From Tom Fitton <[email protected]>
Subject Key Obamagate Doc Uncovered
Date May 23, 2020 1:38 AM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
Memorial Day – Why We Fight

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

JUDICIAL WATCH LAWSUIT FORCES RELEASE OF INFAMOUS FBI MEMO USED TO
LAUNCH OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S SPY OPERATION ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
2016 CAMPAIGN

[[link removed]]

In a major development, Judicial Watch forced the declassification and
release of an FBI memo or “electronic communication” (EC) that
officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed
“Crossfire Hurricane,” of President Trump’s 2016 presidential
campaign.

We obtained the document that disgraced FBI official Peter Strzok
wrote in our FOIA suit
[[link removed]]
against the FBI and DOJ for: “The Electronic Communication that
initiated the counterintelligence investigation of President Trump’s
2016 presidential campaign.” (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:19-cv-02743)).

The redacted document details seemingly third hand information that
the Russian government “had been seeking prominent members of the
Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential
post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President.” The
document also alleges Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
claimed to an unnamed party that “they (the Russians) could assist
the Trump campaign with the anonymous release of information during
the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

The document notes, “It was unclear whether he [Papadopoulos] or the
Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of [sic] through
other means. It was unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the
offer. We note the Trump team’s reaction could, in the end, have
little bearing of what Russia decides to do, with or without Mr.
Trump’s cooperation.”

The document is dated July 31, 2016. Here is the text of the
“electronic communication
[[link removed]


FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Electronic Communication

Title: Crossfire Hurricane Date: 07/31/2016

Cc: [Redacted]
Strzok Peter P II

From: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
[Redacted]
Contact: Strzok Peter P II, [Redacted]

Approved by: Strzok Peter P II

Drafed by: Strzok Peter P II

Case ID #: [Redacted]

CROSSFIRE HURRICANE;
FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT –
RUSSIA;
SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIVE MATTER

This document contains information that is restricted to case
participants

Synopsis: (S/ / ) Opens and assigns investigation

Reason 1.4 (b)
Derived from: FBI
NSISC-20090615
Declassify On: 20411231

[Redacted]

(S/) An investigation is being opened based on information received by
Legat [Redacted] on 07/29/2016. The text of that email
follows:

SECRET/
[Redacted]

Title: (S/ / CC/NF) CROSSFIRE HURRICANE
Re: [Redacted] 07/31/2016

BEGIN EMAIL

(U/ /) Legat [Redacted] information from [Redacted] Deputy Chief of
Mission

Synopsis:
(U/ /) Legat [Redacted] received information from the [Redacted]
Deputy Chief of Mission related to the hacking of the Democratic
National Committee’s website/server.

Details:
(S/ /[Redacted] On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Legal Attaché (Legat)
[Redacted] was summoned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Mission
(DCM) for the [Redacted] who will be leaving [Redacted] post Saturday
July 30, 2016 and set to soon thereafter retire from government
service, advised [Redacted] was called by [Redacted] about an urgent
matter requiring an in person meeting with the U.S. Ambassador. [Note:
[Redacted]. The [Redacted] was scheduled to be away from post until
mid-August, therefore [Redacted] attended the meeting.

(S/ [Redacted]) [Redacted] advised that [Redacted] government had been
seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to
engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump
be elected U.S. President. One of the people identified was George
Papadopolous (although public media sources provide a spelling of
Papadopoulos), who was believed to be one of Donald Trump’s foreign
policy advisers. Mr. Papdopoulos was located in [Redacted] so the
[Redacted] met with him on several occasions, with [Redacted]
attending at least one of the meetings.

(S/ [Redacted]) [Redacted] recalled [Redacted] of the meetings between
Mr. Papdopolous and [Redacted] concerning statements Mr. Papadopolous
made about suggestions from the Russians that they (the Russians)
could assist the Trump campaign with the anonymous release of
information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary
Clinton. [Redacted] provided a copy of the reporting that was provided
to [Redacted] from [Redacted] to Legal [Redacted]. The text is exactly
as follows:

(Begin Text)

(S/ [Redacted]) 5. Mr. Papadopolous [Redacted] also suggested the
Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it
could assist this process with the anonymous release of information
during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and
President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were
referring to material acquired publicly of through other means. It was
also unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer. We note the
Trump team’s reaction could, in the end, have little bearing of what
Russia decides to do, with or without Mr. Trump’s cooperation.
(End Text)

(s/ [Redacted]
[Redacted]
(s/ [Redacted] Legat requests that further action on this information
should consider the sensitivity that this information was provided
through informal diplomatic channels from [Redacted] to the U.S.
Embassy’s DCM. It was clear from the conversation Legal [Redacted]
had with DCM that [Redacted] knew follow-up by the U.S. government
would be necessary, but extraordinary efforts should be made to
protect the source of this information until such a time that a
request from our organization can be made to [Redacted] to obtain this
information through formal channels.

END EMAIL

(S/ / ) Based on the information provided by Legat [Redacted] this
investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s)
associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating
activities with the Government of Russia.
And so the document ends.

No wonder the DOJ and FBI resisted the public release of this infamous
“electronic communication” that “opened” Crossfire Hurricane
– it shows there was no serious basis for the Obama administration
to launch an unprecedented spy operation on the Trump campaign. We now
have more proof that Crossfire Hurricane was a scam, based on absurd
gossip and innuendo. This document is Exhibit A to Obamagate, the
worst corruption scandal in American history. This document shows how
Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham are right to question
the predicate of this spy operation.

Included with each of our July, 2019 FOIA requests to the FBI and DOJ,
which led to the production of this Electronic Communication document,
was an April 2018 letter
[[link removed]]
from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the DOJ
concerning a congressional subpoena for the same record.

The DOJ initially provided the Intelligence Committee a heavily
redacted
[[link removed]]
copy of the Electronic Communication it sought. Only after the
Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena did the DOJ, on April 10,
2018, provide a less redacted
[[link removed]]
version, which has not been released publicly.

The DOJ IG also referenced and quoted the EC
[[link removed]]
in its December report on FISA abuse targeting President Trump and
Carter Page. The IG report, FBI texts, and testimony show President
Obama was aware of Crossfire Hurricane.

We had previously received a production of 144 pages
[[link removed]]
of emails between Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page in which
the Electronic Communication was discussed.

On July 31, 2016, Strzok sent an email under the subject line
“Opening EC” to Jonathan Moffa, a deputy assistant director in the
bureau’s Counterintelligence Division, Lisa Page and an unidentified
FBI Office of General Counsel official.

Strzok: Hey just realized I need a succinct statement for the Opening
EC. To open bidding I propose: [redacted]. Comments, please.
Moffa: I would recommend: [redacted].
Page: I like Jon’s additions and subtraction.
Strzok: Thanks. So: [redacted].
We’re now seeing the corrupt origins of Obamagate.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES TO STOP GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S “VOTE BY MAIL”
MANDATE

Judicial Watch just sued in federal court to stop the special,
statewide vote-by-mail mandate issued by California Governor Gavin
Newsom. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include former U.S.
Representative Darrell Issa (a candidate in the upcoming November
election) and individual California voters from across the political
spectrum. We filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento
against Gov. Newsom and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla
(_Darrell Issa, et al. Gavin Newsom, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 2:20-cv-01044)).

Our complaint argues that Newsom’s Executive Order N-64-20
[[link removed]],
requiring all California counties to conduct all-mail ballot
elections, violates the U.S. Constitution and California state law.
According to the U.S. Constitution, only state legislatures may
determine the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives,” and only state legislatures may
establish the manner in which electors to the Electoral College are
appointed. The lawsuit points out that “[n]either defendant in this
case is a ‘Legislature,’” as required under the Constitution,
and “[t]he California Legislature never delegated to [Newsom] its
authority under the Elections Clause or Electors Clause to regulate
the manner of conducting elections for senators, representatives, or
presidential electors.”

We also contend that Newsom’s mandate violates the California
Voter’s Choice Act of 2016, which grants counties the option to
qualify for and opt in to a system of mail-in voting. We argue that
the law reflects the legislature’s deliberate choice to delegate to
each county the decision about whether to qualify and opt in to the
all-mail ballot system. During the March 3, 2020 primary election,
only 15 of California’s 58 counties qualified and opted-in to the
all-mail balloting system.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs will be harmed by Newsom’s
mandate for all-mail voting because it imposes an entirely new
election system that ignores the extensive qualifications required by
California law before a county can opt in to all-mail balloting. We
argue its plaintiffs will be at risk of having their votes thrown out
or diluted by invalid votes under Newsom’s illegal system, and that
Mr. Issa will have to expend additional resources to respond to the
illegal mandate during his campaign.

Governor Newsom’s vote-by-mail mandate is unconstitutional and may
cause the votes of countless voters to be thrown out or not counted.
California law prohibits blindly mailing out ballots to every
registered voter in the state. This scheme raises the risk of Election
Day chaos as well as voter fraud.

In 2018, California settled
[[link removed]]
a
federal lawsuit with Judicial Watch and began the process of removing
up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter
rolls. Judicial Watch late last year sent notices
[[link removed]]
to
11 additional California counties warning them of voting list
maintenance issues. Judicial Watch recently sued North Carolina
[[link removed]]
and Pennsylvania
[[link removed]]
to
force them to clean up their voter rolls.

UN’S U.S.-FUNDED COVID-19 RESPONSE PROMOTES ABORTION

Whether abortion should be considered essential during the current
health crisis has been hotly contested
[[link removed]].
Now it seems
that the United Nations, using your tax dollars, has decided that
indeed abortion is essential. Our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]].



> Always seizing opportunities to advance its leftist agenda, the
> United Nations (UN) is capitalizing on the coronavirus to promote
> sexual and reproductive health services—including abortion—by
> classifying them as “essential” healthcare in pandemic recovery
> efforts. Why should American taxpayers care? Because the United
> States is funding the endeavor and, in fact, is the largest donor of
> the UN program conducting the multi-billion-dollar initiative called
> COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP). In a tedious
> 80-page document
>
[[link removed]],
> the world body offers details of its costly project to counter the
> public health and humanitarian consequences of the crisis. It
> includes categorizing sexual and reproductive health services on the
> same level of importance as malnutrition, sanitation, shelter,
> essential healthcare and food insecurity.

> Since a large chunk of the American tax dollars flow into UN coffers
> via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the head
> of the agency fired off a letter
>
[[link removed]]
> to the UN Secretary General blasting the COVID-19 response plan for
> advancing access to abortion as an “essential service.” Besides
> donating a whopping $3.5 billion to UN health and humanitarian
> assistance in 2019, USAID has so far been the largest contributor to
> the global COVID-19 response by pledging more than $1 billion
>
[[link removed]]
> to the cause. In the letter USAID Administrator John Barsa directs
> UN Secretary General António Guterres to stay focused on
> life-saving interventions such as the delivery of essential health
> care and food to address shortages that could represent a second,
> deadly impact of the pandemic in many countries.

> “The UN should not use this crisis as an opportunity to advance
> access to abortion as an essential service,” Barsa writes.
> “Unfortunately, the Global HRP does just this, by cynically
> placing the provision of sexual and reproductive health services on
> the same level of importance as food-insecurity, essential health
> care, malnutrition, shelter, and sanitation.” Barsa continues by
> writing: “Most egregious is that the Global HRP calls for the
> widespread distribution of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion
> supplies, and for the promotion of abortion in local country
> settings.” The Trump administration’s USAID administrator
> proceeds to ask the UN chief to remove references to sexual and
> reproductive health and its derivatives from the Global HRP and
> “drop the provision of abortion as an essential component of the
> UN’s priorities to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

A Cuban American who grew up in south Florida, Barsa continues by
noting that “under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the
United States has made clear that we will never tire of defending
innocent life.” The USAID chief reminds that during President
Trump’s address to the 74the UN General Assembly, the
commander-in-chief warned the UN that it has no business attacking the
sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life. “Indeed,
the UN should not intimidate or coerce Member States that are
committed to the right to life,” Barsa writes. “To use the
COVID-19 pandemic as a justification to pressure governments to change
their laws is an affront to the autonomy of each society to determine
its own national policies on health care. The United States stands
with nations that have pledged to protect the unborn.” Barsa also
reveals that UN member countries are deeply divided over the use of
the term “sexual and reproductive health” and its derivatives.
“It is among the most polarizing issues raised in UN
negotiations,” Barsa cautions, adding that “now is not the time to
add unnecessary discord to the COVID-19 response.”

In the HRP’s introduction, Guterres makes it clear that the UN is
hitting up member nations, especially the U.S., for more money, by
calling on all donors and partners to maintain core support for the
most vulnerable. “To divert funding from humanitarian needs at this
time would create an environment in which cholera, measles and
meningitis would thrive, even more children would become malnourished,
and the narratives of violent extremists would take deeper hold,”
Guterres writes. “It would also extend the breeding ground for the
coronavirus disease itself.”

TRUMP’S BIG BET ON VIRUS DRUG GETS PERSONAL

President Trump seems to enjoy jousting with the media. Recently he
sent heads exploding by announcing that he is taking the anti-malaria
drug hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure.

Trump has touted this drug since the pandemic began -- it is a
leader’s role to seek out solutions and nudge people toward those
that are promising. All the handwringing in the media and the enclaves
of experts is just Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, has an interesting
update
[[link removed]]
on Trump and this drug in his _Investigative Bulletin_.

> Judicial Watch has been closely following the saga of President
> Trump and the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine (HC). We get a
> lot of mail on the subject. We’ve long considered it a bold gamble
> and a winning bet
>
[[link removed]].
> On Monday, the president took it to another level, announcing that
> he himself had been taking the drug.

> Heads promptly exploded across the liberal universe. Nancy Pelosi
> denounced the president for being “morbidly obese” (he’s not)
> and “taking something that has not been approved by the
> scientists.” Longtime Trump antagonist Joe Scarborough called the
> president a liar, saying he is “not taking hydroxychloroquine.”
> Chuck Schumer said he did it “to divert attention from all the bad
> things happening.” Medical professionals rushed in. Trump was
> setting an “irresponsible” example, said Dr. Scott Solomon of
> Harvard Medical School. There are “serious hazards” to HC, said
> Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic. You get the idea.

> Yesterday, the president said he would soon stop taking HC, but
> point made—and it’s a good one. Trump correctly views himself as
> a frontline leader in the battle against Covid-19. That’s the
> context for understanding his latest move.

> The key word is “frontline.”

> Here’s what Trump said about HC on Monday:

> “You’d be surprised at how many people are taking it, especially
> the frontline workers, before you catch it. The frontline workers,
> many many are taking it. I happen to be taking it. I happen to be
> taking it…. Frontline workers take it. A lot of doctors take it. I
> take it.”

> See his full remarks here
>
[[link removed]].
Trump repeatedly
> returns to the theme of HC as an aid to _frontline_
> personnel—doctors, nurses, emergency workers, cops,
> firefighters—and as a _prophylactic_. He notes that HC can be
> effective “especially early on” in the course of the virus. It
> shows promise “as a preventative.”

> And in fact there are numerous examples from around the globe
> indicating that HC might benefit frontline personnel and help fight
> the early stages of the virus. A recent NYU study, for example,
> found promising
>
[[link removed]]
> results. We noted in an earlier report
>
[[link removed]]
> that Turkey has thrown HC at everyone with the virus and claims a
> death toll lower than the global average. In March, India approved
> HC
>
[[link removed]]
> for its frontline personnel. Our mailbox at Judicial Watch is filled
> with accounts from frontline personnel about the positive impact of
> HC.

> The Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, and
> many other organizations have warned about dangerous possible side
> effects
[[link removed]]
> to HC, including serious heart issues. These are important warnings.
> And other studies
>
[[link removed]]
> have found no benefit from the drug or are inconclusive.

> But this is life in wartime and an existential threat to the Trump
> Presidency. As we’ve noted before, the HC episode plays to some of
> Trump’s most successful political instincts: his preference for
> non-traditional channels, distrust of experts, deregulatory
> impulses, showmanship, and use of the media. It will be months, if
> not years, before the scientific consensus is settled on the use of
> HC in the battle against Covid-19.

> Meanwhile, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Trump’s
> bold gamble on HC is still paying off. On Monday, he pushed a big
> pile of chips to the center of the table and came up a winner.
Those of us who live in the real world are grateful this drug exists,
that doctors doing battle with the virus discovered that it could be
effective, and that our President publicized it.

MEMORIAL DAY – WHY WE FIGHT

Memorial Day helps our nation focus on the ultimate sacrifice of
untold numbers of fellow Americans – Americans who gave their lives
to preserve and defend our God-given freedoms and our constitutional
republic.

As we honor those heroes next week, I’d like to draw your attention
again to the Veterans Day speech
[[link removed]]
given in
1985 by then-President Ronald Reagan. Much of his speech applies to
Memorial Day, especially this portion, which remains timely today:

> And the living have a responsibility to remember the conditions that
> led to the wars in which our heroes died. Perhaps we can start by
> remembering this: that all of those who died for us and our country
> were, in one way or another, victims of a peace process that failed;
> victims of a decision to forget certain things; to forget, for
> instance, that the surest way to keep a peace going is to stay
> strong. Weakness, after all, is a temptation — it tempts the
> pugnacious to assert themselves — but strength is a declaration
> that cannot be misunderstood. Strength is a condition that declares
> actions have consequences. Strength is a prudent warning to the
> belligerent that aggression need not go unanswered.

> Peace fails when we forget what we stand for. It fails when we
> forget that our Republic is based on firm principles, principles
> that have real meaning, that with them, we are the last, best hope
> of man on Earth; without them, we’re little more than the crust of
> a continent. Peace also fails when we forget to bring to the
> bargaining table God’s first intellectual gift to man: common
> sense. Common sense gives us a realistic knowledge of human beings
> and how they think, how they live in the world, what motivates them.
> Common sense tells us that man has magic in him, but also clay.
> Common sense can tell the difference between right and wrong. Common
> sense forgives error, but it always recognizes it to be error first.

> We endanger the peace and confuse all issues when we obscure the
> truth; when we refuse to name an act for what it is; when we refuse
> to see the obvious and seek safety in Almighty. Peace is only
> maintained and won by those who have clear eyes and brave minds.
I’d like to think many Americans have “clear eyes and brave
minds” and these patriots desire the same qualities in our political
and judicial leaders. It certainly reflects Judicial Watch’s modest
approach to our efforts.

Have a safe and blessed Memorial Day!

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU02"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2020, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis