What the hell is the US government doing with our tax dollars? We just heard that the Pentagon managed to misplace $600 billion in funds to Ukraine. They simply have no idea where $600 billion wandered off to and are not investigating. Now, a watchdog group revealed that over $200 billion in COVID-19 relief funds also went M.I.A.
We already knew paycheck protection funding was widely abused. But an inspector general from the US Small Business Administration now believes AT LEAST 17% of all COVID-EIDL and PPP funds were “disbursed to fraudulent actors.” Fraud estimates for COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loans reached $136 billion, or 33% of the entire program. Then it is estimated that an additional $64 billion was stolen from Paycheck Protection Fraud.
Government agents deny mass fraud. They say that the recent report “contains serious flaws that significantly overestimate fraud and unintentionally mislead the public to believe that the work we did together had no significant impact in protecting against fraud.” The problem here is that this is the money of the American people. In less than two weeks, the US government just announced they lost nearly a trillion due to bad actors and/or accounting errors. We deserve a complete overhaul of government accounting and a thorough investigation into where these funds went. Chalking it up to an accounting error or being duped is not sufficient. They need to tell the people exactly how they are spending our money, especially since they continually ask for more each year while providing nothing in return.
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.
(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?
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware has given a sweet deal to Hunter Biden. Joe Biden’s son will plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges, and a federal gun charge. The gun charge will be deferred by a division program where Hunter promises to be a better person. The two tax charges will result in a slap on the wrist.
According to a statement from Hunter Biden’s attorney, “With the announcement of two agreements between my client, Hunter Biden, and the Unites States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, it is my understanding that the five-year investigation into Hunter is resolved.”
“Hunter will take responsibility for two instances of misdemeanor failure to file tax payments when due pursuant to a plea agreement. A firearm charge, which will be subject to a pretrial diversion agreement and will not be the subject of the plea agreement, will also be filed by the Government. I know Hunter believes it is important to take responsibility for these mistakes he made during a period of turmoil and addiction in his life. He looks forward to continuing his recovery and moving forward.”
A White House spokesperson said, “The President and First Lady love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life. We will have no further comment.” (link)
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.
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 PEOPLEare 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.
A little more than a week before Special Counsel Jack Smith released his indictment against President Trump, Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen and fellow lawfare travelers, wrote an internal prosecution memo for current Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco to use on behalf of the conscripted Special Counsel. [SEE 186-page Guidance MEMO HERE]
When Jack Smith revealed his indictment in Florida, not accidentally it was almost identical to the guidance memo that Weissmann had written. Even the novel use of the Espionage Act was identical in format to the outline by Weissmann, Eisen and their crew.
[NOTE: In the post 9-11 surveillance state, this approach by the DOJ-NSD is a pillar holding the Fourth Branch of Government in place, as we have outlined. The other pillars are (2) the Dept of Homeland Security, (3) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and (4) the secret FISA Court system. All four pillars maintain an omnipotent fourth branch of government that operates entirely without oversight. As you can see in the 11th Circuit Court ruling, there is no check or balance in the post 9-11 national security state.]
Essentially, what we are witnessing is what Lawfare researchers would expect.
The Lawfare operatives, represented by Weissmann, Eisen and company, are all ideological agents connected directly to the anti-Trump efforts. Their ally in the DOJ is Deputy AG Lisa Monaco.
I use the term “Lawfare” to describe their general group association, as well as the actual organization funded by the Brookings Institute that carries the same name.
Essentially, Lawfare et al, are the group of current and former Dept of Justice ideologues that we find throughout the deployment of all Main Justice weaponization, activism and corruption.
The Muller team were all Lawfare members. The legal team in/around the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, what Christine Blasey-Ford called “beach friends,” are all Lawfare members. The legal team behind both of Trump’s impeachment efforts were all Lawfare members. It is one large network of legally minded ideologues working toward a common goal; they are inside government and connected to the same DOJ minds outside government.
The second thing they have in common is their collective risk within their action. Many of their activities were/are unlawful (spygate, FISA, Mueller probe, impeachment background etc), so to the extent the Lawfare group can mitigate risk by attacking anyone who would be a threat to them, this is what we see.
Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen are two of the most well-known members of this politically motivated group. Together they have created novel legal theories to use by the DOJ against their political opposition. They write the legal filings for Main Justice to use inside government.
The fact the DOJ uses these novel theories and legal filings in the actual practice of law and prosecution shows how deeply connected the outside Lawfare group is to the Lawfare group inside DC.
Much of their Lawfare approach, that is using the law as a weapon, is based on a goal of attrition. Wear down the target until they are eventually destroyed. The same approach and motive is intended toward the supporters of the target. Wear down the psyche of the target’s supporters until they too are destroyed.
Creating demoralization is a very familiar approach from the Saul Alinsky methods rulebook. It is another way to create fear through isolation, ridicule and marginalization of their opponent. Threatening to make any defender a target is exactly the key behind Andrew Weissmann’s entire tenure as a prosecutor. You will note, they did this Lt Gen Mike Flynn when Weissmann expanded their scope and then threatened Flynn’s son, Mike Flynn Jr.
On June 2, 2023, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen published their “Model Prosecution Memo” for use inside the DOJ and for the legal scribes in media to review prior to the DOJ making any Trump indictment announcement. {SEE MEMO HERE} This is the same playbook they have used successfully in the past to get all of their allies on the same page for the preferred narrative.
Anticipating that Lisa Monaco would then be distributing the talking points and giving Jack Smith the groundwork for his upcoming novel indictment effort, Andrew Weissmann then appears on MSNBC to discuss.
So this shows that Comey is now officially a part of the Lawfare group that is outside the US DOJ and is throwing out a dog whistle for those inside the DOJ to start getting their resistance setup. pic.twitter.com/WRMLc4HUBz
— Positive Comrade Ziiggii (@realZiiggii) June 5, 2023
Posted originally on the CTH on June 17, 2023 | Sundance
In this podcast interview between former HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes and journalists Margot Cleveland and Lee Smith, the discussion begins with the recent revelations provided by Senator Chuck Grassley about audio tapes as evidence in the Biden bribery scandal. {Direct Rumble Link}
As the story has unfolded, the Confidential Human Source who tipped off the FBI to Joe Biden taking bribes from foreign governments, also claims to have audio tapes of himself talking to Joe Biden about the issues when Biden was vice-president. The FBI has been sitting on this Biden bribery knowledge for multiple years.
The most common opinion of the FBI motive was their intent to burying or capture negative information about Biden. However, with the institutional corruption of the domestic national security apparatus being very visible within DOJ and FBI, Lee Smith ponders whether the FBI/DOJ might be holding back the Biden bribery material as part of their leverage against the White House. It is an interesting angle to consider. WATCH:
Lee Smith is very wise in the ways of the Deep State.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 17, 2023 | Sundance
One of the ways you can immediately detect federal Lawfare deployment is to look at how media articles are written when they outline court filings without direct citation for review. The Hill began SEE HERE. The New York Times is similar, SEE HERE.
Notice both national publications talk about a DOJ court filing, presumably made under seal, that limits President Trump’s defense access to materials and documents used in the case against him. Notice the media do not say how they gained insight into the details of the sealed filing itself; nor do they provide any source context for how their reporting is structured. Nothing like, “according to sources with familiar with the matter” or anything similar. Just nothing; no attribution at all.
That media context is a BIG red flag indicating the need to ‘create a narrative’ is more important than the actual substance of the evidence material underpinning it.
Both stories hit on the issue of the DOJ filing a (presumably sealed) motion with the Florida court, to place limits, rules and restrictions on evidence against President Trump, that limits his ability to review it, talk about it and/or provide context for it. THIS IS A LAWFARE MOVE. This is what happens in the prosecutorial star-chambers where they hide information in order to create the appearance of something nefarious, where nothing nefarious exists.
When we see this legal approach, we can be assured the case that uses the evidence is built upon fraud and pretense. Do not be afraid to tell your family, friends and others about this dynamic. President Trump is being accused of the crime of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, a violation of the espionage act, and the DOJ is requesting that President Trump must not permitted to defend himself by discussing the evidence against him.
The DOJ wants to limit public knowledge of the material evidence, not because it would harm national security – but rather because the nature of the evidence itself would highlight to the nation how fraudulent the targeting is. This is the guaranteed DOJ motive, that’s why everything is under seal and even the media will not talk about how they are gaining their leak knowledge. This is LAWFARE narrative engineering at its apex deployment.
WASHINGTON DC – The Justice Department on Friday filed a motion seeking to block former President Trump from releasing any classified materials that will be shared with his legal team during his prosecution for the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago, noting that some are still being used in the course of their investigation.
The documents “include information pertaining to ongoing investigations” which could be used to further cases against uncharged individuals, the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote.
The suggested protective order, which will be reviewed by Judge Bruce Reinhart, would allow Trump to review the 31 documents the DOJ is using in the case only while in the presence of his attorneys.
“Defendants shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff. Defendants shall not retain copies of Discovery Material. Defendants may take notes regarding Discovery Materials, but such notes shall be stored securely by Defense Counsel,” the DOJ wrote.
It also includes similar language to a protective order agreed to in another Trump case that bars the former president from disclosing evidence in the case. New York state prosecutors made that request as they pursue a 34-count indictment of Trump relating to a hush money scandal.
“The Discovery Materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court,” the department wrote. (read more)
Watch this interview with Devin Nunes and Kimbery Guilfoyle – Start at 06:40 listening to Nunes:
I am correct about the documents grabbed.
I am correct about the nature of the DOJ/FBI intentions and motives.
I am correct about the Lawfare manipulation of the material to present the illusion of illegal where nothing illegal is taking place…
…and I am increasingly certain that Mary McCord is part of TEAM Jack Smith!
Wait for it!
The first two defense approaches will likely be: (1) the Presidential Records Act supersedes the issues of document holding as noted in the use of the Espionage Act. (2) However, if the Espionage Act [Statute 793(e)] has to be defended, the originating issue of “unauthorized possession” will be the second approach heading to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Some baselines are needed to understand what is happening.
First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things.
Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings. Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.
Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved. In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}
Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what former HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes has stated about the way the language is being deployed. Now we turn to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.
♦ During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they could *KNOW* fulsome return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is enlightening:
Notice that NARA had knowledge these documents were in the possession of Trump and were pertinent to their archive retrieval. It was interesting at the time that NARA would know the content of the President Obama letter, and further interesting they would know there was more than one piece of correspondence between President Trump and Chairman Kim [Jong-un]. CNN even wrote about it HERE.
[Irrelevant note: Mr Bonsanko got the name wrong, Jong-il is dead]
Reminder, keep in mind the DOJ ferocity in not wanting anyone to know what documents they retrieved and/or defined.
We know, from President Trump describing the letter left to him by the former president, that Obama told Trump in the letter that the number one foreign policy and intelligence threat perceived by Obama (at the time of his exit) was a nuclear armed North Korea. This is where you overlay the Jack Smith writing in the indictment of national defense secrets and nuclear security issues.
We know, from President Trump speaking publicly about his communication and diplomacy with Chairman Kim Jong-un, that the two leaders exchanged letters relating to aligned national security interests that centered around DPRK nuclear ambitions and status.
Trump and Kim formed a geopolitical truce, a friendship of sorts, based on respect and trust around the nuclear issue. Chairman Kim decreased hostilities; President Trump no longer used inflammatory language about “Little Rocket Man.” A diplomatic détente was created.
NARA was looking for the letter written by Obama that described DPRK nukes, and NARA was looking for letters between Trump and Kim that touched on DPRK nukes.
Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to “nuclear concerns” and “national security matters” make more sense?
Would all of this “nuclear national defense” hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim? YES! Would President Trump even characterize those letters as government property? NO!
♦ The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists. It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”
There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.” When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.
This language is the underpinning of the entire DOJ/FBI framework that predicated the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Specifically, neither NARA nor the DOJ-NSD requested President Trump or his team to return Classified Documents. The DOJ demanded the return of any documents that contained “classified markings.” [SEE BELOW]
Because the verbiage is so intentionally obtuse (ie. Lawfare), a fulsome production in compliance with this DOJ demand would include any newspaper or magazine articles that had a picture of the Carter Page FISA application, or any printed online article that might contain the same or similar elements. There is a big difference between asking for a classified document return, and asking for a return of documents that contain “classified markings.”
Can you see the way it unfolds? Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.
In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictment√; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described them√. Hey, wait… that’s exactly what they did.
♦ In a previous court ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice – National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), and blocked the lower court order instructing a Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]
Essentially the order of the appellate court was based on the DOJ defining Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents as “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination said they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to how they DEFINE matters of national security.
The court (judicial branch) openly stated they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) regarding any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determined, on their own authority, to be identified as classified or matters of “national security.”
In the prior opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge and stop the special master review.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.” The 11th Circuit is deferred to the DOJ.
The DOJ was granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.
This ridiculous ruling meant the DOJ could define any document as a document of “national security interest” and there is no countervailing review of their definitions. As soon as this decision was reached the DOJ then moved to appoint a special counsel. Can you see how this works?
With this ruling in his briefcase, Special Counsel Jack Smith could now define the Mar-a-Lago documents according to the legal intention of his targeting. That’s exactly what he did. The case against Trump is not a case about classified documents, it is a case about the DOJ defining unilaterally what documents are considered “vital to national security.”
With the DOJ getting to define those documents, the special counsel then moves to claim national security threats created by Trump’s ownership. The overlay of “vital to the nuclear capabilities of the defense dept,” can then be shifted to include letters from President Obama and Kim Jong-un about DPRK nuclear capabilities.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 17, 2023 | Sundance
We live with a new type of tyranny, where we find ourselves dissidents. It is not like any previous tyranny. It is not revolutionary in nature. Instead, it operates very scientifically and technocratically by convincing those it tyrannizes to demand their own enslavement, under the guise of comfort.
Prior dissidents were at least dissidents of a tangible, kinetic revolution. We are dissidents of what the willfully tyrannized perceive as their secure position within the rightful order of things. This needs to be factored into how we think about “converting” and “awakening” others amid the ongoing insurgency.
(Via Daily Mail) – A Fox News producer who resigned over a chyron that described Joe Biden as a ‘wannabe dictator’, has broken his silence.
Alexander McCaskill posted a photo of himself on Instagram holding a cardboard box outside the corporation’s New York offices.
He told his followers ‘Today was my last day at Fox’ and described his time there as a ‘wild 10 years’.
McCaskill is thought to have been responsible for the chyron which claimed President Biden was intent on locking up his 2024 rival, Donald Trump on Tuesday.
Fox had it on screen for less than 30 seconds, and then apologized. Dailymail.com has approached Fox News and McCaskill for comment.
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson claimed the producer had resigned during his new show, now being broadcast on Twitter, on Thursday.
He did not name the producer but The Daily Beast reported that it was McCaskill, who worked with Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight for many years.
McCaskill seemed to confirm news of his resignation on his private Instagram account in a lengthy post.
‘Today was my last day at FOX. It was a wild 10 years and it was the best place I’ve ever worked because of the great people I met,’ he wrote.
‘But the time has come. I asked them to let me go, and they finally did. To all my friends there: I will miss you forever.’ (read more)
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 