Facts & Myths about the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (2006)


Stella has done an excellent job of myth busting about the postal service mess. Easy to understand and clear explanations of the bipartisan support of the Accountability and Enhancement Act.

Stella’s Place

If you follow social media, you will probably have seen the claims that the postal service is in trouble because of unfair mandates placed upon them by Republicans in 2006 when the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed. The reasoning is, according to many accounts, that:

The postal accountability act requires the USPS to pre-fund employee retirement medical benefits 75 years into the future. USPS is not allowed to use that money for anything else. Billions of dollars just sitting there. Clearly designed to kill the post office.

FACT #1: The Act was sponsored by two Republicans and co-sponsored by 2 DEMOCRATS – Henry Waxman of CA and Danny Davis of IL. The myth-makers use the term “Republican-led Congress” to insinuate that it was only Republicans who supported the Act.

FACT #2:201 Democrats in the House voted for the bill, along with the 208 Republicans. Clearly not a…

View original post 804 more word

The Neverending Story Of Liberal Corruption


Justin Trudeau Visits Fantastica Again

Ken Grafton image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free press By  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 22, 2020

The Neverending Story Of Liberal Corruption

Atroubled boy dives into a mysterious fantasy world, and so begins yet another fantastical tale of Liberal corruption.

WE-Gate was reportedly born of a telephone call between Prime Minister Trudeau and then Finance Minister Bill Morneau on April 5th, during which the two discussed possible ways to throw some non-existent tax dollars at students who would not have summer jobs during the COVID-19 shutdown.

On April 7th, Morneau’s office put out feelers to WE Charity (possibly because WE had sponsored travel for Morneau and his family on previous occasions, and also employs his daughters) and other organizations, trolling for ideas on ways to spend some money. Two days later, WE lobbed in an unsolicited proposal for a youth entrepreneurship program valued at $14M to Morneau, Youth Minister Bardish Chagger, Small Business Minister Mary Ng, and the PMO.

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) officials mentioned WE to Finance officials on April 16th, and again to Morneau on April 18th. The following day, ESDC ADM Rachel Wernick contacted Craig Keilburger at WE (for reasons unreported).

On April 20th Morneau’s office contacted WE to discuss the program, and requested a revised proposal with increased scope.

On April 22nd Trudeau announced a $9B student aid package (contributing to the $343B deficit and +$1T debt forecast) which included a volunteer student program – the Canadian Student Service Grant (CSSG) Program. WE submitted a revised proposal to Wernick on the same day. Marc Kielburger said that WE was contacted on April 23rd by the PMO about getting involved; but later back-peddled, saying the contact came the week of April 26 from Wernick, and not the PMO.

Here the plot thickens further.

On April 26th Morneau speaks with Craig Keilburger (about something, perhaps another free trip for the Morneau family), but later testifies that they didn’t discuss CSSG. This is curious because WE had just submitted a revised proposal four days earlier in response to a request from Morneau’s office.

On May 4th WE submitted a third proposal to ESDC.

On May 5th Chagger recommended WE to a special COVID-19 committee, headed by Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland. Trudeau’s Director of Policy and Cabinet Affairs Rick Theis called WE, and WE commenced work the same day. Interesting call.

According to Trudeau’s testimony before the Finance Committee, he first heard about WE within the context of CSSG on May 8th, and “pushed back” on the decision, asking for due diligence.

On May 22nd Cabinet approved awarding WE a sole-source contract based upon a Memorandum to Cabinet (MC) from Chagger arguing “binary choice” (which is highly unusual), and the public service begins negotiating an agreement the following day.

It was reported that although the contract was signed on June 23rd, it came into effect on May 5th (before the PM heard about it). If this sounds fishy, the “backdating” of contracts is generally permissible under Canadian Law…but not however for the purpose of misleading third parties (such as the public) or to circumvent Rules or Legislation (such as the requirement for Cabinet approval).

On August 13th WE registered with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying (following questions regarding why they weren’t registered), disclosing forty-three contacts with six different minister’s offices and government departments in the six months prior to the CSSG deal; including twenty-three with Wernick (who ultimately recommended to cabinet that WE be sole-sourced).

The post mortem on WE-Gate begs numerous questions regarding this feculent Liberal maze of political “back-roomery”, including:

  • Did Morneau’s office request a proposal from WE on April 7th?
  • Were proposals from other entities received?
  • What was the subject of Morneau’s April 26th call with Craig K?
  • Why did WE start work on May 5th, without a contract, before cabinet approval, before the PM even knew about it, seemingly on the basis of a call from Theis?
  • What did Theis say to WE on May 5th? It looks like a $912M oral contract.
  • When was the $30M advance payment made to WE?
  • Why did WE continue working if Trudeau had indeed “pushed back” on May 8th?
  • Why was WE the only option?
  • Why was no due diligence done, if Trudeau ordered it?
  • Who had the horsepower to helm a binary choice MC through to Cabinet?

A Liberal spin doctor nightmare. Trudeau is asking Canadians to believe that his own policy director (Theis) called WE on May 5th (without his knowledge), and awarded a contract worth almost $1 billion over the phone – and WE felt comfortable proceeding on that basis.

Surely, even GTA voters will see that the fix was in.

On August 17th Bill Morneau was replaced by Freeland, the minister responsible for the COVID-19 Committee that approved WE on that fateful day in May, in what many view as a political blunder by a PM trying to distance himself from the fetid taint of WE-Gate. Those Canadians suffering still from USMCA are hoping that former-journalist Freeland knows more about finance than international trade. All Canadians should question the appointment of a minister with absolutely no legal, financial or business credentials (Freeland studied History and Literature) to the Finance portfolio, especially in a time of unprecedented economic devastation.

On August 18th the PM announced that he had received permission from Governor General Payette to prorogue parliament until September 23rd. Ostensibly to “address a long-term COVID-19 recovery plan”, critics see it as a desperate move to avoid continuing investigation of WE-Gate by shutting down the finance committee.

During a press conference on August 19th Shadow Finance Minister and Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre criticized Trudeau for providing heavily redacted documents relating to WE Charity, dramatically tossing largely black-out pages to the floor in front of cameras. ““Why don’t we ask what was in those pages in a parliamentary committee? Well, I’ll tell you why. Justin Trudeau shut down those parliamentary committees. When did he do it? The same day these documents became public! What a coincidence. The Prime Minister goes to the governor general’s office and says “GG, I’m about to release some very damming information. But I’ve covered it in black ink, and if you’ll just shut down parliament for me today, then none of the opposition politicians can force me to remove that ink and reveal the truth. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a cover-up.”“

Good luck to Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, the temporarily suspended finance committee, and possibly the RCMP, sorting this mess out.

But…“This is another story, and shall be told another time.”

Stay tuned.

Part Eight of “X”, Brennan Spox Delivers Statement Following 8 Hr Discussion With Durham Investigative Unit…


Former CIA Director John Brennan delivers the following message through his former chief of staff and spokesperson Nick Shapiro.  The statement following an interview today by investigators looking into the background of the fake Trump-Russia conspiracy which John Brennan was promoting heavily in 2016 and 2017.

[Statement Source Natasha Bertrand – Narrative Engineer]

Notice how Brennan is using Mueller and the SSCI as a shield.

Again, for emphasis, the special counsel and the Senate Intelligence Committee (Warner & Burr) were working together to frame and remove President Trump.  Their collaboration is why the special counsel took the FBI investigative file of SSA Brian Dugan and released the content to those entities at risk from the Wolfe leak investigation.  The public FISA release on July 21, 2018, was also from Dugan’s investigative file; it was his equity.

The special counsel and SSCI were working together.  This is why the special counsel tipped-off SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner about the capture of his text message content by FBI agent Dugan.   So when we see Brennan using the special counsel and the SSCI as his defense… well, that is yet another point of evidence about which primary institutions were running the Trump removal operation.

Back to the Durham/Aldenberg investigation… In December 2019 it appeared that Durham investigators were looking for a very specific email written by John Brennan to James Comey.  Comey was identified writing another email saying: ..”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

Do you remember the “crown material“?

The Christopher Steele dossier was called “Crown Material” by FBI agents within the small group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The “Crown” description reflects the unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.

In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the “Crown Material” within the highly political Intelligence Community Assessment.

Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say:

…”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [@01:54:28]:

GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?

BRENNAN: I don’t.

GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filing, applications?

BRENNAN: I have no awareness.

GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?

BRENNAN: No.

GOWDY: Why not?

BRENNAN: Because we didn’t. It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. Uh … it was not.

.

Video of the exchange [prompted 01:54:28 just hit play]

.

As Victor Davis Hanson wrote at the time:

[…] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?

Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? (read more)

Fox News Maria Bartiromo has followed the Brennan events very closely. On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined the issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:

.

It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan exposed himself to perjury. However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this larger effort to include false information say about the political intents of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?

CTH previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.

(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.

During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)

Questioning the construct of the ICA always looked like a smart direction to take for an origination investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it’s possible Durham’s team could cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.

Apparently Durham investigators were looking into this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?

The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Weissmann-Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.

If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?

Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]

However, again a note of caution, Bill Barr has warned that he will not allow manipulative politics to be part of his DOJ investigations/releases unless there is an underlying criminal violation.   If there are just political lies; like the intel underpinning to support the false narrative framing against President Trump; I would not expect the DOJ to reveal them.

(Read ICA via pdf)

Part Seven of “X”, UPDATED: Sketchy Business – Clinesmith Agreement Structured to Avoid Scrutiny Upon Special Counsel…


1. Remember, the Special Counsel was appointed in May 2017, and from then until April 2019 any matter which had anything to do with Spygate or Trump/Russia, was managed exclusively by the Special Counsel team. [Rosenstein testified to this June 2, 2020]

2. The Carter Page FISA warrant of June 29, 2017, was renewed during the tenure of the Special Counsel. They alone ran the FISA process for the third renewal.

3. Kevin Clinesmith’s boss at the FBI during the period for FISA assembly was a supervisory special agent and Trisha Beth Anderson was the lawyer responsible to sign-off on the final assembly. [LINK]

4. The Clinesmith criminal indictment (actually an “information”) informs that, while the Special Counsel was running the DOJ, and Andy McCabe was running the FBI, Clinesmith made this request to another government agency “OGA”:

We need some clarification on [Carter Page]. There is an indication that he may be a “[digraph] source.”

[LINK]

5. Why is this “digraph” redacted from the Clinesmith information?

6. Clinesmith continued:

“This [the status of Carter Page] is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal…”

7. Why is the sentence following that critical question redacted from the Clinesmith indictment with “….”?

8. Clinesmith continued:

“To that end, can we get two items from you? 1) Source Check/ Is [Carter Page] a source in any capacity? 2 ) If he is, what is a [digraph] source ( or what ever type of source he is) ?”

[LINK]

9. Why again is the critical “digraph” source code redacted out of the Clinesmith indictment?

10. The entire issue is that a supervisory special agent is asking Clinesmith to ask the CIA whether Carter Page is any kind of CIA informant. Why redact out that specific material from the Clinesmith indictment, unless the intent is to conceal that material?

11. Why is the specific 2-digit number “digraph” supposedly secret, and why is the “type of source” omitted form the criminal information?  The FISA affiant, SSA, is asking, “what is this kind of ‘source’ is Carter Page? He’s claiming to be a source, so check with the CIA to verify ‘if he is any kind of source.’”

12. Again, despite the redaction of what appears to be critical exchange, the Clinesmith indictment still includes asking for official CIA confirmation about Carter Page, “whatever kind of source he is.”

13. We know from the Clinesmith indictment that (at a minimum) he reported back that Carter Page “was a subsource” for the CIA.

14. So when the DOJ (now run by the Special Counsel) signed the Carter Page FISA renewal [June 29, 2017], we know without question that the FBI Supervisory Special Agent who reported directly to the FBI’s Deputy Director (McCabe) knew that Carter Page was at least a CIA subsource.

15. And we know without question that Clinesmith had been informed by the CIA that the CIA has already informed the DOJ and the FBI about Carter Page’s status, a year earlier, on August 17, 2016.

16. The CIA gave Clinesmith an email with all of that information. [LINK]

17. Without any push-back from the DOJ or FBI, in 2020, in connection with Clinesmith’s guilty plea, he stated that he (Clinesmith) never bothered to read the Carter Page file that the CIA gave to him. [LINK]

18. His boss had asked him specifically to check with the CIA as to the status of Carter Page. The CIA confirmed that Carter Page was some kind of source, and provided the file explaining it all.

19. Clinesmith first reports to his boss that the CIA has confirmed that Carter Page is some kind of a source – a “sub-source,” but we don’t know exactly because the “digraph” code describing what kind of source he was had been concealed out of the indictment.

20. What possible reason is there for the DOJ to redact out that code?

21. When Clinesmith reports to his boss that Carter Page is definitely some kind of CIA source, without question the SSA now knows:

“This [the CIA source status of Carter Page] is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal…”

22. Yet a few days later, Clinesmith sends an email to his boss evidencing that Carter Page “was never a source.” Yet the DOJ’s indictment redacts the “digraph” code about this.

And…

23. Isn’t it a logical conclusion that the combination of the following highlight a DOJ whitewash: (i) the redactions of the digraph code from the indictment, “(ii) the DOJ allowing Clinesmith, unchallenged, to assert that he “did not recall ever reviewing the documents referenced in the [CIA’s] email” disclosing Carter Page’s informant status with the CIA.

24. And how could a veteran FBI attorney (Clinesmith), in the space of a few days, twist “A” into “B”?

25. Here is “A” the process the FBI started with:

Getting “clarification on [Carter Page]. There is an indication that he may be a “ [digraph] source… we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal… To that end….[contact the CIA and find out]: (1) Is [Carter Page] a source in any capacity? and (2) If he is, what is a [digraph] source (or what ever type of source he is)?”

26. What was “B”?

After first telling his boss that Carter Page was a sub-source, Clinesmith changed the official story by then stating that Carter Page “was not a source”, as if there is some distinction between being a CIA-approved “source” versus a CIA-approved “sub-source.”

27. Clinesmith’s boss knew this change of story was a smoking gun of a fix.  How do we know that? Two issues:

28. First, the Clinesmith indictment concedes it, although it is buried.  SSA asked Clinesmith whether the FBI “had it in writing” from the CIA that Carter Page “was not a source.”  That’s not a question in this scenario, that’s an instruction.

29.  Clinesmith knew any written claim that Carter Page was not a source would be untrue, because the CIA had informed them specifically that Carter Page was working with the CIA as a [digraph], and that his role was described in the CIA briefing memo to the Crossfire Hurricane team dated August 17, 2016. [LINK]

30. The Crossfire Hurricane team consisted of many senior members of the DOJ and FBI who eventually overlapped into the Special Counsel [They had to know what was going on with this June 29, 2017 renewal]

31. Clinesmith also knew Carter Page was a source for the CIA. He deliberately falsified the CIA email to try and create a CYA position for the use of the FISA application. For this event he has now plead guilty to a felony.

32. What happened during the four days: June 15, 2017 to June 19, 2017, that caused FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith to commit a felony by doctoring an email from the CIA?

33. What happened during the four days June 15 to June 19, 2017, that caused the FBI to pivot from asking about Carter Page’s status with the CIA “in any capacity, and whatever type of source he is” – to later stating something from the CIA they knew was untrue?

34. Trisha Beth Anderson signed-off on the Carter Page FISA application, a title-1 surveillance warrant, under penalty of perjury…. even though we know the application contained materially false information and omissions.

35. Trisha Beth Anderson claims she signed the FISA affidavit(s) because it/they were presented to her in a rather unusual manner. [LINK]

In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application.

36. Why did she do this? She disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to congress (August 2018). [LINK]

Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.

But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”

Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)

37. Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).

“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.

38. When she signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ.  Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI

39. Trish Anderson signed-off the prior Carter Page FISA’s because they were presented to her pre-approved and pre-signed by the FBI  and and DOJ leadership.

“The General Counsel [Jim Baker] … personally reviewed and made edits to the FISA, for example,” Anderson said. “The Deputy Director was involved in reviewing the FISA line by line. The Deputy Attorney General over on the DOJ side of the street was similarly involved, as I understood, reviewing the FISA application line by line.”

[…] Anderson stressed that McCabe, Yates, and Baker all played key roles in reviewing the Page FISA. “My approval at that point was really purely administrative in nature. In other words, the substantive issues — the FISA had already substantively been approved by people much higher than me in the chain of command,” Anderson said.

Anderson said it “typically would not have been the case” that people such as McCabe and Yates would sign off on a FISA application before she did.

“That part of it was unusual, and so I didn’t consider my review at that point in the process to be substantive in nature,” Anderson said. “In other words, there were smart lawyers, high-level people on both sides of the street who had reviewed and signed off on the application, the details of the application. And so I was simply signaling, yes, this package is ready to go forward.”

Anderson said the seal of approval from such high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials meant that her signature on the FISA application was mostly perfunctory. (more)

40. General Counsel Jim Baker and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was Anderson’s FBI boss when she signed-off on a false affidavit and assembly. Rod Rosenstein was Deputy Attorney General.

41. Additionally, on June 29, 2017, the special counsel was in control of the DOJ and DOJ-NSD. This third renewal was under their authority.

42. Who told/influenced Kevin Clinesmith to change events and paper the file with a false claim that Carter Page was somehow not a CIA asset?

[Transcript Link]

42. AG Bill Barr has known since December 9, 2019, about Kevin Clinesmith’s felony forgery when OIG Inspector General Michael Horowitz made a criminal referral for the discovery. Why delay the indictment until August 20, 2020.

This thing reeks of another institutional preservation approach. What I suspect is that Barr does not want to touch any material that contacts the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel… however, what took place under the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel is actually more corrupt than any activity that preceded it.

What I also strongly suspect is that Bill Barr is using his oft stated “I will not allow the DOJ to be political” as a crutch in his preservation approach. If nothing from the world or sphere of politics is allowed to enter the world or sphere of the DOJ then what is supposed to happen with all those years of congressional evidence gathering?

If my suspicions are correct; and keep in mind I have made first hand contact with the Durham investigators to confirm their intense alignment with Barr’s directive; then nothing from any embargoed political silo will ever be prosecuted regardless of how it percolates out.

If you read all the material you will see there is clearly no arrangement for Kevin Clinesmith to have provided any other evidence to the DOJ. This is a one-and-done move just like James Wolfe. The parallels are very similar.

Clinesmith Supporting Statement:

Download here
NUMBER 1

Clinesmith indictment/information:

Dowload here
NUMBER 2

Clinesmith Plea agreement:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-0950-dac0-adf5-1bf481a00000

Steve Bannon and Three Organizers of “We Build The Wall” Indicted by DOJ: Wire Fraud and Money Laundering…


Long time CTH readers are aware of the side-eye position toward Steve Bannon we have always carried.  However, that said, this indictment today [pdf here] as contrast against the expressed declaration by AG Bill Barr that “politics will never be allowed to influence prosecutions” seems rather disingenuous. [More on This Later]

At the 30,000 ft level, this action by the Southern District of New York looks timed to create a cloud of demoralization over Trump supporters.

Do not let that effort/intent succeed.

DOJ Press Release: Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced the unsealing of an indictment charging BRIAN KOLFAGE, STEPHEN BANNON, ANDREW BADOLATO, and TIMOTHY SHEA for their roles in defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors in connection with an online crowdfunding campaign known as “We Build the Wall” that raised more than $25 million.

The defendants were arrested this morning.

KOLFAGE will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon in the Northern District of Florida. BANNON will be presented today in the Southern District of New York. BADOLATO will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Wilson in the Middle District of Florida. SHEA will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix in the District of Colorado. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York.

Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “As alleged, the defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction. While repeatedly assuring donors that Brian Kolfage, the founder and public face of We Build the Wall, would not be paid a cent, the defendants secretly schemed to pass hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage, which he used to fund his lavish lifestyle. We thank the USPIS for their partnership in investigating this case, and we remain dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud wherever we find it.”

Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said: “The defendants allegedly engaged in fraud when they misrepresented the true use of donated funds. As alleged, not only did they lie to donors, they schemed to hide their misappropriation of funds by creating sham invoices and accounts to launder donations and cover up their crimes, showing no regard for the law or the truth. This case should serve as a warning to other fraudsters that no one is above the law, not even a disabled war veteran or a millionaire political strategist.”

[…] KOLFAGE, 38, of Miramar Beach, Florida, BANNON, 66, of Washington, D.C., BADOLATO, 56, of Sarasota, Florida, and SHEA, 49, of Castle Rock, Colorado, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.  (read more)

Here’s The Indictment:

Part Four of “X”, Clinesmith Gets The Wolfe Plea Deal…


As noted in the DOJ press release: “Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application.”

Despite the falsification of court documents within a FISA document; and despite the likelihood of an intentional conspiracy to commit fraud upon the court in order to obtain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign – via Carter Page; the DOJ entered into a plea agreement on a single count of lying to federal officers.

The agreement holds a maximum penalty of zero to six months in federal prison and a $250k fine.  This is the same plea agreement the DOJ (DC U.S. Attorney) previously gave to the Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director James Wolfe, who leaked the SAME, earlier, top-secret classified FISA application to the media on March 17, 2017.

Judge James Boasberg noted early in the phone hearing that he is “currently the presiding judge for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” but that “this case, however, is a criminal case, it is not a FISC case, and it is a case that was randomly assigned.”  As anticipated Boasberg said the FISA court could be seen as a “victim” in the case, but also said he would preside over the case fairly without recusing himself.  He stated if either the defense or prosecution wanted him to recuse, then he would.  Neither party requested.

Judge Boasberg noted the maximum penalty for a single false statements charge was five years in prison but the sentencing guideline calls for zero to six months.  Sentencing is scheduled for December 10, 2020, after the election, at 11am.

Clinesmith’s criminal infraction happened during the third renewal of the fraudulent FISA application submitted June 29, 2017, during his tenure working for Andrew Weissmann and the Mueller investigation.  This is not coincidental….

DOJ Press Release:

[…] According to court documents and statements made in court, between July 2015 and September 2019, Clinesmith was employed with the FBI as an Assistant General Counsel in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the Russian government. By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened cases under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella on four individuals, including an individual identified in this case as “Individual #1.”

Clinesmith was assigned to provide legal support to FBI personnel working on Crossfire Hurricane, and he assisted FBI personnel with applications prepared by the FBI and the Justice Department’s National Security Division to conduct surveillance under the FISA. During the investigation, there were a total of four court-approved FISA applications targeting Individual #1. Each of the FISA applications alleged there was probable cause that Individual #1 was a knowing agent of a foreign power, specifically Russia.

On August 17, 2016, prior to the approval of the first FISA application #1, another U.S. government agency (“OGA”) provided certain members of the Crossfire Hurricane team a memorandum indicating that Individual #1 had been approved as an “operational contact” for the OGA from 2008 to 2013 and detailing information that Individual #1 had provided to the OGA concerning Individual #1’s prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. The first three FISA applications did not include Individual #1’s history or status with the OGA.

Prior to the submission of the fourth FISA application, and after Individual #1 stated publicly that he/she had assisted the U.S. government in the past, an FBI Supervisory Special Agent (“SSA”) asked Clinesmith to inquire with the OGA as to whether Individual #1 had ever been a “source” for the OGA.

On June 15, 2017, Clinesmith sent an email to a liaison at the OGA (“OGA Liaison”) seeking clarification as to whether Individual #1 was an OGA source, and the OGA Liaison responded via email to Clinesmith. On June 19, 2017, Clinesmith altered the email he received from the OGA Liaison by adding the words “not a source,” and then forwarded the email to the FBI SSA.

Relying on the altered email, on June 29, 2017, the SSA signed and submitted the fourth FISA application to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The application did not include Individual #1’s history or status with the OGA.  (read more)

From the nature of the plea, and the defense arguments in court and public, it is obvious there is no arrangement for Clinesmith’s assistance or cooperation on other investigative matters.   This does not bode well for the proper administration of justice….

We must ride to the sounds of the guns. Yell out ‘YGBSM’!


You’ve Got to Be S******g Me

Dr. Sam Clovis image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 19, 2020

WILD WEASEL PILOT, SAM CLOVIS
In one of my most cherished flying assignments, I had the honor of being a Wild Weasel. Those are the intrepid airmen who were given the task of finding, then attacking, surface to air missile sites.

Those who flew these great aircraft and this most dangerous of missions felt much like the brave British warriors who were with King Henry V at the battle of Agincourt. In Shakespeare’s great play about “King Harry,” the King gives one of the most inspirational speeches ever given to a group about to enter battle against overwhelming odds. That speech—the one about St. Crispin’s Day—will stir you to your bones. “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers…”

That is from where that line comes made famous by Stephen Ambrose in his book, then television series, about Easy Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne in WWII— Band of Brothers.

The tie-in back to the Wild Weasels is that we took on overwhelming odds every time we took off and raised the gear handle. Though we never had any in our ranks who were as eloquent as Shakespeare, we did have a modernized response to going into combat— YGBSM. This acronym means You’ve Got to Be S******g Me. I know, it’s a little crude, but it certainly captured the feeling of most of us.

That acronym made it onto all of our unit patches. People used to ask what it meant. Once they found out what we did for a living, they stopped asking.  Funny how that works.

“On you Wolverines. Let us ride to the sounds of the guns.”

The point of bringing this long explanation to this edition of the newsletter is to express how we might feel as we fall inside 80 days or so to the election. The odds seem overwhelming, the chances of success seem so slight. Still, we must put on our gear, go to the airplanes, fire up the engines, taxi out, take off and then engage the enemy with cold, aggressive abandon. We must be merciless in how we execute our grim task of destroying those pockets of cancer that are infecting our American body. We must be ruthless, precise, concise and deliberate in our mission accomplishment. Few will follow us, because they are weak, timid or are more interested in going along to get along. Take heart, though.

As Custer told the Michigan cavalry at the Battle of Gettysburg, “On you Wolverines. Let us ride to the sounds of the guns.” Though his arrogance did him in later in life, he still inspired frightened soldiers to screw their courage to the post and to fight furiously for each other and the Union.

There are times when we face what appear to be overwhelming odds in life. The events that are rocking the nation right now are being perpetrated by doctrine-driven anarchists, the very kind of individuals who led the seizures of power in Russia, Italy, China, Vietnam and Cambodia. And where are our feckless elected officials and most of the voices on our side of the aisle? They have been shamefully and despicably silent. YGBSM.

The Marxists who founded and still run Antifa and Black Lives Matter are taking advantage of the insidious indoctrination of two plus generations of Americans in an education system overtaken by the evil doctrines written in 1848. The building blocks of Marxism have been improved upon and refined over the ensuing decades. Socialism as an economic system has overtaken much of the industrialized world. We even have remnants of it her. Look at our healthcare insurance industry, social media companies, utility companies, and any number of other elements of our economy where the “state” essentially dictates, through legislation, regulation and rules, who can and cannot enter the market.

We must ride to the sounds of the guns. Yell out YGBSM, but take on those threats to our society. Call, write and confront your elected officials.

Migration Patterns & the Risks Behind the US Election


QUESTION: Being there is lots of trouble coming after the election, does Socrates see a mass exit of people to other countries ie Canada?

CM

ANSWER: No, the indication is the opposite. It appears people are moving into the midwest and selected areas in the south, particularly Florida. We are running two major projects: (1) country by country analysis, and (2) state by state analysis to determine the election. It appears that we will NOT know who the president is at best until December, and at worst, into January 2021. This mail-in vote and states deliberately locking down again to prevent voting are all designed to create total chaos for the election.

We now have the military establishment suggesting that the military should intervene in the election. General Milley has been urged to remove Trump ‘by force’ if he refuses to leave office by other retired generals on behalf of the left-wing agenda. This is falling in like with Podesta’s comments from his war game rehersal for the election. But make no mistake about it, the elite in the military would love to remove Trump under any excuse, as they did against Kennedy, so that they can invade Syria and confront Russia.

Russia’s EMP program is not fully appreciated or understood. If they could reach the level of a major satellite EMP cannon, they could take out the internet and electronic communications in the USA, paralyzing the ability to respond. So far, their EMP weapon as described more closely resembles microwave guns, a kind of directed energy weapon that’s seeing modern usage as an anti-drone tool with a range up to 10k. Russia is NOT defenseless, and the US military establishment may be biting off more than they can chew with their arrogance.

Podesta & Military Coup?


I seriously doubt that the majority of people even think this election is anything but normal. Many hate Trump simply because of his Tweets. Others cannot even explain why they hate him so much. This has been an information war from RussiaGate to Impeachments. The divide between Republicans and Democrats has never been this significant since the civil war. The worse part of this has been just how intense hatred has entered the game. This is no longer just politics – it is all about the future and human rights.

There has been an intense battle to overthrow Trump which is an international effort because they see him as standing in the way of their global goals of this New Green Socialist Agenda. They are applying pressure on fund managers to end all investment in China and Russia to bring them to their knees to accept this global agenda. Our computer warns that effort will fail. While our computer also warns of this being the most corrupt election in American history, we have been forecasting for more than a decade, I have stated plenty of times, nobody will accept a political loss this time around.

There was a group of former top government officials in which they called themselves the Transition Integrity Project where they played a game as they did at EVENT 201 for this virus. They had four possible scenarios, which even include one that looked like 2016 where they would lose the Electoral College. Mr. Podesta played Mr. Biden, and he responded that his party wouldn’t let him concede as Hillary had done alleging voter suppression. Podesta then persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College to change the vote.

They also played out a scenario where a Trump victory would lead to California, Oregon, and Washington moving to secede from the United States. He also played that if the Electoral College could not make a decision because of the delays from the mail-in votes, then the House leader, Pelosi, would name Mr. Biden president. The Senate and White House would reject that and support  Mr. Trump. At that point, Podesta would turn to the military to remove Trump.

Never in the history of any election, has there ever been such a political war game played. This warns what our computer has been forecasting about the rise in civil unrest and the risk that this will prove to be the most corrupt election in American history.

I have also warned that Trump was not my concern. My biggest concern has been what comes AFTER Trump. It does not appear that we will still have elections post-2024 going into 2032. Even a Trump victory may buy us a few more years, but we must face the fact that we are spiraling down into political chaos and there will be no coming back. Clearly, the financial capital of the world will shift to Asia. This battle is more than defeating Trump, it is about changing the United States to join a greater socialist agenda which is on target from the previous revolutionary attempts since 1848.

Part Three of Three, Substantive Elements of The Big Story Behind The Mueller Special Counsel Purpose…


Foolishness and betrayal of our country have served to reveal dangers within our present condition. Misplaced corrective action, regardless of intent, is neither safe nor wise. The intelligence apparatus was weaponized against a candidate by those who controlled the levers of government. This is what AG Bill Barr needs to explain to the nation.

The purpose behind briefing Durham’s lead investigator William Aldenberg was essentially to provide an understanding of what we the people already know.  The purpose behind releasing the investigator name is to cut through the chaff and countermeasures and give face to the unit holding the precarious responsibility of sunlight.

The position of Bill Barr, and indeed our nation today, is a direct result of decisions made by Main Justice -as run by the special counsel- in the Fall of 2017 & Summer of 2018.

The events surrounding the leaking of the FISA warrant used against U.S. person Carter Page; the purposeful cover-up by Andrew Weissmann; and the downstream 2018 DOJ decision not to prosecute SSCI Security Director James Wolfe for those leaks, was the fork in the road moment for the Department of Justice – and the institutions of government as a whole.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was recused. As admitted in his June 2nd testimony Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was providing no special counsel oversight, and the Mueller team was essentially controlling all DOJ activity.  That was when the DOJ made a decision not to prosecute Wolfe for leaking classified information. DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu signed-off on a plea deal where Wolfe plead guilty to only a single count of lying to the FBI.

If the DOJ had pursued the case against Wolfe for leaking the FISA application, everything would have been different. The American electorate would have seen evidence of what was taking place in the background effort to remove President Trump; and we would be in an entirely different place today if that prosecution or trial had taken place.

Three 2018 events revealed the Wolfe issue:

EVENT ONE – On February 9th, 2018, the media reported on text messages from 2017 between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, a lobbyist named Adam Waldman.  These text messages appear to have come from an investigative file belonging to Washington Field Office, Supervisory Special Agent Brian Dugan.

EVENT TWO – Four months after the Mark Warner texts were made public, on June 8th, 2018, another headline story surfaced. An indictment for Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Security Director James Wolfe was unsealed on June 7th, 2018.  This was the investigation conducted by SSA Brian Dugan.

EVENT THREE – Slightly less than two months after release of the Wolfe indictment, another headline story. On July 21st, 2018, the special counsel declassified and publicly released the FISA application(s) used against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.  What they released was again from SSA Brian Dugan’s investigative file.

These three releases later identified a chain of custody for WFO SSA Dugan’s investigative file that flowed back into the special counsel after Dugan’s investigation and capture of Wolfe as a leaker was complete.  The special counsel team then began releasing information from that file *before* it was returned to the DC USAO for a May ’18 grand jury presentation.

♦ Later on December 14th 2018 a fourth albeit buried public release confirmed everything. The FBI Supervisory Agent filed an attachment to the sentencing recommendation proving it was the Carter Page FISA that was leaked by Wolfe:

Keep in mind the official position of the DOJ and FBI was that James Wolfe did not leak the FISA application on March 17, 2017.  This official position is a lie and the U.S. prosecutors filed tortured language throughout the sentencing phase after the plea deal was struck.

Despite Dugan’s position that an intelligence damage assessment needed to be carried out as a result of the Wolfe action, no damage assessment was done.  It was not done because such an assessment would have resulted in evidence of the SSCI compromise.

Indeed, the entire intelligence apparatus, and the balance/separation of power within the intel apparatus, would have been put at risk and exposed by any further investigation.

The Wolfe plea was part of an overall approach to cover-up the intelligence compromise.  Wolfe’s lawyers knew -by the absence of an official damage assessment- that our government was fearful of this leak event. They used that fear in their plea negotiations.

The plea was an outcome of a larger cover-up to hide a serious breach of intelligence that was part of a larger effort across the Senate and Special Counsel to remove a sitting President.  In 2018 this was the apex of Weissmann and Mueller’s larger objective.

When SSA Dugan turned over his file, institutional interests; which included the need to protect the Senate Intelligence Committee; and included the need for the special counsel to cover their own wrongdoing; took ownership of Dugan’s file.  Everything during and after was constructed as a cover for this cross-body corruption.

This cover-up included the July 21st release of the FISA application by the special counsel team that was now running the DOJ operation.  It was Brian Dugan’s March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA application that was purposefully released under the auspices of a FOIA fulfillment.  That’s why the March 17th FISC stamp was on the released copy.

Dugan brought the FISA application to the SSCI on March 17, 2017, where James Wolfe took custody and shortly after 4:02pm SSCI Vice Chairman Mark Warner reviewed it. There is no indication any other member of the SSCI reviewed the “review and return” document (other than Wolfe and Warner) before returning it to SSA Dugan.

As a result the identified leak of the FISA application had only a few possible suspects.

This is where the dates of the Ali Watkins search warrant and the captured dates of the Mark Warner/Adam Waldman texts align.  The Watkins warrant and the Warner texts (as captured) cover an almost identical period.  These documents appear to have been part of Dugan’s investigative file.

Everything about the Wolfe leak then became part of the cover-up.  This became evident in the series of documents and court records that came out throughout 2018.  The trail was very clear, and the official position of the entire intelligence community -which includes the SSCI, the DOJ and the FBI- is false.  Everything is built on a lie.

There is no doubt Wolfe leaked the FISA application on March 17, 2017, through a series of pictures of the 82-page application that Wolfe sent via text to Ms. Watkins.

HINDSIGHT – However, what we did not immediately know at the time, simultaneous to the decision-making regarding Wolfe, was another (a second) special counsel cover-up effort was taking place surrounding the origin of the Russia-collusion fraud.

To further understand the decision-making of the DOJ under the control of the Weissmann group, as to why they hid the James Wolfe leak, it is important to note the DOJ in the Eastern District of Virginia was creating another cover-story to block sunlight on the origin of how Wikileaks gained the leaked DNC emails.

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

(Link to pdf)

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

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

How does this all connect?

What does it mean?

James Wolfe was confronted about his leaking by SSA Dugan in December of 2017. At the same time the FBI Washington Field Office was investigating Wolfe and the SSCI, the FBI was also investigating Wikileaks and Julian Assange. This matters because it shows what the mindset was within Main Justice, specifically the special counsel, in late 2017 and early 2018.

In both examples, Wolfe and Assange, the actions by the special counsel reflect a predisposition to hide the much larger background story:

• A prosecution of Wolfe would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and the United States senate. Two branches of government, the executive and the legislative, essentially working on one objective; the removal of a sitting president. The special counsel and DOJ decision protected multiple U.S. agencies and congress.

• A non-prosecution of Assange would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and a host of political interests who created a fraudulent Russia-collusion conspiracy with the central component of Russia “hacking” the DNC. If Assange were allowed to show he received the DNC emails from a leaker, and not from a hack, the central component of the Russia interference narrative would collapse. The special counsel and DOJ decision protected multiple U.S. agencies and Robert Mueller.

As soon as the special counsel was going to release their Russia report (aka the Mueller report), the EDVA shut down Assange with the DOJ indictment.  This is in a similar way the DOJ shut down the Wolfe issue with a weak plea agreement.

Again, the key takeaway here is the timing. Both operations were taking place at the same time (Fall 2017 through spring/summer 2018). Both hold a similar purpose.

What we can see from both DOJ/SC operations is an intentional effort by Main Justice not to expose the epicenter of a multi-branch effort against the White House.

Some people within the FBI were obviously participating along with people within the DOJ. However, not all Washington DC FBI agents/officials were involved. We know there were genuine investigators, at least in the Wolfe case, because Dugan’s investigative evidence shows Wolfe was leaking classified information. If he did not present the investigative evidence proving Wolfe leaked, quite simply we wouldn’t have it to show you.

Unfortunately, in hindsight we can see something internally corrupt within the DOJ special counsel group was happening because the FBI evidence against Wolfe was buried. The high-level group inside the DOJ in Washington DC, in the Summer of 2018, was making decisions on what NOT to do.

These two events highlight corruption within the DOJ that existed despite the presence of AG Jeff Sessions, and apparently with the willful blindness of DAG Rod Rosenstein.

The decisions in the Wolfe case are critical. That’s the fork in the road. If the Wolfe prosecution had continued it would have undoubtedly surfaced that key government officials and politicians were working together (executive and legislative).

The ramifications of the Wolfe case are stunning. Had the prosecution continued it’s very likely a seditious conspiracy would have surfaced.

♦ I often field a question: If you know this; if all of this information is in the public sphere; then why didn’t any member of the media cover it?

Here’s the answer: They couldn’t…. At least they couldn’t cover it and still retain all of the claims they had been making since March 2017 when journalist Ali Watkins gained a fully non-redacted copy of the Carter Page FISA application.

Politico, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post are all implicated in the James Wolfe leak to Ali Watkins. They had the FISA information since March 2017, yet those media outlets were disingenuously falsifying their reporting on the actual content of the FISA application despite their knowledge.

Remember all of the media denials about what Devin Nunes wrote in the “Nunes memo”? Remember the media proclaiming the Steele Dossier was not part of the FISA application?

How was the media fifteen months later (June 2018) going to report on the Wolfe leak to Watkins without admitting they had been manufacturing stories about its content for the past year-and-a-half?

It was in the media’s interest NOT to cover, or dig into, the Wolfe story.

Additionally, from both the DOJ and Media perspective, coverage of the Wolfe leak would prove the senate intel committee (SSCI) was, at a minimum, a participating entity in the coup effort. That same SSCI is responsible for oversight over the CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD, ODNI, DNI, and all intelligence agencies.

Worse yet, all intelligence officers within those agencies require confirmation from the SSCI (including Chair and Vice-Chair); and any discussion of the Wolfe leak would highlight the motive for ongoing corruption within the SSCI in blocking those nominations (see John Ratcliffe).

Stunning ramifications.

There was a clear fork in the road and the DOJ, under the influence of the special counsel, took the path toward a cover-up; which, considering what the DOJ was simultaneously doing with the EDVA regarding Assange, is not entirely surprising.

Was that decision wrong? Oh hell yes, it was corrupt as heck.

Were the decisions done with forethought to coverup gross abuses of government? Yes.

Where the DOJ and Bill Barr’s investigative unit labeled “The Durham Investigation” is  today, is directly connected to the decisions the special counsel and DOJ made in 2017 and 2018 to protect themselves and internally corrupt actors from discovery.

It is often said: “the coverup is always worse than the crime.” This is never more true than with these examples, because where we are today… now miles down the path of consequence from those corrupt decisions… is seemingly disconnected from the ability of any institutional recovery. That’s now the issue for Bill Barr, John Durham and William Aldenberg; the latter official has the direct evidence to prove this all took place.

Eventually, if AG Bill Barr wants to deal with the issue he will need to explain to the American people about that fork in the road and what happened.

That type of honest sunlight delivery means taking people back into the background of the larger story and explaining what decisions were made; with brutal honesty and without trepidation for the consequences, regardless of their severity and regardless of the friends of Bill Barr compromised by the truth.

Here’s a big reason why Bill Barr should take that approach: We Know.

We know; the DOJ trying to hide it doesn’t change our level of information.

Regardless of whether Bill Barr actually admits what surrounds him, there are people who know… We know…. You know…. William Aldenberg knows and likely by tonight John Durham knows; so AG Bill Barr shouting at President Trump not to ‘tweet‘ doesn’t change the fact this corrupt curtain has been removed and the truth stands on its own merit.

It’s time to come clean.

We The People deserve a representative government that admits the truth.