president. It will be crafted for political and public relations purposes, and this is perfectly understandable.
The circumstances in which the counter-report may be released clearly do not support the position that it was developed or would be released for purposes of the president’s legal defense.
Even if considered on the merits apart from this context, the claim of attorney-client privilege would have to fail on these facts. The president has authorized his lawyers to put out a written statement of facts about his conduct as it bears on the issue of obstruction:
According to Giuliani, it appears that the legal team has revised the original draft 140-page report, which dealt with both collusion and obstruction, to address primarily if not exclusively the latter. This disclosure, if it occurs, fatally undermines any claim of privilege. Any discussion of the collusion charge will have the same effect.
It will not help for the lawyers to insist that the counter-report discloses only facts, not client communications, and, therefore, that their communications with their client remain privileged. Because the facts arise from and expose those communications, their disclosure would be inconsistent with the claim of privilege. The law on this arises typically from circumstances very similar to these, when an institution releases the results of an internal investigation to the public. Disclosure even for self-serving purposes, where the lawyers pick and choose what to reveal, still constitutes a waiver. This privilege is always narrowly construed.
With this privilege out of the way, the president and his legal team would then be subject to congressional demands for a full explanation of all the bases for the factual assertions in their report. The lawyers might be able to protect interview notes containing mental impressions, but other information, such as the identity of those they interviewed and documents on which they relied, would be fair game.
It is worth noting that Congress has consistently refused to recognize attorney-client privilege when it is asserted and functions as an obstacle to the discharge of the legislature’s constitutional responsibilities in conducting oversight and developing legislation. Nonetheless, Congress does attempt to accommodate to some degree, when it can, the core interests in confidential attorney-client communications.
Thus, beginning in May it will heat and steam up like a pressure cooker on the stove. Get ready to have your socks knocked off, for this is the never ending story. Not only that it is the story which has ended the fair voting process in this Country. It has proven to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for the American voter – you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don’t. I hate to be so blunt, but you can take it.
NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE FOR THOSE WHO LEAK CIA MATERIAL –
The lawyer for former CIA employee Joshua Schulte is unhappy the spy agency is allowed to review communications with her client before she receives it and has accused the agency of trying to intimidate her.
Schulte’s lawyer, Sabrina Shroff, appeared in a New York court on Wednesday and argued that the CIA was abusing client-attorney privilege as well as threatening her with future legal repercussions for receiving confidential material.
“The CIA essentially has threatened us,” Shroff told the judge. Asked whether the spy agency was also listening in on her confidential conversations with her client, she responded: “We don’t know.”
The CIA believes that Schulte was behind a massive leak of material from the spy agency that outlined how it is able to install spy software on laptops and phones. But it has been unable to prove the assertion.
Thanks to his work for the CIA’s engineering development group and the spy agency’s suspicions that he was behind the leak, he and his lawyer have been put under extreme restrictions.
Schulte’s lawyer has to make a request to meet with him one week prior to any meeting. He is then transferred to a special secure area that is monitored by CCTV before being strip-searched and chained to the floor. His lawyer is not allowed to take in any equipment and must use a government-supplied computer to review any material – conditions imposed [PDF] by the judge.
But despite specific provisions that prevent jail staff from recording any audio or sharing any information with the prosecution, Shroff suspects the CIA is monitoring her meetings regardless.
NOW, let’s conclude this report by talking about the ‘Deep State.’ So many IWB readers have been asking about the Deep State and where it stands now. I have mixed feelings on this subject, but one event to watch very carefully is this –
OBAMA LOYALIST AND EX-WHITEHOUSE ATTORNEY INDICTED BY MUELLER!
We have talked about this before, but this situation cannot be focused on enough. Follow the breadcrumbs and open your eyes – this is a key event.
Don’t forget the connections here – suspicious – shocking – many unanswered questions.
READ THIS TITLE AND THINK – Mueller’s “Thirteen Angry Democrats” Deep State Operation Is About to Take Down … Obama’s White House Counsel?
That says a lot, doesn’t it? Does it change your way in thinking at all? Does it throw some kinks into it? It does mine.
Is Greg Craig the key player here? This man was chief counsel to the Obama White House and to the Bill Clinton White House! Chief Counsel!
How the heck did Mueller find him or even think to indict him – follow the breadcrumbs.
Here is the indictment of Greg Craig on pdf – www.documentcloud.org/documents/5817322-Craig-Gregory-Stamped-Indictment-April-2019.html
- Craig CHIEF WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL FOR OBAMA AND CLINTON left the White House in 2010.
- Joined the law firm Skadden Arps.
- Involved in the preparation of a 2012 report about Ukrainian politician Yulia Tymoshenko that was commissioned by a rival politician, Viktor Yanukovych.
- Yanukovych EMPLOYED PAUL MANAFORT as an adviser.
- MANAFORT WAS INTRODUCED TO TRUMP BY ROGER STONE.
- STONE ADVISED TRUMP TO HIRE MANAFORT.
- MUELLER SNIFFED OUT SKADDEN’S REPORT DUE TO CONTACT WITH PAUL MANAFORT.
- SKADDEN LAW FIRM admitted in a settlement that it had failed to properly disclose its Ukraine work as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
- The Department of Justice has now charged Craig with two counts of making false statements with the intent of evading FARA requirements.
- An attorney for Craig says he is not guilty of any crime.
- BIG BIG BREAD CRUMB – UKRAINE – THEY ALL HAD THEIR HANDS IN THIS UKRAINE THING!
Do I understand this? Not exactly, but I do know something stinks.
THE DEEP STATE AND WIKILEAKS –
John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 — at the tail end of the Cheney regime — concocted by the Pentagon’s shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence Assessments Branch.
It was all about criminalizing WikiLeaks and personally smearing Assange, using “shock troops…enlisted in the media — those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth.”
This plan remains more than active — considering how Assange’s arrest has been covered by the bulk of US/UK mainstream media.
By 2012, already in the Obama era, WikiLeaks detailed the astonishing “scale of the US Grand Jury Investigation” of itself. The USG always denied such a grand jury existed.
“The US Government has stood up and coordinated a joint interagency criminal investigation of Wikileaks comprised of a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) including: CENTCOM; SOUTHCOM; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA); Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA); US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for USFI (US Forces Iraq) and 1st Armored Division (AD); US Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit (CCIU); 2nd Army (US Army Cyber Command); Within that or in addition, three military intelligence investigations were conducted. Department of Justice (DOJ) Grand Jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of State (DOS) and Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). In addition, Wikileaks has been investigated by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of the National CounterIntelligence Executive (ONCIX), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the House Oversight Committee; the National Security Staff Interagency Committee, and the PIAB (President’s Intelligence Advisory Board).”
But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic; that’s when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files — detailing the CIA’s vast hacking/cyber espionage repertoire.
End Of Quote
In conclusion, I think all I want to say at this point is, nothing is as it appears. You need blinders on to see your way through all the crap being thrown at you from all directions.