Thought you all might like a thread for the NRA Speech.
As a special nod, we’ve included this song from Lisa Mei: Our Guns

https://twitter.com/LisaMei62/status/1121779826011115520
 
Remember, the second amendment protects all the others!
C-Span is covering the speech, live. Just finished the National Anthem, here we go!

We are all-abuzz about the diGenova revelations with Mike Huckabee last night. Here is the full tape of the Laura Ingraham show, so the reader can understand all details in context. LINK
Here is the video link, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_yMcVq6-ak
I have transcribed all of diGenova’s comments in the color blue or red, so we can evaluate his words, verbatim. diGenova comments occur at 11:20, 16:20, 19:15. All emphasis is mine. Please note, last night, we learned diGenova was one of the first FISA Court Judges.
One more tidbit, my husband, made an interesting observation last night. Husband is the Boston Lawyer, with several family members who were US Attorneys, Chief Judges, and many employees of DOJ (they argue for sport which makes Christmas exciting). When diGenova was talking last night, husband stopped in his tracks to listen, which is unusual for husband. This morning, he went over diGenova’s words, carefully and rewinding several times. Can’t remember him ever doing that before. Husband said the following thing, “Joe diGenova could not have said what he said, last night, without permission.” Reiterating, “He’s been told it’s okay to talk now, on this specific issue, what to let go of, and where to stop talking.” Implying, Joe knows and has been authorized, by the powers that be, to release the information.
At 11:20, diGenova drops the first bombshell. Four contractors, via the FBI, were allowed to spy on Americans and the information was used for political purposes.
diGenova:
“This is pretty simple stuff for career prosecutors like Rudy and myself.”
“It’s been evident from day one, that there was a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton, illegally, and then, if Trump won, frame him.
The Dossier was a known part of it. It was created by Hillary Clinton. It was created, knowingly, by John Brennan, as part of a scheme to do everything they could to harm Donald Trump.
The problem for Brennan, and Clapper, and Comey, and Baker, and all of them, now, is, that the FISA Court has already communicated with the Justice Dept about its findings. And their findings are, that for more than 4yrs before the election of Donald Trump, there was an illegal spying operation going on, by FBI Contractors, 4 of them, to steal personal information, electronic information about Americans, and to use it against the Republican Party. 
There’s going to be indictments, there’s going to be grand juries. John Brennan isn’t going to need one lawyer, he’s going to need five.
At 16:20minutes, the convo comes BACK to diGenova.
Paraphrasing
Huckabee asks, “Why is this important to average American sitting at home eating popcorn..”
diGenova: “Because it’s about the rule of law and privacy. The Obama Administration for more than 4yrs before the 2016 election, allowed 4 contractors, working for the FBI, to illegally surveil American citizens. Illegally. The FISA Court has already found that.
By the way, Robert Wray mentioned that there is the Horowitz report coming out in May or possibly early June. There is another report that everyone has forgotten about involving James Comey, alone. That report will be out in 2 weeks. That report is going to be a bombshell. That report is going to open up the investigation on a very high note and there will be criminal referrals in it. The FISA Court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power. And the Chief Judge of that Court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the Justice Dept, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the Asst Attorney for the National Security (Division), all knew about it and lied to the Court, the FISA Court, about it.
Huckabee goes back to “Robert” who was the on the Whitewater Special Counsel, who makes excellent comments. He notes the “leveraging” of information used by the Justice Department and the Intelligence Community against the President and concludes Trump was right, no future President should ever have to go through this again.
DiGenova is back at 19:15 minutes.
DiGenova: There’s a hero in this story and it’s not a lawyer. All the bad people in this story are lawyers. There’s a hero. His name is Admiral Mike Rogers. He was the head of the National Security Agency. He discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA Court and briefed the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA Court has already been told the Justice Dept who lied to that court and that has been given to Bill Barr already.
There’s so much to unpack, here.

1. diGenova was one of the original FISA Court Judges?
2. Four Contractors, allowed by the FBI to spy on Americans for 4yrs, for the purposes of using the info against Republicans. Still can’t wrap my head around the allegation. We have so many questions. Was it four companies or four people? Who were these ‘contractors’? Are we talking about raw intel from NSA, 702 search queries? How many people were spied upon? Is this part of the Samantha Powers unmasking operation? Is this what Evelyn Farkas meant by “can’t let them discover HOW we got the information”?
3. We all know Admiral Rogers went to Rosemary Collyer the FISA Court Judge, when he learned what was happening, late October 2016, only a few days after Carlin GOT the FISA warrant on Carter Page. We had no idea Rogers worked with Collyer for months to figure out who was doing it.  
4. And we had no idea Bill Barr already knew.
5. Or that the FISA Court had already made a ruling the FBI LIED.
6. Who would be handling this investigation?
7. Was this investigation born from Sessions investigation of the 27 leaks? Or Samantha Powers? Or something else?
8. diGenova specifically named John Brennan and Hillary as the creators of the Dossier. Note that diGenova did not say “Comey”, or “McCabe”, or “Strzok and Page”. Nope, diGenova fingered John Brennan. Brennan could NOT have acted in such a way without express permission from Obama and ValJar.
9. Remember the spook story from John Solomon? When Solomon started investigating, two guys showed up, late one night, by his mailbox. They did not identify themselves. They wanted Solomon to investigate but they were worried about losing the FISA warrant altogether. The FISA warrant was good for them, when it came to tracking terrorist, etc. They needed the ability to get a warrant but were worried about the illegality by political appointees and thought, maybe, the whole program could be in danger. Makes sense now, eh?
10. Michael Caputo was on Tucker, several times, and I vaguely remember him talking about HUNDREDS (600+) people who had been ‘surveilled’. Part of the same Obama Admin effort?
11. When diGenova talks about the Comey report, coming out in 2 weeks, diGenova says it will “open up the investigation on a very high note”…. “with criminal referrals”. Curious sentence, yes? It sounds like the way a coach opens a football game with a trick play, or an entertainer opens a concert with a favorite song. It definitely implies there is MORE TO COME.
12. Finally, since the whole mess centers on the FISA Court, what is the involvement of Chief Justice, John Roberts?

Seems to be quite a bit going on at the Justice Department. Do we have any independent confirmation of diGenova’s comments?
We recall the 99 page release from FISA. We remember Chairman Goodlatte and Nadler fighting and Dan Coats, DNI, released the 99 pages from Collyer. Review here: Link
From the FISA Court ruling:
The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA Analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court.
The Court ascribed the government’s failure to disclose the IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing [Obama’s NSD Director John Carlin – NOT Rogers] to an institutional “Lack of Candor” and emphasized that “this is a very serious Fourth Amendment Issue”.
A non-compliance rate of 85% raises substantial questions about the propriety of using of [Redacted – likely “About”] query FISA data.
There is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015-April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high rate.
The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to a [Redacted].
Is largely staffed by private contractors.
The {Redacted} contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests.
The FBI discontinued the above-described access to raw FISA information as of April 18, 2016.
Their [contractors] access was not limited to raw information for which the FBI sought assistance – and access continued even after they had completed work in response to an FBI request.
The FBI had given the information to the private entity [Redacted] not to an assisting federal agency.
The Court is nonetheless concerned about the FBI’s apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported.
The improper access granted to the [Redacted] contractors was apparently in place [Redacted] and seems to have been the result of deliberate decision-making.
This all points to substantial instances of improper surveillance. Going back to at least November 2015 – probably longer.
We do not have Goodlatte’s letter. But Judge Collyer has already issued a damning Opinionof FISA Court abuse under the Obama Administration.
end

At what point should a parent step in to save a child? When is it good for them to learn how to fail? Gosh, it would be so much easier if kids came with a set of instructions.
“What are you going to do?”, I queried. “We’re gonna sell tires to Mr. Dunlop. We think we can get $5/piece for them. Some of ’em, might even be worth $7.50.”, said the boys. They were all dressed up, navy blazers, white starched shirts, and ready to go and make their sales pitch. I was all ears… , “How about practicing your sales pitch on me, first?”
My stepson and his best buddy were about 14-15yrs old, when I came home one day to find 30-40 old tires at the end of the driveway. Because we are a B&B, we’re fairly self-conscious of the appearance of our grounds and gardens. A stack of old tires made us look more like the “Sanford and Sons Garage”. Not exactly the ambiance I was going for. All I could think about was the tires catching fire, black smoke for two days, fire engines, neighbors complaining, and our B&B being designated as the “Little Somalia” of the south. The boys assured me, they had a plan…… They were going to make their fortune on retreads.
A little bit of background…
My stepson was an odd duck. We never knew if he would turn out to be a CEO or the next Unibomber, scathing IQ but kind of scary. His heart was not in the right place and he was a manipulative kid. When coupled with his best buddy, we’ll call him Eric, the two of them presented a challenge to teachers, ministers, and parents. Eric was sharp, naturally intelligent, so handsome the girls swooned, and his grandfather was a millionaire farmer who spoiled him. By age 14, Eric drove a truck to school, could fix equipment, ride a horse, shoot well, and fly a crop duster. My husband owned a construction company. Between the two boys, they had access to, and were comfortable with, all kinds of heavy equipment…. and they had no fear.
Eric’s mom, we’ll call her Susan, was a girlfriend to me but I was in awe of her. She was a former barrel horse racer, wild as any mustang. She was the most fearless person I’ve ever known and the kind of woman who would scare most men. Coming from bubble-wrapped suburbia, I had never met anyone like her. Susan’s mother was a friend to my grandmother, and in my Culture Club. The mother had a silver closet in her home – an entire ROOM filled with fine sterling serving pieces and flatware. The mother was a fine southern woman, but Susan broke the mold. I can’t remember ever seeing Susan in a dress or wearing makeup, but she started a business for home decor and building supplies, the most exquisite pieces for western homes/lodges, etc. Her business thrived and was around the corner from our B&B….. which put the boys together, every afternoon and most weekends.
When the boys were little, I caught them with BB Guns, shooting a skunk in the backyard. The staff loved that skunk, who visited out yard every afternoon with her babies. I broke the butt of the BB Gun across the brick column of the porte cochere, “Don’t shoot our animals.” During their middle school years, the oak trees were particularly prolific and hundreds of oak seedlings sprouted in our gardens. I was pulled saplings every afternoon and the boys were not helping as I thought they should. So, I told them they should pull the saplings, pot them up, and sell them for $1.00 each. They liked the idea, pulled almost all the saplings, and the boys made about $75 selling little oak trees all over town.
Then, Eric ran away from home. I thought the whole thing was settled and he was back home, but my stepson came to me, begging for an intervention. Apparently, Eric, who was about 14 at the time, had run away, three states, and was working on a farm in Missouri. He had been there for 3 weeks and had been in contact with my stepson. Eric was sleeping in the farmer’s barn and fall was approaching. It was getting cold. As my stepson explained, he was ready to come home, but his mom, my girlfriend Susan, was adamant. She would not go and get him. “His parents abandoned him!”, my stepson said, imploring me to “fix it”. I stared at my stepson in disbelief, trying to think of what mountain I would not climb to get to him. Sleeping in a barn? Three states away? What? I talked to Susan the next day. Her response, “He found his way there; he can find his way home.” Wow, tough love.
I recalled the time my stepson ran away from home. I helped him pack his Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle suitcase and waved goodbye to him as he took off across the school parking lot. I went into the house, called the local police, had them pick him up, handcuff him, and bring him back home. He wasn’t gone 20 minutes and he was terrified. Point made. The problem with Eric was infinitely worse. Three states away?
My husband was non-committal on intervention. “None of our business”, he said. A few days went by and my step son was increasingly agitated. About the time I made arrangements with the farmer to pick up Eric, halfway, in Arkansas, he showed up, worse for wear, at our back door. He lived with us for about a month…. then found his way home. The following summer, they hatched the tire retread plan.
That morning in the driveway, I sat down on the car bumper to listen to the boys’ sales pitch to Dunlop. They talked about the material cost of re-treads, the ready market for less expensive tires (they had customers lined up and had visited several full serve gas stations), the amount of money they thought they could make, and the estimated profit for Dunlop. They wanted to approach Mr. Dunlop with the idea. The Dunlop plant was fairly close to us, about 30 minutes. The boys were innocent, had no frame of reference for time/schedules/proper business etiquette, and had no concern about the meeting. I had visions of them being kicked out of the office, with adults laughing and mocking them. The defeat would be crushing. At no time did I ever think they would get to see Mr. Dunlop. The factory was huge. I wondered if they would get past the guard gate, and felt badly for them. Their first real effort to enter the business world needed to go well.  Nonetheless, they took off in the old red truck, with “sample tires” bouncing in the back bed.
Walking back to the kitchen, I shook my head. It was a few minutes after 11:00am and I wondered if the bosses would be gone for lunch if the boys dawdled. I knew Bill, or “Mr. D”, but only vaguely for some charity stuff – more like we knew OF each other. On a whim, I called his office, spoke to his secretary, and told her about the boys’ plan, profitability, etc. She put me on hold. A few minutes later, Bill or Robert came on the phone, laughing. I started to explain, but he cut me off, “Don’t worry mom, I got this one. I can’t wait to meet these two.” The way he said it…., I wasn’t sure if it was good or bad.
Their meeting went quite well. The boys ended up going to lunch at the local country club with several other bosses. They were introduced as a “new business opportunity”. Of course, the boys felt very important. In the end, they were hired to work in the plant for the summer, on the loading docks, but still a favorite of the big bosses. Not exactly what they envisioned, but they did land a job. For the next week, I acted as a broker, selling used tires out of the end of the driveway. I took a commission, $1/tire.
Today, I look back on the episode and still try to figure out what was the right call to make? Was Susan right in letting Eric perish? Was I right in calling the Dunlop plant? Would it have been better to let them fail all the way round? It’s hard, especially for a mom to let the kids fail, but sometimes, failing teaches them so much more. Dads are much better at making these decisions.

Interesting conversation with my son this weekend. This is the same kid who came up with the Canal Project. Big thinker. I admit, Monday afternoon and I’m still ruminating on what he said.
Here’s his premise:
If 90%+ of the world’s info is available from a smart-phone, college and various curriculums need to be rethought and updated. Our children (because he’s now the adult and thinking of future generations – which was a shock to me – cuz I still think of him as the kid) live in a world with information at their fingertips…. and they need to be taught how to use this information more effectively. His use of the word, “effectively”, snagged me, and implied he knew something I did not. I settled in to listen to him expound on his idea.
“This NEED should bring about a revolution in education because the current model does not account for the SPEED at which we can learn with new technology.”, he said. Okay, I can remember being bored in school at times…. and lost at other times.
He elaborated, “….Think about how people binge-watch Netflix….., why should a 6th grader who is interested in physical sciences STOP, or only learn one chapter a week? Why can’t they take tests on-line in the form of units? He noted when he was in 3rd grade (back in the stone age, I guess) they were already taking tests on-line. Why can’t unit tests be strapped into a local school server?
He had my attention…
… but continued.
“Same thing with foreign language. There are a half-dozen software programs available which are far more effective than a teacher in school, learning by semester….. and we have to RE-LEARN for a month when we return in the fall.” He was now standing, pacing, being expressive, and he was convincing.
Then, he dropped a bomb.
“The classroom is outdated. Teachers are outdated. The model was great, for thousands of years, but the model has not adapted to the new tech available and how much easier it is to learn, now.” To back up his claim, he gave the example of Khan Academy for mathematics, where a student can view a clip, look at different examples, back it up and listen again for clarity. Can’t do that with a teacher in class. He gave another example of the kid who daydreams and misses 80% of what a teacher says on a particular day. With the new tech, even the daydreamer could go back and review. We could substantially increase passing rates for all kids in all grades!”
Playing the role of Devil’s advocate, I questioned him about the socialization aspects of “school”. He quickly shot back, “Oh yeah, mom, let’s save the bullies?”, which was an ineffective argument when weighed against the overall benefits of socialization, the ability to read people, working within a team, etc. Yet, then, he had me, “More importantly, how much of bullying or individual bad conduct is caused because students are bored in class?” Gee whiz, wonder who taught my son to make a persuasive argument?
He was flushing the idea outloud and plugged in the Special Ed component. “We all knew the kids who went to special classes and it was embarrassing for them. Okay, let’s say, they take a unit test and get a 60%% grade, thus failing the test. Before they would be allowed to move on, they have to go through another review, and another test, to master material. Their failure is private, thus no embarrassment in class — but a teacher would know immediately. THEN, that kid would no longer be lost in class, AND the kid who understood the material quickly would not be bored and causing trouble.”
Then, he dropped another bomb.
He said, “Let’s look at it from a cost perspective and a wealthy versus poor school district perspective.” My eyebrow was curling, he was talking about taxpayer dollars. “If there are, let’s say, 25K elementary schools in America (he did not know the exact number), then why do we need 25K 3rd grade science teachers? AND, some of these teachers are wonderful and some stink. Why don’t we take the best ones, for lectures, ensuring ALL 3rd graders get the BEST lectures…. across all zip codes…. and the same great teacher in poor or rich communities?” I asked about the experiments and labs. He said, “Well, then we could have one teacher, 1-5th grade, spend a month with each grade, per semester, doing nothing but experiments and blowing things up. You know, mom, The LAB teacher.”
I said, “Well, to listen to lectures, test in units, students wouldn’t necessarily need to be in school.” He gave me the big eyes, “Yeah, they could be sitting in a treehouse, they could learn it in July instead of waiting until October.” Then, he gave the idea a big boost, “Let’s say a 3rd grader is interested in American Presidents, or astronomy, or bugs. Well, there’s no limit to the content available. Why can’t we have assigned reading on a Kindle or books on audio? Why can’t we design other units for those kids who are interested in ANY subject….. and maybe give them extra credit for other ‘electives’….. cuz you know, mom, not every 3rd grader is interested in the same thing…” Ahhh, the wisdom from a 21yr old….  But then, he gave me the example of 3-500 level classes he is taking in materials engineering. He said his professors are not teaching him anything, because they are electives and the professors are “phoning it in”. So, he signed up for the same class, on line, from MIT, to supplement his learning in the same class….. so he can, at least, understand it. Bizarre, eh? He said, “The MIT professor explains thing easily, as opposed to my professor” at the college he is attending….. the one we are paying for.
He was on a roll, “What we SHOULD be focused on is how to teach children how to THINK critically and recognize bias/propaganda within the information.”, he said, now looking for possible hazards or negatives for which we would have to plan for in “New School”. “New School”……., I thought, gheez, he’s already branded the idea. He continued, “Take any issue, The Civil War, Martin Luther King, Jr., The Environment, and students can source docs to represent both sides of any issue. How is it possible to discern what really happened and make a definitive statement about “who was/is right”? Then, he went into a long diatribe about how science is being corrupted for social ideology, minimizing the value of “pure” scientific method, and the hypothesis/result process.
He sighed, “Only mathematics remains uncorrupted by politics, but within a classroom, students are evaluated and graded based on the bias of a teacher.” He digressed with an example of an honors biology class he took which was taught by a cheerleading coach, when the parents of the boys in the class had to go to school and complain about her bias. He said, “Grading online, would eliminate that problem for multiple choice and true/false tests.” For grading of essays, in advanced grades, he suggested student be forced to write TWO persuasive essays on both sides of any issue and consistently, from 1st grade onward, be forced to identify facts versus opinions.
“New School”…… hmmmm, what are YOUR thoughts on the subject? My son went back to college on Sunday night, but I admit, he still had me thinking about it today.
End

Our little Q Tree has grown and the talents of various members continue to pleasantly surprise us all. Collecting and sharing info about the Mueller report, yesterday, as we have done so many times before, was a group effort. I’m asking for your help, again.
Within this thread, please DUMP everything you know about Crowdstrike, whether or not the Russians did hack the DNC/Podesta. The info I’ve added is long, technical, and includes many links. Take it in sections if needed, or disregard it altogether.

Since the release of the Mueller report, the DNC + MSM is attempting to establish a narrative. It goes something like this: Okay – So, Trump and his team did not specifically collude with Russia (or we don’t have a smoking gun that he did – but Adam Schiff has secret info), but Russia meddled in the election…. we (the legacy media) were right about it…. and so were our precious 17 intel agencies. If not for Russian meddling…. Hillary would have won. This “SPIN” will save the media’s credibility, DNC politicians, and the Deep State. 

For the following reasons, we cannot allow this narrative, “The Russians Swung the Election”, to survive.

1. Such a narrative will continue to make our President appear as illegitimate.
2. The narrative diminishes and demoralizes Trump supporters massive turnout and effort to get Trump elected…. and elected for 2020.
3. Establishment of such a narrative allows the Obama team, FBI and other intel officials from the 17 agencies, to escape without questions or prosecution.
4. If members of the old Obama team + MSM, can successfully sell, “Russians hacked”, then the premise for their investigation is legitimate in the eyes of the public – and the “institutions” remain protected. The Deep State blends back into the shadows and will not be deterred from acting again.
5. The Special Counsel accepted the results of “17 Intel Agencies” and did not delve into an investigation of whether or not the findings of the intel agencies was valid.
6. We’re being asked to accept, verbatim, Crowdstrike findings and frankly, we’re not sure they are true……. and neither is Crowdstrike. Their findings never rise above the word “possibility” of the Russians being the hackers.

 
Let’s try to create a Timeline: I’ll start off and plug in more details as others contribute.
June 12th, 2016: Julian Assange announces he has Hillary emails.
June 14th, 2016: Crowdstrike announcement in WaPost about DNC hacks. (For those who pay WaPost for a subscription, in the search bar, please type in Washington Post, June 14 2016 Alperovitch, and the article will come up.) For those of us who do not pay for a WaPost subscription, synopsis found here: Link

“…..its forensic analysis of the DNC server had determined malware had been injected into the server — and it had been done by Russians. Not just any Russians, mind you, but agents of Vladimir Putin. Alperovitch and CrowdStrike’s Shawn Henry (a former FBI executive under Director Robert Mueller and President Obama) told the Post that their investigation revealed the DNC server had been hacked by the cyber-espionage groups known as “Fancy Bear,” allegedly associated with the Russian GRU (military intelligence) and “Cozy Bear,” allegedly associated with the FSB (the successor to the infamous Soviet KGB).”

June 15, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 published a single WordPress blog (Link here) reinforcing the “Russian hacking” narrative. Details of Guccifer 2.0 statement and details can be found at a Snopes on June 17, 2016. Link: Snopes Link HereSnopes Link Here Guccifer 2.0 ALSO published a smattering of DNC emails he claimed were obtained in the hack. The Snopes link is RICH with detailed references and other links – also noting Shaun King, from NY Daily News, who immediately became interested and followed the Seth Rich story. 
June 21, 2016: By June 21, Guccifer 2.0 gave an interview with VOX, admitting he was Hungarian, not Russian, and released docs from Clinton Foundation on his WordPress Blog: Link Here
July 28, 2016: By now, the DNC convention is in full swing, and we’ve had over a month to investigate potential hacking. We get the following article from BBC: Link Here The BBC article is REVEALING because the “Doubts about Guccifer 2.0” section is almost identical to the report from 17 Intel Agencies we received in January of 2017, right before President Trump took office. Did Clapper and Brennan copy and paste?

Why are many sceptical about the identity of Guccifer 2.0?

For three main reasons:

• Detailed analysis of the attack on the DNC by US security firm CrowdStrike suggests the organisation was actually penetrated twice – both times by hacking groups, dubbed Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, known to have links to the Russian state. These groups have successfully penetrated US federal organisations in other hack attacks. (We later learn the logic of Crowdstrike assessment falls apart on this primary point. See below for theory on targeting software for D-30 Howitzers)

• Forensic examination of metadata in copies of documents distributed by Guccifer 2.0 suggest they were edited on a machine set up for a Russian language user. (We later learn the same hardware is available in Brooklyn for about $14 – it’s a Russian language keyboard)

• Technical information including IP addresses extracted from messages sent by Guccifer 2.0 to journalists show a link to the Russian cyber-underground – even though many of the conversations were routed through a French VPN firm. In the past, some of the same infrastructure was used to send junk spam on behalf of Russian crime groups. (Should we be surprised Guccifer 2.0 communicates with underground Russian cyber groups? Or that Russian cyber crime groups sent out spam? How is this proof the GRU or FSB, specifically connected to Putin, hacked Hillary, Podesta, or the DNC?) 

The BBC article (linked above) even concludes this is NOT proof of Russian hacking.

Does this prove that Russia is involved?

No. Attribution, the experts say, is always difficult. Translated, this means nobody knows who to blame. One of the first lessons that any competent hacker or hacktivist learns is how to cover their tracks and how to use proxies, encryption and other techniques to obscure who they are and from where they are operating.

January 3, 2017: Important article, examining issue from all aspects, from George Eliason, worth reading. Link here

How does Crowdstrike’s story part with reality? First is the admission that it is probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC.  “Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks.”

The Intel Community Report on Russian Hacking, the JA Report

January 6, 2017: Two weeks before the inauguration of President Trump and at the same time President Elect Trump was shown part of the Discredited Dossier, the Intel Community (Obama’s IC) comes out with a “definitive” report on who hacked the DNC. Please follow the NYTimes link for the full 25 page report, Link here  Please read it. The IC Report on Russian hacking is 25 pages of boilerplate and obviously bad logic.
Pages 1-6 tell us why the Intel communities are spectacular and we should trust them. The IC will tell us what to think and their conclusions, but because of “sources and methods” cannot reveal any proof to the public. At the bottom of page 6, the report reveals they are relying on old methods, because we know how Kremlin works.
By Page 7, we get to the meat of the matter in “Key Judgements” = Undermine the public faith in the democratic process, hurt Hillary’s chances at election or her Presidency, because Russia concluded she was the likely winner. We are offered no proof of Russian preference for Hillary and at the bottom of page 7, we see the “Kremlin” targeted both campaigns with social media trolls. And here is the kicker, “High degree of confidence, the GRU used the persona of Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks to release US Victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to Wikileaks.”    
Page 8: details an old story about Russians looking at publicly available information on voters in state and local boards, as if it’s somehow secret or related.
Page 11: FBI and CIA think Putin and Russia want to discredit Hillary and help Trump. NSA has “moderate confidence. It’s the first time we see the NSA break from the others. Here, on page 11, we see the weakest possible explanation for Putin preference of Trump over Hillary. Page 11 is a must see.   Because Putin “most likely” held a grudge against Hillary from 2011? Did a third grader write this report?  We see words like “probably” and “most likely”, which is a persuasive argument, not fact-based. We also see an argument from IC that Trump/Russia could work together on ISIS and welcomed more friendly relations. No proof, just poorly written persuasion.
Page 12: Accusation Russian intel gained access to DNC in July, 2015, and maintained access until June of 2016. Hard and fast accusation. Proof? Further, GRU “probably” began targeting both sides in March, 2016……. no proof, just speculation. Bottom of page, important, the report claims Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks info, as attributed to Russia, was publicly available…., info gleaned from various journalists, info not received as a result of anything the intel community did. .. except for an accusation DCLeaks published emails stolen by GRU in March, 2016 (page 13).
Page 13: Accusation the GRU fed information to Wikileaks (high confidence) but reasoning is weak – because the head of RT visited Assange at Ecuadorian Embassy? Or because RT and Sputnik are pro-Russia? Or more friendly to Trump and cooperation between USA and Russia?
Page 14: Or better yet, because RT/Sputnik noticed American media was often unfair to Trump? (page 14) And cast Trump’s victory as a win against globalism, an outsider unfairly targeted by establishment media…. versus Hillary…. islamic extremist, poor health, and corrupt. And the important point: Russia as the likely financier of, The IRA, Internet Research Agency, St Petersburg, group of internet trolls. By the time we got to the Mueller Report, “likely” became assumed fact — AND Mueller indicted them.
Page 15: History of Cold War = Russia bad. The effort to interfere in 2016 = “boldest yet”.
Page 16-22: Dramatic focus on RT America TV, which was allowed in 2012 into the US, had two shows the IC claimed sowed discord. I believe Mueller’s Special Counsel charged RT with FARA violation. Another show, anti Occupy Wall Street, more accusation of RT America being pro-Russian and claims of Putin/Kremlin tight control over RT. More details on RT Arabia. No discussion of Washington Post printing propaganda directly from China.
In summary, the IC Report on Russian Hacking of DNC/Hillary?/Podesta is alarmingly weak. We have one claim of entry to DNC in July, 2015-June, 2016, with no proof or public explanation. Did the Intel community make the assessment or did it come from Crowdstrike? We have an accusation of GRU entry of DNC in March, 2016, again, no explanation. Was it the IC or Crowdstrike? We KNOW the FBI never looked at the DNC servers. Finally, we see the IC relying on public reporting for an accusation against Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. Pages 1-6 were boilerplate, pages 7-15 were, at most, 6th grade persuasive writing, and pages 16-22 were a copy and paste of someone’s report on RT TV in America.
The Intel Community Report does not leave the reader with a “high degree of confidence”, especially when we consider the TIMING of it’s release, 2 weeks before the inauguration of President Trump.

Crowdstrike + Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear + IISS

Among the many authoritative refutations of CrowdStrike claims are an early analysis by former top IBM executive Skip Folden, entitled “Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge”  — which has since been deleted from WordPress. In fact, one by one, MANY tech experts offering detailed analysis have had their articles removed or taken down. Odd, eh? Binney and other veterans also attacked the findings but have been ignored by both, Haspel and Pompeo at CIA. Binney’s “Memorandum for the President” can still be found here: Link to Binney Memorandum
In other groups, we closely followed the CrowdStrike story from the interview of Dmitri Alperovitch on PBS, December 22, 2016. Senators and Congressmen confirmed CrowdStrike as the originator of the Russian Hacking story. Let’s not forget, the DNC and Hillary were the ones who hired CrowdStrike, just as they hired Fusion GPS.
CrowdStrike based their theory of Russian hacking on, 1. the Russian keyboard, 2. the targeting software for Ukrainian D-30 Howitzers, and 3. Historical behavior of Russia.
The following is a personal post I made on March 23, 2017, and thus, PURE opinion. Several of the links included are no longer active, yet, I described the material within the links. It may help give us all a closer look at CrowdStrike.
March 23, 2017: Daughn’s personal opinion post – NOT legacy media.
On March 22, I found an article from VOA and others and summed up the article in a post as follows: 
In a nutshell, Crowdstrike asserts that Ukrainian D-30 howitzers had an “app” that was hacked by the Russians during the Crimea incursion. Crowdstrike points to a report by IISS (English think tank which counts the sizes of armies and armaments available to various countries around the world) which claims significant loss of D-30 howitzers as evidence the Russians were successful in targeting this artillery.
But CrowdStrike’s argument falls apart, here:
1. IISS was never contacted about it’s report or conclusions and the creator of the “app” was never contacted by Crowdstrike. IISS claims they were reordering the estimates of global arms forces and were, in fact, making a correction for howitzer counts two years prior to the Crimea incursion.
2. Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company’s report “delusional” in a Facebook post. CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.
3. Jeffrey Carr, a cyberwarfare consultant who has lectured at the U.S. Army War College, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other government agencies calls the evidence “flimsy” and goes further ….. “He (Carr) told VOA in an interview that CrowdStrike mistakenly assumed that the X-Agent malware employed in the hacks was a reliable fingerprint for Russian actors.
“We now know that’s false,” he said, “and that the source code has been obtained by others outside of Russia.””
4. Pavlo Narozhny, a technical adviser to Ukraine’s military, told VOA that while it was theoretically possible the howitzer app could have been compromised, any infection would have been spotted. “I personally know hundreds of gunmen in the war zone,” Narozhny told VOA in December. “None of them told me of D-30 losses caused by hacking or any other reason.”
Remember, CrowdStrike is the ONLY ONE who actually analyzed the DNC servers. FBI access to the physical servers (for examination) was denied. Strangely, instead of merely performing analysis for the DNC and issuing a report, the co-founder of Crowdstrike ALSO made appearances and gave interviews to PUSH the “Russian hacking” story.
That’s odd.
Why would Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of Crowdstrike, Russian ex-pat and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center in Washington, give interviews to the Washington Post and appear on PBS News Hour on December 22 of 2016, ONE WEEK prior to Obama’s actions against 35 Russian diplomats? 
It gets better. 
During these interviews, Alperovitch speculates the only person/entity who would gain from Russian hacking of an app to control D-30 Ukrainian howitzers AND the DNC would have been Vladimir Putin.
No kidding.
Understand, the world-wide media had been consumed by a story of Russian hacking and the only entity with the servers is Crowdstrike. NO ONE has questioned their results. Why?
Crowdstrike refused to answer questions from VOA and cancelled a March 15th interview. Why?
CrowdStrike said it was long familiar with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike’s conclusions. THUS, the media claims SEVERAL experts in cyber-security have confirmed the results of Crowdstrike.
Their spokesperson, spokeswoman Ilina Dimitrova defended the company’s conclusions. “It is indisputable that the [Ukraine artillery] app has been hacked by Fancy Bear malware,” Dimitrova wrote. “We have published the indicators to it, and they have been confirmed by others in the cybersecurity community.” Do you see what happened there?
To claim the D-30 howitzers “app” was hacked, with no other corroborating evidence, is a fundamentally invalid claim on its surface.
To tie an alleged D-30 howitzer hack (unproven and now contested) to an obscure report of worldwide armament loss (when you never called the guy who made the report on howitzer loss for verification) is tortured logic. To claim these two events are related….. and furthermore tied to a hack at the DNC………. in a conspiracy by Vladimir Putin……… is a bridge too far.
May 22, 2017: Daughn’s Personal post/opinion, NOT legacy media. This is an update and a compilation of new info about CrowdStrike, their walk-back of the D-30 software targeting claim, and twisted logic from their spox, who claimed – paraphrasing, even though they were wrong, the 17 Intel Agencies back up their findings….. but what if the IC was depending on the info from CrowdStrike (as is clearly stated Link here )to reach their conclusions? 
Bombshell: 
Yep, the whole DNC/MSM Russian hacking story is unraveling before our eyes.
CrowdStrike, the ONLY company allowed access to the DNC servers and the ONLY ones, with any authority, to claim “Russia hacked the DNC”, has now changed its original report, questioning their theory about the Ukrainian howitzers. 
Well, if the theory about the app hacking of Ukrainian howitzers is no longer valid —– then Russian hacking of DNC is no longer valid.
PLUS – Evelyn Farkas, Obama holdover, went on MSNBC and actually admitted their were targeting Trump AND leaking. OMG. She is either stupid, the scapegoat, or it’s a headfake.
Are you sitting down?
Evelyn Farkas is a high ranking “fellow” with The Atlantic Council. And guess who else is a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council? Dmitri Alperovitch – the founder and CTO of CrowdStrike! Alperovitch is head of the Atlantic Council’s “Cyber Statecraft Initiative”. The Atlantic Council is funded in part by the US State Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. The Atlantic Council has been among the loudest voices calling for a new Cold War with Russia.
Hmmmmmm
Here is an overview from Treehouse which includes the Varkas interview/confession of conspiracy on MSNBC. 
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/…/oh-…/comment-page-4/…
Here is the link to the article talking about CrowdStrike’s changing theory – walk back of claims. 
http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-p…/3781411.html
Here is the link to the original VOA article from March 22 questioning CrowdStrike’s theory and claims plus my summation below:http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-rus…/3776067.html
Remember the DNC did NOT allow the FBI access to the DNC servers, despite many requests at different levels of authority.
One more important tidbit. We always try to look for coordination between the DNC/Hillary/Deep State/Obama holdovers and the news media. We found one primary link which fed the Crowdstrike information and narrative into NBC: Link Here

Crowdstrike insists that it’s Russia behind both Clinton’s and the Ukrainian losses. NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this.”The company, Crowdstrike, was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian intelligence. One of Crowdstrike’s senior executives is Shawn Henry, a former senior FBI official who consults for NBC News.

This represents everything I have for CrowdStrike and Russian Hacking of DNC/Hillary?/Podesta. PLEASE, add to it at will. ALL info is welcome. We need to flush out the theory and help our President.
End ~~~~ for now.

We all want justice. Let’s see what happens. We will edit and add as things pop up tomorrow, but I can’t see us getting a whole lot done, besides the report, tomorrow morning. 
The Report will be released to the public at NOON, April 18, 2019, at this link. Link to Mueller Report
https://www.justice.gov/sco
Here is the Barr Presser at Justice: 

From BflyJsusGirl

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/attorney-general-william-barr-to-hold-news-conference-on-mueller-report
The disclosure of a version of the report without “certain redactions” came in a filing late Wednesday in the Roger Stone prosecution. The DOJ said it would publicly redact sections related to Stone’s case which is ongoing. Stone, a longtime confidant of the president, is awaiting trial on charges including false statements and obstruction.
From Flep, here is the transcript from the Barr Presser:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-release-report-investigation-russian
Good Morning. Thank you all for being here today.
On March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation of matters related to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and submitted his confidential report to me pursuant to Department of Justice regulations.
As I said during my Senate confirmation hearing and since, I am committed to ensuring the greatest possible degree of transparency concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation, consistent with the law.
At 11:00 this morning, I will transmit copies of a public version of the Special Counsel’s report to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Department of Justice will also make the report available to the American public by posting it on the Department’s website after it has been delivered to Congress.
I would like to offer a few comments today on the report.
But before I do that, I want to thank Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for joining me here today and for his assistance and counsel throughout this process. Rod has served the Department of Justice for many years with dedication and distinction, and it has been a great privilege and pleasure to work with him since my confirmation. He had well-deserved plans to step back from public service that I interrupted by asking him to help in my transition. Rod has been an invaluable partner, and I am grateful that he was willing to help me and has been able to see the Special Counsel’s investigation to its conclusion. Thank you, Rod.
I would also like to thank Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our electoral process.
As you know, one of the primary purposes of the Special Counsel’s investigation was to determine whether members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, or any individuals associated with that campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report describes the results of that investigation. As you will see, the Special Counsel’s report states that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
I am sure that all Americans share my concerns about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.
The Special Counsel’s report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election:
First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations.
Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.
But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme.
Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.
Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime.
Following a thorough investigation of these hacking operations, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian military officers for their respective roles in these illegal hacking activities. Those charges are still pending and the defendants remain at large.
But again, the Special Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with the Russian government’s hacking.
The Special Counsel’s investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet. The Special Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication. Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps.
The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.
Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.
So that is the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.
After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability.
Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
Now, before I take questions, I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report that I am releasing today. As I said several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.
As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing upon ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case.
These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product.
Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so.
Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice. Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report. Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.
In addition, earlier this week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication. The President’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions.
In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also committed to working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the Special Counsel’s investigation. We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler throughout this process, and we will continue to do so.
Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information. Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves – with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared.
I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Once again, I would like to thank you all for being here today. I now have a few minutes for questions.
Giuliani Response to the Barr Presser and Mueller Report:

Janet was the epitome of a “Southern Woman”. We all heard about the legend or mystique of southern women. I didn’t understand it in the beginning, but I was curious. I learned “southern woman” was more aptly defined as ANY woman, who lives in ANY region of the world, from ANY walk of life/color/culture, but a woman who is confident and comfortable in her own skin, can laugh and learn from mistakes, takes pride in her home, blindly defends her children or friends, and most of all, LOVES her man. So, it could really be any woman, describing what most thought were ideal virtues of a woman, it’s just that people in the south were describing such a woman. Ahhh, I get it, now. Sooooo, my girlfriend in upstate NY, or my girlfriend in Idaho, are both…. perfect examples of “southern women”. Got it?
Being a friend to Janet was a joy. I looked up to her, she was about 10 years older than me. I wanted to be like her, and she taught me everything…. about southern womanhood…. she could tell a dirty joke better than a sailor, smoke a cigar, but laugh like a little girl with a contagious lilt in her voice.  Janet was about 5’2″, a size 6, fine looking woman, with short blond hair and and blue eyes. She wore dark blue contacts to make her eyes pop. She collected great estate quality jewelry and was a terrific cook. After going through a brutal divorce, with her kids grown and now in college, Janet became a pharmaceutical rep. She started her life over again and had nothing left to prove. This time, she meant to have fun.
Janet lived at least 100 miles south of us but her sales territory included our B&B. Janet started as a guest. She arrived for the first time, in August. With temps in the upper 90’s and humidity to match, she was desperate for air conditioning and a crowbar to peel off her pantyhose. I showed her to her room and returned to the kitchen.
Mother-in-law arrived, as usual, carrying a clear plastic insulated mug, filled with a triple gin martini with a dozen olives swirling in the ice like alien eyeballs. Cocktail hour had begun. I was making dinner, not drinking, because I still had guests to check-in. Mother-in-law prattled on but I wasn’t paying attention to her questions when Janet breezed through the kitchen door with a question about where to go for dinner. Mother-in-law rounded the corner, fresh from the bar, after making her second (triple) martini. “Would that be a fine gin you might need help carrying?”, said Janet to MIL. Sensing a drinking buddy, MIL and Janet went back to the bar. Janet emerged with a scant single martini and parked herself on the kitchen stool. She was “in”.
Like “death and taxes” there are unwritten rules at our house. Once a guest wanders into the kitchen and parks themselves on the stool…….. they never really leave. They become part of the house….., part of the family….., fall under the protection of the house…., and unconditionally loved…. despite warts or frailties. The kitchen stool was stolen from Grandma Della’s house. Della was only 4’11” and had to have a stool to reach anything. The steps were black plastic and the seat pad was covered in orange/avocado daisy-print, straight out of the early 70’s. I used the stool because our ceilings were so tall. Over the next hour, I checked other guests in, and finally, poured myself a glass of Zinfandel. Janet also switched to Zin. Mother-in-law left, but Janet remained and helped me make dinner, completely comfortable in my kitchen. With dinner in the oven and a luscious antipasto platter in hand, Janet and I retired to the side porch to wait on my husband to come home for dinner. Of course, Janet stayed for dinner.
Over the next year or so, Janet became a regular; our side porch was our perfect perch to people watch and swap stories. The side porch was unusual but represented exceptional architectural planning. The house is surrounded by large oak trees and the side porch is on the southeast corner, protected from strong sun and the heat of Mississippi summers. Husband rigged up some heavy chains from the beams and I hung enormous Boston Ferns. We outfitted the side porch with loads of interesting plants and tidbits. I bought a cheap little fountain and a side fan. The side porch was a mini-oasis and because of all the greenery, no one on the street could tell anyone was sitting there.
Janet often stopped to say hello, even when she wasn’t staying. As we became closer, we often catered lunches and presentation style dinners for her pharma. One year, MIL made 26 scratch coconut cakes for Janet to deliver to her doctor clients.
Janet stopped one day, after making rounds in town, to change clothes before going home. We were on the side porch, sharing a glass of wine, when Ron (another guest) “came home” (to the B&B) from work. Janet spotted him rounding the corner and watched him walk. She narrowed her eyes and said, “If that man was a beach towel, I would get sand all over him.” and then, “He’d have to shake me off.”
I put down my wine, and took a long look at my girlfriend. She had never spoken about a man in such a way. He definitely had her attention. Of course, I had to find a way to get the two of them together. “Who was that?”, she asked. I explained……
……. Ron and his daughter were living with us, for about three months, on and off while he closed up his other house. He was “transferring” to our town. We helped him with realtors, furniture, and his Gothic, pink-haired, 16yr old daughter. Ron fought for and won custody of his daughter. The ex-wife was a mess. I continued……..
…… Ron was the new division President of a local plant and looked like a walking advertisement for Brooks Brothers. He was shy and private. Yes, he was handsome, had a razor sharp wit, and at odd times, could be unbelievably charming. Grandma Della was here, knew Ron, and opened the door for him one day. He hugged her, and she commented about how good he smelled. Ron slid his arm around her again, grabbed her close, looked deep into her eyes, and said, “Are you kidding? If I was 75yrs old, I would be chasing you.” Grandma Della’s knees buckled a little bit. Ron made my grandmother blush. From that moment on, Ron could do no wrong according to Grandma Della. And Janet could do no wrong with Mother-In-Law.
They were a match made in heaven. It was meant to be.
Janet grinned like a Cheshire Cat. A man who was kind to Grandma Della, and needed help raising a daughter, was exactly the kind of man for her. Janet made her decision. She wanted him. We needed a plan and a little bit of help from above.
Because Ron and his daughter went back and forth and Janet was not always here, getting them together took a few weeks. One week, Ron came back by himself, I called Janet, and she was close by. The two met, briefly. Instant fireworks. The next morning, Ron asked about her. I said, “Oh, I don’t know Ron. You’re going to have to chase that one. She’s a thoroughbred.” I let my voice trail off and slinked back to the kitchen. Naturally, that just peaked his interest.
Couple weeks later, someone sent Ron a 25lb box of giant Alaskan Crab Claws. Ron had it shipped to our house, and called me to tell me it was coming. He invited husband and I to partake, if I would cook. He suggested we had “Soooo much” it might be nice to share…., and maybe I should call Janet. Oh, you betcha, I called Janet.
We ate on the side porch, on newspapers, with our hands, with fresh asparagus and scratch Hollandaise, crusty bread with a pound of melted butter. What a meal! There was obviously a LOT going on between the two of them, but Janet did not stay that night… too awkward and a good call.
Week or so later, Janet came in, super-late and had to leave super-early. I was making breakfast and she slipped down the back stairs to see me. She was having problems with a back zipper and needed “girl” help. I gave her a “hang on” sign. Same time, Ron barged into the kitchen, looking for early coffee. Ron didn’t know Janet was here and Janet didn’t know Ron was here. It wasn’t even 6:30am, yet. I winked at Janet….
…. I looked at Ron, shrugged my shoulders, and asked him to do me a favor, please. “My hands are all dirty, and she’s all clean and pretty, would you please….. ZIP HER UP.”
He froze. Three-four steps across the kitchen floor, Janet turned around and presented her back to Ron. I watched him. He held his breath. He zipped her up, then, he hooked the eye at the top. She turned, said, “Thank you very much.”, and out the back door she went. I watched him exhale. His hands were shaking a little. That poor boy hadn’t touched a woman in at least five years. He was smitten.
A few weeks later, the DA in the next county was having his annual house party. His wife was young and spectacularly beautiful, ……which meant other women in town didn’t like her……, which made me stick up for her. She was a wonderful woman. I told Ron about the party and said it might be good for him to go, get familiar with the locals. He asked me if we could invite Janet. We did and it was their first date. My husband teased Ron that he needed a chaperone. The two men got along beautifully.
In the game room at the DA’s house, Janet picked up a pool cue, “I always wanted to learn to play pool.” What????? Janet and I played pool; she was a shark. Of course, Ron offered to help her learn to hold the cue, etc. It was sweet. She sank the ball and let out a 12 syllable long, “Daaaahhhhaammmmnnnn, how did I do that?” Ron’s knees gave way and he whimpered a little. He was a strong and commanding man at the peak of his career. When it came to Janet, he was cooked. Put a fork in him.
The two spent the night but Janet left before breakfast. What I don’t know won’t hurt me. None of my business. BUT – all afternoon, Ron sat at the head of the dining room table, writing Christmas cards. He was staring out the windows. Distracted. Thinking. Finally, I walked into the other end of the dining room and asked him if he was okay. He looked at me and set his jaw, “I’m going to marry that woman. I can’t imagine my life without her.”…. and she adored him.
As a bonus, Ron asked for my help to pick out Janet’s ring, which was perfect for Janet because our tastes were so similar. I called our diamond broker and he came to the house. We picked out the perfect ring. They were married in front of our fireplace. Husband and I stood up for them and they’ve been married 20yrs.
End.