Tag Archives: Lawfare/Uni-party group Lawfare group

Jul 28 2025

Devin Nunes Discusses the Recent Declassification and Puts Context on the Mar-a-Lago Raid


Posted originally on CTH on July 27, 2025 | Sundance 

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to discuss the latest declassified reports from DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

As noted in the previous interview {GO DEEP}, Nunes draws a strong reference to the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago and asks the question, “what were they looking for?”  The Occam’s Razor answer is the FBI was trying to recapture evidence of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that was in President Trump’s possession post administration.  WATCH:

.

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

In short, Peter Strzok was a profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for 2016’s CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open-Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015, at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.  One, if not the primary extractors, has now been identified as Rodney Joffe at Neustar.   “The campaign plot was outlined by Durham in a 27-page indictment charging former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann with making a false report to the FBI.  The plot was also outlined in the finished Durham report.  Eight individuals who allegedly conspired with Sussmann but does not identify them by name. The sources familiar with the probe confirmed that the leader of the team of contractors was Rodney L. Joffe.” {Go Deep}

It was also Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskaya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working as a double agent for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S as part of his Trump-Russia creation.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting, back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan died in a helicopter crash.

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against Republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

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

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

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer hired by Fusion GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

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

Jul 19 2025

“When It Comes To Elections Prosecutors Have The Upper Hand Here” Marly Hornik On New CO Lawsuit Involving Tina Peters


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 18, 2025, at 8:00 pm EST

Feb 14 2024

Trump v Colorado – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction


Posted originally on Feb 13, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Trump_v_Anderson_My_Amicus_Brief

Trump v Anderson My Amicus Brief-F

QUESTION: Your argument on the Commerce Clause is spot on, I believe. Why do the lawyers involved in the Colorado case removing Trump does not grasp the structure of the Constitution as you do? They admit that ruling in favor of Colorado would result in national chaos. Your analysis of the Commerce Clause demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution understood such a result would break the union. Any comment on this oversight would be greatly appreciated.

BW

ANSWER: Sometimes, lawyers focus too intently because statutory law is wordsmithing. They are arguing if Trump is an officer when they should be looking at the subject matter jurisdiction of the law. I have had to study law from a global perspective, looking at its evolution from ancient times to the present. Continental Europe followed Canon Law, whereas England created Common Law. There are huge differences such as under French law, not even your brother-in-law can be compelled to testify against you, whereas under English Common Law, the king is ruthless, so the only one with such a privilege is a spouse. They can throw your children in prison on contempt until they testify against a parent. We do not respect the family unit, whereas, under Canon Law, anyone related by marriage is covered.

I was so appalled that the oral arguments were focused on wordsmithing I decided to submit my own Amicus Curiae brief. The Court is not supposed to raise an argument that is not presented. They will probably reject it because it was after oral argument. But if they want a clean escape that is constitutionally correct rather than not addressing the issue directly, then just maybe they might make an exception and accept a Pro Se Amicus. It might be a first, anyway.

Aug 10 2020

Sunday Talks: Senator Graham Defends The Senate Role in Trying to Remove President Trump…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 9, 2020 by 

Senator Lindsay Graham appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to profess his public outrage about the senate being lied to by the FBI in 2018. {Go Deep}

In essence what Graham is doing is establishing the defense of the Senate for their role in attempting to remove President Donald Trump. ie. Selective Outrage.

The simple way to identify Graham’s motive is this way:…  The SSCI was aware of this briefing in 2018 right?  So why didn’t any SSCI member step forth after the Horowitz report in 2019 and say they were mislead?… or at any time after the truth of the primary sub-source was evident?   It does not take the public release of briefing material, two years later, to initiate senate outrage if senate outrage was genuine.

Graham wasn’t outraged when the senate knew about it, he becomes outraged when the public knows about it.  See how the application of common sense works?

 

Methinks Graham doth protest too much. The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons.

Aug 10 2020

Senator Lindsay Graham Releases FBI Talking Points for SSCI Briefing February 14, 2018 – Graham Positioned to Defend SSCI…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 9, 2020 by 

Today Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham released a set of talking points [full pdf below – AND here] from the FBI during a briefing on February 14, 2018 to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The unknown FBI briefer is informing the SSCI about the reliability of Chris Steele’s primary sub-source, and whether he agrees with the Dossier content & conclusions:

At first blush the impression from the release; and indeed the expressed position as outlined by Graham in the release; is that some unknown entity from the FBI was misleading the SSCI in February of 2018 about Christopher Steele and the perspective of his primary sub-source. However, there’s a deeper story.

Within the release it must be noted the date of the briefing material is February 14, 2018. The unknown FBI briefer is saying, in essence, the primary sub-source doesn’t dispute the Dossier material. Obviously this position is demonstrably false given how the PSS said the Dossier was full of “rumor”, “gossip”, “innuendo” and “bar talk”.

The FBI briefer is misleading the Senate and so today we see the angry position expressed by Graham as he reveals this misleading briefing. However, five days prior to this briefing, on February 9, 2018, the text messages between SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, were released. This frames the accurate context to consider the position of the SSCI and FBI briefer on Feb 14, 2018.

Yes, the FBI briefer was misleading the SSCI… However, the SSCI wanted to be mislead. This is how plausible deniability is built into the process. The SSCI was conducting an investigation of Trump-Russia; if we are honest the SSCI was participating in a process to weaponize the committee to advance a narrative against the interests of the Trump administration; therefore the SSCI and FBI briefer were aligned in common interest.

Lindsay Graham’s outrage over the misleading briefing is nothing more than an attempt to retroactively cover for the SSCI as they continued their role in the plot to remove President Trump throughout 2018 and 2019.  Graham is taking the purposefully built plausible deniability, assembled in 2018, and using it as a distraction today in 2020.

Graham knows the FBI lied, this is not a revelation. The FBI supported the DOJ letter July 12, 2018, that mislead the FISA Court five months after this misleading SSCI briefing. The current level of Graham outrage is ridiculous when considering he could have asked these same questions in April when the DOJ-NSD letter was released.

Who was the FBI official who reviewed the July 12th letter and supported its conclusions? The most likely answer is the same FBI official who did the SSCI briefing on Feb 14th. This is not rocket science dot-connecting.

The FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) conducted the interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source in Jan, March and May 2017. Yet I’ll bet you a donut it was not the FBI-WFO who was briefing congress…. there’s another layer of plausible deniability. This is how the system is set-up. Today, Lindsay Graham is playing an outrage game. Where was this outrage in April?

Here’s the full briefing material [Original pdf Here]

.

This is all connected back to FBI SSA Brian Dugan’s work.  The briefing was a way for the SSCI to establish plausible deniability five days after Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s covert text messages were made public.

This is why the focus on the story behind SSCI Security Director James Wolfe is critical.  All of these granular machinations are connected to the objective to remove President Donald Trump.  The SSCI was supporting and coordinating with the special counsel.

It is all one team effort.

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

Those interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source took place in January, March and May of 2017; and clearly the sub-source debunked the content of the dossier itself.

Those interviews were a year before the Feb 14, 2018, FBI briefing outlined by Lindsay Graham today.

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

Keep in mind this activity to support the Dossier and by extension the FISA application to the SSCI and FISC was written by AAG John Demers in July 2018 and briefed to congress in February 2018.  Jeff Sessions was Attorney General (firewalled), Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG (providing no special counsel oversight); Christopher Wray was FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy, and Dana Boente is FBI chief-legal-counsel.

Why would the FBI mislead the senate intelligence committee?  Why would the DOJ-NSD not be forthcoming with the FISA court about the primary sub-source?

This level of disingenuous withholding of information speaks to an institutional motive.

In February and July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the SSCI and FISC and even went to far as to say the predicate was still valid.  Why?

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

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

This SSCI briefing and FISC letter, justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant.

My research shows it was the full control by the special counsel at play.  They needed to protect evidence the Mueller team had already extracted from their fraudulent FISA authority.  That’s the motive.

In February of July 2018 if the FBI, DOJ-NSD or special counsel had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation.

The FBI and DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

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

This is not simply a hunch, because that motive also speaks to why the FISC would order the current DOJ to release the July 12, 2018, letter.

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

Both the February FBI briefing and the July DOJ letter are transparent misrepresentation when compared to the information in the Horowitz report.  Hence, the FISA court ordered  the DOJ to release the July letter so that everyone, including congressional oversight and the public can see the misrepresentation.  Unfortunately the “congressional oversight” aspect was/is aligned with the scheme.

The FISA court was misled; the SSCI was willfully mislead; now everyone can see it.

The content of that FBI briefing and DOJ-NSD letter, and the subsequent disparity, points to an institutional cover-up; and as a consequence the FISC also ordered the DOJ to begin an immediate sequestration effort to find all the evidence from the fraudulent FISA application.  The proverbial fruit from the poisonous tree…. And yes, that is ongoing.

Lindsay Graham is still playing cover-up to protect the Senate.  Nothing more.

Graham could have demanded these same answers in April of this year.  He didn’t.