A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between former FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the White House in 2017, according to a press release from Judicial Watch.
Those emails, some of which are heavily redacted, reveal that “Strzok, Page and top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump’s inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could “play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.”
Moreover, another email sent by Strzok to Bill Priestap, the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, refers to what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House. The email was sent the day after Trump’s inauguration.
“I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted],” wrote Strzok. “I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.”
In April, 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged confidential informant for the FBI in the White House. In fact, then senior Republican Chairmen of the Senate Appropriations Committee Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a letter to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing the new texts from Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.
The Chairmen revealed the information in a three page letter. The texts had been already been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week.
At the time, texts obtained by this news site and sources stated that Strzok had one significant contact within the White House – at the time that would have been Vice President Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff Joshua Pitcock, as reported.
Over the past year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, along with years of numerous Congressional investigations, has uncovered a plethora of documentation revealing the most intimate details of the FBI’s now debunked investigation into Trump’s campaign and its alleged conspiracy with Russia.
For example, in a series of emails exchanged by top bureau officials – in the FBI General Counsel’s office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field office on Jan. 19, 2017 – reveal that senior leadership, including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were coordinating with each other in their ongoing attempt to target the incoming administration. Priestap was also included in the email exchanges. The recent discovery in April, of Priestap’s handwritten notes taken in January, 2017 before the Strzok and his FBI partner interviewed Flynn were a bombshell. In Priestap’s notes he states, “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
In one recent email chain obtained by Judicial Watch, FBI assistant general counsel in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch stated in an email to Strzok [which was almost entirely redacted]
“I’ll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too,” it stated. Strzok’s reply to the assistant general counsel, however, was redacted by DOJ. The response back to Strzok has also been redacted.
Then later in the evening at 7:04 p.m., Strzok sends another emails stating, “I briefed Bill (Priestap) this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What’s your recommendation?”
The reply, like many of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the DOJ, is almost entirely redacted. The email response to Strzok was from the Counterintelligence Division.
Here’s what was not redacted
“Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am missing something.” An unidentified official replies, “[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing to jump in when we need him.”
Judicial Watch Timeline of Events On Emails Obtained Through FOIA
At 8 p.m., Strzok responds back (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division, Washington Field Office and General Counsel’s office):
“Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck.”
Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, “Bill spoke with Andy. [Redacted.] Here we go again …”
The Day After Trump’s Inauguration
The day after Trump’s inauguration, on Jan. 21, 2017, Strzok forwarded Page and [a redacted person] an email he’d sent that day to Priestap. Strzok asked them to “not forward/share.”
In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, “I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.”
“Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message he’d sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone,” states Judicial Watch.
The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all communications between Strzok and Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).
The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications, which still number around 8,000 pages, would not be completed until at least late 2021.
In other emails, Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary Clinton’s paid operative Christopher Steele.
In a January 2017 email, Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report which claimed Steele had suspected there was a “cabal” within the FBI which put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe. Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was at the heart of both the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations.
In April and June of 2017, the FBI would use the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. In a declassified summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in January of this year, it was determined that those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause.
The newly released records include a January 11, 2017, email from Strzok to Lisa Page, Priestap, and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon Moffa, a New York Timesreport which refers to the dossier as containing “unsubstantiated accounts” and “unproven claims.” In the email, Strzok comments on the article, calling it “Pretty good reporting.”
On January 14, 2017, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards to Strzok, Page and Priestap a link to a UK Independent article entitled “Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele’s Frustration as FBI Sat On Donald Trump Russia File for Months”.
The article, citing security sources, notes that “Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to believe there was a cover-up: that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton’s emails.”
Strzok responds: “Thanks Mike. Of course not accurate [the cover-up/cabal nonsense]. Is that question gaining traction anywhere else?”
The records also include a February 10, 2017, email from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn (five days before Flynn resigned) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Strzok also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak.
On February 8, 2017, Strzok, under the subject “RE: EO on Economic Espionage,” emailed Lisa Page, saying, “Please let [redacted] know I talked to [redacted]. Tonight, he approached Flynn’s office and got no information.” Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had sent him. The email, from a redacted FBI official to Deputy Director McCabe read: “OPS has not received a draft EO on economic espionage. Instead, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS that they received a draft, but they did not send us the draft. I’ll follow up with our detailees about this EO.” Flynn resigned on February 13, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, Nancy McNamara of the FBI’s Inspection Division emailed Strzok and Priestap with the subject line “Leak,” saying, “Tried calling you but the phones are forwarded to SIOC. I got the tel call report, however [redacted]. Feel free to give me a call if I have it wrong.” Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified person in the General Counsel’s office, saying, “Need to talk to you about how to respond to this.”
On January 11, 2017, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed Kortan, saying he’d learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau’s Eurasian organized crime section and had turned over the dossier on Trump-Russian “collusion” to the bureau in Rome. Kortan forwards Isikoff’s email to aide Richard Quinn, who forwards to Strzok “just for visibility”. Strzok forwards to his boss, Priestap and Moffa, saying, “FYI, [redacted], you or I should probably inform [redacted]. How’s your relationship with him? Bill unless you object, I’ll let Parmaan [presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann] know.” Strzok forwards the whole exchange onto Lisa Page.
On January 18, 2017, reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached out to Kortan, asking to interview Strzok, Michael Steinbach, Jim Baker, Priestap, former FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working on. Kortan replied, “Okay, I will start organizing things.” Further along in the thread, an FBI Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews, saying Steinbach had agreed to a “background discussion” with Elkind, who was “writing the ‘definitive’ account of what happened during the Clinton investigation, specifically, Comey’s handling of the investigation, seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what he did and why he did it.” In May 2017, Elkind wrote an article titled “The Problems With the FBI’s Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey,” which in light of these documents, strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the publication.
Strzok ended up being scheduled to meet with Elkind at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2017, before an Elkind interview of Comey’s chief of staff Jim Rybicki. Elkind’s reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed at length in previous emails obtained by Judicial Watch.
“These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he stepped foot in the Oval Office,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And now we see how the Comey FBI was desperate to spin, through high-level leaks, its mishandling of the Clinton email investigation. And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noted that Wray’s FBI and Barr’s DOJ continue slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won’t be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!”
In February 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the FBI about her email controversy, apologized for “the work and effort” it caused the bureau and she said she chose to use it “out of convenience” and that “it proved to be anything but.” Strzok said Clinton’s apology and the “convenience” discussion were “not in” the FBI 302 report that summarized the interview.
Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional “confirmed classified emails” were found on Clinton’s unsecure non-state.gov email server “beyond the number presented” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was granting Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about “squashing” an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.
In January 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.
In November 2019, Judicial Watch revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton’s aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials.
Also in November, Judicial Watch uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton’s statement denying the transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “three [Clinton email] chains” containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of paragraphs.”
In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the “electronic communication” (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed “Crossfire Hurricane,” of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The document was written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.
"Ask Prince Andrew About It": Trump Warned Epstein's Island Was "Absolute Cesspool" In 2015
President Trump suggested in 2015 that reporters ask Prince Andrew about his good friend Jeffrey Epstein's so-called 'pedo' island, calling it an "absolute cesspool."
According to The Sun, Trump's comments came around the time that accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre alleged that Epstein coerced her into having sex with Prince Andrew on three separate occasions when she was 17.
Giuffre described in detail a March 10, 2001 encounter with the prince in which she says she danced with him at a London nightclub before he had sex with her.
We’re told all this comes after Public Health England (PHE) confirmed that people who are dying of natural causes are also being counted as ‘COVID deaths’ by virtue of the fact that they had previously tested positive for the virus.
Officials are calling this “a strange anomaly,” but it’s much more than that.
Quite clearly, Hancock and the Tory government are implementing damage control here, as this scandal is rapidly being disseminated across the public discourse, and for fear that the wider scale of the statistical fraud might be revealed.
By calling for a “urgent review,” the Johnson government hopes to avoid a likely backlash from what can only be described as a historic fiasco for Public Health England and Westminster.
All of the governments seemingly half-baked policies – from Lockdown, to shutting down normal NHS services (making it a de facto ‘COVID only’ health service), to nonsensical ad hoc ‘social distancing’ regulations, mass testing, contact tracing, to mandatory masks, to school closures, travel bans and quarantines, to its rush to push-out an experimental coronavirus vaccine – are all predicated on what seems very likely to be a false perception that COVID-19 is an unprecedented ‘pandemic’ and therefore requires unprecedented mitigation measures.
It seems that government can no longer hide that it has been counting scores of people who’ve died from natural causes as ‘COVID deaths’. One can only guess just how many deaths have been wrongly recorded in this way.
A source says that, “We noticed that hospital deaths were falling but community deaths were up and wondered why …. It turns out you could have been tested positive in February, recovered, then hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a covid death.”
Essentially, PHE is counting people if they die of any cause at any time after previously testing positive for COVID. So by this government measure, one can never ‘recover’ from the virus. They simply keep the ‘death meter’ running forever, which is effectively padding their statistics and thus justifying any policy which is being drifted out each day.
This can only be described as fraudulent data gathering and recording by health officials, which has unfortunately been swallowed, unquestioningly, by politicians and the mainstream media for the last 4 and half months.
What’s more, these figures are concealing an even bigger scandal – more likely these numbers are driving excess mortality. In other words, the inconvenient truth that most of these are in fact Lockdown deaths, and not COVID deaths.
IMAGE: UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock trying to sell the crisis to public.
The government’s own figures show there have been 45,119 COVID-19 associated deaths across the UK.
But that tally is feared to be inaccurate due to the way coronavirus deaths are recorded in England.
Explaining the “strange anomaly”, Sky News’ Rowland Manthorpe said: “Essentially, there is no way to recover, statistically. So, if I tested positive for COVID-19 today and then I got hit by a bus tomorrow, then COVID-19 would be listed as my cause of death.”
A government source confirmed that PHE’s current method of calculation means if a person was previously diagnosed with COVID-19 but subsequently died of unrelated causes, their death would still be counted as part of PHE’s daily coronavirus death tally.
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you are assumed to have recovered 28 days after a positive test.
(…) A recent article published by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), based at Oxford University, described the “statistical anomaly” which means that “no one can ever recover from COVID-19 in England”.
“It seems that PHE regularly looks for people on the NHS database who have ever tested positive, and simply checks to see if they are still alive or not,” said the article’s authors Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia, and Professor Carl Heneghan, from Oxford University.
“PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the COVID test result was, nor whether the person has been successfully treated in hospital and discharged to the community.
“Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures.
“By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness.
“A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.”