Alleged ‘Whistleblower’ Claims Trump Pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Phone Call by Blocking $250Mil in Aid Unless He Investigates Biden Family Corruption

According to reports published a minute apart in the favorite fake news outlets, the Washington Post and New York Times, there was a “whistleblower” complaint concerning a phone call President Trump had with new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. At the time of the phone call, there were reports that the White House was considering blocking $250 million in aid to Ukraine. As it turns out, the so-called “whistleblower” wasn’t even there when the phone call occurred and is an anti-Trumper and “registered Democrat.” AND, he is a CIA officer who returned to the CIA only days later according to a NY Times report. The Ukrainian government did not know the US had suspended aid to the country until ONE MONTH after the call. Little else is known about him or her, but the leaker, not whistleblower, was detailed to the WH by John Brennan under the Obama administration likely as part of the stay-behind network.

On October 30th, about 6 weeks after the so-called ‘whistleblower’ complaint, it was reported that the whistleblower was yet another swamp crature, Eric CiaramellaThe 33-year-old Ciaramella is a registered Democrat, worked for Obama, worked for Biden, worked for CIA Director John Brennan, he’s a vocal critic of Trump and he helped initiate the ‘Russia collusion’ hoax investigation! Ciaramella is a CIA officer who specializes in Russia and Ukraine who was detailed to work in the National Security Council under Susan Rice in 2015. He was then moved into the West Wing in 2017 to ‘fill a vacancy’ where he was able to ‘see and read everything.’ He also worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa, who dug up dirt on Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The ICIG had just changed their rules the previous month to include watercooler talk, rumors, hearsay and cafeteria conversations. Hmmm? And… Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who turned in the partisan CIA operative’s ‘whistleblower’ complaint, was a top Mueller witch hunt operative.


According to the complaint released Thursday September 26th of 2019, the officer claimed Ulrich Brechbuhl, Counselor to the U.S. State Department, listened into the July 25th call between the president and Zelensky and that several State officials were later briefed on the details of their discussion, but that too was FALSE!

A DOJ report on the alleged whistleblower reveals that the “whistleblower” had animous against Trump and their entire complaint was based on hearsay. The “whistleblower” was also found to be supporter of 2020 candidate Joe Biden according to intelligence officers and former White House officials. What’s more, the whistleblower  retained attorney Andrew Bakaj – who “interned for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Clinton in the fall of the same year,” per The Federalist.

Just like Trump said, Zelensky has backed him up 100%, telling the press that he didn’t feel at all pressured during his July 25 call with the president.

While taking great pains not to discuss Biden’s alleged malfeasance in Ukraine, Democrats have latched onto the Trump administration’s decision to pause $391 million in military aid to Ukraine (who also donated more money to the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation than any other country) about a week before the call between the two world leaders – suggesting that Trump threatened to withhold it unless they investigated claims that Biden abused his position as US Vice President to benefit his son, Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company which was under investigation. The funds were being withheld, but because of hesitation to give US aid to a corrupt country and other countries weren’t giving that should. Ironically, the elder Biden openly bragged about threatening to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees unless then-President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating his son.

State Department Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland worked with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in late 2015 to create a plan to force the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, according to the impeachment inquiry testimony of George Kent. Nuland was also among a network of Obama administration officials involved in the distribution and recirculation of the infamous Steele dossier, the document used by the FBI to secure a maximally intrusive spy warrant to surveil a Trump-campaign associate.

Following the complaint, Shady, Shifty Adam Schiff told MSNBC that he had not heard from the whistleblower, but just 2 weeks later, The New York Times revealed the partisan anti-Trump whistleblower spoke with Adam Schiff’s office before he even filed his complaint! Even The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column hit the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) with four Pinocchios. This breaks protocol according to House Minority Whip, Steve Scalise. The federal intelligence community whistleblower law explicitly states intelligence community whistleblowers must formally go through the ICIG before contacting Congress.

The Deep State spook filed a complaint on August 12 based on second-hand knowledge and hearsay of Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, so Schiff had knowledge of the accusations and worked discreetly for up to two weeks. President Trump asserted that Schiff helped write the whistleblower complaint according to his feedback from intelligence. The very same day (August 12th) that the democrats claim they received the ‘whistleblower’ complaint, Pelosi also changed and modified the rules for impeachment.

Schiff lied in his opening remarks to Congress in the impeachment inquiry and claimed numerous falsehoods about the President’s call in spite of the transcript being provided the day before. When called out, he said it was just parody.

In 2013 Ukrainian Igor Pasternak, connected to George Soros, held two different fund raisers for Schiff asking for contributions between $1,000 and $2,500 –

“Before this time, Schiff rarely, if ever, mentioned Ukraine,”Fox News’ Laura Ingraham said on her show October 3rd, 2019, after detailing Schiff’s connection to Pasternak.“But after the fundraiser, he used multiple television appearances to basically demand that we send money and arms to them.”

As reported by the Daily Caller:

Democrats in Congress previously pressured Ukraine to continue investigations into President Donald Trump or risk losing U.S. aid, but are now crying for impeachment over the president’s similar actions. In 2018, Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Pat Leahy of Vermont sent a letter to the Ukrainian general prosecutor accusing him of trying to “impede cooperation” with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into collusion by the Trump campaign.

“On May 2, the New York Times reported that your office effectively froze investigations into four open cases in Ukraine in April, thereby eliminating scope for cooperation with the Mueller probe into related issues,” the senators wrote to General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko. “The article notes that your office considered these cases as too politically sensitive and potentially jeopardizing U.S. financial and military aid to Ukraine.” The senators also specifically add that it would be a mistake for Lutsenko to drop the investigations “in order to avoid the ire of President Trump.”

The letter also appears to dangle U.S. support for Ukraine as a reason for the country to continue cooperating with the investigation, stating, “In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building [democratic] institutions despite ongoing military, economic and political pressure from Moscow. We have supported that capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these principles.”

Meanwhile, Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy delivered a similar message to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this month, warning that Democratic support for the country could dwindle if he complied with the president’s requests to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.

The Democrats, the party of the deep state, is gas-lighting to deflect from the Biden crime family deal with Ukraine, which pales in comparison to the China $1.5 billion deal made with Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Five days later, with no information about the alleged whistleblower and with President Trump set to release a transcript of the phone conversation with the Ukrainian president the following day, Nancy Pelosi, who also has a son (Paul Pelosi) on the board of the corrupt Ukrainian oil company, announces impeachment inquiry of President Trump. Pelosi refused to hold an official vote because it would allow Republicans to subpoena witnesses and democrats don’t want that.

The democrats took a completely different stance 21 years ago when the impeachment process was discussed for President Bill Clinton who had lied under oath. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said in 1998 that impeaching the President of the United States is an undoing of a National Election, despite his continued calls to impeach President Donald Trump. Nancy Pelosi was equally hypocritical, claiming the Republicans were ‘paralyzed with hatred‘ against Slick Willy.

Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, told reporters while in Italy how Democrats in the House violated fundamental principles, contacted State Department officials directly and told them NOT to contact legal counsel.

Below: President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani reacts to Democrats’ impeachment inquiry on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’

President Trump would release a full unredacted transcript of the call on September 25th of 2019.

Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit helping the lawyers for the so-called whistleblower, jumped  at the opportunity to aid the ‘whistleblower’ and is heavily tied to far-left activist organizations, George Soros, and Democratic politics.

BELOW: Legal Expert Robert Barnes breaks down the details of the Trump transcripts exposing the deeds of a corrupt deep state operation.

(Fox News) Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani conducted an interview with fired Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin earlier in 2019, in which he claimed he was told by former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt to back off an investigation involving that firm, Burisma Holdings, and its founder. According to interview notes, Shokin claimed Pyatt — currently the ambassador to Greece — told him to handle that investigation “with white gloves.” Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) reported on Fox’s Hannity program that he was aware of requests made by Pyatt’s replacement, Marie Yovanovitch, as U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, that certain reporters be “monitored” while they were on the ground in the country.

Shokin said his “investigations stopped out of fear of the United States.” In that interview, Shokin also claimed that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko told him he should not investigate Burisma, “as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden.” Shokin claimed Poroshenko told him that due to his investigation, Joe Biden held “up to one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.” Poroshenko eventually removed Shokin.

The interview notes align with a European court affidavit from Shokin, which was published by The Hill in late September 2019. The affidavit came as part of an Austrian extradition case involving another wealthy Ukrainian businessman, Dmitry Firtash. The sworn affidavit states that Poroshenko asked him to resign “due to pressure from the U.S. Presidential administration, in particular from Joe Biden.

“On several occasions, President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company,” he continued. “But I refused to close this investigation.”

Shokin went on to state he was “forced to leave office, under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the US administration.”

Peter Van Buren alleged that a second anonymous whistleblower (rumored to be John Bolton), who would emerge days after this first so-called whistleblower, is actually an accomplice with the first.

Peter Van Buren: The second whistleblower is actually the source for the first whistleblower which means it’s all the same thing. Now this is different in the Kavanaugh case when they sent Michael Avenatti out to find additional victims wherever he could… In fact he’s simply the source for the first whistleblower. The CIA, this is an old trick. It’s called a feedback loop. And essentially what you do is you set up one of your sources to back up another source and you make it appear that your initial source is more credible by feeding information into the loop. That’s what seems to be going on here. They’re repurposing a witness as a second whistleblower.

This whistleblower, like the first, was a democrat, but further… had significant professional ties to a 2020 Democratic candidate.

Judicial Watch Releases Testimony From Clinton Aide Who Smashed Hillary’s BlackBerrys with a Hammer

Judicial Watch today released the deposition transcript of Justin Cooper, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure server that Hillary Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State. Cooper admits that he spoke with Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, one week prior to his deposition and let her know that the deposition had been scheduled. Cooper also said that he worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the private email system, but can’t recall if Clinton had any input in its creation or if he wiped the original server. The entire transcript is available here.

Cooper was recently deposed as part of the discovery granted to Judicial Watch by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecured, non-government email system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).

Cooper testified that he spoke with Mills the week before giving his deposition:

Q When did you last speak with Cheryl Mills?

A Last week.

Judge Lamberth late last year criticized the DOJ, saying he was “dumbfounded” by the Inspector General report revealing that Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview. The full transcript of that hearing is available here.

I did print out and read that 500-page report when I got it and I was actually dumbfounded when found out, in reading that report, that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity because … I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview.

(In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Mills’ conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Lamberth called Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco … Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.”)

When Cooper was asked who approached him about creating the account, Cooper answered: “It would have been a discussion with Huma Abedin.” Cooper also testified that Abedin was his primary contact regarding the choice of the domain name that was registered “I believe” in “January ’09.”

Cooper’s testimony is at odds with a 2016 Judicial Watch deposition of Abedin in which she testified that she became aware of the server through “reading in some news articles about a year, a year-and-a-half ago, when it was – it was being publicly discussed.”

Cooper said “I don’t recall” when asked if Clinton herself had any input in the creation of the domain name.

Cooper also testified that there were two servers: an original “Apple server” and then a Windows server, which was “the Pagliano server,” named after Clinton’s top State Department IT specialist Bryan Pagliano. Cooper said he couldn’t recall whether the Apple server was wiped once her emails were transferred over to the Pagliano server in early 2009.

When Cooper was asked to testify how many e-mails accounts he created or setup for Clinton he answered, “To the best of my recollection two or three.” Cooper also said that he and Pagliano set up email accounts for Abedin and Chelsea Clinton.

Pagliano was a Clinton State Department IT official who repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions in a 2016 Judicial Watch deposition.

When Cooper was asked if Clinton or anyone associated with them is paying his legal bills for this deposition or any other matters related to Secretary Clinton’s use of email, he answered: “In relation to [today’s legal expenses] it’s unclear to me if I’ll be reimbursed for these – for legal fees from the Clintons. My previous legal fees about a year after the conclusion of the congressional testimony through my lawyers was negotiated for settlement for the Clintons to make payment.”

He identified controversial Clinton Foundation official and advisor to President Clinton Doug Band as the individual in a redacted FBI 302 report who had conversations with Cooper and Abedin about the Apple server and who thought adding Hillary Clinton to the server was a “bad idea.”

Q Let me direct your attention to the fourth paragraph about four lines up. This is a redacted version, so we don’t know who the interviewee is or some of the names. But I want to direct your attention to the line that starts off with the redaction and says, blank recall the conversation with Huma Abedin and Cooper regarding the addition of Hillary Clinton to the Apple server; do you see that?

A I do.

Q Do you know who that individual would be …

A I suspect it’s Doug Band.

Q The next line says, blank thought it was a bad idea, but the issue had been decided by that point in time; do you see that?

A Yes.

Judicial Watch was granted depositions and written questions under oath of former Clinton aides, State Department officials, and others:

  • Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton who reportedly had no security clearance and is believed to have played a key role in setting up Hillary Clinton’s non-government email system;
  • John Hackett, a State Department records official “immediately responsible for responding to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act;”
  • Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff;
  • Sheryl Walter, former State Department Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services/Global Information Services;
  • Gene Smilansky, a State Department lawyer;
  • Monica Tillery, a State Department official;
  • Jonathon Wasser, who was a management analyst on the Executive Secretariat staff. Wasser worked for Deputy Director Clarence Finney and was the State Department employee who actually conducted the searches for records in response to FOIA requests to the Office of the Secretary
  • Clarence Finney, the deputy director of the Executive Secretariat staff who was the principal advisor and records management expert in the Office of the Secretary responsible for control of all correspondence and records for Hillary Clinton and other State Department officials;
  • Heather Samuelson, the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate the State Department’s receipt and release of Hillary Clinton’s emails;
  • Monica Hanley, Hillary Clinton’s former confidential assistant at the State Department;
  • Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant;
  • E.W. Priestap, is serving as assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division and helped oversee both the Clinton email and the 2016 presidential campaign investigations. Priestap testified in a separate lawsuit that Clinton was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts;
  • Susan Rice, President Obama’s former UN ambassador who appeared on Sunday television news shows following the Benghazi attacks, blaming a “hateful video.” Rice was also Obama’s national security advisor involved in the “unmasking” the identities of senior Trump officials caught up in the surveillance of foreign targets;
  • Ben Rhodes, an Obama-era White House deputy strategic communications adviser who attempted to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy;”
  •  Heather Samuelson, the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate the State Department’s receipt and release of Hillary Clinton’s emails;
  • and one other person to be designated by the State Department.

“Questions surrounding a wiped server, a Clinton lawyer being informed of a scheduled deposition, contradictory testimony – all uncovered recently by Judicial Watch in its court-ordered discovery on the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.


Notes from Secret Meetings of January 4th & 5th Show Obama and Biden Directly Ordering Sham Flynn Investigation

On 24 June 2020, the Justice Department released Peter Strzok notes from 1/4/2017 regarding the Flynn-Kislyak calls.

In May 2020 it was revealed that 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was in a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting discussing General Flynn’s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak with Obama, Yates, Comey, Rice and Brennan.

Obama and Biden were directly involved in the sham Flynn investigation.

Strzok’s notes suggest a secret meeting before January 5th was the reason the Flynn investigation was not closed.

The Strzok notes show then-Vice President Joe Biden wanted to invoke the Logan Act against General Mike Flynn.

Strzok also noted that Obama DIRECTLY ordered an investigation into Flynn, saying “Have the right people on the case.”

Then-FBI Director James Comey said the calls between Flynn and Kislyak “appear legit” but they went ahead with the hit job against Flynn.

“Strzok’s notes believed to be of January 4, 2017, reveal that former President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden and apparently Susan Rice discussed the transcripts of Flynn’s calls and how to proceed against him.”

“Mr. Obama himself directed that “the right people” investigate General Flynn.”

Donald Trump Jr. said Biden and Obama tried subverting democracy/peaceful transition of power to destroy him and compromise the Trump admin.

Strzok’s notes on the 5 January 2017 meeting convened by Barack Obama and attended by his national security and law enforcement chiefs makes it clear that Sally Yates and/or Susan Rice are lying about what transpired and when it happened.

Strzok adds scintillating details to the depth and scope of the plot to try to destroy Donald Trump and his Presidency and, for now, provides the only record of what transpired prior to Obama dismissing Clapper, Brennan and the NSC staff. Here is the problem,  Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told FBI agents that OBAMA DISMISSED THE GROUP (i.e., Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Jim Clapper, John Brennan and “others” from the National Security Council) and asked Yates and FBI Director Jim Comey to “stay behind.”

But that is not what Susan Rice claims. Her now infamous memo to the file (drafted in the final moments of the Obama Administration) notes that she, along with Sleepy Joe Biden, also stayed behind.

Strzok’s memo destroys the claims of Yates and Rice by the select group Obama asked to “stay behind.”

Yates account is that she only learned of the intercepted conversations between Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador after the others left. Channeling the spirit of Inspector Renault from Casablanca (he was shocked to discover gambling in the Casino), poor Sally was surprised and shocked when Obama, on his own, brought up Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador and specifically identified “SANCTIONS” as the substance of that conversation. Obama then said, according to Yates, that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the Obama White House should be treating Flynn differently going forward.

Yates told the FBI agents who interviewed her that she had “no idea what Obama was talking about but figured it out based on the conversation.” To paraphrase Jim Comey, “Lordy, Lordy, what’s a body to do.”

Susan Rice tells a different story. She claims that Obama kicked off the conversation by insisting that he was not “asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective”. Obama’s next move, according to Rice’s account, directs the staff to “ascertain” if there is any reason the Obama team cannot fully share intelligence relative to Russia.

Rice then pins the tail on the donkey Jim Comey. Comey affirms he’s doing everything by the book (except we now know he overruled the FBI agent recommending closing the case on Michael Flynn). It was Comey, according to Rice, not Obama who raised the specter of Michael Flynn chatting up the Russians. Comey could not point to any specific violation of classified information by Flynn, but commented that the level of communication is “unusual.”

Peter Strzok’s notes tell a completely different story from Yates and Rice. We do not know if Strzok was present as a notetaker for Comey or if he prepared this note at the direction of Comey. Regardless, Strzok’s note shows that the issue of going after Michael Flynn for his conversations with the Russian Ambassador occurred with everyone in the room, including CIA Director John Brennan and the Director of National Intelligence Jimmy Clapper.

It is the presence of Clapper and Brennan and what they said that explains the blacked out portions of the Strzok note on the “conversation” at the White House.

Strzok writes:

NSA Director (Susan Rice, National Security Advisor) and DAG (Deputy Attorney General Yates): Flynn calls(?) Other Ambassadors

D (Comey) and DAG: Lean forward on “?????”

VP (Biden): “Logan Act”

P (Obama): “These are unusual times”

VP (Biden): “I’ve been on the intel committee for ten years and I never . . .”

P (Obama): “Make sure you look at thing and have the right people on it.”

P (Obama): “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team?”

D (Comey): “Flynn-Kislyak call but appear legit.

According to Strzok’s account, it was Comey who told Barack Obama not to say anything to the Trump team about the Flynn-Kislyak conversations. Rice’s account on this point appears to corroborate Strzok’s version of events.

However, Strzok states that Comey characterized the Flynn-Kislyak call as “legit.” Rice contends that Comey said it was unusual. Someone is lying.

Strzok’s notes destroys Yates claim that she did not know nothing about a Flynn-Kislyak call. She reportedly chimed in with Susan Rice to report that Flynn had conversations with other Ambassadors.

That interchange apparently struck a nerve with Vice President Joe Biden who, according to Strzok, raised the Logan Act.

Someone is lying. The only one right now in potential legal jeopardy is Sally Yates. Her account given to FBI agents with the warning that lying to the FBI is punishable under U.S. law, differs markedly from Rice and Strzok. Time to get Strzok and Rice under oath and ask them to go on the record.

If you want to see the original Yates and Rice statements, go here. Peter Strzok’s notes can be seen here.

The Obama/Biden coup is being fully exposed.

Sources: TGP 1; TGP 2

See Also:

RussiaGate: After Trump Wins the 2016 Election, a Deep State Coup to Oust Him Begins with a Dirty Fake Dossier Paid for by the Clinton Campaign

Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson revealed in a new book titled, “Crime in Progress” which was released in November 2019, that he was first hired to investigate Donald Trump “in the fall of 2015″. The deep state began their counter-imtelligence into the Trump campaign at least as early as December 2015 according to Strzok-Page texts. […]

Brennan’s Declassified Notes Show Hillary Planned / Approved Russia Hoax Scandal to Vilify Trump

Brennan’s handwritten notes were exclusively obtained by Fox News:

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED],” Brennan notes read. “CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service,” Brennan’s notes read.

The notes state “on 28 of July.” In the margin, Brennan writes “POTUS,” but the entire section of the note is redacted.

Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia,” Brennan’s notes read.

The notes are heavily redacted, except in the margins, which reads: “JC,” “Denis,” and “Susan.”

We knew from an article in the summer of 2018, written by Deep State journalists Michael Isikoff and David Corn, posted at Yahoo News, that July 2016 the exact same time that Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan,  started taking notice of Russia and Trump campaign members:

At the end of July — not long after WikiLeaks had dumped over 20,000 stolen DNC emails before the Democratic convention — it had become obvious to Brennan that the Russians were mounting an aggressive and wide‑ranging effort to interfere in the election. He was also seeing intelligence about contacts and interactions between Russian officials and Americans involved in the Trump campaign. By now, several European intelligence services had reported to the CIA that Russian operatives were reaching out to people within Trump’s circle. And the Australian government had reported to U.S. officials that its top diplomat in the United Kingdom had months earlier been privately told by Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. By July 31, the FBI had formally opened a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump’s campaigns ties to Russians, with sub-inquiries targeting four individuals: Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman; Michael Flynn, the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief who had led the crowd at the Republican convention in chants of “Lock her up!”; Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser who had just given a speech in Moscow; and Papadopoulos.

Yahoo News released this report in March 2018 thinking that President Trump would soon be removed from office.  What they also reported was that Obama started holding secret meetings in the basement of the White House at this time:

While Brennan wrangled the intelligence agencies into a turf­-crossing operation that could feed the White House information on the Russian maneuver, Obama convened a series of meetings to devise a plan for countering whatever the Russians were up to. The meetings followed the procedure known in the federal government as the “interagency process.” The protocol was for the deputy chiefs of the relevant government agencies to meet and hammer out options for the principals — that is, the heads of the agencies — and then the principals hold a separate (and sometimes parallel) chain of meetings to discuss and perhaps debate before presenting choices to the president.

But for this topic, the protocol was not observed. Usually when the White House invited the deputies and principals to such meetings, they informed them of the subject at hand and provided “read­ahead” memos outlining what was on the agenda. This time, the agency officials just received instructions to show up at the White House at a certain time. No reason given. No memos supplied. “We were only told that a meeting was scheduled, and our principal or deputy was expected to attend,” recalled a senior administration official who participated in the sessions. (At the State Department, only a small number of officials were cleared to receive the most sensitive information on the Russian hack; this group included Secretary of State John Kerry; Tony Blinken, the deputy secretary of state; Dan Smith, head of the department’s intelligence bureau; and Jon Finer, Kerry’s chief of staff.)

For the usual interagency sessions, principals and deputies could bring staffers. Not this time. “There were no plus ones,” an attendee recalled. When the subject of a principals or deputies meeting was a national security matter, the gathering was often held in the Situation Room of the White House. The in‑house video feed of the Sit Room — without audio — would be available to national security officials at the White House and elsewhere, and these officials could at least see that a meeting was in progress and who was attending. For the meetings related to the Russian hack, Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, ordered the video feed turned off. She did not want others in the national security establishment to know what was under way, fearing leaks from within the bureaucracy.

We now know that Obama and his gang were holding secret meetings in the basement of the White House and now it’s pretty clear these meetings were kept secret in an effort to cover up their crimes.