Feb 28 2024

FOIA Release Highlights Durham Never Intended Accountability for Deep State Actors

Posted originally on the CTH on February 27, 2024 | Sundance

Major HatTip to FoiaFan for staying on top of this.

In August of 2020 I sent this tweet to the general public after a lengthy discussion with John Durham’s lead investigator:

This tweet created major controversy amid those who were deep in the research weeds on the entire Spygate/Russiagate fiasco. Few would believe that in the effort to preserve the institutions at all costs, AG Bill Barr was the Bondo application and Special Prosecutor John Durham was the spray paint. It was all a coverup operation to hide the rot in the DOJ and beyond.

Essentially, Durham and Bill Aldenberg admitted to me that nothing the Robert Mueller team did in the preceding two years was subject to their review.

Yes, that is correct, Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann were specifically appointed in May 2017 by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to help coverup and hide the IC targeting of Donald Trump in the preceding two years. Emphasize this point, the intelligence community was targeting candidate Donald Trump, because they had the power as a result of the new surveillance state.

Mueller was to hide that IC targeting operation. Mueller had the full support of all Democrat and Republican leadership.

When Mueller was finished with his segment (2017-2019), newly installed AG Bill Barr appointed John Durham as the safety mechanism to continue the coverup operation (2019 through 2021). This became crystal clear during my phone contacts when the special counsel admitted they would not review anything the Mueller team touched.

John Durham would not, likely because he ‘could not’, touch any of the participants in the Trump targeting operation that were inside the government. His only accountability review was looking at those who were outside government within the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, etc.

The majority of the 2015/2016 operation against Trump was conducted by inside government actors who were assisting the Clinton campaign effort. With John Durham admitting he would not look at those govt participants, essentially the Durham investigation was a farce, a joke, a total snow job. Hence… my tweet.

Today, FOIAFan is noting the budget request from the office of John Durham provides receipts for exactly what I was saying HERE – {Go Deep}. The budget memo was recently released as part of a demanded FOIA request:

[SOURCE]

Notice how John Durham is saying as soon as he gets the Danchenko issue completed, it’s all over; “the office shutdown will be completed.”

October 2022 – A jury found Igor Danchenko not guilty on four counts of lying to the FBI, on four occasions. (1) Danchenko told FBI agents he received a phone call in late July 2016 Sergei Millian. However, Danchenko knew he had never received a call from Millian. (2) Danchenko gave a false statement to FBI agents that he “was under the impression” that the late July 2016 call was from Millian. (3) Danchenko falsely stated to FBI agents that he believed he spoke to Millian on the phone on more than one occasion. And (4) Danchenko lied that he “believed he has spoken to [Millian] on the telephone,” when Danchenko well knew he had never spoken to Millian.

The FBI didn’t care about the details of the lies that were told to them; the lies served a purpose. The FBI purpose was to use the Steele Dossier as the foundation for a fraudulent all-encompassing search warrant against the Trump campaign and presidency, using Carter Page. That construct was always the motive of the DOJ/FBI use of Danchenko, Chris Steele and the infamous dossier that gave the DOJ the patina they needed for the FISA application.

The trial itself showed how corrupt the FBI and DOJ were in this scheme by: A) offering Chris Steele $1 million for proof of the dossier content. B) By making Danchenko a confidential human source for two years to shield him, “sources and methods”, from investigative inquiry. C) By paying Danchenko $200,000 for his time as a useful tool and confidential human source.

This is where we must stop pretending. The Durham premise of a “duped FBI” is laughable on its face. No one in the FBI or DOJ-NSD was “duped” by false information from Igor Danchenko.

The lies, as they were with Clinton lawyer Michael Sussman, were well known to be false, yet materially beneficial to the unspoken intention of the DOJ/FBI, which was to target Donald Trump. The corrupt intent of the DOJ and FBI is the basic rot John Durham was appointed to cover over.

Follow the timeline:

Danchenko interviewed by FBI in January 2017. Tells FBI dossier is junk.

FBI hires Danchenko in March 2017 paying him $200,000, just before renewing the FISA they now know is based on junk.

May 2017 Robert Mueller appointed to cover up all of the DOJ/FBI corruption that existed in the Trump targeting.

June 2017 Mueller interviews Danchenko, then renews the FISA.

February 2019, Bill Barr enters as Attorney General.

April 2019 Robert Mueller completes investigation.

May 2019, Bill Barr appoints Durham just to look into things. Immediately, he then begs Trump not to declassify any documents. Trump writes executive order giving Bill Barr ability to review and declassify documents.

October 2020, Bill Barr officially (and quietly), makes John Durham a special counsel. We don’t find out until December (after the Nov election). Which is why in…. October 2020, FBI drops Igor Danchenko as paid informant.

Put it all together and you see the continuum.

(1) Donald Trump was being targeted by a corrupt DOJ and FBI. (2) Robert Mueller was installed in May 2017 to cover up the targeting. (3) When Mueller is nearing his completion, Bill Barr steps in to mitigate institutional damage from 1 and 2. (4) Barr maintains damage control and installs Durham. (5) Durham takes over the coverup operation from October 2020 (Danchenko safe to exit with Durham appointment official).

Main Justice kept a bag over Danchenko until they needed a scapegoat, created by Durham, to sell a narrative that Main Justice was duped. John Durham charged Danchenko (working outside govt) with lying to the FBI while simultaneously avoiding drawing attention to the FBI/DOJ officials (inside govt) who knew Danchenko was lying and were willfully blind to it in order to continue attacking and investigating President Donald Trump.

James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Barr, John Durham, the Mar-a-Lago raid, the appointment of Jack Smith… it’s all one long continuum of the same targeting and coverup operation.

Bill Barr was the Bondo application and John Durham was the spray paint.

The entire system is corrupt.

Trump is correct….

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks, Bill Barr Says “Of Course” He Would Testify Against President Trump

Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance

This guy really is the worst of the worst. I do not think I could dislike him more. Remember, Bill Barr appointed John Durham officially as a special counsel quietly without informing the public in October of 2020, specifically intended to block President Trump from declassifying any documents prior to the 2020 election. We do not discover the official appointment until December, after the 2020 election.

The intent of the Durham appointment was to create the oft used silo of an “ongoing investigation” to block inquiry and/or action by President Trump. The entire process of the DC silo deployment is one long continuum, as we have previously outlined. Michael Horowitz was an investigative silo (blocking document release), Robert Mueller was an investigative silo (threats of obstruction blocking document release), John Durham was an investigative silo (blocking document release), and ultimately, now Jack Smith is an investigative silo, retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago and blocking document release.

You will note that every single one of John Durham’s investigative pathways was to look at Trump-Russia fabrication and corruption outside government, outside Washington DC. None of the Durham investigation was focused inside government or inside the institutions that he and Bill Barr were protecting. Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham was the spray paint.

Today, Bill Barr when asked if he would testify against President Trump, says “of course” he would. WATCH:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AcyfCQm-OYs%3Fstart%3D170%26feature%3Doembed

MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as former president’s attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. Bill, it’s good to see you.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Good to see you.

MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you’re on the show, you said “the January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest.” Having read the indictment, is that still your view?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it’s- it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment. There’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress. The allegation essentially by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.

MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Right. And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud and what the- and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong, and false. This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. But it’s not- if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front, but they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels, that were not authorized panels, to claim that they had alternative votes. And then they- and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed, were false. But then pressuring the Vice President to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes, and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.

MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.

MAJOR GARRETT: From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case.

MAJOR GARRETT: But from an Attorney General’s point of view?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I’ve also said consistently, really, the rubicon was passed here, when- when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case, really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor. And I think at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the rubicon was passed.

MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the Special Counsel?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I’m not going to get into any discussions–

MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Of course.

Major Garrett: Could you describe your interactions with the President on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I wasn’t discussed- well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least, and I- I told him in no uncertain terms, that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we–

[CROSSTALK]

MAJOR GARRETT: — One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the President what you told him? How thorough was that investigation?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I- I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. Some of them are obvious, okay. One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more- that more people voted then absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should- we should have heard no more about that. Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done.

MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden. On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said, “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.” This is the Hunter Biden investigation. “And to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.” Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, because the–

MAJOR GARRETT: To which? To which? Should one be appointed now?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: When I was the attorney- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have, a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary. I felt that if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably, or the administration, would have just canceled the investigation, and I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place. But once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done and was being done fairly.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has- has been conducted?

[CROSSTALK]

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well I did agree with the- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.

MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously. And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done–

MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah. Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden, and if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Okay, well remember- one thing I stress is those are two different questions. Right? And, you know, things can be shameful without being illegal. And I- yes, I thought- I think it’s grotesque, cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I- I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.

MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still, whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it. I mean, some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind, there’s reasons- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy, but after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps. And apparently someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics? You know, after the election, that it was the president elect’s son, that’s not a reason not to investigate.

MAJOR GARRETT: William Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much. “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.

Jun 21 2023

Questions for John Durham – House Judiciary Committee Testimony, Wednesday June 21, 9:00am

Posted originally on the CTH on June 20, 2023 | Sundance

Today he testified in classified setting before the House intelligence committee. Tomorrow is the public version.

Special Counsel John Durham is scheduled to be questioned tomorrow by members of the House Judiciary Committee in a public setting. The hearing is scheduled for 9:00am ET, Rayburn Office Building [ DETAILS HERE ] – “The hearing will focus on the report of Special Counsel John Durham that examined the origins and justifications of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Crossfire Hurricane investigation against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

Questions have been passed along, and hopefully this summary is timed to avoid giving Mary McCord and her Lawfare team prep-time to construct their defensive talking points.

[Durham Report Here] Questions like:

(1) Mr. Durham, having spent four years investigating, researching, reviewing, interviewing and pouring through files related to the overall Trump-Russia collusion story, your report -like the report of Robert Mueller that preceded it- found no substantive predicate existed to ever open an investigation of candidate Donald Trump for any efforts with Russians or foreign actors to interfere in the 2016 election. As a result of your time and diligence, you are likely the #1 subject matter expert in the entire series of events.

♦ Question: In your opinion, was President Obama aware there was no reason in 2016 to investigate Donald Trump, who then became President-elect Trump?

(2) You note in your report that you never re-reviewed any of the material evidence that formed the baseline for the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

♦ Question: Why not?

♦ Question: Who made the decision not to review the 2-year Mueller probe activity as part of your investigative review? Why was that decision made?

(3) Do you agree that both your 4-year review of the U.S government action in the Trump-Russia collusion story crossed several paths with the 2-year Mueller review of the Russian interference in the election story?

Question: In your opinion, how is it possible that Robert Mueller and his team of 19 investigators, 50 FBI agents and 100 administrative staff, could investigate Russian election interference for two years and not discover the Trump-Russia collusion story was a hoax created by the Hillary Clinton campaign?

(4) You questioned several current and former CIA officials about the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment.

♦ Question: How do you reconcile the sanctions placed by Barack Obama against 20 Russian officials in December of 2016, against the reality that there was little substantive confidence Russia interfered in the election?

♦ Question: How do you reconcile your investigative findings with the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity about Russian hacking, and with the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment that specifically stated -falsely- that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election?

♦ Question: Did Russians hack the 2016 DNC email servers and leak the information to Julian Assange at Wikileaks?

(5) You note in your report [CITATION] how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application. You write about Comey continually asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA.” However, you never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe, because the former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to you.

♦ Question: How did you discover details about the demands of Comey?

♦ Question: How did you write specific quotes from Andrew McCabe describing Comey’s demands?

♦ Question: Did you review transcripts of Andrew McCabe’s testimony to Inspector General Michael Horowitz?

♦ Question: Why did Inspector General Michael Horowitz never release those transcripts? And do you have a copy?

(6) The two-year Mueller investigation was headed by a gentleman named Andrew Weissmann. Mr. Weissmann then gave former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein indictments of 17 Russian nationals who were alleged to have interfered in the 2016 election. Those indictments were never made public, and the allegations within them were sealed and placed in the security of the DOJ-National Security Division never to be reviewed or acted upon.

♦ Question: Did you review those indictments?

♦ Question: Are those indictments valid evidence of Russian election interference?

♦ Question: In your opinion, why were those indictments never made public?

♦ Question: Mr. Weissmann created the Russian indictments that were never used, and Mr. Weissmann recently published a lengthy roadmap to guide special counsel Jack Smith in his novel use of the Espionage Act to target President Trump. In your opinion, is there a possible similarity of motive?

(7) In July of 2018, the Dept of Justice informed the FISA Court, that despite the numerous material issues found by Inspector General Horowitz in the Carter Page FISA application, there was still sufficient predicate for the DOJ submission to the court. Excerpts of the letter below:

Mr. Durham, your recent report seemingly contradicts this July, 2018, letter as it was written to the FISA court almost two years after the original Carter Page FISA application was submitted.

♦ Question: Is this letter truthful?

♦ Question: As outlined on Page 8 discussing the April 02, and June 29, 2017 FISA renewals, is it true the FBI factually had no control over the Chris Steele “sub source” now identified as Igor Danchenko – a man you prosecuted?

♦ Question: How do you reconcile the DOJ misleading the FISA court, in July 2018, about the substance of Carter Page FISA application?

(8) Ten days after the Dept of Justice sent this July 12th letter to the FISA Court, the Carter Page FISA application was made public (July 22, 2018).

♦ Question: Who released the Carter Page FISA application?

♦ Question: Given the Top Secret Compartmented and Classified nature of the application, FISA and the processes and systems therein, can you explain why the DOJ publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?

♦ Question: During the course of your investigation, did anyone provide to you or your investigators evidence of corruption, false statements, illegal activity, or involvement by any members of the legislative branch of Congress, in the construct of the Trump-Russia collusion case that you did not pursue?

[Support CTH HERE]

Jun 20 2023

Robert Barnes Summary – The Administrative State Motive to Weaponize Secrets and Create Precedent

Posted originally on the CTH on June 19, 2023 | Sundance

Attorney Robert Barnes does a good job framing the motive of the DC administrative state, specifically the Lawfare ideologues currently in control of the DOJ, to create a precedent to usurp constitutional power by targeting President Trump.

Segment prompted to 23:40 WATCH:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=N-6yrHD92LQ%3Fstart%3D1381%26feature%3Doembed

Jun 20 2023

President Trump Interview With Fox News Brett Baier

Posted originally on the CTH on June 19, 2023 | Sundance

Earlier this evening, President Trump sat down for an extensive interview with Fox’s human cabbage patch doll, Brett Baier. {Direct Rumble Link} Many people were apprehensive about President Trump talking to DC gatekeeper Mr. Baier given that Fox News would like to support the prosecution effort against Trump.

President Trump appears with Baier because President Trump has done nothing wrong. The legal arguments against him, and more succinctly against the power of the office of the president, are nonsensical. There is no person, agency, bureaucracy or process that exists above the executive office of the president.

The President has every right to any and all documents that are created, distributed, reviewed and/or utilized during his administration. WATCH:

Anyone who is saying President Trump did not have the unilateral right to define his presidential records -as he sees fit- needs to answer this question:

Who is this power that supersedes the executive office of the President? and where are they outlined in the constitution?

WE THE PEOPLE are the only entity that grants and/or removes presidential authority. We vest and affirm our power every 4 years to the President of the United States. We do not vest power to a bureaucracy or administrative state that believes they are above the power of We The People. The President reports to us, and we affirm or deny our support with reelection.

There is no governmental system or constitutional process that supersedes the Office of the President within the executive branch.

There are co-equal branches outside the Executive, the Legislative and Judicial branches, with their own constitutional power. However, the Legislative and Judicial cannot impede or reach into in the structure of the Executive to limit the power outlined in the constitution and granted by We The People.

Jun 13 2023

The Rule of Law – Trump is Finished?

Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Jun 13, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty; This seems that the onslaught against Trump is a desperate attempt fearing that he would stop the war and reverse climate change. I have been reading you for years. You have great sources but also a great insight into what is happening in this corrupt world. I used to question your warnings that the United States would end up in a civil war. I’m at the point I cannot see how it is not possible.

Are they really this stupid to go after Trump if he could still become president even if convicted?

ANSWER: This is an absolutely desperate attempt to make sure Trump does not ever get back to the White House. Even if he does, the talk in DC is that they will use this conviction for impeachment. But that would not really pass the test since it would be before taking office unless they stretch it out until January after he is sworn in. Nevertheless, there is far too much on the line for the Neocons. They will assassinate him as a last resort. These people assume the public is stupid and it will all blow over in 30 days anyhow when football season begins. They really do believe like the Romans, give us sports and they can do as they like.

If we look at the indictment, 31 of the 37 counts brought against Trump allege he willfully retained national defense information, which is a violation of the Espionage Act. This is really a stretch for the intent of that act was espionage and nobody is making a case that Trump was handing it to an enemy. Nevertheless, the indictment was extremely dangerous and far more serious than what Nixon faced. They are not playing games.

They are desperately staging this to put him in prison. Still, there is no actual smoking gun as they say. Trump has spoken about the classified documents acknowledging that they were classified. This is a serious risk and only a jury with common sense would find him not guilty. They use conspiracy so they do not have to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt. It will be a case arguing what they “think” was in his mind at the time. Even this is selective prosecution after Biden had classified documents thrown in his car.

They are already trying to recuse the judge. They want a hanging judge and that is how the government works. When Judge McKenna was protecting me, they made a recusal motion. He denied it. So they went to the Chief Judge and had the case removed and sent to a hanging judge – John F. Kennan – a former prosecutor. Here is my docket sheet. How they remove Judge McKenna was sealed. I was NEVER allowed to see how they did that. This was an outright violation of Due Process of Law. It does not matter. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to ever address anything in my case whatsoever!

I confronted Judge Owen that he was altering the transcripts which is a felony. I forced him to admit it. Under the law, he should have recused himself for now he was a witness in my case. I tried to appeal that and the Second Circuit lost the appeal 3 times and then claimed I was out of time to appeal. On top of that, changing the transcripts is a felony in addition to obstruction of justice which they are charging Trump with. The Second Circuit ignored everything. I wrote to the SEC prosecutor Dorothy Heyl. I said since you people change transcripts, why not just make one up and claim whatever and throw in I killed JFK, and let’s get this over with. She obviously did not reply.

Now you can see what Thomas Jefferson was writing about. There is no rule of law in the United States. If they want you, you have ZERO constitutional or human rights. They even tried to kill me in the same place they killed Jeffrey Epstein. I was in the hospital in a coma but to their dismay, I survived.

Shakespeare’s famous line from Henry VI, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” must be put in its proper context. At that point in history, a charged person had NO RIGHT to counsel. The ONLY lawyers were actually the king’s prosecutors. So you can see, even Shakespeare understood how the rule of law is a joke. That is why we have the Sixth Amendment – the right to counsel. In my case, they attacked all the lawyers and removed them. When Richard Altman said he would defend me for free, the government claimed they were investigating him as my co-conspirator to throw him out of court. So much for Constitutional rights – it’s all fake!

Even Charles Dickens has written about how corrupt the legal system had become back in 1853. Dickens wrote in Chapter I, “In Chancery” of his celebrated Bleake House,

“Suffer any wrong that can be done you, rather than come here!”

Indeed, the current state of American federal courts has once again reached the lowest point completing the revolution of the wheel of political fortune. Perhaps this is in line with what we should expect as we move into 2032 where governments around the world will collapse from their own internal corruption. Trump should kiss the wife and kids goodbye, for he has little chance of defeating this corrupt system. As Herbert Hoover wrote:

“Sometimes when a government; is enraged, it burns down the barn to get the rat.”

This is how the law is just always abused. If a parent is against transgenderism, in California, Newsom wants to charge them with child abuse. That would allow courts to take custody of children awake from the parent under old laws. If a child under 18 cannot have sex consensually, how can then change their sex? Good luck with ANY California judge ruling in your favor. Kiss your children goodbye as well if they are brainwashed into thinking they should change their sex even at age 7 to 12.

A 17-year-old cannot consent to sex, but to vaccinate minors without parental consent was OK because a minor can consent to be vaccinated, but they could not even open a bank account. Epstein was a pedophile with a 17-year-old but a vaccine could have life-threatening consequences and that’s ok for a school to do that claiming even a 7-year-old gave consent? Thomas Jefferson warned that the United States will collapse because of the abuse of the application of the law. He knew history!

The other six counts against Trump claim he caused false statements to be made and conspired to conceal documents from investigators and obstruct justice. This is exactly what the FBI and the DOJ have been doing to protect Hunter Biden and the Big Man.

Our computer has been forecasting that a major Directional Change took place in 2022 and 2023 going all the way into 2026 is basically tearing the very fabric of society apart at the seams. It is not just Trump, it is WOKE. Everywhere you turn, this is the same agenda of the left under Marxism. They MUST destroy the family unit and the children are to look to the state as their real parent and great protector. Communism taught children to report their biological parents if they ever spoke against the state. Hello, California is joining Stalinism.

This is what they are doing right before our eyes. This whole transgender issue is to also reduce the population. Thank you, Bill Gates, Soros, Buffett, and the rest of you. I think the money has gone to your heads and you are all playing God because you, like Soros, perhaps believe God is dead or never existed.

Please Scotty – Beam me the heck out of this world. It has gone completely insane!

Jun 12 2023

Sunday Talks, Bill Barr Goes All-in to Support Anti Trump Campaign

Published originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance

Appearing on Rupert Murdoch’s network Fox News, former Attorney General Bill Barr frame his false construct in the documents case against President Trump.

First, the obvious. Barr is motivated in his position because this is the constructed inflection point against Donald Trump. The severity of his position, the pretending not to know things, the defensive position about the power of government institutions, all of it is expressed in sum and total for one primary purpose; this is the moment they have manufactured to take Trump down. This is the DC Republican moment all preceding moments were designed to support.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-eE7WlC3ArE%3Ffeature%3Doembed

Second, on the details. Barr states with emphasis, the “presidential daily brief (PDB) is not the president’s personal document,” it is a document provided for him by the U.S. intelligence community (IC). Worth noting here is a little factoid that runs in opposition to Barr:

WASHINGTON – […] “while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers. By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments.” [Source]

No one is saying the Trump PDB is Trump’s “personal document“, the point is the PDB’s in question -those noted in the indictment- were part of President Trump’s papers, his administration records; able to be reviewed and critiqued by anyone the president would assign, including speechwriters. Barr us making a non-sequitur.

Third, Barr notes the documents created by government officials are different from personal papers of the President. Perhaps technically true, an argument and debate that takes place after all administrations. However, if government owned, why did government officials (NARA) then stack the documents in the White House parking lot for President Trump to take.

Lastly, like all pundits and commentators all weekend, everyone is intentionally pretending not to know the difference between ‘classified documents’ and ‘documents containing classification markings’. The former is not part of the argument, the latter wording is artful Lawfare language.

Jun 5 2023

BIG QUESTION and A BIG COVERUP – Durham Report Brings Sunlight on Detail Never Released by IG Michael Horowitz About FBI Targeting Trump

Posted originally on the CTH on June 4, 2023

I’m going to go into the deep weeds on this story, because many people are missing a key facet. The names behind the Trump targeting operation are included, along with citations for independent checks by House congressional investigators.

Inside the recently released report by John Durham [CITATION], the special counsel outlines how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application. Durham notes that Comey kept asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA.” However, John Durham never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe. The former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to John Durham. So, how did John Durham have details about the demands of Comey?

The answer is found in the footnotes. Durham reviewed transcripts of interviews given by Andrew McCabe to the Office of the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who previously investigated FBI conduct in the origin of the Carter Page FISA. Durham pulled quotes from that transcript. [Footnote #1207, page 199 – Durham Report]

♦QUESTION: If Andrew McCabe gave testimony to the OIG about the motives and impetus of FBI Director James Comey in pushing for the Carter Page FISA application, why did the OIG report never outline those transcribed interviews? Why was the interview transcript never included in the 2019 OIG report?

[ NOTE to Congress. Now that you know a transcribed interview of Andrew McCabe exists in the OIG office, request the transcription and release it to the public.]

Let me answer those questions without the customary pretending from the DC professional political class. The short version is that OIG Michael Horowitz was trying to protect the DOJ and FBI. The longer version is a coverup that includes Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr and yes, John Durham. I will share that story below.

“Where’s the FISA? We need the FISA?” ~ James Comey

The DOJ-NSD and FBI CoIntel needed to find a safe and legal way to spy on the Trump campaign. The 2016 FISA Title 1 surveillance of former FBI employee Carter Page became the fraudulent justification for that intent.

Because “FISA Title I” surveillance authority against a U.S. citizen is so serious (the U.S. government is essentially calling the target a spy), only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrants. One of the four people authorized to make such a Search Warrant request is the Asst. Attorney General as head of the National Security Division of the DOJ.

In September and October of 2016, at the same time the DOJ was putting the finishing touches on the FISA Court application to be used against Carter Page, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin resigned as head of the DOJ-NSD. [CITATION] Did Carlin resign in protest or fear?

Here’s context:

Carter Page was used as a UCE (FBI undercover employee), responsible for the bust of a high-level Russian agent in 2013 – and remained a UCE – throughout the court case of Evgeny Buryakov, a Russian citizen who U.S. prosecutors say posed as a banker while participating in a Cold War-style spy ring. [CITATION]

Carter Page was an FBI undercover source for the FBI UP TO May of 2016. How was it possible that on October 21st, 2016, Carter Page is put under a FISA Title 1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent? Conclusion: Carter Page wasn’t a Russian agent. The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division knew he wasn’t.

In order to manufacture the justification for the Carter Page FISA warrant, the DOJ-NSD and the FBI flat-out lied to the FISA Court. Remember, IG Horowitz said there was no ‘Woods File’ in the Carter Page FISA application. Instead of the required section substantiating and citing all the claims in the application, the FBI used the Chris Steele Dossier.

However, as to the motive of John Carlin resigning before the application was completed and submitted, we look back to the March 2016 DOJ Press Release of the guilty pleading in the Evgeny Buryakov case as announced from the New York office:

…”Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced”… (link)

DOJ-NSD head John Carlin obviously could not submit a FISA application against Carter Page, accusing him of being an “agent of a foreign government,” when just a few months earlier he used Carter Page as a witness and FBI UCE source in the case against Buryakov.

As James Comey is demanding that Andrew McCabe and his FBI counterintelligence agents get the FISA warrant, likely an ass covering necessity, the person responsible to get the warrant from the court, John Carlin, quits the DOJ. Considering all the facets outlined above, this cannot be accidental.

Here’s where it gets SERIOUSLY sketchy.

The next in line person, who can fulfill the DOJ/FBI goal of getting the fraudulent application through the FISA court, is Mary McCord. Put into the position as Acting Asst. Attorney General for the National Security Division, the job of submitting the FISA application now falls upon Mary McCord.

On October 21, 2016, When the FISA application was finally submitted, signed by DAG Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey, it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.

At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.

Obviously, with the background and context of the entirely fraudulent Carter Page FISA application, a government surveillance warrant using a Clinton funded political opposition research file known as the Steele Dossier to support the warrant, both Mary McCord and Michael Atkinson would know they were directly involved in an intentional effort to weaponize the mechanisms of the justice department against a political candidate.

While James Comey and Sally Yates’ signatures were on the FISA application falsely vouching for it, the attestations of legal compliance fall upon DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord and her top legal advisor Michael Atkinson. McCord and Atkinson are doing, in October of 2016, what former DOJ-NSD head John Carlin refused to do.

WATCH WHAT COMES NEXT: Mary McCord then resigns from her position in the DOJ, and Michael Atkinson is left, as lawyer for the DOJ-NSD, to become Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

♦ The Impeachment Effort – Do you remember how the impeachment effort against President Donald Trump was created? Do you remember Alexander Vindman, the claims about Ukraine; the statements of hearing from a CIA whistleblower about the content of a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy?

When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules.

Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.

When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to? Mary McCord.

Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.

Can you see how Atkinson and McCord are working together, both connected to the fraud behind the false FISA application used in the Trump-Russia narrative in 2016 and 2017, now both working together on a 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump holding an identical motive? Can you see the stunning conflicts of interest and the coordination?

The weaponized FISA surveillance of the Trump administration doesn’t exist without Mary McCord and Michael Atkinson creating the surveillance mechanism. The weaponized impeachment origin doesn’t exist without McCord – now in congress working for Nadler/Schiff – and Atkinson changing rules as CIA Inspector General, to create the baseline of a fraudulent whistleblower complaint. Can you see it?

But wait…. It gets worse.

♦ Chief Justice John Roberts – As if things could not possibly be more corrupt, now we have the construct of Atkinson and McCord forming the predicate for the impeachment effort. To wit, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts now becomes the presiding judge over the impeachment trial of President Trump.

Mary McCord is married to a fellow traveler named Sheldon L. Snook.

From 2014 though 2020, not coincidentally the timeline of the Trump targeting and administration in office, Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook, was the special assistant to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s counselor. [CITATION]

As noted by the Washington Post in discussing both McCord and Snook, “The counselor’s office advises the chief justice not only on the management and budget of the Supreme Court but also on his interactions with the executive and legislative branches, along with numerous other public roles in which Roberts serves.” [CITATION]

From 2014 through 2020, Sheldon Snook was responsible for running the office of the lawyer legally advising and counseling John Roberts.

Let me put this another way. The most important guy in the judicial branch, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, has a lawyer to advise and construct the responsibilities of the SCOTUS chief judge, which includes the construct of the FISA court and appointment of judges therein.

As Chief Justice, John Roberts is in charge of everything to do with the FISA court. The guy running the office of the lawyer doing the counseling of Roberts, is Mary McCord’s husband.

Mary McCord, knowingly and with specific intent, lied to the FISA court to support the FBI targeting of Trump. Mary McCord’s husband runs the office which would intercept any communication from the FISA court to the Chief Justice if the FISC had any concerns about the false FBI application. See the problem?

♦ SUMMARY – Now, we go back to where we came in.

Why did the Office of the Inspector General never publish the interview transcript about Andrew McCabe talking about how desperate FBI Director James Comey was to get a FISA warrant?

Why did John Durham never publish those same interview transcripts, but instead simply referenced the existence of the transcript in a footnote?

Follow these questions to their logical conclusion, and you will discover that all of the participants including Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr, James Baker, Dana Boente, Michael Horowitz and John Durham are trying to protect bureaucrats, who did criminal acts, and preserve institutions from collapse that sunlight would create.

Sunlight…

… The best disinfectant.

I ain’t quitting.

Until we deal with this mess, it doesn’t matter who ‘we‘ try to make president.

May 23 2023

Why the Durham Report Matters – Part 3, Durham Did Not Touch the Julian Assange and DNC Hack Claim, More Silos

Posted originally on the CTH on May 23, 2023 | Sundance

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 DNC hack claim is the fulcrum issue structurally underpinning the Russian election interference narrative pushed by the Weissmann and Muller Special Counsel. However, this essential claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as outlined during a Dana Rohrabacher interview and by Julian Assange’s own on-the-record statements.

Assange was arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London immediately after the Weissmann/Muller report was released to Bill Barr. Despite investigating the background of the Trump-Russia nonsense, John Durham never touched the DNC hacking claim – the core of the Mueller report. Why? Because Durham knew the U.S. Government threw a bag over Assange to protect the fraudulent Trump-Russia and Russian interference claims.

Again, this reality speaks to the corruption within the John Durham investigation. Durham was protecting Weissmann, Mueller and the core of their justification for a 2-year investigation. Durham knows why Assange was arrested. Durham stayed away from it, intentionally.

The Russians HAD TO have made efforts to interfere in the election, or else the factual basis for the surveillance operation against candidate Donald Trump is naked to the world.

That’s why so much DOJ, FBI and Mueller special counsel energy was exhausted framing the predicate.

“Seventeen intelligence agencies,” the December 29th Joint Analysis Report, the expulsion of the Russian diplomats which was an outcropping of the JAR, the rushed January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, shoving microphones in everyone’s faces and demanding they answer if they believed Russia interfered – all of it, and I do mean every bit of it, is predicated on an absolute DC need to establish that Russia Attempted to Interfere in the 2016 election.

The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” (full pdf) is pure nonsense. It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor. However, it was needed to help frame the Russian interference narrative.

There were no Russian diplomats involved; there was no Russian election interference; there was no Russian hacking of the DNC; it was all a fraud created by the intelligence community (IC), FBI and Main Justice to support Hillary Clinton’s lies and then cover their own targeting tracks.

On September 26, 2021, Yahoo News published an extensive article about the CIA targeting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2017 and the extreme conversations that were taking place at the highest levels of the U.S. government about how to control him.

There is a much bigger story transparently obvious when overlapped with CTH research files on the Mueller investigation and the U.S. intelligence community. Specifically, the motive intentionally not outlined by Yahoo News.

What I am going to share is a deep dive using the resources and timeline from within that Yahoo article and the specific details we have assembled that paints a clear picture about what interests existed for the Deep State, the Intelligence apparatus and the Mueller-Weissmann special counsel.

This fully cited review is not for the faint of heart. This is a journey that could shock many; it could alarm more and will likely force more than a few to reevaluate just what the purpose was for Mike Pompeo within the Donald Trump administration.

As the Yahoo News article begins, they outline how those within the Trump administration viewed Assange as a risk in 2017.

Here it is critical to accept that many people inside the Trump administration were there to control events, not to facilitate a policy agenda from a political outsider. In the example of Assange, the information he carried was a risk to those who attempted and failed to stop Trump from winning the 2016 election.

Julian Assange was not a threat to Donald Trump, but he was a threat to those who attempted to stop Donald Trump. In 2017, the DC system was reacting to a presidency they did not control. As an outcome, the Office of the President was being managed and influenced by some with ulterior motives.

Yahoo, via Michael Isikoff, puts it this way: “Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request “sketches” or “options” for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration, said a former senior counterintelligence official. “There seemed to be no boundaries.”

As we overlay the timeline, it is prudent to pause and remember some hindsight details. According to reports in November of 2019, U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were spending time looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state noted:

“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that, “It is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services”“. (Link)

It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official, as there was extensive pre-2016 election evidence of an FBI/CIA counterintelligence operation that also involved U.K. intelligence services. There was an aspect to the FBI/CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to FBI/CIA interests, and effectively the Mueller special counsel, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the FBI/CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok was clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now, people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, a 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} John Durham ignored him.

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. Again, John Durham ignored it.

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 legal and much easier. If Durham went into this intelligence rabbit hole, there would be a paper trail that leads back to Robert Mueller. Durham didn’t go there.

John Durham and IG Michael Horowitz both outlined how very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and Main Justice, yet that evidence was withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page and/or it was ignored. The FBI fabricated information in the FISA and removed evidence that Carter Page was previously working for the CIA. This is what FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was indicted and convicted for doing.

One week after the FBI and DOJ filed the second renewal for the Carter Page FISA [April 7, 2017], Yahoo News notes how Mike Pompeo delivered his first remarks as CIA Director:

[…] On April 13, 2017, wearing a U.S. flag pin on the left lapel of his dark gray suit, Pompeo strode to the podium at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank, to deliver to a standing-room-only crowd his first public remarks as Trump’s CIA director.

Rather than use the platform to give an overview of global challenges or to lay out any bureaucratic changes he was planning to make at the agency, Pompeo devoted much of his speech to the threat posed by WikiLeaks. (link)

Why would CIA Director Mike Pompeo be so concerned about Julian Assange and Wikileaks in April 2017?

In April of 2017 Pompeo’s boss, President Donald Trump, was under assault from the intelligence community writ large, and every deep state actor was leaking to the media in a frenzied effort to continue the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy.

The Trump-Russia effort was so all consuming that FBI Director James Comey was even keeping a diary of engagement with President Trump in order to support an ongoing investigation built on fraud – yet, Mike Pompeo is worried about Julian Assange.

Again, here it is important to put yourself back into the time of reference. Remember, it’s clear in the text messages between FBI Agent Strzok and Lisa Page that Peter Strzok had a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA.

♦ Former CIA Director John Brennan admitted Peter Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it was also Peter Strzok who authored the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane.” Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok was a profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for 2016’s 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. One, if not the primary extractors, has now been identified as Rodney Joffe at Neustar. “The campaign plot was outlined by Durham in a 27-page indictment charging former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann with making a false report to the FBI. The plot was also outlined in the finished Durham report. Eight individuals who allegedly conspired with Sussmann but does not identify them by name. The sources familiar with the probe confirmed that the leader of the team of contractors was Rodney L. Joffe.” {Go Deep}

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 as a double agent for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S as part of his Trump-Russia creation.

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 handler, was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the FBI/CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit. A large international operation directed by the FBI/CIA and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin] Durham eviscerated the predicate for all of this in his report, yet stayed away from the part that leads to Robert Mueller in 2017.

Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA) and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr. (CIA, Fusion GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Trump and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).

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. Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence, and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate was what John Durham was reviewing in November of 2019, and then released in his final report – while whitewashing the parts that led to the Mueller silo.

The key point of all that contextual background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ and a multitude of political operatives, put a hell of a lot of work into it.

We know John Durham looked at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking 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 context is important, because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks. This is where the motives of Mike Pompeo in mid/late 2017 come into play.

[…] By the summer of 2017, the CIA’s proposals were setting off alarm bells at the National Security Council. “WikiLeaks was a complete obsession of Pompeo’s,” said a former Trump administration national security official. (link)

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA). From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

On Tuesday April 15, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, 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 exactly was the DOJ waiting for from March 2018 to April 2019?

This timeframe is the peak of the Robert Mueller/Andrew Weissmann special counsel investigation.

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The Yahoo article outlines, “There was an inappropriate level of attention to Assange“, by the CIA according to a national security council official. However, if you consider the larger ramifications of what Julian Assange represented to all of those people inside and outside government interests who created the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy, well, there was actually a serious risk.

Remember, in May 2017 Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann effectively took over the DOJ. The purpose of the Mueller investigation was to cover up the illegal operation that took place in the preceding year. The people exposed in the Trump-Russia targeting operation included all of those intelligence operatives previously outlined in the CIA, FBI and DOJ operations. These are the people John Durham did not indict.

The FBI submission to the Eastern District of Virginia 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)

Dana Rohrabacher later published this account of the events:

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative; and knowing that Assange could essentially destroy the baseline predicate for the entire Trump-Russia investigation – which included the use of Robert Mueller; it would make sense for corrupt government officials to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange.

That contact between Rohrabacher and Assange explains why those same government officials would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury seating (Nov/Dec 2017), the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018.

The EDVA then sat on the Julian Assange indictment while the Mueller/Weissman probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller 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 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 not coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange, because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes. Again, John Durham stayed away from it!

♦ 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 the fulcrum underpinning the Russia election interference narrative. However, this core and essential claim is directly disputed by Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange’s 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 (Peter Strzok); 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 another Michael Sussmann partner, Shawn Henry at Crowdstrike, yes another DNC contractor and collaborator with the Clinton campaign.

The CIA held a massive conflict of self-interest problem surrounding the Russian hacking claim as it pertained to their own activity in 2016. The FBI and DOJ always held a massive interest in maintaining the Russian hacking claim. Robert Mueller and Andrew Weismann did everything they could to support that predicate; and all of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also carried a self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange was/is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange claimed he has evidence it was from an inside DNC leak, not from a DNC hack.

The Russian “hacking” claim was ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K Intelligence apparatus. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public. And that is exactly what Main Justice and the U.S. intelligence community did.

This is why John Durham never touched it.

All of them know what happened.

All of them know why Julian Assange was taken from the Embassy in London. A bag had to be thrown over Assange in order to retain the justification for the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel and the larger Russian election interference claims. None of them do not know this. The all know.

Put the panel of Barr, Rosenstein, Horowitz, Mueller, Weissmann, Durham and Wray in front of congress. Ask each one: “Who is Seth Rich?”

Then start asking the right questions about the timeline of Assange being arrested. Ask them about the DNC hack and Russian provenance according to Crowdstrike. Ask them key and specific questions about the FBI working with Crowdstrike and about the DOJ and EDVA case against Assange. Watch them squirm.

They all know what happened. SO DO WE!

Ask them questions about it in public. Watch them squirm.

[Support CTH Here]

May 23 2023

Why the Durham Report Matters – Part 2, the FISA Court Silo and SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner

Posted originally on the CTH on May 22, 2023 | Sundance

[Part 1, understanding how the silos are used to deflect accountability.] In this #2 outline we give specific background examples of how weaponized Trump-Russia fraud worked and calling out names with examples of what they did.

On March 15, 2017, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes held a press conference announcing there was no specific evidence of “wire taps” at Trump Tower {HERE}. However, on March 22, 2017, Nunes held another press conference saying information was brought forth to the HPSCI showing the Trump campaign was under Title-1 surveillance by the FBI and former Obama administration {SEE HERE}. In between those critical six days, something happened that was important.

With the full backdrop of the Durham report as the baseline, we now know there was zero evidence of any Russian interference effort in the 2016 election.

The Trump-Russia narrative was created by the Clinton campaign, promoted by the FBI and Main justice and advanced in narrative construction by the Obama administration.

On March 17, 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner asked the FISA court for a copy of the FISA application used against Trump campaign official Carter Page.

This is not in doubt and was evidenced in DC USAO court records related to SSCI security director James Wolfe who was initially indicted for leaking that specific copy of the FISA application. The FISC stamp is also visible on the copy of the FISA that was eventually released.

QUESTION: Why did Mark Warner request a copy of the FISA application from the FISA COURT and not from DOJ Main Justice? The answer to that question falls into how insiders played the silo game against the Trump administration.

Warner didn’t request the FISA application from Main Justice because: (1) the DOJ insiders were going to fight the release of any toxic information that proved the Trump campaign was under active Title-1 surveillance; they were going to fight release to Devin Nunes. And (2) the legislative branch was part of the Trump-Russia attack construct and the SSCI membership were active participants with the DOJ and FBI (executive branch).

To weaponize the FISA in the effort to get a special counsel appointed, Mark Warner needed to work around the system that was being discussed in the media. Warner asked the FISA Court for their copy of the application. On March 17, 2017, a copy of that application was delivered by FBI agent Brian Dugan from the FISC to the SSCI. It was classified a ‘read and return’ Top Secret product with NO FOReign National access allowed.

Most people are unaware the declassified public version of the FISA application released by the DOJ was this Mark Warner copy. We know it was this copy again due to the FISC stamp on the document that eventually became declassified and public.

QUESTION: If the original FISA copy originated from the FISA Court, read and return, how did it end up in Main Justice as part of the eventual July 21, 2018, public release of the Carter Page FISA application?

Put another way, how did the 2017 physical copy go from the FISC to the SSCI and then end up at Main Justice for a 2018 release?

These are the awkward questions that cut through the use of the silo defense mechanisms.

The March 17, FISC copy ended up at Main Justice because the Washington Field Office case file against the leaker, SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, along with all the other evidence therein (which included text messages from Mark Warner), went back through the Mueller special counsel before Wolfe’s eventual indictment. This is when the Mueller team had to make a decision about releasing it to the public.

Weissmann freaked out when he saw the Dugan file against James Wolfe, and the looming probability that Senator Mark Warner would be caught as the person who told Wolfe to leak the FISA.

The FISA application was leaked. Mueller, Weissmann and Mark Warner knew that back in 2017, but what they didn’t know until the evidence file came in 2018 was that the FBI had proof the FISA was leaked.

Oh snap!

How to dilute that catastrophic issue?

The Weissmann team released the FISA application to the public on July 21, 2018.

Now…. Remember, both Michael Horowitz and John Durham destroyed the DOJ position on the predicate for the FISA application. In December 2019, IG Horowitz pointed out the missing ‘Woods File’ and 33 material issues with the application (one of which led to the criminal conviction of Kevin Clinesmith). Three years later, John Durham completely destroys the justification for the Trump-Russia premise behind it.

Notice how no one in the executive branch DOJ, FBI, ODNI, ever criticized Robert Mueller, yet we know to a demonstrable certainty the Mueller special counsel was likely more corrupt than the originating DOJ/FBI corruption the special counsel was protecting.

The origin of ‘Spygate’ was bad, but the totality of the cover-up effort in the Mueller-Weissmann special counsel was exponentially worse. More actual laws and policies within the justice department were broken by Robert Mueller than any preceding corrupt official.

♦ Amid a series of documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020 [SEE HERE] there was a rather alarming letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court in July 2018 that pointed out the DC agenda, the “institutional cover-up.” [Link to Letter]

Before getting to the substance of the letter, it’s important to put the release in context. After the FISA Court reviewed the DOJ inspector general report (Dec 2019), the FISC ordered the DOJ-NSD to declassify and release documents related to the Carter Page FISA application.

In the cover letter for this specific release to the Senate Judiciary and Senate Intelligence committees, the DOJ cited the January 7, 2020, FISA court order:

Keep in mind that prior to this release only the FISA court had seen this letter from the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).

As we walk through the alarming content of this letter, I think you’ll identify the motive behind the FISC order to release it.

First, the letter in question was sent by the DOJ-NSD to the FISA Court on July 12, 2018. It is critical to keep the date of the letter in mind as we review the content. This letter to the FISA Court was sent nine days before the DOJ released the FISA application to the public.

Aside from the date, the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it.

The DOJ is telling the FISA court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application.

In essence, in July 2018 the DOJ (now with Mueller in place) is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.

However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found. On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA redactions:

As you can see: Christopher Steele is noted as “Source #1”. Glenn Simpson of Fusion-GPS is noted as “identified U.S. person” or “business associate”, and Perkins Coie is the “U.S-based law firm.”

Now things get very interesting.

On page #8 when discussing Christopher Steele’s sub-source, the DOJ notes the FBI found him to be truthful and cooperative.

This is an incredibly misleading statement from Main Justice to the FISA court, because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.

Let’s look at how IG Michael Horowitz framed the primary sub-source Igor Danchenko, and specifically notice the FBI contact and questioning took place in January 2017 (we now know that date to be January 12, 2017):

Those interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source, Igor Danchenko, took place in January, March and May of 2017, and clearly the sub-source debunked the content of the dossier itself. In May of 2017, Weissmann and Mueller were in charge. This is when the special counsel attempted to pay Danchenko $300k to throw a bag over him.

Those Danchenko interviews were 18-months, 16-months and 14-months ahead of the July 2018 DOJ letter to the FISC. The DOJ-NSD, with the instructions from the Mueller Special Counsel, says the sub-source was “truthful and cooperative” but the DOJ doesn’t tell the court the content of the truthfulness and cooperation. Why?

Keep in mind, this letter to the court was written by AAG John Demers in July 2018. Jeff Sessions was Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG, Christopher Wray was FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy, and Dana Boente is FBI chief-legal-counsel. Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann were at their apex.

Why would the DOJ-NSD not be forthcoming with the FISA court about the primary sub-source? This level of disingenuous withholding of information speaks to an institutional motive.

As noted by Durham, from the outset the FBI and DOJ knew the Trump-Russia stuff was nonsense. By July 2018, the DOJ clearly knew the Steele dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the FISA Court and said the predicate was still valid. Why?

It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.

In July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.

This letter, justifying the application and claiming the current information, would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant. The DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller & Weissmann had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA authority. That’s the silo motive.

In July 2018, if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed, Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation. In essence, Main Justice in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending. The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.

That motive clarifies why the FISC would order the 2020 DOJ, now headed by Bill Barr, to release the letter they received from Main Justice.

Remember, in December 2019 the FISC received the IG Horowitz report, and they would have immediately noted the disparity between what IG Horowitz outlined about the FBI investigating Steele’s sub-source, as contrast against what the DOJ told them in July 2018.

The DOJ letter is a transparent misrepresentation when compared to the information in the Horowitz report. Hence, the FISC orders the DOJ to release the July ’18 letter so that everyone, including congressional oversight and the public can see the misrepresentation.

The NSD silo inside Main Justice wrote this letter to the FISC silo – never intending for it to become public.

The court was misled. Everyone can clearly see it. However, no one in the legislative or executive branch touched it because the court was misled by Robert Mueller.

The court was misled by the special counsel. Reflect on this for a moment.

The content of that DOJ-NSD letter, and the subsequent disparity, points to an institutional cover-up; and as a consequence the FISC also ordered the DOJ to begin an immediate sequestration effort to find all the evidence from the fraudulent FISA application – the proverbial fruit from the poisonous tree. In hindsight, the FISC was covering their own ass.

Two more big misstatements within the July 2018 letter appear on page #9. The first is the DOJ claiming that only after the application was filed did they become aware of Christopher Steele working for Fusion-GPS and knowing his intent was to create opposition research for the Hillary Clinton campaign. See the top of the page.

According to the DOJ-NSD claim, the number four ranking official in the DOJ, Bruce Ohr, never told them he was acting as a conduit for Christopher Steele to the FBI. While that claim is hard to believe, in essence what the DOJ-NSD is saying in that paragraph is that the FBI hoodwinked the DOJ-NSD by not telling them where the information for the FISA application was coming from. The DOJ, via John Demers, is blaming the FBI.

The second statement, equally as incredulous, is at the bottom of page nine where the DOJ claims they had no idea Bruce Ohr was talking to the FBI throughout the entire time any of the FISA applications were being submitted – October 2016 through June 2017.

In essence, the claim there is that Bruce Ohr was working with the FBI and never told anyone in the DOJ throughout 2016 and all the way past June 29th of 2017. That denial seems rather unlikely; however, once again the DOJ-NSD (Weissmann) is putting the FBI in the crosshairs and claiming they, the special counsel, knew nothing about the information pipeline.

Bruce Ohr, whose wife was working for Fusion-GPS and assisting Christopher Steele with information, was interviewed by the FBI over a dozen times as he communicated with Steele and fed his information to the FBI. Yet the DOJ claims they knew nothing about it.

Again, just keep in mind this claim by the DOJ-NSD is being made in July 2018, six months after Bruce Ohr was demoted twice (December 2017 and January 2018). If what the DOJ is saying was true (it wasn’t), well, the FBI was completely off-the-rails and rogue.

The DOJ was claiming in the July 2018 letter the FISA application predication was still valid. However, if the DOJ-NSD (Mueller team) genuinely didn’t know about the FBI manipulation, they would be informing the court in 2018 the DOJ no longer supported the FISA application due to new information. They did not do that. Instead, in July 2018, they specifically told the court the predicate was valid, yet the DOJ-NSD knew it was not.

The last point about the July 2018 letter is perhaps the most jarring. Again, keep in mind when it was written; Chris Wray is FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy and Dana Boente is FBI chief legal counsel.

Their own FBI reports, by three different INSD and IG investigations, had turned up seriously alarming evidence going back to the early 2017 time-frame; the results of which ultimately led to the DC FBI office losing all of their top officials; and knowing the letter itself was full of misleading and false information about FBI knowledge in/around Christopher Steele – this particular sentence is alarming:

“The FBI has reviewed this letter and confirmed its factual accuracy?”

Really?

As we have just shared, the July 2018 letter itself is filled with factual inaccuracies, misstatements and intentional omissions. So who exactly did the “reviewing”?

This declassification release raised more questions than any other; and yet no one, not a single investigative body, asked questions about it.

Why?…

Because the letter itself was prima-facie evidence of lies directly from the special counsel of Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.

No one in the executive branch, legislative branch or even judicial branch wanted to highlight the corruption of the special counsel.

Here’s the Full Letter. I strongly suggest everyone read the 14-pages slowly. If you know the background, this letter is infuriating… AND keep in mind, every single staff member in the House and Senate (those investigating the issue) said they never saw it. Why, because the DOJ was using silos to hide information.

That’s how badly broken the system of justice, and the system of checks-and-balances in Washington DC, really is. What we are seeing in the blatant targeting, silencing, and outright in-your-face behavior is a downstream result of the system knowing everyone involved is part of the corrupt operation.

We need to break through these created silo walls by questioning the participants together.

[Support CTH HERE]

Centinel2012

De Oppresso Liber

Category Bill Barr/John Durham Cover Up

FOIA Release Highlights Durham Never Intended Accountability for Deep State Actors

Posted originally on the CTH on February 27, 2024 | Sundance

Danchenko interviewed by FBI in January 2017. Tells FBI dossier is junk.

Trump is correct….

Sunday Talks, Bill Barr Says “Of Course” He Would Testify Against President Trump

Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance

Questions for John Durham – House Judiciary Committee Testimony, Wednesday June 21, 9:00am

Posted originally on the CTH on June 20, 2023 | Sundance

Robert Barnes Summary – The Administrative State Motive to Weaponize Secrets and Create Precedent

Posted originally on the CTH on June 19, 2023 | Sundance

President Trump Interview With Fox News Brett Baier

Posted originally on the CTH on June 19, 2023 | Sundance

Who is this power that supersedes the executive office of the President? and where are they outlined in the constitution?

The Rule of Law – Trump is Finished?

Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Jun 13, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

“Suffer any wrong that can be done you, rather than come here!”

“Sometimes when a government; is enraged, it burns down the barn to get the rat.”

Please Scotty – Beam me the heck out of this world. It has gone completely insane!

Sunday Talks, Bill Barr Goes All-in to Support Anti Trump Campaign

Published originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance

Why the Durham Report Matters – Part 3, Durham Did Not Touch the Julian Assange and DNC Hack Claim, More Silos

Posted originally on the CTH on May 23, 2023 | Sundance

Why the Durham Report Matters – Part 2, the FISA Court Silo and SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner

Posted originally on the CTH on May 22, 2023 | Sundance

[Part 1, understanding how the silos are used to deflect accountability.] In this #2 outline we give specific background examples of how weaponized Trump-Russia fraud worked and calling out names with examples of what they did.

“The FBI has reviewed this letter and confirmed its factual accuracy?”

Posted originally on the CTH on February 27, 2024 | Sundance

Danchenko interviewed by FBI in January 2017. Tells FBI dossier is junk.

Trump is correct….

Share this:

Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance

Share this:

Posted originally on the CTH on June 20, 2023 | Sundance

Share this:

Posted originally on the CTH on June 19, 2023 | Sundance

Share this:

Posted originally on the CTH on June 19, 2023 | Sundance

Who is this power that supersedes the executive office of the President? and where are they outlined in the constitution?

Share this:

Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Jun 13, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

“Suffer any wrong that can be done you, rather than come here!”

“Sometimes when a government; is enraged, it burns down the barn to get the rat.”

Please Scotty – Beam me the heck out of this world. It has gone completely insane!

Share this:

Published originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance

Share this:

Posted originally on the CTH on June 4, 2023

“Where’s the FISA? We need the FISA?” ~ James Comey

But wait…. It gets worse.

Sunlight…

… The best disinfectant.

I ain’t quitting.

Until we deal with this mess, it doesn’t matter who ‘we‘ try to make president.

Share this:

Posted originally on the CTH on May 23, 2023 | Sundance

Share this:

Posted originally on the CTH on May 22, 2023 | Sundance

[Part 1, understanding how the silos are used to deflect accountability.] In this #2 outline we give specific background examples of how weaponized Trump-Russia fraud worked and calling out names with examples of what they did.

“The FBI has reviewed this letter and confirmed its factual accuracy?”

Share this: