Deep State Judge!


ORDER IN THE DEEP STATE COURT

Roger Stone was sentenced to 40 months in prison by a partisan Obama appointee, Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

She alluded to the Russia collusion conspiracy when she said, “Stone was not prosecuted for standing up for the President; he was prosecuted for covering up for the President.”

Covering up how? A slip of memory is a cover up? Being a journalist and contacting WikiLeaks is a cover up? What exactly is the cover up? Whatever the Democrats say it is.

Nancy Pelosi and her crew may start the impeachment process anew if Trump pardons Roger Stone. That’s rank hypocrisy. What about Bill Clinton? Roger Stone is not a criminal and committed no crime, but Bill pardoned many despicable crooks. Does anyone remember the pardon he granted to his billionaire friend, Marc Rich? Do the Democrats remember how Marc Rich  arranged a hefty sum to be deposited into the Clinton Foundation? Of course not.

Obama has populated courts with Democrat partisans who are more than willing to use our justice system to go after his enemies. President Trump committed no crime, but the Democrats wanted to impeach him anyway. Roger Stone committed no crime, but the Democrats want him locked up anyway. Meanwhile, real crooks such as Hillary Clinton remain unlocked up.

—Ben Garrison

 

Science v Religion


QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
I have been an avid reader of your blog for over four years after watching The Forecaster on Norwegian TV in the fall of 2015. First, I would like to commend you for your tireless work, your integrity and your courageous struggle for justice and freedom of speech. Your voice is a breath of fresh air at a time when so much brain power is giving in to political correctness and group thinking under the purview of scientific consensus.

During my studies, I became aware of the limitations of academia early on in terms of open critical processes. As I investigated the situation within other disciplines as physics, cosmology, geology, climatology, archaeology, history, biology and medicine, I found serious issues of dissent that was not common known and most often not mentioned in the professional literature.

In my further attempt to understand how this could be possible, it gradually dawned on me that the Western scientific tradition had been reduced to an orthodoxy. Just like any other organization having a predictable resistance against change, protecting itself against the loss of influence and power resulting from being exposed as a promoter of heresy. Partly commercial since depending on grants and external funding, willing to compromise with its own integrity and important social mission.

Since then, of course, everything has only got worse. Critical questions are increasingly ignored or ridiculed, and alternative research dismissed with contempt and excluded from funding and publication under the pretext of a lack of anchoring in consensus. As if the scientific method is a democratic process leading to unassailable dogmas decided by the votes of an academic priesthood.

This leads me to my first question inspired of your blog post about The Decline & Fall of Religion from January 7th. Could the Western scientific tradition have grown into a believe system and thus actually a new religion? For what is really a religion other than an interpretation of reality, sprung from the quest of man to understand himself and his own context? At first offering a new and more powerful set of explanations, but later just to fall as victim of the same corrupt orthodoxy as the model of explanation it once defeated.

As when mathematical reasoning was accepted as a scientific proof in order to understand the universe, or when the limitations within the scientific method, being strictly materialistic, was suggested and by time widely accepted as the very boundaries defining reality itself. Giving rise a atheistic scientific tradition believed to have the power to explain the reality without any supernatural causation.

If this is correct, when did this shift in the cycle of religion take place? What about 1860 which your blog post shows as an important turning point in this cycle? The year when Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species reached the bookshelves in Europe (first edition published 24. November 1859). A book that is supposed to offer an explanation for the existence of life simply from natural causes, and which gradually emptied the churches of the West as the believers converted to science through the educational system of academia. A shift that probably has changed and shaped the West more than any in the time after 1860. First through the industrial revolution as a powerful demonstration of the possibilities and legitimacy of the new worldview.

Later through the ideas of among others Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud leading to socialism, the dismantling of the traditional family structure and the sexual revolution. And finally the post industrial society with the educational revolution lifting billions out of poverty and into the growing mega cities of our time.

After all, does not academia bear all the hallmarks of being a religion with its self-importance, dogmas, traditions, rituals, clergy, heretics, exclusion and even venerable buildings and costumes with weird hats?

Would love hear your thoughts about this perspective, and how it might be linked to the downfall of the West.
KAK

ANSWER: Yes, I believe your analysis is correct. Science became a sort of anti-religion. In economics, science became all about the power of the state to manipulate society while ignoring any connection to any other field. It was Albert Einstein who actually commented on the observation you have made. He said in his essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

I actually have no problem with Darwin despite the fact that nobody has ever discovered the missing link. There were clearly three primary species: Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans. There is also genetic evidence that there was interbreeding. Nevertheless, all the evidence he gathered did not deny divine intervention. Evolution does exist insofar as the biological organisms do undergo their own cycle of evolution just as viruses do. Even humans have grown larger over the centuries. Above is the door entrance to the church built during the 4th century over the place where Christ was born. Walking through various ancient places, one notices how much smaller people were. Most Egyptian pharaohs were about 5’6 at best. A giant was someone about 6’1.

Stephen Hawking perhaps said what you are noticing: “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” That stands in contrast to what Isaac Newton said on the subject: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”


You are correct that from 1860 onward, there was a major turning point in religion on our model. Indeed, the emergence of “science” took on the position of the anti-religion to many people. This was a major crossroads in religion and we should also include the rise of the anti-religious elements within science. That anti-religion movement was probably best articulated by Karl Marx.

 

To me, understanding cyclical movement is by no means anti-religion. We are looking at how the universe functions. Even the idea of the Big Bang, to me, is simply a cycle where everything moves from the center, contracts back to its origin, and explodes once again. None of those scientific discoveries provides any confirmation that there is no God. There is nothing that explains how everything works that would deny the existence of God. They are not mutually exclusive. Thus, the climate change fanatics are really just pushing their agenda which denies the nature of everything and, like Marx, assumes humans are in control of everything.

 

Bernie’s Victory Inspires a Panic Next Week?


Just to let everyone know, since more than 50% of our clients are outside the USA, we have a very international reach with sources around the globe. Get prepared for volatility next week. Despite the Democrat’s personal hatred of Trump, the international view is that Trump is the ONLY sane leader in the world right now. The world is leaning so far to the left everywhere, capital is deeply concerned about where to hide. The #1 question we are getting from overseas:

What if Bernie beats Trump?

Capital can flee and seek shelter offshore. Labor cannot hoard itself nor move offshore. The average person is stuck for they cannot protect their labor so the working guy suffers the arrows that come from politicians who never understand that capital will just abandon their crazy agendas leaving only the wage earner to pay the bills which ends in revolution.

Bloomberg is the authoritarian dictator whose staff has just been “yes sir” and that was self-evident in his debate skills. He could not respond to negative attacks because he was not use to that. Bloomberg is really is no match for Trump no less Bernie. Despite all his money, he did not even make a respectable showing. He cannot buy the White House. Hillary tried that and spent 10x what Trump did and still failed.

The Democratic elites are beside themselves. They are not going to take this lightly. In United States politics, a brokered convention (sometimes referred to as an open convention and closely related to a contested convention) can occur during a presidential election when a political party fails to choose a nominee on the first round of delegate voting at the party’s nominating convention.

This time, the unpledged delegates, better known as superdelegates, will make up about 16% of Democratic Party delegates in 2020. These are the real party insiders who are not committed to voting based on the outcome of the state’s primary or caucus which flies in the face of the very purpose of primary voting. As Stalin said about elections, it is not the votes that matter, but who counts them.

The 2016 election was stolen from Bernie when many superdelegates announced early support for Hillary Clinton. The Democrats have claimed that they made a significant change for 2020. Superdelegates will no longer vote on the first ballot at the convention unless there is no doubt about the outcome. To win on the first ballot, the frontrunner must secure the majority of pledged delegates leading up to the Democratic Convention.  There are 3,979 total pledged delegates, so they are supposed to use the total required being 1,991. There is a loophole. If they can prevent Bernie from a majority on the first ballot, Hillary takes 16% again and they will then flip to her camp. That assumes they abide by this latest rule and do not change them again.

We are looking at the split of the Democrats for the elites are not about to accept Bernie and they will lose the financial support of both the corporates and the 1%. The rumblings are to draft Hillary. That will most likely be the straw that breaks the back of the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, brace yourself for while markets next week. We may begin to see European and Asian liquidation of equities in fear of the 2020 election ahead.

The Coming French Revolution


 

Ever since the civil unrest began on May 5, 2013, there has been escalating economic tension within France. A lack of economic growth has plagued France and Europe as a whole. The French share market peaked in 2000 and has been unable to elect ANY Yearly Bullish Reversals to date, and 2018 appears to be no different for this year’s closing. With the insane taxes of Hollande, the rich French invested outside the country. Without private investment, there is no job creation of any worthwhile level. This is what the Socialists refuse to consider.

This latest series of popular rebellions erupted on November 17, 2018, and has spread quickly via social media, with protesters blocking roads across France and impeding access to shopping malls, factories, and some fuel depots. They gather at the Arc de Triomphe, chanting “Macron Resign” and writing graffiti on the Arch itself: “The yellow vests will triumph.”

I previously warned: “We will see that risk erupt by 2020 or 51.6 years from the May 1968 cultural revolution.” The tensions have not subsided, but instead, they have begun to escalate.

World Recession Outside USA?


Japan’s economic performance plummeted at the end of 2019, and a recession seems inevitable. The downturn in the land of the rising sun is a bad omen for the global economy. Nevertheless, the entire coronavirus scare has resulted in a sharp collapse in many areas globally that depend on tourism. We are seeing sharp declines in South East Asia, Hong Kong, and even in Dubai. We should expect that the first quarter numbers for many areas around the world will show recessionary trends. This is only further pushing the dollar higher as capital continues to flee from Asia, in particular, as well as Europe and heads into the dollar.

Is Bloomberg a Dangerous Threat to the American Constitution?


QUESTION: Wasn’t Bloomberg part of the manipulation of the US Treasury Auctions at Salomon Brothers?

JF

ANSWER: No, he sold out to Phibro and was not asked to stay on. In 1973, Bloomberg became a general partner at Salomon Brothers, where he headed equity trading and, later, systems development. In 1981, Salomon Brothers was bought by Phibro Corporation, and Bloomberg was laid off from the investment bank. Perhaps they saw his personality and did not see where he would fit into the bank with what many say was a position of self-importance. Bloomberg News was founded by Michael Bloomberg and Matthew Winkler in 1990 to deliver financial news reporting to Bloomberg Terminal subscribers. The agency was established in 1990 with a team of six people while Winkler was the editor-in-chief.

Michael Bloomberg had the audacity to deliver a speech at the Democratic Convention saying, “There are times when I disagree with Hillary Clinton. But let me tell you, whatever our disagreements may be, I’ve come here to say: We must put them aside for the good of our country. And we must unite around the candidate who can defeat a dangerous demagogue.”

He tried banning large sugary drinks which took effect on March 12, 2013. The pizza deliverymen were prohibited by LAW from delivering 2-liter bottles of soda, assuming one person would drink the whole thing. He never heard of a pizza party or a Superbowl party. Bloomberg is a very dangerous demagogue who accused Trump of being one. Perhaps it takes one to know one. The definition of a demagogue is a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than using rational argument. As far as a demagogue having the skills to manipulate the press, that’s not Trump, but that is Bloomberg who owns the press.

“a gifted demagogue with particular skill in manipulating the press”

For someone who came from the market-manipulating house of Solomon Brothers, his attempts on stop-and-frisk, changing the law so he could continually run New York City eliminating term-limits, and his attempt to outlaw 2-liter bottles of soda are just the definition of a demagogue. He will take the green agenda and implement it in a dictatorial fashion as he ran New York City.

However, Bloomberg’s actions with regard to “Occupy Wall Street” were so outrageous in how he protected his clients with terminals. He even drew outrage from the Washington Post (Bloomberg’s disgraceful eviction of Occupy Wall Street). Bloomberg defended Wall Street against the protest “Occupy Wall Street” and arrested people for exercising their First Amendment Rights. Again, Bloomberg acted like a dictator. The Washington Post wrote: “The behavior of the NYPD and the mayor’s office, in ordering this brazen action while blocking the press and the public from reporting on the eviction, is a disgraceful display of unnecessary force on a protest that for the most part has behaved lawfully and respectfully throughout its two-month existence.”

Kathy Kiely, the Washington news director at Bloomberg Politics, said she resigned from her post after growing uncomfortable with the way her outlet responded to news that Bloomberg is considering an independent White House bid. She said when she resigned in January 2016, “I think that Michael Bloomberg has built a terrific news organization but that he needs to liberate it to cover all the news, even the news about him.”

Actions speak louder than words. All of the actions of Bloomberg in New York City are a warning sign that this guy is a real threat to the American Constitution. He refuses to respect the right of freedom, speech, First Amendment, or due process of law. We will see Bloomberg News now become CNN in the financial world and distort all facts to support moving their leader to the White House.

DC’s Legislative Business…


CTH often describes the background DC motives with the phrase: “There are Trillions at Stake.”  Here we take a look at what that really means, and how DC politics is not quite based on the ideas that frame many reference points.

With people taking notice of DC politics for the first time; and with people not as familiar with the purpose of DC politics; we end up within two different references. Perhaps it is valuable to reset the larger frames of reference and provide clarity.

Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past.  There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws.

In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.

Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Here’s how it works right now.

Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.

Sometimes the groups are social interest groups; activists, climate groups, environmental interests etc. The social interest groups are usually non-profit constructs who depend on the expenditures of government to sustain their cause or need.

The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests.

These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.

In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.

Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.

Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to.  The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in media.  Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it.

Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.

The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves.

The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it.

“Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.

Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc.

The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.

Recap: Corporations (special interest group) write the legislation. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.

Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.

The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.

Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group.

When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.

While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.

This is the way legislation is created.

If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism. The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.

“we’ll have to pass the bill to, well, find out what is in the bill” etc. ~ Nancy Pelosi 2009

“We rely upon the stupidity of the American voter” ~ Johnathan Gruber 2011, 2012.

Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.

When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation;  they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage.  It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.

The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees.  The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate.  Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists.  Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.

Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology.  In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.

Why?

Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.

Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.

President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.

The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation.  There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.

As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.

Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy.  There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.

Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices.  Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.

Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.

No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.

Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system.

Without the ability to position personal wealth for benefit, why would a politician stay in office?  The income of many long-term politicians on both Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle was completely disrupted by President Trump winning the election.  That is one of the key reason why so many politicians retired immediately thereafter.

When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.

Lastly, this is why -when signing legislation- President Trump often says “they’ve been trying to get this through for a long time” etc.   Most of the legislation passed by congress and signed by President Trump in his first term is older legislative proposals, with little indulgent value, that were shelved in years past.

Example: Criminal justice reform did not carry a financial benefit to the legislative bodies, and there was no financial interest funding the politicians to pass the bill.  If you look at most of the bills President Trump has signed, with the exception of a few economic bills, they stem from congressional construction many years ago.

Beijing Admits Coronavirus Didn’t Start in Wuhan Food Market – Senator Cotton Tweets Vindication…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on  by 

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) now admits to an internal report showing the Coronavirus did not originate from the Huanan food market as they initially stated.

Senator Tom Cotton has previously questioned the origination claim because there is a level-4 biological weapons lab in Wuhan, China, where the Huanan market is located.  Tonight Senator Cotton tweets vindication toward his original suspicions:

(Via Global Times) A new study by Chinese researchers indicates the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November from a place other than the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan.

The study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market. The findings were the result of analyses of genome-wide data, sources of infection and the route of spread of 93 samples of the novel coronavirus collected from 12 countries across four continents.

The study believes that patient zero transmitted the virus to workers or sellers at the Huanan seafood market. The crowded market facilitated the further transmission of the virus to buyers, which caused a wider spread in early December 2019.

According to the researchers, the new coronavirus experienced two sudden population expansions, including one on January 6, 2020, which was related to the Chinese New Year’s Day holiday.

An earlier expansion occurred on December 8, implying human-to-human transmission may have started in early December or late November, and then accelerated when it reached the Huanan seafood market.

On January 6, the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a second-level emergency response, which the researchers said served as a warning against mass public activity and travel.

If the warnings had received wider public attention, the number of cases spreading nationally and globally in mid-to-late January would have been lower, said the researchers. (read more)

DHS Whistleblower Philip Haney Dies of Gunshot Wound – Amador Sheriff Rules Suicide…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on  by 

Several new outlets have been reporting today on the death of Philip Haney, a DHS whistleblower who became well known for outlining how the Obama administration downplayed issues surrounding domestic radical Jihadist activity and Islamic terrorism.

It is being reported by Amador County, CA, sheriff’s office that Haney died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  However, many people are questioning the finding.

CALIFORNIA – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney was found dead in Amador County, Calif., on Friday, according to local authorities.

Haney, 66, “appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound,” the Amador County Sheriff’s Office said in a release. Sheriff and coroner Martin A. Ryan shared the initial details of the case.

“On February 21, 2020 at approximately 1012 hours, deputies and detectives responded to the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth to the report of a male subject on the ground with a gunshot wound,” the release read.

“Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time,” the office added. (read more)

DocWashburn@DocWashburn

Phil Haney was murdered last night. When BHO became President, Phil’s work identifying those (who come here to kill us) was scrubbed from intelligence training manuals & hard drives. Here’s my interview w/Phil about his book, “See Something, Say Nothing”. https://soundcloud.com/docwashburnradio/phillip-haney-5-23-17-karn 

809 people are talking about this

Kevin Shipp@Kevin_Shipp

Whistleblower Phil Haney shot dead last night. I knew Phil. He was exposing the penetration of the US government by Islamic cultural jihadists. He was instrumental in exposing Keith Ellision and Obama’s concealment of radical Islam in America.

View image on Twitter
7,395 people are talking about this

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

BREAKING: The late DHS whistleblower Philip Haney was owed tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid royalties for his bestselling book, “See Something, Say Nothing,” and at one point had sought a class-action lawsuit with other authors stiffed by the publisher

1,302 people are talking about this

National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien: “White House Was Never Provided any Intelligence Briefing on Russia Election Effort”…


Former Acting DNI Joseph Maguire did not brief the white house prior to taking Shelby Pierson, the person in charge of evaluating intelligence regarding election security, to lead the presentation to the house intel committee (HPSCI).   That’s the key takeaway from a taped preview of National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien on Face The Nation.

.

With NSA O’Brien confirming what many suspected it begs the question why would Shelby Pierson and Joseph Maguire intentionally blindside the White House? The briefing was obviously spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and democrats on the committee; and there was no intelligence presented to support the claims made by Democrats and media.

Sending shockwaves through the intelligence community, now Acting DNI Grenell has asked the intelligence community, including Shelby Pierson to produce the underlying intelligence within her briefing. It is reported that Pierson and the alliance of intelligence around her are going bananas. Sounds like Ms. Pierson might not last long.

[WASHINGTON] – […] Mr. Grenell has also requested the intelligence behind the classified briefing last week before the House Intelligence Committee where officials told lawmakers that Russia was interfering in November’s presidential election and that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia favored President Trump’s re-election.

[…] Joseph Maguire, the former acting director of national intelligence, and his deputy, Andrew P. Hallman, resigned on Friday. Mr. Grenell told Mr. Hallman, popular in the office’s Liberty Crossing headquarters, that his service was no longer needed, according to two officials. Mr. Hallman, who has worked in the office or at the C.I.A. for three decades, expressed confidence in his colleagues in a statement but also referred to the “uncertainties that come with change.”

[…] As acting director of national intelligence, Mr. Grenell has access to any secrets he may want to review. And he has requested access to information from the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies, according to two people familiar with the matter. (more)

There’s also a common sense aspect here that many overlook.  The CIA, FBI, ODNI and Intelligence Community (IC) writ large participated in the effort to eliminate candidate Trump and President Trump.   As such all of the mid-level personnel within those agencies are at risk of exposure for their participation.

The top officials, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey have all left their respective agencies, but they didn’t work alone.  Underneath those offices were intelligence officials who facilitated the objectives. Many of those career officials are likely still in place.

.