Tag Archives: Peter Strzok

Do New Strzok Notes Given to Flynn Lawyer Exonerate Flynn?

  ,
Leave a comment

by Daveda Gruber:

Former fired FBI agent Peter Strzok penned notes and they have been turned over to Sydney Powell and the legal team of General Michael Flynn.

The former national security adviser, Flynn, is still involved and his freedom at stake in the ongoing case against him.

FOX News claims that Powell has stated that the documents further exonerate Flynn.

A notice of discovery correspondence between acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, along with a letter from Sherwin to Powell and Flynn attorney Jesse Binnall was obtained by FOX News.

According to FOX News, Sherwin and assistant U.S. Attorney Jocelyn Ballantine wrote, “As we have previously disclosed, beginning in January 2020, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri [EDMO] has been conducting a review of the Michael T. Flynn investigation. The enclosed document was obtained and analyzed by USA EDMO during the course of its review.”

They went on to write, “This page of notes was taken by former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok. While the page itself is undated; we believe that the notes were taken in early January 2017, possibly between January 3 and January 5. These materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018; additional documents may be forthcoming.”

The contents of the documents could not be disclosed because of a protective order but there are two hand written pages and they are heavily redacted.

Justice Department (DOJ) and Flynn’s lawyers continue to fight to try to get the case against him dismissed before a judge who is considering it.

Last month the Justice Department made a move to drop its case against Flynn. that decision was made after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case. That included newly discovered and disclosed information pertaining to the case.

DOJ officials have said that they concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was not tethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Flynn.

It is also alleged that the interview was conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.

On January 22, 2017, Flynn was sworn in as the National Security Advisor.

On February 13, 2017, he resigned after information surfaced that he had misled the FBI and Vice President Mike Pence about the nature and content of his communications with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

On May 22, 2017, Flynn rejects an order to hand over documents.

Invoking his right against self-incrimination, Flynn declined to comply with a Senate subpoena of emails and other records related to any dealings with Russians, as part of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election

Flynn enters a plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Then between December 1, 2017 and December 4, 2018, Flynn participates in nineteen interviews with lawyers from the special counsel’s office or the Department of Justice.

That leads to injustice at its peak in the prosecution of Flynn.

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen said in a statement last month, “Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case. I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”

The case still rests with the federal judge who is overseeing the case. That judge would have to make the final determination to dismiss it.

The wheels of justice move rather slowly.

Through investigating on my own, I’ve come to determine that Flynn was set up by the FBI.

It is difficult to imagine what Flynn and his family have gone through since certain people within the FBI sunk their viscous teeth into the General  who had a distinguished 33-year Army career that included top-level intelligence posts and promotion to the rank of three-star general.

I pray this new evidence, now fully reviewed by Powell, has some information that will lead to the exoneration of Flynn once and for all.

No Criminal Charges for McCabe

  ,
Leave a comment

by Daveda Gruber:

On Friday the Justice Department has indicated that it will not indict former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe on criminal charges.

An investigation into accusations from the agency’s independent watchdog that lasted almost two years found that McCabe lacked sincerity when he was questioned about leaking information to the media.

McCabe’s attorneys Michael Bromwich and David Schertler, received a letter from Justice Department attorney J.P. Cooney and Assistant U.S. Attorney Molly Gaston which said that the criminal investigation into McCabe is now closed.

Cooney and Gaston wrote, “We write to inform you that, after careful consideration, the government has decided not to pursue criminal charges against your client, Andrew G. McCabe. Based on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the government at this time, we consider the matter closed.”

In statements given to media, Bromwich and Schertler confirmed that they received a phone call from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C.

The call in question was followed by the letter notifying them that “the criminal investigation of Andrew McCabe has been closed.”

Bromwich and Schertler  added that “This means that no charges will be brought against him based on the facts underlying the Office of the Inspector General’s April 2018 report. At long last, justice has been done in this matter.”

The two went on to say, “We said at the outset of the criminal investigation, almost two years ago, that if the facts and the law determined the result, no charges would be brought. We are pleased that Andrew McCabe and his family can go on with their lives without this cloud hanging over them.”

McCabe served at the FBI for 21 years. He became the acting director in May 2017 after President Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey.

The Attorney General at the time, Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March 2018. That came after the inspector general found he had repeatedly misstated his involvement in a leak to The Journal regarding an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report in 2018 that showed McCabe lacked candor with FBI Director James Comey, FBI investigators, and inspector general investigators about his authorization to leak some allegedly sensitive information to the Wall Street Journal that revealed the existence of an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Comey said he did not permit McCabe to tell the media. Horowitz wrote that McCabe’s actions were “designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership” and “violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.”

McCabe’s legal team, on the other hand, said McCabe’s story changed because he was surprised by and unprepared for the question during his May 2017 interview. The attorneys also said that he was preoccupied with other major events. They went on to say that once Comey was fired later that day, he didn’t think about his answers again as he dealt with leading the bureau for a time.

Horowitz concluded that McCabe misled his team too.

Horowitz said, “It seems highly implausible that McCabe forgot in May what he recalled in detail during his November inspector general testimony. In our view, the evidence is substantial that it was done knowingly and intentionally.”

McCabe has maintained his innocence and said the inspector general’s conclusions relied on mis-characterizations and omissions, which included information that was said to be favorable to McCabe.

McCabe also known as Andy was allegedly the “Andy” who former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page texted about in the famous texts between the two lovers, at the time.

Honestly, I have believed that McCabe was going to be indicted. I have alleged that Strzok, Page and McCabe were in a big part of backing the “insurance policy” that turned out to be the Russian Witch-hunt that came from the Dossier written by Christopher Steele.

Can I say that I am deeply disappointed that the people who I see as potentially guilty are all going free so far?

Why is it that most people who were investigated for being on the side of President Trump are usually indicted and some have been found guilty of crimes that are similar to the allegations against people on the left?

It appears to me that there is a distinct two tier judicial system in play here.

I can always be reached on Twitter to discuss political views.

@DavedaGruber

Does the First Amendment Protect Peter Strzok?

  ,
Leave a comment

by Daveda Gruber:

On Monday, in Washington D.C. federal district court former FBI agent Peter Strzok argued in a court filing that his anti-Trump messages were protected under the First Amendment.

Strzok is suing the U.S. government and wants to be reinstated in his position with the FBI even though his messages were sent on FBI issued phones. Strzok was involved in high ranking positions in both probes into Hillary Clinton and then citizen Donald Trump.

In his response brief, Strzok claimed, “Firing an employee for the content of his or her non-public communications is unconstitutional, irrespective of any balancing of interests.”

Strzok’s brief also referred to President Trump’s “unpresidential tweets.” In addition, Strzok also argued that his texts should be considered private speech. He disputed that he should not be held to the tougher legal standard under the famous 1968 Supreme Court case Pickering v. Board of Education that applies to public statements by government employees.

At one time, Strzok was the FBI’s head of counterintelligence.

The brief went on to say that he was entitled to “develop a full factual record through discovery. It also pointed out that it would be premature to dismiss the case at this early stage.

It was also pointed out that the DOJ’s position would “leave thousands of career federal government employees without protections from discipline over the content of their political speech.”

The filing by Strzok was in response to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss his complaint for reinstatement in November.

The court had been told that Strzok had admitted to conducting FBI business on his personal iMessage account.

The material was said to be secure even though Strozk’s wife had gained access to his phone. The wife also found evidence on the phone that Strzok was having an extra marital affair with Lisa Page.

Page had been an FBI lawyer and was also involved in the Clinton and Russia probes.

It is alleged that Strzok had engaged in a “dereliction of supervisory responsibility” by failing to investigate the potentially classified Clinton emails which had showed up on an unsecured laptop which belonged to Anthony Weiner at the time that the 2016 elections were approaching.

Page is also suing the FBI and DOJ in claims that there was a breach of the Federal Privacy Act. Page said she suffered numerous damages because of the disclosure, including a “permanent loss of earning capacity due to reputational damage” and “the cost of therapy to cope with unwanted national media exposure and harassment” which happened by way of tweets and statements by Trump.

Besides this, Page’s complaint also sought reimbursement for “the cost of childcare during and transportation to multiple investigative reviews and appearances before Congress,” the “cost of paying a data-privacy service to protect her personal information,” and of course, attorney’s fees that were incurred.

I tend to disagree with some of the accusations made by Strzok and claims for financial reimbursement made by Page.

But, then again, these claims are up to the court to decide. I do not have a say in these matters.

I am, however, sick and tired of government expenditures that I don’t agree with. These people, in my opinion, broke a sacred vow to this country. That promise was to abide by the Constitution of the United States.

The very fact that people in high positions in government affiliated agencies were not held to a higher standard of unbiased procedures is appalling.

Did FBI Lawyer Falsify FISA Document?

  ,
Leave a comment

by Daveda Gruber:

Reports are flying around about Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz finding evidence that a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) lawyer changed verbiage on a document that was used to obtain the FISA warrant from the court.

The word usage that was changed lead to manipulating a rather important document.

There is now alleged evidence that is said to come out on December 9th that contains information that a document relating to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page was altered by a lawyer.

The alleged lawyer in question has not been name, as yet but it is alleged that he worked beneath former deputy assistant director Peter Strzok. Now that report is being disputed.

The story unfolds that the lawyer was allegedly a low level employee of the FBI but was involved enough in the FISA process to falsely state that he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the FISA warrant application.

The alleged employee allegedly altered an email to substantiate his inaccurate version of events.

On January 15, 2019 the Washington Examiner published an article that noted that former FBI general counsel James A. Baker was under criminal investigation for unauthorized leaks to the media.

The development was made public in a letter  that was sent to the office of U.S. Attorney John Durham for the District of Connecticut by Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina.

Former FBI Director James B. Comey selected Baker as the FBI’s general counsel. Baker was an associate general counsel for Bridgewater Associates, LP.

After clerking for the Honorable Bernard A. Friedman in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Baker joined the Department of Justice (DOJ) with the Criminal Division through the Attorney General’s Honors Program in 1990 and worked as a federal prosecutor with the division’s Fraud Section.

In December, 2017 Baker was replaced as general counsel and reassigned to a different position within the FBI. It was revealed on April 19, 2018 that he was a recipient of at least one memo from Comey.

On May 4, 2018, Baker resigned the FBI and joined the Brookings Institution.

In January 2019, Baker left Brookings to become the director of national security and cybersecurity at the R Street Institute.

Is Baker going to be thrown under the bus? I believe and it is my opinion that he is the person going down for the FISA warrant discrepancy.

Did I just uncover something? I just may have done that.

Flynn Hearing Cancelled: Attorney Claims FBI Manipulated Files

 
Leave a comment

by Daveda Gruber:

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan cancelled a hearing that was scheduled for next week in regards to a case pertaining to ex-National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Sullivan wrote, “In view of the parties’ comprehensive briefing concerning 109 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material, the Court cancels the motion hearing previously scheduled for November 7, 2019.”

Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed a 161-page brief demanding the government produce all evidence related to Flynn. The brief encouraged the court to “dismiss the entire prosecution for outrageous government misconduct” and hold the prosecutors in contempt.

Powell tweeted:

The document was filed last week. It alleges that FBI agents manipulated official records of Flynn’s 2017 interview that led to him being charged with lying to investigators.

The case against Flynn began after a 2017 FBI interview, in which Flynn was asked about his conversations with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

In the end, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements in regard to conversations that took place during his interview which was part of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Powell has alleged in the court filings that FBI officials manipulated Flynn’s FBI 302, which is a form used by agents to report or summarize interviews. It is alleged that the form was edited and by the way, ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok was involved in the original interview that took place.

In response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote [on sanctions], Powell wrote, “Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘Flynn stated he did not.’ This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on the issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.”

Powell also alleged that agents added the phrase, “or if Kislyak described any Russian response to a request by Flynn.”

Powell went on to write, “That question and answer does not appear in the notes, yet it was made into a criminal offense. The draft also shows that the agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question it was not.”

It is also alleged by Powell that on January 23, 2017, which was the day before the FBI interviewed Flynn at the White House, “the upper echelon of the FBI met to orchestrate” strategies that would have Flynn talk “in such a way as to keep from alerting him from understanding that he was being interviewed in a criminal investigation of which he was the target.”

Powell added, “In short, they planned to deceive him about the entire scenario, and keep him ‘unguarded.’”

Powell went on to mention newly discovered text messages between former FBI agent, Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page during the days following the publication of the scandalous anti-Trump dossier, along with media leaks from the FBI and Justice Department. Brought to light, as well, were details surrounding the unexpected recusal of the former judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras.

Prosecutors have adamantly denied any claim that they were or are now hiding evidence.

Flynn’s sentencing is still up in the air but the new attorneys are seeking to get the charges dropped even though it is stated by counsel that Flynn doesn’t intend on withdrawing his guilty plea.

At this time Sullivan has set a December 18th sentencing date.

We will have to wait and see if the date gets moved again.

Is the Mueller Probe Illegal?

  ,
Leave a comment

by Daveda Gruber:

At the end of the week we still wait for Special Counsel Robert Mueller Probe to draw to a close. We’ve waited this long; what’s more time? Patience sometimes wears thin.

On Friday morning President Trump took to Twitter to give his thoughts to the American people. The theme of Trump’s tweets, once again, took aim at the  Russia investigation by Mueller as the president’s transparency on social media came to the forefront as he commented.

Trump tweeted:

As Americans wait for the Mueller Probe to end and would love to see the final results, Trump speculated on if Mueller’s team will complete the investigation and submit a report to Attorney General William Barr.

The investigation should be drawing to a close as we wait for the results. The expected departure of top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann makes the assumption of the end of the probe a reality.
Weissmann led the charge on the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. At this time, it is known that Manafort will face 81 months in prison.

A spokesman from New York University Law School noted that Weissmann will be leaving Mueller’s team “in the near future” and that they were in talks with Weissmann, who had done work with the university in the past, to return to the Law School.

Good deduction. Still, there is no guarantee on when the report will actually come. In the meantime, we wait for Mueller to submit his report and then for Barr to review it. It is then expected that Barr will create his own report to send to Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

An explanation of the special counsel’s findings would follow. Ultimately, it is the attorney general who is the official who decides what, if anything, in the report can become public.

Trump’s criticism of the investigation on Twitter comes after hundreds of pages of transcripts were released from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok’s and his lover at the time, former FBI counsel Lisa Page’s closed-door interviews before the House Judiciary Committee last summer.

Page’s testimony was rather informative. It confirmed that FBI officials had very little evidence at the beginning of the investigation in August 2016.

Page stated that the FBI “knew so little” about whether the allegations were “true or not true,” and had a “paucity of evidence because we are just starting down the path” of vetting the allegations.
You can read all of Page’s testimony here:

Lisa Page Interview Day 1 by on Scribd

Lisa Page Interview Day 2 by on Scribd

Strzok and Page became famous for their exchange of numerous anti-Trump text messages. The pair worked on the FBI’s initial investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election.

With all their anti-Trump rhetoric, the two also served, for a short period of time, on Mueller’s probe team.

We await a report but even though it appears to be coming soon, we really don’t know when or if it will be released.

“Insurance Policy” on Trump Revealed in Transcripts: Want to See?

  ,
Leave a comment

by Daveda Gruber:

On Tuesday House Judiciary Committee Republicans released hundreds of pages of transcripts from last year’s closed-door interview with ex-FBI attorney Lisa Page.

The long and drawn out Russian meddling probe  ultimately brought up and gave center stage to explosive texts between then-lovers Page and her partner then-FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.

The transcripts from last year’s interview with Page brought to light revealing new details about the bureau’s controversial internal discussions regarding an “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald J. Trump.

Page got her name recognized when it was revealed by the Justice Department inspector general that she and Strzok exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages. Page and Strzok were deeply involved in the FBI’s initial counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling. They investigated potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 election. Later, they both served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

In the text messages that were shared by Page and Strzok the so-called “insurance policy” was mentioned on numerous occasions.

During her interview with the Judiciary Committee in July 2018, Page was questioned about the texts. Page answered questions for about 10 hours total on July 13 and July 16.

Page ultimately confirmed that the “insurance policy”  referred to the Russia investigation. She explained that officials were proceeding with caution, concerned about the implications of the case while not wanting to go at “total breakneck speed” and risk burning sources as they presumed Trump wouldn’t be elected anyway.

Page also confirmed that investigators only had a “paucity” of evidence at the start.

The full text of the questions can be seen here:

Lisa Page Interview Day 1 by on Scribd

Lisa Page Interview Day 2 by on Scribd

After the questioning began, then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked about the text sent from Strzok to Page in August 2016.

The text reads, “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s [McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

FBI agents had named the investigation into the Trump campaign, “Crossfire Hurricane.”

Page said, “So, upon the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up through and including the Director regularly in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which is, is there someone associated with the [Trump] campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton. And given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.”

Page also said that, “if the answer is this is a guy just being puffery at a meeting with other people, great, then we don’t need to worry about this, and we can all move on with our lives; if this is, in fact, the Russians have coopted an individual with, you know, maybe wittingly or unwittingly, that’s incredibly grave, and we need to know that as quickly as possible.”

If you read the transcripts, you will see that it was never expected that Trump would be the President of the United States. In fact, the D.C. swamp agreed and Page said that all they needed was an allegation, and claimed “it is entirely common, particularly in a counterintelligence investigation, that you would only have—you would have a small amount of evidence” in launching a probe.

The pair worked on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server and then Page served a short detail on Mueller’s team and then returned to her post at the FBI in 2017.  She then ultimately left the bureau in May 2018.

Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after the texts were discovered and was reassigned to the FBI’s Human Resources Division. He was fired in August 2018.

Recently, former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, said he did not recall ever discussing the “insurance policy” with Strzok or Page.

I believe that “Andy’s” bubble burst with revelations that Page remembered the situation clearly.

Did a Coup D’etat Nearly Take Down President Trump?

  ,
Leave a comment

by Daveda Gruber:

Did you ever want to be a fly on the wall to see and hear what was going on in a particular situation? I have thought about it many times. What I did not realize is even though I wasn’t there to see and hear, I already knew the answers to some questions that were rather important and stuck in my mind.

On Monday President Trump drew a conclusion that, for some reason, I had already written about. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spoke about a “wrap-up smear,” it appeared clear that this method was used by the FBI in securing a FISA warrant against then candidate Donald Trump and eventually getting a special counsel to investigate it.

By putting two and two together, I fully understood what it meant and came up with what the “insurance policy” was that Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were referring to and implicating “Andy,” who is former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, with them.

McCabe was clear on his statement that Rosenstein was “absolutely serious” when he suggested recording Trump in the tumultuous days following James Comey’s firing as FBI director.

President Trump accused Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and McCabe of pursuing an “illegal and treasonous” plot against him.

Trump called McCabe a liar before lashing out at top DOJ and FBI officials, including ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

McCabe was fired last year by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Trump did not hold back when he tweeted:

McCabe recently wrote a book and revived some issues during promotional interviews for the forthcoming tell all book.

McCabe appeared on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and detailed private DOJ alleged discussions about secretly recording and potentially ousting the president.

McCabe claimed he “never actually considered taking [Rosenstein] up on the offer.” He said he did discuss the matter with the FBI’s then-general counsel, James A. Baker.

Last autumn Baker told lawmakers during a closed-door deposition that McCabe and Page came to Baker “contemporaneously” and told him details of the meeting where Rosenstein made the comments about the wearing of a wire. Baker told congressional investigators he took the word of McCabe and Page “seriously.”

McCabe told CBS News that “I think the general counsel had a heart attack” when he told him of Rosenstein’s plan.

McCabe added, “And when he got up off the floor, he said, ‘I, I, that’s a bridge too far. We’re not there yet.”

The plot thickened when days later, Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee the bureau’s investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials through the Russia probe, which has also involved examining whether the president obstructed justice.

Rosenstein, who has repeatedly has denied he “pursued or authorized recording the president,” has denied McCabe’s suggestion that the deputy attorney general had broached the idea of invoking the Constitution’s 25th Amendment.

The 25th Amendment allows Cabinet members to seek the removal of a president if they conclude that he or she is mentally unfit.

The Justice Department resonated both denials in a statement released last week and said that Rosenstein “was not in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment.”

This differs from what McCabe said in the interview, “Rod raised the [25th Amendment] issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other Cabinet officials might support such an effort.” He then added that he believed Rosenstein was “counting votes or possible votes” to remove Trump from office.

Baker, in his testimony to Congress, provided even more details about the alleged 25th Amendment discussions and said that two Cabinet officials were “ready to support” such an effort.

Baker testified, “I was being told by some combination of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he…this was what was related to me…that he had at least two members of the president’s Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it, an action under the 25th Amendment.”

Allegedly, Rosenstein told McCabe he might be able to persuade then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-Secretary of Homeland Security and later White House chief of staff John Kelly to invoke the 25th Amendment.

This whole scenario stinks of a Coup d’etat to me. It is my opinion that the “insurance policy” was contrived to take the newly elected President Trump out of office. Sadly, the Mueller lead Russia investigation was started with fabricated lies that were written about in the mainstream media and given relevance and then were blown up by the Democrats.

Now, go back to Pelosi’s description of the “wrap-up smear” and it will all make perfect sense to you as it is to me.

The “Deep State” is alive and well and living in the murky waters of “the swamp.”