One tragedy of this election season, as with all modern election seasons, is that the Democrats’ radicalism is being hidden from the American people by a complicit establishment media. It would have been nice, then, if Wednesday’s vice presidential debate could have been a teaching moment where light was shined on Kamala Harris’s and Joe Biden’s toxic positions. Unfortunately, moderator Susan Page’s bias made this impossible.
Page, USA Today’s Washington Bureau chief, made sure to inquire about how Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court would affect abortion, exhibiting the typical leftist obsession with prenatal infanticide. She asked Vice President Mike Pence how he thought his state of Indiana should legislate on the matter were Roe v. Wade struck down (I didn’t know he was again running for the Hoosier State’s governorship). This might be a fair question — that is, if Harris had been asked about her and Biden’s radical pro-prenatal infanticide positions. Harris supports “‘abortion on demand at any time, any where [sic], and under any circumstances,’” LifeNews.com quotes president of National Right to Life Carol Tobias as relating. And both she and Biden advocate taxpayer funding of prenatal infanticide.
The point is that Pence’s and President Trump’s abortion policies align far more closely with the electorate’s wishes than does the Democrat ticket’s radicalism. But the American people couldn’t learn this truth on Wednesday — thanks, largely, to Susan Page.
That’s just the iceberg’s tip, too. This is by far the most radical Democrat presidential ticket — representing well its extremist party — to ever seek the White House. For example, here are more pressing matters a smart, diligent, responsible moderator would have inquired about at the debate:
Harris cosponsored, and Biden has promised to sign into law, the misnamed “Equality Act,” which would compel schools to allow boys to compete in girls’ sports. This is unsurprising, as the Left has been all in on the so-called “transgender” agenda, calling it bigotry to deny men access to women’s bathrooms. Why, Harris even sent a message to Sexual Devolution activists in the debate, using the phrase “every gender” in a response. (How many are there? Answer: two sexes.) This agenda’s radical demands are extremely unpopular with Americans. Yet Harris wasn’t asked about it — thanks to Susan Page.
Last April, Harris threatened to bypass Congress and infringe on gun rights via executive action. She said last September that she supported a “mandatory buyback” (read: confiscation) of certain semi-automatic rifles. Again, where was the debate question about these unpopular proposals?
Neither Biden nor Harris has ever condemned terroristic Black Lives Matter or Antifa. In fact, the domain Antifa.com still redirects to the Biden/Harris campaign page (as of this writing). Doesn’t this warrant a question, Susan Page?
Of course, asking about such things would make the Democrats look bad — but only because that badness is a reality. There also is no corresponding radicalism on the other side; Trump’s and Pence’s policies very much align with the people’s will, and more closely with Truth, while Biden’s and Harris’s policies are generally antithetical to both.
It would be nice if the American people could learn this, which brings me to maddening Republican stupidity: Why does the GOP continually agree to have leftist debate moderators? In the least, there should be two moderators, one Republican and one Democrat, with each choosing 50 percent of the questions.
As for Page, people can argue about the degree to which her bias is conscious (she is, after all, operating above her pay grade, lacking the necessary self-knowledge and wisdom to do her job). Regardless, the result is the same: Biden and Harris are allowed to retain their masks and hide their true faces from Americans.
Speaking of which brings to mind Duke’s First Rule of Politics:
Under representative government, people do not get what they want. They get what they vote for.
And Susan Page and most mainstream media, being on the Democrats’ page, make this a sure thing.
► Lie: In January the Trump administration knew the dangers of the coronavirus and did not tell the American Public…imagine if you knew on January 28th? … they knew and they covered it up.
Truth: January 3: CDC Director Robert Redfield sent an email to the director of the Chinese CDC, George Gao, formally offering to send U.S. experts to China to investigate the coronavirus.
January 5: CDC Director Redfield sent another email to the Chinese CDC Director, George Gao, formally offering to send U.S. experts to China to investigate the coronavirus outbreak,
January 6: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a level I travel notice for Wuhan, China due to the spreading coronavirus.
January 7: The CDC established a coronavirus incident management system to better share and respond to information about the virus.
January 11: The CDC updated a Level 1 travel health notice for Wuhan, China.
January 17: The CDC began implementing public health entry screening at the 3 U.S. airports that received the most travelers from Wuhan – San Francisco, New York JFK, and Los Angeles.
January 20: Dr. Fauci announces the National Institutes of Health is already working on the development of a vaccine for the coronavirus.
January 21: The CDC activated its emergency operations center to provide ongoing support to the coronavirus response.
January 23: The CDC sought a “special emergency authorization” from the FDA to allow states to use its newly developed coronavirus test.
January 27: President Trump tweeted that he made an offer to President Xi Jinping to send experts to China to investigate the coronavirus outbreak.
January 27: The CDC issued a level III travel health notice urging Americans to avoid all nonessential travel to China due to the coronavirus.
January 27: The White House Coronavirus Task Force started meeting to help monitor and contain the spread of the virus and provide updates to the President.
January 29: The White House announced the formation of the Coronavirus Task Force to help monitor and contain the spread of the virus and provide updates to the President.
January 31: The Trump Administration: Declared the coronavirus a public health emergency.
Announced Chinese travel restrictions.
Suspended entry into the United States for foreign nationals who pose a risk of transmitting the coronavirus.
► Lie: “You know this administration took the word ‘science’ off the website?”
Truth: The word “science” was not scrubbed from U.S. government websites by the Trump Administration, and that fact was even confirmed as not true by liberal left NBC News.
► Lie: [Donald Trump] passed a tax bill benefiting the top 1% and the biggest corporations of America.
Truth: Fact Check dot org explains that the claim is out of context, and not necessarily true. The plan to cut taxes wound up reducing the tax burden for just about everyone across the board. Later in the debate Harris claims they plan to only raise the taxes for people making $400,000 per year or more after Pence claimed Biden supports raising everyone’s taxes. Even if Kamala’s claim is true, and the increase of taxation will only affect the top earners, the tax burden would largely land on those who own businesses, or are high ranking persons in these corporations, who do the hiring, and who adjust prices of their products based on the company’s cost to do business. So, Biden’s plan would reduce hiring, and pass the tax on to the average workers (and newly unemployed) with higher prices of products … an economics lesson they have apparently never understood.
► Lie: Trump’s tax cuts led to a two trillion dollar deficit.
Truth: After the tax plan, because of the growing economy as a result of the tax cuts, federal tax revenue increased. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, “federal revenue has consistently increased in the years after the Trump tax cuts. Despite the enormous tax cut, federal revenue increased by $10 billion in 2018, by $130 billion in 2019, and was projected to grow by even more in 2020 before the Covid-19 pandemic and its economic effects.”
► Lie: Joe Biden will only raise taxes on those who make more than $400,000 per year.
Truth: The Tax Foundation concluded Biden’s plan would lead to higher taxes “across all income groups.”
► Lie: Trump’s investment in infrastructure never happened.
► Lie: The West Coast of the United States is burning, the East Coast is being battered by storms, Iowa crops destroyed because of floods, Joe believes in science (in discussion about Climate Change) … “an existential threat to us as human beings.”
► Lie: “The Vice President earlier referred to what he thinks is an accomplishment that the president’s trade war with China. He lost that trade war. You lost it.”
Truth: One of the things Americans appreciate about President Trump is that he stands firm against those who would stand against American Liberty and American Prosperity. China is one such adversary. Therefore, President Trump has confronted China’s unfair trade practices. His administration has “successfully used tariffs to persuade China to sign a Phase One Trade Agreement that secured significant protections for American workers and businesses.” In addition to that, he got the Chinese communists to purchase an additional $32 billion in U.S. farm goods over the next two years.
► Lie: America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs because of Trump’s trade war with China.
Truth: As of two years ago, according to Forbes, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. has increased ten times what it was during the Obama administration, thanks to Trump’s policies. Numbers have not boomed so loudly since then, but that is largely due to Democrat policies by States regarding the coronavirus scamdemic.
► Lie: The Obama-Biden Administration created within the White House an office that basically was responsible for monitoring pandemics. They [Trump] got rid of it
Truth: Multiple sources have claimed this is not true; Former NSC Senior Director Tim Morrison, Former NSC staffer Richard Goldberg, Former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and even the leftwing rag, USA Today.
► Lie: “Look at the Iran nuclear deal [regarding Trump ending it] which now has put us in a position where we are less safe because they are building up what might end up being a significant nuclear arsenal.”
Truth: Actually, the deal was designed to make it easier for Iran to achieve a nuclear arsenal. By ending the deal and increasing sanctions on Iran which has adversely affected their economy, Trump has helped quell the danger that Iran once posed during the Obama administration.
► Lie: Trump referred to severe head injuries suffered by military personnel as simply “headaches”.
Truth: President Trump was simply referring to what he had heard in a report. He said, “I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things, but I would say, and I can report, it is not very serious.” If he had been misinformed, that is not the President downplaying the head injuries suffered by military personnel. Reports later confirmed that at least 11 U.S. soldiers had been airlifted from Iraq to medical centers in Germany and Kuwait for further evaluation and treatment of possible traumatic brain injuries from the rocket attack. When later asked about his “headaches” response in light of the new information, he stated he had been advised of the details “numerous days later,” and that regarding the severity of the injuries “you’d have to ask the Department of Defense.” Later, he stated that “No, I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I’ve seen. I’ve seen what Iran has done with their roadside bombs to our troops. I’ve seen people with no legs and with no arms. I’ve seen people that were horribly, horribly injured in that area, that war. In fact, many cases those bombs [were] put there by Soleimani, who’s no longer with us.” The average person does not recognize how severe a traumatic brain injury can be because they can’t “see” it. If President Trump does underestimate the seriousness of a head trauma, he’s not alone, and the list of those who don’t give a traumatic brain injury enough credence includes a long list of medical personnel in the Veteran’s Administration system. I know this personally.
► Lie: Trump referred to our personnel in the military as “suckers and losers”.
► Lie: “In 1864 … Abraham Lincoln was up for re-election, and it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but of the Senate. But Honest Abe said that it’s not the right thing to do.”
Truth: According to National Review: Lincoln, of course, said no such thing. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day. And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant. Kamala Harris is simply inventing history.
► Lie: Packing the Supreme Court.
Truth: While Harris and Biden have essentially dodged the question about packing the Supreme Court, and Harris tried to make it seem like it was not something she would consider during the debate, Harris in the past has indicated that she is open to the idea.
► Lie: [Trump] has refused to condemn white supremacists.
► Lie: “He called Mexicans rapists and criminals.”
Truth: This same claim was made during the Vice Presidential debate in 2016, as well. Breitbart reported, back then, In his June 16, 2015 speech announcing his run for the presidency, Donald Trump said the following: When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Trump was referring to “some” of the people mixed into the population of illegal aliens crossing the border.
► Lie: He [Trump] instituted as his first act a Muslim ban.
► Lie: “I was the first statewide officer to institute a requirement that my agents would wear body cameras and keep them on full-time.”
Truth: As California’s Attorney General, Harris did not mandate body cameras statewide. In fact, in 2015, Harris said that she did not believe in statewide standards for police body cameras.
► Lie: Trump will resist a peaceful transition of power.
► Lie: “If we use our voice, we will win, and we will not let anyone subvert our democracy with what Donald Trump has been doing, as he did on the main stage last week, he openly attempted to suppress the vote.”
First, let me set the stage for new readers. No-one is more cynical of DC operations and manipulations than me. I do not sell nor promote ‘hope porn’, and I am not confident that anything is close to being revealed. Indeed, given the scale and scope of what took place in the last eight years, yes eight years; I have expressed doubts that anyone in government would ever actually expose it.
That said, in addition to my own cynicism I have been deep in this “spygate” or “Russiagate” rabbit hole; factually and physically inside the DC network; long enough to see the map of an investigative trail bringing up the rear.
During one great conversation a lawyer said to me: “All of this you know; all of this you have evidence for; but we don’t have the badges”. Thus began my 2020 effort, ultimately a successful effort, to drag the badges into the hole. That’s the background for an update with new information:
A very important article was written yesterday in the New Yorker [SEE HERE]. While the topic of the article spotlights the ridiculous conspiracy theory surrounding Alfa bank, and the insufferable nonsense about Trump Tower servers having contact -electronic touch signals- with servers from the Russian banking organization, there are aspects to the story that show where the Durham probe has been forced to travel.
Within the article –which everyone should read– some names are very important. The article is framed around defending the New Yorker’s previous reporting on the Alfa Bank conspiracy theory, so the intent of the article is defensive. However, the events being described in the article, and more importantly the people being outlined in the article, are accurate. Especially Daniel Jones and his lawyer William Taylor; and the connection of both to Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson.
According to the article there are two parallel efforts underway to untangle the background of how the false Alfa Bank story was originated. One effort is a set of civil lawsuits by the owners of Alfa bank against those who created the fraudulent story that flowed through Fusion GPS, into Chris Steele’s dossier, into the FBI, and ultimately into the Buzzfeed reporting therein. The owners of the bank are taking all of these entities into court and demanding discovery of sources who framed/created the false impression.
The second outlined effort is a set of subpoenas for some of the same names to appear before a grand jury being run by the John Durham probe. The witnesses are lawyered-up and attempting to avoid the grand jury subpoenas.
Part of the New Yorker story is constructed around wondering if the Alfa Bank team is working with the Durham team. That is a false narrative created for political deflection only. However, the article outlines factual evidence of the Durham grand jury; and by knowing what issues are being explored we can see -in advance- where this trail is going.
Good News Pause: John Durham has a grand jury impaneled and is issuing subpoenas.
Instead of me going through the Alfa Bank story, let me just take you though a process of where the Alfa Bank story ends up. That’s where Durham/Aldenberg will ultimately be; and for transparency I have spoken with William Aldenberg about their destination.
Note in the New Yorker piece the subjects of the subpoenas and lawsuits are worried about being forced to identify the anonymous sources known as “Max” and “Tea Leaves”.
Additionally the group describes their worry about identifying how the electronic signals between the servers were originally discovered.
Let me say up front that is where this story connects to the scandal of intelligence community “contractor” access to the NSA database.
The SIGINT or signals intelligence, used to frame the false Alfa Bank story, appears to have come from entities with access to the NSA database who were doing work to assist the overall Trump-Russia narrative construction. Those unlawfully obtained findings were manipulated and unlawfully extracted; then passed along to computer scientists who had the role to provide technical support for the media to use in selling a false story.
If this sounds to you like the subject matter expertise and skill of Crowdstrike and Fusion-GPS you would not be missing the target.
[…] The Alfa Bank case has also become an object of interest for federal agents working for John Durham, the prosecutor appointed by Barr. Durham’s agents have summoned some of the same computer scientists to testify before a grand jury, and are asking for the same material that Alfa Bank is seeking. (They’ve asked Jones, the investigator, to testify as well.) Some agents told scientists that they were exploring a potential criminal charge—presumably against Max and Tea Leaves—for giving false information to the government. A number of those called to testify are seeking to quash the subpoenas, and it’s not apparent that anyone has testified so far.
There is no clear evidence that the Justice Department and Alfa Bank are working together, but some people involved in the case noted a striking alignment of purpose. “There’s a heck of a lot of mutual interest,” William Taylor, an attorney for [Dan] Jones, told me. (more)
Notice here that William Taylor in 2020 is representing Dan Jones. And Dan Jones is outlined as the central player in the Alfa Bank story construction; as pushed to media.
William Taylor was/is also the lawyer for Fusion-GPS, as noted in a 2017 Politico article: “Fusion lawyers William Taylor and Josh Levy wrote as they renewed their request for a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.”
Now, let me explain what this is all about…. and where this is going.
When President Trump won the November 2016 election all of those participants involved in the use of government offices and agencies for corrupt political intent had a real problem. Immediately, a lot of strategic planning took place by a lot of desperate people.
One of the key needs of the corrupt intelligence apparatus was to find a way to stop the incoming administration from exposing their effort; that’s where the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) comes in.
Senator Dianne Feinstein was vice-chair of the SSCI in 2016. Feinstein’s chief of staff was Dan Jones. The post-election plan to protect the intel community would involve using the SSCI institution to cover for prior Obama-era operations.
Senator Feinstein was not a good fit for that role, so Feinstein abdicated her position in advance of the next congress.
In January 2017 Senator Mark Warner took over as SSCI vice-chair and Dan Jones left the SSCI to continue the operation as a freelance operative. Warner was put into place to carry out the strategic objectives needed to protect the DOJ, NSD, CIA, FBI and ODNI operations against Donald Trump who was now the incoming president-elect.
Keep in mind with control of the SSCI the group inside the legislative branch could control who ran what intelligence agency because they held the power of confirmation; and they could control who would rise to be inspector general within the intelligence community, a position needed if a whistle-blower was to surface.
Additionally, the SSCI would control intelligence information and assist the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel after appointment. The SSCI could work as a sword and a shield as needed. Which is exactly what happened.
That background, the motive of the SSCI, explains every point of conflict and corruption we have seen from the SSCI toward the White House in the past four years.
Meanwhile Dan Jones went freelance and was given $50 million to fund an investigative outfit called the “Penn Quarter Group” and create a new organization called the Democracy Integrity Project.
“Jones told federal investigators that he had raised $50 million from “7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and California.” (link)
Jones used both groups to continue selling and pushing the Trump-Russia narrative. Also it was important for those at risk to find an alternate route to keep financing their defense without using Clinton’s legal team within Perkins Coie.
Essentially, in 2017 Dan Jones, through his Penn Quarter Group, took over funding for Fusion-GPS and Glenn Simpson and kept paying Christopher Steele. The payments to these entities and Steele always looked more like a pay-off to keep their mouths shut. Jones was essentially the bag-man for continued Trump-Russia operations outside government.
Jones’s second job was to keep pushing the Trump-Russia narrative in the media:
(RCP Investigations) 2019 […] The operation’s nerve center is a Washington-based nonprofit called The Democracy Integrity Project, or TDIP. Among other activities, it pumps out daily “research” briefings to prominent Washington journalists, as well as congressional staffers, to keep the Russia “collusion” narrative alive.
TDIP is led by Daniel J. Jones, a former FBI investigator, Clinton administration volunteer and top staffer to California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein. It employs the key opposition-research figures behind the salacious and unverified dossier: Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Its financial backers include the actor/director Rob Reiner and billionaire activist George Soros.
The project’s work has been largely shrouded in mystery. But a months-long examination by RealClearInvestigations, drawn from documents and more than a dozen interviews, found that the organization is running an elaborate media-influence operation that includes driving and shaping daily coverage of the Russia collusion theory, as well as pushing stories about Trump in the national media that attempt to tie the president or his associates to the Kremlin. (Keep Reading)
While Senator Mark Warner -now a gang of eight member- took control over the SSCI, and by extension the aggregate intelligence apparatus controlled by legislative oversight, Dan Jones worked outside government on the same objectives. Warner was controlling efforts inside the legislative branch that impeded and undermined the executive; and Dan Jones was controlling efforts outside government to weaponize media and attack the executive.
We see the synergy between Senator Warner and Dan Jones in the text messages with their mutual ally Adam Waldman (Chris Steele’s lawyer/handler). Senator Warner was texting with Adam Waldman about setting up a meeting with Chris Steele. Waldman is a lobbyist/lawyer with a $40,000 monthly retainer to represent the U.S. interests of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska; Waldman was also Chris Steele’s lawyer/handler.
Senator Mark Warner was trying to set up a covert meeting. In the text messages Adam Waldman is telling Senator Warner that Chris Steele will not meet with him without a written letter (request) from the Senate Intelligence Committee. Steele was always the wild-card and needed to be kept under tight controls.
Senator Warner didn’t want the Republican members to know about the meeting. Chris Steele knew this was a partisan political set-up; knew his own risk exposure from the 2016 operation; and was refusing to meet unilaterally with Senator Warner. Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman, a close vacationing friend with Warner, was playing the go-between:
This is why I have said since 2018 that Chris Steele needs to be granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. Steele is the fulcrum of the 2016/2017 operation; and it was reported earlier that Steele met with Durham investigators.
It seems obvious that Fusion-GPS used Nellie Ohr to send information to Chris Steele who them assembled the oppo-research into his dossier. Steele then acts as a laundry for the Fusion intel and transmits it to the FBI for use. The FBI use the Steele dossier to get the FISA useful for surveillance against the Trump campaign and administration. All of that is transparently obvious now.
Dan Jones being subpoenaed by John Durham is a big deal. Durham might be following the Alfa-bank breadcrumbs, but we already know where that leads…. into the exploitation of the NSA database, and then ultimately into the Senate Intel Committee.
Not defending the delay of the Durham probe to be public with its findings; but if they are willing to go all the way to the SSCI that could explain the reason for delay.
You might be wondering how we can know all of these connections and yet it is taking Durham’s team a long time to get through this rabbit hole. Here’s a few things I can tell you from my personal experience and interaction with them:
(1) many of you have been in this rabbit hole with me longer than Durham’s team has; (2) these investigators take a long time to connect dots because they have to keep asking for permission, we don’t; (3) this is the biggest political scandal in U.S. history; and (4) the badges only recently (July) became aware of the SSCI scope.
Earlier this morning our president called-in to Fox Business for an extensive interview with Maria Bartiromo. President Trump covered a multitude of topics from the ongoing election, to the debate changes, to the efforts to get the intelligence community to declassify documents related to his three-years of targeting by deep state officials.
By now the American electorate’s confidence in the FBI is hovering near zero. FBI Director Chris Wray has done nothing to counter a reality of institutional corruption.
To the contrary, and factually, over the past several years the FBI have shown they are politically motivated in all their efforts. If the FBI was not political, they simply wouldn’t be seen taking a knee to express their political alignment with far-left causes:
From the FBI involvement in attempted election interference in 2015 and 2016; to their 2017/2018 efforts to overthrow the U.S. presidency of Donald Trump; to the 2018 Caesar Sayoc case, a transparently self-interested attempt to sway the 2018 mid-term election and protect themselves from further investigation; to the FBI involvement in the 2019 SWAT arrest of Roger Stone; to the 50 FBI agents who worked with Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller on the special counsel operation… all the way to this announcement today, everything the FBI does is wrapped in their political ideology.
There is a profound irony when considering how the political left decries Russia’s use of state police for political purposes; and yet we see the United States FBI carrying out identically motivated federal police operations. Think carefully about it.
The plot involved reaching out to members of a Michigan militia, according to the affidavit and federal and state law enforcement officials.
“Several members talked about murdering ‘tyrants’ or ‘taking’ a sitting governor,” an FBI agent wrote in the Thursday affidavit. “The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message.”
[…] The complaint charges Adam Fox, Barry Croft, Ty Garbin, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta with conspiring to kidnap Whitmer.
[…] On June 6, 2020, Croft, Fox and about 13 others from several states gathered for a meeting in Dublin, Ohio, near Columbus. Several talked about murdering the “tyrants” or “taking” a sitting governor.
Those present included an FBI confidential source who recorded the meetings. The source has been paid $8,600.
“The group talked about creating a society that followed the U.S. Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient,” the FBI agent wrote.
Right about this point in the story-line if you find yourself wondering what is the difference between what has been described here, and the “Capitol Hill Occupy Movement”, or CHOP, you would not be mistaken.
Isn’t it strange how the FBI finds purpose in infiltrating this Michigan effort to support Governor Gretchen Whitmer, yet did/does nothing about Antifa or Blue State Occupy anarchists who physically took control over a major metropolitan area. I digress…
“As part of that recruitment effort, Fox reached out to a Michigan-based militia group,” the agent added.
[…] The FBI was already tracking the militia in March after a local police department learned members were trying to obtain addresses of local law-enforcement officers, the FBI agent wrote.
“At the time, the FBI interviewed a member of the militia group who was concerned about the group’s plans to target and kill police officers, and that person agreed to become a (confidential source),” the agent wrote.
In late June, Fox posted on Facebook a video in which he complained about the state’s judicial system and COVID-19 restrictions on gyms operating in Michigan.
“Fox referred to Governor Whitmer as ‘this tyrant b—-,’ and stated, ‘I don’t know, boys, we gotta do something,” according to the court affidavit. “You guys link with me on our other location system, give me some ideas of what we can do.” (more)
Notice how the FBI and media use the term “militia” as a descriptive to cloud the fact this group was essentially anarchists. The narrative as assembled is to conflate the ideology of the group as “right-wing extremists” when the actual ideology of the group is anarchy.
As a sidebar – this type of purposeful conflation was part of my own personal great awakening when U.S. media were proclaiming the Chinese govt crackdown upon students in Tienanmen Square as “hard right” government action. That conflation was completely false. Communism or totalitarianism control is a far-left ideology; the creation of the ultimate state of oppressive government control is a move to the left.
There is a short space in the continuum between totalitarianism and anarchy. Create the former and you will eventually devolve into the latter; it has always been thus. This current narrative is an attempt to frame a false perspective; meanwhile civics is no longer taught in schools – this is not coincidental.
The FBI will not call Antifa a domestic terror group; yet the FBI will proclaim any “militia” as a domestic threat or “extremist group”. The FBI definition of a “threat” is through the prism of big government preservation. That perspective is part of the problem.
This is a video of Brandon Caserta, one of the ringleaders of the group of men arrested for a plot where the group planned to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Caserta has an anarchist flag behind him and in YouTube videos trashes police. He’s not a Republican, he’s an anarchist. pic.twitter.com/J1vE2qGYL7
Watch this video of Brandon Caserta. He was arrested for plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. In this video he poses in front of an anarchist flag and calls police "a violent gang" and "enemies". He’s an anarchist who hates government and police. pic.twitter.com/gYxaDQXcIj
In March 2020, even before the DNC nominee was selected, CTH noted one of the important objectives for the use of the COVID-19 fear would be to protect their candidate through the use of the “virtual debate” format.
After the DNC club installed Joe Biden as the avatar for the Obama/Clyburn/Perez objective, again IN JUNE, we shared the presidential debate format would require deployment of “virtual debates”.
Quite simply, a cognitively impaired candidate cannot be relied upon to deliver a debate performance, so everything must be controlled. {Go Deep} Including mail-in voting.
The fact the presidential debate commission would not first approach the Trump or Biden campaign, prior to their announcement of “virtual debates”, is evidence of the commission corrupt intent:
(New York Times) […] The debate commission, which did not respond to repeated requests for comment, did not consult with the Biden and Trump campaigns before announcing the virtual format early on Thursday. The decision came after members of the commission’s production team objected to the safety risks of staging another in-person event at an indoor venue, according to a person familiar with its deliberations.
The contretemps on Thursday may pose the most significant test to the debate commission’s legitimacy since the group, a nonpartisan body, was founded in 1987. (more)
Fred Fleitz is the President and CEO, Center for Security Policy; a former NSC Chief of Staff, CIA analyst and House Intel Com staff member. Tonight he appeared with Lou Dobbs to discuss the ongoing issues with the intelligence apparatus and the requests by President Trump to release all documents without redaction.
Missouri U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen has provided additional information to the Flynn defense team highlighting a January 25th meeting between officials in the DOJ-NSD and FBI the day after Michael Flynn (code-named Razor) was interviewed in the White House.
The DOJ officials attending the meeting included: Mary McCord (NSD head), George Toscas (NSD principal deputy), Stu Evans, Tashina Guahar, and “Matt A” (possibly Matthew Axelrod (lawyer for the Deputy Attorney General). Additionally, from the FBI there was: James Baker (chief legal counsel), Bill Priestap (CoIntel head) and a redacted name. It is clear from the meeting notes the group was trying to find something to target Michael Flynn and brainstorming on what approach to take.
As noted they discussed the “Logan Act” yet found there was no reasonable way to use it and Flynn’s contact with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, during the transition, was normal.
FBI Legal Counsel James Baker asked how could you prosecute Flynn for a 1001 violation (lying to FBI officials) when you couldn’t prosecute any underlying crime because the contact with Kislyak was normal.
The “truth of something being falsely stated to the public” surrounds the January 15, 2017, CBS interview with Vice-President Mike Pence who conflated a question about contact with Russians during the election; with Flynn’s contact with Kislyak in the transition period.
John Dickerson: Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contactwith the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?
MIKE PENCE:Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)
The DOJ/FBI team was going to hang their hat on this conflation as a conflict between Pence and Flynn. That’s the beginning of the Russian “blackmail” narrative.
The redactions following Stu Evans and Tashina Guahar are likely only purposeful in hiding more corrupt institutional evidence. It’s doubtful those are sources and methods.
The last lines of the January 25th notes are very telling:
“assessment of whether [Flynn] is in a covert relationship with Russia ⇒ No, probably not based on facts to date and interview.”
They knew all along they were investigating a nothingburger. That’s why they took no action from January until the special counsel came along in May and took the FARA approach in June as pressure to get Flynn to plea to a lie he never made. It was all a set up.
And with that in mind, it’s worth taking all the current information and reviewing the fully cited (soup-to-nuts) background of how the Pence -vs- Flynn ‘lying’ narrative was created.
♦In mid-December 2016 the Obama administration was deploying a full-court-press using their media allies to promote the Russia conspiracy. However, despite their extreme public proclamations DNI Clapper & CIA Brennan were refusing to give any specifics to congress.
The hard narrative was that Russia interfered. That was the specific push from within the Obama intelligence apparatus writ large. All IC officials, sans Mike Rogers (NSA), had a self-interest in pushing this narrative; after all, it was the defensive mechanism to justify their illegal spying operation and block Trump. This was their insurance policy.
The media was doing their part; and using the information leaked to them by those who were part of the 2016 operation(s) began battering the Trump transition team every hour of every day with questions about the Russia hacking narrative; thereby fertilizing the seeds of a collusion conspiracy. The Trump-Russia narrative was relentless.
On December 29, 2016, the IC produced, and rushed to completion, a ridiculous document to support their false-premise. This was called the Joint Analysis Report which claimed to outline the details of Russia’s involvement hacking into targeted political data base or computer systems during the election. Within the JAR we were introduced to “Grizzley Steepe” and a goofy claim of Russian hackers.
On the same day (12/29/16) President Obama announced a series of sanctions against Russians who were located in Maryland. This was Obama’s carefully constructed response to provide additional validity to the Joint Analysis Report. After fueling the Russia conspiracy for several weeks the Obama administration knew this action would initiate a response from both Russia and the incoming Trump administration.
On the day the JAR was released and Obama made the announcement, President-elect Donald Trump and some of his key members were in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. Incoming National Security Adviser Mike Flynn was on vacation in the Dominican Republic. As expected the Obama action spurred calls between Russian emissary Kislyak and Flynn.
The Obama IC were monitoring Kislyak communications and waiting for the contact. Additionally, it was suspected Flynn was under a surveillance warrant which seemed confirmed by the Weissmann/Mueller report. Flynn was the target of an ongoing FBI investigation. He was codenamed “Crossfire Razor.”
The FBI intercepted, recorded, and later transcribed the December 29th conversation between Sergey Kislyak and incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
The media continued to follow the lead from the Obama White House and Intelligence Community (writ large) fueling a narrative that any contact with the Russians was proof of collusion of some sort. In addition, the communications team of the White House, DOJ, FBI and aggregate IC began pushing a narrative surrounding the obscure Logan Act.
The ridiculous Logan Act promotion was targeted to infer that any action taken by the Trump campaign prior to taking office was interference with the political Obama Russia action, and would be evidence of collusion. That was the plan. DOJ Deputy AG Sally Yates was in charge of pushing the Logan Act narrative to the media.
The first two weeks of January 2017 was now a merging of two necessary narratives: (1) Russian interference; and (2) the Logan Act against Flynn. Each deployed against any entity who would counter the Russia narrative story. The media were running this dual narrative 24/7 against the incoming Trump officials and demanding repeated answers to questions that were framed around this story-line.
On January 3rd, 2017, the new congressional year began. SSCI Vice-Chair Dianne Feinstein abdicated her position within the Gang-of-Eight, and turned over the reigns to Senator Mark Warner. Warner was now the vice-chair of the SSCI; and a Go8 member.
On January 4, 2017, the FBI was going to drop the investigation of Flynn because they found no derogatory evidence. FBI Agent Peter Strzok demanded the investigation be kept open and the “7th Floor” agreed with him (FBI Director Comey and Deputy McCabe).
On January 5, 2017, FBI Director James Comey went to the White House for a briefing with President Obama, VP Biden, ODNI James Clapper, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
DAG Yates had no idea the content of the Flynn Kislyak call was captured; and she had no idea ODNI James Clapper had briefed President Obama about the call.
President Obama asked Sally Yates and James Comey to remain behind after the briefing. This was memorialized by Susan Rice:
On January 6, 2017, FBI Director James Comey and ODNI James Clapper went to Trump Tower to brief the incoming administration. Simultaneously the Obama White House published the Intelligence Community Assessment, and declared:
We assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence. (pdf link)
It is not coincidental the ICA was “high confidence” by Brennan and Clapper; and less confidence by Mike Rogers (NSA).
With the Flynn Dec. 29, 2016, transcript in hand, the DOJ and FBI began aiding the Logan Act narrative with Obama intelligence officials supporting the Russia Conspiracy claims and decrying anyone who would interfere or counter the official U.S. position.
On January 14th, 2017, the content of the communication between Flynn and Kislyak was leaked to the Washington Post by an unknown entity. Likely the leak came from the FBI’s counterintelligence operation. ONA Col. James Baker is suspected of leaking the content.
The FBI CoIntel group (Strzok, McCabe etc.), and the DOJ-NSD group (Sally Yates, Mary McCord etc.) were the largest stakeholders in the execution of the insurance policy phase because they were the epicenter of spygate, fraudulent FISA presentations and the formation and use of the Steele Dossier for surveillance warrants.
The media leak of the Flynn conversation with Kislyak was critical because the DOJ/FBI were pushing a political narrative. This was not about legality per se’, this effort was about establishing the framework for a preexisting investigation, based on a false premise, that would protect the DOJ and FBI. The investigation they needed to continue evolved into the Mueller special counsel. This was all insurance.
The Flynn-Kislyak leak led to Vice-President Mike Pence being hammered on January 15th, 2017, during a CBS Face the Nation interview about Trump campaign officials in contact with Russians.
Pence was exceptionally unprepared to answer the questions and allowed the media to blend questions about campaign contacts with necessary, and entirely appropriate, transition team contacts.
•Sunday January 15th, 2017 – Five Days before the inauguration VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]
JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing.
Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contactwith the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?
MIKE PENCE:Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)
*NOTE* The incoming administration was under a false-narrative siege created by the media. At the time (early Jan, 2017) ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians. VP-elect Mike Pence poorly answered the question from Dickerson from a very defensive position.
The toxic media environment and Mike Pence speaking poorly during a Face The Nation interview now became a much bigger issue. The FBI was prepared to pounce on this situation.
Once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised.
NSA Advisor Michael Flynn is now contrast against Pence’s false point without clarification. As National Security Advisor Flynn was interviewed by the FBI on January 24th, nine days after Pence made his comments.
During this ambush interview, disguised as a meeting, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka were contrasting Vice-President-elect Pence’s statements to CBS against the known action of Mike Flynn. [Flynn has three options: either (1) Flynn contradicts Pence, or (2) he tells a lie; or (3) Flynn explains Pence misspoke, those were his options.]
How Flynn responded to the line of inquiry, and explained/reconciled the difference between Pence’s statement on Jan 15th and what actually took place on December 29th, 2016, is why the FBI ended up with the initial conclusion that Flynn wasn’t lying.
It is within this dynamic where the FD-302 reports, written by Strzok and Pientka, then became the subject of political manipulation by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
The FBI knew the content of the Flynn call with Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in. The FBI were intercepting those communications. So when Pence said no-one had any contact on January 15th, the FBI crew IMMEDIATELY knew they had an issue to exploit.
We see the evidence of the FBI knowing they had an issue to exploit, and being very nervous about doing it, in the text messages between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok who would end up doing the questioning of Flynn.
The day before the Flynn interview:
♦January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!
♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails… (Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)
“John” is Jonathan Moffa and “Bill” is Bill Priestap, FBI Deputy Director in charge of Counterintelligence. “Jen” is Jennifer Boone, FBI counterproliferation division.
So it’s the day before they interview Flynn. Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails?
The answer is simple: they knew the content of the phone call between Mike Flynn and Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in, and they were about to exploit the Pence statement to CBS. In essence they were admitting to monitoring Flynn, that’s why they were so nervous.
They were planning and plotting with Andrew McCabe about how they were going to exploit the phone-tap and the difference in public statements by VP Mike Pence. However, FBI Counterintelligence Director Bill Priestap has doubts about the validity of interviewing Flynn. Priestap has a meeting with with “DD” Deputy Director McCabe to share his concerns:
FBI Agent Strzok is worried that his boss, Bill Priestap, may disrupt the plan. He texts with Lisa Page (top of page): “I worry Bill isn’t getting the underlying distinction that I think is clear. But maybe I’m wrong.”
The day of the interview (bottom half of page above) Bill Priestap still has issues about the purpose of interviewing Flynn over a perfectly legitimate conversation. Priestap has another meeting this time with “d” FBI Director Comey and “dd” Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
FBI Agent Peter Strzok is stressed out; Bill Priestap could blow the plan if he doesn’t back down from his concerns. Lisa Page says McCabe “is frustrated” with Bill Priestap’s reluctance to go along with the plan.
Priestap, sensing something could really backfire with the plan; and questioning the overall legality of their purpose; memorializes his concern with more hand written notes during their meeting:
The Interview Takes Place:
NSA Michael Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS; and Flynn likely tried to dance through a needle without being overly critical of VP-elect Pence misspeaking. Remember, the alternative: if Flynn is brutally honest, the media now runs with a narrative about Vice-President Pence as a national liar.
•WednesdayJanuary 25th, 2017, – The Department of Justice, National Security Division, (at this timeframe Mary McCord was head of the DOJ-NSD) – received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.” That is the meeting where today’s notes come into play:
Counsel to General Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, comments on new unredacted information regarding the presidential transition scandal known commonly as ‘Russiagate,’ and the roles that President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may have played in the events in question. The interview is with Newsmax TV’s John Bachmanhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/hK1RKRohtqY?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
An interesting letter from the DOJ provided to the Flynn defense team portends a release of handwritten notes, from the day after the January 24, 2017, Flynn interview, likely authored by Kevin Clinesmith as the FBI discussed next steps.
If the notes are from Kevin Clinesmith, he is the former FBI lawyer from the office of general counsel who was charged by the DOJ for manipulating evidence, and potentially cooperating as part of his plea agreement. [Background] Remember, the DOJ only presented a Criminal Information status against Clinesmith with no grand jury, which suggests counsel for defendant approached DOJ to structure an agreement. The plea agreement likely also included an agreement for method of public release. [LINK HERE]
During an interview last night, Sidney Powell said more truth-bombs are likely forthcoming. If Clinesmith is “cooperating”; or if Clinesmith is merely informing the DOJ of activity that took place during the Flynn targeting, which is helping them locate evidence of the background events; this could be very helpful to the defense team. We await specifics…
The January 25, 2017, notes indicate the majority of the discussion was about the pre-election Turkish lobbying agreement with the Flynn Intel Group.
“Turks + Flynn why hired and what doing about 951?” is a reference to a FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) investigation which was the preferred DOJ-NSD targeting tool for the administration’s political opposition.
[Remember, the DOJ under Obama completely overlooked all of the FARA-951 violations being carried out by the Clinton-aligned Podesta brothers…. which is why Tony Podesta shut down his lobbying agency as soon as it was obvious the DOJ was going to use FARA-951 as the targeting tool for Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos etc. The special counsel could not have that glaring hypocrisy visible or it would highlight the political motive]
“Efforts to influence”
“Satisfied registration obligation”
“No indication of [????] wilfulness”
This part of the notes, presumably written by Clinesmith, seems to highlight the Flynn Intel Group had fulfilled the obligations under the FARA requirements; and the discussion was conflicted by non-existing evidence of any unlawful conduct by Michael Flynn.
The notes are during a discussion back-and-forth about how to keep exploring the FARA-951 as a potential attack angle against Flynn and culminate (visibly) with:
“[???] Subpoena for Flynn Intel Group + more”
I cannot make out the name of who is identified as originating that approach.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
One tragedy of this election season, as with all modern election seasons, is that the Democrats’ radicalism is being hidden from the American people by a complicit establishment media. It would have been nice, then, if Wednesday’s vice presidential debate could have been a teaching moment where light was shined on Kamala Harris’s and Joe Biden’s toxic positions. Unfortunately, moderator Susan Page’s bias made this impossible.
Centinel2012 