Aletho News


Did Obama Defense Deputy Lie To Protect Her Fraudulent Russiagate Sources?

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | May 9, 2020

Newly declassified congressional transcripts from the Russia investigation include testimony from former Obama administration defense official, Evelyn Farkas, who testified under oath that she lied in an MSNBC interview when she claimed to have evidence of “the Trump staff dealing with Russians,” and said that the Obama administration was “trying to also get information to the hill” because the incoming Trump administration would try to hide the (nonexistent) evidence.

During closed-door testimony on June 26, 2017, however, Farkas – who was the Clinton campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser – admitted she had nothing.

In an exchange with former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Farkas is pressed on why she said ‘we’ when she said ‘if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff dealing with Russians.’

Farkas’ response: I didn’t know anything.

In fact, Farkas – who is currently running for a Housee seat in the 17th congressional district of New York – shouldn’t have known anything, because she resigned from the Obama administration in September 2015.

… how did this non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, gain knowledge of intelligence regarding members of Trump’s team and their relations with Russia, when she was the senior foreign policy advisor for Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton?

Farkas was the prime driver behind the anti-Russia phobia inside the Pentagon during the Obama years — shilling hard for the Ukraine — requesting that the President send them anti-tank missiles — which, essentially, would mean outright war with Russia. – iBankCoin

Given all we now know, Occam’s razor suggests that Farkas, while working for the Clinton campaign, was fully aware of the work of Christopher Steele – the former UK spy paid by the Clinton campaign (through their lawyers and Fusion GPS) to fabricate the infamous dossier used by US intelligence to paint Donald Trump as an agent of Russia.

That said, who exactly did she mean by “we” during that interview? And who was scrambling to leak evidence to the hill?

Based on the MSNBC interview, Farkas obviously knew something. But instead of going down that particular rabbit hole during congressional testimony, she thought the best option was to simply say she lied.

May 9, 2020 - Posted by | Deception | , ,


  1. The “we” person might be the same “person” who told Acosta that Epstein was “Intel”. How no one asked that question is unbelievable.


    Comment by Kathy Mayes | May 9, 2020 | Reply

  2. Farkas means wolf in Hungarian.
    Just saying.


    Comment by Rich | May 9, 2020 | Reply

  3. Last week:

    1. New documents suggest the FBI laid a trap for Flynn. In February, Attorney General William Barr appointed U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen to review the prosecution against Flynn after reports of irregularities. Last week, Jensen delivered a trove of documents to Flynn’s defense team — including handwritten notes showing FBI agents discussed whether they would “get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” In addition, emails showed the FBI had not properly warned Flynn that lying to the FBI was a crime when they met with him in the White House — a meeting then-Director James Comey planned to catch Flynn off guard.

    2. Text messages showed the FBI leadership kept the case open: Jensen’s trove included a memorandum showing that the FBI wanted to close the case against Flynn on Jan. 4, 2017, but that agent Peter Strzok — who hated Trump and had led the troubled investigations into both Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign — ordered that the case be kept open. When asked why, Strzok referred to the “7th floor,” i.e. the FBI leadership.

    3. Flynn’s former law firm handed over documents suggesting secret pressure from the DOJ. Covington and Burling LLP, the legal team that handled his guilty plea in 2017, “discovered” that they had not handed all their documents to his new lawyer, Sidney Powell. Powell then told the court that the new documents showed the DOJ had threatened to indict his son unless Flynn pleaded guilty — a “side deal” that the DOJ kept hidden.

    This week:

    4. President Barack Obama set the Flynn investigation in motion: The House Intelligence Committee released 53 transcripts of interviews it conducted in the early days of the “Russia collusion” investigation. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told the committee it was Obama himself who told her about Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador. That information led the DOJ to investigate him under the obscure Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from diplomacy and is almost never enforced.

    What comes next:

    5. Flynn could go free for now, but could be prosecuted for perjury if Joe Biden wins the election. Sol Wisenberg, who helped investigate President Bill Clinton, pointed out on Fox News that Flynn could still be prosecuted for perjury, since he told the court he was guilty before deciding to withdraw his plea. Wisenberg said that a Biden administration could pursue those charges — unless President Trump pardoned Flynn.

    6. What did Obama know? What did Biden know? The crucial event behind the investigation of Flynn and the public smearing of President-elect Trump through the “Steele dossier” now appears to be the Oval Office meeting where Obama told Yates about Flynn’s phone calls, and Comey was assigned to inform Trump about the dossier. Biden was among those present, and the Trump campaign has started to demand answers. Obama’s role now appears much more direct, and may not have been “by the book,” as former NSA Susan Rice claimed.

    7. Possible indictment of former Obama officials. U.S. Attorney John Durham is still pursuing a criminal investigation into the origins of the Obama administration’s inquiry into the Trump campaign. Many believe indictments are imminent. Powell told Breitbart News Sunday last weekend that Comey and other officials may have committed obstruction of justice and similar crimes, though she did not echo Trump’s claims of treason.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Leland Roth | May 9, 2020 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: