Two pings: On POTUSes with classified docs, and the riddle-wrapped mystery of George Santos

Strangely paced and muffled moves.

These are going to be short(-ish) pings.  OSINT research is all over the place right now – God bless us, every one – and my intention is to focus.  So I’m not going to do a comprehensive treatment.

Conservatives are justifiably disgusted with the media for double-standard coverage on the reportedly recent discovery of classified documents loosed upon the world by former Vice President Biden when he left office in January 2017.  The documents have been somewhere for the last six years; in November, we’re told, some of them turned up in a search by Biden’s “personal” lawyers of his one-time office at the digs of the Chinese-funded (U.) Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington, D.C.  In December, more were found at a “separate location” where Biden had office space.  And In January, another discovery was made in Biden’s Wilmington garage, where his vintage Corvette lodges.

Update:  More material was reportedly (14 January) just found Continue reading “Two pings: On POTUSes with classified docs, and the riddle-wrapped mystery of George Santos”

Advertisement

Two pings on the new, “speaking” Durham filing in the Danchenko case

Ears to hear.

On 2 September 2022, Special Counsel John Durham entered a motion under seal in the federal case against Igor Danchenko – source for the Steele dossier – for making false statements to the FBI.

The motion, regarding admissibility of evidence, was filed under seal because it contained classified information.  The motion was unsealed 13 September with redactions in the Exhibits.  Margot Cleveland previewed earlier at The Federalist the presumption that if the motion were unsealed, we’d be able to discern the direction Durham is going to take the case.

In her view, especially based on Danchenko’s response to the new Durham filing, Durham will have to expose the Deep State’s operations if he wants to keep the case going.  Otherwise, the Danchenko defense will argue, with probable success, that his false statements were immaterial, because they didn’t affect the FBI’s, or DOJ’s or Robert Mueller’s, follow-on choices about investigation of the original matter.

The Durham motion goes directly to that point, Continue reading “Two pings on the new, “speaking” Durham filing in the Danchenko case”

The importance of background, and Danchenko’s primary Russian sub-source

A key to the thematic history behind Spygate.

In the TOC Ready Room preview for this article, I alluded to the principal point of highlighting the information in it.  That point is that Spygate was not a pick-up-game reaction to events in 2016.  In terms of involvement by the Obama federal agencies and Hillary Clinton’s network, evidence of connections to prior motives and preparation abounds.

Examples include Alexandra Chalupa and a cast of Obama officials already seeking Ukrainian cooperation on a Manafort-focused narrative in January 2016, before Manafort joined the Trump campaign and before the first primary election had been held.  If this was about impugning Manafort, why?  By 2019 we could see that getting ahead of any bad news about Biden was an obvious motive – but was it a priority at that point, considering Biden wasn’t running in 2016?  Did Republicans in general know enough about the Biden shenanigans to create a pervasive problem for Hillary and other Democrats that year?

Something other than narrowly-focused, proximate reactions seems to have been going on. Continue reading “The importance of background, and Danchenko’s primary Russian sub-source”