From Liz Cheney to Harriet Hageman, a remarkable upgrade from voters in Wyoming. Stunningly so. I have alerts established for all things Hageman, because she presents as a stealth wolverine very quietly. I like that.
Yes, you will hear me say it first…. this is my first opportunity to do so…. If there are reservations about Ben Carson for VP (personally I do not think there are any), then I would implore President Trump to consider Harriet Hageman as his VP running mate. Yes, I would be good with taking a chance on Hageman as POTUS in ’28. WATCH:
On May 31, 2022, Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) made an explosive announcement as an outcome of a whistleblower providing information to him and Jim Jordan about the FBI having a collaborative relationship with the Clinton/DNC law firm Perkins Coie. {Go Deep} Specifically, the explosive element surrounds the FBI having a workspace within the DNC law firm that would have given Democrats an open portal into FBI databases for use in opposition research.
In this video former NSA Director Mike Rogers explains how he was notified of unlawful FBI extractions from the NSA database, what was happening with illegal search queries and what he did after the notification. WATCH:
Knowing that Perkins Coie and the FBI were working together on this targeting operation, makes everything else make sense.
However, the involvement of official government agencies like NSA Admiral Mike Rogers, creates a paper trail. Search query logs, notifications to Mike Rogers, notifications to the FISA Court, notifications to FBI officials of the suspension of contractor access, and subsequent FISA court opinions like the 99-pages from Rosemary Collyer, all of it creates an internal trail of government documents that tell the story.
It’s those documents that become a risk to the people who operate within the system. In this example of government documents, the trail outlines the targeting of Donald Trump and that was what he continued to ask the ODNI, DOJ and FBI to release.
Frustrated by the lack of action, in March 2022 Donald Trump filed a massive civil lawsuit against the Clinton campaign and everyone involved in this targeting operation. [SEE LAWSUIT HERE] “Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty,” the president states.
“Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust. They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump,” says one segment of the lawsuit.
All of the claims within the filing are substantiated by documents outlining the history of the events. I’m not sure any defendant is going to be successful getting themselves out of the target zone on the lawsuit. The suit alleges “racketeering” and a “conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood,” among other claims.
The basis for the evidence against the entire crew? That was likely part of the assembly of evidence, the declassified documents at the heart of the battle, that were targeted by the DOJ and FBI raid.
The Government Wants to Play God. What Does That Mean for Our Freedoms?
By John & Nisha Whitehead April 03, 2024
The government wants to play god.
It wants the power to decide who lives or dies and whose rights are worthy of protection.
Abortion may still be front and center in the power struggle between the Left and the Right over who has the right to decide—the government or the individual—when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, sexual freedom, the rights of the unborn, and property interests in one’s body, but there’s so much more at play.
In the 50-plus years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, the government has come to believe that it not only has the power to determine who is deserving of constitutional rights in the eyes of the law but it also has the authority to deny those rights to an American citizen.
This is how the abortion debate has played into the police state’s hands: by laying the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights.
Despite the Supreme Court having overturned its earlier rulings recognizing abortion as a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government continues to play fast and loose with the lives of the citizenry all along the spectrum of life.
Take a good, hard look at the many ways in which Americans are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
American families who have their dogs shot, their homes trashed and their children terrorized or, worse, killed by errant SWAT team raids in the middle of the night are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
School-aged children as young as 4-years-old who are leg shackled, handcuffed and strip searched for violating school zero tolerance policies by chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and playing an imaginary game of cops and robbers, or engaging in childish behavior such as crying or jumping are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Unarmed citizens who are tasered or shot by police for daring to hesitate, stutter, move a muscle, flee or disagree in any way with a police order are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Likewise, Americans—young and old alike—who are shot by police because they pointed a garden hose at a police officer, reached for their registration in their glove box, relied upon a cane to steady themselves, or were seen playing with air rifles or BB guns are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Female motorists who are unlucky enough to be pulled over for a questionable traffic infraction only to be subjected by police to cavity searches by the side of the road are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Male pedestrians and motorists alike who are being subjected to roadside strip searches and rectal probes by police based largely on the color of their skin are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
American citizens subjected to government surveillance whereby their phone calls are being listened in on, their mail and text messages read, their movements tracked and their transactions monitored are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Homeowners who are being fined and arrested for raising chickens in their backyard, allowing the grass in their front yards to grow too long, and holding Bible studies in their homes are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Homeless individuals who are being harassed, arrested and run out of towns by laws that criminalize homelessness are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
These are all American citizens—endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, rights that no person or government can take away from them, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and they are all being oppressed in one way or another by a government that has grown drunk on power, money and its own authority.
If the government—be it the President, Congress, the courts or any federal, state or local agent or agency—can decide that any person has no rights, then that person becomes less than a citizen, less than human, less than deserving of respect, dignity, civility and bodily integrity. He or she becomes an “it,” a faceless number that can be tallied and tracked, a quantifiable mass of cells that can be discarded without conscience, an expendable cost that can be written off without a second thought, or an animal that can be bought, sold, branded, chained, caged, bred, neutered and euthanized at will.
It’s a slippery slope that justifies all manner of violations in the name of national security, the interest of the state and the so-called greater good.
Yet those who founded this country believed that what we conceive of as our rights were given to us by God—we are created equal, according to the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence—and that government cannot create, nor can it extinguish our God-given rights. To do so would be to anoint the government with god-like powers and elevate it above the citizenry.
Unfortunately, we have been dancing with this particular devil for quite some time now.
If we continue to wait for the government to restore our freedoms, respect our rights, rein in its abuses and restrain its agents from riding roughshod over our lives, our liberty and our happiness, then we will be waiting forever.
The highly politicized tug-of-war over abortion will not resolve the problem of a culture that values life based on a sliding scale. Nor will it help us navigate the moral, ethical and scientific minefields that await us as technology and humanity move ever closer to a point of singularity.
Humanity is being propelled at warp speed into a whole new frontier when it comes to privacy, bodily autonomy, and what it means to be a human being. As such, we haven’t even begun to wrap our heads around how present-day legal debates over bodily autonomy, privacy, vaccine mandates, the death penalty, and abortion play into future discussions about singularity, artificial intelligence, cloning, and the privacy rights of the individual in the face of increasingly invasive, intrusive and unavoidable government technologies.
Yet here is what I know.
Life is an inalienable right.
By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights.
If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum. This point is where many people understandably get confused.
In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.
What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their ideological opposition became the target of the new national security system. This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.
Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.
The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus. However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology. The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.
We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake. However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design. By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath. The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.
As time passed, and the system operators became familiar with their new tools, technology allowed the tentacles of the system to reach out and touch us. That is when we first started to notice that something very disconcerting was happening. Those four pillars are the root of it, and if we take the time to understand how the Fourth Branch originated, questions about this current state of perpetual angst will start to make sense.
Grab a cup of your favorite beverage, and take a walk with me as we outline how this was put together. You might find many of the questions about our current state of political affairs beginning to make a lot more sense.
Remember, it is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding fourth branch of government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.
History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military), to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell. None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.
Instead, we pick up the expansive and weaponized intelligence system as it manifests after 9/11/01, and my goal is to highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has now metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life.
If we take the modern construct, originating at the speed of technological change, we can also see how the oversight or “check/balance” in our system of government became functionally obsolescent.
After many years of granular research about the intelligence apparatus inside our government, in the summer of 2020 I visited Washington DC to ask specific questions. My goal was to go where the influence agents within government actually operate, and to discover the people deep inside the institutions no one elected and few people pay attention to.
It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.
After days of research and meetings in DC during 2020; amid a town that was serendipitously shut down due to COVID-19; I found a letter slid under the door of my room in a nearly empty hotel with an introduction of sorts. The subsequent discussions were perhaps the most important. After many hours of specific questions and answers on specific examples, I realized why our nation is in this mess. That is when I discovered the fourth and superseding branch of government, the Intelligence Branch.
I am going to explain how the Intelligence Branch works: (1) to control every other branch of government; (2) how it functions as an entirely independent branch of government with no oversight; (3) how and why it was created to be independent from oversight; (4) what is the current mission of the IC Branch, and most importantly (5) who operates it.
The Intelligence Branch is an independent functioning branch of government, it is no longer a subsidiary set of agencies within the Executive Branch as most would think. To understand the Intelligence Branch, we need to drop the elementary school civics class lessons about three coequal branches of government and replace that outlook with the modern system that created itself.
The Intelligence Branch functions much like the State Dept, through a unique set of public-private partnerships that support it. Big Tech industry collaboration with intelligence operatives is part of that functioning; almost like an NGO. However, the process is much more important than most think. In this problematic perspective of a corrupt system of government, the process is the flaw – not the outcome.
There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives.
None of the people operating deep inside the Intelligence Branch were elected, and our elected representative House members genuinely do not know how the system works. I assert this position affirmatively because I have talked to House and Senate staffers, including the chiefs of staff for multiple House & Senate committee seats. They are not malicious people; however, they are genuinely clueless of things that happen outside their silo. That is part of the purpose of me explaining it, with examples, in full detail with sunlight.
We begin….
In April of 2016, the FBI launched a counterintelligence operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The questioning about that operation is what New York Representative Elise Stefanik cites in March of 2017, approximately 11 months later (First Two Minutes).
Things to note:
♦ Notice how FBI Director James Comey just matter-of-factly explains no one outside the DOJ was informed about the FBI operation. Why? Because that’s just the way things are done. His justification for unilateral operations was “because of the sensitivity of the matter“, totally ignoring any constitutional or regulatory framework for oversight; because, well, quite simply, there isn’t any. The intelligence apparatus inside the DOJ/FBI can, and does, operate based on their own independent determinations of authority.
♦ Notice also how FBI Director Comey shares his perspective that informing the National Security Council (NSC) is the equivalent of notifying the White House. The FBI leadership expressly believe they bear no responsibility to brief the Chief Executive. As long as they tell some unknown, unelected, bureaucratic entity inside the NSC, their unwritten responsibility to inform the top of their institutional silo is complete. If the IC wants to carve out the Oval Office, they simply plant information inside the NSC and, from their perspective, their civic responsibility to follow checks-and-balances is complete. This is an intentional construct.
♦ Notice how Comey obfuscates notification to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), by avoiding the fact James Clapper was the DNI from outset of the counterintelligence operation throughout the remainder of Obama’s term. When I get deeper into the process, we will understand how the Intelligence Branch has intentionally used the creation of the DNI position (established post 9/11/01) as a method to avoid oversight, not enhance it. Keeping an oblivious doofus like James Clapper in position held strategic value [Doofus Reminder HERE].
That video of James Comey being questioned by Elise Stefanik was the first example given to me by someone who knew the background of everything that was taking place preceding that March 20, 2017, hearing. That FBI reference point is a key to understand how the Intelligence Branch operates with unilateral authority above Congress (legislative branch), above the White House (executive branch), and even above the court system (judicial branch).
Also, watch this short video of James Clapper because it is likely many readers have forgotten, and likely even more readers have never seen it. Watch closely how then White House national security adviser John Brennan is responding in that video. This is before Brennan became CIA Director, this is when Brennan was helping Barack Obama put the pillars into place. WATCH:
[Sidebar: Every time I post this video it gets scrubbed from YouTube (example), so save it if you ever want to see it again.]
The video of James Clapper highlights how the ODNI position (created with good national security intention) ended up becoming the fulcrum for modern weaponization, and is now an office manipulated by agencies with a vested interest in retaining power. The Intelligence Branch holds power over the ODNI through their influence and partnership with the body that authorizes the power within it, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).
Factually, the modern intelligence apparatus uses checks and balances in their favor. The checks create silos of proprietary information, classified information, vaults of information that work around oversight issues. The silos are part of the problem.
Ironically, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created in the aftermath of 9/11/01 expressly to eliminate the silos of information which they felt led to a domestic terrorist attack that could have been prevented. The ODNI was created specifically upon the recommendation of the 9/11 commission.
The intent was to create a central hub of intelligence information, inside the Executive Branch, where the CIA, NSA, DoD, DoS, and DIA could deposit their unique intelligence products and a repository would be created so that domestic intelligence operations, like the DOJ and FBI could access them when needed to analyze threats to the U.S. This, they hoped, would ensure the obvious flags missed in the 9/11 attacks would not be missed again.
The DNI office created a problem for those who operate in the shadows of proprietary information. You’ll see how it was critical to install a person uniquely skilled in being an idiot, James Clapper, into that willfully blind role while intelligence operatives worked around the office to assemble the Intelligence Branch of Government.
• The last federal budget that flowed through the traditional budgetary process was signed into law in September of 2007 for fiscal year 2008 by George W. Bush. Every budget since then has been a fragmented process of continuing resolutions and individual spending bills.
Why does this matter? Because many people think defunding the Intelligence Community is a solution; it is not…. at least, not yet. Worse yet, the corrupt divisions deep inside the U.S. intelligence system can now fund themselves from multinational private sector partnerships (banks, corporations and foreign entities).
• When Democrats took over the House of Representatives in January 2007, they took office with a plan. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, and Democrats controlled the Senate where Harry Reid was Majority Leader. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois.
Pelosi and Reid intentionally did not advance a budget in 2008 (for fiscal year 2009) because their plan included installing Barack Obama (and all that came with him) with an open checkbook made even more lucrative by a worsening financial crisis and a process called baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting means the prior fiscal year budget is accepted as the starting point for the next year budget. All previous expenditures are baked into the cake within baseline budgeting.
Massive bailouts preceded Obama’s installation due to U.S. economic collapse, and massive bailouts continued after his installation. This is the ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ aspect. TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program), auto bailouts (GM), and the massive stimulus spending bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, ie. those shovel ready jobs) were all part of the non budget spending. The federal reserve assisted with Quantitative Easing (QE1 and QE2) as congress passed various Porkulous spending bills further spending and replacing the formal budget process.
Note: There has never been a budget passed in the normal/traditional process since September of 2007.
• While Obama’s radical ‘transformation‘ was triggered across a broad range of government institutions, simultaneously spending on the U.S. military was cut, but spending on the intelligence apparatus expanded. We were all distracted by Obamacare, and the Republican party wanted to keep us that way. However, in the background there was a process of transformation taking place that included very specific action by Eric Holder and targeted effort toward the newest executive agency the ODNI.
The people behind Obama, those same people now behind Joe Biden, knew from years of strategic planning that ‘radical transformation’ would require control over specific elements inside the U.S. government. Eric Holder played a key role in his position as U.S. Attorney General in the DOJ.
AG Holder recruited ideologically aligned political operatives who were aware of the larger institutional objectives. One of those objectives was weaponizing the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) a division inside the DOJ that had no inspector general oversight. For most people the DOJ-NSD weaponization surfaced with a hindsight awakening of the DOJ-NSD targeting candidate Donald Trump many years later. However, by then the Holder crew had executed almost eight full years of background work.
• The second larger Obama/Holder objective was control over the FBI. Why was that important? Because the FBI does the domestic investigative work on anyone who needs or holds a security clearance. The removal of security clearances could be used as a filter to further build the internal ideological army they were assembling. Additionally, with new power in the ODNI created as a downstream consequence of the Patriot Act, new protocols for U.S. security clearances were easy to justify.
Carefully selecting fellow ideological travelers was facilitated by this filtration within the security clearance process. How does that issue later manifest? Just look around at how politicized every intelligence agency has become, specifically including the FBI.
• At the exact same time this new background security clearance process was ongoing, again everyone distracted by the fight over Obamacare, inside the Department of State (Secretary Hillary Clinton) a political alignment making room for the next phase was being assembled. Names like Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were familiar on television while Lisa Monaco worked as a legal liaison between the Obama White House and Clinton State Department.
Through the Dept of State (DoS) the intelligence apparatus began working on their first steps to align Big Tech with a larger domestic institutional objective. Those of you who remember the “Arab Spring”, some say “Islamist Spring”, will remember it was triggered by Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo – his first foreign trip. The State Department worked with grassroots organizers (mostly Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar and Libya. Obama leaned heavily on the organizational network of Turkish President Recep Erdogan for contacts and support.
Why does this aspect matter to us? Well, you might remember how much effort the Obama administration put into recruiting Facebook and Twitter as resources for the various mideast rebellions the White House and DoS supported. This was the point of modern merge between the U.S. intelligence community and Big Tech social media.
In many ways, the coordinated political outcomes in Libya and Egypt were the beta test for the coordinated domestic political outcomes we saw in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The U.S. intelligence community working with social media platforms and political operatives.
Overlaying all of that background activity was also a new alignment of the Obama-era intelligence apparatus with ideological federal “contractors“. Where does this contractor activity manifest? In the FISA Court opinion of Rosemary Collyer who cited the “interagency memorandum of understanding”, or MOU.
Hopefully, you can see a small part of how tentacled the system to organize/weaponize the intelligence apparatus was. None of this was accidental, all of this was by design, and the United States Senate was responsible for intentionally allowing most of this to take place.
That’s the 30,000/ft level backdrop history of what was happening as the modern IC was created. Next we will go into how all these various intelligence networks began working in unison and how they currently control all of the other DC institutions under them; including how they can carve out the President from knowing their activity.
♦ When Barack Obama was installed in January 2009, the Democrats held a 60 seat majority in the U.S. Senate. As the people behind the Obama installation began executing their longer-term plan, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was a tool to create the Intelligence Branch; it was not an unintentional series of events.
When Obama was installed, Dianne Feinstein was the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), and Democrat operative Dan Jones was her lead staffer. Feinstein was completely controlled by those around her including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The CIA was in the process of turning over personnel following the Bush era, and as a result of a massive multi-year narrative of diminished credibility (Iraq WMD), a deep purge was underway. Obama/Holder were in the process of shifting intelligence alignment and the intensely political Democrat Leader Harry Reid was a key participant.
THE TRAP – Many people say that Congress is the solution to eliminating the Fourth and superseding Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. This is an exercise in futility because the Legislative Branch, specifically the SSCI, facilitated the creation of the Intelligence Branch. The SSCI cannot put the genie they created back in the bottle without admitting they too are corrupt; and the background story of their corruption is way too intense to be exposed now.
Every member of the SSCI is compromised in some controlling manner. Those Senators who disliked the control over them; specifically disliked because the risk of sunlight was tenuous and, well, possible; have either left completely or stepped down from the committee. None of the SSCI members past or present would ever contemplate saying openly what their tenure involved.
[Note: You might remember when Vice Chairman Mark Warner’s text messages surfaced, there was a controlled Republican SSCI member who came to his defense in February of 2018. It was not accidental that exact Senator later became the chair of the SSCI himself. That Republican Senator is Marco Rubio, now vice-chair since the Senate re-flipped back to the optics of Democrat control in 2021.]
All of President Obama’s 2009 intelligence appointments required confirmation from the Senate. The nominees had to first pass through the Democrat controlled SSCI, and then to a full Senate vote where Democrats held a 60 vote majority. Essentially, Obama got everyone he wanted in place easily. Rahm Emmanuel was Obama’s Chief of Staff, and Valerie Jarrett was Senior Advisor.
Tim Geithner was Treasury Secretary in 2010 when the joint DOJ/FBI and IRS operation to target the Tea Party took place after the midterm “shellacking” caused by the Obamacare backlash. Mitch McConnell was Minority Leader in the Senate but supported the targeting of the Tea Party as his Senate colleagues were getting primaried by an angry and effective grassroots campaign. McConnell’s friend, Senator Bob Bennett, getting beaten in Utah was the final straw.
Dirty Harry and Mitch McConnell saw the TEA Party through the same prism. The TEA Party took Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts (Scott Brown); Sharon Angle was about to take out Harry Reid in Nevada; Arlen Spector was taken down in Pennsylvania; Senator Robert Byrd died; Senator Lisa Murkowski lost her primary to Joe Miller in Alaska; McConnell’s nominee Mike Castle lost to Christine O’Donnell in Delaware; Rand Paul won in Kentucky. This is the background. The peasants were revolting…. and visibly angry Mitch McConnell desperately made a deal with the devil to protect himself.
In many ways, the TEA Party movement was/is very similar to the MAGA movement. The difference in 2010 was the absence of a head of the movement, in 2015 Donald Trump became that head figure who benefited from the TEA Party energy. Trump came into office in 2017 with the same congressional opposition as the successful TEA Party candidates in 2011.
Republicans took control of the Senate following the 2014 mid-terms. Republicans took control of the SSCI in January 2015. Senator Richard Burr became chairman of the SSCI, and Dianne Feinstein shifted to Vice-Chair. Dirty Harry Reid left the Senate, and Mitch McConnell took power again.
Republicans were in control of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2015 when the Intelligence Branch operation against candidate Donald Trump was underway. [Feinstein’s staffer, Dan Jones, left the SSCI so he could act as a liaison and political operative between private-sector efforts (Fusion GPS, Chris Steele) and the SSCI.] The SSCI was a participant in that Fusion-GPS/Chris Steele operation, and as a direct consequence Republicans were inherently tied to the problem with President Trump taking office in January of 2017. Indiana Republican Senator Dan Coats was a member of the SSCI.
Bottom line…. When it came to the intelligence system targeting Donald Trump during the 2015/2016 primary, the GOP was just as much at risk as their Democrat counterparts.
When Trump unexpectedly won the 2016 election, the SSCI was shocked more than most. They knew countermeasures would need to be deployed to protect themselves from any exposure of their intelligence conduct. Dianne Feinstein stepped down, and Senator Mark Warner was elevated to Vice Chairman.
Indiana’s own Mike Pence, now Vice President, recommended fellow Hoosier, SSCI Senator Dan Coats, to become President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). [Apply hindsight here]
• To give an idea of the Intelligence Branch power dynamic, remind yourself how House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Chairman Devin Nunes, tried to get access to the DOJ/FBI records of the FISA application used against the Trump campaign via Carter Page.
Remember, Devin Nunes only saw a portion of the FISA trail from his review of a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) previously given to President Obama. Chairman Nunes had to review the PDB at the White House SCIF due to compartmented intelligence, another example of the silo benefit.
Remember the massive stonewalling and blocking of the DOJ/FBI toward Nunes? Remember the back and forth battle over declassification surrounding the Nunes memo?
Remember, after Nunes went directly to House Speaker Paul Ryan for help (didn’t get any), the DOJ only permitted two members from each party within the HPSCI to review the documents, and only at the DOJ offices of main justice?
Contrast that amount of House Intel Committee railroading and blocking by intelligence operatives in the DOJ, DOJ-NSD and FBI, with the simple request by Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner asking to see the Carter Page FISA application and immediately a copy being delivered to him on March 17th 2017.
Can you see which intelligence committee is aligned with the deepest part of the deep state?
The contrast of ideological alignment between the House, Senate and Intelligence Branch is crystal clear when viewed through the prism of cooperation. You can see which legislative committee holds the power and support of the Intelligence Branch. The Senate Intel Committee facilitates the corrupt existence of the IC Branch, so the IC Branch only cooperates with the Senate Intel Committee. It really is that simple.
• The Intelligence Branch carefully selects its own members by controlling how security clearances are investigated and allowed (FBI). The Intelligence Branch also uses compartmentalization of intelligence as a way to keep each agency, and each downstream branch of government (executive, legislative and judicial), at arms length as a method to stop anyone from seeing the larger picture of their activity. I call this the “silo effect“, and it is done by design.
I have looked at stunned faces when I presented declassified silo product from one agency to the silo customers of another. You would be astonished at what they don’t know because it is not in their ‘silo’.
Through the advise and consent rules, the Intelligence Branch uses the SSCI to keep out people they consider dangerous to their ongoing operations. Any appointee to the intelligence community must first pass through the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, before they get a full Senate vote. If the SSCI rejects the candidate, they simply refuse to take up the nomination. The president is then blocked from that appointment. This is what happened with President Trump over-and-over again.
• Additionally, the Intelligence Branch protects itself, and its facilitating allies through the formal classification process. The Intelligence Branch gets to decide unilaterally what information will be released and what information will be kept secret. There is no entity outside the Intelligence Branch, and yes that includes the President of the United States, who can supersede the classification authority of the Intelligence Branch. {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} This is something 99.9% of the people on our side get totally and frustratingly wrong.
No one can declassify, or make public, anything the Intelligence Branch will not agree to. Doubt this? Ask Ric Grenell, John Ratcliffe, or even President Trump himself.
• The classification process is determined inside the Intelligence Branch, all by themselves. They get to choose what rank of classification exists on any work-product they create; and they get to decide what the classification status is of any work product that is created by anyone else. The Intelligence Branch has full control over what is considered classified information and what is not. The Intelligence Branch defines what is a “national security interest” and what is not. A great technique for hiding fingerprints of corrupt and illegal activity.
[For familiar reference see the redactions to Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The Intelligence Branch does all redactions.]
• Similarly, the declassification process is a request by an agency, even a traditionally superior agency like the President of the United States, to the Intelligence Branch asking for them to release the information. The Intelligence Branch again holds full unilateral control. If the head of the CIA refuses to comply with the declassification instruction of the President, what can the president do except fire him/her? {Again, GO DEEP} How does the President replace the non-compliant cabinet member? They have to go through the SSCI confirmation. See the problem?
Yes, there are ways to break up the Intelligence Branch, but they do not start with any congressional effort. As you can see above, the process is the flaw – not the solution. Most conservative pundits have their emphasis on the wrong syllable. Their cornerstone is false.
For their own self-preservation, the Intelligence Branch has been interfering in our elections for years. The way to tear this apart begins with STATE LEVEL election reform that blocks the Legislative Branch from coordinating with the Intelligence Branch.
The extreme federalism approach is critical and also explains why Joe Biden has instructed Attorney General Merrick Garland to use the full power of the DOJ to stop state level election reform efforts. The worry of successful state level election control is also why the Intelligence Branch now needs to support the federal takeover of elections.
Our elections have been usurped by the Intelligence Branch. Start with honest elections and we will see just how much Democrat AND Republican corruption is dependent on manipulated election results. Start at the state level. Start there…. everything else is downstream.
♦ People want examples, reference points for work the Intelligence Branch conducts, specifically how it protects itself.
Here is an example: Julian Assange.
Yes, the history of the U.S. national security apparatus goes back decades; however, the weaponization of that apparatus, the creation of an apex branch of government, the Intelligence Branch, originated –as we currently feel it– under President Barack Obama.
Obama took the foundational tools created by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and used the intelligence system architecture to create a weapon for use in his fundamental transformation. An alliance of ideologues within government (intel community) and the private sector (big tech and finance) was assembled, and the largest government weapon was created. Think about this every time you take your shoes off at an airport.
After the weapon was assembled and tested (Arab Spring), the Legislative Branch was enjoined under the auspices of a common enemy, Donald J. Trump, an outsider who was a risk to every entity in the institutional construct of Washington DC. Trillions were at stake, and years of affluence and influence were at risk as the unholy alliance was put together.
To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to U.S. Intelligence Branch interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the FBI/CIA were in 2016.
It is within the network of foreign and domestic intel operations where Intelligence Branch political tool, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, was working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI counterintelligence operations.
By now, people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor generally identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the FBI/CIA to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}
In a similar fashion, the FBI tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor, Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.
The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.
HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes outlined how very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. The FBI also fabricated information in the FISA.
However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the international intelligence apparatus; only this time, due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S., the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies was important.
Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok had a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and Peter Strzok wrote the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane.” Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief allied intelligence officials connected to the Australian Ambassador to the U.K, Alexander Downer.
In short, Peter Strzok acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for the Intelligence Branch and CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.
Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons, the 2015 GOP candidates for President.
It was also Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskaya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.
Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan died in a helicopter crash.
Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s private sector handler [NOTE: remember, the public-private sector partnership], it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Patrick Byrne the instructions on where to send Butina. {Go Deep}
All of this context outlines the extent to which the FBI/CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that eventually settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit. The international operations of the Intelligence Branch were directed by the FBI/CIA; and the domestic operations were coordinated by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]
Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be a Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Donald Trump Jr (FBI). All of these activities were coordinated.
Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. However, Deripaska refused to participate.
All of this foreign and domestic engagement was directly controlled by collaborating U.S. intelligence agencies from inside the Intelligence Branch. And all of this coordinated activity was intended to give a specific Russia influence/interference impression.
♦ The key point of all that background context is to see how committed the Intelligence Branch was to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ and DOJ-NSD, put a hell of a lot of work into it.
We also know that John Durham looked at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talked to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:
The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, and it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.
Why the delay?
What was the DOJ waiting for?
Here’s where it gets interesting….
The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after Congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”
(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.
Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.
“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)
Knowing how much effort the Intelligence Branch put into the false Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange, monitor all activity, and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.
Within three months of the EDVA grand jury, the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018.
The DOJ sat on the indictment while the Mueller/Weissmann probe was ongoing.
As soon as the Mueller/Weissmann probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).
As a person who has researched this fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.
It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange. The Weissmann/Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes for justification, and that narrative was contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.
♦ This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.
The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC and FBI contractor.
The CIA holds a self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim; the FBI holds an interest in maintaining that claim; the U.S. media hold an interest in maintaining that claim. All of the foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.
Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.
This “Russian hacking” claim was ultimately important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus, it forms the corner of their justification. With that level of importance, well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Julian Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Weissmann/Mueller report was going to be public.
…. and that’s exactly what they did. They threw a bag over Assange.
♦ COLLAPSED OVERSIGHT – The modern system to ‘check’ the Executive Branch was the creation of the legislative “Gang of Eight,” a legislative oversight mechanism intended to provide a bridge of oversight between the authority of the intelligence community within the Executive Branch.
The Go8 construct was designed to allow the President authority to carry out intelligence operations and provide the most sensitive notifications to a select group within Congress.
The Go8 oversight is directed to the position, not the person, and consists of: (1) The Speaker of the House; (2) The Minority Leader of the House; (3) The Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI; (4) The Ranking Member (minority) of the HPSCI; (5) The Leader of the Senate; (6) The Minority Leader of the Senate; (7) The Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI; and finally (8) the Vice-Chair of the SSCI.
Example: When the Chief Executive (the President) initiates an intelligence operation on behalf of the United States, the President triggers a “finding memo.” In essence, the instruction to the intel agency or agencies to authorize a covert operation. When that process takes place, the Go8 are the first people notified. Depending on the sensitivity of the operation, sometimes the G08 are notified immediately after the operation is conducted. The notification can be a phone call or an in-person briefing.
Because of the sensitivity of their intelligence information, the Gang of Eight hold security clearances that permit them to receive and review all intelligence operations. The intelligence community are also responsible for briefing the Go8 with the same information they use to brief the President.
~ 2021 Gang of Eight ~
The Go8 design is intended to put intelligence oversight upon both political parties in Congress; it is designed that way by informing the minority leaders of both the House and Senate as well as the ranking minority members of the SSCI and HPSCI. Under the concept, the President cannot conduct an intelligence operation; and the intelligence community cannot carry out intelligence gathering operations without the majority and minority parties knowing about it.
The modern design of this oversight system was done to keep rogue and/or corrupt intelligence operations from happening. However, as we shared in the preview to this entire discussion, the process was usurped during the Obama era. {GO DEEP}
Former FBI Director James Comey openly admitted to Congress on March 20, 2017, that the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing the Go8. Comey justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying, “because of the sensitivity of the matter.”
Stupidly, Congress never pressed James Comey on that issue. The arrogance was astounding, and the acceptance by Congress was infuriating. However, that specific example highlighted just how politically corrupt the system had become. In essence, Team Obama usurped the entire design of congressional oversight…. and Congress just brushed it off.
Keep in mind, Comey did not say the White House was unaware; in fact he said exactly the opposite, he said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC). The implication, the very direct and specific implication; the unavoidable implication and James Comey admission that everyone just brushed aside, was that President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was totally informed of the intelligence operation(s) against Donald Trump. After all, the NSC reports to the National Security Advisor.
Does the January 20, 2017, Susan Rice memo look different now?
Again, no one saw the immediate issue. What Comey just described on that March day in 2017 was the total usurpation of the entire reason the Gang of Eight exists; to eliminate the potential for political weaponization of the Intelligence Community by the executive branch. The G08 notifications to the majority and minority are specifically designed to make sure what James Comey admitted to doing was never supposed to happen.
Team Obama carried out a political operation using the intelligence community and the checks-and-balances in the system were intentionally usurped. This is an indisputable fact.
Worse still, the entire legislative branch of Congress, which specifically includes the Republicans that now controlled the House and Senate, did nothing. They just ignored what was admitted. The usurpation was willfully ignored. The mechanism of the G08 was bypassed without a twitch of condemnation or investigation…. because the common enemy was Donald Trump.
This example highlights the collapse of the system. Obama, the executive branch, collapsed the system by usurping the process; in essence the process became the bigger issue and the lack of immediate legislative branch reaction became evidence of open acceptance. The outcomes of the usurpation played out over the next four years, Donald J. Trump was kneecapped and lost his presidency because of it. However, the bigger issue of the collapse still exists.
The downstream consequence of the Legislative Branch accepting the Executive Branch usurpation meant both intelligence committees were compromised. Additionally, the leadership of both the House and Senate were complicit. Think about this carefully. The Legislative Branch allowance of the intelligence usurpation meant the Legislative Branch was now subservient to the Intelligence Branch.
That’s where we are.
Right now.
That’s where we are.
Term-3 Obama is now back in the White House with Joe Biden.
Term-1 and Term-2 Obama usurped the ‘check and balance‘ within the system and weaponized the intelligence apparatus. During Trump’s term that weaponization was covered up by a compliant congress, and not a single member of the oversight called it out. Now, Term-3 Obama steps back in to continue the cover up and continue the weaponization.
Hopefully, you can now see the scale of the problem that surrounds us with specific citation for what has taken place. What I just explained to you above is not conspiracy theory, it is admitted fact that anyone can look upon. Yet….
Have you seen this mentioned anywhere? Have you seen this called out by anyone in Congress? Have you seen anyone in media (ally or adversary) call this out? Have you seen any member of the Judicial Branch stand up and say wait, what is taking place is not okay? Have you seen a single candidate for elected office point this out? Have you seen anyone advising a candidate point this out?
This is our current status. It is not deniable. The truth exists regardless of our comfort.
Not a single person in power will say openly what has taken place. They are scared of the Fourth Branch. The evidence of what has taken place is right there in front of our face. The words, actions and activities of those who participated in this process are not deniable.
There are only two members of the Gang of Eight who have existed in place from January 2007 (the real beginning of Obama’s term, two years before he took office when the Congress flipped). Only two members of the G08 have been consistently in place from January of 2007 to right now, today. All the others came and went, but two members of the Gang of Eight have been part of that failed and collapsed oversight throughout the past 15 years, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.
♦ TECHNOLOGY – On a global scale – the modern intelligence gathering networks are now dependent on data collection to execute their intelligence missions. In the digital age nations have been executing various methods to gather that data. Digital surveillance has replaced other methods of interception. Those surveillance efforts have resulted in a coalescing of regional data networks based on historic multi-national relationships.
We have a recent frame of reference for the “U.S. data collection network” within the NSA. Through the allied process the Five Eyes nations all rely on the NSA surveillance database (U.K, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and U.S.) The NSA database provides the digital baseline for intelligence operations in defense of our allies. The portals into the NSA database are essentially an assembly of allies in like-minded ideological connection to the United States.
Unfortunately, there have been some revelations about the NSA database being used to monitor our allies, like in the example of Germany and surveillance on Angela Merkel’s phone. As long as “the good guys” are operating honorably, allies of the United States can feel confident about having protection from the NSA surveillance of global digital data. We warn our friends if we detect something dangerous etc.
The U.S. has nodes on communication pipelines to intercept and extract data. We have also launched hundreds, perhaps thousands, of satellites to conduct surveillance and gather up data. All of this data is fed into the NSA database where it is monitored (presumably) as a national security mechanism, and in defense of our allies.
However, what about data collection or data networks that are outside the NSA database? What do our enemies do? The NSA database is just one intelligence operation of digital surveillance amid the entire world, and we do not allow access by adversaries we are monitoring. So what do they do? What do our allies do who might not trust the United States due to past inconsistencies, ie. the Middle East?
The answers to those questions highlight other data collection networks. So a brief review of the major players is needed.
♦ CHINA – China operates their own database. They, like the NSA, scoop up data for their system. Like us, China launches satellites and deploys other electronic data collection methods to download into their database. This is why the issues of electronic devices manufactured in China becomes problematic. Part of the Chinese data collection system involves the use of spyware, hacking and extraction.
Issues with Chinese communication company Huawei take on an added dimension when you consider the goal of the Chinese government to conduct surveillance and assemble a network of data to compete with the United States via the NSA. Other Chinese methods of surveillance and data-collection are less subversive, as in the examples of TicTok and WeChat. These are Chinese social media companies that are scraping data just like the NSA scrapes data from Facebook, Twitter and other Silicon Valley tech companies. [ Remember, the Intelligence Branch is a public-private partnership. ]
♦ RUSSIA – It is very likely that Russia operates their own database. We know Russia launches satellites, just like China and the USA, for the same purposes. Russia is also very proficient at hacking into other databases and extracting information to store and utilize in their own network. The difference between the U.S., China and Russia is likely that Russia spends more time on the hacking aspect because they do not generate actual technology systems as rapidly as the U.S. and China.
The most recent database creation is an outcome of an ally having to take action because they cannot rely on the ideology of the United States remaining consistent, as the administrations ping-pong based on ideology.
♦ SAUDI ARABIA – Yes, in 2016 we discovered that Saudi Arabia was now operating their own intelligence data-gathering operation. It would make sense, given the nature of the Middle East and the constant fluctuations in political support from the United States. It is a lesson the allied Arab community and Gulf Cooperation Council learned quickly when President Obama went to Cairo in 2009 and launched the Islamist Spring (Arab Spring) upon them.
I have no doubt the creation of the Saudi intelligence network was specifically because the Obama administration started supporting radical Islamists within the Muslim Brotherhood, and threw fuel on the fires of extremism all over the Arab world.
Think about it., What would you do if you were Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, Oman or Yemen and you knew the United States could just trigger an internal uprising of al-Qaeda, ISIS and the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood to seek your destruction?
Without a doubt, those urgent lessons from 2009, 2010, 2011 triggered the formation of the Arab Intelligence Network as a network to defend itself with consistency. They assembled the network and activated it in 2017 as pictured above.
♦ Israel – Along a similar outlook to the Arab network, no doubt Israel operates an independent data collection system as a method of protecting itself from ever-changing U.S. politics amid a region that is extremely hostile to its very existence. Like the others, Israel launches proprietary satellites, and we can be sure they use covert methods to gather electronic data just like the U.S. and China.
As we have recently seen in the Pegasus story, Israel creates spyware programs that are able to track and monitor cell phone communications of targets. The spyware would not work unless Israel had access to some network where the phone meta-data was actually stored. So yeah, it makes sense for Israel to operate an independent intelligence database.
♦ Summary: As we understand the United States Intelligence Branch of government as the superseding entity that controls the internal politics of our nation, we also must consider that multiple nations have the same issue. There are major intelligence networks around the world beside the NSA “Five-Eyes” database. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel all operate proprietary databases deploying the same tools and techniques for assembly.
The geopolitical conflict that has always existed has now shifted into a digital battle-space. The Intelligence Agencies from these regions are now operating as the backbone of the government that uses them, and has become dependent on them. [<- Reread that].
Once you accept the digital-era intelligence apparatus of China, Russia, Saudi-Arabia, The United States and Israel, are now the primary national security mechanisms for stabilization of government; then you accept the importance of those intelligence operations.
Once you understand how foundational those modern intelligence operations have become for the stability and continuity of those governments…… then you begin to understand just how the United States intelligence community became more important than the government that created it.
♦ Public Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazen they have made public admissions.
The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.
Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):
[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”
Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.
Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.
When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data-mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.
The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.
The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.
Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.
What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.
July 26 (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.
Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.
The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)
The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives. In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.
After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.
The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created, and turned those weapons into tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.
♦ WHAT NOW? There is a way to stop and deconstruct the Intelligence Branch, but it requires some outside-the-box thinking and reliance on the Constitution as a tool to radically change one element within government. In the interim, we must remain focused on the three tiers that we need for success.
• Tier One is “tactical civics” at a local level. Engaged and active citizen participation at the community, city, town and hamlet level of society. This is what might be described as grassroots level, school board level; city council level; county commissioner level.
• Tier Two is “extreme federalism” at a state level. Engaged and active citizen participation through your State House and State Senate representative. This is state level assembly and action demands upon the State House, State Senate and State Governor.
• Tier Three the challenge of “federal offices” on a national level {Go Deep}. This is the part where we need President Donald Trump, and his power to confront the issues comes directly from us.
I am confident that ultimately “We The People” will win. How we can execute the solution is more challenging; in the interim, tactical civics and extreme federalism are doable right now, in this next 2024 election cycle.
It sucks that a UniParty congress extended FISA-702. However, even if the hail-Mary pass on Monday fails, FISA was still extended for only two-years.
I swear by all that I know to be righteous and accurate, the combined willpower of the UniParty in Washington DC is not targeting TikTok from the perspective of concern over data collection. Instead, the DC system -which is to say the USIC- is using the auspices of TikTok to expand the reach of government censorship and control information.
This is a domestic information space battle, using the guise of TikTok as a baseline for justification. How do we know? You only need to look at the mechanism of the law as it is written, the compliance section, and the definitions they are using to see they are not targeting data collection. [pdf of HR7521 HERE]
If TikTok data collection was the issue, the law would be structured to ban foreign data collection. That’s not what this is. This is a law written to give the Executive Branch the power to define any platform as “foreign owned” by the service provider (even if domestic) and the substance of the content contained and/or distributed. This has to be stopped.
Read the law as written through the prism of “Information Control,” not the prism of data collection. The law is designed to control information, not data collection.
As readers are well aware, the USIC is in alignment (I would say control) with almost all U.S-based social media platforms. This is why/how DHS is operating in synergy with those same systems. This is also the motive behind the mis-dis-mal-information definitions. Ultimately, if you stand back and look at what is being done, you see the concern of the U.S. government is not data collection, its information control.
The TikTok ban, authorized by a duplicious Legislative branch, is expanding the ability of the Executive branch to control information. Just as The Patriot Act was not about targeting terrorism, but really about domestic surveillance; so too is the TikTok ban not about foreign data collection, it’s about information control.
Again, read the law as written and you can clearly see this is a law created to authorize the agencies of the government to control information. Silence is the same as consent in the face of oppression. Do not be silent.
The outrage over China’s covert police stations inside of America was quick and decisive. In October 2020, eight were indicted, five in the United States, three in China.
Indicting someone in China may seem pointless, but it has worked in the past where China may have dealt with those named publicly by the U.S. The Chinese police stations were part of “Fox Hunt”.
Operation Fox Hunt is the ongoing worldwide operation by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of China to hunt down dissidents and forcibly return them home for interrogation, imprisonment, and likely execution.
The pursuit phase of Fox Hunt reminded me of the early work in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) where we pursued Al-Qaeda operatives around the world and conducted rendition operations to black sites.
It starts out with a righteous anger but can soon spin out of control. We’re a nation of laws and constitutional framework with key tenets that can help get things right when they spin out of control (until recently).
The Chinese clone of GWOT has no boundaries. It appears our Department of Justice is working to shut down the CCP Fox Hunt Operation, but are they? Secretary of State Blinken just hosted the Chinese Director of Fox Hunt for a formal Dinner.
Why would he do that? Is Blinken trying to curry favor for a position after regime change? A disturbing assertion was brought to my attention.
Instead of us finding Chinese covert Fox Hunt Police Stations, is China now in the business of building our sensitive U.S. government facilities inside of America? This is like the inverse of us rooting out their police stations.
Why bother establishing a police station when you can just build the sensitive facilities for the American Government and fill them with all kinds of bugs, taps, and monitoring devices.
A Construction Company that seeks Chinese Investors builds FBI Field Offices
ADVERTISEMENT
Molasky Construction of Las Vegas, Nevada cites its success in building U.S. Government Facilities, including several FBI field offices.
For our special and secure U.S. Government Facilities we need trustworthy companies that can deliver the best construction and renovation to make sure no foreign threat fills that building and network connectivity with different tricks of the trade to see, hear, and read everything going on in that facility.
It’s important that everyone, especially the key personnel in a construction company working sensitive programs are trustworthy themselves. From experience, getting an insider is the most effective way of break into an organization.
Why try a Mission Impossible break and enter when you can have someone on the inside do the work for you? Now why would one of the individuals of this company performing sensitive construction also be a big advocate for the EB-5 Immigration Program?
Nothing necessarily wrong with being an advocate of EB-5. But EB-5 advocacy and building of sensitive Government facilities should be an immediate screaming alarm of incompatible activities. The EB-5 program has been fraught with fraud and abuse. The EB-5 advocate in Molasky seems to have a strong intersection with EB-5 applicants from China.
The EB-5 visa provides a method of obtaining a green card for foreign nationals who invest in a “new commercial enterprise”. The EB-5 program came from Immigration Reform in 1990.
It may be established law, but the program on its surface reeks of malign individuals or countries using this to invest in American real estate and the gold mine of triple prizes is Green Card status and involvement in construction of sensitive U.S. Government facilities.
There is no Federal Program to oversee foreign activities in American real estate investments. The Chinese know this loophole and that’s how they can buy up farmland next to sensitive U.S. facilities.
Starting in 1969, a new U.S. Embassy in Moscow was started after extensive reciprocal negotiations with the Soviets. The Soviets also wanted a new embassy building in Washington D.C.
The Soviets made it a priority to penetrate the construction effort and for some reason, securing the facility was not that important compared to the Soviet frenzy. It can be argued that so what, we won the Cold War and the Soviets collapsed. Well, the Soviets are back with a new name and security of a construction site must be taken seriously.
The Chinese approach things in a more sophisticated and less brutish manner than the KGB blatant frontal assault. The CCP efforts seek to capture senior leaders of the other team through various influence operations.
This gets the CCP the prized insider that makes everything easier. The CCP apparently has the White House and State Department, but this unbelievable intersection of building sensitive facilities for the FBI makes one wonder about the FBI itself.
Bulldoze the facility, start over, and end the EB-5 Visa Program insanity
A construction group appears to be simultaneously building sensitive Government Facilities while lobbying for EB-5 investors from China.
If someone doesn’t see the Counterintelligence ramifications, I frankly don’t know what to say. It is a best practice (and likely a contract requirement) to keep foreign nationals away from, or at least properly report their involvement to the Federal program management office.
In the old days, we would bulldoze the building as untrusted and start over. It is outrageous that this is happening inside the United States, but then it appears the cancer of Woke-ism and Communism is rotting the minds of those in power.
In November we start the process to bulldoze, start over, end the EB-5 program, and arrest those responsible.
According to leaked memos, any FDNY firefighter who booed Letitia James will be punished and face reeducation. The firefighters were asked to turn themselves in or risk being hunted down.
The FDNY firefighters who booed NY AG Letitia James will be punished and face reeducation.
FDNY firefighters are now being asked to turn themselves in or risk being hunted down.
Memos and emails from the Uniformed Fire Officers Association (UFOA) & Uniformed Firefighters… pic.twitter.com/pBq8DccGf8
A pair of Staten Island lawyers offered Tuesday to represent any Big Apple firefighter for free if they get jammed up for booing state Attorney General Letitia James at last week’s raucous promotion ceremony.
Lawyers Mark Fonte and Louis Gelormino said the firefighters had the right to voice their support for Donald Trump and to lambast James, who has been prosecuting him — as FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanaugh threatens to discipline the jeering Bravest.
“If you are being ‘hunted down’ by FDNY brass for exercising your freedom of speech contact our office at once,” the men’s firm, F&G Legal Group, wrote in a letter to the Fire Department’s rank-and-file.
“We always answer the call. We stand ready to assist New York’s Bravest,” the letter said.
The firm has already sued the city over its COVID mandates and the location of some migrant shelters.
This time, they are rushing to the defense of firefighters after a cluster of smoke-eaters booed and jeered James during Thursday’s ceremony at the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn.
Supreme Court Case Monday will Crush the Government’s Plans to Regulate Speech via the Tiktok Bill
03-14-24
While the TikTok Ban shot through the House, is speeding through the Senate and may well become law in the next few weeks, many are concerned that it is a Trojan Horse, not protecting us from Chinese propaganda, but instead directly empowering the President to regulate internet speech. Seehttps://conservativeofficial.com/articles/the-tiktok-bill-is-a-trojan-horse
Coincidentally, the Supreme Court is basically considering the same question on Monday. Could we be so lucky, or is this divine intervention? – our Court has been a Godsend ratcheting back this corrupt administration and incompetent Congress.
As SCOTUS looks to decide whether the government has the right to shut the mouths of ordinary citizens on the internet, we literally have a Tiktok bill looking to legitimize the government’s abuses – and SCOTUS justices see this (irrespective that it is not part of the record). As our government is out of its head, SCOTUS will need to come in again to save our most basic right.
Only an authoritarian regime would place the right of government speech above the right of a citizen’s speech, yet here we are – Congress complicit with the President, looking to shut up the people.
The case to be heard Monday is MURTHY, SURGEON GEN. V. MISSOURI
The government respectfully suggests the following questions presented: (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
Respondents are two States and five individual users of social-media platforms who allege that the federal government transformed the private platforms’ content moderation decisions into state action and violated the First Amendment by communicating with the platforms about content moderation and responding to the platforms’ inquiries about matters of public health. The district court issued a preliminary injunction that, as modified by the court of appeals, restricts speech by thousands of federal officials and employees concerning any content posted by anyone on any social-media platform. (emphasis added).
I can’t help myself here — Boo Hoo, cry me a River – these attorneys are whining that Federal Officials’ speech was restricted, and the form of speech they complain about was literally the government’s ability to shut the mouths of ordinary citizens on the internet.These authoritarians define speech as the ability to curtail speech, and then argue the government’s right to curtail “speech” of the taxpayers and voters. This is asinine.
Having trampled the free-speech rights of “millions” of Americans, J.A.71, Defendants now complain that this Court cannot stop them because the government must be allowed to speak freely. This argument flips the First Amendment on its head. “The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment constrains governmental actors and protects private actors.” Pet.Br.22 (quoting Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1926 (2019)).
Defendants would have this Court protect the government’s campaign to constrain private actors. The government can speak freely on any topic it chooses, but it cannot pressure and coerce private companies to censor ordinary Americans. This Court recently cautioned that “the government-speech doctrine” is susceptible to dangerous misuse,” and could allow “government [to] silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints.” Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218, 235 (2017). That is what the government is doing here.
Fact stated at page 3 of the Respondents’ brief:
At 1:04 a.m. on January 23, 2021, the White House flagged an anti-vaccine tweet by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (“RFK Jr.”) and instructed Twitter to “get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP” . . . And then,” the White House added, “if we can keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same ~genre that would be great.”
This demand did not arise in a vacuum. The Administration’s “transition and campaign teams” had already been using a “Partner Support Portal” with Twitter that “prioritized” such demands “automatically.” Twitter urged the White House to use that Portal for censorship requests, because “[i]n a given day last week …, [Twitter] had more than four different people within the White House reaching out for issues.”
Thus began a campaign of “unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world” to “bend [social-media platforms] to the government’s will.”
This case should be a slam dunk – I cannot imagine this principled Court would destroy our First Amendment right so we can be confident a good hearing and decision are on the way.
President Donald Trump sat down with Newsmax host Greg Kelly for an interview that aired Wednesday night.
During the discussion Trump was asked about banning TikTok in the United States.
President Trump immediately turned his attention to Facebook, a platform that openly censures and bans conservative voices.
Greg Kelly: One more thing from today’s news, TikTok. The Republicans just voted – the Republicans and Democrats just voted to ban it. You don’t think they should ban it right now?
ADVERTISEMENT
President Trump: Well, I didn’t say anything other than you have to look at Facebook. Facebook is the enemy of the people. They did those lockboxes. They spent 500 million. You know, if you spent more than $5,600 or whatever the number is, if you spent a $100 more, they put you in prison for campaign violations. Right?
Zuckerberg or Zuckerbucks, whatever you want to call them, is spending, the number is crazy. He’s spending $500 million in the last election and nothing happens to him. And that money is being passed all over the place, especially under lockboxes or so called lockboxes because they’re not lockboxes. I call them open boxes. And I think that something has to be done with Facebook. And one thing I will say, I don’t want Facebook to get bigger because I think Facebook is an equal threat. And that includes with China. Because if China wants to know anything about what Facebook knows, they’re going to give them the information.
23 States and District of Columbia File Amicus Briefs in Favor of Joe Biden and Government Censorship and Regulation of Speech in America – via the MO v. Biden Case
Twenty-three Democrat run states and the District of Columbia, the home of our nation’s capital, filed amicus briefs in support of government censorship and banning of free speech in the United States.
These 23 states and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs in support of the Biden administration in the SCOTUS case is Murthy, et al v. Missouri, et al, 23-411 (Missouri v. Biden) case.
The states essentially argue that they have an interest in collaborating with tech companies to “encourage” the public to behave themselves and “discourage” the public from believing alleged “disinformation” or engaging in online predatory behavior. The clear message is that they believe that the government has the right to shut down and censor speech.
The list of un-American states that support government censorship include:
New York Colorado Arizona California Connecticut Vermont, Washington, Washington, D.C. Wisconsin New Jersey New Mexico, Oregon Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada
HOWEVER, a number of courageous states filed an Amicus Curiae brief in SUPPORT of Gateway Pundit and the Free Speech Respondents. These (16) heroic states include:
Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Tennessee, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Arizona Legislature
The “most important free speech case in a generation” Missouri v. Biden (Murthy v. Missouri), is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 18th.
Missouri v. Biden is the case filed by the courageous Attorneys General from Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden Administration for their violations of the First Amendment. Specifically, the case complains to the Court that the federal government violated the Constitution when it specifically directed social media companies to delete and censor comments, articles, accounts, memes and photos they disliked, and when the FBI’s corrupt agents, agents like Elvis Chan, engaged in a wholesale deplatforming of specific users, specific comments, and specific topics.
The government was purposefully censoring truthful information.
The hearing on March 18th will be for oral arguments, which will likely last one day. The Justices would then decide the case, and if a majority agrees, they will issue an opinion on the last day of the Court’s term, typically in late June or early July. The Supreme Court agrees to hear very few cases each year, typically only 100-150 cases of over 7,000 that usually request review.
The Plaintiffs include three prominent doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states —had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms. Dr. Aaron Kheriaty Dr. Martin Kulldorff Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya Jim Hoft Jill Hines The State of Missouri The State of Louisiana
One of the Democrat-led January 6 Committee’s star witnesses, a former member of then-President Donald Trump’s administration whose testimony largely shaped the panel’s final report, could soon be deposed by House Republicans after she waived attorney-client privilege and after the discovery of a document indicating major changes in her story.
“As the Jan. 6 congressional investigation rushed to a close in 2022, one of the House Democrats’ star witnesses waived her attorney-client privilege with her first lawyer in a move that could now open the door for House Republicans to question both her and her attorney,” Just the News reported on Friday.
“Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony played a large role in shaping House Democrats’ final report sharply criticizing Donald Trump for the Capitol riot that ensued on Jan. 6, 2021, but Republicans on the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight led by Chairman Barry Loudermilk recently discovered an errata sheet she submitted to Congress that made substantial changes to her account midway through the Democrat-led inquiry,” the report continued, added: “Errata sheets are routinely provided to deponents and witnesses by stenographers to allow for correction of typographic errors and dropped words.”
Before submitting the errata sheet in September 2022, correcting and modifying testimony she had provided since February of that year, she terminated her initial attorney, Stefan Passantino, and enlisted new legal representation from the prestigious firm of Alston & Bird. This firm has been home to numerous distinguished legal figures over the decades, including the late Senate Republican Leader and presidential candidate Bob Dole, the outlet reported.
Her new attorney at Alston & Bird, Joseph H. Hunt, sent a letter to the House Democrats’ J6 committee on September 12, 2022, relinquishing her privileges with Passantino. In this communication, she went beyond correcting typographical errors and provided new and substantive testimony to the committee.
“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(a)(1), this letter will confirm that our client, Cassidy Hutchinson, is waiving the attorney-client privilege regarding all communications with her previous counsel, Stefan Pasantino, between February 7, 2022, and June 8, 2022,” Hunt wrote the committee led by then-Chairman Bennie Thompson D-Miss.
“The scope of this waiver includes all communications related to Ms. Hutchinson’s interviews with and provision of information to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol,” the letter added. “The waiver does not include communications with Alston & Bird attorneys.”
Now, Loudermilk says his panel is preparing to dig into Hutchinson’s change of story, and that could include interviewing her former attorney, Passantino.
“Cassidy Hutchinson tried to explain her dramatic changes in testimony by blaming her initial lawyer Stefan Passantino. Our discovery of Cassidy’s errata sheet showing just how substantially her story changed, raises serious concerns about her credibility. Until now, her version of the story was the only one,” Loudermilk told Just the News.
“Now we know Stefan is no longer prohibited from speaking about his interactions with Cassidy by attorney-client privilege. We look forward to hearing the truth from Stefan about his interactions with his then-client Ms. Hutchinson, and the Select Committee,” he added.
Jesse Binnal, an attorney for Passantino, said his client is ready to cooperate with the House inquiry.
“Mr. Passantino has been put in an awful position. But he is and has always been willing to cooperate with any effort to get at the truth,” Binnal told the outlet.
Last month, Passantino filed a lawsuit against Congress alleging that the House Democrat-led Jan. 6 probe imposed a “preordained political and legal narrative“ and thus violated his rights to due process.
According to a December report, Just the News noted that the suit also cites text messages indicating “that [Hutchinson] initially did not want to comply with the January 6 committee’s investigation and appeared to prepare to leak information about the committee’s proceedings to the media independently of her lawyer.”
These texts originate from just before her initial closed-door interview with the special committee investigating the January 6 riot. They precede her revision of the account of events that occurred after parting ways with Passantino. She claimed that Passantino had exerted pressure on her to remain “loyal” to former President Donald Trump.
According to Tucker Carlson, “This is the smartest, best-informed account of what actually happened on January 6th.”
At 03:15 of the video, the discussion between Tucker Carlson and Congressman Clay Higgins touches on terminology CTH readers may well be familiar with. WATCH:
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) filed an ethics complaint on Friday charging election interference against Judge Beryl Howell based on a speech Howell gave last month at the Women’s White Collar Defense Association awards dinner. Howell, a former Democrat Senate Judiciary Committee staffer and Obama appointee, was awarded alongside Joe Biden’s Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco.
Stefanik stated her reason for the complaint in a post on X Twitter:
“I filed a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against Judge Beryl Howell, because election interference by judges destroys public confidence in the federal judiciary, tears apart the fabric of our Republic, and is illegal. It must end now.
“DC Obama Judge Beryl Howell gave a highly inappropriate speech in which she insinuated the election of President Trump will lead to fascism in America. She also inappropriately allowed a public display of her cozy personal relationships with her partisan friends who appear before her, including the Biden Deputy Attorney General who supervises the January 6 criminal prosecutions.”
Congratulations to The Honorable Beryl A. Howell, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the 2023 #WWCDA Champion Award winner! Hundreds of guests celebrated at the WWCDA Awards Gala on Nov. 28 in Washington, D.C. #WWCDAAwardshttps://t.co/mJtLxfTkqtpic.twitter.com/QthGC1p19i
— Women’s White Collar Defense Association (WWCDA) (@WWCDA1) November 30, 2023
To get an idea of the incestuous nature of this D.C. swamp gathering, check out the list of sponsors at page four of the program: Dozens of law firms and lobbying outfits.
Howell is a 2010 Obama appointee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who served as the chief judge of the court from 2016 until March of 2023 where she presided over many January 6 cases and the cases and searches of President Trump by the Biden Justice department and Special Counsel Jack Smith. Howell still sits on the court, and was hearing a January 6 case Friday morning where she mocked the idea of “ghost buses” with government informants being used that day–an accusation recently made by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA).
Politico’s Kyle Cheney reported: “Judge Howell in court right now on a Jan. 6 case going off on “ghost buses” nonsense. “Why is it called a ghost bus?” she says to defense lawyer. “What are you talking about? We are not going down rabbit holes in this case. A ghost bus. Did you come up with that term?”…Defense lawyer John Pierce says “ghost buses” was Rep. Clay Higgins’ term. “Who?” says Howell, pointedly. “This is like a political weirdness? … I’m not going to waste time on some of these weirdly described things,” she adds.”
Defense lawyer John Pierce says "ghost buses" was Rep. Clay Higgins' term.
"Who?" says Howell, pointedly.
"This is like a political weirdness? … I’m not going to waste time on some of these weirdly described things," she adds.
Post and text of Stefanik’s ethics complaint below:
🚨🚨🚨 I filed a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against Judge Beryl Howell, because election interference by judges destroys public confidence in the federal judiciary, tears apart the fabric of our Republic, and is illegal. It must end now.
Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit c/o Office of the Circuit Executive United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001
Re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct Against Judge Beryl Howell
Dear Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan:
I write today to express my serious concerns about, and request an ethics investigation of, DC U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell for her highly inappropriate political speech she gave last month, at which she suggested reelecting President Trump will lead to fascism in America. As outlined in detail below, Judge Howell’s partisan speech is obviously highly inappropriate election interference by a federal judge that undermines the public’s trust in our courts. Moreover, the public display of the cozy personal relationships between Judge Howell and her partisan friends who appear before her undermines public trust in judicial independence, in violation of Canon 2B.[1]
Judge Howell, after becoming the chief judge of the D.C. District Court in 2016 before stepping down on March 17, 2023, supervised the D.C. grand jury and other legal proceedings against President Donald J. Trump, his top aides, and his supporters on January 6th. This included Judge Howell’s supervision of the discredited Mueller probe that substantially interfered with the Trump presidency, along with then-Chief Judge Howell’s supervision of Biden Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations that resulted in two unprecedented and highly controversial indictments of a former President of the United States and the leading presidential candidate for 2024.
On November 27, 2023, Judge Howell and current Biden Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, the Biden Justice Department official who ultimately supervises federal prosecutors across America including their January 6 cases, together received the “champion award” at the Women’s White Collar Defense Association awards gala in Washington, D.C. Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the master of ceremonies, and former Obama White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler, introduced both Judge Howell and Monaco.
Lynch lauded Ruemmler’s work on Obamacare and DACA as “some of the most important policy issues of our time.”[2] Ruemmler discussed how Judge Howell, Lynch, and former Mueller probe (of President Trump) chief deputy Andrew Weissman served together as federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York.[3] Ruemmler then discussed how Judge Howell, a former Democrat chief counsel to then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), became President Obama’s “very first” pick to serve on the highly influential D.C. District Court:
“But I can tell you from my experience that it was extremely rare for any member of the Senate to call the President directly on any judicial nominee. But Senator Leahy called President Obama about Beryl Howell. And he told President Obama how strongly he felt that she was the perfect person to be a federal judge. And boy, was he right about that. What an incredible mark has Judge Howell made on the bench. And she has made President Obama and Senator Leahy and all of us so very proud.”[4]
Ruemmler then discussed how she appeared before then-Chief Judge Howell when she presided over “many quite-sensitive grand jury proceedings.”[5] Ruemmler said she is “such a huge admirer of Judge Howell, and I’m very fortunate to call her friend.”[6]
Emphasizing they have been “very close friends for a long time” (more than 20 years), Ruemmler also helped introduce Monaco as “quite a powerful person” who “holds a very powerful position” as “the Deputy Attorney General of the United States” who supervises all the U.S. Attorneys. Ruemmler called Monaco her “best friend” and shared details about their friendship, working on their first jury trial together, serving together on the Enron probe (led by Weissman), serving together as top Obama DOJ officials and in the Obama White House, and taking an annual ladies’ ski trip.[7]
Lynch then praised and presented both Judge Howell and Monaco with their “champion awards.” Lynch specifically mentioned “the perfect storm” and “trifecta of issues” then-Chief Judge Howell “handled masterfully”:
The COVID-19 pandemic that closed the world, the January 6th insurrection and the resulting caseload, and the flurry of activity spurred by the Office of Special Counsel. All landing in front of her at the same time. [Lynch waited for applause.] Colleagues and counsel alike all speak almost reverently of how she steered the courthouse through that trifecta of issues with grace, with discipline, and her trademark, bone-deep commitment to bring justice to every matter before her.”[8]
It’s particularly shocking to hear the former Attorney General of the United States praise a sitting federal judge for her handling of the grand-jury proceedings on pending federal criminal charges against a defendant (President Trump), the pending criminal cases against his January 6 supporters, and even make the legal conclusion that an “insurrection” occurred on January 6–despite the fact even the over-the-top Biden Special Counsel Jack Smith never brought such charges against any January 6 defendant. It’s even more shocking Judge Howell participated in this highly prejudicial public charade, not even disclaiming any of it. Canon 2B is clear: “A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.” It’s hard to imagine how these criminal defendants can expect a fair trial, when one of the key federal judges received a “champion award” from partisan opponents while cases are pending before her court.
Lynch, Ruemmler, Monaco (the senior DOJ official prosecuting January 6 cases), and Judge Howell (overseeing January 6 cases) even huddled and wrapped their arms around each other on stage, to applause and with dramatic music playing, as Judge Howell received her “champion award.” They repeated this after Monaco received hers.
Judge Howell began her prepared marks by calling former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Acting Attorney General Sally Yates the “pantheon of other champion awardees” and “living heroes in the law.” She told the current Biden Deputy Attorney General it was an “honor to share the stage tonight with Lisa Monaco”; “having watched your career over the years, I’ve been in awe of how you remain a model of calm and grace when carrying enormous responsibility for the safety of so many–not just in your current job but in your prior national-security role. Thank you for all of your service to the country and for being an unshakable force for justice.” Judge Howell called Lynch and Weissman (among others) her “dear friends.”[9]
And Judge Howell’s 16 minutes of substantive remarks had little to do with women representing white-collar criminal defendants–and they were hardly apolitical, let alone politically neutral.[10] According to Politico, “[a]s the federal court in Washington that Judge Beryl Howell once oversaw prepares for a historic trial of former President Donald Trump on charges of attempting to fraudulently overturn the results of the 2020 election,” Judge Howell “used a rare public speech Tuesday to lament that many of those convicted for their actions on Jan. 6 fell under the sway of falsehoods.”[11]
And the purpose of Judge Howell’s speech was not lost on anyone, including Politico: “The judge who spearheaded the judiciary’s response to the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, blamed that event on ‘big lies’ and warned that the country is in danger of turning toward authoritarianism.”[12]
Politico continued its reporting of Judge Howell’s “rare public speech”:
“‘My D.C. judicial colleagues and I regularly see the impact of big lies at the sentencing of hundreds, hundreds of individuals who have been convicted for offense conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, when they disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election at the U.S. Capitol,’ said Howell, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Howell, who served as chief judge of the District Court from 2016 until March and remains on the bench there, also suggested that the dangers evident on the day of the Capitol riot have not passed — in part because some Americans have become unmoored from facts.
‘We are having a very surprising and downright troubling moment in this country when the very importance of facts is dismissed, or ignored,’ Howell told the annual gala of the Women’s White Collar Defense Association at a downtown hotel. ‘That’s very risky business for all of us in our democracy. … The facts matter.’
Howell did not refer by name to Trump, who is currently the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination next year. She also made no mention of his trial set to open March 4 before one of her colleagues, Judge Tanya Chutkan.
However, Howell approvingly quoted Boston College historian Heather Cox Richardson’s claim in her new book that the U.S. ‘is at a crossroads teetering on the brink of authoritarianism.’ The judge also quoted and echoed Richardson’s warning that ‘Big lies are springboards for authoritarians.’”[13]
Judge Howell’s fuller quote is this:
“This historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose book I’ve been reading . . . cautions in her book’s opening line . . . “America is at a crossroads teetering on the brink of authoritarianism” and she echoes this thought in her closing line, that we are at a time of testing and how it comes out . . . is in our own hands.”
If one reads the book, they would know it is an anti-Trump, anti-Republican Party screed. Throughout the book, Richardson attacks Republicans for “flooding the media system with propaganda,” attacks President Trump’s judicial nominees as “extremist,” accuses President Trump of trying to “rig” the election, and says that President Trump pushed “an authoritarian agenda.”[15]
Judge Howell’s speech is plainly inappropriate, consisting of partisan statements, election interference, and improper extrajudicial statements while criminal cases are pending–all barred by Canon 2B. Judge Howell promoted the Democrat political campaign theme that the re-election of Donald Trump equates to America choosing authoritarianism. This is conduct unbecoming of a federal judge.
These comments, sadly, are not surprising given Judge Howell’s background. Howell is a former top appointee to a former partisan Democrat Senate Judiciary chairman. While on the bench, Judge Howell promoted a conspiracy theory Twitter wanted to “cozy up” to President Donald Trump,[16] approved Jack Smith’s stunningly broad search warrant hunting down American citizens who interacted with President Trump’s tweets,[17] and pretended President Trump might “flee from prosecution” (despite 24/7/365 Secret Service detail) in ordering Twitter not to routinely alert Trump.[18]
Partisans cannot use our judicial system to exact political revenge against those with whom they disagree. The consequences for our legal system, Constitution, and country would be devastating. I urge you to investigate Judge Howell’s partisan speech–obviously highly inappropriate election interference by a federal judge that undermines the public’s trust in our courts—for violating Canon 2B.
Sincerely,
Elise Stefanik
(Footnotes in tweet posted above.)
Photos: Picture one left to right:
– Biden Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco – Former Obama White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler – DC Obama Judge Beryl Howell – Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch
Picture two left to right:
– DC Obama Judge Beryl Howell – Former Obama White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler – Biden Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco – Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch
Picture one left to right:
– Biden Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco – Former Obama White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler – DC Obama Judge Beryl Howell – Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch
This was first posted at JoeHoft.com and we are republishing with permission.
As we approach the 250-year anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, it is fitting that the documentary “Let My People Go” launches today at LetMyPeopleGo.Movie, since the film provides an all-out assault on rigged election machines and software, with a mandate to throw them overboard.
Mike Lindell calls the film the “must see movie of the year to secure our election platforms.” Steve Bannon calls the film “magnificent” and “epic.”
Border Patrol agents are now telling us their morale is at an all-time low. No longer do they enforce the law or patrol “the line.” They have been relegated to paper pusher Uber drivers and sandwich makers for those here illegally.
The open border disaster now extends to every city in America. We take you to Chicago, where we uncover a warehouse housing 2700 Illegals.
This as homeless veterans are sleeping outside on the street.
Big picture #1 – The FBI/DOJ is now seriously worried that President Trump will win the 2024 election.
Big picture #2 – CNN (Natasha Bertrand, Evan Perez and Zachary Cohen) mouthpieces for the FBI Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy fraud, now begin positioning defenses against Trump’s evidence of the fabrication. They want to proactively stop the dossier they know consists of the evidence.
FACT: The authors know all the details about the 10-inch-thick dossier that was given by Trump to the DOJ for declassification 1/20/21, but shout that it is now missing.
FACT: The raid on Mar-a-Lago came after President Trump filed a 108-page civil lawsuit [SEE HERE] in March 2022 against the coconspirators. 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.
The DOJ was given one copy of the 10″ binder to release publicly. Now ask yourself, what documentary evidence was used to write the lawsuit? lolol, duh!
The motive for the DOJ/FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago is found in the search for the binder of evidence. The national archives classified documents angle was the justification – the cover story. The raid on Mar-a-Lago was the recovery effort. Who authorized the Mar-a-Lago search warrant? The same judge from the civil action.
I have previously written about the binder {Go Deep} and all of the issues around it. The CNN article is filled with multiple tell-tale indicators of why it is written. The emphasis is mine.
(Via CNN) – A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
As if “Russian election interference” is a real. No, the information relates to the fraud of the “Russian election interference” story.
Its disappearance, which has not been previously reported, was so concerning that intelligence officials briefed Senate Intelligence Committee leaders last year about the missing materials and the government’s efforts to retrieve them, the sources said.
Notice the stakeholder, the SSCI. The same SSCI that was at the legislative epicenter of the fraud.
Media Matters is one of the vilest constructs of the severe left-wing lunacy of David Brock. For years the leftist group has been manufacturing political attacks against conservatives and centrist websites.
Most recently, Media Matters participates in the demonetization and deplatforming agenda within Big Tech by constructing false stories pushed by their rabid ideologues. They then take the false information to advertisers and use their rabid supporter files to threaten the companies. However, finally someone is going to take them to task as Elon Musk is suing them over their malicious and false story about X platform advertising and manufactured adjacencies.
I can also confirm that Media Matters has purposely misrepresented Rumble. Their dishonesty warrants an immediate investigation at the highest levels (hint, @SpeakerJohnson & @Jim_Jordan), and I’ll bring the receipts.
BREAKING: X data confirms Media Matters manipulated the algo using inauthentic accounts to produce false ad results. It was a hoax pic.twitter.com/gQuhca8Gs8
On Sunday, Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that his team is investigating left-leaning news organization Media Matters over allegations of criminal and civil violations.
This comes after Elon Musk announced that X-Corp will be launching a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against the company on claims that Media Matters enacted a “fraudulent attack” on X-Corp and in an attempt to “undermine freedom of speech and mislead advertisers.”
The specific allegations that Attorney General Bailey’s Office is investigating pertain to recent findings that Media Matters allegedly created fake social media accounts to game the X servers in order to create false impressions for its hit piece on Elon Musk. These allegations went viral after they were shared on X by Human Events’ Jack Posobiec.
BREAKING: Media Matters created accounts and gamed the X server to create false impressions for their article
Attorney General Bailey responded to a comment posted by billionaire Elon Musk on X following a plea to US conservative attorneys general to investigate the organization and said: “My team is looking into this matter.”
Musk had responded to president of America First Legal Stephen Miller, who commented on Posobiec’s findings against Media Matters, saying, “Fraud is both a civil and criminal violation. There are 2 dozen+ conservative state Attorneys General.”
My team is looking into this matter.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) November 19, 2023
Fraud is both a civil and criminal violation. There are 2 dozen+ conservative state Attorneys General.
Attorney General Bailey has been a champion for freedom of speech and has a significant track record of defending the First Amendment. He has sued the Biden administration over free speech violations in Missouri v Biden and recently filed a joint-amicus brief, along with 18 other US attorneys general, against the gag order imposed on President Trump in his January 6 case.
Tucker Carlson on Tuesday evening brought the house down as he headlined the RiskOn360! Global Success Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Tucker walked out on stage to a roaring crowd.
He immediately began his speech by telling the audience he spent his flight across the country Tuesday morning text with people.
“I gotta tell you, every single person I texted with, with the exception of my wife who’s not on the internet at all was angry and paranoid. Seriously. And these are not crazy people. These are normal, good people with kids and stuff,” Tucker said.
Tucker then warned, “The next year is going to be…I’d bet my house on it, really like nothing we’ve ever seen.”
“Always trust your gut. If you feel like they’re lying to you, they are,” he said.
Tucker said the US is past the “political stage” now that Trump has entered the political arena because the Deep State is willing to do anything to stop him.
For several years many people have made inquiries about CTH content not being available on their devices. I have always responded with the same answer, check your Internet Service Provider (ISP) and if you are using AT&T or a regional subsidiary therein, that’s the source of the issue; it’s not a CTH technical problem.
For what follows, keep in mind that AT&T is not just an internet service and cell phone service provider. AT&T is also Turner (CNN) and Time Warner (HBO) etc. {link} Also you might notice the CNN aspect in hotels and airport broadcasts. Additionally, pay attention to the segment underlined below that applies to all other providers that join in technical collaboration with AT&T to provide services. Meaning it’s not just AT&T that ultimately is the issue here.
Lastly, if you have followed my research outlines on how the Obama administration weaponized the Patriot Act to target political opposition in 2009 {Go Deep}, please note the date underlined on page #2. This public-private partnership should make a lot of other things (previously outlined) make sense.
You can see how the Obama administration originated the issue in 2009. Then, following the controversy of the Tea Party targeting by the DOJ/IRS, if you have read the CTH articles about the 2009 creation of the Fourth Branch of Government, this letter from Senator Ron Wyden outlines the source of the 2009 origin we have been talking about.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act. What Obama and Holder did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.
This point is where many people understandably get confused.
Elevator Speech:
(1) The Patriot Act turned the intel surveillance radar from foreign searches for terrorists to domestic searches for terrorists.
(2) Obama/Biden then redefined what is a “terrorist” to include their political opposition.
In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus, instructed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.
After 9/11/01, the electronic surveillance system that was originally created to monitor threats from abroad was retooled to monitor threats inside our country. That is when all of our electronic ‘metadata’ came under federal surveillance.
That inflection point, and the process that followed, was exactly what Edward Snowden tried to point out.
What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political opposition became the target of this new national security system.
The problems we face now as a country are directly an outcome of two very distinct points that were merged by Barack Obama. (1) The post 9/11 monitoring of electronic communication of American citizens; and (2) Obama’s team creating a fine-tuning knob that it focused on the politics of the targets. This is very important to understand as you dig deeper {Keep GOING } …
Neil Oliver delivered a good summation of recent global events in the world of politics when contrast against the stabbing of school children in Ireland; the resulting populist backlash to the forced multicultural import and elimination of national identity, and the immediate reaction by Ireland’s leader Leo Varadkar as he demands new hate speech laws to stop people from speaking out against government forced migration.
Once again as with Brexit and the first Trump election victory, free people are pushing back while the authoritarian government regimes of the global UniParty threaten arrest. The people speak in Holland as nationalist Geert Wilders wins election; the left goes bananas. In Argentina nationalist and populist Javier Milei wins the election, again the globalist left goes bananas.
We are standing on the precipice, fighting with the “tools of democracy,” while those who have bastardized the term dispatch any semblance of democratic norms that do not fit the UniParty agenda. As Oliver notes, in the USA Democrats and Republicans both unite the ranks of the totalitarian government; in the U.K the Conservatives and Labor party politicians form the same UniParty.
The voices of the voters are being dispatched, ignored and labeled as extreme while Ireland starts to show what comes after the ballot box approach no longer works. WATCH:
.
It can no longer be argued or ignored…. there is simply too much evidence.
“We are in an abusive relationship with our government.“
~ Comrade, dissident and far-right extremist, Sundance
WATCH LIVE – 12:30 PM ET: Hearing in We The People AZ Alliance’s Lawsuit Against Runbeck Election Services to Obtain Evidence that OVER 35,000 Ballots Were Inserted into Maricopa County 2022 Vote Count
Arizona election integrity nonprofit We The People AZ Alliance will appear in court today for a hearing in a public records lawsuit against Runbeck Election Services in Phoenix.
Watch live at 9:30am PT below.
The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on this shady private entity that transports and scans Maricopa County mail-in ballots with no oversight or chain of custody before they are processed and counted by the County.
Roughly 81% of the 1,311,734 Maricopa County 2022 election voters voted by mail and had their ballot sent to Runbeck for signature verification with massive discrepancies in ballot chain of custody documentation.
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, We The People AZ Alliance filed their Special Action Complaint against Runbeck and Maricopa County for public records relating security camera footage of ballot receipts at the Runbeck facility in Phoenix.
The footage from Runbeck’s facilities could prove claims by Kari Lake’s attorneys, for which they were sanctioned in the Arizona Supreme Court, that over 35,000 ballots sent between Runbeck’s warehouse and Maricopa County are missing chain of custody documentation. The record supported the claims by Lake’s attorneys; the Arizona Supreme Court just ignored their argument and the math.
On August 30, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bradley Astrowsky released a minute entry ordering an Oral Argument hearing for today at 9:30 am PT in the case for this footage from Runbeck, a public vendor for elections.
“This is a big week,” said We The People AZ Alliance on X. Kari Lake’s lawsuit against Stephen Richer for evidence of mail-in ballot fraud is also going to trial tomorrow!
This is a big week:
WTP Vs Runbeck, Wednesday Sept. 20 Oral Arguments for video of loading docks
Lake Vs Richer, Thursday Sept. 21 Trial for Ballot Affidavit Envelopes
The Gateway Pundit recently reported that Kari Lake’s lawsuit for public 2022 voter signature records is going to trial on September 21 and September 25. Maricopa County refuses to be transparent with elections. What are they hiding?
Lake later released a statement highlighting a recent court order related to Maricopa County’s fraudulent signature verification and telling Americans she has the “utmost confidence” that she will win her lawsuit. Earlier this month, a ruling in a separates Yavapai County Court case confirmed that Maricopa County has been incorrectly defining “voter registration record” and unlawfully verifying mail-in ballot signatures.
The Gateway Pundit inspected hundreds of illegally verified 2022 mail-in ballot signatures and corresponding voter registration records in Maricopa County through a public records request and reported on the clear fraud involved. See the obviously mismatched signatures here:
Tomorrow’s trial in Lake’s lawsuit will be held at 101 West Jefferson St. Phoenix, 85003, in Courtroom 811 at 9:00 am PT. The Gateway Pundit will provide a livestream.
Both lawsuits are for the public records that are being withheld by parties involved in conducting elections in Arizona.
If you put the individual names within this group in the search bar, you will discover their connection. Most of them were the primary background operatives who pushed the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in ’16, ’17, ’18 and ’19.
With names like James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA), Tashina Gauhar (DOJ-NSD), David Kris (DOJ-NSD, FISA), Paul Kolbe (CIA) and Benjamin Wittes (Lawfare), what you will find is that this specific group are functionaries of the corrupt intelligence apparatus that framed the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense. This is the team now that will define for DHS how to focus their future targeting efforts.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) Ken Wainstein, and Counterterrorism Coordinator Nicholas Rasmussen announced the establishment of the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group (Experts Group). The group is comprised of private sector experts who will provide their unique perspectives on the federal government’s intelligence enterprise to DHS’s I&A and the Office of the Counterterrorism Coordinator.
“The security of the American people depends on our capacity to collect, generate, and disseminate actionable intelligence to our federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, campus, and private sector partners,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “I express my deep gratitude to these distinguished individuals for dedicating their exceptional expertise, experience, and vision to our critical mission.”
“The Homeland Intelligence Experts Group is being formed at a time of unprecedented challenge, with the U.S. intelligence enterprise facing threats from a range of malign actors, to include foreign nation-state adversaries, domestic violent extremists, cyber criminals, drug-trafficking cartels and other transnational criminal organizations,” said Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis Ken Wainstein.“The Experts Group will be an invaluable asset as we navigate through this evolving threat and operating environment and continue to strengthen our efforts to protect the Homeland.”
“The homeland threat environment is more diverse, dynamic, and challenging than at any point in our post 9/11 history, with threats tied to an array of different terrorist and violent extremist ideologies and narratives,” said Counterterrorism Coordinator Nicholas Rasmussen. “The experience, expertise, and perspective offered by Experts Group members will undoubtedly put the Department in a strong position to confront this threat landscape, and we are grateful for the willingness of the Experts Group members to serve in this important capacity.”
The Experts Group will provide DHS with a wide range of views and perspectives, with a membership that includes former senior intelligence officials, journalists, and prominent human rights and civil liberties advocates. (read more)
Keep in mind, the organization of this group follows the announcement that DHS will be launching online “Enhanced AI” to assist the government in combating information they deem dangerous to national security. Put the two together, and I think we can see who will be doing the “defining” of what constitutes “dangerous”.
You will notice I use the term “definition” quite often. That is because the root of every control mechanism is grounded upon defining things. When you accept the terms ‘disinformation’, ‘misinformation’, and/or ‘malinformation’, you are buying into the process that permits definitions to determine your travel. Those who define both you and your destination, ultimately control your online experience.
Pay very, very close attention to the two underlined words in the following paragraph:
Take out the word “improper” and the admission is, DHS uses AI to profile, target and discriminate. In the second sentence, DHS currently participates in systemic, indiscriminate and/or large-scale monitoring, surveillance, or tracking of individuals. The only thing those sentences in the paragraph say, is that DHS will not allow AI to create improper outcomes within a system that already exists.
The assembly of a Homeland Intelligence Experts Group gives us the names of those who will be organizing the definitions.
GOP Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana accused Attorney General Merrick Garland during a congressional hearing Wednesday of allowing his department to scare Americans like the KGB did in the former Soviet Union.
Spartz began her questioning of Garland, who was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, by noting how moving she found his opening statement.
In it, the attorney general recounted how his grandparents came to the United States from Belarus early in the 20th century to escape religious persecution.
Garland shared with emotion how two of his grandmother’s siblings did not make it to America and died in the Holocaust.
However with his grandmother, “Under the protection of our laws, she was able to live without fear of persecution.”
“That protection is what distinguishes this country from so many others,” Garland said. “The protection of law — the rule of law — is the foundation of our system of government.”
Spartz told Garland that she immigrated from Ukraine, which, like Belarus, was also part of the former Soviet Union.
“When I came here as a young person I believed in the value as an American not to be afraid of my government,” Spartz said.
According to her congressional bio, the lawmaker moved to the U.S. in 2000, when she was in her early 20s, having been born in Ukraine in 1978.
MUST WATCH:@RepSpartz EPIC Questioning of AG Garland
SPARTZ: "Are you aware that a lot of Americans are now afraid of being prosecuted by your department? Are you aware of that?"
“Are you aware that a lot of Americans are now afraid of being prosecuted by your department?” Spartz questioned Garland.
“Are you aware of that? … Are you aware or not?” she asked again, when he did not initially respond.
Garland then answered: “I think that constant attacks on the Department and saying –“
Spartz interjected, “It’s not attacks. Let me give you an example,” pointing to the January 6, 2021 protesters that came to the U.S. Capitol to voice their concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election.
“There probably were some people that came on January 6 here that had bad intent,” the congresswoman acknowledged. “But a lot of good Americans from my district came here because they are sick and tired of this government not serving them.”
She said the situation at the Capitol became chaotic because the proper security was not in place.
In response to the incursion, the FBI launched the largest federal investigation in U.S. history to round up protesters who had been on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, The Washington Post reported in March.
Spartz pointed out that there were FBI notices posted throughout her district northeast of Indianapolis, and the agency conducted raids into people’s homes.
“People are truly afraid,” she said. “And this is a big problem, when people are afraid of their own government.”
Spartz then raised the issue of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s report released in May that found the FBI and DOJ had no justifiable predicate to launch an investigation of then-Republican candidate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016 for alleged ties to Russia.
It was based primarily on Steele dossier provided to the FBI by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Rather than having equal treatment under the law, which Garland said the U.S. stands for, investigations into Clinton and Hunter Biden have been slow-walked, running out the statute of limitations on various crimes, Spartz contended.
“We move very quick on Donald Trump, but very slow-walked on others,” she said, referring to the DOJ.
“I couldn’t believe it happened in the United States of America. This is my frustration,” Spartz told Garland.
The lawmaker argued the overall effect of it is to give Russia and China fodder for propaganda aimed at destabilizing the U.S.
“That is danger to our republic,” she said. “It is significant danger.”
“Pay Attention!” – Rep. Troy Nehls Forces AG Garland to Watch ‘Son of a B*tch’ Video of Joe Biden Bragging About Threatening Ukraine to Fire Viktor Shokin (VIDEO)
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) RIPPED US Attorney General Merrick Garland during a House Judiciary Committee hearing to “examine how the Justice Department has become politicized and weaponized under the leadership of Attorney General Merrick Garland.”
Garland is the most corrupt Attorney General in US history ripping apart our God-given constitutional rights one day at a time.
Rep. Nehls let Garland have it and forced him to watch the video of Joe Biden bragging about threatening Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general who was investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.
Recall, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma and its CEO Mykola Zlochevsky for corruption and several homes and vehicles belonging to the oligarch were seized.
A month later Viktor Shokin was fired after Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine.
Joe Biden publicly bragged about bribing Ukraine with $1 billion to fire Viktor Shokin.
“I looked at him and I said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired,” Biden said in 2018.
Hunter’s business partner Devon Archer told Congress that Burisma execs, including Hunter Biden, Mykola Zlochevsky and Vadym Pozharski, convened a meeting and ‘called DC’ to get Viktor Shokin fired.
A few days later Joe Biden forced Ukrainian officials to fire Viktor Shokin, or else!
Rep. Nehls played the video of Joe Biden publicly bragging about threatening Ukraine if they didn’t fire Viktor Shokin.
“Play the clip!” Nehls shouted before Merrick Garland had a chance to dispute the quid pro quo.
“Pay attention, sir!” Nehls shouted at Garland as he played the ‘quid pro quo’ video of Joe Biden.
“Mr. Attorney General, what you just saw was Joe Biden, in his arrogance and his role as the Vice President…saying if you don’t fire Shokin, the United States is not giving the $1 billion loan. Why would Joe Biden say that?” Nehls said. “Was it policy? Was it our policy at the time? Yes, or no?”
“It wasn’t!” Nehls shouted before Merrick Garland was even able to answer.
Rep. Nadler tried to interrupt Nehls but Nehls wasn’t having it: “Pipe down!”
Nehls continued, “Joe Biden threatened the Ukrainian President and Prime Minister – to fire Shokin – if that is not quid pro quo, sir, what is? – It’s bribery, and it’s impeachable. Are you gonna do something about it?”
Before Merrick Garland was able to answer, Nehls interrupted him again, “I bet not, which is why you, sir, also need to be impeached!”
NEHLS: "Joe Biden threatened the Ukrainian President and Prime Minister – to fire Shokin – if that is not quid pro quo, sir, what is? – It's bribery, and it's impeachable. Are you gonna do something about it?"
**ahem**
NarrowPathMinistries 