Thread by @tracybeanz

🚨1. THREAD: What is the question being asked in light of the recently released transcripts from the HPSCI?

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1258572139504054274

2. For years we have been told that to even QUESTION whether or not the Russians hacked the DNC, DCCC and Podesta was a massive conspiracy theory. “HOW DARE YOU!?” they proclaimed.

3. This came from all directions, along with warnings from more “mainstream” folks: “That whole story is so conspiratorial- we should stay away from it”. I patently refused.

4. I, along with numerous others, have been studying the case of Wikileaks released material, Guccifer2, etc for 5 YEARS now. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, lots of people have asserted it was CERTAINLY Russia that hacked those entities.

5. Never mind VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), a group consisting of the people in the screen shot below came with several memo’s and technical evidence to the contrary of the official story.

6. You can read those here (I encourage you to do so): consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/int…
Here: consortiumnews.com/2017/01/17/a-d…
And here: consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-…

7. Never mind other forensic data and metadata available within the files leaked from Guccifer2, which have been studied and analyzed for years here: g-2.space (Hat tip to @with_integrity for all of his work on this)

8. All of that be damned- it was a massive conspiracy theory to even TALK about the fact that there was evidence PUBLICLY available- technical evidence- that shot a hole through the theory that the RUSSIANS hacked the DNC/DCCC and Podesta.

9. You’ll recall that massive story that Fox News broke in regards to the murder of Seth Rich a few years back, only to be forced to retract- they are still embroiled in litigation to this day, some of which I will share in a moment.

10. You have been asked to IGNORE all of this, for fear of those “mainstream” folks calling you a “Conspiracy Theorist”. Pish Posh. So, we are going to put any possible theories aside for now and focus on some of the HARD EVIDENCE we have in front of us.

11. It's evidence that shows that people in our government were given an opportunity to take a hold of the truth and stop the nonsense, but couldn't risk the truth reaching the American people.

12. When the transcripts were declassified the other day, we got several bits about this from the people directly involved with the supposed forensic exam of the servers. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike (Former FBI under Mueller) said this:

13. And the solution to fix these “hacking issues” at the DNC was to decommission the entire network and build a new one. This is from the testimony of Andrew Brown, the man in charge of the relevant technical aspects at the DNC.

14. They decided it was best to “burn down the old infrastructure”

15. To reaffirm- Crowdstrike, the firm hired to take a look at what happened at the DNC, has stated under oath in front of the HPSCI, that they do not have ANY EVIDENCE that the data supposedly gathered during this “attack” was EXFILTRATED.

16. Wikileaks released the DNC data (emails), as did a website called “DCLeaks”. There was also OTHER DATA released by a shadowy figure called “Guccifer2”. There was a “Guccifer1” before G2 ever existed. More on that in a bit.

17. The data released by G2 was different- spreadsheets from what purported to be NGPVan (the co. that hosts software and data for basically the entire Democrat party)and other things that were ALSO included in the Podesta emails- which were dumped by Wikileaks alone much later.

18. You would think that the FBI would want to know WHO it was that gave this data to Wikileaks, right? Well, here is a long lost story by @jsolomonReports that I have appended to along the way with some more information.

19. On 6/25/18 John Solomon published a story in “The Hill” called “How Comey intervened to kill Wikileaks’ immunity deal” thehill.com/opinion/white-…

20. It is important to note, that the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, the same one who put out the BOGUS report a few weeks ago reaffirming “Russian Interference” HAD all of this information we are about to go through.

21. Not only did they HAVE IT- but their chairman at the time, Mark Warner, was involved with trying to ASSIST.

22. First, we need to introduce Adam Waldman- Adam Waldman is an American attorney and lobbyist who pops up often in this story. Back in the day, we were privy to some Signal Messages that Waldman had with Mark Warner.

23. Fox news did a story in February of 2018 about these Signal messages: foxnews.com/politics/democ…

24. Waldman was working on behalf of three critical figures in the Russia investigation- Oleg Deripaska, Christopher Steele, and Julian Assange. Waldman had been texting back and forth with Warner in early 2017 attempting to arrange a meeting between Steele (cont)

25. and the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was also texting back and forth about safe passage for Assange. 21.At the same time, he was also texting back and forth with Bruce Ohr. He met with Ohr on 2/3/17. Here is a text exchange from Solomon article:

26. He met with Ohr to try to arrange negotiations with Assange for him to redact certain information in the upcoming CIA Vault7 releases, and let the government know ways he could help them to mitgate some risk.

27. In turn, Ohr contacted David Laufman, head of the DOJ Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. Waldman contacts Laufman within 24 hours in this email:

28. While Waldman is speaking with Laufman, he is ALSO texting with Warner from the Senate Intel Committee about Assange. scribd.com/document/37110…

29. He underscores in his messages “this guy (Assange) is going to do something catastrophic for the dems, Obama, CIA, and National Security. I hope someone will consider getting him to the US to mitigate the damage”

30. Still from the HPSCI messages, on March 3rd, Laufman asks again for a meeting. In between they have had some signal calls. Again- keep in mind this is the CHAIRMAN of the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

31. As per Solomon, Waldman laid the groundwork for a deal to give Assange limited immunity and a one time “safe-passage” to leave the embassy. Laufman offered to help Assange assess how some hostile foreign powers may be infiltrating or harming Wikileaks staff.

32. They were still negotiating when Assange released the first drop of Vault 7 on March 7, 2017 (This is all coming from the stellar reporting of Solomon) However, if we bring in the HPSCI released texts, we see Waldman is ALSO working with Warner on the side.

33. On March 7-10 they are texting back and forth about the release. Waldman mentions speaking to the DOJ.

34. I want to reiterate- the committees HAD THIS information. Waldman then mentions two people very important to this scandal in a matter of a few messages. On 3/11 he mentions speaking to the DOJ about his “Russian” client- Deripaska.

35. On 3/16 he mentions that Christopher Steele asked him to call Warner. WARNER.

36. Try to keep up with me here. It gets confusing but I am doing my best to make it simple. So to review, we have Waldman, a private citizen – in touch with the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, AND Ohr, AND the DOJ about Steele, Assange, and Deripaska.

37. On the 17th Waldman attempts to get Warner, but Warner says that he is about to head into the SCIF. Conservative Treehouse was able to pinpoint that this was the day the FISA Application was leaked: theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/09/ig-…

38. They have a ton of phone tag between the 17th and the 22nd:

39. Until this: Warner is going to be taking a trip

40. To London…And Waldman may be able to arrange a meeting with Deripaska TOO? And Warner would like to talk about "Paul"?? It's Paul Manafort they are speaking of here.

41. On the 28th, Adam Waldman sends a letter to Laufman at the DOJ, about Assange, still in the midst of negotiations:

42. Waldman spoke to Solomon, and told him that not included in the written proffer was an additional offer from Assange: He was willing to discuss technical evidence ruling out certain parties in the controversial leak of Dem Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.

43. Assange has ALWAYS maintained that this information DID NOT come from Russia. While these negotiationsa re ongoing, a few days later on the 31st, Waldman is back and forth with Warner, who is insisting he meet with Steele off the record...

44. because they don’t want a “paper trail” if they cant come to an agreement.

45. He is also talking about how his “other guy” is mistrustful of the USG. Waldman said he gave the DOH what “he asked for” and now he isn’t hearing back from him. And on April 5, we get this

46. Putting together the timelines from Solomons article, we can deduce that the “other guy” was Assange. We can deduce that because also on 4/5, Laufman emails Waldman on Assange.

47. The next day there is a leak from the Senate Committee to the press regarding Steele and Waldman.

48. In the midst of all of the negotiations, Warner reaches out to James Comey, who slams the door on any negotiation with Assange. Laufman hadn’t heard that and pushes back, saying he wont stand down, and Assange continues releasing the Vault 7 information.

49. To clarify- Warner from SSCI is talking to Comey about Assange. Assange wants to provide the truth about the DNC emails etc to Comey and the FBI, and Comey tells Warner there will be no such conversations. Then, Waldman, receiving the message, goes to Laufman who says (cont)

50. to hell with that, I've heard no such thing- we keep going. ie: Comey and higher ups squash it. Laufman wants to keep going.

51. Think about this—when given the opportunity to learn where Assange REALLY got the emails from and also save the CIA massive harm (potentially to national security), James Comey said NO, likely because he did not want the FBI to hear the truth about where the emails came from.

52. It doesn’t end there though- throughout April, Waldman, who reps Deripaska, who has a MASSIVE qualm with Manafort, is working with Warner and asking him “where they are” on Manafort.

53. It’s almost like the Senate Intel Committee. lead by Warner, was working with Deripaska to bring the hammer down on Manafort. At the same time, he is also attempting to negotiate on behalf of Christopher Steele!

54. And surprise! He brings up that Steele will be talking with none other than Dan Jones- the man who went on to continue the dossier nonsense. The one who was a staff member at the SSCI, and worked for Feinstein- that Dan Jones:

55. Warner continues to press to keep things OTR with Steele. He wants a call and information and doesn’t want a paper trail. (As an aside, why does he text like a 13 year old girl?)

56. And then Waldman gets contact from the HPSCI and says he thinks Warner would rather have him dealing with him than the HPSCI- May 15, 2017. MAY 15th.

57. Before I get to the conclusions here, which are plentiful, I want to revisit the elephant in the room. For years we have been talking about Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was murdered in Washington, DC.

58. There is literally no way for me to compile all of the work I have done on the case into one thread. I have been investigating the story since the beginning. Matt Couch is currently involved in several lawsuits regarding the case.

59. Seth Rich’ brother is suing everyone for trying to get to the truth of whether or not his brother was behind the leaks of the information, claiming defamation, etc. There is a load of compelling information that suggests that Seth Rich WAS behind the leaks.

60. I wrote a piece explaining some of those lawsuits here: uncoverdc.com/2019/07/16/new… with quotes from both the attorney in the case, Ty Clevinger, as well as Ed Butowsky, who worked with the Rich family to hire a private investigator to try to figure out who killed their son.

61. Again, there is a LOT here and I am not getting even close to all of the details in this thread, however, Judicial Watch uncovered some information in a FOIA response they got several months back, which refuted what the FBI had told (cont)

62. Clevinger (amazing attorney- cajones of steel, representing @EdButowsky) originally when he asked for responsive documents.

63. This has added a brand new facet to the case. Just yesterday, Clevinger sent a letter to Richard Grennell asking him to declassify certain information that would shed light on the case of Seth Rich: scribd.com/document/46069…

64. Here it is:

65. We know they have information, they’ve just tried to hide it until now. There’s the call between Butowsky and Sy Hersch, there is all kinds of other evidence, there is the Wikileaks reward..This isn't even the half of it. Trust me.

66. There are a ton more details in this case that I could thread. My point in bringing it up? A lot of other folks are bringing it up now too. Folks who pretended it was a fringe conspiracy theory for years are talking about it like it’s news. That's AWESOME!

67. CONCLUSIONS: We know the FBI REFUSED information from Assange himself that would have exposed the entire Russia fraud for what it was back in 2017. We know that Warner on the Senate Committee was knee deep in all of this with Dan Jones.

68. That gives us good reason to say that the entire SSCI report was bunk- this ENTIRE TIME they have based their nonsense on “Russia hacked the DNC”.

69. Even before Papadopoulos, and the warrant on Carter Page, and Crossfire Hurricane- their ENTIRE STORY hinges on the fact that “Russia hacked the DNC” and now we are seeing for the first time in their own words….

70. They have NO PROOF. THEY HAVE NO PROOF. THEY DO NOT HAVE PROOF.

71. Well, we have proof. Continue to talk about this story. If you are a “bigger” name, don’t let the same people who have been shoving “Russian Collusion” down your throat dictate who is “fringe” and not fringe. That’s being a coward.

72. We have them ON THE RECORD, UNDER OATH stating that they have NO EVIDENCE of Russian exfiltration, meanwhile, we have lots of evidence IT WAS NOT.

73. I only end now by saying that you should all be giving credit where it is due for keeping this at the forefront for so long, and I don’t mean me- I mean good people who have sacrificed much to ensure that you heard ALL sides of this and not just the “convenient” narrative.

74. It shows the power of what we are doing here. When it costs nothing to talk about something, people will hop on board and start doing it. When the cost is high, it seems those honest people, willing to ask hard questions, are cast aside as “fringe”

75. How much more do you need? I could have gone on here with many sub threads of information I have dug up over the years. Hopefully this is enough to tide you over…. For now… #StayTuned

ADDENDUM: Mark Warner was the VICE CHAIR of the SSCI. Not the Chairman.