How John Durham Documented the Biggest Illegal Dirty Trick in U.S. History & Why No One Will Be Held Responsible • Repithwin News

This article originally appeared on Roger Stone Substack and was republished with permission.

What did Mr. Durham know three days ago when he released his report, that he did not know prior to the November 8th, 2020 election?

Special Counsel John Durham’s final report on the origins of the Russian collusion hoax (also known as Obamagate) document the single greatest dirty trick in the history of American politics and government; an abuse of power in which the full authority and extraordinary intelligence capabilities of the United States government were illicitly and illegally used to remove a duly elected President — Donald J. Trump — from office.

Contrary to the completely politicized and undocumented claims of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Report, as well as the feeble assertions of the Mueller investigation; neither the FBI or the CIA had any evidence whatsoever of collusion between any Russian entity and Donald Trump’s campaign for President.

Importantly, Durham established that there was an Oval Office meeting that included President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in which the lack of any actual evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and Hillary Clinton’s promulgation of this false narrative to the intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and the media, was established. This is precisely why this scandal is sometimes referred to as “Obamagate.”

Specifically Durham’s report says, “What the FBI knew from its intelligence collections as of early 2017. As the record reflects, as of early 2017, the FBI still did not possess any intelligence showing that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was in contact with Russian intelligence officers during the campaign.”

Indeed, based on declassified documents from early 2017, the FBI’s own records show that reports published by The New York Times in February and March 2017 concerning what four unnamed current and former U.S. intelligence officials claimed about Trump campaign personnel being in touch with any Russian intelligence officers was untrue.

These unidentified sources reportedly stated that (i) U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted communications of members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates that showed repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election; (ii) former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had been one of the individuals picked up on the intercepted “calls;” and (iii) the intercepted communications between Trump associates and Russians had been initially captured by the NSA.

However, official FBI documentation reflects that all three of these highly concerning claims of Trump-related contacts with Russian intelligence were untrue. Indeed, in a contemporaneous critique of the Times article prepared by Peter Strzok, who was steeped in the details of Crossfire Hurricane, all three of the above-referenced allegations were explicitly refuted. Strzok’s evaluation of the allegations included the following:

The FBI had not seen any evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with Russian intelligence officers. He characterized this allegation as misleading and inaccurate as written. He noted that there had been some individuals in contact with Russians, both governmental and non-governmental, but none of these individuals had an affiliation with Russian intelligence. He also noted previous contact between Carter Page and a Russian intelligence officer, but this contact did not occur during Page’s association with the Trump campaign.
The FBI had no information in its holdings, nor had it received any such information from other members of the Intelligence Community, that Paul Manafort had been a party to a call with any Russian government official. Strzok noted that the Intelligence Community had not provided the FBI with any such information even though the FBI had advised certain agencies of its interest in anything they might hold or collect regarding Manafort.
Regarding the allegation that the NSA initially captured these communications between Trump campaign officials and Trump associates and the Russians, Strzok repeated that if such communications had been collected by the NSA, the FBI was not aware of that fact.”

As investigative reporter John Leake wrote in The Patriot Sentinel, “In other words, in its Russian-Collusion reporting, the New York Times published assertions from “four unnamed current and former U.S. intelligence officials” that were entirely false. Thus, the practice of using “unidentified sources”—a practice that was once heavily frowned upon by respectable journalists—enabled the commission of a giant deception that inflicted untold damage to our political system.”

Even at that time (in early 2017) Leake wrote, “that it was possible to take down a sitting President of the United States by publishing the assertions of anonymous sources from within the state bureaucracy, then our government by elected officials was over, and our true masters were the unnamed intelligence officials.”

Federal officials, including CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein all knew that the so-called “Steele Dossier,” which alleged that Donald Trump had been entertained by “Russian prostitutes urinating on a bed once occupied by President Obama in a Moscow hotel suite,” were entirely unsubstantiated and false.

Nonetheless, these false allegations were used not only to rationalize the launch of the FBI’s counterintelligence effort, “Crossfire Hurricane,” but also to justify the bogus FISA warrant which allowed the FBI to spy on Donald Trump, and members of his campaign, when he was President-elect, and, again, when he was President.

Strangely enough, Durham never investigated or addressed false allegations that the DNC computer servers were the target of an online hack by Russian intelligence operatives. The FBI actually admitted in my trial that they had never actually inspected the DNC computer servers, relying instead on the assertions of CrowdStrike, a Democrat forensic IT firm whose “report” alleged this act by “the Russians.”

Interestingly, the CrowdStrike report was withheld from my defense attorneys at trial— although CrowdStrike Chief Security Officer Shawn Henry, who conveniently happens to be a former deputy to FBI Director Robert Mueller, admitted under oath to the House Intelligence Committee that the report contained no proof whatsoever that the Russians hacked the DNC, obtaining the embarrassing chain of e-mails published by WikiLeaks.

Twitter owner Elon Musk recently revealed that the intelligence agencies had full access to all of the Direct Message data on Twitter, an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. This explains why I was contacted by a leftist news site regarding my brief exchange of messages on Twitter with an entity calling themselves “Guccifer 2.0.”

My immediate reaction was to completely publicly release all of the exchanges which took place almost three months after WikiLeaks published the DNC and Clinton e-mails that were allegedly “hacked” from the Democratic National Committee. Based on the content, context and timing, these Twitter Direct Messages are entirely innocuous and certainly provide no evidence of collusion, collaboration, or any other crime. After my unconditional presidential pardon, Robert Mueller recycled this false narrative in an Op-Ed for The Washington Post in which he said that I was “in touch with Russian intelligence asset(s).”

While it is the assertion of both Special Counsel Mueller and CIA Director John Brennan that Guccifer 2.0 was a “Russian intelligence hacker” responsible for the “hacking” of the DNC, I believe that neither of these claims are proven. In fact, there is substantially more evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was a cutout for U.S. intelligence! Nonetheless, like birds jumping off a telephone wire, the fake news media widely reported that “Trump advisor Roger Stone admitted his contact with a Russian intelligence agent.” Incredibly, this entire false narrative would be recycled almost two years later in the run-up to my trial, when it was leaked that the FBI had “discovered” these Direct Messages in their investigation of me. Once again, ignoring that I myself released the material and that the contents and timing were benign.

Bitter-enders in the fake news media who continue, even today, to recycle the false narrative that Robert Mueller’s investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee yielded evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and point to my conviction fail to note that the judge in my case approved a motion by the government prosecutors in which the government insisted that they were not required to prove Russian collusion in order to convict me of obstructing their investigation into Russian collusion! In fact, the Senate Intelligence Report is complete bunk.

Indeed, I was ultimately convicted of lying to Congress under oath in my voluntary testimony regarding “Russian collusion” which we now know, definitely, never took place. How can one lie about something that never happened?

The most troubling aspect of Mr. Durham’s report is the simple question of timing. What did Mr. Durham know three days ago when he released his report, that he did not know prior to the November 8th 2020 election?

Why did Mr. Durham delay publication of his final report until he was certain that the 5-year statute of limitations under which Hillary Clinton and her aides, as well as the top intelligence and judiciary officials of the Obama and Trump Administration, could have been prosecuted for the crimes he documented?

Durham’s revelations are not surprising to me. In fact, on November 3rd, 2020, Election Day, the busiest news day of the year, the U.S. Department of Justice was forced, by federal court order, to release the last remaining, heavily redacted and long-hidden sections of Robert Mueller’s report, in which even he could not sugarcoat the fact that he had found “no factual evidence” of my involvement in Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration, or any other crime.

In fact, any misstatement I made under oath was immaterial and hid no underlying crime, including either Russian collusion or WikiLeaks collaboration—although even Mueller admitted that if he had found evidence of my coordination with WikiLeaks, which he did not, those actions would not have been illegal.

In the two days since the release of Durham’s report, I have been inundated by supporters and others urging me to sue those responsible for my malicious and vindictive prosecution.

Sadly, I don’t have a lawsuit. As previously noted, the judge granted a motion at my trial that the government did not have to prove Russian collusion in order to convict me for obstructing their investigation of the “Russian collusion” that they knew did not exist. I have no legal recourse because of the clever and narrow way my indictment was structured. I made honest misstatements, but none of them were material or hid any underlying crime. The real purpose of my indictment was to pressure me into falsely testifying against President Trump by saying that some 26 documented phone calls between us in 2016 pertained to Russian collusion and the WikiLeaks disclosures. I refused to lie.

The government never established that I had any meaningful exchange with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks, nor that I had received any material from them and passed it on to the Trump campaign, or anyone else. The government ignored the fact that Julian Assange had announced that he would release material on Hillary Clinton in late October and pretended that my knowledge of this general fact was somehow a secret.

Government witness Randy Credico testified that he had never told me that the WikiLeaks disclosures would come in October and that they would be powerful and that he had learned this from a woman lawyer who worked for Assange. Credico lied but my lawyers failed to produce text messages from Credico, which confirms both claims. In other words, he perjured himself for Mueller leading to my conviction.

The saddest takeaway from this entire escapade is that Donald Trump was absolutely right about the Russian collusion hoax—but no one will be held accountable or prosecuted for their treasonous crimes. In the meantime, post-pardon, my wife and I are still harassed with 11 baseless, meritless, frivolous, but highly sensationalized civil lawsuits in an effort to further drag my name through the mud and generate tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees for us. You can help by going to StoneDefenseFund.com.

The post How John Durham Documented the Biggest Illegal Dirty Trick in U.S. History & Why No One Will Be Held Responsible appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.