Things are again not what they seem, but you have to stand back to understand the right questions.
People have asked about the recent release of the declassified FBI documents (a partial release) and what they mean. Having spent years deep in the research, here’s my take.
At first blush people may say there’s nothing really there that we didn’t already know. I would differ on that perspective because the process is telling us something very loudly, and the absence of material is shouting even louder.
Simple question: This stuff was declassified by President Trump and released by the FBI, correct? If so, then why isn’t the release simply uploaded to the FBI.Gov website. Why release it to congress and then leak it to John Solomon?
Read the underline. First things first. Explain to me exactly how these were “obtained.” Where did Solomon get them?
[SOURCE]
If it’s all on the up-and-up, and if it is simply an outcome of declassified material, then why is sourcing for the documents clouded in some weird mystery. Shouldn’t we know the process? Those of you who remember the FISA application release, will know why this process issue is important.
Next, the information is given to the founding member of the “Tick Tock” club. John Solomon has singularly been responsible for more purposefully controlled information releases than any other ‘conservative’ media rep for the Intel Community. The Russiagate files coming from Solomon should be the first big “red flag” that causes pause.
Who game them to Solomon? And again, why not just upload them to a .gov website (DNI, FBI or even HPSCI).
I suspect the intention here, the motive of the process, is to focus on the politics of the release, NOT the illegal nature of the conduct that is contained within the evidence the release outlines. They want the public focused on the “politics” not the “illegal surveillance” and unlawful conduct that underpins Russiagate.
Bottom line on the process aspect. This is a controlled release of information. We are getting a few pieces of the puzzle affirmed, but the key parts of the same picture are hidden. I will explain with an example in a moment.
Process matters, because the DC silo defense is partly contingent upon ‘process.’ If the evidence is not discovered within a silo agency, that evidence is never considered by the DC system. It doesn’t matter if the evidence is accurate, if DC didn’t originate the evidence, it is disregarded [See Durham Investigation for a case study in this].
In order to confront the illegal nature of the conduct behind Russiagate, the process used to discover and/or spotlight the unlawful behavior is critical. If DC can claim the process is political, DC -and by extension legal accountability- will stay away from it.
This does not mean whoever leaked the files to John Solomon is the originator of the play to deploy politics, it could be the person behind the person who leaked the files to Solomon.
As an example, who orchestrated this Epstein file nonsense?
Who organized this stunt? Who sent the invitations to them? Was it Pam Bondi? If so, who suggested this ridiculous fiasco was a great idea to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi? Start there, and you will begin to find the problem.
The same process issue fingerprints, evident in this FBI Russiagate file release, need to be known. Work backward from Solomon. Who gave the files to him; then, who suggested the Solomon process to that person?
The selected source and process issues are only one element of the tell highlighting this as a controlled release of information, intended to satiate a generally unknowledgeable audience. Another issue is what’s missing.
As an example, review the Wolfe file release [SEE HERE]. That is a singular FD-302 interview of the former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Security Director, James Wolfe.
We know from the Wolfe indictment that SSCI Security Director James Wolfe was interviewed by a female FBI investigator three times; once in October 2017, and twice in December 2017. The released 302 only cover one of those interviews, the one in October. The interview notes from December (two sets of 302s) are NOT in this release.
It was in the December interviews that Wolfe lied to investigators (first Dec interview), then when faced with evidence during the second December interview, he admitted his guilt. Those interview notes are not here.
Why only the first Wolfe interview released? Likely because the second and third round of questioning brought then Vice-Chair of the SSCI, Senator Mark Warner, into the picture. The absence of the December 302’s is the evidence of: (1) a coverup operation; and (2) a controlled release of information.
Remember, there is no doubt James Wolfe leaked the FISA application on March 17th to journalist Ali Watkins. The FBI even asserted under oath in a December 2018 court filing the FISA application was leaked by James Wolfe.
Where are the interview notes of James Wolfe that led to this statement of fact by the FBI investigator(s)?
I’m still going through the pages, pulling details from each one. However, on the topline issue of the release itself there are obvious indications this is a controlled release of information intended to protect the people who weaponized their offices in Russiagate.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are part of a controlled release operation. They could be completely overwhelmed in their jobs, struggling to get their hands around this rogue silo, and easily duped by the people within the agency they have been appointed to lead.
Hell, beyond the process mess, I would argue Bongino and Patel likely don’t even know what they could be looking for; let alone knowing where the evidence is and how to go about releasing it. However, for the sake of a strong awakening, start by asking how these new Russiagate documents found their way into John Solomon’s hands.