Former NYPD officer Dan Bongino appeared on Fox News weekend to contrast the politicization of U.S. immigration policies after police officer Ronil Singh was fatally shot in California by an illegal immigrant fugitive.

Here is perhaps the most frequent question we receive.  Encapsulated:

….”OK, so we understand the problem, but what is the solution”?..

It’s a very valid question.  However, it is also a question that is based on an incorrect assumption.  Unfortunately, too few people ‘do‘ understand the scale of the problem(s). Until a significant number of more people understand the core issue(s), any discussion of a solution is essentially futile.

In the example of the corrupt DOJ and FBI (a common point of reference for the question) the baseline for any solution lies in first accepting the elements of the problem.

The institutions of the DOJ and FBI are corrupted; not just a few people within it, but rather the entire apparatus has been weaponized, over time, by participating political members who have politicized every function within the institution.

Every level of the Department of Justice (Main Justice); every national administrative office inside the FBI; and every state office of the U.S. Attorney and field office of the FBI; is being run through the prism of politics.   Every outcome is clear evidence therein.

That’s the starting point.

Until the majority of voting citizens agree on that central tenet, any action taken in response to the symptoms of the corruption are not going to succeed. Any solution has to come from a position external to the organization or the cycle will simply continue.

Putting a former U.S. DOJ official in charge of the DOJ, regardless of former term or professional/honorable intent, only maintains the status quo. The career mechanisms inside the organization will expel any action adverse to their interests, and the rules are set to aide their retention.

[Pictured: AG Nominee William P Barr]

The rules, policies and administrative guidance within corrupt system has been structured to be self-preserving. Putting a former DOJ official in charge of the DOJ; and/or putting an FBI official in charge of the FBI, ends up with exactly the same outcome.

When an institution is failing top-to-bottom successful change is only viable when it is forced from a position external to the current corrupt enterprise.  That approach must come to all divisions and branches of the system simultaneously, in order to affect change.  In essence, the corrupt system has to be overwhelmed; shocked into a reset status.

The behavior of former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are symptomatic examples within the FBI.   They didn’t gain their political skills to weaponize the agency overnight.  Those skills were taught to them as they advanced within the system.  The weaponization process was pre-existing.

Currently, that corrupt skill teaching system still exists.  There are more Comey and McCabes’ waiting to take office…. [See current Director Chris Wray, and current Deputy David Bowditch as examples.]… Don’t forget, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was heralded and rewarded along this career path. Therefore cutting off the head doesn’t fix the problem when the replacement head comes from within the same corrupt body.

Relying on a career IG, comfortable within the institution, also seems rather naive.  The example of IG Horowitz saying he could find no evidence of inherent bias actuated within the decision-making of the FBI is an example in simple, albeit brutal, acceptance.

The need to look externally for officials to change the inherent nature and disposition of the organization is why CTH previously suggested the Judicial Branch (federal judges) should be considered as a likely candidate pool to correct the U.S Department of Justice.

One possible solution would be to fire every U.S. Attorney and every Asst. U.S. Attorney, in every office across the entire country, and simultaneously replace them with former or current federal judges.

Then, and only then, can the investigative unit of the DOJ, the FBI, be addressed in a similar manner.  The head, and deputy, of every single FBI field office needs to be fired simultaneously across the entire country.  The replacement pool could be expanded to include any regional LEO (sheriff, chief); and/or from within the U.S. Marshals service.

That would currently be considered a rather radical approach.  And therein lies the problem.  Until we reach a point where such a solution is not considered radical; until people grasp the level of corruption within the system; any corrective action taken is merely our co-dependent enabling of a continual cycle.

There might be other, even better, solutions possible.  However, until we see widespread acceptance of the politicization of the institutions, it’s unlikely we will see a discussion happen that might eventually find the solution.

Right now, the vast majority are still in denial…

Several people have requested specificity as to why President Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton viewed Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as a risk worthy of primary confrontation/removal after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election.

The most obvious answer is not too complex; predates the election; and is connected directly to three core components of the Libya crisis: (1) White House; (2) State Department; (3) Hillary Clinton.

Drawing from years of exhaustive research within the Benghazi Brief; along with breakout information as to how the FBI and DOJ are directly connected to the issues therein; there is a clear and concise reason why Flynn was viewed as a risk to the interests of President Obama, Hillary Clinton and State Department Officials.

Lieutenant General Flynn was appointed to head the Defense Intelligence Agency on July 24th, 2012, approximately two months before the attack on the State/CIA compound in Benghazi Libya.

The Benghazi compound itself was controversial as it was part of a joint State Department and CIA mission to try and stop the spread of weapons to radical Islamic elements in the region.  After the fall of Muammar Gaddafi the Libyan weapons depots -as well as U.S. weapons shipped into Libya to assist the “rebels” in Gaddaffi’s ouster- were the immediate problem.

Weapons in 2012 were being redirected to Syria.  An operation to secure those weapons was ongoing in Benghazi (Eastern Libya).

On September 11th and 12th, 2012, a pre-planned protest in Cairo Egypt coincided with a pre-planned attack on the U.S. State Dept./CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya.  There are numerous factions of extremist Islam involved; however, for the sake of brevity all groups were supported by political arm of the extremists, The Muslim Brotherhood.

In Cairo, Egypt, the key protest organizer was a person named Mohammed al-Zawahiri who, along with his Muslim Brotherhood comrades, was just released from prison by then Egyptian President Morsi.   [Mohammed al-Zawahiri is the brother of al-Qaeda’s #2 guy (at the time) Ayman al-Zawahiri who was/is running al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.]

The 9/11 2012 Cairo protest was centered around demands for the release of Omar Abdul Rahman, also known as “the blind sheik“, who was in federal prison in the U.S. for his part in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. {Go Deep} It is critical to understand that the Cairo protest was specifically about the release of Omar Abdul Rahman.

https://videopress.com/embed/6dthGNHv?hd=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=0&loop=0.

It is critical to understand the accurate origin of the Cairo protest because the U.S. State Department falsely claimed another motive about a YouTube video insulting Islam. Hours later that fraudulent motive was then used to explain the Benghazi attack.  The motive became a political risk.

The fraudulent origin of the motive was exposed by documents from within the Defense Intelligence Agency; the head of the DIA was LTG Michael Flynn.

From 2012 DIA documents retrieved by Judicial Watch, the factual background of the attack on the Benghazi compound was exposed. {Go Deep}

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.”  The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.  The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).”  The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.”  The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons.  Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock.  They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

(Link to PDF – Link to Judicial Watch)

DIA Director Michael Flynn, was on the job two months when the attack took place.  Flynn sent this intelligence information to the State Department, White House, Intelligence agencies, ODNI, and Defense Dept. on Sept 12th, 2012.  Director Flynn knew the motives, the players and also knew there was advanced warning the attack was coming.

While al-Zawahiri was organizing the Cairo Egypt,protest for the release of the Blind Sheik….  in Benghazi a jihadist attack by the Muslim Brotherhood group who supported the Blind Sheik was also pre-planned.   Both events were sending the U.S. a message centered around Omar Abdul Rahman, the “Blind Sheik”.   Both events (Cairo and Benghazi) had absolutely nothing to do with a YouTube video.

However, behind the attack-motive was the much bigger State Department and CIA problem with the U.S. Libyan weapons and the flow to Syria.  The U.S. sending weapons into the hands of al-Qaeda was always the larger risk to the Obama administration.  This problem started with Clinton (State) and Panetta (CIA at the time), but now those weapons going to Syria was an even bigger problem.  Flynn was not in place at the time (2010 – 2011) when Obama, Clinton and Panetta carried out Operation Zero Footprint.

Factually the U.S. policy that facilitated arming al-Qaeda was a big political problem.  All of the expressed false motives, false statements and political lies were intended to cover-up this issue.

Secretary Hillary Clinton left DoS immediately after Benghazi (the end of 2012); and after an agreement with President Obama John Podesta was installed within the White House to protect Clinton’s future interests.

In 2016 Michael Flynn’s knowledge of the factual backstory to Libya and how the Obama/Clinton team misled everyone was the risk that Flynn represented.

President Obama (and everyone around him), Hillary Clinton (and everyone around her), likely viewed everything through their own prism.  The prior administration (writ large) likely forecast/anticipated President Trump and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would do to them what they would do if the roles were reversed.

Team Obama and Team Clinton likely thought all the Benghazi issues would be laid bare; and remember, after the attack, the FBI (via Robert Mueller) was also an active participant.  Remember the ridiculous weeks it took the FBI to reach Benghazi?

CNN – More than two weeks after four Americans — including the U.S. ambassador to Libya — were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, FBI agents have not yet been granted access to investigate in the eastern Libyan city, and the crime scene has not been secured, sources said.  (more)

Now that we know how politicized the FBI was, try laying a little bit of hindsight into how the FBI ::cough::  Robert Mueller  ::cough:: was handling all that Benghazi stuff (?).

Candidate Trump the vulgarian disrupter, and adviser Flynn (former DIA knowing too much), must have seemed like the absolute worst case scenario for Obama/Clinton and every single ideological ally within government.   Think about it.

Then Donald Trump wins the election….  and Flynn becomes National Security Adviser.  Holy cow…  In hindsight the panic must have been palpable.

Think about the scale of it.

Why wouldn’t they wiretap Trump?  Think about the stakes?  Why wouldn’t the entire apparatus of every institutional office aligned with common interest to the White House, Obama and Clinton not do everything in their power to eliminate the threat?

The better question is: what wouldn’t they be willing to do?

Robert Mueller being FBI Director during the Benghazi cover-up, and ultimately the leverage over him is due to his obedience therein. Certainly this explains his selection by the crew… Mueller was uniquely well motivated… and simultaneously gives Mueller a motive to paint Flynn into any scenario that would shut him down.

I hope that answers the question of:  Why Flynn?

Robert Mueller’s Mission:

♦(1) Create an investigation – Just by creating the investigation it is then used as a shield by any corrupt FBI/DOJ official who would find himself/herself under downstream congressional investigation.  Former officials being deposed/questioned by IG Horowitz or Congress could then say they are unable to answer those questions due to the ongoing special counsel investigation.  In this way Mueller provides cover for ideologically aligned deep state officials.

♦(2)  Use the investigation to keep any and all inquiry focused away from the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity that took place in 2015, 2016, 2017.  Keep the media narrative looking somewhere, anywhere, other than directly at the epicenter of the issues. In this way, Mueller provides distraction and talking points against the Trump administration.

♦(3) Use the investigation to suck-up, absorb, any damaging investigative material that might surface as a result of tangentially related inquiry.  Example: control the exposure of evidence against classified leak participants like SSCI Director of Security, James Wolfe; and/or block IG Horowitz from seeing material related to the FISA abuse scandal and “spygate”.  In this way Mueller provides cover for the institutions and the administrative state.

In all of these objectives the Mueller special counsel has been stunningly effective.