Supreme Court Blocks and Punts on Trump Financial Records Cases…


Apparently stall tactics are all the rage amid a political judiciary that is collapsing from a quickly metastasizing cancer inside the third branch of government.

Today the Supreme court blocked in part, and punted in part, on three cases related to the resistance effort to gain the private financial records of President Trump.  The bottom line is that none of the decisions today will likely be resolved before the November election.

♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean  financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over.  As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”

This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.

♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement.  This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.

We anticipated this ruling in the Trump -v- Mazars case because it was clear the efforts of the House were fishing expeditions.  Despite initiating an impeachment effort in order to bolster their attempt; and then attempting to backdoor the congressional subpoenas under the guise of the impeachment effort; the Supreme Court rejected that approach.

SCOTUS BLOG – […] Having found both sides’ proposed tests wanting, Roberts outlined a middle ground for the lower courts in these cases, as well as other courts going forward, to follow. Courts, Roberts instructed, should “perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the ‘unique position’ of the President.”

Among other things, courts should consider whether the president’s papers are really necessary (because the information cannot be obtained elsewhere); whether the subpoena is as limited in scope as it can be while still serving Congress’ purpose; what evidence Congress has offered to “establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose”; and what burdens a subpoena imposes on the president. Because the lower courts did not adequately consider these “special concerns,” Roberts explained, the cases will now return to those courts for additional proceedings. (more)

Trump -v- Vance (Manhattan case) decision:

.

Trump -v- Mazars (legislative case) decision:

.

 

Former Acting DNI Richard Grenell Discusses Unmasking During Transition Period…


Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell discusses the period during the presidential transition period where President Obama’s white house team was coordinating intelligence efforts to research and unmask incoming officials.

BLM: A Morally Bankrupt Front for Democrats and Destruction


BLM is doing a great job as a fundraising front for the Democrat Party as well as providing a clever front that appears genuinely concerned about racial injustice

Dennis Jamison image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesJuly 7, 2020

BLM: A Morally Bankrupt Front for Democrats and Destruction

Arecent article in Townhall, from writer Kevin McCoullough, breaks down 600 murders in six major cities in just six weeks. He briefly explains the decisions of the Democrat city mayors to defund their police forces. From another serious article in Townhall, ten of the 600 people murdered were innocent children killed just since the beginning of July. The tragic report details the murders of ten innocent kids. Their stories are heartbreaking.

Where was BLM to protest the black children who were senselessly murdered? Black lives matter? Where were the marches? Where were the protestors in the cities where such senseless killings took place? One man in Minneapolis with a criminal background was murdered and the whole nation is in an uproar. Ten innocent children were murdered and not a peep out of BLM, or Democrat supporters of BLM. Who cares?

Who cries for these innocent children?

Who cries for these innocent children? Who will make their names ring out loudly for true justice in this country?

  • Carson Walker, 4 years old, of Galivants Ferry, North Carolina;
  • Jace Young, 6 years old, of San Francisco, California;
  • Natalia Wallace,  7 years old, of Chicago, Illinois;
  • Royta Giles, Jr., 8 years old, of Hoover, Alabama;
  • Secoriea Turner, 8 years old, of Atlanta Georgia;
  • Natalia Wallace, 7 years old, of Chicago, Illinois;
  • Davon McNeil, 11 years old, Washington, D.C.;
  • Elayna Saidee, 12 years old,, and Makeliah Osorno, 11 years old, of Delano, California

Another 6-year-old boy from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and a 14-yea-old boy from Chicago, Illinois were also murdered over the Independence Day weekend. The boy   in Chicago was shot in the back as he was watching a fireworks display. The reports indicate that four shooters approached a large group of people who had gathered to watch the fireworks and began shooting into the crowd just before midnight. An 11-year-old and a 15-year-old were also wounded in the attack.

If Black lives matter, how much more outrageous could the massacre of innocents be? Not a peep came from BLM, or Democrat supporters of BLM, or Democrat leaders. Who truly cares? Yet, who cries for the innocent children whose lives were destroyed all too early? There apparently is no value in crying over murdered children. In essence, BLM supports the murder of babies in the wombs of would be mothers, so morality is not a real issue here. For Antifa and BLM, it is more about raising hell rather than genuine concern for human life—except when an occasional balck guy is killed by a white cop.

One needs to realize that most of June was consumed with the violent protests from the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May. Antifa and Black Lives Matter terrorist groups essentially had their run of the streets with unrestricted violence that primarily occurred primarily in Democrat-governed states, in mainly 30 Democrat-run cities. From Floyd’s murder, Americans of all creeds, of all all races, of all national origins grieved; some were stirred enough to take their concerns to the streets in peaceful protests. But, genuine demonstrations of empathy over police brutality were hijacked by disingenuous and rabid anarchist, Antifa, and BLM mobs seeking destruction of whatever they could get away with, and they essentially raised hell—literally.

Black Liberation Theology and its origins in Marxist dogma

If regular citizens think that it was just a sudden emotional outburst by those concerned, this would be wrong. One month after Floyd’s murder, Hawke Newsome, a Black Lives Matter leader from the greater New York area, appeared on Fox News and boldly threatened to burn the country down if demands aren’t met: “If this country doesn’t give us what we want then we will burn down the system and replace it. All right. And, I could be speaking figuratively, I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation.”

Well, no. It is definitely not all right—not his distorted history, nor the threat—veiled or otherwise. Newsome’s essential narrative was about America being born in violence. This comes from a simplistic view of history and from two foundations: Black Liberation Theology and its origins in Marxist dogma. In case regular citizens think that this is just one miseducated guy’s perspective, it is wrong. Antifa and BLM groups are Marxist oriented and trained—especially the leaders—someone like Mr. Newsome. A few years ago, a similar strong statement was made by a young BLM leader.

In 2016, during the election campaign, Blake Simons, who was at the time, the Deputy Communication Director of the Afrikan Black Coalition, wrote an article entitled “A New Constitution of the Bullet.” Simons stated that after months of participating in the “Black Lives Matter” movement, he came to the realization that “the Constitution is the root of virtually all our problems in America.”

He specifically revealed this political perspective:

The U.S. is a country that was founded on slavery, genocide, rape, and white male patriarchy. The colonizers that we condemn for enslaving Afikans and murdering indigenous peoples are the same people that produced and upheld the document we use to govern our nation to this day. Our bloodshed is rooted in this nation’s founding document, The Constitution.

Defunding the police reflects either a very naive view or one that is locked in to the BLM mantra to defund the police

Blake Simons is still organizing. He was at a rally in Berkeley, California, being a U.C. Berkeley alumnus, he was stirring up crowds in the midst of the Floyd debacle. He told a crowd, among other things, that change comes from direct action, not from the ballot box. Simons and Newsome must be making former community organizer and President Barack Obama quite proud. Why would that be? While he was in office, a while after the Ferguson, Missouri protests, President Obama welcomed representatives of BLM into the White House and praised the young activists. Obama explained at the time:

“They are much better organizers than I was when I was their age, and I am confident that they are going to take America to new heights.” He explained that they reminded him of older, existing civil rights organizations. Such a statement had little relevance to the main impetus behind the Civil Rights Movement as Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. never condoned violence. Rev. Dr. King was likely one of the most important catalysts for change regarding racial relations in the United States in his short lifetime. It is highly doubtful that King would have agreed with Obama in his assessment of BLM.

So, for those who are not clear, Obama was accepting, even condoning, the efforts of violence carried out by BLM militants. Some of the young activists that Obama praised are still around. Brittany Packnett was one of them. Obama said of Packnett at the time,  “her voice is going to be making a difference for years to come.” He was right. Recently, she appeared on MSNBC in an interview with Brian Williams and argued that defunding the police will “keep people safer.” This was a young person Obama appointed to his “21st Century Policing Task Force” and the “Ferguson Commission,” which apparently made little impact in reforming police forces across America.

In Packnett’s interview, she went on to say that defunding police “means moving the money from an institution that is killing people to the institutions that keep people well.” In 2019, records indicate that nine black men were killed by white police officers. Nine. And, all hell is being raised due to “systemic racism.” Yet more blacks die because of the black criminals than from corrupt police. Defunding the police reflects either a very naive view or one that is locked in to the BLM mantra to defund the police, which provides a prelude to continued, unabated, and senseless violence in the inner cities.

BLM leaders are indeed taking America to new heights: BLM is doing a great job as a fundraising front for the Democrat Party as well as providing a clever front that appears genuinely concerned about racial injustice. Taking away the police will only beget more violence and civil disorder—more confusion and chaos since it is an election year.

Harming White People Because They’re White isn’t Revolutionary!


Malcolm X never endorsed targeting random citizens as a misguided expression of racial grievance.

Nadra Enzi imageRe-posted from The Conservative Tree House By  —— Bio and ArchivesJuly 6, 2020

Harming White People Because They're White isn't Revolutionary!

Harming White people because they’re White isn’t revolutionary, it’s predatory. There’s no historic or ethical explanation for such violence. Insult to literal injury is added by elite liberals politically enabling it, including issuing “no arrest” mandates to police in cities under their control.

I’ve heard too many first person accounts as a grassroots security consultant. I’ve watched too much video, like this one, to dismiss this disturbing trend as an anomaly. I oppose such violence as a non racist Black nationalist promoting community autonomy (from elite liberal hegemony) and an open minded conservative working with grassroots leftists and mainstream conservatives to create local safety and homeless outreach.

Public brutality is never the answer

Public brutality is never the answer. If it’s wrong for White supremacists to do it then it’s wrong for us too!

If Black people aren’t disciplined and honorable, protective and productive, then what are they complaining about among themselves and to others?

Malcolm X never endorsed targeting random citizens as a misguided expression of racial grievance.

I say unequivocally that harming White people because they’re White is predatory, not revolutionary.

#capblacksafetycreator is Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black, Grassroots Security Consultant in the real life Gotham City of New Orleans.

Sing It Again, Sam, Sing It Forever


As Time Crawls By

Judi McLeod image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesJuly 6, 2020

Believe it or not, July 6 is International Kissing Day, the day following the July 4th holiday weekend with anarchists kissing off Old Glory, hacking down statues and historical monuments, gunning down little children, and continuing to create mayhem out on city streets.

But kissing is dangerous to your health.

Because of Covid-19, mandatory mask wearing and widespread lockdowns,  today seems destined to go down in history as the day we kissed-off International Kissing Day.

As Time Crawls By

..”2020 is anything but normal and as the Coronavirus continues to rage on, everything from a formal kiss on the cheek, to a kiss hello and a kiss goodbye, is no longer the proper etiquette.

“National Today — the internet’s #1 authority on holidays — has some recommendations on what to do instead:

“1.  Tap Feet
The hip new greeting is a foot tap. Videos of the unique greeting taken in China and Iran have gone viral.

“2.  Bump Elbows
The Oxford Dictionary was recently updated to add this phrase, which is defined as “a gesture (usually of greeting or farewell) in which two people lightly tap their elbows together as an alternative to a handshake or embrace, esp. in order to reduce the risk of spreading or catching an infectious disease.”

“3.  Share Some Hand Sanitizer
Perhaps the most gracious of gestures would be to reach out and offer a bit of hand sanitizer upon greeting someone.

“If all else fails, a simple wave or nod will do the trick.”

But wait a minute, doesn’t “Bump Elbows” break the rules of Social Distancing?

As Time Goes By

Since 1931,  many people have gone around humming the strains of ‘As Time Goes By’, a song written by Herman Hupfield in that
year.

The song rose to fame when it was featured in the 1942 Warner Bros. film, ‘Casablanca’ performed by the endearing Dooley Wilson as ‘Sam’.

“It was also the title and theme song of the 1990s British romantic comedy series As Time Goes By.” (Wikipedia)

Back then, kissing as an acceptable form of affection was still part of being human.

Nowadays, no matter how hot and humid the weather, people are mandated to hide their lips behind face masks, although some of their lying eyes can still be seen above their masks.

But the words from a distant past will always be remembered in song.:

“You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss
A sigh is just a sigh
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by
And when two lovers woo
They still say “I love you”
On that you can rely
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by
Moonlight and love songs
Never out of date
Hearts full of passion
Jealousy and hate
Woman needs man, and man must have his mate
That no one can deny
“It’s still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by
Moonlight and love songs
Never out of…”

 

When I Grow Too Old To Dream

And then there’s the song ‘When I Grow Too Old To Dream’, sung by the late Dame Vera Lynn, Woolf Phillips and others:

“When I grow too old to dream
I’ll have you to remember
When I grow too old to dream
Your love will live in my heart
So kiss me my sweet
And so let us part
And when I grow too old to dream
That kiss will live in my heart.”

We’re never (thank God!) “too old to dream”, as even in these sad times, many still dream of better days to come.

Confined to our homes by Lockdowns, frowned upon for laughing, taking families to the summer beach; smeared as White Supremacists by a Democrat-complicit mainstream and social media, there will be NO KISSING, no peace in the valley.

As former talk radio talk show host Laurie Roth used to tell her multiple Democrat detractors: “You can kiss my grits!”

Meanwhile, Sing it again, Sam! Sing forever!”

The Lessons of History


Will freedom survive?

Dr. Robert R. Owens image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesJuly 6, 2020

Lincoln, Gettysburg

Empires rise and empires fall.  They usually don’t end with a bang.  They end with a whimper.

Revolts become revolutions when those sent by the authorities to put them down instead join the revolt.  Is that what we’re beginning to see as police and National Guard troops kneel in submission before BLM and ANTIFA?  Many who railed against those who kneeled for the playing of our national anthem now kneel before those who showed their contempt for America.  Are the reins of power about to slip from the limp hands of the descendants of the Minutemen, the Grand Army of the Republic, and all the heroes who won the wars and enforced the peace?  Are the cultural, financial, social, and political structures we’ve known all our lives about to be upended?

Many readily admit they agree with everything Trump is doing and has done.  They acknowledge his policies led to the greatest economy the world has ever known and prosperity like we haven’t experienced since we all liked Ike.  And yet many of these same people say they won’t vote for him again because they don’t like the tone of his tweets or the combative manner in which he returns fire to the daily verbal broadsides from the Democrats who identify as journalists.

As you watch the blue cities burn and the blue leaders bow,  ask yourself, “For whom the bell tolls?”  Is the answer inevitably, “It tolls for thee.”  And if it is, what then shall we do?  Sit on our hands, quarantined in our homes, wearing our masks, watching in disbelief as thugs take over the streets, as the police are disbanded, waiting for Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, and the rest of the millionaire plutocrats to raise the red flag from the White House?

If our fleeting moment upon the world’s stage as uncivil as it is, has become a civil war this November we will arrive at Gettysburg.  A climatic moment that will decide in which direction the war will flow.  Looking ahead, knowing there will be many casualties physical, political, cultural, and societal it might be the perfect time to recall the words which frame the actual Battle of Gettysburg for all students of History:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Will freedom survive?  Or will our Republic like the Romans before us morph into something completely different?  Instead of an empire we may become a dictatorship of the proletariat where those who dole out the equal shares paraphrase the haunting statement from George Orwell’s Animal Farm … “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

If the blues sweep the board in November, we may all end up singing the blues.

Those who don’t learn the lessons of History are doomed to repeat the mistakes of History.  Those who do learn the lessons of History are unfortunately doomed to watch everyone else repeat the mistakes of History.

Hunkered in the bunker.  Waiting for the rain.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Statues & Rewriting History & Ignorance


I find that the tearing down of statues has gone way too far. Tearing down Columbus because he discovered America, and that harmed the indigenous people, is really nuts. If that is how they really feel, then return their land to the Indians and go back to where their ancestors were from. Taking down Columbus’ statue but then enjoying the privilege of living here is insane. Then they removed a block where slaves stood and were sold. Why? That is like tearing down the Berlin Wall and pretending it never happened. I would think it supports history to show what slavery was about back then.

Then there is Thomas Jefferson who these people simply say was a slave owner and had children with a slave. The slaves were his wife’s from her former marriage after her first husband died. Some were skilled, but most were farmhands. If Jefferson released them all, they would have starved. Over 70% of the economy was agrarian. They would not have been able to find a job at Starbucks or something. It was a completely different world. There would be no employment.

It was Jefferson who actually began the entire immorality of slavery, which shows that these people do not know their history. There was a heated debate over Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence and his phrase “all men are created equal” when there existed American slavery among many of the delegates. The Congress deleted nearly a fourth of Jefferson’s draft, which included a passage criticizing the slave trade. It was Jefferson who first brought to the surface the controversial “anti-slavery” passage. Jefferson had long been against slavery and argued in court for the abolition of a slave before he ever wrote the Declaration of Independence. It was Jefferson who first articulated the anti-slavery concept which would eventually lead to the Civil War.

Insofar as having children with a slave, this was after his wife died; the slave was mixed race and the offspring of his wife’s former husband. Jefferson freed them and they were skilled and did not work as farmhands.

There were ruthless slave owners and there were also moderate to benevolent masters. Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment, but he also had to be practical in the world he lived in at the time.

Why Did The DOJ Declassify and Release the FISA Application on July 21, 2018?….


On July 21, 2018, amid the apex of all things Trump-Russia being carefully narrated by the special counsel team, why did the DOJ release the Top Secret Classified Intelligence document known as the Carter Page FISA application?

At the time it happened everyone was so consumed with the content of the release, almost no-one stopped to ask that question.  Except, well, me.

Put yourself back into that 2018 time-frame: the Trump-Russia collusion hoax was being pushed hard; the Nunes memo -vs- the Schiff memo was being argued and the media was writing furiously about leaks from anonymous sources “with knowledge of the investigation” etc.  Congress was being blocked from all their document requests and their bucket lists for declassification.  Rod Rosenstein was refusing to testify to the House Intel Committee led by Devin Nunes.  The DOJ was blocking documents related to surveillance of President Trump.  The media was saying there was no surveillance of Trump.  Congress was desperate to break the stonewalling and asked President Trump to declassify a list of documents they provided.  Rod Rosenstein threatened Trump that if he declassified documents it would be adding to a potential obstruction investigation and claim. Etc. Etc.

Hell, despite his recusal from these matters, AG Sessions was getting major heat over the blockage from DOJ… the battle was intense.  Sessions announced an Illinois USAO John Laush to try and mediate the issues.  Laush was a major fail.

Then, amid all of that stonewalling, blocking, redacting of documents, failure to unredact, and refusal to declassify…. suddenly, all of a sudden, presto, here’s the most top secret classified document release ever.

To fulfill a FOIA request by Judicial Watch and the New York Times.

A FOIA request?

Seriously?

Considering all of the documents that would have been the easiest NOT to release because it is a top secret classified intelligence product; and considering the denial of that FOIA request would have easily withstood all judicial challenge because of the nature of its content; all of a sudden… hey, here you go. Here it is.

It just never made sense.

I have finally found the answer to that question; and while I must hold back on some details, we are at a point where you too should know.

First, an admission that I was wrong.

I always thought Robert Mueller was a false front, a semi-cogent face for a team of 17 lawyers that moved-in to take over Main Justice.  I was not wrong about Mueller, he was exactly that: a hand selected name to give credibility to a team assembly, and a man who would acquiesce to the smart, familiar and legal minds that were really running the resistance operation.

Where I was wrong, was thinking Rosenstein was a countermeasure to those who took control over Main Justice.

He was not.

Rod Rosenstein was doing exactly the same as Mueller, acquiescing to every request, instruction and demand by the seventeen legal squatters who took over Main Justice.

As Rod Rosenstein recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he never once questioned the special counsel about any request, demand or instruction; and he never once challenged their motives for the requests they made.

As Deputy AG, and with AG Sessions recused, Rod Rosenstein should have been on top of the special counsel; but he wasn’t.  He intentionally wasn’t.

The entire time the special counsel was operating, seventeen assembled members of the Trump resistance, were running the show inside the U.S. Department of Justice.  They controlled everything.

AG Jeff Sessions was fire-walled; he saw nothing, and he had no input into anything.  That was the first step in the resistance operation.

The second step was to instruct Rosenstein that every request made by the team was part of their investigation; regardless of how it might seem disconnected, it was all part of their investigative process.  That’s how they steamrolled Rosenstein into sitting in a corner and waiting for documents to sign; authorities to grant (scope memos etc.); indictments to approve; and requests to be fulfilled.

Seventeen members of the special counsel were running Main Justice.  Seventeen members of the resistance, with input guidance and assistance from Lawfare, were running Main Justice.  That’s the paradigm shift needed to baseline everything.

When the FISA application was released in July 2018, it was released by the special counsel team.  Technically Rosenstein released it; however, unofficially it was released by the demand of the resistance operators under the auspices that it was part of their investigative technique; part of the ongoing operation.

Except that wasn’t the real motive.

The real motive for releasing the FISA application, under the auspices of granting a FOIA request, was because the resistance already knew the New York Times had obtained it illegally.

In fact The New York Times had the FISA application since March 17, 2017, when SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, operating under instructions from SSCI resistance coordinator, Mark Warner, took pictures of each page of the FISA application and sent them to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed.

Ms. Watkins then shared the FISA with fellow resistance allies at the Washington Post and New York Times.   To cover her tracks Ms. Watkins did not immediately write about the FISA application, and I suspect the editors at Buzzfeed may not have known.

In exchange for her pre-planned role, The New York Times then hired Watkins; and, under the legal tutelage of the NYT, Watkins based her reporting on the Trump-Russia narrative from there.

However, in March 2017 what Watkins, Wolfe, media and Mark Warner did not immediately know, was that the FBI was conducting a leak investigation; a genuine leak investigation, and the SSCI was suspected.

The FISA application picked up by James Wolfe and delivered to the SSCI contained a leak tracer, a trap.  When the tracer showed up in media reports, the FBI knew where it leaked from – the SSCI.

[Note the FBI interception dates – The Wolfe leak was March 17, 2017]

Unfortunately, what the FBI did not know – was that SSCI Vice Chairman Mark Warner was the inside resistance operative giving Wolfe the instructions on how to proceed.

In May 2017, the FBI informed Vice-Chair Warner and Chairman Richard Burr that someone in the SSCI leaked the FISA application.   In essence FBI investigators just told the culprit they were investigating a leak he created.  Think about the ramifications.

As part of the overall investigation to locate the specific leaker, all of the SSCI was subject to review and quiet investigation.  As the FBI worked through a process of elimination, that’s when the FBI discovered the Mark Warner text messages to Adam Waldman, the lawyer for Chris Steele.   Not coincidentally the Warner text messages end in May 2017; exactly when he was first notified by the FBI about the specifics of the leak hunt.

What also started in May 2017?…..  The special counsel.

One important aspect to the coordinated demand and incessant drumbeat by the media for a special counsel, was a need to control the outcome of the FBI leak investigation.

Total control.  This was all connected.

The resistance took over Main Justice with the appointment of the special counsel; and one of their priorities was to stop anyone from: (a) finding out the FISA application had leaked; (b) block anyone from finding out how it was leaked; (c) block any independent FBI activity surrounding the leak.

Remember, in this period of 2017 the media side of the resistance operation were denying Trump was under any surveillance.  They were denying anyone in/around the Trump campaign was under surveillance.  However, they were also reporting on the investigation of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative from the investigative perspective, while using and exploiting the information they had in the March 17th leak of the FISA.

March 17th was less than two months after President Trump was inaugurated.   The FISA was leaked even before it was renewed in April (Boente/Comey), and renewed again by the instructions of the special counsel team on June 29th.

When the New York Times sent a FOIA for the FISA application, they did so as a necessary legal cover because they already illegally possessed it.  [Keep in mind, the copy they had was not redacted at all.]

When the Trump-Russia narrative was at it’s apex in July 2018; and with a need to deploy all weapons against the upcoming mid-term election; and when the resistance group  needed to provide legal cover for the New York Times; the FISA application was released by the resistance unit running Main Justice.

It was released as cover for the New York Times (and others) who were already reporting on it; and it allowed the NYT, and others, to fully weaponize the fictitious aspect of the narrative about the FBI genuinely being concerned about Trump colluding with Russia.

The July 2018 release itself was not a clean copy of the FISA application; but rather the DOJ team re-released the March 17, 2017, release and then added the final two renewals to the total release.  In 2018 the DOJ resistance group had to re-release the portion of the FISA application that was previously leaked in March 2017 (or else any reporting containing the leak tracer would not be covered/justified).

So who do you think released the Mark Warner text messages for the same purpose?

BINGO.  Yup, the same resistance group.   It was all an effort to cloud, cover and control.

Key takeaway.  The seventeen members of the special counsel were intentionally brought into Main Justice to organize the resistance.   The DOJ was running the resistance operation.  AG Jeff Sessions was fire-walled and clueless; and DAG Rosenstein was just approving anything put in front of him because it was sold as part of the investigative process.

Regardless of the FBI investigation, the DOJ resistance operation held ultimate control.

Some in the FBI were not happy… not happy at all…. but not in a position to do anything about Main Justice patting them on the head and telling them to run along now.

Oh, there’s so much more…. this is just an appetizer.

The SSCI

The Gang of Eight

The DOJ

The ICIG

Why did Warner/Burr, the SSCI and the DOJ resistance need ICIG Michael Atkinson?

…..Control, in the event a whistle-blower tried poking his head up.

 

Flynn Case Update: DOJ Provides Defense With Handwritten Notes from Tashina Guahar Meeting January 25th – And Dana Boente Notes Which Explain the Reason He Was Retired…


Today the DOJ has released additional exculpatory information to the Flynn defense team surrounding hand-written notes taken by Tashina Guahar and FBI agent Peter Strzok. The 1/25/17 meeting takes place the day after two FBI agents interview Flynn at the White House.  There’s also an internal document from the DOJ dated 1/30/17, and notes by former DOJ AAG -who later became FBI counsel- Dana Boente.

[NOTE: Keep in mind the last day for Jody Hunt, Noel Francisco and Dana Boente was last Friday, July 3rd. Coincidental timing?]

The notes and internal document are filed under seal per Judge Sullivan’s prior order. However, with previous filings the documents were made public the following day; so we might see the content tomorrow.

Tashina Guahar and Dana Boente were part of the small group inside Main Justice who convinced AG Jeff Sessions to recuse.   But you don’t need to wait for the court to release the March 30, 2017, Boente notes, because we already have them.

When the special counsel team was stirring the pot for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, they leaked the Boente notes to their allied resistance member, Rachael Maddow.   Those notes form the basis/justification for Boente signing the second renewal of the FISA warrant against Carter Page (April 2017).   James Comey called Dana Boente because he needed the FISA extended and could not call Jeff Sessions.

Comey enlisted Boente into the operation against President Trump.  Ultimately these notes form the basis for why the DOJ demanded Boente leave his position in May.  This is why Boente was removed {Go Deep}.

In 2015 the DOJ-OIG (office of inspector general) requested oversight of the DOJ National Security Division.  It was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the DOJ-NSD.

When John Carlin resigned as Asst. Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division in October 2016 he was replaced by Principal Deputy Asst. Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Mary McCord.  After President Trump took office on January 20th, 2017, Sally Yates was Acting AG and Mary McCord was in charge of the DOJ-NSD.

Yates and McCord were the two Main Justice officials who then engaged with White House Counsel Don McGahn on January 26th, 2017, regarding the General Flynn FBI interview conducted on January 24th.

The January 25th meeting notes [released today] likely document Tashina Guahar and Peter Strzok preparing Sally Yates and Mary McCord for that confrontation with Don McGhan.  The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was the headline they were driving..

On January 30th, 2017, Sally Yates was fired for refusing to defend the Trump travel ban from extremist countries.  Yates was replaced on January 31st by the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Dana Boente.

With his shift to Main Justice Dana Boente was Acting Attorney General, and Mary McCord was Asst. AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD.  Boente was in the Acting AG position from Jan 31st, 2017, until Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8th, 2017.

When Jeff Sessions became AG, Dana Boente became Acting Deputy AG, a role he would retain until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25th, 2017.   [Mary McCord remained head of the DOJ-National Security Division]

On March 2nd, 2017, Dana Boente was one of the small group who participated in a conversation that led to the recusal of Jeff Sessions from anything related to the 2016 election.  This recusal included the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, which was later picked up by Robert Mueller.

The other attendees for the recusal decision-making meeting (see above schedule) included Sessions’ chief of staff Jody Hunt; Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Jim Crowell; Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division Tash Gauhar (FISA lawyer); and Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools.  [Note: Tash Gauhar was lawyer for FBI Clinton case; and Scott Schools was part of drafting Clinton exoneration letter.]

The Main Justice group influenced Jeff Sessions to recuse.

With AG Jeff Sessions recused on March 2, 2017, FBI Director James Comey now reported to Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente.  [Technically, Boente is still EDVA U.S. Attorney and is only ‘acting’ as Deputy AG]  Additionally, on March 31st, 2017, President Trump signs executive order 13787 making the U.S. EDVA Attorney the 3rd in line for DOJ succession.

Question:  If Dana Boente was appointed “Acting Attorney General” on January 31st, 2017 (he was), then why did Don McGahn need to draw up XO 13787 on March 31st, 2017… especially after confirmed AG Jeff Sessions was already in place Feb 9th?

The answer likely has to do with a sign-off needed for FISA.

See the issue?

How does somebody (unknown) advise White House Counsel Don McGahn to draw up an executive order so that Boente can sign a FISA…. without telling Don McGahn the reason why AG Sessions can’t sign off on the FISA?   See the issue now?

In the period between March 2nd and April 25th – With AG Sessions recused, and without a Deputy AG confirmed, Dana Boente is simultaneously:

  • U.S. Attorney for EDVA
  • Acting Deputy AG.
  • Acting AG for all issues related to Sessions recusal.

It is James Comey and Dana Boente who sign the April 2017 FISA renewal for Carter Page.

(Page #271 – Carter Page FISA Application)

This dynamic would later become important as notes Boente took from conversations with James Comey became evidence for Mueller’s expanded obstruction investigation.  [3/2/17 Mary McCord is still head of DOJ-NSD]

Somehow, almost guaranteed to be  leaked by the special counsel team (Aaron Zelby and Andrew Weissmann, Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente’s personal and handwritten notes were mysteriously leaked to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

[Backstory Here]

On April 20th, 2017, Mary McCord announces her intent to resign from the DOJ National Security Division effective with the confirmation of Deputy AG nominee Rod Rosenstein.

On April 25th, 2017, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is confirmed.

Rosenstein now takes over the responsibilities held by Acting DAG Dana Boente; this includes the FBI counterintelligence probe.

I can almost guarantee you Boente was removed by AG Barr specifically because of his role in this FISA fraud……  He willingly signed-on to the objective of James Comey and Andrew McCabe.  Boente knew he was targeting the White House and President Trump.

[More on Boente Here]

Senator Chuck Grassley Ponders Lack of Durham Response Prior to 2020 Election…


U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley implied this morning that USAO John Durham may not provide evidence of the already well-documented effort to remove President Trump from office until after the November election:

Senator Chuck Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-3744
Fax: 202-224-6020

Senator Grassley is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Grassley was elected in 1981 and has held office for almost 40 years.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Attorney General William Barr said in May that Durham, who is investigating misconduct by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials, will likely not conduct a criminal inquiry into former President Barack Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

“I have a general idea of how Mr. Durham’s investigation is going. … There’s a difference between an abuse of power and a federal crime. Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime,” Barr said during a press conference. “Now, as to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”

Barr told Fox News in June that he expects there to be “developments” in Durham’s investigation into the Russia investigation this summer even as he hinted that it would continue through the November election. (more)