Over the last several days Shipwreckedcrew—in exchanges with Russia Hoax researchers—has raised a basic question about the now famous Danchenko interview. Which is to say, the first Danchenko interview, which took place in January, 2017. For example:
Also the podcast with shipwrecked is a good idea, maybe also with John Solomon.
Mark, what is your opinion? Were there really grounds for the FBI to think that CP was a russian agent? At best it would make the FBI look like a bunch of Inspector Clouseau’s. At worst, it looks deliberate.
I cannot believe that FusionGPS/Steele targeted Carter Page serendipitously at the very moment the FBI was going apesh*t over Page telling the Russians he's the one who helped the FBI make their case against the Russian agents.
Handing the FBI Dossier material implicating Page in a Russian/Trump collusion is like dangling a candy-bar on a fishing hook over a hungry child.
I think there had to be a two way street here; FusionGPS had to have been alerted to the fact that the FBI was after Page, and that Page was a Trump campaign volunteer, and thus any half-bake allegation they could cook-up about him being in bed with Russians was going to be swallowed hook/line/ and sinker by the FBI. So FusionGPS dutifully worked up a fantastical story woven around open source facts, including Page's trip to Russia that summer, in which they claim he's the go-between in this collusion with the Trump campaign, replete with 19% commission for page if he get Trump to lift sanctions on Russia.
Gobble, gobble, gobble goes the FBI, and voila -- a FISA warrant on Page is obtained.
FusionGPS and Steele getting up on Page at that moment was the roast pigeon flying into the FBI's mouth. Somebody had to tell Hillary's campaign/Elias/Sussmann/FusionGPS/Steele/Danchenko that CP was target numero uno for FBI. So they delivered him on a platter.
Gobble, gobble, gobble goes the FBI ...
Am I missing something?
Was Baker the "two way" street?
J.E. Dyer put out an article that connects many dots back to 2009. With your analysis thrown in, it's apparent that Obama admin corrupted our IC and DOJ for their own gain, and Biden reinstituted the gang back.
Okay, I'm dense. I've been trying to keep a mental 'dictionary' of initials in regard to the many covid and vaccine terms, i.e., ADE, antibody dependent enhancement because I want to understand and learn. So, here we have another seemingly important two initials -- EC. I can't figure out what EC stands for in this column. I knew what a 302 was, but I kept wondering 'does EC mean 'electronic communication'? Because, to me, totally ignorant of so many terms, and unable to find the meaning or source (I actually ended up at justice.gov looking for abbreviations in FBI reports) -- I keep wondering why EC is so important. Please excuse my ignorance, but I am still so, so interested in this case, I want to understand everything about it.
I'm still 50/50 on Page being an honest advisor for Trump or a CHI plant by the IC into the campaign. It fits the left / right hand issues we see elsewhere. The guy is just slimy and greasy like that.
SD ran a posting yesterday about Page's current lawsuit and the fact that the honorable (using that term loosely) James Boasberg has now been assigned to Page's civil case against James Comey. Mostly putting emphasis on the fact that James Boasberg comes up in the circle of Flynn, Page, FISA, saga 6 or 8 different times. Though SD lends to the conflict of interest he never mentions the high probability of instant reclusion.
I'm saying if James Boasberg doesn't recluse ,Page's council will absolutely demand it. That seems to be a theme to Page's cases where rather than traction they keep getting bounced or reassigned. DC is a small circuit and I doubt anything happens there out of coincidence.
Any thoughts on that jibberish Mark?
Mark, school me up a bit. I’ve read FBI 302 reports so I know what they are, but what is an EC “electronic communication?” Is that a fancy way of saying email?
"Even when those sources tell pretty consequential untruths, the FBI avoids those types of prosecutions. For starters, it’s not a good way to encourage other people to share information with the FBI." Given their recent actions, who in their right mind would be willing to share anything with the FBI.
Why did the FBI go ballistic when Page disclosed his role? Does that threaten the case?
We should compare notes. This could be fun. Maybe even a podcast or a few.
Mark, when you go back to the Clinesmith case and the filings there, and draw upon everything that is publicly available now from the IG reports and the 2 Durham indictments, the Crossfire Hurricane team members trying to claim Clinesmith was the **only person** inside the FBI who knew about Carter Page's work for the CIA is going to be tough row to hoe. I don't believe it can be done. Now, to prosecute a criminal case, Durham needs to **document** that other members of Crossfire knew the truth about Page/CIA and were deliberately hiding it from the FISA Court, just as Clinesmith did. I did Substack column where I showed the section in the DOJ IG report from Dec. 2019 how Case Agent-1, Somma, gave untruthful answers to questions about Page's relationship to the CIA: https://briancates.substack.com/p/danchenko-lied-to-the-fbi-to-cover. That's at least one documented instance of a Crossfire team member trying to hide this.