I have warned that once geopolitical tensions ignite, they do not remain contained, and what we are now witnessing is the steady expansion of conflict lines as Turkey is being recast from a strategic NATO partner into a geopolitical threat by the very alliance it once helped anchor.
The European Union has now openly shifted its tone, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen effectively grouping Turkey alongside Russia and China, stating that Europe must ensure it is not influenced by “Russia, Turkey or China,” which is an extraordinary statement when directed at a NATO member and signals a clear break in strategic trust, especially when such language aligns closely with broader geopolitical narratives emerging from the Middle East.
Not so coincidentally, tensions are escalating rapidly between Turkey and Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that Israel faces a widening circle of adversaries and must prepare for emerging threats across the region. Turkish officials have responded by accusing Israel of deliberately seeking its “next enemy,” with Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stating that Israel “cannot live without an enemy.” Bibi has remained in control by posturing Israel as on the defensive against external enemies, yet he has become the aggressor. It is Netanyahu, not Israel, who could not survive without an enemy to ward off.
When you step back and examine Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, this is a nation that has never accepted a subordinate role within Europe. Turkey has long viewed itself as a regional power with deep historical roots tied to the Ottoman Empire, and Erdoğan has made that posture explicit by declaring that no one can “threaten or bully Turkey,” reinforcing Ankara’s willingness to confront both Europe and its traditional allies when it perceives its sovereignty to be at risk.
What makes this situation far more dangerous is that Turkey is not a minor player that can simply be pressured into compliance, because it possesses one of the largest and most capable militaries in NATO, second only to the United States in manpower, with hundreds of thousands of active personnel, advanced drone capabilities, and a strategic geographic position controlling access between Europe, the Black Sea, and the Middle East, which makes any deterioration in relations far more consequential than policymakers appear willing to acknowledge.
Europe continues to depend on Turkey for migration control, regional security, and energy transit routes, yet it is now publicly labeling the nation as a threat. This is precisely how alliances fracture and friends turn into foes.
The growing hostility between Turkey and Israel introduces an additional layer of risk, because both nations operate militarily within overlapping regions such as Syria.
Europe’s decision to move against Turkey also risks pushing Ankara further away from the Western sphere and toward alternative alliances, including Russia and China, thereby accelerating the fragmentation of the global order and weakening NATO cohesion at a time when it is already under strain.
Broader conflicts are not triggered by a single event, but by a series of shifts in rhetoric, policy, all building momentum until the system reaches a breaking point. The reality is that Turkey is no longer treated as a reliable ally by Europe. As Israel elevates Turkey within its own threat framework, Europe appears to be following that trajectory, signaling a deeper realignment that will have far-reaching consequences for regional stability and the future of the Western alliance.
.jpeg "69a6de3be1dd0efffd32e85b_69a52302c9d7380cd6f1ad97_684013692c219b4132820415_Roombr21677%252520(1)")
I have said for years that governments and institutions always begin with what people will accept and then gradually expand from there. What we are now seeing in educational technology is perhaps one of the most disturbing developments, because it targets children under the guise of learning.
Studies have now confirmed that roughly 90% of commonly used school apps are transmitting tracking data, even when they are not actively being used, and many contain hidden third-party trackers operating in the background. This is not simply about helping a student complete homework or communicate with a teacher; this is continuous data collection that records behavior, interaction patterns, and device activity regardless of whether the child is even aware it is happening.
For many reading this, particularly those who did not grow up in a digital classroom, it is important to understand how pervasive these platforms have become, as students today are required to use them for nearly every aspect of their education. Assignments, testing, communication, textbooks, and grading have all moved into apps and online systems, meaning participation is no longer optional, it is mandatory. Parents assume these tools exist to support education, yet behind the curtain, they are functioning as data collection systems layered into the daily routine of children.
I see this as no different from what we witnessed with Pokémon Go, where people believed they were simply playing a game, but in reality, they were contributing to a massive data collection operation. The difference here is that children are not choosing to participate, they are required to, and instead of mapping physical locations, these systems are mapping behavior, attention spans, learning patterns, and interaction habits from a very early age.
What is being built is not just an academic record, but a behavioral profile that follows the individual over time, capturing how they think, how they respond, how long they focus, and how they engage with information. Once that data is collected, it does not simply vanish, it becomes part of a broader ecosystem that can be analyzed, shared, and monetized in ways that are rarely disclosed in plain terms.
Many of these platforms rely on third-party integrations, which means the data is not confined to a single provider but is distributed across multiple entities, each extracting value from it. This creates a web of data collection that is nearly impossible for parents to fully understand or control, and the more these systems are adopted, the more normalized this becomes.
From my perspective, this is how control expands, not through force, but through normalization. When data collection is embedded into something like a game, people participate willingly, but when it is embedded into education, it becomes institutional. That is a very dangerous shift, because it removes the ability to opt out without consequence.
We are moving into a system where data is the new currency, and the earlier it is collected, the more valuable it becomes. Starting that process in childhood creates a lifetime of behavioral data that can be used to predict, influence, and potentially control outcomes in ways that most people do not yet fully grasp.
I have said for years that people misunderstand the global monetary system. It is not driven by trade balances. It is driven by capital flows and access to dollar liquidity. The discussion of a currency swap between the United States and the United Arab Emirates shows how the system actually works under stress.
The United States is now considering a currency swap with the UAE as tensions around Iran rise. This is not about trade policy. It is about liquidity. When uncertainty increases, capital begins to move. Countries need dollars to stabilize their financial systems and maintain confidence.
Currency swaps are often presented as technical tools. In reality, they are lifelines. They allow a foreign central bank to access U.S. dollars directly. This bypasses stressed markets and helps prevent a liquidity crisis that could trigger capital flight.
This is exactly what happens during geopolitical conflict. The Iran situation has raised concerns about the Strait of Hormuz. That region is critical for global energy flows. When energy is threatened, markets react immediately. Currency volatility rises and capital seeks safety.
The UAE is a strong economy, but it is still exposed. Its currency is pegged to the U.S. dollar, meaning it must maintain sufficient dollar reserves to function properly. When global stress increases, even strong economies seek direct dollar access. That is why a swap line becomes important.
There is also a geopolitical layer. Currency swaps are tools of influence. When the United States provides dollar liquidity, it reinforces alignment. If access is restricted, countries look for alternatives. That can include increasing use of other currencies like the Chinese yuan. The UAE has stated it would consider using the yuan if the U.S. denies them the opportunity to swap, but the issue has become polarizing.
“The war in Iran has already cost us dearly,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. Said to Treasury Secretary Bessent. “In addition to lives lost, we’re talking about over a billion dollars a day in taxpayer money, we’re talking about higher gas prices, higher prices overall, and now we understand that the UAE is asking you to provide them a swap line through the Exchange Stabilization Fund.”
The key point people miss, because this is not about whether a country is rich, it is about whether it has access to dollars when the system comes under stress. This is precisely what I have always explained about currency swaps, because they are not favors or political gestures, they are lifelines, and when a country fears losing dollar inflows, especially one tied to oil exports through a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz, it must secure liquidity or risk instability in its currency, its banking system, and ultimately its entire economy.
This is also where many misunderstand de-dollarization. The world is not abandoning the dollar. It is trying to create options as nations want flexibility as geopolitical risks rise. Currency swaps are central to that process because they determine access to liquidity.
Confidence drives markets. When confidence falls, capital moves quickly. Without liquidity, currencies weaken, and systems come under pressure. Governments respond with tools like currency swaps to restore stability.
The fact that this swap is being considered tells you pressure is already building. These agreements are not routine. They are signals that policymakers expect volatility and a continued crisis.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, you said that Iran is the merger of Marxism and Islam. I believe you also said that the Shah did not realize that sending the youth to school in the UK and the US was a mistake, and that they returned to Iran, indoctrinated with Marxism. Was this the backdrop to Death to America?
Frank
REPLY: Absolutely. The Shah made the mistake of sending people to study in the West during the late ’70s when universities were taken over by the LEFT and indoctrinated students into this dangerous idea that has been behind the single most devastating upheaval in human history. No other theory has caused so much death as the LEFTISTS.
This merger of Marxism and Islam was unique to Iran. It involved revolutionary Shia clerics adopting Marxist language, leftist intellectuals reinterpreting Islam, and a tactical alliance against a common enemy. This collaboration was a key factor in the revolution’s success, though it proved to be short-lived. It has often been overlooked and just seen as an Islamic Revolution, which is NOT correct. This is part of the problem in negotiating with Iran currently. If we DO NOT understand that this is a merger of Islam reinterpreted by Marxists, good luck in trying to negotiate.
The common language of Anti-Imperialism and Social Justice was merged. The main bridge between these two seemingly opposed worldviews was their shared commitment to anti-imperialism and social justice. For many in Iran, the Shah’s regime was presented as a symbol of Western imperialism and gross economic inequality. That’s where Marxism came in, where everyone should have the same. Marxism provided a sharp critique of capitalism and imperialism, while a newly radicalized version of Shi’a Islam, often called “Liberation Theology,” framed the struggle against the Shah as a fight for the oppressed (mostaz’afin). This overlap in goals created the initial common ground for an alliance.
Ali Shariati was the Intellectual Architect. He is regarded as one of the most influential Iranian intellectuals of the 20th century. He has been referred to as the “ideologue of the Islamic Revolution,” and was the most important figure in forging this ideological blend of Marxism & Islam. Ali Shariati, of course, was a French-educated sociologist who was converted to Communism by Marx himself. Shariati was not a Marxist per se, but he was deeply influenced by Marxist concepts of class struggle, which he artfully integrated into his reinterpretation of Shi’ism. He argued that the original, revolutionary Shi’ism was a religion of the oppressed, which he called “Red Shi’ism,” in contrast to the passive, established “Safavid Shi’ism” of the religious establishment. By presenting Islam as a modern, revolutionary ideology, he offered a powerful native alternative to Marxism, making the anti-Shah movement both religiously authentic and socially radical.
Beyond Shariati’s intellectual synthesis, the revolution against the Shah was driven by a loose but effective alliance of convenience between various political groups. The Clergy & Khomeini: Although Ayatollah Khomeini was deeply anti-communist, he and his clerical followers were skilled politicians. They adopted popular Marxist slogans like “economic equality” and “struggle against imperialism” to tap into widespread anti-Shah sentiment, successfully channeling this energy into their own vision of an Islamic state.
Islamic-Marxist Guerrillas (MEK) became the most literal fusion of the two ideologies that occurred within the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Founded in 1965, the MEK explicitly described its ideology as a “combination of Islam and Marxism.” The group argued that a “true Muslim” was naturally aligned with socialist and anti-imperialist goals. They fought alongside Khomeini’s forces during the revolution but were purged soon after.
Secular Marxists (Tudeh Party), was Iran’s largest communist party, and was originally wary of Khomeini’s religious movement. However, their fervent anti-Shah position eventually led them to support the revolutionary coalition, hoping to influence its outcome from within.
The alliance was purely pragmatic. Once the Shah was overthrown in 1979, the fundamental incompatibility between Marxism (which is atheist) and an Islamic state (which is theocratic) became immediately clear. Khomeini’s regime quickly moved to eliminate its leftist allies in what has been called a “counter-revolutionary” purge. Marxist and Islamic-Marxist groups, including the Tudeh party and the MEK, were ruthlessly suppressed, with thousands of members executed or forced into exile.
It became a Revolutionary Synthesis, rather than a merger of Marxism and Islamic fundamentalism, which was a revolutionary synthesis, not a permanent fusion. For a brief period, their shared opposition to the Shah united them in a powerful coalition to achieve the revolution. However, their fundamental differences proved irreconcilable, leading to a violent and decisive break in the revolution’s aftermath.
Religion aside, what I find curious is that Marxism is expressly forbidden in the Ten Commandments, confirming that this has been an inherent problem within human civilization for thousands of years. Just counting Russia and China, the death toll thanks to Marxism and the LEFT is estimated at Deaths under regimes that identified with Marxism–Leninism (e.g., the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, China under Mao Zedong, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.) is estimated between 50 and 90 million deaths, and that is just China and Russia. It has been the deadliest theory ever promoted by formal education.
Some argue that Sparta did not wage war against Athens because of communism vs. capitalism. They fought for power, fear, and security—as Thucydides documented—within the very different political and economic realities of the 5th century BC. However, the economics tells a different story. Sparta was a communist state. It never issued coins to discourage individual wealth.
Sparta never issued coins. All they had were iron “oboloi”, which were intended to be impractical to prevent the accumulation of wealth. Sparta did not issue coinage for centuries due to a deliberate set of ideological laws, known as the Lycurgan Reforms, designed to create a perfectly disciplined, militaristic, and egalitarian society. The state actively used its monetary system to enforce these values.
According to ancient historians like Plutarch, the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus banned the use of gold and silver coins, replacing them with heavy, cumbersome iron bars to stifle corruption, greed, and the pursuit of luxury.
The Spartan currency, called Pelanor (also referred to as ‘obeloi’ or spits), was deliberately made impractical. A single piece weighed around 1.5 pounds (0.68 kg) but had very little value, so even a small sum would require a cart to move.
The iron was deliberately made brittle by quenching it in vinegar while red-hot, rendering it useless for making tools or weapons. This ensured the currency had no purpose other than trade. This was an early communist state with “Anti-Money” by design.
This cumbersome system suppressed foreign influence, reduced theft (because of the difficulty of concealing the large bars), and curbed corruption by making bribery nearly impossible. More importantly, it discouraged the accumulation of private wealth and helped enforce the “equal” lifestyle of the Spartiate citizen class, which was essential for military discipline.
While the iron currency worked for internal trade among citizens, Sparta was not a closed economy. The Perioikoi (a subordinate class of free inhabitants) managed trade and used foreign currency, and the Spartan state itself famously used Persian gold coins to build its navy and ultimately defeat Athens in the Peloponnesian War.
While Athens was the power that defeated the Persians and rose to form its own empire, indeed, Sparta was jealous of that power. But at the root was also this difference in social theory. Athens was capitalist and free, with art, expression, and philosophy. These were characteristics that were at odds with the philosophy of Sparta.
The lesson here is that when dealing with Iran, we must understand that at the very basic core, they remain anti-capitalist/imperialist. This is how they see the USA and Israel. There is a basic fundamental difference in philosophy, and until we stop judging Iran by what we would do, we will never understand the adversary.
You can never achieve social justice where everyone earns the same, still have personal liberty and freedom even to speak, and economic efficiency all simultaneously. It has NEVER worked from ancient times to China and Russia, and it is suppressing Europe into an economic depression. It tore Iran apart at the seams. This Marxist interpretation of Islam destroyed Iran, which ranks in the top three energy reserves in the world for oil and gas, though it is undeniably a global energy superpower.
The Islamic Revolution was responsible for completing and solidifying the nationalization of Iran’s energy sector. The key to understanding this lies in the early 1950s. In 1951, the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalized Iran’s British-controlled oil industry. However, this bold move led to a CIA and MI6-backed coup in 1953, which ousted Mossadegh and reinstated the Shah. After the coup, control of Iran’s oil industry effectively returned to Western companies
Prior to 2018 any public mention of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would be cause for you to immediately lose your security clearance in government. However, by mid-2018 DC officials were not only openly discussing FISA in public settings, but the DOJ released a Top-Secret Compartmented Intelligence Title-1 FISA warrant.
Why was a TSCI Title-1 FISA warrant made public in 2018?
The Carter Page FISA application and subsequent warrant would have been the easiest document to keep hidden from the public. You cannot FOIA classified documents. However, someone in the DOJ released their exclusive national security equity. I am certain it was Andrew Weissmann who made the call.
Additionally, when the DOJ FISA application was made public, few people noticed the date stamp on the application itself [copy from FISC 3/17/17].
Why was the DOJ releasing the warrant to the public, and why did they use that specific copy that came from the FISC on March 17, 2017. Why not release their own copies from their own DOJ-NSD files? What was it about the FISC copy that made it the option of their choice?
Just as the Atkinson transcript, whistleblower report and IC IG investigative material showed a fraudulent and corrupt impeachment effort, the background details of the FISA application being made public shows the fraudulent and corrupt intent of the Robert Mueller investigation that preceded it.
You will remember the massive media debate in early 2018 about the FISA application deployed against former short-time Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The DOJ, at the time under the control of the Mueller special counsel for all things Trump-Russia related, wouldn’t let congress see the FISA application. Devin Nunes complained to House Speaker Paul Ryan.
Eventually a deal was struck and two members from the House Intelligence committee (democrats and republicans) and two members from the House Judiciary Committee, were allowed to go to Main Justice and read the FISA application, but not copy it. Four congressmen were allowed to go read and take notes. Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe represented the two republicans, and their notes formed the basis for what later was called “The Nunes Memo.”
The Democrats were not happy with the claims in the Nunes memo, and subsequently HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff wrote the democrat version.
Both of those sets of memos then needed to be declassified, more delays, before they could be made public. For weeks and weeks, the Nunes -vs- Schiff memos were debated by both sides, with each saying their version was the truth and the other party’s version was spin and/or false. All of this was happening in January, February and March 2018.
Then, later in the summer, something really weird happened. On July 21, 2018, Main Justice completely reversed position on keeping the FISA application secret, and for the first time in U.S. history a top secret classified Title-1 FISA application was released to the public (with redactions).
People were so filled with curiosity about the Carter Page FISA application that few, heck, almost no one, stopped to ask why it was released?
Why the sudden secrecy reversal by the DOJ?
The FISA application was made public under the auspices of a Freedom of Information Act request from the media. However, if you were intellectually honest and curious that justification never made any sense. If there was ever a document easy to keep hidden from the public, a Title-1 top secret, classified, FISA application was that document. No FOIA lawsuit was ever going to penetrate that firewall, it was simply too easy for the government to keep hidden.
The FISA application was released over the weekend on July 21st and 22nd, 2018, a Saturday and Sunday. The FISA was not released on a Friday afternoon, it was released on a Saturday.
Everyone quickly rushed to read the national security search warrant. Heck, no one in the public had ever seen one before. The FISA application confirmed the details of a Trump campaign official under a year of extensive surveillance and search authority; but again, few stood back and asked why it was being released.
Here’s the background:
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosensten gave testimony to the Senate in June of 2020 {LINK}. Within Rosenstein’s election year and little covered testimony, he revealed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his main deputy Andrew Weissmann were completely in charge of Main Justice at the DOJ during the time the special counsel investigation was happening. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was recused, and DAG Rosenstein was in charge of how much power and authority Mueller and Weissmann’s team held in the DOJ.
Rosenstein testified the special counsel had full control over everything and anything related to Trump-Russia, including the Carter Page FISA application the special counsel had re-submitted for the third renewal on June 29, 2017.
Anything that remotely touched the Trump-Russia investigation was completely and unilaterally controlled by Mueller and Weissmann, including any ancillary investigation that would come as an outcome from anything to do with Trump-Russia (the SSCI leak by James Wolfe is one example).
Rosenstein also testified he deferred everything to Mueller/Weissmann and never challenged any of their requests for expanded investigative scope or authority. Rosenstein felt the special counsel was in charge, and anything they wanted – they got.
As Deputy AG Rosenstein said all the special counsel operations were part of their investigative authority, and he felt he had no place in questioning, challenging or refusing anything related to their investigative authority.
Mueller/Weissmann had full control.
That June 2020 testimony was the final piece of the puzzle as to who authorized the release of the Carter Page FISA application to the public.
It was Andrew Weissmann; but why?
♦ In the background of June and July 2018, unbeknownst to the public at the time, Inspector General Michael Horowitz had just discovered that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated an email, which was used as part of the FISA application.
The CIA told Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them. Clinesmith doctored the email and told the FBI and DOJ that Carter Page was NOT working for the CIA. The exact opposite of the CIA statement to him. If the truth was known about Page working for the CIA, the DOJ would never have been able to get the second renewal of the FISA application in April 2017.
The INSD office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered the Clinesmith material lie. At the time in June 2018 no one else knew. However, internally the Mueller/Weissmann special counsel knew exactly what IG Horowitz discovered. Now they had a problem. The special counsel had renewed the application using the Clinesmith lie on June 29, 2017.
If the search warrant application was based on fraud, the search warrant could be invalidated by the same court that authorized it. That would be a problem because legal cases against Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn, along with the investigations of Michael Flynn Jr., George Papadopoulos and Walid Phares were all based on evidence obtained by the fraudulently constructed search warrant.
The Weissmann special counsel had a fruit of the poisonous tree problem on their hands. When the FISA court (FISC) finds out about the results of the IG report, which will include the fabrication by Kevin Clinesmith, the FISC could revoke and invalidate the authority of the Title-1 search warrant. If the FISC did that, all of the evidence against Manafort and Flynn would disappear, and they would have to drop any investigative path that came from the exploitation of an unlawful warrant.
♦ The search warrant was already getting massive scrutiny from congress and the public. People quickly discovered the FBI had used the Steele Dossier as the ‘Woods file’ underpinning the application. People were finding out the Steele Dossier was based on fictitious and debunked information the FBI knew about in January and February of 2017, even before the second and third renewals.
On July 12th, 2018, the Weissmann special counsel jumped into action and drafted a letter to the FISC saying despite recent information from congressional investigations, the predicate for probable cause still existed (see below). This letter was written to the FISC, filed quietly, and never shared with DAG Rosenstein or congress. It was a very big lie from the Weissmann special counsel. [NOTE, only the FISA court knew this letter existed until 2020.]
[NOTE, only the FISC knew this letter existed until 2020. When the FISC saw the IG report and the details about Kevin Clinesmith the FISC demanded the DOJ send a copy of that July 2018 letter to congress for oversight and accountability – SEE HERE]
Notice this letter to the FISA Court (July 12) was nine days before the FISA application was made public (July 21).
Weissmann lied to the FISC to protect his criminal cases which were at a very important stage in mid 2018. By the time the FISC found out about the Clinesmith fabrications in late 2019 it was too late. The fraudulent search warrant had been made public, the cases that used the warrant authority were over and the special counsel had concluded.
Angered by DOJ Inspector General revealing the Clinesmith manipulation, the FISA Court (FISC) demanded that congress be notified, and Bill Barr did as the FISC requested… he told congress. In essence, the judicial branch (FISC) told the executive branch (AG Barr) to tell the legislative branch (Senate Judiciary Committee) about the DOJ’s intentional lies. Congress did nothing about it.
♦ However, going back to that critical time in 2018, there was also another issue surrounding the FISA application that also surfaced mid-summer providing a second reason to make the FISA application public.
An indictment of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Security Director James Wolfe was unsealed in the DC court {June 7, 2018, LINK}.
James Wolfe was busted for leaking information to journalists from the Senate Intelligence Committee, one of those leaks was the Carter Page FISA application, which Wolfe leaked to Ali Watkins on March 17, 2017, a year earlier.
Wolfe was going to face a criminal trial for charges related to the leaking of that FISA application. Again, this was problematic for the special counsel because that leak was part of the reason why the special counsel was appointed.
On March 17, 2017, SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner wanted a special counsel appointed. There was a debate about whether President Trump was under an investigation of any sort. Senator Warner’s motive for the special counsel was exactly because he knew the DC machinery needed to throw a bag over all of the corrupt targeting of Donald Trump; a special counsel could do that, and be weaponized to continue the attacks.
Senator Mark Warner told SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the FISA application on March 17, 2017. Three days later, March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey first admitted publicly, while testifying to congress, that President Trump was under investigation since July of the previous year (2016). The timing of the two events was not accidental. Warner and Comey both wanted a special counsel investigation put into place for the same reason. Both needed a cover-up operation.
Fast forward to the end of December 2017 and James Wolfe is busted for the FISA application leak. FBI Special Agent Brian Dugan had worked the case for six months; he had James Wolfe completely nailed and Wolfe admitted to his conduct.
The investigative evidence against the Senate Security Director had to first flow through the special counsel before it could be given to a grand jury, because the special counsel had control over anything that touched Trump-Russia and that included their FISA application which James Wolfe leaked on March 17, 2017, to Ali Watkins.
The criminal case file against Wolfe went to Main Justice in early January 2018. Between January and late April 2018, the Special Counsel went to work diffusing the damage within the Wolfe evidence files. What they did with that evidence file is jaw-dropping (Warner/Waldman text messages etc), but that’s for another story.
In late April 2018 the now weakened evidence file against James Wolfe was given back to DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and a grand jury was seated May 3, 2018. The Wolfe criminal indictment was unsealed June 7, 2018.
♦ After lying to the FISA court about a justified predicate still existing on July 12,2018, Andrew Weissmann made the FISA application public on the weekend of July 22, 2018, for two reasons:
(1) To protect the predicate of his search warrant authority; and by extension preserve the cases he created using it; and by extension avoid the fruit of the poisonous tree issue by diluting the need or the FISC to invalidate the Title-1 search warrant.
(2) To render moot and remove the most explosive element of the criminal case against James Wolfe, the leak of a TSCI FISA warrant.
It was the special counsel, specifically Andrew Weissmann, who released the FISA warrant to the public.
However, you will notice that Andrew Weissmann did not release the copy of the FISA warrant from the files of the DOJ-National Security Division. No, he made public the FISA warrant that James Wolfe had leaked to Ali Watkins; that’s why the public release carried the FISC stamp 3/17/17.
Few people knew that.
Even fewer knew why.
Now you do.
The fraudulent Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Donald Trump morphed into the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation of President Trump. The same DOJ/FBI people participated in both. The week after the Mueller/Weissmann investigation collapsed under the weight of Robert Mueller’s now infamous congressional testimony, the next operation commenced. The IC IG Atkinson impeachment operation was triggered.
The gate to expose the corrupt DOJ and FBI officials, lies at the end of the path walked by the Mueller-Weissmann special counsel. Follow that Weissmann trail and you walk right in the front door of Main Justice and the Washington DC FBI office.
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner told SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the FISA application (2017).
FBI Director Chris Wray gave Senator Mark Warner a heads up that the FBI found out about it (2017).
Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann then began scrubbing the evidence (2018).
Wolfe’s lawyers told the DOJ they would subpoena Mark Warner to testify.
Charges against James Wolfe were dropped (2018).
A generally good big-picture overview here from the folks at Promethean PAC.
“In this midweek update, Susan Kokinda argues that Kevin Warsh’s Senate Banking Committee testimony—calling for “regime change” at the Federal Reserve and blaming inflation on excessive money creation—signals a broader shift aligned with the Trump administration against what she describes as an Imperial, British-led free-trade order.
Kokinda highlights Warsh’s criticism of post-2008 quantitative easing as benefiting financial asset holders while many Americans own no assets, and contrasts this with Democrats’ focus on divestment issues. Kokinda ties Warsh’s stance to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s emphasis on raising living standards over bailing out markets and to Trump’s comments on Fed independence. She then points to Trump’s April 20 Defense Production Act action citing market failures in energy infrastructure, including transformer shortages, as national-security threats, linking this to energy independence and Iran, and contrasts it with Mark Carney’s globalist posture and references to the War of 1812.”
.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held an impromptu press availability today at the White House. The primary focus of the questioning relates to the status in Iran.
Mrs Leavitt notes there is an internal political fracture within Iran between hardline religious extremists and moderate religious extremists, and President Trump is giving those two factions space to come to a unified negotiation approach. WATCH:
.
Consider the amount of money involved in the trilateral USMCA trade agreement. It’s not just about trade and commerce between the USA, Canada and Mexico; the totality of the equation is derived from all of the third-party nations who trade into the North American trade bloc. There are tens-of-trillions at stake.
As we have outlined for several years the trilateral trade agreement has several material flaws. With the U.S. economy as the primary consumption economy, both Mexico and Canada derive significant benefits within the USMCA. Additionally, both Canada and Mexico leverage their unique positions to gain economic benefit from third parties who want to use either country as a backdoor into the U.S. market.
President Trump has long wanted to eliminate the trilateral trade deal in favor of two more controllable bilateral deals, one with Mexico and one with Canada. In large measure this approach is specifically to end the exploitation by third parties. President Trump also noted in his discussions with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney that the primary function of the USMCA was to eliminate NAFTA.
Keep this in mind. The purpose of the USMCA was to eliminate NAFTA.
Now we enter the phase of the USMCA where President Trump can exit the agreement or modify the core foundation of the agreement.
For the past fourteen months Mexico has been modifying their trade and economic policy in anticipation of a USMCA change. However, for the past fourteen months Canada has been combative against President Trump, stoking anger toward Trump, and the government of Canada has been openly proclaiming their intention to economically and politically fight and defeat President Trump.
Again, remember the scale of the money involved here. Additionally, Canada doesn’t have an organic economy if they cannot exploit their market access. If Trump restricts third party exploitation, Canada loses massive amounts of money. This is the baseline for Canada’s reluctance to open up the USMCA for renegotiation; they cannot lose their third-party loophole or else they are really in a bad place.
This sets the stage for trillion-dollar interests to frame opposition not only toward President Trump, but also toward any of his economic team who are in alignment with the renegotiation of the USMCA. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is chief among those targets along with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick outlines the issue in the first part of this recent discussion. WATCH:
Canada responds with conversations to media.
OTTAWA—Canada’s chief U.S. trade negotiator said her mandate is to preserve the key elements of the existing North American trade treaty, with no intention to significantly revise or rewrite the pact’s terms.
Janice Charette said she doesn’t expect an agreement among the parties before July 1, when a formal U.S.-led review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade treaty, or USMCA, is set to begin in earnest.
She added that she is also seeking relief from hefty U.S. tariffs of up to 50% on key industrial sectors such as steel, automobiles, and aluminum. Canada is America’s largest supplier of both steel and aluminum.
“My instructions are very much about protecting the fundamentals of this agreement, not revisiting them,” Charette said at a conference organized by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
“There is no need to renegotiate, there’s no need to open [the treaty] up and change the fundamental underpinnings of it,” she said. “It is a robust agreement,” she added.
[…] Prime Minister Carney appointed Charette, formerly Canada’s chief bureaucrat, as the top trade negotiator in USMCA talks. Over the weekend, Carney released a video statement on YouTube, in which he said Canada’s close ties to the U.S. now represent an economic weakness. Some veteran trade watchers said the prime minister may be setting the stage for USMCA talks to fail.
Charette’s remarks indicate Canada “is basically daring Trump to blow USMCA up and they think Congress or the courts will preserve the deal,” Mark Warner, a trade lawyer who advises clients in Toronto and New York, said. “I think Canada is playing for time and daring Trump to act,” he added. (read more)
Steve Baker and The Blaze are being sued by former Capitol Hill police officer Shauni Kerkhoff, who Baker accused of being the J6 pipe bomber based on “gait” analysis and other dubious claims.
Mr Baker, a former FBI employee named Kyle Seraphin and Kentucky representative Thomas Massie also pushed the accusation, saying FBI Director Kash and other FBI officials were lying and an innocent guy was arrested. The arrested suspect, Brian J. Cole, Jr., confessed to the crimes.
Yesterday, Shauni Kerkhoff, who now works for the CIA security office, filed a lawsuit against Steve Baker and The Blaze [SEE HERE], claiming Steve Baker was motivated by anger over his arrest for activity in the J6 event where Ms. Kerkhoff was present providing security.
According to the lawsuit, Steve Baker and The Blaze created a conspiracy theory using Shauni Kerkhoff as the target of their claims.
This is going to be an interesting lawsuit to watch unfold as there are various types of conspiracy claims similar to Mr Baker that are circulating. If their claim is false, both Mr Baker and The Blaze could end up in the same financial position as Alex Jones.
I suspect this is not going to end well for Steve Baker, The Blaze or Glenn Beck.
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 