Changes

*In an attack on Chairman Nunes, Louise Mensch<ref>http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/louise-mensch-my-mind-is-messed-up-after-taking-hard-drugs-7920094.html</ref> now gives the names of the four individuals whom the FISA warrant was denied in July 2016, emphasizing the new cover story to justify the wiretaps, not as political spying, but against "unwitting" foreign "agents of influence." This may give legal cover for using foreign intelligence apparatus for domestic spying, but does not justify the criminal civil rights violations in leaking an American citizens name "incidentally" caught up in a foreign intelligence gathering operation. Instead, Mensch accuses Nunes of leaking information about FBI and NSA surveillance operations.<ref>https://patribotics.blog/2017/03/27/boris-epshteyn-named-in-july-fisa-application-did-nunes-obstruct-justice/</ref>  

*In an attack on Chairman Nunes, Louise Mensch<ref>http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/louise-mensch-my-mind-is-messed-up-after-taking-hard-drugs-7920094.html</ref> now gives the names of the four individuals whom the FISA warrant was denied in July 2016, emphasizing the new cover story to justify the wiretaps, not as political spying, but against "unwitting" foreign "agents of influence." This may give legal cover for using foreign intelligence apparatus for domestic spying, but does not justify the criminal civil rights violations in leaking an American citizens name "incidentally" caught up in a foreign intelligence gathering operation. Instead, Mensch accuses Nunes of leaking information about FBI and NSA surveillance operations.<ref>https://patribotics.blog/2017/03/27/boris-epshteyn-named-in-july-fisa-application-did-nunes-obstruct-justice/</ref>  

*'''28 March.''' Limited immunity deal reached between Adam Waldman and the DOJ's [[David Laufman]] for Julian Assange. The text of the deal reads: {{Quotebox|"Subject to adequate and binding protections, including but not limited to an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement, Mr. Assange welcomes the opportunity to discuss with the U.S. government risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA documents in WikiLeaks’ possession or control, such as the redaction of agency personnel in hostile jurisdictions and foreign [[espionage]] risks to WikiLeaks staff.<br><br>Derived directly from this discussion of risk mitigation, Mr. Assange is also prepared to discuss (within the source protection boundaries expected of a journalist and publisher operating at the highest level of integrity) (i) a description of CIA information in the possession or control of WikiLeaks; (ii) the risks of third parties who may have obtained access to such information (not withstanding the foregoing, for the avoidance of doubt this category specifically and others generally will not include any information that may effect WikiLeaks obligations to protect its sources) and (iii) information regarding the timing of further publications in so far as they relate to the risk mitigation approaches developed.”<ref>https://www.scribd.com/document/382555272/LaufmanWaldmanProffer3-28-17#from_embed</ref>}} Not included in the written proffer was an additional offer from Assange: He was willing to discuss technical evidence ruling out certain parties in the controversial leak of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election. "Mr. Assange offered to provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Waldman told John Solomon writing in ''The Hill''. "Finally, he offered his technical expertise to the U.S. government to help address what he perceived as clear flaws in security systems that led to the loss of the U.S. cyber weapons program."<ref>https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/394049-coming-up-tuesdays-rising-how-the-doj -almost-offered-an-immunity-deal-to-julian</ref> '''Comey nixes the deal - Russia hacking the DNC narrative intact.'''

*Limited immunity deal reached between Adam Waldman and the DOJ's [[David Laufman]] for Julian Assange. The text of the deal reads: {{Quotebox|"Subject to adequate and binding protections, including but not limited to an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement, Mr. Assange welcomes the opportunity to discuss with the U.S. government risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA documents in WikiLeaks’ possession or control, such as the redaction of agency personnel in hostile jurisdictions and foreign [[espionage]] risks to WikiLeaks staff.<br><br>Derived directly from this discussion of risk mitigation, Mr. Assange is also prepared to discuss (within the source protection boundaries expected of a journalist and publisher operating at the highest level of integrity) (i) a description of CIA information in the possession or control of WikiLeaks; (ii) the risks of third parties who may have obtained access to such information (not withstanding the foregoing, for the avoidance of doubt this category specifically and others generally will not include any information that may effect WikiLeaks obligations to protect its sources) and (iii) information regarding the timing of further publications in so far as they relate to the risk mitigation approaches developed.”<ref>https://www.scribd.com/document/382555272/LaufmanWaldmanProffer3-28-17#from_embed</ref>}} Not included in the written proffer was an additional offer from Assange: He was willing to discuss technical evidence ruling out certain parties in the controversial leak of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election. "Mr. Assange offered to provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Waldman told John Solomon writing in ''The Hill''. "Finally, he offered his technical expertise to the U.S. government to help address what he perceived as clear flaws in security systems that led to the loss of the U.S. cyber weapons program."<ref>https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/394049-coming-up-tuesdays-rising-how-the-doj -almost-offered-an-immunity-deal-to-julian</ref> '''Comey nixes the deal - Russia hacking the DNC narrative intact.'''

 

[[File:170509-andrew-mccabe-ac-1043p c043e7050b32e4ad26bd45b92eb651eb.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg|right|350px|thumb|McCabe (left) with co-conspirator Attn. Gen. [[Loretta Lynch]] (right). McCabe took $700,000 from a Clinton campaign operative to fix the email investigation and save Hillary's nomination. Later McCabe illegally raided the home of Paul Manafort to seize documents related to Congressional investigations that were off limits by warrant.]]

[[File:170509-andrew-mccabe-ac-1043p c043e7050b32e4ad26bd45b92eb651eb.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg|right|350px|thumb|McCabe (left) with co-conspirator Attn. Gen. [[Loretta Lynch]] (right). McCabe took $700,000 from a Clinton campaign operative to fix the email investigation and save Hillary's nomination. Later McCabe illegally raided the home of Paul Manafort to seize documents related to Congressional investigations that were off limits by warrant.]]

*'''29 March.''' Sen. Grassley inquires of Dir. Comey about the status of Deputy Dir. Andrew McCabe in relation to the Russia investigation. According to public reports, the FBI agreed to pay the author of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between Trump associates and the Russians.  It reportedly agreed to pay the author, Christopher Steele, to continue investigating Mr. Trump.  The Clinton campaign paid Steele to create this political opposition research dossier against Mr. Trump.  The FBI has not yet responded go Sen. Grassley's March 6 inquiry on the reports. McCabe is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General to examine whether the political and financial connections between his wife’s Democratic political campaign and Clinton associates warranted his recusal in the FBI’s Clinton email investigation. While McCabe recused himself from public corruption cases in Virginia—presumably including the reportedly ongoing investigation of McAuliffe regarding illegal campaign contributions—he failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email investigation, despite the appearance of a conflict of interest created by his wife’s campaign accepting $700,000 from a close Clinton associate during the email investigation. The fact is that McCabe participated in the controversial, high-profile Clinton investigation even though his wife took money from McAuliffe. FBI’s senior leadership should never have allowed that appearance of a conflict to undermine the Bureau’s important work. The Senate Committee wises to know if McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI’s reported arrangement with Christopher Steele, or if McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in the course of the investigation.  Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI’s second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation of the Republican presidential campaign.<ref>https://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2017/04/grassley-examines-potential-conflicts.html</ref>

*'''29 March.''' Sen. Grassley inquires of Dir. Comey about the status of Deputy Dir. Andrew McCabe in relation to the Russia investigation. According to public reports, the FBI agreed to pay the author of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between Trump associates and the Russians.  It reportedly agreed to pay the author, Christopher Steele, to continue investigating Mr. Trump.  The Clinton campaign paid Steele to create this political opposition research dossier against Mr. Trump.  The FBI has not yet responded go Sen. Grassley's March 6 inquiry on the reports. McCabe is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General to examine whether the political and financial connections between his wife’s Democratic political campaign and Clinton associates warranted his recusal in the FBI’s Clinton email investigation. While McCabe recused himself from public corruption cases in Virginia—presumably including the reportedly ongoing investigation of McAuliffe regarding illegal campaign contributions—he failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email investigation, despite the appearance of a conflict of interest created by his wife’s campaign accepting $700,000 from a close Clinton associate during the email investigation. The fact is that McCabe participated in the controversial, high-profile Clinton investigation even though his wife took money from McAuliffe. FBI’s senior leadership should never have allowed that appearance of a conflict to undermine the Bureau’s important work. The Senate Committee wises to know if McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI’s reported arrangement with Christopher Steele, or if McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in the course of the investigation.  Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI’s second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation of the Republican presidential campaign.<ref>https://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2017/04/grassley-examines-potential-conflicts.html</ref>