We now have undeniable proof that the DNC-paid-for dossier served as the basis for FISA warrants against the then Trump Presidential candidacy. That proof came in the way of a New York Times article that ran on December 30, 2017. The article claims – and I’m not making this up – that Australia tipped the FBI off because George Papadopoulos was running his mouth while binge drinking at a bar in London. As always, no-name sources fueled the New York Times article.
Ladies and gentlemen, and all those somewhere in between, this is the best they’ve got. Those unnamed New York Times sources – were they James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andy McCabe? – can’t come up with anything better than George Papadopoulos was drunk at a bar running his mouth trying to impress and as a result the Australian government got wind and called the FBI.
Have you ever been drunk at a bar? If so, did you talk up any and everything you could in order to impress someone for some reason, even if only for your own ego?
What’s behind all this? Simply put, the dossier. The dossier allowed James Comey’s FBI to obtain FISA warrants thus allowing the US government to intercept then candidate Trump communications. Susan Rice sifted through those communications – strange given her position as US ambassador to the UN – and unmasked everyone she could. This was all part of that “insurance policy” Peter Strzok discussed in Andy McCabe’s office. The Mueller probe is that insurance policy in its execution phase.
You have insurance right? Normally your policy sits dormant. You pay for it and hope you never have to make a claim. But once in a while something happens and you have to make a phone call and put the provisions of that policy into effect. That’s what the dossier was. The DNC and Obama administration set it up as a contingency in case Hillary Clinton couldn’t seal the deal. She couldn’t, so after the election they put it into effect and the end result is Mueller as special prosecutor dithering away $2 million a month on an investigation that hasn’t really proved much of anything it was chartered to prove.
So why would the deep state want all the sudden to distance themselves from the dossier with some weird story that involves Papadopoulos, a drunken rant at a bar in London, a Maltese college professor (not making that up, the New York Times reported it), and Australian secret agents?
If the dossier is exposed for what it is – Hillary Clinton campaign opposition research converted into “intelligence” submitted to a FISA court – then it is inadmissible from a legal perspective. What happens in a legal case when a key piece of evidence is thrown out? The entire proceedings are over, done, ended. If the dossier is exposed, Mueller and the insurance policy no longer have any standing upon which to operate. In other words, Mueller stops being special prosecutor and the hundreds of staff he’s employed have to find something else to do.
This entire Mueller sham is predicated on a premise so flimsy the deep state is willing to claim an ally tipped the FBI off about some kid talking out of his rear end while getting hammered at a bar in London – as if that’s an acceptable excuse for illegally using the United State Intelligence Community against a candidate for the Presidency.
Image: CC0Creative Commons; https://pixabay.com/en/explosion-detonation-blast-burst-147909/