TYB
nikd tyvm
Goodnight
From Durham to CIA, evidence mounts FBI was warned Russia collusion story might be disinformation
"This has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation run through the Hillary Clinton campaign," retired FBI intel boss says.
In one of the more dramatic exchanges during Igor Danchenko's trial on charges he lied to the FBI during the Russia collusion probe, Special Counsel John Durham confronted a lead agent with evidence he had been warned that the Russian businessman he was using as an informant might be an intelligence asset for Moscow.
Agent Kevin Helson acknowledged that a female member of the FBI's Human Intelligence Validation Unit, with two decades of intelligence experience, had raised concerns that Danchenko may be a member of the Russian military intelligence service known as the GRU, but Helson dismissed the concern.
"This is a real problem," Durham declared, as he and Helson tangled over whether the FBI should have relied on Danchenko as a confidential human source.
Helson dismissed the intelligence analyst's complaint, insisting Danchenko had provided significant help to the FBI in Russian counterintelligence analysis between 2017 and 2020, so much so that the agent had recommended the bureau compensate the Russian analyst with as much as $500,000 in payments.
In the end, Danchenko has never been charged as a Russian spy. Rather, he is charged with five counts of lying to the FBI starting when he acted as the primary source for former British spy Christopher Steele's dossier and then as a paid informant himself for the bureau. One of the charges was dismissed Friday by the trial judge, and the remaining four counts head to a jury Monday after closing arguments.
Nonetheless, Helson's performance at the trial — at times he was treated by Durham as a hostile witness — is a reminder that there is a growing body of evidence that the FBI received numerous warnings the evidence it relied upon to pursue Donald Trump for what turned out to be nonexistent Russian collusion very likely could have been tainted by a Russian disinformation campaign by Vladimir Putin's intelligence services.
And that evidence was often kept from the FISA court that allowed the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign and former adviser Carter Page for a full year.
In addition to the revelation of validation team warning, Helson was also forced to admit he never alerted the FISA judges that the FBI had a prior investigation into Danchenko as a possible spy for Russia back in 2008-10. Instead, the FBI falsely told the court it had no derogatory information on Danchenko.
In truth, the FBI had allegations that Danchenko tried to offer money to Americans he expected to go into the Obama administration if they would provide him classified information, Durham said. The prosecutor said that probe was improperly shut down when the FBI incorrectly concluded Danchenko had left the United States. In fact, he had not.
"There was a case on him … It was a counterintelligence case … an espionage case," Helson testified Thursday. The agent claimed he "couldn't see" the earlier case when he first searched the FBI database upon bringing Danchenko aboard as an informant. But he said he learned about the prior spy case within 60 days of getting started.
Durham asked whether Helson ever corrected the false statement there was no derogatory information on Danchenko. "No," the agent answered.
Kevin Brock, a retired FBI intelligence chief who wrote the bureau's confidential human source rules still in existence today, said that while it was great to see the FBI had created validation teams to assess informants, Durham's examination of Helson unmasked troubling behavior.
"I think the startling thing is that you have an agent/analyst in that validation unit pressing one of the case agents on Crossfire Hurricane on this issue of validating the information, the rumors that were present in the Steele dossier documents, and insisting that more work needed to be done," Brock said. "And she kind of got the Heisman, kind of got the stiff arm by the agent. And they really didn't do the due diligence that was necessary for such a high-profile, important case like this."
Brock said the FBI possessed significant evidence calling into question the reliability of Danchenko and the Steele dossier and withheld it from the court. "It's more than derogatory information," he said. "That's something to be worried about. And the court deserve to know that information."
The red flags and warning sirens emerged immediately in the summer of 2016 that the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion might be an intelligence disinformation campaign by Moscow or tainted by politics. In July 2016, just a few days before the FBI opened its Crossfire Hurricane investigation, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Barack Obama that the Russians had intercepted a Hillary Clinton campaign adviser discussing a plan to create a narrative that Trump had a Russia problem.
The FBI knew from its first interaction with Steele in July 2016 that he was being paid and working for the Clinton campaign to create his dossier.
By September 2016 — a month before the FISA warrant was secured — the CIA warned the bureau of the Russians' knowledge about Clinton's operation against Trump.
The CIA told the FBI the Russians had intercepted a call indicating Hillary Clinton personally approved an effort "to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee."
Similar conerns were raised inside both the FBI and CIA that Steele's source network had been infiltrated by Russian intelligence, according to declassified footnotes from the Justice Department inspector general investigation into sweeping failures of the FBI in the Russia case.
"Steele's frequent contacts with Russian oligarchs in 2015 had raised concerns in the FBI Transnational Organized Crime Intelligence Unit," one such footnote revealed.
The CIA gave a similarly stark warning, according to another footnote.
"We identified reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [redacted] indicating the potential for Russian disinformation influencing Steele's election reporting," that footnote stated, specifically flagging a "subset of Steele's reporting" as "part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations." Further, according to the footnote, the CIA told FBI investigators that "an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia" claimed Steele's dossier was compromised by Russian intelligence "infiltrating a source into the network" used by Steele to assemble his allegations against Trump.
File
RedactedHorowitzFootnotes.pdf
The FBI plowed ahead, never looking at the red flags in Steele's so-called "Delta file" assessing his credibility as a source or alerting the court to the validation team's concerns or the prior espionage probe involving Danchenko. Instead, Steele was offered up to $1 million from the FBI if he could prove his dossier, which he never did, according to testimony Durham elicited at the trial last week. Danchenko was recommended to receive a half-million dollars for his work, Agent Helson testified.
The portrait compiled from Durham, the DOJ IG and the declassified CIA evidence is one of the FBI turning a blind eye to the fact that there was no evidence of collusion, just a disinformation operation, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said. And the continuation of the probe for nearly three years suggests the FBI proceeded based on politics, not evidence, he added.
"Look, I don't know how you describe this $1 million payment or potential payment to Steele as anything other than what it is," Nunes told Just the News. "It was a bounty program to get Donald Trump. That's what it was plain and simple."
As for the FBI, Nunes said, "It's just so confusing to me as to why these FBI and DOJ characters and some of the Clinton cabal have not been brought up on a conspiracy charge, because clearly they were conspiring to defraud the United States government, and to lie and mislead Congress."
Cover Image
John Solomon Reports
Devin Nunes: FBI's $1M payment for Steele dossier, 'a bounty program to get Donald Trump,’ no other way to explain itDevin Nunes: FBI's $1M payment for Steele dossier, 'a bounty program to get Donald Trump,’ no other way to explain it
00:00 / 53:48
Listen on Apple Podcast
Listen on Stitcher
Privacy Policy
Brock, the former FBI boss, said the sum total of evidence now indicates the FBI failed — either by incompetence or something worse — to detect it had been played by Russian intelligence.
"This has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation run through the Hillary Clinton campaign," he said.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/sunfrom-durham-cia-evidence-mounts-fbi-told-steele
techno / @techno_fog
10/15/2022 20:26:52
Truth Social: 109175112494785391
The Danchenko transcripts -
Mueller Special Counsel denied its analysts' requests to interview Democrat Charles Dolan - a "source" of the Steele Dossier.
By doing so, Team Mueller prevented an inquiry that would have revealed its lies to the FISA Court.
Self-protection by cutting short its own investigation.
https://qagg.news/?read=TO50037
Igor Danchenko Trial Revelations: Team Mueller’s Obstruction
The Mueller Special Counsel refused witness interviews that would have implicated itself
Techno Fog
11 hr ago
Judge drops 1 of 5 charges against Trump-Russia dossier source, in blow to special counsel Durham | CNN Politics
On Friday, Special Counsel John Durham finished presenting evidence in the Igor Danchenko trial.
The most damning part of the day, if not the trial? Testimony that FBI supervisors within the Mueller Special Counsel refused requests to interview a source for the Steele Dossier: longtime Democrat activist Charles Dolan.
But first we start with the redirect examination of a witness from Thursday afternoon – FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson - who handled Danchenko when he was a confidential human source. (Our prior article discussed Helson’s investigative failures at length.)
Durham questioned Helson about efforts to determine the Danchenko-Dolan connection in the summer of 2017. By that time, the Mueller Special Counsel had been ongoing since May 2017 and had, on its own, taken part in the last Carter Page FISA renewal. And if you recall from our last articles, Danchenko had been an FBI CHS since March 2017. Once Mueller was appointed, Helson was the go-between, asking Danchenko questions posed by the then-Special Counsel’s team.
By June 2017, the Mueller Special Counsel had developed information that Democrat Charles Dolan may have been a source of the Steele Dossier. They passed questions about Dolan to Agent Helson:
Q Who did those [Dolan] questions come from?
A It came from the Mueller investigative team, particularly Ms. [Amy] Anderson.
Durham also cleaned-up Helson’s sloppiness. The previous day, Helson testified that Danchenko didn’t know the Steele Dossier was going to the FBI. Helson admitted he didn’t have any evidence to support his own conclusion.
Q You were asked a question yesterday that you adopted – you were asked a question about, well, the defendant didn't know that Steele's reports were going to the FBI, and you said yes. Do you have any independent knowledge of that?
A No.
Q That's just what the defendant told you, right?
A Yeah.
Q So when you told the jury that he, Mr. Danchenko, didn't know that they were going to the FBI, you don't know that to be the case?
A I had no other knowledge that suggested that, no.
Q Right. There's no independent evidence of any sort, correct?
A Yes, correct.
Helson was also asked about Danchenko’s lack of complete honesty with respect to his interactions with Charles Dolan and his travels to Moscow. As you’ll see, Helson’s answers also implicate his own failure to fully investigate his source.
Q Did Mr. Danchenko tell you about his having been in Moscow in June of 2016?
A No, he did not tell me that.
Q Did he tell you anything about his having met with or seen Mr. Dolan in Moscow in June of 2016?
A No, sir.
Q Do you recall, sir, whether or not you ever learned the dates on which Mr. Danchenko was in Moscow in June of 2016?
A I learned of it later.
Q And do you remember: When you learned at a later point in time he had been in Moscow in June of 2016, did you talk to him about that?
A No.
Danchenko’s June 2016 Moscow trip, where he met with Dolan, has significant timing because Danchenko flew from Moscow to London to give “a report”. Who was in London? Christopher Steele.
Durham also inquired about Helson’s October 24, 2017 interview of Danchenko. Helson described the purposes of that meeting:
“This meeting was – in part, it was a direction from the Mueller investigative team bringing up the discrepancies in the Sergei Millian matter, and they wanted me to go back specifically to ask the questions and get his response.”
Just so we’re clear – by October 24, 2017, the Mueller Team knew there were issues with Danchenko’s allegations about Sergei Millian. At a minimum, they were aware of the discrepancies in Danchenko’s claims about Millian. And how did Danchenko respond? By changing his story.
The importance is two-fold. First, it confirms to the Mueller Special Counsel that there are even more problems with Danchenko’s story. Second, it catches Danchenko in a lie that would, 4+ years later, be part of his own indictment.
The Testimony of Former FBI Intelligence Analyst Brittany Hertzog
Hertzog was with the FBI from 2008 through 2019 as an intelligence analyst with a primary focus on Russian counterintelligence. She described her role as an analyst who “looks at information and tries to identify trends, patterns, and investigative next steps.” She was assigned to the Directorate of Intelligence at FBI Headquarters.
Hertzog was assigned to Special Counsel Mueller’s Office in July 2017. She described her role and chain of command with the Mueller Team:
Q And what, generally, was your role with the Special Counsel Mueller's team?
A I was primarily initially to focus on looking into reports that the FBI had received on Russian matters.
Q All right. Did those reports have a particular name?
A We referred to them typically as the Steele dossier.
Q Now, as a member of Special Counsel Mueller's team, was there a chain of command?
A Yes.
Q Can you describe the chain of command that you worked with?
A I reported directly to SIA Brian Auten. Above him was Special Counsel Mueller. There were horizontal chains of reporting as well. So there was an attorney, a supervisory special agent, and then head of FBI personnel.
Q Okay. So you had occasion to work with special agents as well, correct?
A Correct.
Q And who were some of the special agents that you worked with Special Counsel Mueller?
A I worked with Supervisory Special Agent Amy Anderson and Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson.
Hertzog became familiar with the Steele Dossier, and with the parties involved in the Steele Dossier, once she joined the Mueller Team:
Q And how did you become familiar with Mr. Steele?
A When I reported [July 2017] to the Special Counsel's Office, SCO, I had received background information on the investigation up until that point.
It was her job to “look into the Steele Dossier.” She described this as “trying to identify the sourcing for the claims in the dossier and, specifically, the national security threat with regards to the Russian influence piece.” Hertzog explains:
Q And a lot of names appeared in those dossier reports?
A Correct.
Q Did you learn that there were a number of different sources that the defendant relied on?
A Yes.
Q Did you have a particular focus on any of those sources?
A There were a number of sub-sources that were identified for investigative next steps.
Q Okay. And did you have a particular individual that you focused on?
A Yes. There was an individual named Olga Galkina who was – when I was assigned to SCO, was my primary focus initially.
Compare Hertzog’s testimony to the words of Robert Mueller:
How do we not conclude that Mueller lied to Congress?
Unless his own team kept him in the dark about their own investigation of the Steele Dossier?
The title of this post references “obstruction” by the Mueller Special Counsel. Just to clarify, we’re not saying that there will be charges of obstruction of justice from anyone on the Mueller Team. (We’re not going to predict what comes next.) By obstruction we mean obstructing the truth, or obstructing the efforts to determine the truth. We plan to dive deeper into this Mueller issue in the near future.
Back to Hertzog. She took investigative steps to look into the Steele Dossier. She investigated Olga Galkina. She also looked into Charles Dolan:
Q And what's your understanding of who Mr. Dolan is?
A Mr. Dolan, to my understanding, having reviewed FBI databases, had connectivity to both Mr. Danchenko and Ms. Galkina.
Q So your testimony is that you learned about Mr. Dolan through the various FBI databases?
A I believe information was provided to me as background when I on boarded with SCO, and I became aware of more information as I researched.
In fact, Hertzog connected Dolan to Olga Galkina, and also to those who had worked in the Russian government (such as Putin ally and confidant Dmitry Peskov). She checked Dolan’s travel records, finding he had traveled to Cyprus (where Galkina was located) and also to Russia. She found Dolan’s link to Galkina, a “sub-source for the Steele Dossier” of particular importance.
The Reactionary is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Hertzog also discovered that Dolan and Danchenko had been in Moscow together and described that fact’s importance:
“It was an important fact because Mr. Danchenko was identified as being a source for the Steele dossier, and connectivity between Mr. Dolan and Danchenko was important, especially considering Mr. Dolan's connectivity to Dmitry Peskov.”
Special Counsel Keilty asked Hertzog about her desire (and the desire of counterintelligence analyst Amy Anderson, and even Brian Auten) to interview Dolan. Hertzog was emphatic that she wanted the interview:
Other members of the Mueller Special Counsel team, however, took the position “to not investigate Mr. Dolan.” Their side ultimately won. To the best of Hertzog’s knowledge, “nobody at Special Counsel’s team interviewed Mr. Dolan.”
Not that Hertzog didn’t try to convince others to look deeper into the Dossier sources. Her file on Galking, which referenced Dolan, was uploaded into three different case files. Hertzog did those because she “wanted others to see it who had the authority to take action.”
And why did she take that step?
That report was specifically put into once case file she “believed would be reviewed by Washington Field Office, FBI headquarters, and the Inspector General.” Hertzog explains why she sent it to the IG:
Q And for the benefit of the jury, to your knowledge, what is generally the inspector general?
A The inspector general looks at matters – sorry. Are you asking specifically that or just the inspector general?
Q Just generally, what the inspector general does, to your knowledge.
A To my knowledge, the inspector general reviews Department of Justice agencies to ensure that actions are being taken appropriately.
Q Okay. So you wanted the inspector general to see your report on Ms. Galkina, correct?
A Correct.
Q And that's because Mr. Dolan's name was in it, correct?
A Yes.
Q And you thought Mr. Dolan was an important individual?
A I believed that – yes.
Q And did you believe that further investigative steps should have been taken on Mr. Dolan?
A Yes.
The Testimony of FBI Special Agent Amy Anderson
Agent Anderson, who works in the field of counterintelligence, was part of the Crossfire Hurricane/Mueller Team from April 2017 through January of 2018. Her initial assignment was “to attempt to validate the Steele Dossier,” to “either verify the reporting or determine that it was not accurate.”
Anderson described her role and supervisors with Special Counsel Mueller:
Q What was your initial – who were you initially working with in that role at the Special Counsel's investigation?
A When I first arrived at the Special Counsel, I worked with Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, as well as quite a few other intelligence analysts, Stephanie LaParre, Iva Drasinover. We had a team that was working the dossier in particular.
Q Did you work with someone by the name of Brittany Hertzog?
A I worked with Brittany a little bit later. She came in not at the very beginning but maybe a month after, a month or two.
Q And in terms of who you reported to at the Special Counsel's office, if you could, just tell us who you reported to.
A Technically, I reported to Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson.
Anderson said she was interested in Dolan in particular, given his connection to Galkina and Danchenko:
Q And how did you learn of the connection between Mr. Dolan to Ms. Galkina and the defendant?
A I believe it was also database checks, and Ms. Galkina did tell us that she knew him – both of them.
Q And learning of Mr. Dolan's connection to the two individuals, what did you do with respect to Mr. Dolan? Did you look into him?
A I wanted to look into him.
She also wanted to speak to Danchenko. But she had to do that through Agent Helson, Danchenko’s handler. Here’s how that process worked:
Q And just briefly explain to the jury how it might work. If you wanted to get information from Mr. Danchenko, how would you go about getting that?
A I would speak to the source handler. So in this case, I would speak to Agent Helson, and we would discuss what might be interesting for us to know. And then he would go and speak to his source. We do that for reasons of source safety, so that not everyone knows who our sources are.
Agent Anderson would eventually fly to Cyprus with Auten to interview Olga Galkina. She said Galkina was mostly forthcoming, except when it came to discussing Charles Dolan:
Q And did you interview with her all days?
A Yes, we did three days.
Q And would you characterize Ms. Galkina as forthcoming with her information about her role with the dossier and any information in it?
A She seemed mostly forthcoming.
Q You said mostly forthcoming. Was there a particular area that she was not forthcoming about?
A Yes. She was hesitant in telling us about Mr. Dolan.
Q All right. Let's start with the beginning of these interviews. When you began interviewing Ms. Galkina, did you specifically ask her about Mr. Dolan or not?
A We did.
Q And if you could, how did she react when you asked her about Mr. Dolan the first time?
A She did not want to speak about him.
But Anderson kept pressing and eventually straight-up asked if Dolan had a connection with the Steele Dossier. At that point, Galkina admitted Dolan’s involvement:
Agent Anderson then prepared a report of the interviews and compiled a report on everything that she and Analyst Hertzog had compiled on Charles Dolan. That report was submitted to her supervisor, Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson. Read what happened next:
How convenient that the Mueller Special Counsel ended an inquiry that would have implicated itself.
Agent Anderson didn’t have any personal knowledge as to why the interview request with Dolan was declined. We’re confident Durham asked that very question to SSA Joe Nelson.
The Testimony of FBI Special Agent Ryan James
Agent James’s purpose was to discuss evidence acquired by Special Counsel Durham’s team through the course of their investigation. To briefly summarize, he discussed:
How they obtained telephone/e-mail/Facebook records.
Danchenko’s e-mails, call records, and Facebook postings.
Sergei Millian’s travels and his telephone calls.
The time and dates of the calls between Danchenko and Dolan.
The lack of calls between Danchenko and Millian, and the lack of the 10 to 15 minute call Danchenko purportedly received from someone he thought was Millian.
And that wrapped-up evidence for this case.
The court did, as reported, dismiss Count One of the indictment, which alleged Danchenko gave a false statement when asked whether he had talked to Mr. Dolan about anything that ended up in the Dossier. The problem Durham always faced with Count One was the FBI Agent’s lack of attention to detail; the world “talked” has a very specific definition. The judge recognized as much. No surprise with that dismissal.
As to the Defense?
Danchenko will not be testifying, and his attorneys will not be presenting any evidence. Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday. Expect them to last an hour or less, with jury deliberations to begin thereafter. The jury might give us a verdict on Monday afternoon at the earliest.
But the trial’s biggest takeaways will be what we learned about the FBI and the Mueller Special Counsel.
https://technofog.substack.com/p/igor-danchenko-trial-revelations
>>17695370, >>17695371, >>17695373 From Durham to CIA, evidence mounts FBI was warned Russia collusion story might be disinformation
for notables
>>17695377, >>17695380, >>17695381, >>17695382, >>17695383, >>17695385, >>17695386 Techno_fog: Igor Danchenko Trial Revelations: Team Mueller’s Obstruction
For the notables
I have reported you for deletion. You don't get to use X22 or Dan Bongino or any one else's content to bolster you.
That is called predatory behavior.
Filtering yo ass
I love dave's reports.
You dont get to advertise another 'telegram's'
site using his content.
Post the og content if your going to do that.
In the mean time…
FUCK OFF
Filtered
Donald J. Trump/ @realDonaldTrump
10/16/2022 07:54:54
Truth Social: 109177817932811190
No President has done more for Israel than I have. Somewhat surprisingly, however, our wonderful Evangelicals are far more appreciative of this than the people of the Jewish faith, especially those living in the U.S. Those living in Israel, though, are a different story - Highest approval rating in the World, could easily be P.M.! U.S. Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel - Before it is too late!
https://qagg.news/?read=TT2488
Donald J. Trump/ @realDonaldTrump
10/16/2022 08:16:37
Truth Social: 109177903368464493
I have watched and known Congressman Lee Zeldin for many years. He is a great and brilliant lawyer who was a “must see” for others in Congress when they had a complex legal problem that was holding up legislation. Lee was strong on the Border, Crime, our great Military & Vets (like few others!), and fought hard to protect our 2nd Amendment, and succeeded. Lee Zeldin is a WINNER who GOT THINGS DONE. He will be a GREAT Governor of New York, and has my Complete & Total Endorsement. GOOD LUCK LEE!
https://qagg.news/?read=TT2489
Q 816
02/23/2018 18:29:00
8chan/qresearch: 475991
WHY school shootings?
What is more precious than our children?
Emotional pull.
Distraction event.
Gun grab event.
D security.
WHY would locals go along w/ such a sick organized event?
[THEY must control local police / school / county officials / etc to work].
WHY?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Federal aid + donations.
These people are SICK.
https:// www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-shooting-two-years-later-20141214-story.html
Follow the money.
It’s always about the money.
Q
San Luis, Guillermina Fuentes AZ Democrat Ballot Trafficker Gets 30 Days In Jail – VIDEO Shows Her Surrendering To Authorities
Guillermina Fuentes has been sentenced to 30 days in the Yuma County Detention Center after she was caught on video trafficking ballots in San Luis.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that Guillermina Fuentes finally pleaded guilty more than 15 months after she was indicted on four felony charges. The heavier charges of Forgery and Conspiracy were dropped in Fuentes’ plea agreement, and she only pleaded guilty to one minor count of ballot abuse.
We later reported that prosecutors were seeking a one-year prison sentence for Fuentes’ voter fraud.
The Arizona Attorney General put out the following press release yesterday.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced that Guillermina Fuentes of San Luis, a former Mayor of the City of San Luis, was sentenced Thursday October 13, 2022 to a two-year term of probation, and was ordered to serve a 30-day term in the Yuma County Jail for her role in an August 2020 Primary Election “ballot harvesting” scheme where early ballots from other voters were collected and deposited into a ballot box on primary Election Day. Fuentes had entered a guilty plea on June 2, 2022, to one count of Ballot Abuse, a felony violation of Arizona law.
Judge Roger A. Nelson of the Yuma County Superior Court ordered Fuentes to surrender at the Yuma County Jail on October 15, 2022, at 6:00 pm and serve a 30-day term in jail that was not subject to potential early release or work furlough.
In December 2020, Fuentes and Alma Yadira Juarez, also of San Luis, were both indicted for 1 count each of Ballot Abuse, also known as “ballot harvesting.”
In a separate proceeding Thursday, Judge Nelson sentenced Juarez to a 12-month term of probation for her Ballot Abuse offense. Juarez had entered a guilty plea on January 20, 2022.
Law and Crime reported,
Judge Nelson reportedly viewed Fuentes as somewhat unrepentant and settled on a jail term of brief duration.
“The defendant acknowledged responsibility for carrying ballots for someone else,” Nelson read in court, according to an Associated Press report. “However, she stated, ‘I’m not a criminal.’”
“Well, you are a criminal,” Nelson said. “You committed a criminal offense. I don’t think you recognize that as a criminal offense. That’s the problem that I have.”
It is rumored that investigators from the Attorney General’s office were in San Luis this past week investigating and possibly indicting others for voter fraud and ballot trafficking in the 2020 election.
A representative from the Yuma County Sheriff’s office told TGP that the Attorney General’s office has partially taken over the County Sheriff’s investigation of voter fraud in the County. They also said, “We currently have 26 cases that we are investigating.”
“Investigators confirmed that the AG’s office was in town talking to people, but it is unknown if anybody was arrested at this time,” said the Yuma County Sherriff’s office.
The Attorney General’s office did not respond to our request for more information.
San Luis victims of fraud provided The Gateway Pundit with a video of the detention officers taking Fuentes to jail after she surrendered around 6 pm on Saturday.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/breaking-exclusive-san-luis-az-democrat-ballot-trafficker-gets-30-days-jail-video-shows-surrendering-authorities/
Video Shows Arizona Ballot Trafficking Mule Surrendering To Jail After 30 Sentence
https://rumble.com/embed/v1ljyv1/?pub=4
https://rumble.com/v1o64ox-video-shows-arizona-ballot-trafficking-mule-surrendering-to-jail-after-30-s.html
President Xi Jinping Says China Reserves the Option to Use Force in the Reunification w/ Taiwan
Published October 16, 2022
https://rumble.com/embed/v1lm4l3/?pub=4
NOTABLES ARE NOT ENDORSEMENTS
#21652
>>17695314 COMMS tweet from Nancys Daughter … Sent At this time, on this day, 13 years ago, Bella met Barack 😇 #Obama
>>17695331 Ukraine peace deal. A nuclear expert warns that's 'dangerous.'
>>17695370, >>17695371, >>17695373 From Durham to CIA, evidence mounts FBI was warned Russia collusion story might be disinformation
>>17695377, >>17695380, >>17695381, >>17695382, >>17695383, >>17695385, >>17695386 Techno_fog: Igor Danchenko Trial Revelations: Team Mueller’s Obstruction
>>17695402 What Is A Conspiracy Theorist?
>>17695416 Donald J. Trump: U.S. Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel - Before it is too late!
>>17695418 Donald J. Trump: Congressman Lee Zeldin is a WINNER who GOT THINGS DONE. He will be a GREAT Governor of New York, and has my Complete & Total Endorsement. GOOD LUCK LEE!
>>17695422 Army injustice: Thousands of soldiers slapped with misleading criminal record
>>17695425, >>17695427 San Luis, Guillermina Fuentes AZ Democrat Ballot Trafficker Gets 30 Days In Jail – VIDEO Shows Her Surrendering To Authorities
>>17695428 LIVE: Protests in Paris over cost of living and climate action
>>17695429 President Xi Jinping Says China Reserves the Option to Use Force in the Reunification w/ Taiwan
Another baker may add your shitty posts