Article Image

IPFS News Link • Corruption

FINALE: THE DEEP STATE'S HILLARY CLINTON BRIBERY-BLACKMAIL STING & THE

• Deep Capture - Patrick Byrne

In April 2019 I walked into the United States Department of Justice and told them the story you are about to read. Ten days later the Durham Squad was announced. I do not know for certain if those facts are related. After you read this you can make your own guess.

This is my final installment in the Deep Capture epic. In the future I may use this site to answer questions, comment on events, or respond to articles, but the 14 year narrative arc of Deep Capture comes to an end here. As this will be a matter for not just lawyers but historians, I am going to walk through these events more methodically than might be my normal style.

To understand this final chapter (and thus, to make proper sense of the whole epic), the reader should be familiar with four previous essays and one brief clip from that marvelous old TV show Taxi:

The SEC & Me, Part I: #MeToo

Maria Butina & I, Part I: Meeting Maria

Maria Butina & I, Part Deux: Romancing Maria

Maria Butina & I, Part III: Betraying Maria

Newcomers to this website who wish to gain a quick understanding of its backstory (a tempest that raged between Wall Street and myself in 2005-2008) can read the a one-page synopsis of my claims from that era, published in October 2007, "Introduction to the DeepCapture analysis" (which reads rather presciently, if I say so myself). Those who wish a longer explanation of the Wall Street drama that was backstory to this site can watch a 40 minute presentation I gave in October 2007 to a group of about 1,000 hedge funds, "DeepCapture – The Movie".  Those who wish to understand the full backstory (and who have a free afternoon to kill and a masochistic streak) can read, "The Story of DeepCapture", by former Columbia Journalism Review editor Mark Mitchell, published in March 2008, just months before the '08 financial meltdown.

In truth, however, there is no need for the casual newcomer to go that far back. On the other hand, scanning the four documents linked to above, and certainly watching the above clip from Taxi, will help the following tale of hijinks, intrigue, and triple-cross make sense.

It was an honor.

Seltza,

Patrick M. Byrne

South Texas Borderlands

August 25, 2020

================================================================

In late 2015, two Men in Black from my distant Wall-Street-fighting past and the then-ongoing Maria Butina matter told me, "We need you to shift to working on something more important. The Bureau is setting Hillary Clinton up in a sting. We need you to arrange a bribe for her."  They explained (I include legal jargon to which they introduced me, as it will be useful later):

There are two groups in the FBI investigating the Clintons. There is a group looking into Hillary's emails, though we think that is a whitewash. But there is a group of agents in New York City looking into her finances, and they want to put her ass in stir. 

They walked me through the principles distinguishing a good sting from entrapment: An undercover cop can't just walk down the street, go up to a stranger, and say, "Hey you want to buy some cocaine?" That would be entrapment: the target would have been drawn into the trap of committing a crime that would not otherwise have happened. Instead, the prosecutor needs to be able to show that the accused already had a prior disposition to commit the crime (in this case, buying cocaine), which is done by proving that the person had already performed one or more predicate acts, such as, "He pulled his car over at a street corner known for drug distribution, he put his car in park, he rolled down his window…" These predicate acts demonstrate that the accused was already disposed to buy the drugs, and so when the undercover cop approached and sold cocaine it was not entrapment, but just a crime that was going to happen anyway (so it is a good bust).

Comey had been blocking the use of such "aggressive investigation techniques" (i.e., a sting) on Hillary, the Men In BLack told me, claiming there were insufficient predicate acts to establish that she had a prior disposition.

Yet recently, information had come in that Hillary had accepted a bribe in the low tens of millions of dollars. They told me who it was from (a foreign government) and how it was done. The FBI agents in New York had leveraged that information to force Comey to sign off on setting Hillary up in a bribery stingthese agents explained.

Now those New York agents were asking for my help. It was believed that a different foreign government (of a country to which I had never traveled) wanted to pay Hillary a bribe (in the teens-millions) in return for having Hillary privately pledge what one aspect of President Hillary's policy towards their nation would be. My assignment was the create the following end-state: within two months, Hillary Clinton and that government's bagman are to be somewhere together in a room alone for 10 minutes. You take it from there, Byrne.

I said that I thought that it was hairy. In my mitzvah/jihad with Wall Street (2005-2008), USG and I always did business on a hand-shake (I had always said, "the fewer pieces of paper between us the better"). But now they were asking me to get involved in a federal election and bribe a presidential candidate. I told them that it was a request for which I would need one of their "Acts Otherwise Illegal" letters (which are letters Uncle Sam can give you if, as the name suggests, he asks you to do something that would otherwise be illegal).

They were polite and said they would go discuss it with their bosses.

thelibertyadvisor.com/declare