The editorial comments in this article are brought to you by a staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – New information from the CIA reveals that former President Donald Trump was being tracked in order to support another fake theory about his connection to Russia.
While the details surrounding this new alleged scandal are troubling, they pale in comparison to earlier allegations.
However, they reveal that President Trump was indeed the victim of data mining, had sensitive information stolen from the Executive Office of the President (EOP), and the former president’s activities were under surveillance.
Former #HillaryClinton campaign lawyer #MichaelSussman, who is accused of lying to the FBI when he claimed he was not handing over information about then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016, made false statements to CIA officers.https://t.co/CBsq9DN1qk
— NTD News (@news_ntd) April 18, 2022
According to The Federalist,
“When Special Counsel John Durham charged former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann in September 2021, the indictment focused on the Alfa Bank hoax that Sussmann, tech executive Rodney Joffe, and other cybersecurity experts had crafted.
The indictment detailed how Joffe and other tech experts had allegedly mined data and developed “white papers” that deceptively created the impression that Trump had maintained a secret communication network with the Russia-based Alfa Bank.”
A memorandum presented by the special counsel’s team and written by a CIA official noted that Sussman offered up documents and thumb drives that he alleged had data that revealed a possible link to actions that connected Russia to Trump.
He remarked that he was handing over information from supposed “contacts” whom he thought “were acting in good faith and out of a sense of loyalty to the USG.”
Approximately two months ago, Durham’s team exposed when Sussmann actually encountered the CIA, which was 2017.
#Durham “Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not
“withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated…. pic.twitter.com/wZvjC1MUGB
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) April 18, 2022
It was then that he gave agents data which Sussman alleged”demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”
The “supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones” were “Yotaphones.”
#MichaelSussman, the lawyer charged with hiding his work for the Clinton campaign from the #FBI, filed a motion requesting that special counsel #JohnDurham not be able to use a #HillaryClinton tweet that made reference to alleged Trump–Russia collusion. https://t.co/FFJDws58XS
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) April 20, 2022
Sussmann alleged that the so-called activity began as early as April 2016. This is when Trump was present in Trump Tower and using the Wi-Fi on the premises. Allegedly, that same phone was being used in Trump’s Grand Central Park West apartment as well.
According to transcripts from Sussman’s testimony before the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., he said,
“A So the contact was about reporting to them information that was reported to me about possible contacts, covert or at least nonpublic, between Russian entities and various entities in the United States associated with the – or potentially associated with the Trump Organization.
Q And when did that contact — occur, month and year?
A February 2017.
Q Where did you get that information from to relay to — ?
A From a client of mine.
Q Why did you go to — ?A I initially reached out to –
RUEMMLER: Just to be very careful here to make sure that you don’t disclose any attorney-client or work product privilege information.
I think you can talk generally about your general purpose in seeking the meeting, but just be careful not to disclose any communications between you and your client.
A Okay. I’m sorry, so was the question why?
A Well, so the purpose of the meeting was to share — you may need to
repeat your last question. I feel like l’m repeating myself. The purpose was to
share information that —
A –we had that might be –
Q You did say, right, that you had – you’d received information from a
client — l’m not asking who – that may be germane to the 2016 election and
associates of the Trump campaign or people affiliated with the Trump campaign.”
Michael Sussman also made false statements to agents with the CIA during a meeting after Trump's inauguration, new filings from Special Counsel John Durham's team claim.https://t.co/WsdoCSuBn8
— Newsmax (@newsmax) April 16, 2022
These troubling details reveal that Trump’s movements were under constant surveillance. And as is noted in The Federalist:
“…it is not merely what data wasn’t provided to the CIA, it was what data was provided and how it was gathered.”
🚨 BREAKING NEWS🚨
Read more ➡️ https://t.co/Cfx0TnnWFy
— Just the News (@JustTheNews) April 5, 2022
Regardless of how Trump was tracked, what is blatantly obvious is that Trump’s political adversaries gave the CIA fraudulent-by-omission information to encourage an investigation into a current President while in office.
Special Counsel John Durham’s team noted:
“in context, the defendant’s statement that he had provided the FBI with ‘similar, though unrelated’ allegations is false, or at best, misleading.”
In February, Special Counsel John Durham reminded everyone what they should have learned two years ago from John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence: Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president concocted the Russia Collusion Hoax.https://t.co/wWzYu7vpnG
— TheNewAmerican (@NewAmericanMag) April 20, 2022
Former President Trump was right again – he was being spied on, and now there’s evidence to prove it.
NEW YORK, NY – Embattled Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (keep reading for more on Bragg) has announced that his office will stop pursuing charges against former president Donald Trump.
The investigation into potential wrongdoing has been suspended indefinitely.
That decision led to the resignation of the attorneys leading the investigation. Most mainstream outlets made the resignation the story. Only a handful made the lead about the lack of evidence of wrongdoing on the former President’s part.
BIG NEWS: Manhattan DA Ends Trump Investigation ‘Indefinitely’, Will No Longer Pursue Charges
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) March 25, 2022
Mark Pomerantz wrote in his resignation letter:
“You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time. Of course, that is your decision to make.
I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely. I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.
I therefore cannot continue in my current position.”
The investigation and potential prosecutorial efforts were started by Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance. Both Pomerantz and Carey Dunne agreed to stay on after the election to continue seeking evidence and seeing the case through to completion.
Dunne was the attorney in the DA’s office that successfully argued before the Supreme Court to obtain the President’s tax returns.
As reported by Fox News, promising to “follow the facts” as he was getting up to speed on the investigation, Bragg said:
“It’s a matter that’s personally, as you would imagine, on my radar screen and that I’m mindful of and paying attention to.”
Pomerantz believed that the facts were clear. He said that his team “harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes – he did.”
Investigators claim that a crime occurred, saying Trump “inflated” the value of his assets to receive favorable loan terms from banks.
Sources close to the investigation told Fox News Digital that contrary to the DA’s office assumptions of Trump inflating his financials, he in fact undervalued his assets.
Similarly, Trump never defaulted on bank payments and his financial conditions statement included verbiage that disputed the claims made by investigators.
They also stated that the case against the 45th President of the United States was completely political, telling Fox that Pomerantz should have never been in the DA’s office to begin with.
He was an attorney at a New York law firm. He took leave from the firm for the sole purpose of joining Vance’s staff to investigate Trump.
Ironically, one of the partners at that firm is Robert Schumer. Sound familiar?
Robert is the brother of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
The source praised Bragg for doing the right thing once they realized they had no case.
“It is a great tribute to the system that Alvin Bragg came in and stopped the unfairness against Trump. Bragg and his team did the legally and morally correct thing, and they didn’t go the typical political route.”
Trump’s attorney, Ron Fischetti, also spoke to Fox.
“I’m very happy. I believe the investigation is now over as it should be. I believe they had a meeting and went through evidence and decided what I have been saying all along that there wasn’t any evidence that Donald Trump individually did any wrong in this case.
Although we haven’t heard from Mr. Bragg that he is closing the investigation, I believe that that is coming in the near future.”
It should come as no surprise that different media outlets have spun the Bragg decision in different ways. While much of the coverage from Fox contained information from sources that show that Bragg’s office had no evidence for a winnable case, others are pointing to the resignations of Pomerantz and Dunne as the real story.
But what is surprising is the consistent theme throughout all of the coverage: the DA’s office has nothing with which to prove criminal intent on Trump’s part.
There was also no victim in the case. Given that Trump never defaulted, and the banks continued to receive their payments, many prosecutors believed that would ultimately impact a jury’s decision.
CNN, the New York Times and pretty much everyone is saying the same thing. The case against Trump has no credible evidence and shouldn’t see the inside of the courtroom. Sadly, they made the resignations the lead and buried the real story at the bottom of the articles.
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.