Another video has surfaced of Ellen Ratner saying that Julian Assange had told her in the Ecuadorian embassy that the DNC “hack” was actually an inside job. If it has not already happened, it is time for AG Barr and US Attorney Durham to sit down with Ellen Ratner and Julian Assange to find out how they know what they claim they know.
Early last week, information surfaced on multiple independent news sites about a lawsuit that was filed in Texas by one Ed Butowski. In it he asserted that Wikileaks’ Julian Assange confirmed to Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner that the DNC emails supposedly hacked by Russians were actually received from Seth Rich and his brother Aaron. (See Story Here)
If true, the implications of this are enormous. Because of this, patience has been the watchword among those who would like to get to the bottom of the false narrative surrounding the Russians and the 2016 election.
Now a video has surfaced confirming that Ellen Ratner did say that she did indeed meet with Julian Assange as Ed Butowski alleges. The video was taken during a November 9th, 2016, Embry Riddle University symposium. Ellen Ratner and former Congressman John Leboutillier discussed the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election.
A stunning court filing on Monday in a Texas Federal District Court has revived a story long derided by the DNC and those who support them in the MSM. The defamation lawsuit, filed by Texas businessman Ed Butowsky, alleges Wikileaks’ Julian Assange confirmed to Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner that the DNC emails supposedly hacked by Russians were actually received from Seth Rich and his brother Aaron.
The relevant part of the court filing follows: RCH stands for Russian Collusion Hoax
HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes (R-CA) was interviewed by Bill Hemmer last week. During the interview he warned that there will be massive political consequences if Justice Department officials don’t face jail time for their conduct during the Russia collusion hoax. It is a warning that AG Bill Barr and the Department of Justice should take very seriously.
Via Fox News – […] According to Nunes, the Russia investigation was an “obstruction of justice trap,” that started without evidence of collusion and ended in an “awful situation” that could only be fixed by jailing the people who “perpetuated this hoax.” ...
The General Michael Flynn case grinds on. Flynn has hired a new attorney (Mrs. Sidney Powell) and they were in court this week again. The need for a classified security clearance to review documents was discussed. The DOJ responded by saying no classified information was provided to the prior Flynn defense team. Therefore, Ms. Powell didn’t need to be concerned on that issue.
This means that Flynn was never provided with a copy of the phone call transcript (December 29, 2016) between him and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The content of that phone call lies at the heart of the FBI interview that took place on January 24th, 2017. It became the basis for the charges that he lied to the FBI.
Ignoring for a moment the merits of the Flynn case, one has to ask about the ineptitude (or corruption?) of his previous attorneys for not asking for production of this evidence. There are also all the machinations that occurred in the production of the FD-302 notes from the Flynn interview. But, most importantly, there is the question of how and when Flynn was unmasked.
The architects of the failed counter-intelligence operation against PDJT are getting nervous. With AG Barr and US Attorney Durham digging deeper and deeper into the origins of the spying on the Trump campaign and the Presidency, James Clapper, former DNI, has gone into panic mode. Keep in mind that Clapper perjured himself before Congress in 2013 that the NSA wasn’t spying on Americans. Then Edward Snowden came on the scene and blew that story out of the water. We know why he wasn’t indicted for perjury then. He has no such protection today.
This week Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee opened impeachment hearings into PDJT’s conduct as President. The fact that the entire Russia conspiracy investigation was without predication does not seem to bother the Chairman. In order to “educate” the public and to cover up the malfeasance of the Obama administration, Nadler brought in convicted felon John Dean to give the public some historical context from the Watergate years.
The outcome of the Mueller investigation was that PDJT and his campaign were cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. This covered the campaign and PDJT’s subsequent actions as President. Of course, this infuriated the Democrats who will stoop to anything to oust Trump from the Presidency.
The Democrats have been trying to re-litigate the whole investigation. In order to smear the President, they called in John Dean as the ghost of Watergate past to cast aspirations on PDJT. Dean, who was White House counsel for President Nixon during the Watergate era, drew “parallels” between the scandal that led to President Nixon’s resignation and special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the hoax that was the Russian government ties to the campaign of President Donald Trump.
On Monday, under the auspices of Chairman Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee began impeachment proceedings against PDJT. The committee session is called Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes.
Former Secretary of State and twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acted in support of the Democratic playbook on impeachment Monday. HRC posted on Twitter that the President is not above the law. The current Democratic strategy is to advance the storyline that PDJT acts as if he is above the law. This is supposed to plant in the public’s mind the false narrative that PDJT is routinely violating the law. No facts are ever given to support this fantasy.
During the mid-term election campaigns last year, Pelosi had given strict instructions to those who were running for office not to speak the “I” word, that is, impeachment. If the question came up, the candidates were to deflect, dissemble and otherwise avoid answering the question.
“This election cannot be about impeachment. I don’t think it’s in the interest of America’s working families to focus on that, unless we have more to go on, which we don’t at this time. I think it’s not unifying for the country.”
Pelosi wasn’t worried about the country. She knew that it would hurt the chances of Democratic candidates if they showed support for the idea of impeachment. That would hurt her chances of becoming Speaker of the House again. The Democrats were to campaign on “governing” and bringing “civility” back to Washington. In other words they were to lie to the public and pull the wool over the public’s eyes about their real intentions.