Things are getting spicy in/around Main Justice in DC. On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco denied any involvement interfering with the decisions made by USAO David Weiss regarding the investigation of the Hunter and ¹Joe Biden bribery and tax fraud scheme. However, in response, the IRS whistleblower is now naming additional witnesses to Weiss’s statements.
Through his attorneys, whistleblower Gary Shapley is now naming additional witnesses to the statements of USAO Weiss:
“In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status. Those six witnesses include Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley, IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Gary Shapley and Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, who also independently and contemporaneously corroborated Mr. Shapley’s account in an email, now public as Exhibit 10, following p. 148 of his testimony transcript.
Mr. Shapley would have no insight into why Mr. Weiss’s would make these statements at the October 7, 2022 meeting if they were false. That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated, and it is up to him and the Justice Department to reconcile the evidence of his October 7, 2022 statements with contrary statements by Mr. Weiss and the Attorney General to Congress.” (source)
Someone is lying, and the whistleblower appears to have all his information well documented and cited. Mr. Weiss, Mr. Garland and Mrs. Monaco have some explaining to do.
¹An interesting thought ran through my head last night as I was thinking about the Hunter Biden IRS agreement. If Hunter Biden was caught not putting the foreign payments on his U.S. tax returns as income, and we know Joe Biden received the same payments, well, did Joe Biden list his portion on his income tax returns?
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) called on Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on allegations made by an IRS whistleblower that Weiss told a meeting of investigators that he was being blocked from pursuing charges in the Hunter Biden investigation. McCarthy said if the allegations are proven true they will be part of an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland’s “weaponization of DOJ” (The Department of Justice.)
File screen image.
The whistleblower, Gary Shapley, memorialized the staff meeting with Weiss in an email and gave the names of those in the meeting to House Way and Means Committee investigators.
Weiss and Attorney General Merrick Garland have denied that Weiss was blocked from pursuing charges against Hunter Biden and that Weiss asked to be appointed special counsel. Garland reiterated his denial at a Justice Department press briefing at noon Friday.
Garland responds to the IRS whistleblower who said U.S. Attorney David Weiss was told not to bring charges against Hunter Biden:
“I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution.” pic.twitter.com/jz80vl9Id6
McCarthy’s statement: ” We need to get to the facts, and that includes reconciling these clear disparities. U.S. Attorney David Weiss must provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee. If the whistleblowers’ allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into Merrick Garland’s weaponization of DOJ.”
We need to get to the facts, and that includes reconciling these clear disparities. U.S. Attorney David Weiss must provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee.
If the whistleblowers’ allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into… https://t.co/Q3LLeJhW85
McCarthy was responding to a statement by Shapley’s attorneys that was released Friday afternoon within hours of Garland’s comments at the Justice Department press briefing that named those in the meeting with Weiss after Garland told reporters he had given Weiss full authority to bring charges against Hunter Biden in whichever jurisdiction he desired.
June 23, 2023 “In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status. Those six witnesses include Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley, IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Gary Shapley and Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, who also independently and contemporaneously corroborated Mr. Shapley’s account in an email, now public as Exhibit 10, following p. 148 of his testimony transcript. Mr. Shapley would have no insight into why Mr. Weiss’s would make these statements at the October 7, 2022 meeting if they were false. That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated, and it is up to him and the Justice Department to reconcile the evidence of his October 7, 2022 statements with contrary statements by Mr. Weiss and the Attorney General to Congress.” – Mark D. Lytle, Nixon Peabody LLP & Jason Foster and Tristan Leavitt, Empower Oversight
Statement from IRS Agent Gary Shapley’s legal team: “In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status. Those six… pic.twitter.com/hMKhCQfDo6
Jason Foster, one of Shapley’s attorneys, responded to McCarthy Sunday afternoon, “No “if” needed. Gary Shapley provided documents to support his testimony. @TheJusticeDept, @JusticeOIG, the IRS, and its IG have much more corroboration in their files. Gary told the truth, it’s verifiable, and no one has offered a shred of evidence contradicting any of it.’
No “if” needed. Gary Shapley provided documents to support his testimony.@TheJusticeDept, @JusticeOIG, the IRS, and its IG have much more corroboration in their files.
Gary told the truth, it’s verifiable, and no one has offered a shred of evidence contradicting any of it. https://t.co/T7y30fNaOk
On Friday, Foster posted the Exhibit 10 email dated October 7, 2022 that included corroboration by Shapley’s boss (on October 11) who also attended the meeting, “Big problem for @TheJusticeDept: its “Weiss was the decider” talking point is merely a bald assertion. But, Gary Shapley and his supervisor both confirmed in a now-public email at the time that Weiss told 7 senior officials he was *not* the decider. Email below…See bold/underline: “Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed.”
See bold/underline: “Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed.” pic.twitter.com/NK0nE5KGwU
Your May 25th letter to Attorney General Garland was forwarded to me, with a request that I respond on behalf of the Department. While your letter does not specify by name the ongoing investigation that is the subject of the Committee’s oversight, its content suggests your inquiry is related to an investigation in my District. If my assumption is correct, I want to make clear that, as the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistent with federal law, the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and Departmental regulations.
…In February 2021, I was asked to remain as United States Attorney for the District of Delaware to continue my oversight of the matter. Since that time, I have fulfilled my responsibilities, consistent with Department practices and procedures, and will continue to do so. Throughout my tenure as U.S. Attorney my decisions have been made– and with respect to the matter must be made– without reference to political considerations.
As previously noted, following the release of explosive testimony and documentary evidence delivered by IRS whistleblowers to the House Ways and Means Committee, the media have been given the green light to begin the Biden removal process.
Some will attribute the shift in corporate media position to a choice made to no longer defend the Biden administration from the transparent and corrupt Joe and Hunter Biden bribery schemes; however, don’t give the corporate suites that much credit. Instead, look at the House evidence released and remind yourself the mechanisms of the DC media are completely enmeshed with the operational institutions of the DOJ and FBI. What the media know is that all of the whistleblower evidence is supported by supplemental attribution.
The media’s “sources”, who have direct pipeline contact from the DOJ and FBI into the media executive suites, have told those executives the whistleblower accounts are supported with evidence that is not yet public. The reality of their inability to hide what is coming is the reason why the media are now positioning to give the illusion of investigative journalism. Examples below:
If you accept a very specific outlook into the mindset of the Lawfare operatives (Weissmann, Eisen, Berke, McCord et al) as strategic thinkers -the brain trust- behind the Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecution, then you might see the dynamic in this story.
Previously, amid his grand prose and proclamations outlining his spectacular and magnificent legal constructs, wunderkind Jack Smith was so confident in his case he strategically announced he would demand a “speedy trial” in order to preserve the great American democracy.
If you see Lawfare as a narrative construct, the pontification made sense.
However, less than two weeks later, suddenly the ever-confident Jack Smith is reversing his position and asking Florida Judge Cannon to delay the trial.
(Via NBC) – Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case to delay the start of his criminal trial until December.
The request came in a series of new motions filed late Friday by the special counsel.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had set a tentative date of Aug. 14 for the start of the trial. (more)
Remember, Lawfare is first and foremost a narrative construct intended for public media consumption. Lawfare originates from the perspective of an established legal goal, and then all of the activity is structured around supporting that goal. [A version of find me the man I’ll find you the crime.]
Lawfare is the opposite of following evidence. In fact, in its purest and most visible form, political Lawfare actually requires the ignoring of evidence.
♦ Why the delay?
I think the prosecutors got tripped up by their first motion.
Knowing how Weissmann, Berke, Eisen and McCord think, which is likely similar to how the lesser strategic Jack Smith thinks, the prosecution brain trust likely anticipated a counter motion to their first submission to the court restricting Trump’s access to the evidence being used against him.
The originating defense counter motion, if it had been filed based on substantive grounding around presidential power and ownership of the documents now cited as evidence, legally there would have been a very large constitutional argument sucking up months of court and litigation time.
I think the prosecution team was caught off guard when Trump’s lawyers just simply agreed to the terms and conditions. That has thrown the prosecution strategy into a timeline crunch they didn’t expect.
The DOJ crew were likely prepared to litigate a VERY big hurdle, and whether by accident or defense strategy when Trump’s lawyers acquiesced, they mooted the anticipated prosecutorial hurdle Smith was expecting.
While I don’t personally agree with that Trump defense team approach (if intended), the outcome of their agreement puts the more substantive pre-trial motions on a fast track to the judge.
Regardless of Trump’s defense team intent or strategy, apparently Jack Smith was caught off guard.
Jack Smith wouldn’t ask for a delay, essentially like putting egg on his own face given his prior statements, if he didn’t need the delay. Smith needs the delay.
The DOJ is Helping the CCP Persecute Their Opposition: Falun Gong, Guo Wengui, Others
(Note: This is a sponsored post from NewNoah. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Gateway Pundit)
by Kelly John Walker
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has demonstrated time and time again that it will bribe and manipulate U.S. officials across multiple agencies. They are committed to destroying all opposition to their autocratic rule, no matter where their critics reside. The CCP relies on deception, propaganda, bribery, and extortion to achieve their aims in the U.S. and around the world.
And some within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including the FBI, have been helping them succeed.
We already know that various efforts by the CCP have progressed due to corruption and/or incompetence within this U.S. agency and others.
In a letter to Representative Mike Gallagher, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) wrote,
“One of the most disturbing allegations uncovered by these DOJ investigations is the continued existence of Operation Fox Hunt- a Chinese covert global operation to harass and intimidate Chinese dissidents living abroad to attempt to forcibly remove them to China. According to the recently unsealed indictment, one of the tactics used by the Chinese government was to sue the victim in New York state court, turning our judicial system in to a weapon.
Another target of Chinese operation Fox Hunt, businessmen and dissident Guo Wengui (also known as Miles Guo), was uncovered during a 2017 indictment for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act against DOJ Senior Congressional Affairs Specialist, George Higginbotham, former Finance Chairman of the RNC, Elliot Broidy, and American businesswoman Nickie Lum Davis. The three were charged with unregistered lobbying on behalf of the Chinese government in exchange for millions of dollars. One of their goals was to facilitate the illegal removal of Guo. Although many individuals involved in the 2017 scheme were caught and charged, other American proxies continue to work for the CCP.
We urge the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to investigate the infiltration of the DOJ, SEC, and the U.S. legal system by the CCP. The root cause of this weaponization, across multiple agencies within the Executive Branch, has always been the CCP.
Recent Example: Bribe Offered Against Falun Gong
On May 24, FBI Special Agent Christopher S. Essick filed a Sealed Complaint in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against John Chen, also known as Chen Jun, and Lin Feng over allegations they supported the PRC as unregistered foreign agents. Chen and Lin attempted in 2023 to bribe an undercover federal agent acting as a U.S. tax official to advance a complaint that would strip a Falun Gong entity of federal tax exemption.
The department described this scheme as part of a broader campaign by China’s government to target U.S.-based critics. The charges were announced a month after federal agents arrested New York residents accused of operating a clandestine Chinese “police station” in Manhattan’s Chinatown district.
FBI Refuses to Respond to Questions About Secret CCP “Police Station”
In a May 23 hearing, Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) and House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) complained that the FBI had not answered a letter seeking answers to multiple questions, including when the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were notified of the Chinese police station in New York.
“In addition to the Chinese police station operating in Manhattan, New York, there are allegations of these illegal organizations operating in a separate location in New York, NY, Los Angeles, California, San Francisco, California, Houston, Texas, as well as cities in Nebraska and Minnesota,” the letter says. “What is DHS and the FBI doing to combat the malign influence occurring in these additional locations and across the homeland?”
“It’s now been over two weeks past that deadline that we asked for,” Pfluger told Jill Murphy, deputy assistant director of counterintelligence at the hearing, “So I would ask you, please, to respond to that letter in writing,”
Murphy gave a vague and non-committal response: “The threat from China is complex and vast. So, when we talk about universities, or researchers, or academics, or innovation, China proliferates all those spaces to include in our communities where Chinese Americans live as a way to influence those communities. And we work actively to identify those and investigate that.”
FBI leadership has not only been evasive, but they’ve also been soft on these CCP spies, presenting a breathtaking example of the “two-tiered justice system.” These agents of the CCP, whom we can only assume pose a risk of being recalled to China by the PRC to avoid trial, were released on bail. Yet, Miles Guo and Yvette Wang—who have been residing in the U.S. to seek protection from international CCP efforts to extradite them back to China and destroy them—are being held without bail.
Now, we know without a doubt that the CCP is behind all of this, pulling every string they can; the FBI even admitted in federal court that they have been “working with China” to prosecute Guo and Wang.
Congress knows that all of this is going on, but has yet to intervene on behalf of Guo, Wang, and the large population of Chinese Whistleblowers—and now increasing numbers of Americans—joining in the rallying cries to “Free Miles Guo” and “Free Yvette Wang.”
Thus far, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Arizona), Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), and Rep. George Santos (R-New York) have officially expressed a commitment to investigating the infiltration of the DOJ by the CCP and persecution of the Chinese Whistleblowers.
“I have met with representatives of the Chinese Whistleblower group, whose mission it is to help the U.S. dismantle the CCP’s infiltration of our most sacred institutions,” reads a letter from Rep. Crane’s office. “This whistleblower group has presented a number of representatives with a packet of important information that I believe warrants further investigation.
“There is ample documentation verifying that the CCP is exploiting the U.S. justice system to advance its own hostile agenda to destroy America. This ‘lawfare’ weaponizes our own legal system through infiltration of Federal agencies like the DOJ, FBI, SEC as well as judges and law firms. The DOJ has already identified and convicted several key players working to carry out the CCP’s agenda: the same people who have been trying to silence whistleblowers through bribery, extortion, and espionage.
“Would you say that they’re using every available tactic, technique, and procedure to infiltrate American national security interests and interests writ large?” Pfluger asked Murphy about the CCP.
“I would say that their attack surface is large,” responded Murphy, “and they are using all the tools in their toolbox to gather information, whether it’s classified, intellectual property, sensitive, unclassified, anything that they consider [of] value.”
Knowing that the CCP is an enemy of the U.S., with abundant tools and impetus to silence and hunt down their critics, why is the DOJ imprisoning the whistleblowers and releasing the spies? What do they have to hide, and who are they protecting? The American people deserve to know, and Congress must continue to demand that these agencies clean house and answer to the People.
P.S. The good people of America, the New Federal State of China Whistleblowers (NFSC), the Falun Gong, and myriad others say:
Dear DOJ and FBI: STOP HELPING THE CCP!
Kelly John Walker is an American statesman, writer, branding professional, and entrepreneur. He is the founder of FreedomTalk, host of FreedomTalk TV, and a freelance writer.
So either a senior IRS official is lying under oath and has been planning to do so since last year when he began writing emails saying the same things he’s said under oath or Merrick Garland and Joe Biden are lying. Which seems more likely? An IRS official is willing to go to… https://t.co/qajXD6RxrO
While obituaries this week will rightfully laud Daniel Ellsberg for his disclosure of the lies and deceptions behind the Vietnam War, two ideological descendants of the Pentagon Papers, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, remain unfree.
This weekend marks 11 years since Julian Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and began his confinement as a political prisoner. The torture that he has endured is not just an attack on his rights of free expression and journalism; it is an assault on your right to be an informed citizen.
His persecution was a harbinger for the merger of state and corporate interests, the increased suppression of dissent, and the dual system of law that indemnifies the powerful and punishes dissidents.
War hawks have weaponized the financial system against their political opponents. The Justice Department and Intelligence Agencies look to kill a man for exposing their crimes. And an obsequious press corps dithers as the most influential journalist of the century rots behind bars.
Behind the tragedy and persecution of Assange as an individual is a broader societal narrative. The most powerful groups in the country don’t believe that you have a right to know their crimes or protest their policies.
Forget any preconceptions you may have about Mr. Assange’s character. The bogus “rape” charges and media smear campaigns are distractions from the meaning of his work. Authorities have persecuted Assange because he published information that they wished to keep secret. He committed the crime of journalism in an era of corporate press releases.
Consider the importance of just one story that Assange broke thirteen years ago:
In 2010, Wikileaks released “Collateral Murder,” a 38-minute video of American soldiers killing a dozen Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists. The recording remains available online, showing two Apache helicopter pilots unleashing fire on the men below as if it were a videogame.
“Look at those dead bastards,” one killer says. “Nice,” his co-pilot responds.
There was no strategic basis for denying American citizens the right to view the video; the coverup was a public relations maneuver designed to evade blowback from the apparent war crimes.
The response was a scandal in itself. No American soldiers or commanders were held accountable for the killing. Instead, the publisher is dying in a prison cell. For four years, Assange has been held at Belmarsh Prison, “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay,” where he awaits the United States’ motion for extradition.
After Collateral Murder, Senator Joe Liberman successfully pressured Amazon to remove Wikileaks from its server and convinced companies including Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal to deny financial services to the platform. Later, the CIA plotted to assassinate him in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Assange and Wikileaks continued to serve as the most influential publishers in recent history. They uncovered 500,000 documents from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that showed the truth about civilian deaths in the United States’ military campaigns. They published the US Army manual for Guantanamo Bay, which outlined isolation tactics for prisoners. They revealed US State Department Cables detailing a secret campaign of drone strikes in Yemen. They released emails from the Democratic National Committee that showed a coordinated effort to favor Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders in the primary elections.
Now, Assange faces 175 years in prison for charges under the Espionage Act, a 1917 law used to jail President Woodrow Wilson’s political opponents and critics of US involvement in World War I. Presidential candidate Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten years in federal prison in 1918 for telling a crowd of followers, “You need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”
A century later, Assange faces death in an American prison for exposing the cannon fodder of the War on Terror.
“Assange is not persecuted for his own crimes, but for the crimes of the powerful,” writes Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and author of The Trial of Julian Assange. “The persecution of Assange establishes a precedent that will not only allow the powerful to keep their crimes secret but will even make the revelation of such crimes punishable by law. Let us not fool ourselves: once telling the truth has become a crime, we will all be living in tyranny.”
Once Covid emerged, the established precedent was used against the citizenry at large, and the tyranny was suddenly obvious.
PayPal and GoFundMe used Senator Liberman’s strategy to punish critics of the Covid regime like the Canadian truckers’ convoy. Corporate media dithered as the Biden administration actively censored critical journalists. The mass surveillance that Edward Snowden revealed was used to usurp Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights under the pretext of public health. And our legal system became increasingly warped to insulate the powerful and deny justice to the masses.
The meaning of Julian Assange is simple: should the powerful be able to indemnify themselves from legal and reputation recourse, or do citizens have a right to hold their officials accountable? His case represents more than his right to publish information – it is a question of whether we have a right to the information necessary to expose the crimes and corruption of our leaders.
Assange did not use his knowledge of government secrets to profit or influence peddle; that could have landed him a partnership at Kissinger Associates or a board seat at Lockheed Martin. Instead, the Biden administration looks to jail him for life because he exposed international crimes and corruption to the public for free.
Now we can observe the long trajectory of history. It did not begin three years ago. The groundwork for the censorial technocracy we face today was laid with a series of targeted hits that created enemies of the state. They did great things for the public well-being but were brutally punished for it. To this day, these people languish in an imprisoned state, martyrs for the freedom we once took for granted and the rights we hope to regain.
WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. More PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016, and a set of additional 995 emails was imported up to February 2, 2018.
The evidence released by the House Ways and Means Committee today is quite astonishing in detail. In any normal political world, the transcripts, testimony and statements that were released today would destroy the top-tiers of any administration, including the President.
The evidence provided by direct testimony and through transcripts, emails and documents that support the testimony is comprehensive in scope. The White House and DOJ claimed that US Attorney David Weiss was able to conduct his investigation of Hunter Biden however he needed, but consider this revelation of how much Main Justice intervened to protect Hunter Biden:
“U.S. Attorney of Delaware David Weiss tried to bring charges in District of Columbia around March 2022 and was denied. Weiss sought special counsel status from DOJ in the Spring of 2022 and was denied. Weiss sought to bring charges in the Central District of California in the Fall of 2022 and had that request denied in January 2023.” (link)
It’s not preferential treatment that is outlined in the way the DOJ handles and interfered in the Biden investigation. The evidence outlines something far beyond disparate treatment. The transcripts for the whistleblower testimony are at the following links:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Ways and Means Committee executive meeting resulted in a vote to release to the public whistleblower testimony of two different IRS employees who worked directly on the tax evasion case of Hunter Biden. That testimony outlines misconduct and government abuse at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the investigation of Hunter Biden. The allegations point to a steady campaign of: unequal treatment of enforcing tax law; Department of Justice (DOJ) interference in the form of delays, divulgences, and denials, into the investigation of tax crimes that may have been committed by the President’s son; and finally, retaliation against IRS employees who blew the whistle on the misconduct.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) released the following statement:
“Today, the Ways and Means Committee voted to make public the testimony of IRS employees blowing the whistle on misconduct at the IRS and the Biden Department of Justice regarding unequal enforcement of tax law, interference and government abuse in the handling of investigations into criminal activity by President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and retaliation against IRS employees blowing the whistle on this abuse.
“The American people deserve to know that when it comes to criminal enforcement, they are not on the same playing field as the wealthy and politically connected class. The preferential treatment Hunter Biden received would never have been granted to ordinary Americans.
“Whistleblowers describe how the Biden Justice Department intervened and overstepped in a campaign to protect the son of Joe Biden by delaying, divulging, and denying an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes. The testimony shows tactics used by the Justice Department to delay the investigation long enough to reach the statute of limitations, evidence they divulged sensitive actions by the investigative team to Biden’s attorneys, and denied requests by the U.S. Attorney to bring charges against Biden.
“IRS employees who blew the whistle on this abuse were retaliated against, despite a commitment IRS Commissioner Werfel made before the Ways and Means Committee to uphold their legal protections. They were removed from this investigation after they responsibly worked through the chain of command to raise these concerns.
“The Committee has acted in good faith with participation from both Democrats and Republicans, as the issues raised today ought to be a bipartisan concern. Hopefully we can find a path forward to continue to go where the facts lead us. If the federal government is not treating all taxpayers equally, or if it is changing the rules to engineer a preferred outcome, Congress has a duty to ask why and to hold agencies accountable and consider appropriate legislative action. The scales of justice must not be skewed in favor of the wealthy and the politically connected.”
The federal government is not treating all taxpayers the same – and providing preferential treatment to the wealthy and well-connected, including the son of the President of the United States.
♦ Despite the fact that IRS officials recommended that Hunter Biden be charged with criminal activity that includes attempts to evade or defeat taxes, fraud and false statements, and willful failures to file returns, supply information, or pay taxes for over $8.3 million in income, Mr. Biden received preferential treatment in the course of the investigation, and has struck a plea deal that will likely keep him out from behind bars. Meanwhile…
♦ In 2014, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida announced that a man was sentenced to 13 months in prison to be followed by a year of supervised release for failing to file an income tax return, the same misdemeanor tax offense that Hunter Biden was charged with.
The Department of Justice interfered in the investigation into Hunter Biden’s clear tax issues with a “Delay, Divulge, and Deny” campaign – that ultimately shielded him by allowing the statute of limitations to pass on his tax crimes.
♦ DELAY: Recurring unjustified delays pervaded the investigation, including in authenticating the message between Hunter Biden and Chinese officials. Investigators were told by U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf that “there is no way” a search warrant for evidence would get approved because the evidence of interest would be found in the guest house of former Vice President Biden.
♦ DIVULGE: Investigators found out that attorneys for Hunter Biden were tipped off about actions relating to the investigation in advance. For example, even as investigators had probable cause to search a Northern Virginia storage unit in which Hunter Biden had stored files, attorneys for Biden were tipped off.
♦ DENY: U.S. Attorney of Delaware David Weiss tried to bring charges in District of Columbia around March 2022 and was denied. Weiss sought special counsel status from DOJ in the Spring of 2022 and was denied. Weiss sought to bring charges in the Central District of California in the Fall of 2022 and had that request denied in January 2023.
IRS employees worked through the chain of command to blow the whistle on this misconduct – only to be met with hostility and retaliation, leading them to come to the Ways and Means Committee.
♦ Actions were taken to cut the IRS investigative team out of the process after they raised concerns up their chain of command. One whistleblower was not selected for a position, when he was more qualified than the candidate who was selected. Limits and pauses have been placed on other, unrelated investigations that the whistleblowers are working on – which hamper the investigators’ ability to do their work or advance. The whistleblowers and their entire team were removed from the investigation on May 15, 2023, after blowing the whistle to Congress. (link)
We live with a new type of tyranny, where we find ourselves dissidents. It is not like any previous tyranny. It is not revolutionary in nature. Instead, it operates very scientifically and technocratically by convincing those it tyrannizes to demand their own enslavement, under the guise of comfort.
Prior dissidents were at least dissidents of a tangible, kinetic revolution. We are dissidents of what the willfully tyrannized perceive as their secure position within the rightful order of things. This needs to be factored into how we think about “converting” and “awakening” others amid the ongoing insurgency.
(Via Daily Mail) – A Fox News producer who resigned over a chyron that described Joe Biden as a ‘wannabe dictator’, has broken his silence.
Alexander McCaskill posted a photo of himself on Instagram holding a cardboard box outside the corporation’s New York offices.
He told his followers ‘Today was my last day at Fox’ and described his time there as a ‘wild 10 years’.
McCaskill is thought to have been responsible for the chyron which claimed President Biden was intent on locking up his 2024 rival, Donald Trump on Tuesday.
Fox had it on screen for less than 30 seconds, and then apologized. Dailymail.com has approached Fox News and McCaskill for comment.
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson claimed the producer had resigned during his new show, now being broadcast on Twitter, on Thursday.
He did not name the producer but The Daily Beast reported that it was McCaskill, who worked with Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight for many years.
McCaskill seemed to confirm news of his resignation on his private Instagram account in a lengthy post.
‘Today was my last day at FOX. It was a wild 10 years and it was the best place I’ve ever worked because of the great people I met,’ he wrote.
‘But the time has come. I asked them to let me go, and they finally did. To all my friends there: I will miss you forever.’ (read more)
Tom Van Hoose, the owner of Highwood Creek Outfitters (MTN News)
In an unprecedented move, twenty armed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents carried out a raid on a gun store in Great Falls, Montana, seizing all Form 4473 – documents that record buyer’s information during firearms transactions.
Tom Van Hoose, owner of Highwood Creek Outfitters, alleges that he has been under constant surveillance by state and federal agencies for over two years, KRTV reported.
On Wednesday, the gun shop owner reported an unexpected visit from 20 heavily armed IRS and ATF agents at his store.
The agents reportedly arrived at the shop early in the morning, as Van Hoose was opening for the day.
“We have now confirmed that both the IRS and the ATF were at Highwood Creek Outfitters in Great Falls around 7 am this morning. Both the IRS and ATF would not say why they were there,” KMON Radio reported.
“A spokeswoman for the IRS would only say they were there on official IRS business. The ATF says it was providing assistance to the IRS. We attempted to enter the store today and were stopped by agents at the door who would only say that the gun store is closed and will reopen tomorrow,” the news outlet added.
According to Hoose, the federal scrutiny began two years ago and has involved various agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and now, the Internal Revenue Service.
“They must think we’re making a fortune in the gun business to investigate us like this, assuming we’re hiding thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. However, anyone familiar with gun business profit margins would know that’s not the case,” Van Hoose told MTN News.
Van Hoose claims that he was simply told his business had been reported, although he remains in the dark about who reported it or why. He believes the whole episode was politically motivated.
“I can only assume that it’s because of the style of weapons that we have and the press that’s so against them,” said Van Hoose. “The current administration seems to be hell bent on getting those guns out of the hands of average Americans.”
The day’s operations were disrupted, leading to a significant loss of revenue.
“I had about 30 minutes to operate, making just a single $16 sale,” Hoose said.
Highwood Creek Outfitters is America’s largest online firearms and accessories mall, according to its website. The store is known for selling what Van Hoose calls “fun guns,” including AR-15’s and AK-47s.
WATCH:
caution language
The Great Falls Police Department confirmed it was informed about the investigation and provided security, according to KRTV.
Although the Montana Department of Justice claimed no involvement in the incident, an IRS spokesperson confirmed their presence at Highwood Creek Outfitters but refrained from providing further details.
The recent incident has attracted political attention, with Congressman Matt Rosendale expressing his concern over the IRS and ATF’s actions, interpreting them as another example of the Biden regime’s weaponization of federal agencies against hardworking Americans.
“I’m incredibly disturbed by initial reports that the IRS and ATF closed Highwood Creek Outfitters without any warning today,” said Rep Rosendale in a statement.
“This is yet another example of the Biden Administration weaponizing federal agencies to target and harass hardworking Americans. We cannot allow Biden to continue expanding these agencies to infringe on our liberties,” he added.
On Friday afternoon, the congressman announced he sent a letter to ATF Director Steven Dettelbach and IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, asking for answers.
“The weaponization of our government must be STOPPED, which is why I sent a letter to ATF Director Dettelbach and IRS Commissioner Werfel demanding answers about this outrageous attack and have used every tool available to me to remove funding for the 87,000 additional IRS agents!” Rep. Rosendale said.
Rep. Matt Rosendale joined Chris Salcedo to discuss the incident.
“Here’s what they took out. IRS – financial records, accounting, making sure what transactions were taking place. No, they took all of the 4473 forms. The 4473 forms are what everyone fills out when they go to purchase a firearm,” said Rosendale.
“And it’s just a big disclosure to make sure that you don’t have a criminal background or other reasons where you should not be purchasing a firearm. So the IRS took every single one of the 4473s that Tom Van Hoose had in his possession there at Highwood Creek Outfitters,” he added.
20 armed IRS agents raid Great Falls gun store.
They didnt take any financial records, accounting or tax statements.
But they did take all the 4473 forms. (Buyer’s Information)
Rep. Rosendale tweeted a photo of himself with Hoose, who confirmed that all 4473 forms were confiscated by federal agents.
I met with Tom Vanhoose this morning after 20 armed IRS agents raided his store in Great Falls earlier this week.
Tom informed me that these agents confiscated all the 4473 forms, none of which contain any financial information; instead, the IRS now has access to these forms… pic.twitter.com/HPFEgZedKI
Jim Jordan and the Weaponization Subcommittee released new information on Friday night.
The House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are conducting oversight of federal agencies’ commitment to protecting civil liberties.
In the subcommittee’s latest report released Friday they discovered that the IRS is using fake names to enter taxpayers’ homes and harass homeowners.
And in this Ohio case, the IRS agent threatened police when he got caught.
Here’s the unbelievable story of government abuse from The Weaponization Subcommittee:
We have recently received allegations that an Internal Revenue Service agent provided a false name to an Ohio taxpayer as part of a deception to gain entry into the taxpayer’s home to confront her about delinquent tax filings. When the taxpayer rightfully objected to the agent’s tactics, the IRS agent insisted that he “can … go into anyone’s house at any time” as an IRS agent. These allegations raise serious concerns about the IRS’s commitment to fundamental civil liberties.
On March 27, 2023, the Committee previously wrote to you and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about an IRS agent visiting unannounced and unprompted the home of journalist Matt Taibbi. Incredibly, at the time of the visit, Mr. Taibbi was testifying before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government about how the federal government pressured, coerced, and even directed technology companies to take certain actions related to digital content. The Committee is continuing to investigate the IRS’s reasons for visiting Mr. Taibbi’s home and whether the visit was conducted in an attempt to intimidate a witness before Congress.
Since then, the Committee has learned of another instance in which an IRS agent performed an unannounced field visit to a taxpayer. The details of this field visit are bizarre. On April 25, 2023, an IRS agent who identified himself as “Bill Haus” with the IRS’s Criminal Division visited the home of a taxpayer in Marion, Ohio. Agent “Haus” informed the taxpayer he was at her home to discuss issues concerning an estate for which the taxpayer was the fiduciary. After Agent “Haus” shared details about the estate only the IRS would know, the taxpayer let him in. Agent “Haus” told the taxpayer that she did not properly complete the filings for the estate and that she owed the IRS “a substantial amount.” Prior to the visit, however, the taxpayer had not received any notice from the IRS of an outstanding balance on the estate.
During the visit, the taxpayer told Agent “Haus” that the estate was resolved in January 2023, and provided him with proof that she had paid all taxes for the decedent’s estate. At this point, Agent “Haus” revealed that the true purpose of his visit was not due to any issue with the decedent’s estate, but rather because the decedent allegedly had several delinquent tax return filings. Agent “Haus” provided several documents to the taxpayer for her to fill out, which included sensitive information about the decedent.
The taxpayer called her attorney who immediately and repeatedly asked Agent “Haus” to leave the taxpayer’s home. Agent “Haus” responded aggressively, insisting: *I am an IRS agent, I can be at and go into anyone’s house at any time I want to be.” Before finally leaving the taxpayer’s property, Agent “Haus” said he would mail paperwork to the taxpayer, and threatened that she had one week to satisfy the remaining balance or he would freeze all her assets and put a lien on her house.
Following the visit, the taxpayer contacted the Marion, Ohio Police Department (MPD) to determine whether the visit was part of a scam. The MPD ran the license plate of the car that Agent “Haus” drove, and learned Agent “Haus” had used an alias. The officer called Agent “Haus” to verify his identity, and the agent who identified himself as an IRS agent admitted to using an alias. Believing Agent “Haus” was trying to scam the taxpayer, the MPD advised him not to go the taxpayer’s home again or he would be arrested. Agent “Haus” then filed a complaint against the officer with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The MPD later learned Agent “Haus” was a legitimate IRS agent after contacting TIGTA to respond to his complaint.
On May 4, 2023, the taxpayer spoke with the supervisor of Agent “Haus,” who clarified nothing was owed on the estate. The supervisor even admitted to the taxpayer that “things never should have gotten this far.” On May 5, 2023, however, the taxpayer received a letter from the IRS- the first and only written notice the taxpayer received of the decedent’s delinquent tax filings addressed to the decedent, which stated the decedent was delinquent on several 1040 filings. On May 15, 2023, the taxpayer spoke again with supervisor of Agent “Haus,” who told the taxpayer to disregard the May 5 letter because nothing was due. On May 30, 2023, the taxpayer received a letter from the IRS that the case had been closed.
This behavior from an IRS agent to an American taxpayer providing an alias, using deception to secure entry into the taxpayer’s home, and then filing an Inspector General complaint against a police officer examining that matter is highly concerning. As the Committee continues to examine how to best protect Americans’ fundamental freedoms and to assist the Committee in its oversight, we ask that you please provide the following documents and information:
1. All documents and communications referring or relating to the IRS’s field visit to the residence of taxpayer [redacted] on April 25, 2023, located at [redacted], including but not limited to the IRS’s reasons for conducting the field visit and prior efforts to contact taxpayer [redacted];
2. All documents and communications between or among the IRS, Treasury Department, and any other Executive Branch entity referring or relating to the IRS’s field visit to [redacted] residence, [redacted] role as executor of the estate of decedent estate, or outstanding balances or taxes owed by decedent [redacted];
3. All documents and communications sent or received by Agent [redacted] referring or relating to the taxpayer [redacted], Officer [redacted] of MPD, the decedent [redacted], or, [redacted] estate.
Please produce all documents and information as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2023. In addition, please treat these discovery obligations as ongoing and applicable to any information generated after receipt of this letter.
Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction to conduct oversight of matters concerning “civil liberties” to inform potential legislative reforms. In addition, H. Res. 12 authorized the Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government to investigate “issues related to the violation of the civil liberties of citizens of the United States.”
This is only the beginning. The Biden regime hired 87,000 new agents to harass taxpaying Americans. This is only going to get worse. Watch and see.
Why is the IRS using fake names to harass Americans?
One of the ways you can immediately detect federal Lawfare deployment is to look at how media articles are written when they outline court filings without direct citation for review. The Hill began SEE HERE. The New York Times is similar, SEE HERE.
Notice both national publications talk about a DOJ court filing, presumably made under seal, that limits President Trump’s defense access to materials and documents used in the case against him. Notice the media do not say how they gained insight into the details of the sealed filing itself; nor do they provide any source context for how their reporting is structured. Nothing like, “according to sources with familiar with the matter” or anything similar. Just nothing; no attribution at all.
That media context is a BIG red flag indicating the need to ‘create a narrative’ is more important than the actual substance of the evidence material underpinning it.
Both stories hit on the issue of the DOJ filing a (presumably sealed) motion with the Florida court, to place limits, rules and restrictions on evidence against President Trump, that limits his ability to review it, talk about it and/or provide context for it. THIS IS A LAWFARE MOVE. This is what happens in the prosecutorial star-chambers where they hide information in order to create the appearance of something nefarious, where nothing nefarious exists.
When we see this legal approach, we can be assured the case that uses the evidence is built upon fraud and pretense. Do not be afraid to tell your family, friends and others about this dynamic. President Trump is being accused of the crime of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, a violation of the espionage act, and the DOJ is requesting that President Trump must not permitted to defend himself by discussing the evidence against him.
The DOJ wants to limit public knowledge of the material evidence, not because it would harm national security – but rather because the nature of the evidence itself would highlight to the nation how fraudulent the targeting is. This is the guaranteed DOJ motive, that’s why everything is under seal and even the media will not talk about how they are gaining their leak knowledge. This is LAWFARE narrative engineering at its apex deployment.
WASHINGTON DC – The Justice Department on Friday filed a motion seeking to block former President Trump from releasing any classified materials that will be shared with his legal team during his prosecution for the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago, noting that some are still being used in the course of their investigation.
The documents “include information pertaining to ongoing investigations” which could be used to further cases against uncharged individuals, the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote.
The suggested protective order, which will be reviewed by Judge Bruce Reinhart, would allow Trump to review the 31 documents the DOJ is using in the case only while in the presence of his attorneys.
“Defendants shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff. Defendants shall not retain copies of Discovery Material. Defendants may take notes regarding Discovery Materials, but such notes shall be stored securely by Defense Counsel,” the DOJ wrote.
It also includes similar language to a protective order agreed to in another Trump case that bars the former president from disclosing evidence in the case. New York state prosecutors made that request as they pursue a 34-count indictment of Trump relating to a hush money scandal.
“The Discovery Materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court,” the department wrote. (read more)
Watch this interview with Devin Nunes and Kimbery Guilfoyle – Start at 06:40 listening to Nunes:
I am correct about the nature of the DOJ/FBI intentions and motives.
I am correct about the Lawfare manipulation of the material to present the illusion of illegal where nothing illegal is taking place…
…and I am increasingly certain that Mary McCord is part of TEAM Jack Smith!
Wait for it!
The first two defense approaches will likely be: (1) the Presidential Records Act supersedes the issues of document holding as noted in the use of the Espionage Act. (2) However, if the Espionage Act [Statute 793(e)] has to be defended, the originating issue of “unauthorized possession” will be the second approach heading to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Some baselines are needed to understand what is happening.
First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things.
Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings. Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.
Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved. In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}
Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what former HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes has stated about the way the language is being deployed. Now we turn to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.
♦ During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they could *KNOW* fulsome return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is enlightening:
Notice that NARA had knowledge these documents were in the possession of Trump and were pertinent to their archive retrieval. It was interesting at the time that NARA would know the content of the President Obama letter, and further interesting they would know there was more than one piece of correspondence between President Trump and Chairman Kim [Jong-un]. CNN even wrote about it HERE.
[Irrelevant note: Mr Bonsanko got the name wrong, Jong-il is dead]
Reminder, keep in mind the DOJ ferocity in not wanting anyone to know what documents they retrieved and/or defined.
We know, from President Trump describing the letter left to him by the former president, that Obama told Trump in the letter that the number one foreign policy and intelligence threat perceived by Obama (at the time of his exit) was a nuclear armed North Korea. This is where you overlay the Jack Smith writing in the indictment of national defense secrets and nuclear security issues.
We know, from President Trump speaking publicly about his communication and diplomacy with Chairman Kim Jong-un, that the two leaders exchanged letters relating to aligned national security interests that centered around DPRK nuclear ambitions and status.
Trump and Kim formed a geopolitical truce, a friendship of sorts, based on respect and trust around the nuclear issue. Chairman Kim decreased hostilities; President Trump no longer used inflammatory language about “Little Rocket Man.” A diplomatic détente was created.
NARA was looking for the letter written by Obama that described DPRK nukes, and NARA was looking for letters between Trump and Kim that touched on DPRK nukes.
Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to “nuclear concerns” and “national security matters” make more sense?
Would all of this “nuclear national defense” hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim? YES! Would President Trump even characterize those letters as government property? NO!
♦ The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists. It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”
There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.” When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.
This language is the underpinning of the entire DOJ/FBI framework that predicated the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Specifically, neither NARA nor the DOJ-NSD requested President Trump or his team to return Classified Documents. The DOJ demanded the return of any documents that contained “classified markings.” [SEE BELOW]
Because the verbiage is so intentionally obtuse (ie. Lawfare), a fulsome production in compliance with this DOJ demand would include any newspaper or magazine articles that had a picture of the Carter Page FISA application, or any printed online article that might contain the same or similar elements. There is a big difference between asking for a classified document return, and asking for a return of documents that contain “classified markings.”
Can you see the way it unfolds? Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.
In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictment√; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described them√. Hey, wait… that’s exactly what they did.
♦ In a previous court ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice – National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), and blocked the lower court order instructing a Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]
Essentially the order of the appellate court was based on the DOJ defining Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents as “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination said they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to how they DEFINE matters of national security.
The court (judicial branch) openly stated they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) regarding any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determined, on their own authority, to be identified as classified or matters of “national security.”
In the prior opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge and stop the special master review.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.” The 11th Circuit is deferred to the DOJ.
The DOJ was granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.
This ridiculous ruling meant the DOJ could define any document as a document of “national security interest” and there is no countervailing review of their definitions. As soon as this decision was reached the DOJ then moved to appoint a special counsel. Can you see how this works?
With this ruling in his briefcase, Special Counsel Jack Smith could now define the Mar-a-Lago documents according to the legal intention of his targeting. That’s exactly what he did. The case against Trump is not a case about classified documents, it is a case about the DOJ defining unilaterally what documents are considered “vital to national security.”
With the DOJ getting to define those documents, the special counsel then moves to claim national security threats created by Trump’s ownership. The overlay of “vital to the nuclear capabilities of the defense dept,” can then be shifted to include letters from President Obama and Kim Jong-un about DPRK nuclear capabilities.
Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.
As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents. When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process. Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.
Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part. You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment. However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.
This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment. Again, pay close attention. WATCH:
.
What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023 {citation}. What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.
Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.
First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things.
Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings. Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.
Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved. In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}
Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed. Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.
♦ During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they could *KNOW* fulsome return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is enlightening:
Notice that NARA had knowledge these documents were in the possession of Trump and were pertinent to their archive retrieval. It was interesting at the time that NARA would know the content of the President Obama letter, and further interesting they would know there was more than one piece of correspondence between President Trump and Chairman Kim [Jong-un]. CNN even wrote about it HERE.
[Irrelevant note: Mr Bonsanko got the name wrong, Jong-il is dead]
Reminder, keep in mind the DOJ ferocity in not wanting anyone to know what documents they retrieved and/or defined.
We know, from President Trump describing the letter left to him by the former president, that Obama told Trump in the letter that the number one foreign policy and intelligence threat perceived by Obama (at the time of his exit) was a nuclear armed North Korea. This is where you overlay the Jack Smith writing in the indictment of national defense secrets and nuclear security issues.
We know, from President Trump speaking publicly about his communication and diplomacy with Chairman Kim Jong-un, that the two leaders exchanged letters relating to aligned national security interests that centered around DPRK nuclear ambitions and status.
Trump and Kim formed a geopolitical truce, a friendship of sorts, based on respect and trust around the nuclear issue. Chairman Kim decreased hostilities; President Trump no longer used inflammatory language about “Little Rocket Man.” A diplomatic détente was created.
NARA was looking for the letter written by Obama that described DPRK nukes, and NARA was looking for letters between Trump and Kim that touched on DPRK nukes.
Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to “nuclear concerns” and “national security matters” make more sense?
Would all of this “nuclear national defense” hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim? YES! Would President Trump even characterize those letters as government property? NO!
♦ The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists. It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”
There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.” When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.
This language is the underpinning of the entire DOJ/FBI framework that predicated the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Specifically, neither NARA nor the DOJ-NSD requested President Trump or his team to return Classified Documents. The DOJ demanded the return of any documents that contained “classified markings.” [SEE BELOW]
Because the verbiage is so intentionally obtuse (ie. Lawfare), a fulsome production in compliance with this DOJ demand would include any newspaper or magazine articles that had a picture of the Carter Page FISA application, or any printed online article that might contain the same or similar elements. There is a big difference between asking for a classified document return, and asking for a return of documents that contain “classified markings.”
Can you see the way it unfolds? Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.
In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictment√; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described them√. Hey, wait… that’s exactly what they did.
♦ In a previous court ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice – National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), and blocked the lower court order instructing a Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]
Essentially the order of the appellate court was based on the DOJ defining Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents as “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination said they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to how they DEFINE matters of national security.
The court (judicial branch) openly stated they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) regarding any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determined, on their own authority, to be identified as classified or matters of “national security.”
In the prior opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge and stop the special master review.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.” The 11th Circuit is deferred to the DOJ.
The DOJ was granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.
This ridiculous ruling meant the DOJ could define any document as a document of “national security interest” and there is no countervailing review of their definitions. As soon as this decision was reached the DOJ then moved to appoint a special counsel. Can you see how this works?
With this ruling in his briefcase, Special Counsel Jack Smith could now define the Mar-a-Lago documents according to the legal intention of his targeting. That’s exactly what he did. The case against Trump is not a case about classified documents, it is a case about the DOJ defining unilaterally what documents are considered “vital to national security.”
With the DOJ getting to define those documents, the special counsel then moves to claim national security threats created by Trump’s ownership. The overlay of “vital to the nuclear capabilities of the defense dept,” can then be shifted to include letters from President Obama and Kim Jong-un about DPRK nuclear capabilities.
But wait, it gets better….
♦ First, ask yourself why would President Obama write about the DPRK nuclear threat in his letter welcoming President-elect Trump to the White House? It always struck me as odd, even years ago, when Trump would talk about this issue. It never made sense why President Obama would memorialize that type of an issue in writing, until today.
Normally that type of national security policy and leadership challenge issue would be part of a conversation. “Mr. Trump, as I depart office the number one issue you might first want to deal with on a national security basis is the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, here’s my opinion“… and so it would go.
Why write it down?
Why memorialize the nuclear threat of North Korea in a letter welcoming Donald Trump? Well, if the Obama intention was to create a written record that would always mean his letter was going to remain hidden from public review, then writing about DPRK nukes would be a way to make that happen.
Lastly, who would know about the content of the letter that President Obama wrote to President-elect Trump, specifically as it centers around a national security issue? Who would know what Obama wrote to Trump?
Lisa Monaco would certainly know the content of the letter written by Barack Obama to Donald Trump; she, Susan Rice and Kathryn Ruemmler might have even assisted in the writing of it. Remember, it was Susan Rice who wrote the January 20th “by the book” memo memorializing the FBI targeting of Trump, and Kathryn Ruemmler represented Susan Rice as her lawyer when investigators made inquiry.
Lisa Monaco was previously President Obama’s senior advisor for national security. Monaco is now the Deputy Attorney General to AG Merrick Garland.
Deputy AG Lisa Monaco is the head of the DOJ operation that was targeting the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents and framing the legal issues for the DOJ to use in court. Monaco would know that any production of documents that did not include the Obama letter would mean a “national security document” remained in Mar-a-Lago.
Special Counsel Jack Smith also reports to Lisa Monaco.
Things making sense now?
♦ There is also a letter from lawyers representing President Trump to the chair of the House Intel Committee that is very interesting [pdf available here]. The letter was written to the HPSCI prior to the testimony by officials for NARA
The letter is written to HPSCI Chair Mike Turner and copied to the other seven members of the gang-of-eight in the Senate and House. The letter outlines the details of the documents that became the contested issue between the DOJ-National Security Division (‘NSD’, important distinction), specifically a DOJ-NSD official named Jay Bratt, and the attorney for President Trump, Mr. Evan Corcoran.
The letter is fascinating because it outlines how the process of moving documents from the White House was weaponized by a politically motivated National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”), and the letter also gives fulsome context to the types of “classified materials” that have been insanely over emphasized by media.
[…] “Tim Parlatore and Jim Trusty, two of the undersigned counsel for President Trump, reviewed all 15 boxes at NARA earlier this year and based on that review, it is clear to us what happened. The boxes contain all manner of documents from the White House, are loosely grouped by date, and include newspapers, magazines, notes, letters, and daily schedules. Following its review of the materials, NARA inserted placeholder pages where it had removed documents with classification markings. That allowed Messrs. Parlatore and Trusty to discern what the documents were, as well as what other materials in the boxes were in the proximity of the marked documents when the White House staff packed them. The vast majority of the placeholder inserts refer to briefings for phone calls with foreign leaders that were located near the schedule for those calls.” (page 3, pdf link)
Additionally, get this part… despite the standard process that has been in place for the prior four administrations, the NARA refused to participate in the collection of any documents from the White House during the transition phase following the November 2020 election.
The NARA refused to assist in the collection of the Trump records for national archive holding and review, and then the NARA triggered a sequence of events that led to the DOJ using a reference from the NARA, to weaponize a process they refused to engage in. The NARA refused to do their specialized bureaucratic job, and then the NARA used what they defined as an incomplete job as a reason to refer the outcome to the DOJ. The details are quite interesting.
The letter details how the DOJ-NSD then weaponized the process, fought with the FBI investigative and supervisory agents who were saying Trump was doing nothing wrong, and then culminating in a documented lie to the Florida magistrate, in order to get a politically motivated search warrant.
The DOJ will not release the documents they used to convince the judge to obtain the warrant. Additionally, the DOJ will not release a list of the documents, or even describe the documents, they later claimed are classified. To this date, the Trump defense team is being told President Trump held classified documents, yet the DOJ will not describe to the lawyers who represent President Trump, what specifically those classified documents are.
I strongly urge anyone interested to read the 10-page letter. It is a key part of the puzzle being explained and outlined.
Attorney Robert Barnes appeared on a podcast yesterday to give his analysis of the political indictment of President Trump. It’s a long deconstruction of the Lawfare effort, and contains numerous defenses therein; however, it is a very good encapsulation of the ridiculous issues created by the Biden administration’s efforts to target their political opposition on behalf of the Deep State. WATCH:
Jill Biden spoke to Democrat donors at a fundraiser in New York City Monday night where she complained that the indictment of President Trump by her husband Joe’s Justice Department has not softened Republican voters’ support for Trump in the 2024 presidential race against Joe Biden. Jill’s remark saying she found GOP support for Trump “shocking” comes after Joe declined in recent days to comment on the Trump indictment.
Trump is the resounding favorite among Republican voters and has led Joe Biden in several recent head-to-head polls.
File screen image.
The event in New York kicked off a three day bi-coastal elites fundraising swing of Democrat stronghold cities: New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Jill Biden in her first solo outing of the 2024 campaign said Monday it was “a little shocking” that a sizeable number of Republicans are still thinking of voting for Donald Trump even after his federal indictment, a subject that her husband has tried to avoid speaking about.
She told Democratic donors that the 2024 election presents a choice between what she described as the “strong, steady leadership” of President Joe Biden and the “chaos and corruption, hatred and division” of “MAGA Republicans.”
The first lady, speaking to a small group of Democrats in an apartment on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, said she was surprised to see a headline before her flight landed that described a majority of Republicans in a poll saying they were still planning to vote for Trump, who is set to appear in a Florida court on Tuesday.
“They don’t care about the indictment. So that’s a little shocking, I think,” she said.
…”We know what’s in store with the MAGA Republicans. We just know it, right? We know because we’ve lived it. We’ve seen it,” she said. “We know what it’s like to see U.S. policy tweeted out in late-night tweet-storms.”
Jill Biden could have been referring to this Axios article tweeted Monday afternoon, “Republican voters remain overwhelmingly loyal to Trump after his federal indictment, recent polls show.”
Republican voters remain overwhelmingly loyal to Trump after his federal indictment, recent polls show. https://t.co/XdIWJTQHP6
Republican voters remain overwhelmingly loyal to former President Trump after he was charged with several federal crimes related to his possession of classified documents after his presidency, recent polls show.
Why it matters: Despite the charges, Trump is still the favorite for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, according to recent polling. Even some of his fellow candidates have lent support to Trump and questioned the motivation behind the indictment.
By the numbers: An ABC News/Ipsos survey published on Sunday found that 80% of polled Republicans said they believe the charges against Trump are politically motivated, while only 9% of GOP voters said they didn’t see politics in the charges.
Separately, in a CBS News/YouGov poll published on Sunday, 61% of polled Republican voters said the indictment did not change the way they viewed Trump, while 80% of Republicans said he should still be able to assume office if he’s convicted and wins the 2024 presidential election.
The CBS News/YouGov poll also found 76% of Republican voters believe the charges were motivated by politics.
CNN reported last Friday the Biden campaign plans to employ Jill as an “active fundraiser” (excerpt):
First lady Dr. Jill Biden will hit the 2024 fundraising circuit next week, marking her first solo efforts to promote her husband’s reelection campaign.
The first lady will speak at a fundraiser for the Biden Victory Fund, Biden’s joint fundraising committee, in New York City on Monday followed by a West Coast swing that includes two fundraising events in San Francisco on Tuesday and another in Los Angeles on Wednesday. She’s expected to attend more fundraisers later in month, advisers say.
The first lady’s push with donors comes as the campaign looks to scoop up cash as the fundraising quarter, the first since President Joe Biden announced his reelection, comes to an end this month. But it also showcases how the Biden team plans to utilize the first lady in the early stages of the reelection bid, courting high-dollar donors to build up the campaign’s war chest.
“In this first phase of the campaign, she will be an active fundraiser, helping to build up the Democratic Party’s resources and infrastructure for the 2024 campaign, and reminding supporters what’s at stake in the upcoming election,” said Elizabeth Alexander, a senior adviser for the Biden campaign.
Copies of invites to the San Francisco fundraisers were posted by Puck News reporter Teddy Schleifer:
First, the good news. The judge assigned to the Trump documents case is U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. She is the same judge who handled the lawsuit last year after the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Judge Cannon was the judge who appointed the “special master” to review the documents the DOJ was claiming were classified, but Team Trump was contending that definition.
Now the bad news. The DOJ is no longer legally arguing that Donald Trump held any classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The DOJ is arguing that President Trump held documents vital to U.S. defense security. It’s a farce but that’s their position. The classification status of documents is moot, nonexistent, except to create the predicate for the proverbial FBI nose under the tent.
The DOJ-NSD (that’s Lisa Monaco) got a warrant to look for classified documents, but never intended to use classified documents as a case cornerstone because President Trump had full declassification authority. The DOJ got a search warrant by convincing a judge they were looking for something that wasn’t even a violation of law. That’s why the DOJ would not reveal the probable cause affidavit. The search was built upon a fraudulent pretense. “Classified” is a snipe hunt.
You will notice Jack Smith never discussed “classified documents” in his remarks, and the issue of classified documents appears nowhere except in the indictment as a purposeful lawfare description of documents. The DOJ is not legally charging anything relating to the classification status of the documents. That’s the Lawfare and media banter to create a talking point. The term “classified” is all over the indictment, but as a lawfare adjective only; it’s like using the word “stash”.
The special counsel legal framework is centered around documents the DOJ define as vital to “the defense security” of the United States. EVERYTHING is predicated on 31 counts of an 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation. The DOJ defines what is considered a defense document, and that intentionally has nothing to do with classification.
The granular news. You might have heard that two of Trump’s lawyers, Jim Trusty and John Rowley, quit today. The media wants to use their exit as a point to indicate Trump is in legal jeopardy; however, that’s not the case.
As soon as Trusty and Rowley saw their forced testimony was used in the indictment, they had no option except to exit the case. Despite the lawyers providing no damaging information against Trump, the DOJ used language in the indictment to turn Trump’s lawyers into material witnesses. Weissmann’s Lawfare tactic create a conflict, forcing the two Trump lawyers to depart.
WASHINGTON DC – Two of Donald Trump’s top lawyers abruptly resigned from his defense team on Friday, just hours after news broke that he and a close aide were indicted on charges related to their handling of classified documents.
Jim Trusty and John Rowley, who helmed Trump’s Washington, D.C.-based legal team for months and were seen frequently at the federal courthouse, indicated they would no longer represent Trump in matters being investigated and prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, who is probing both the documents matter and efforts by Trump to subvert the 2020 election.
The resignations were shortly followed by an announcement from Trump himself confirming that a close aide, Walt Nauta, had also been indicted by federal prosecutors. Nauta, a Navy veteran, had served as the former president’s personal aide and was a ubiquitous presence during his post White House days.
In their place, Trump indicated that Todd Blanche — an attorney he recently retained to help fight unrelated felony charges brought by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg in April — would lead his legal team, along with a firm to be named later. Trump and his team have liked Blanche, who is expected to play a more elevated, central role. (more)
Weissmann, Eisen and Smith are using lawfare in the indictment to put the interests of Trump and his aide Walt Nauta against each other. Obviously, Nauta would not turn on Trump, so the prosecution made Nauta a target for a federal 1001 charge of lying to investigators and will pressure him throughout the case to take a plea in exchange for testimony against Trump. Nauta is the baseline of the “Conspiracy Elements” which require two or more people. Again, pure Lawfare.
Obviously, Jim Trusty was unaware last night that his forced testimony would be used in the indictment. WATCH:
In the Trump indictment the DOJ is not, repeat NOT, arguing a classified documents case. The entire legal framework is centered around documents they define as vital to the defense security of the United States. EVERYTHING is predicated on this 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation:
18 U.S. Code § 793(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
According to the Trump indictment, COUNT #7 – page 29, a document “concerning communication with the leader of a foreign country” is considered a document in violation of US Code 793, vital to national defense interests.
Do you want a historic example of this exactU.S. Code § 793(e) violation taking place?
(Sept. 11, 2012) – ”Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor, left, updates the President and Vice President on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Chief of Staff Jack Lew are at right.” (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) [SOURCE]
In Joe Biden’s hands are the notes of a phone call, taken by then Vice-President Biden, recording the conversation between Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as recorded on September 11, 2012. [The night of the Benghazi, Libya, attack on the U.S. Consulate]
Plainclothes cops at Capitol during Jan. 6 riot, one on video exhorting crowd, key lawmaker says
According to Loudermilk, a body cam video that leaked onto the video platform Rumble is authentic and confirms that officers in plain clothes were at the riot.
The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington D.C. has confirmed to Congress that it had plainclothes officers at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot and that at least one was captured on video exhorting the crowd, a key House investigator told Just the News.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, said in wide-ranging interview Wednesday night that MPD body cam video that leaked onto the video platform Rumble is authentic and confirms that officers in plainclothes were at the riot.
“We know that it is one of their officers and at one point he is encouraging, and it appears he’s encouraging, he’s definitely helping people climb the scaffolding, and he’s telling them go, go, go,” Loudermilk told the Just the News, No Noise television show.
“Why is an officer encouraging people to climb the scaffolding and go into the Capitol? And secondly, why did the MPD Metropolitan Police support department decide to put undercover officers in the crowd? Was there intelligence that they had that was or was not passed on to the Capitol Police and what did the Capitol police do with that evidence, if they got it?” he added.
On May 16, Loudermilk wrote a letter to the MPD police chief requesting additional information about the officers that were present including the original body cam footage from all officers that were on-site at the Capitol that day and “all officer and department after action reports and after incident reports concerning the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
He also requested “a list identifying all MPD officers on duty on January 6, 2021, who were engaged in activities concerning the restoration of civil order at or concerning the U.S. Capitol Complex, including their unit and any information on their assignment, and whether they were in uniform or plain clothes in their role as a law enforcement officer on January 6, 2021.”
According to committee staff, the MPD is cooperating with Loudermilk’s requests but additional details about the presence of the officers is not yet available for public disclosure.
Just the News reported in late March that federal prosecutors divulged in the case of one Jan. 6 defendant, William Pope, that there is police body-cam footage they don’t want to make public that showsD.C. Metropolitan Police officers — some in plain clothes — consorting with the protesters and even exhorting “Go! Go! Go!” as the protesters are trying to penetrate the Capitol.
In a brief filed late by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., prosecutors wrote: “The specific footage, GoPro video recorded by an MPD Police Officer who was stationed at the Capitol in an evidence-gathering capacity, captures the officer shouting words to the effect of ‘Go! Go! Go!’ (MPD-005-000035 at time stamp 2:37), ‘Go! Go! Go!’ (MPD-005-000035 at time stamp 7:23), and ‘Keeping going! Keep going!’ (MPD-005-000035 at time stamp 8:16) apparently to the individuals in front of him on the balustrade of the U.S. Capitol’s northwest staircase around 2:15 p.m.
“At other times in these videos, the officer and the two other plain clothes officers with him appear to join the crowd around them in various chants, to include ‘drain the swamp,’ ‘U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!’, and ‘Whose house? Our house!'”
Pope’s defense team has asked for permission to make the video footage public, but federal prosecutors told the court they want the trial judge’s protective order to remain in place to keep the video from becoming public.
“To do so would be like using a hammer when only a scalpel is needed,” the government argued in opposing the release of the tapes, adding they believed Pope’s “desire to try his case in the media rather than in a court of law is illegitimate.”
Loudermilk said he also was deeply concerned by video footage aired Monday by Just the News showing a door on the Upper West Terrace of the Capitol was unlocked and left open for a lengthy period of time, allowing 309 people to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6 mostly uncontested.
“This is something that the Jan. 6 select committee chose not to look at: a security breach. And that’s something we started looking at and it raised a lot of questions with us,” Loudermilk said. “So through interviews and doing a lot of research, at least we have found out that there’s an issue with those doors.
“You hit one of those doors, that alarm goes off, all right, and it unlocks that door because it’s a fire door. The only way that that door can be secured is someone has to go to an office within the Capitol, get the key for that particular door and go back and then secure that door,” he said.
BREAKING: Journalist Emerald Robinson Releases Transcript of Tucker’s Final Unaired Monologue, Where He Discusses Ray Epps, AOC and Jen Psaki, Twitter Censors the Report!
Emerald posted the transcript from Tucker’s final monologue at Emerald.TV.
Tucker starts out by blasting Jen Psaki, a top Democrat and totalitarian who believes freedom of speech is a thing of the past.
Members of Congress aren’t allowed to talk like this. The Constitution of the United States prohibits it. American citizens have an inalienable right to critique and criticize their political leaders. Our politicians are not gods. They’re instruments of the public’s will. They serve the rest of us, not the other way around. For that obvious reason, politicians can never censor our speech or try to control what we think. That unchanging fact is the basis of our founding documents, of our political system and our personal freedoms. As a former government official who claims now to be a journalist, Jen Psaki should know this, and defend America’s foundational principle. She refuses. Instead, Psaki nods along like a fan as Sandy Cortez calls for law enforcement to shut down news programming. The White House Correspondents Association and various other self-described advocates of press freedom stay silent too. Apparently they agree with Ocasio-Cortez, or they’re too afraid to say otherwise.
Tucker then goes on to discuss how Congresswoman and open Marxist AOC wants his show canceled.
She’s demanding that our show be canceled because the things we’re saying are quote, “very clearly an incitement to violence.” Is this true? Even accounting for the fact that people tend to hear what they want to hear, it is not true. It’s a lie, as anyone who watches this show knows. We are opposed to violence, not just philosophically but in practical terms. We’re against violent crime — the strong oppressing the weak. We’re against the horrors of late-term abortion and state-encouraged euthanasia. And above all we’re passionately opposed to the violent and pointless cruelty of the war in Ukraine, which the Biden Administration could end at any moment, thus saving the lives of innocents, but is instead prolonging purely for ideological reasons. Those are the things we dislike the most — the acts of violence our leaders endorse. Ocasio-Cortez is one of those leaders. She supports every one of those indefensible things, from abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy to extending the carnage in Ukraine. Who, honestly, is on the side of violence?
And Tucker Carlson then revisits the quandary of Ray Epps.
And where, we wonder, is Ocasio-Cortez on the question of Ray Epps? January 6th was a violent insurrection they tell us — and on the basis of that claim, they’ve turned the war on terror against America’s own citizens. We believe that is a false characterization. As we’ve said many times January 6th was not an insurrection, which is why no one has been charged for that crime. No guns were brought into the Capitol. No plans to overthrow the government have ever been found. It was not an insurrection. But there was violence. A Capitol police officer called Michael Byrd executed Ashli Babbit, an unarmed protestor, and was praised for doing it by politicians in both parties. Outside the building, a riot broke out. Windows were smashed; cops were assaulted. We were offended by this on the day it happened, and we said so. We still are. We’re against violence, whether it’s in Chicago, Ferguson, downtown Kenosha or on the west steps of the Capitol building in Washington. The main question from January 6th is, how did the violence start? Nearly two and a half years later, we still can’t say with certainty, but there are clues in the contemporaneous video tape. The night before the riot, for example, a man called Ray Epps was caught on camera encouraging protestors to breach the capitol.
The next day, as the violence began, Epps was filmed again doing the same.
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is locked in a contract dispute with his former network who took him off the air, but continues to enforce the contract he signed with them. As the contract battle wages, and while litigation with the network continues, Carlson is limited in his options for platform broadcast.
As a result, Tucker Carlson’s personal Twitter account which existed prior to his Fox contract and is not subject to the terms and agreements, remains an outlet for him to use while not violating his non-compete clause. Almost all other platforms represent what would be considered online competition to Fox Digital, so broadcasting a new show on any of those digital platforms would represent a potential legal issue and not an option. {Direct Rumble Link}
Tonight, Tucker Carlson aired a 10-minute monologue, what he calls “episode 1” from his Twitter account. While Tucker does not financially benefit from the Twitter platform, for the social media owner Elon Musk the broadcast represents much needed content oxygen. Tucker states at the end of his monologue that if Twitter suppresses or uses their internal fact-check mechanism known as ‘Community Notes‘ to control his content, he will exit the platform. WATCH:
(Reuters) […] Ukraine and Russia blame each other for the collapse of the massive dam on Tuesday, which sent floodwaters across a swathe of the war zone and forced thousands to flee. Ukraine said Russia committed a deliberate war crime in blowing up the Soviet-era Nova Kakhovka dam, which powered a hydroelectric station. The Kremlin blamed Ukraine, saying it was trying to distract from the launch of a major counteroffensive Moscow says is faltering. (more)
Elon Musk, who not coincidentally entered an ideological alignment with Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch on behalf of Ron DeSantis, has a vested financial interest in making sure his Community Notes police do not attach warnings and citations to the “controversial” dialogue of Carlson. While there appears to be an ongoing CN notes war in the background, so far the Musk administrators have been able to keep the platform control agents from impeding the broadcast.
NOTE: CTH was tipped off last night that this broadcast by Tucker Carlson would likely take place today. As expected, the scraping of the Tucker video on to alternate distribution platforms took place. Hence, we are sharing the Rumble version of the Carlson broadcast.
Do you remember the prosecution “Witness #8” in the case against George Zimmerman? The person described as Trayvon Martin’s “girlfriend” who was claimed by FOUR state prosecutors to be the star “ear witness” against Zimmerman.
Do you remember how we waited month after month, laughing at how the State of Florida was relying upon their one key witness, and we all knew it was totally made up?
Do you remember the buildup, the drama, the media’s breathless anticipation, and the eventual beverage that flushed out of your nose in laughter when the State called Witness #8, and brought Rachel Jeantel to the stand?
Not only did she have no clue about any detail the prosecution was saying, she didn’t fit any of the profile that was claimed to be her importance in the case. And… not only could she not read the statement the State of Florida claimed she wrote (she didn’t), Jeantel didn’t even know Trayvon Martin. She was completely manufactured by the prosecution because her mom was a friend of Trayvon’s mom. Everyone wondered how the hell the prosecution could even put her on the stand. Remember that?
The reason they put her on the stand was because the prosecution and Trayvon’s family had no choice. For over a year, they had hyped up this imaginary “ear witness” in an effort to convince Zimmerman to take a plea deal. That was the purpose of the fabrication, and when George Zimmerman didn’t take the plea – when he forced the prosecution to put Witness #8 on the stand – the case collapsed, because the case was manufactured.
When people ask me about the DOJ and/or Jack Smith bringing an indictment against President Trump, in many ways I laugh while waiting for the DOJ to bring a proverbial Jeantel to the court. The DOJ has to indict Trump for the same reason Angela Corey had to put Jeantel on the stand. Their political narrative cases have to continue regardless of the evidence. Lawfare is a construct for media consumption intended to manipulate public opinion.
Technically Lawfare doesn’t need an actual viable legal argument behind it. Much like Zimmerman’s imaginary witness #8, Lawfare can be assembled out of loin cloth. However, at a certain point that legal fabrication runs into the reality of a judicial system it is not designed to defeat.
If the leaks to the media are accurate, WE WERE RIGHT!
Main Justice and DOJ special counsel Jack Smith have run head-first into the problem that President Trump declassified all the documents he retained in Mar-a-Lago.
Again, if the media reports are accurate, Jack Smith is now relying on 18 U.S. Code 793, a law created in 1948 intended to stop contractors to the Defense Dept from stealing, selling, or copying U.S. defense system secrets, or patents on defense products. [READ THE LAW]
The Independent has learned that prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr Trump for violating a portion of the US criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits “gathering, transmitting or losing” any “information respecting the national defence”.
The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trump’s ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021.
That section of US criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr Trump’s conduct even if he was authorised to possess the information as president because it states that anyone who “lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document …relating to the national defence,” and “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it” can be punished by as many as 10 years in prison. (LINK)
Main Justice is now stretching Code 793 to claim any document the government designates as a “national security document” is a national defense document.
I am almost certain this is because the 11th circuit court of appeals ruled the DOJ can label whatever it wants, in any form it wants. As long as the DOJ claims it is a national security interest, it becomes a national security interest. This ruling came from the arguments over the Mar-a-Lago documents. REMEMBER:
If the DOJ says a box of Cheerios is a national security threat, the Judicial Branch accepts that all Cheerio boxes are proffered national-security concerns. It doesn’t matter what the Trump documents are, as long as the DOJ can claim they are vital national security interests.
In the previous ruling of the Mar-a-Lago documents, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.” The 11th Circuit deferred all definitions to the DOJ.
The DOJ is granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.
[NOTE: In the post 9-11 surveillance state, this approach by the DOJ-NSD is a pillar holding the Fourth Branch of Government in place, as we have outlined. The other pillars are (2) the Dept of Homeland Security, (3) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and (4) the secret FISA Court system. All four pillars maintain an omnipotent fourth branch of government that operates entirely without oversight. As you can see in the 11th Circuit Court ruling, there is no check or balance in the post 9-11 national security state.]
However, their target isn’t an ordinary citizen or target. The target of these “definitions”, and make no mistake – ultimately this is what the case comes down to, definitions – is the former President of the United States who had unilateral authority to define anything he wanted.
The case against President Donald Trump might look bad on paper, because that is what the case against Donald Trump was designed to do. However, ultimately this case is on a trajectory to go up to a much higher court in discovery and pre-trial argument, because eventually these definitions are going to become an issue for the prosecution.
♦ THE TELL – Here’s the “tell” that every pundit, analyst and litigation expert will pretend they don’t notice. It’s the funniest part of the entire thing and yet no one, again except us, is noticing it. The DOJ has already predicated the baseline of their claim by saying they cannot tell anyone, even the court, what the nature of the documents are that underpin their assertion. Remember, they wouldn’t even let a court appointed “special master” review the documents.
Stop and think about that for a moment. NO ONE knows what the documents are, and the DOJ has stated they will never say what the documents are. The DOJ is filing a case about the mishandling of documents, in whatever legal construct they put forth, while simultaneously saying they are under no obligation to tell anyone what the documents are.
DOJ: Trump violated USC 793 in his discussion and/or handling of documents.
Trump Lawyers: What documents?
DOJ: We can’t say, and we won’t tell you.
The case against George Zimmerman looked bad when everyone thought Witness #8 was real. Hell, almost the entire country believed it.
This case against President Donald Trump is of a very similar Lawfare intention in construct.
Last year, CTH outlined a four-part series of articles going deep into the background of the DOJ-FBI raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, along with the outline into why it was important to them. It doesn’t matter how many different legal angles and Deep State justifications the DOJ attempts to deploy in order to divert away from what took place; the background of who, what, when and why they raided Mar-a-Lago will not change.
In Part One, we outlined the background of the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. In Part Two we outlined the specifics of how President Trump was targeted by political operatives using tools created by the DC system {Go Deep}. In Part Three we outlined how and why President Trump was blocked from releasing documents {Go Deep}. And then finally, as below in Part 4, we assembled the specifics of what documents likely existed in Mar-a-Lago.
It is important to remember, the Presidential Records Act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute. An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.
The DOJ-NSD warrant, and the subsequent raid on Mar-a-Lago can only be related to records the U.S. government deems “classified” and material vital to national security interests. Hence, DOJ National Security Division involvement.
In prior outlines, we have exhaustively covered the details of President Trump’s desire to publicly release information about DOJ and FBI conduct in their targeting of him during the fabricated Trump-Russia claims. However, to understand the nature of the documents he may hold, we first review the declassification memo provided by President Trump to the DOJ upon his departure from office.
In broad terms, there are two sets of documents that intermingle and are directly related. First, documents that highlight the activity of Hillary Clinton’s team in creating the false Trump-Russia conspiracy theory (2015/2016). Second, documents that highlight the activity of government officials targeting Donald Trump within the same timeframe (Crossfire Hurricane), that continued into 2017, 2018 and 2019 (Robert Mueller).
Think of the two sets of documents as evidence against two teams working in synergy. Team one (Clinton) was outside government. Team two (DOJ/FBI) was inside government. The documents pertain to both groups but are also divided. That helps to explain the wording of the memo above.
The documentary evidence against the outside group (Clinton et al) would also involve government documented evidence as the DOJ/FBI inside group interacted with them. Notes from interviews, materials provided, FBI 302 summaries of interviews, etc.
We can extract a lot of information on the first sets of evidence from the lawsuit filed by President Trump in March of 2022 – mostly against the outside actors. [LINK HERE]
The lawsuit was filed against specific persons, and most of those persons were interviewed by the FBI as part of the originating investigation. Within the subjects of the lawsuit, we find names and groups including:
Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe.
In addition to being named in the lawsuit, many of those names were interviewed by the FBI as part of the origination of the Trump-Russia investigation, and/or part of the ongoing investigation of the Trump-Russia fabrication. Each of those interviews would carry an FD-302 report summarizing the content of the interview, the questions and answers given.
The totality of those 302 documents is a lot of evidence likely consisting of hundreds of pages.
For the government officials on the inside, in addition to 302’s (ex Bruce Ohr), there would be documents of communication between them.
Think about the full unredacted text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok as an example. The DOJ publicly released over 600 pages of those text messages, and that wasn’t all of them. The text messages were also redacted under claims of privacy and national security. We can assume any version of these text messages declassified by President Trump would not be redacted. Hence, you go back to the January 20th memo and see the notes about “privacy.”
We also know there are many pages of communication between DOJ lawyer Lisa Page and her boss in the FBI, Andrew McCabe. Almost none of them were ever made public; but they exist. This internal communication is likely the type of material contained in both the “binder,” left for the DOJ to release, and the boxes at Mar-a-Lago to be used as evidence against the named defendants in the Clinton lawsuit.
Bruce Ohr has 302’s and emails relating to his involvement as a conduit between Fusion GPS and the FBI. Some of those were released in redacted form, and some of them were never released. Additionally, Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, who worked at Fusion GPS invoked spousal privilege when called to testify before the House committee investigating the issues. However, it is almost certain the FBI interviewed her, so there are likely 302’s on Nellie Ohr.
Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko and Rodney Joffe were also interviewed by the FBI. Those 302’s were never released. Presumably John Durham held stakeholder equity in that part of the Trump-Russia hoax, but the documentary evidence prior to January 20, 2021, that exists outside the special counsel, could also be records at Mar-a-Lago.
Then we get to the big stuff…. The records and evidence, in unredacted and declassified state, that would drive the DOJ-NSD to claim vital national security interests.
The NSA compliance officer notified NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers of unauthorized use of the NSA database by FBI contractors searching U.S. citizens during the 2015/2016 presidential primary. That 2016 notification is a classified record.
The response from Mike Rogers, and the subsequent documentary evidence of what names were being searched, is again a classified record. The audit logs showing who was doing the searches (which contractors, which agencies and from what offices), as noted by Director Rogers, were preserved. That is another big-time classified record.
In addition, we would have Admiral Rogers writing a mandatory oversight notification to the FISA court detailing what happened. That’s a big and comprehensive classified record, likely contained in the documents in Mar-a-Lago… and then the goldmine, the fully unredacted 99-page FISA court opinion detailing the substance of the NSA compromise by FBI officials and contractors, including the names, frequency and dates of the illegal surveillance. That is a major classified document the Deepest Deep State would want to keep hidden.
These are the types of documents within what former ODNI John Ratcliffe called, “thousands of pages that were declassified by President Trump,” and given to both John Durham and Main Justice with an expectation of public release when the Durham special counsel probe concluded. That is why the DOJ has to make their moves now. The Durham probe has concluded.
In short, President Trump declassified documents that show how the institutions within the U.S. government targeted him. However, the institutions that illegally targeted President Trump are the same institutions who control the specific evidence of their unlawful targeting.
These examples of evidence held by President Donald Trump reveal the background of how the DC surveillance state exists. THAT was/is the national security threat behind the DOJ-NSD search warrant and affidavit.
The risk to the fabric of the U.S. government is why we see lawyers and pundits so confused as they try to figure out the disproportionate response from the DOJ and FBI, toward “simple records”, held by President Trump in Mar-a-Lago. Very few people can comprehend what has been done since January 2009, and the current state of corruption as it now exists amid all of the agencies and institutions of government.
Barack Obama spent 8 years building out and refining the political surveillance state. The operators of the institutions have spent the last six years hiding the construct.
President Donald Trump declassified the material then took the evidence to Mar-a-Lago. The people currently in charge of managing the corrupt system, like Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Chris Wray and the Senate allies, are going bananas. From their DC perspective, Donald Trump is an existential threat.
Given the nature of their opposition, and the underlying motives for their conduct, there is almost nothing they will not do to protect themselves. However, if you peel away all the layers of lies, manipulations and corruption, what you find at the heart of their conduct is fear. The need for control is a reaction to fear.
What do they fear most?…
…..THIS!
People forget, and that’s ok, but prior to the 2015 MAGA movement driven by President Donald J Trump, political rallies filled with tens-of-thousands of people were extremely rare – almost nonexistent. However, in the era of Donald J. Trump the scale of the people paying attention has grown exponentially. Every speech, every event, every rally is now filled with thousands and thousands of people.
The frequency of it has made us numb to realizing just how extraordinary this is. But the people in Washington DC are well aware, and that makes President Trump even more dangerous. Combine that level of support with what they attempted in order to destroy him, and, well, now you start to put context on their effort.
The existence of Trump is a threat, but the existence of a Trump that could expose their corruption…. well, that makes him a level of threat that leads to a raid on his home in Mar-a-Lago.
President Trump’s former lawyer Tim Parlatore believes the former president’s defense team will claim prosecutorial misconduct in Jack Smith’s ongoing classified documents probe.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has been investigating Trump after he stored presidential records at Mar-a-Lago and whether the former president tried to obstruct the probe.
Tim Parlatore told CBS’s Catherine Herridge he was “stunned” by what he saw in the grand jury room by the conduct of the prosecutors.
“I witnessed a lot of misconduct,” Tim Parlatore told CBS’s Catherine Herridge Wednesday evening, explaining he went before the grand jury himself.
“I was really stunned by what I saw in the grand jury room by the conduct of the prosecutors,” Tim Parlatore said. “They made many attempts to try to get privileged communications. They would ask me about conversations with my client. They would make improper references to the jury to try and mislead them about that.”
He continued, “At one point it got to the level where they’re asking me this again and then would turn to the grand jury and say, ‘so you would refusing to provide this information!’ No, I’m not refusing to provide it. The ethical rules prohibit me even if the answer to this question is helpful, I’m not allowed to give it and I turned to the jury and said ‘and she knows it She knows that it is an improper question!’”
Trump’s former lawyer explained that the federal prosecutor “crossed a major red line” because implying guilt to a jury based on the “invocation of a Constitutional right is the kind of thing that if it happened in a trial court, the judge would have immediately stopped everything, probably declared a mistrial…and the attorney who willfully does that type of thing would potentially face discipline.”
VIDEO:
Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore believes that the former president's defense team will claim prosecutorial misconduct in the ongoing documents probe, telling @CBS_Herridge, "I witnessed a lot of misconduct." pic.twitter.com/4RYRJgzXLu
On Wednesday John Solomon of Just The News reported Trump’s lawyers were told that Trump could be indicted as early as this week.
Trump later denied John Solomon’s report.
According to leaks to the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, Jack Smith is pursuing possible indictments against Mar-a-Lago staffers, Trump or Trump aides in Florida!
Shocking news of a Florida grand jury was revealed this week through leaks to the media.
According to a leak to the Washington Post, if Trump is indicted, the bulk of the charges will be in South Florida.
Other process crimes such as false statements and perjury may be filed in Washington DC.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer on Monday said the FBI AGAIN refused to hand over the Biden bribery document.
Over the weekend it was reported Chris Wray caved to Comer and agreed to turn over the unclassified document detailing a $5 million criminal plot involving Joe Biden.
Chairman Comer has reviewed the key document and asked the FBI to hand over the record to the custody of the House Oversight so others can review it as he continues his investigation into the Biden crime family.
The FBI confirmed the unclassified document alleging Joe Biden engaged in a $5 million bribery scheme is from a highly credible informant.
“Today, FBI officials confirmed that the unclassified , FBI-generated record has not been disproven and stated several times the information contained within it is currently being used in an ongoing investigation. The confidential human source who provided information about then-Vice President Biden being involved in a criminal bribery scheme is a trusted, highly credible informant who has been used by the FBI for years,” Comer said.
“These are facts and no amount of spin, and frankly lies, from the White House of Congressional Democrats can change this information,” he added.
“We believe there are multiple documents,” Comer told reporters.
The FBI’s CHS goes back to the Obama Administration!
WATCH:
🚨 BREAKING: “The FBI again refused to hand over the unclassified record to the custody of the House Oversight Committee — and we will now initiate contempt of Congress hearings this Thursday,” says Chairman @JamesComer. pic.twitter.com/EHlsz7ZzpI
Here we go again with the ever-familiar silo defense. The FBI is refusing to hand over the unclassified FD-1023 stating there is an ongoing investigation using the confidential human source who made allegations outlined in the document. Remember, the allegations and the statement record was created in July of 2020, almost three years ago.
Prior to last week, the FBI refused to say the 6-page unclassified document existed. After House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer told FBI Director Chris Wray he had already seen the unclassified document via a whistleblower, then Comey admitted the FBI indeed had it. Today, the FBI is refusing to release the document, stating it is now captive as part of an “ongoing investigation.” The claimed investigation began July 2020 – the investigation is “ongoing”. Go figure.
James Comer said he will begin the process, this Thursday, to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress. WATCH:
A brief post just to emphasize a point about DC and how the power centers protect themselves. You might remember when Attorney Jeff Sessions was told he needed to recuse himself from anything to do with the Trump-Russia investigation. We know from FOIA requests of schedules, the participants in the meeting on the date of those discussions:
Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself at the conclusion of a meeting involving Jody Hunt, Dana Boente, Jim Crowell, Tashina Guahar and Scott Schools; an apparent conflict of interest. Now consider….
Mary McCord was Acting Asst. Attorney General for the National Security Division, when she submitted the fraudulently constructed FISA application used against Carter Page. Mary McCord, knowingly and with specific intent, defrauded the court and broke the law. Mary McCord then went on to join Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler in the construction of the articles of impeachment. She did not recuse herself.
At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented. McCord and Atkinson knowingly submitted a fraudulent FISA application.
Atkinson then went on to become Intelligence Community Inspector General where he changed the rules for CIA whistleblowers to allow the accusation against President Trump to surface which resulted in an impeachment investigation. When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to? Mary McCord.
Consider the conflicts within the Supreme Court. Mary McCord, knowingly and with specific intent, lied to the FISA court to support the FBI targeting of Trump. Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon L Snook, was running the office of the counselor to Chief Justice John Roberts; the office which would intercept any communication from the FISA court to the Chief Justice if the FISA court had any concerns about the false FBI application. No one from the office, or the Chief Justice counselor recused themselves.
Conflicts of interest only surface to create personnel changes when those changes meet the interests of the DC administrative state. When those conflicts exist but they are useful to the interests of the DC administrative state, they are ignored.
The alleged stolen data belonged to poll workers and was the subject of TrueTheVote’s “PIT” in Arizona last August, where Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips singled out the Michigan based company.
During the PIT conference, Phillips and Engelbrecht alleged they were cooperating with the FBI in Michigan about data being sent overseas by this company. The investigation quickly started to turn on them after the FBI started to distance itself from the investigation for some strange reason.
Journalist “incognito” Kanekoa covered this company and researched them better than anyone at the time.
The theft of data only impacted the election workers, alleged Soros-funded Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon. The LADA seized hard drives and other digital evidence from the Michigan software firm with the assistance of Meridian Township Police in MI. The LADA was seeking Yu’s extradition to Los Angeles.
Following the CEO’s arrest Fairfax County in Virginia announced they stopped using Konnech’s PollChief election officer management software.
True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and investigator Gregg Phillips were hauled into court by lawyers representing Konnech who are suing Catherine and Gregg for defamation.
In what was a strange twist, the court case started just days after the CEO of Konnech was arrested on October 4th.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt demanded the conservative nonprofit group disclose their sources of the information central to the case, about sensitive poll worker data managed by Konnech Inc.
After Konnech sued True the Vote last month for defamation, Hoyt ordered True the Vote to turn over any Konnech data the organization still had and disclose the name of the individual who’d helped them obtain it.
Gregg and Catherine have refused to “burn” their source in the Konnech reporting and spent 10 days in prison for not turning over their source to Konnech and their corrupt attorneys.
The Soros-funded LA District Attorney dropped the charges against Konnech the day after the 2022 midterm election for some reason.
In April, Gregg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht released all of their information on the China-linked Konnech Company at Open.Ink. The next day Konnech dropped ALL CHARGES against Gregg and Catherine!
That brings us to today.
Kanekoa has another explosive investigative piece on the Konnech company. The FBI shielded and protected Konnech from investigation despite its ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
This is a Twitter post with 32 tweets for subscribers.
#1🚨: Evidence shockingly suggests that the FBI is shielding two firms closely tied to the Chinese government, which have financed and developed an American election software company for the past 15 years, all while transferring confidential election data back to China.
2) Konnech has provided election administration and logistics software to numerous prominent counties in the United States, including:
•Alameda County, California •Allegheny County, Pennsylvania •Contra Costa County, California •Denver County, Colorado •Detroit County, Michigan •Fairfax County, Virginia •Hillsborough County, Florida •Maron County, Indiana •Los Angeles County, California •San Francisco County, California •Santa Clara County, California •St. Louis County, Missouri •Travis County, Texas •Washington, D.C.
16) Jinhua Hongzheng Technology – linked to Konnech – provides election, logistics, and administration software, including web and mobile applications, to more than 430 National People’s Congresses across over 20 provinces.
The company has established partnerships with Huawei, Lenovo, China Telecom, China Mobile, China Unicom, and the highest levels of China’s government.
18) In a September 1, 2022, live chat, Catherine Engelbrecht (@truethevote) and Gregg Phillips (@onwardsocial) discussed the FBI’s betrayal, Konnech programming software for China’s National People’s Congress, and the company’s storage of U.S. election data on Chinese servers.
In January 2021, Phillips said that the cyber analyst he had been working with encountered an “oddity in some of the URLs” such as http://vote4la.com, http://vote4detroit.com, and http://vote4boston.com, which Konnech’s “PollChief” software application used to gather personally-identifying information about poll workers.
Using Binary Edge, a software product companies use to identify and assess the risk of cyber breaches, “We began to look at where these URLs resolve to.
We found that most of them resolve to one I.P. address and that I.P. address — the URL resolved in China,” Phillips said. “What we also learned in our review, http://apps.konnech.net, resolved into this same URL in China, meaning that the application itself was residing in China,” he continued.
“In Binary Edge, you can figure out what type of database they are using, their database port, and all the different services offered by ports in this particular application living in China. It turned out that not only did it live there, but they left the database open.”
This database “stored the personally identifying information of over a million Americans,” he emphasized. Engelbrecht and Phillips decided that “this was a major national security risk” and immediately took the information to the FBI.
When Engelbrecht and Phillips took this information to the FBI, the FBI “said the information was forwarded to their counter-intelligence operation, and a counter-intelligence op was opened up in January or February of 2021,” Phillips said.
Phillips described how he and Engelbrecht played an active role in the FBI’s operation, “They engaged us in the operation, they were communicating with us on a regular basis. They were communicating with Catherine regarding communications with the target and this went on for approximately 15 months.”
Phillips and Engelbrecht noted that the field office they worked with for those 15 months was “legitimate” and not “political law enforcement.”
“These were legitimate people who believed that this software posed a national security risk to the United States of America and they were working with us closely to try to stop this from being in place during the midterms,” Phillips said.
“The focus point was always we needed to remove this software from the election, but taking a step further, there were a lot of other concerns that the bureau had.”
In April 2022, Engelbrecht received a call from one of the FBI agents, who informed her that the FBI’s “Washington D.C. headquarters” was now involved in the investigation.
Engelbrecht described how everything changed after this call, “There was no more goodwill, there was no more let’s work together, the script had been flipped, and now we were the target,” she said. “That was a very disturbing call.”
The agent informed Engelbrecht that “two women” at the FBI’s headquarters believed that Phillips and Engelbrecht were “in the wrong for doing this” and that the D.C. office was now trying “to figure out how you guys broke the law to find all of this.”
Engelbrecht added, “which of course we didn’t, but that was kind of their Modus Operandi, they were going to try to pin something on us, and today you can pick your headlines about how the FBI has done this time and again.”
Phillips remarked, “The problem is they know about this, and they chose to do nothing. They chose to investigate it, and in the end, they chose to blame us, but this is China. These are Chinese operatives in the United States; these are Chinese citizens who are programming this.”
Engelbrecht explained how the FBI agents initially hoped they could persuade the Washington D.C. office to do the right thing, “Our contacts were saying we are going to try and smooth this out, but as the days clicked on, they re-contacted us and one of them said you may need to be ready to — his term was to use the nuclear option and go to the press,” she said.
With the FBI no longer interested in pursuing Konnech, Englebrecht and Phillips organized an event for Saturday, August 13th in Arizona called “the Pit” where they brought together about two hundred “researchers, independent journalists, and big thinkers” to share their story.
“We asked the people in attendance for help, we didn’t know what the FBI’s plans were for us, we didn’t know if we didn’t speak this publicly if we would ever have the chance to, but we felt like our best chance was to share this with people we trusted who had the wherewithal to get the word out,” Englebrecht said.
She continued, “There have been so many great things that have happened since that event, but one of the greatest, was this community that came out shoulder to shoulder saying let’s dig this, let’s see how much more information we can find.”
“The quality of research that has been done to supplement what we already had and to corroborate what we already had has been incredible.”
Phillips added, “This is some of the best research I have ever seen. The quality of it, the depth of it, we were with a prosecutor the other day and we had an opportunity to share some of this information with them.”
He continued, “There’s likely going to be a grand jury convened here in the next week or so. It’s supported by not just the research that my team OPSEC did for Catherine and True the Vote, but by the research of one of the best research teams I’ve ever seen come together.”
23) On October 28, 2022, @TrueTheVote and @OnwardSocial submitted an affidavit containing approximately 10% of their text messages exchanged with FBI Agents in Detroit and San Antonio, supporting their claim of working with the FBI on a 15-month “counter-intelligence operation” against Eugene Yu, prior to the involvement of FBI headquarters in Washington D.C.
The text messages included conversations with the following individuals:
-Special Agent Bruce Fowler, Detroit -SA Huy Nguyen, San Antonio -SA Kevin McKenna, San Antonio -SA Kristina, San Antonio
In one text message exchange, Fowler provided his FBI email address and mentioned receiving three thumb drives from the San Antonio office. He asked Engelbrecht to guide him on where to find information on those drives.
In another text message exchange, Engelbrecht asked for the name of an agent in Georgia. Nguyen responded that he would provide the name later, but “in the meantime, you can tell them that you filed the complaint with SA Huy Nguyen and SA Kevin McKenna with San Antonio Division.”
In another exchange, Engelbrecht texted Nguyen, stating:
“I wanted to let you know that we took the nuclear option and went public (in a very limited way, but nonetheless we did it). Konnech quickly filed a civil suit against us in Houston federal court and got an ex parte [temporary restraining order].
Part of the TRO required that we name who we’d gotten the election worker data from, same person who’d provided it to you. We gave the court the name under seal. Our attorney also notified the Houston FBI office, where the case was filed.
I’m very concerned about everyone’s safety at this point. Please do whatever possible to help ensure that name never comes out. I can provide you with whatever you may need.”
Nguyen did not respond to Engelbrecht’s text. According to further texts provided by Engelbrecht, she reached out to “KayKay,” saying she hoped to talk, in person, if possible.
“KayKay” replied that she was on a temporary assignment out of state until January and asked if Engelbrecht still had Nguyen’s number. Engelbrecht then explained that she had “called and written him but no response.”
The text then explained: “We have been drug into a vicious lawsuit filed against us by Konnech.” “Our attorneys have contacted the FBI and been told that the Bureau has no interest in engaging with the court in order to maintain confidentiality.”
Engelbrecht added that she, Phillips, and “the researcher who originally provided us the data” are being “doxed,” and that it’s “a very serious situation and we’ve been left to hang.”
Engelbrecht then noted, “Yu has already been indicted by a Grand Jury and arrested,” but they “continue to hear chatter that the FBI is working with Konnech, against us, and still trying to accuse us of crimes we did not commit.”
The True the Vote founder then noted that “what Bobby said on the phone that day in April 22 (when you were reading the yearly CI disclaimer to me) has gone into full overdrive.” She added: “I also now believe Gregg and I have been set up. It’s appalling, heartbreaking, and wrong.”
26) On November 17, 2022, @TrueTheVote and @OnwardSocial spoke to @gatewaypundit about their arrest and subsequent solitary confinement and provided information about the data breach that occurred in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or Allegheny County.
The breach involved the unauthorized exposure of sensitive information belonging to election workers, election judges, the complete Pennsylvania voting registration file, voting machine serial numbers, passwords, and “everything that one would need to cheat.”
“This isn’t software, guys. This is malware. This is spyware. They are sucking data from the United States, storing it in China, and then using it to create a Chinese-style social credit system where we’re all scored.
United States citizens are scored to manipulate votes, manipulate thought, manipulate pretty much everything you can imagine in our lives. And these people are the tip of the spear for that. They’re not the only ones but they’re there.”
32) On April 14, 2023, cybersecurity expert Nate Cain (@cain_nate), who forensically imaged Konnech’s devices for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, stated that Konnech stored the personal data of U.S. election workers and judges on servers in China.
You can read the entire thread here at Kanekoa twitter page – for a $5 fee. It is well worth it.
Kanekoa confirms what has been previously reported. The FBI knew about Konnech and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party and its work with US elections. The DC FBI elites DROPPED the investigation into Konnech for some reason. This is just the latest example of the lawlessness of our top investigative agency.
In this instance it appears they are working for the Chinese Communists and against the American people. What else are they hiding?
I’m going to go into the deep weeds on this story, because many people are missing a key facet. The names behind the Trump targeting operation are included, along with citations for independent checks by House congressional investigators.
Inside the recently released report by John Durham [CITATION], the special counsel outlines how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application. Durham notes that Comey kept asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA.” However, John Durham never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe. The former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to John Durham. So, how did John Durham have details about the demands of Comey?
The answer is found in the footnotes. Durham reviewed transcripts of interviews given by Andrew McCabe to the Office of the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who previously investigated FBI conduct in the origin of the Carter Page FISA. Durham pulled quotes from that transcript. [Footnote #1207, page 199 – Durham Report]
♦QUESTION: If Andrew McCabe gave testimony to the OIG about the motives and impetus of FBI Director James Comey in pushing for the Carter Page FISA application, why did the OIG report never outline those transcribed interviews? Why was the interview transcript never included in the 2019 OIG report?
[ NOTE to Congress. Now that you know a transcribed interview of Andrew McCabe exists in the OIG office, request the transcription and release it to the public.]
Let me answer those questions without the customary pretending from the DC professional political class. The short version is that OIG Michael Horowitz was trying to protect the DOJ and FBI. The longer version is a coverup that includes Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr and yes, John Durham. I will share that story below.
“Where’s the FISA? We need the FISA?” ~ James Comey
The DOJ-NSD and FBI CoIntel needed to find a safe and legal way to spy on the Trump campaign. The 2016 FISA Title 1 surveillance of former FBI employee Carter Page became the fraudulent justification for that intent.
Because “FISA Title I” surveillance authority against a U.S. citizen is so serious (the U.S. government is essentially calling the target a spy), only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrants. One of the four people authorized to make such a Search Warrant request is the Asst. Attorney General as head of the National Security Division of the DOJ.
In September and October of 2016, at the same time the DOJ was putting the finishing touches on the FISA Court application to be used against Carter Page, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin resigned as head of the DOJ-NSD. [CITATION]Did Carlin resign in protest or fear?
Here’s context:
Carter Page was used as a UCE (FBI undercover employee), responsible for the bust of a high-level Russian agent in 2013 – and remained a UCE – throughout the court case of Evgeny Buryakov, a Russian citizen who U.S. prosecutors say posed as a banker while participating in a Cold War-style spy ring. [CITATION]
Carter Page was an FBI undercover source for the FBI UP TO May of 2016. How was it possible that on October 21st, 2016, Carter Page is put under a FISA Title 1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent? Conclusion: Carter Page wasn’t a Russian agent. The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division knew he wasn’t.
In order to manufacture the justification for the Carter Page FISA warrant, the DOJ-NSD and the FBI flat-out lied to the FISA Court. Remember, IG Horowitz said there was no ‘Woods File’ in the Carter Page FISA application. Instead of the required section substantiating and citing all the claims in the application, the FBI used the Chris Steele Dossier.
However, as to the motive of John Carlin resigning before the application was completed and submitted, we look back to the March 2016 DOJ Press Release of the guilty pleading in the Evgeny Buryakov case as announced from the New York office:
…”Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced”… (link)
DOJ-NSD head John Carlin obviously could not submit a FISA application against Carter Page, accusing him of being an “agent of a foreign government,” when just a few months earlier he used Carter Page as a witness and FBI UCE source in the case against Buryakov.
As James Comey is demanding that Andrew McCabe and his FBI counterintelligence agents get the FISA warrant, likely an ass covering necessity, the person responsible to get the warrant from the court, John Carlin, quits the DOJ. Considering all the facets outlined above, this cannot be accidental.
Here’s where it gets SERIOUSLY sketchy.
The next in line person, who can fulfill the DOJ/FBI goal of getting the fraudulent application through the FISA court, is Mary McCord. Put into the position as Acting Asst. Attorney General for the National Security Division, the job of submitting the FISA application now falls upon Mary McCord.
On October 21, 2016, When the FISA application was finally submitted, signed by DAG Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey, it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.
Obviously, with the background and context of the entirely fraudulent Carter Page FISA application, a government surveillance warrant using a Clinton funded political opposition research file known as the Steele Dossier to support the warrant, both Mary McCord and Michael Atkinson would know they were directly involved in an intentional effort to weaponize the mechanisms of the justice department against a political candidate.
While James Comey and Sally Yates’ signatures were on the FISA application falsely vouching for it, the attestations of legal compliance fall upon DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord and her top legal advisor Michael Atkinson. McCord and Atkinson are doing, in October of 2016, what former DOJ-NSD head John Carlin refused to do.
WATCH WHAT COMES NEXT: Mary McCord then resigns from her position in the DOJ, and Michael Atkinson is left, as lawyer for the DOJ-NSD, to become Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
♦ The Impeachment Effort – Do you remember how the impeachment effort against President Donald Trump was created? Do you remember Alexander Vindman, the claims about Ukraine; the statements of hearing from a CIA whistleblower about the content of a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy?
When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules.
Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
Can you see how Atkinson and McCord are working together, both connected to the fraud behind the false FISA application used in the Trump-Russia narrative in 2016 and 2017, now both working together on a 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump holding an identical motive? Can you see the stunning conflicts of interest and the coordination?
The weaponized FISA surveillance of the Trump administration doesn’t exist without Mary McCord and Michael Atkinson creating the surveillance mechanism. The weaponized impeachment origin doesn’t exist without McCord – now in congress working for Nadler/Schiff – and Atkinson changing rules as CIA Inspector General, to create the baseline of a fraudulent whistleblower complaint. Can you see it?
But wait…. It gets worse.
♦ Chief Justice John Roberts – As if things could not possibly be more corrupt, now we have the construct of Atkinson and McCord forming the predicate for the impeachment effort. To wit, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts now becomes the presiding judge over the impeachment trial of President Trump.
Mary McCord is married to a fellow traveler named Sheldon L. Snook.
From 2014 though 2020, not coincidentally the timeline of the Trump targeting and administration in office, Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook, was the special assistant to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s counselor. [CITATION]
As noted by the Washington Post in discussing both McCord and Snook, “The counselor’s office advises the chief justice not only on the management and budget of the Supreme Court but also on his interactions with the executive and legislative branches, along with numerous other public roles in which Roberts serves.” [CITATION]
From 2014 through 2020, Sheldon Snook was responsible for running the office of the lawyer legally advising and counseling John Roberts.
Let me put this another way. The most important guy in the judicial branch, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, has a lawyer to advise and construct the responsibilities of the SCOTUS chief judge, which includes the construct of the FISA court and appointment of judges therein.
As Chief Justice, John Roberts is in charge of everything to do with the FISA court. The guy running the office of the lawyer doing the counseling of Roberts, is Mary McCord’s husband.
Mary McCord, knowingly and with specific intent, lied to the FISA court to support the FBI targeting of Trump. Mary McCord’s husband runs the office which would intercept any communication from the FISA court to the Chief Justice if the FISC had any concerns about the false FBI application. See the problem?
♦ SUMMARY – Now, we go back to where we came in.
Why did the Office of the Inspector General never publish the interview transcript about Andrew McCabe talking about how desperate FBI Director James Comey was to get a FISA warrant?
Why did John Durham never publish those same interview transcripts, but instead simply referenced the existence of the transcript in a footnote?
Follow these questions to their logical conclusion, and you will discover that all of the participants including Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr, James Baker, Dana Boente, Michael Horowitz and John Durham are trying to protect bureaucrats, who did criminal acts, and preserve institutions from collapse that sunlight would create.
Sunlight…
… The best disinfectant.
I ain’t quitting.
Until we deal with this mess, it doesn’t matter who ‘we‘ try to make president.
Part 1: Subtitle: My never before told story of working behind the scenes during the biggest political upset in history, what really happened and where is America’s justice for the Russian Collusion Hoax.
Guest Post by Jason Sullivan
My name is Jason Sullivan. I am simply a concerned citizen who, like you, saw that our country was heading in the wrong direction and thought perhaps there may be something I could contribute in order to help the people get a pinky on the steering wheel so that together we could steer the ship away from the cliff where jagged rocks were awaiting.
I had the good fortune, the sheer luck, and the blessing of meeting a mentor named William R. (Max) Carey Jr., who was a former U.S. Navy Top Gun Fighter Pilot and Top Gun Instructor. He was also one of the Founding Board Members of The Outback Steakhouse Company, serving as their Chief Strategist, who helped them grow the company from only one (1) store to over 2,000, becoming the world’s 2nd largest casual food dining chain. As it turned out, Max was also one of the nation’s most sought-after Chief Strategists and CEO coaches to mid-market and Fortune 1000 companies. Max was a true patriot who loved our country, and I am eternally grateful as he changed the trajectory of my life.
One day, I asked Max if he would open his Rolodex and get me connected with someone who could put us together with a federal-level senatorial or congressional campaign, where we could test some new social media software we developed to see if we could help drive the narrative for conservative candidates. Max looked at me as if I had three heads on my shoulders and asked if I was feeling okay. “You want us to get involved in politics?” he asked. The rest is, as they would say… history.
We secured a 30-day engagement to help on the final 30 days of a senatorial campaign for a gentleman named Mike McFadden, who was running against incumbent Senator Al Franken in Minnesota in 2014. The first assignment they gave us became known as ‘Conegate,’ where the sitting Senator was caught on video holding traffic cones up to his chest as he proceeded to dance and “diddle” them as if they were “breasts. The GOP was up in arms and was demanding the Senator publicly apologize for his poor behavior, but he simply ignored their demands and would not even acknowledge the event even took place. My first job was to force Al Franken into publicly apologizing using social media… and so we did. This opened Pandora’s box on the sitting Senator’s many deviancies, which ultimately ended in his eventual resignation from the Senate.
Finally, after countless efforts to make contact with the Trump campaign, I received an email response to one of my letters sent to other members of the campaign who were in Donald Trump’s sphere of influence. On May 18, 2016, the email came from one of Roger Stone’s assistants, saying that Roger had read my letter and wished to schedule a call. The call was secured, which took place on May 24, 2016, where I presented a live demonstration of the real-time social media software my team and were continuing to develop. By the end of the call, Roger indicated he wished to work with us and asked if we could fly to Fort Lauderdale so our teams could meet immediately that same Friday. On May 27, 2016, now my business partner, William R. (Max) Carey Jr., and I met with Roger Stone and his team in South Florida, where we were officially engaged to combat David Brock’s Media Matters and Correct the Record, Hillary Clinton’s Russian-style disinformation network. I can tell you very clearly it was Hillary Clinton and David Brock’s camps that were working overtime to set up and emulate Russian-style disinformation operations.
Over the coming 97 days between May 27, 2016, and September 1, 2016, I worked diligently, countless hours, and many sleepless nights to help Roger identify meaningful and significant, timely opportunities for the Trump campaign to capitalize on. One video you may recall that I helped go viral during the 2016 election was of a small group of people who were invited to a polling place to test a theory that a hacker could easily access the tabulation function of an electronic voting machine at the time called Diebold. The video showed several individuals cast their votes, and then a hacker took possession of the voter electronic card, and shortly thereafter, they tallied the results. All of the votes had been reversed, leaving the participants stunned. One woman even began to sob as she described how our men and women in the military risk and lose their lives defending our ultimate expression of freedom of speech, which is our right to vote, and to think that these electronic voting machines were so vulnerable that the entire results of an election could therefore be hacked was an absolute travesty. Shortly after, candidate Donald J. Trump actively began exclaiming that voting machines were vulnerable while he was stumping on the campaign trail.
Things really heated up right after a conference call I organized to host Roger Stone, titled ‘The Ultimate Political Insider,’ when suggested he had foreknowledge of future drops that would be coming from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. This was like pouring kerosene on a firestorm of media speculations that the Trump campaign was somehow colluding directly or indirectly with WikiLeaks to quarterback the timed release of the DNCLeaks for maximum impact on their opposition, the Hillary Clinton campaign. These claims of association with WikiLeaks were quickly exploited by Media Matters, the mainstream media, and ultimately by the Robert Mueller Special Counsel investigation, dominating the public discourse and fueling speculations of Russian collusion. In the end, the Mueller Special Counsel investigated the claims but the liberals did not have anything to charge Roger Stone, Wikileaks or Julian Assange.
Monitoring The Campaign In Real-Time
In warfare, there can be no strategy without intelligence, and believe me, two presidential candidates, along with their entire campaign staff, their legal teams, and their opposition research teams, all battling it out for the hearts and minds of the American voters, takes on a form of information warfare that mostly takes place behind the scenes. I can tell you that by this time in the campaign, the Hillary camp and her fix-it clan within the FBI already had their little “insurance policy” to create their Russian Collusion Hoax, and those plans were already well underway. Also, remember that the Clinton campaign’s law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the now infamous “intelligence firm” Fusion GPS in April of 2016. This is at the same time that the Clinton Super PAC named ‘Correct the Record,’ run by Media Matters political operative David Brock, started up operation “Barrier Breakers” (which did indeed coordinate with the Clinton campaign through Clinton attorney Marc Elias and Clinton campaign media director Robby Mook). In April 2016, the Clinton camp is seen suddenly ramping up to control the narrative at all costs. Perhaps these are all preemptive measures in anticipation of an impending little leak now known as the DNCLeaks? I digress.
If there can be strategy without intelligence, then there can be no greater strategy than one that is built around real-time intelligence.
The Biggest Political Upset Ever
Let’s face it: if the traditional polls were accurate, then Donald J. Trump would never have become the President of the United States. Almost every single poll across the United States leading up until election day itself showed Hillary Clinton as the likely winner of the presidency.
All Of The Final Major Presidential Election Polls November 8, 2016, Tuesday, 7:12 AM EST
So What Happened… And How Did Donald Trump Defy All Odds?
All traditional polls are three (3) things: SLANTED LIMITED STALE.
SLANTED: All polls are slanted. You have to consider the source. If Fox News conducts a poll and MSNBC conducts a poll, and participants are asked the same exact questions, the polls will receive wildly different answers, won’t they? So you always have to consider the source as their audience will always be slightly skewed.
LIMITED: The typical sample size of traditional polling systems is relatively small, ranging from dozens to sometimes hundreds of participants. These sample sizes hardly represent the entire nation’s views and viewpoints.
STALE: Typically, the data presented in traditional polls is days if not weeks old.
So let me ask you… what do you think is more accurate: slanted, limited, and stale polls or real-time social media intelligence based on MILLIONS of tweets and sentiments?
I think you know the answer.
So We Built A Social Media Diagnostics Software Tool That Exploits Twitter Data To Show Us Precisely How Well A Political Candidate Is Resonating With The Public At Large As Opposed To Their Opposition… In Real-Time.
“In order to win a political race, first, you must understand precisely where you are in that race as opposed to where your opposition is currently positioned.”
Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump commanded a significant lead against Hillary Clinton, according to our most accurate real-time social media intelligence reports. And then, something peculiar—some would even say very strange— happened.
On October 28, 2016, Former FBI Director James Comey Announces He Is Reopening The Probe Into Hillary Clinton’s Email Server… ONLY 11 Days Prior To The Election!
You would think on the surface this sudden development would have a negative impact on Hillary Clinton’s campaign… right?
Wrong.
The FBI reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails served to rally her entire base. In doing so, her supporters swarmed and came out in full force to protect and vote for their queen bee.
We watched in real-time as Hillary Clinton suddenly, for the first time during the election, began to rapidly catch up to Donald Trump on our Actual Polls™ – Real-Time Social Media Diagnostics Matrix Chart!
Data never lies.
It stirred a hornets’ nest!
And then, the FBI somehow magically went through 340,000 (conflicting reports say as many as 650,000) new emails… in a mere eight days, ultimately clearing Hillary Clinton for a SECOND TIME only two days before Election Day.
Fix-it man, former Director of the FBI, James Comey.
This was all very intentional, folks, and the screenshot below represents the actual reality of the effects that took place by the day before the election. This, ladies and gentlemen, was an intentional attempt at electioneering… and it was working.
With literally only a day to go until the election, we knew that if the social trends continued on their current trajectory, the results would spell certain defeat for presidential hopeful Donald J. Trump.
If you never remember anything else I ever say, remember this: In an information war, “Those who drive the narrative… drive the outcome.”
Thank the good Lord for real-time social media intelligence.
Enter Operation Swarm
REWIND A FEW DAYS: When we first watched in real-time (on October 28, 2016) as suddenly Hillary Clinton immediately began to gain on Donald Trump’s campaign due to James Comey “reopening her email investigation” we realized something had to be done immediately to help amplify Trump’s messaging in order to counteract this emerging trend.
What could be done?
We scrambled for a solution!
SUDDENLY… A NOVEL IDEA
What was the point of Donald J. Trump tweeting in the first place?
Was it simply for the fun of tweeting (well perhaps sometimes)?
Was candidate Donald J. Trump tweeting just to be shouting in a closet with no one to hear him?
Or… was Donald J. Trump tweeting, hoping and praying that his followers would help to amplify his every message so he could reach the optimum amount of Americans in hopes that he could affect the hearts and minds of as many voters as humanly possible so they would hopefully turn out and vote for him on election day?
How could we quickly get as many of his supporters across the nation as soon as possible to help amplify Trump’s every message on scale, and how could we do this in such an effective manner that would allow us to help drive the narrative… by design?
Simplicity Would Be The Key
What if we could create a Twitter app where all Trump’s supporters could simply opt-in to automatically retweet every one of his messages on election day?
By leveraging and compounding every subscriber’s follower count, how many tens of millions of people might we help our candidate reach if successful… and which one of candidate Trump’s supporters would not sign up if it only took just a couple of clicks… and if we drove the narrative, could we help drive the outcome?
On the evening before the election, we (a fervent, not so insignificant network of key Trump influencers each member with their own sizable networks) all began to implore to their networks that they immediately sign onboard to Operation SWARM and experience just how easy the system was to deploy.
All throughout the evening of November 7th, Trump supporters from all across the nation began to sign on, and they quickly began to tell all of their friends, their neighbors, their colleagues, and their family members to all sign on.
Do You Want To Know What Happened The Next Morning?
NarrowPathMinistries 