Representatives Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs tear the bark off the Obamagate scandal; including culpable republicans who participated in the DC coup effort.
Appearing with Lou Dobbs on Fox Business, Jim Jordan rips through the timeline early in the interview to expose how it was impossible for all of the activity to be happening without former President Obama being a participant. WATCH:
Tucker Carlson has Fox host Trey Gowdy appear for an interview to discuss ongoing events and revelations showing the corrupt behavior of the FBI and DOJ. About mid-way through the interview Carlson takes a passive aggressive tack, shows Gowdy a video of his own comments in May 2018, and asks if he is still willing to stand by them. WATCH:
.
So Gowdy waited from January 2017 until three weeks after May 2018 to go look at the direct documents the DOJ and FBI had been concealing?
Not coincidentally; and in direct alignment with the expressed defenses of Gowdy; two months later, July 12, 2018, the DOJ and FBI told the FISA court the underlying predicate for the FISA warrant against Carter Page was still valid….
Last week it was noted that Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell delivered a satchel of classified documents to AG Bill Barr. The exact content of the documents was unknown.
Today ABC is reporting that Grenell has requested AG Bill Barr use the declassification authority, granted to him by President Trump in May 2019, to declassify the list of Obama officials who requested unmaskings of Trump campaign and administration officials.
WASHINGTON – Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has sought to declassify a list of former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the so-called “unmasking” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in his conversations with the former Russian ambassador during the presidential transition, a senior U.S. official tells ABC News.
[…] His visit indicates his focus on an issue previously highlighted in 2017 by skeptics of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, specifically allegations that former officials improperly unveiled Flynn’s identity from intercepts of his call with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
[…] Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice has openly acknowledged unmasking the identities of some senior Trump officials during the presidential transition but has strenuously denied ever leaking any identities and said nothing she did was politically motivated.
[…] In 2017, Rep. Devin Nunes — a longtime critic of the Russia investigation — accused the Obama administration of improper unmasking of Trump transition officials after he secretly met with two national security officials at the White House who he said provided him with documents supporting his assertions. (more)
March 27, 2017, then House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, held a brief press conference and stated he was provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources including ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.
These reports included unmaskings of President Trump campaign officials; and included Donald Trump himself…. You know what that means:
1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”
3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”
4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities, or of the Trump team.
“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”
- “Who was aware of it?”
- “Why it was not disclosed to congress?”
- “Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”
- “Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”
- “And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”
“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”
.
The next week, April 4, 2017, you already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Andrea Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
There are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material. That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities.
With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes.
FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on January 24, 2017. According to documents presented in the court case, agent Peter Strzok did the questioning and agent Joe Pientka took most of the notes.
Following the interview agent Pientka then took his hand-written notes and generated an official FD-302; an FBI report of the interview itself. There has been a great deal of debate over the first draft, the original FD-302 as it was written by Joe Pientka. In the case against Flynn the DOJ prosecutors never presented the original Pientka 302.
Recent evidence from Brady material turned over to the defense by auditing attorney Jeff Jensen showed FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok rewriting, editing and shaping the 302 on February 10, 2017, more than two weeks later:
Lisa Page is “pissed off” because Peter Strzok previously edited the 302 and she says he “didn’t even attempt to make this cogent and readable.”
Peter Strzok replies back to Lisa Page that he was “trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save Joe’s voice”, because Joe Pientka was the actual author.
Peter Strzok is re-writing the interview notes of Pientka in order to construct the framework to accuse Flynn of lying. Lisa Page is editing the re-write to make it more cogent and readable.
The question has remained: Where is the original 302 report as written by Pientka?
While the question(s) around the missing original 302 have yet to be reconciled, one possible path to discover its location and a copy of its original content lies in the testimony of Sally Yates. Former DAG Sally Yates testified to congress that after the Flynn interview DOJ-National Security Division:
“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.”
Yates is describing the Pientka 302. The Pientka 302 could have been received at the DOJ-NSD later in the evening of January 24th, or perhaps the morning of the 25th. Either is possible because Yates was having meetings about the topic.
In the DOJ motion to dismiss the case against Flynn, the records indicate Yates received a summary of the interview the night of the 24th, and the full detailed record came on the morning of January 25th:
The calendar of DOJ-NSD Associate Deputy AG Tashina Gauhar shows meetings with Sally Yates which align with the discussions of the Flynn interview and Yates receiving a summary on the 24th and the detail on the 25th:
Schedule of Associate Deputy Attorney General Tashina Gauhar
Together with DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord, Sally Yates used the 302 from Joe Pientka to travel to the White House on January 26th and brief White House counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn interview contrast against the content of the previously captured call between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Lt. Gen Mike Flynn.
If the FBI search for the original Pientka 302 is mysteriously impossible, perhaps the DOJ should go and get the version that was received by the DOJ-NSD on the evening of January 24th, or morning of January 25th, 2017.
Yates testimony below:
•Wednesday January 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.”
•Thursday January 26th – (morning) Sally Yates called White House Counsel Don McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.
•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, “who was overseeing the matter”, that is Mary McCord. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Mary McCord presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”
Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”
•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions *McGahn asked Yates: “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t: “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates claims to have told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”
•Friday January 27th, 2017 – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation. Trump was, but to continue the auspices of the ongoing investigation, Comey lied and told him he wasn’t.
It is important not to get lost in the weeds of each part of the evidence as it starts to surface. All of the material hits upon three key points:
Some of the defensive claims by participants in the anti-Trump effort may hold up under scrutiny (former DOJ). Some of the defensive claims will not. The key point here is that we have entered a phase where the coup-plotters and participants are trying to justify what took place; and they are pointing fingers at each-other to avoid culpability.
Keep in mind this doesn’t even begin to touch on what the corrupt Mueller crew did with the corrupt FBI material.
This phase is the former Obama DOJ officials putting blame upon former Obama FBI officials for the origin of “Spygate” and the subsequent plot to target and remove the incoming administration… However, despite their efforts there is no sunlight between them.
It wasn’t until the coronavirus wreaked havoc forcing the entire nation on lockdown, that anti-American, covert snake-in-the-grass lifelong “community organizer” Barack Obama came out of hiding to blame the spread of a media-touted raging pandemic on President Donald Trump.
The timing of this latest monumental move by a two term former president—defiantly refusing to go away—is absolutely jaw dropping!
Other than boring media reports of his business and campus speeches, the last time we saw Obama was the day he shook hands with new President Donald Trump in the White House.
Leaving behind the deceitful impression that he was duly part of a “smooth transition”, Obama strutted off the stage to become ‘Resistance Leader Incognito’.
His parting words?
“I want to emphasize to you, Mr. President-elect, that we now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed because if you succeed, then the country succeeds,” Obama told Trump.
With a handsome advance for a book that somehow never got published, the one time do-nothing Illinois senator whose main mission in political life was to “Fundamentally Transform America”, wended himself into the bowels of Netflix, producing ‘documentaries’ with his activist wife, having learned the ropes from his then 18-year-old daughter who had learned them at Harvey Weinstein’s New York production company.
, Obama kept his silence during all of the cooked-up ‘Russiagate’ and during two back-to-back Democrat televised hearing and Impeachment trial.
Working silently and stealthily in the background, the America resenting community organizer wanted “folk” to believe he was no threat to a Republic that was much better off without him while he holed up in a multi-million dollar mansion with activist wife, Michelle and activist former advisor Valerie Jarrett, all working in a lavish abode within easy walking distance of the White House.
But the Man from Nowhere, sprung on the world as a Messiah from that faux Greek stage by the DNC—the president who refuses to go away even as a private citizen—remains in every dark corner, in every nook and cranny of the the Peoples’ White House.
There’s a mini Obama behind every leak at the present day White House going back over nearly the past four years.
Obama’s wild accusation that President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic is an “absolute chaotic disaster,” and his reaction to the Justice Department dropping its criminal case against Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, claiming that he’s worried that the “basic understanding of rule of law is at risk,” is an ongoing part of the coup d’état he unleashed on President Trump in the first place!
Obama’s outlandish remarks came during a Friday call with 3,000 “ex-members” of the Obama Alumni Association, AP-described as “people who served in his administration”.
Calling Obama’s Alumni Association people “ex members” is Fake News 101.
This is how the Obama Alumni Association describes itself off their website:
“Shortly after President Obama’s historic 2008 election, a group of campaign alumni came together around the question of how to sustain the community of people who had, and would continue to, dedicate their time to perfecting our union. The answer became the Obama Alumni Association, which over the past decade has connected, engaged, and mobilized the thousands of alumni from President Obama’s campaigns, Administration, and OFA.
“Our work continues. Now more than ever, it’s critical that we come together as a family — to organize and mobilize, to communicate, plan, and share opportunities with each other. This website was created to enable just that — as a forum to connect alumni to each other, share the inspiring work alumni are doing across the country, share job opportunities, and highlight important actions that we can all take to move our country forward.”
Some of the alumni still have hooks into the White House doing Obama’s bidding and still working feverishly to bring down the Trump administration.
Now that their frustration has reached desperado peak, God protect the president and his family’s physical safety!
Now that he’s back at the front rather than the back of the battle lines, this is where Obama is coming from:
“What we’re fighting against is these long-term trends in which being selfish, being tribal, being divided, and seeing others as an enemy — that has become a stronger impulse in American life. And by the way, we’re seeing that internationally as well. It’s part of the reason why the response to this global crisis has been so anemic and spotty,” Obama said, according to Yahoo News. (AP, May 9, 2020 )
“It would have been bad even with the best of governments. It has been an absolute chaotic disaster when that mindset — of ‘what’s in it for me’ and ‘to heck with everybody else’ — when that mindset is operationalized in our government,” he said.
“White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany did not mention Obama directly in her response to his remarks.
“President Trump’s coronavirus response has been unprecedented and saved American lives,” she said.
“While Democrats were pursuing a sham witch hunt against President Trump, President Trump was shutting down travel from China.”
Meanwhile, that a resentful ex-president who bears ill will toward America—even fomenting for its “fundamental transformation”—and including staging a coup d’état against his replacement while still in office— is working out to be the biggest American political tragedy of all time.
“No free man shall be imprisoned, except by legal judgment of his peers or by law of the land.” – Magna Carta
The latest shocking development from the Mueller Investigation’s collapse is the complete vindication of Gen. Michael Flynn, when the DOJ dismissed his case. Predictably, liberals wept and gnashed teeth while prophesying the Rule of Law’s demise. Are they correct?
The Rule of Law stresses that precepts supersede personalities. And settled procedure, built on common law principles, insures fair process, which is irreplaceable for a just society. This Anglo-American ideal is the ideological foundation of US law and the single best justification for a Constitution.
Writers John Locke and Rev Samuel Rutherford, whoseLex Rex – ‘King Law’, championed this standard, as Locke warned – “wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” The Rule of Law theory led to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which remain the greatest restatements of Natural Law political principles since the Decalogue.
Now Obama warns Flynn’s dismissal endangers the Rule of Law. Yet, does it matter prosecutors originally cleared Flynn? FBI agents, lost in grandiose self-deceit, colluded to ‘save America’ from Trump. Flynn was targeted adjunct to Crossfire Hurricane, over Trump’s supposed Russia ties. Yet, now the story leads back to Obama’s door!
Since publishing on Higher Law, chief wrongdoer and former FBI head James Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership is NOT based on classic Natural Law, or Divine Justice. It’s short on law, so glorifies the vague bona fides of great leadership by humanist elites, stating,
“Dishonest leaders have the same ability to shape a culture, by showing their people dishonesty, corruption, and deception. A commitment to integrity and a higher loyalty to truth are what separate the ethical leader from those who just happen to occupy leadership roles. We cannot ignore the difference.”
This moralizing buffoon can’t imagine himself a liar even when sending goons after Gen Flynn without any criminal justification.
First, Flynn was misled. Approaching craftily, FBI stooges feign honor when actually seeking Flynn’s downfall. Agents concluded Flynn innocent, deciding to close his file. But Peter Strzok intervened to reverse, rewriting the initial interview with FBI strumpet Lisa Page. Flynn is then threatened with Logan Act charges and dissembling.
That no original Flynn crime existed, mentioned by DOJ, stating FBI “did not have “a legitimate investigative basis” as “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.”
The Flynn FBI meeting recalls Star Chamber, where the court sought confession under oath Ex officio for any crimes, using these to prosecute. But John Lilburne stated – “I am unwilling to answer any impertinent questions, for fear that with my answer, I may do myself hurt. This is not the way to get to Liberty,” leading to 5th Amendment Rights. Similar entrapment was used by the FBI.
But the DOJ wrote, in its motion to dismiss,
“In the case of Mr. Flynn, evidence shows his statements were not “material” to any viable counterintelligence investigation—or any investigation for that matter—initiated by the FBI. Indeed, the FBI itself had recognized it lacked sufficient basis to sustain its initial counterintelligence investigation by seeking to close that very investigation without even an interview of Mr. Flynn. … Having repeatedly found “no derogatory information” on Mr. Flynn the FBI’s draft “Closing Communication” made clear the FBI had found no basis to “predicate further investigative efforts…”
FBI notes from this case demand, “What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” This quote reveals improper, wholly illegitimate FBI motives. This is enough for dismissal on Prosecutorial Misconduct. Consider Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine asserting any evidence gleaned by illegal methods is tossed.
Even common criminals get Miranda warnings: “You’ve the right to remains silent.” Comey bragged he unfairly disadvantaged the new administration. If Flynn were a suspect, didn’t he have rights? Like the right to be informed? The right to leave, to an attorney, or to remain silent.
What about Flynn’s “lies”? Charged with misleading over Russia’s ambassador, a claim Flynn now disputes, and threatened with jail and his son’s prosecution. Selling his house, now broke, fearful for family, Flynn plead guilty. Doesn’t it matter Trump’s “crime” was totally falsified?
Flynn’s Plea Withdrawal motion stated, “In truth, I never lied.” And, “I never would have plead guilty” had I known FBI agents said I had a “sure demeanor” and “did not give any indication of deception.” And, “I tried to ‘accept responsibility by admitting offenses I understood the government that I love, and trusted – said I committed.”
So is Flynn’s dismissal an attack on the Rule of Law? To the contrary, it celebrates Rule of Law Principles! Recall, Magna Carta states: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned…except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” John Lilburne swore, nemo tenetur seipsum accusare – “no man is bound to accuse himself.”
Why do liberals claim manipulating an innocent man into admitting false statements and using threats against his family for a plea to convict him – is lawful? And how could this possibly build up the Rule of Law?
As the country prepares for another presidential election, Americans are learning more about who’s really behind the five-year effort to destroy Donald Trump. As a GOP candidate for the 2016 presidential nomination, Trump was regularly targeted by the liberal media and the Republican Party establishment.
He was the victim of a non-stop barrage of negative media coverage designed to deny him the nomination. In fact, the origins of the discredited Trump investigation by former British spy Christopher Steele can be traced to Republican Party opposition to the Trump campaign.
Once Trump became the de-facto nominee, the funding for the investigation was assumed by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. It eventually resulted in the thoroughly discredited and unsubstantiated document known as the “Steele dossier.”
Although the document was the result of unverified information supplied by questionable Russian sources, assuredly working to undermine the validity of the 2016 election, it was used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to launch a full-scale investigation into the Trump campaign. The allegation was that Donald Trump was compromised and subject to influence by the Russian government and numerous people in his campaign were engaged in illegal activities, including collusion.
Of course, none of the allegations were true, nothing could ever be proven, and the entire Russian collusion charge was a myth. The Steele dossier was not verified intelligence information, but phony “opposition research” that should have been considered nothing more than a political document.
Instead of being discarded, it led to the four FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page and the “Crossfire Hurricane” probe that set the stage for the two-year $40 million witch hunt known as the Robert Mueller investigation. The probe concluded, despite the best efforts of a partisan team of Democratic Party donors masquerading as independent investigators, that there was no Russian collusion and no obstruction of justice by President Trump or his associates could be proven.
Fortunately, Americans are starting to learn more about how this phony investigation was launched without any evidence of Russian collusion. It was a Deep State campaign to ruin Trump, and either force him to resign, remove him from office or make him politically impotent and unelectable in 2020.
As more information is unveiled, it seems the real “man behind the curtain” is none other than former President Barack Obama. This could be why he is getting nervous and lashing out against the DOJ decision to drop the unfair charges against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who retired as a three-star United States Army lieutenant general.
On Friday, Obama’s web chat with his former administration officials was leaked to Yahoo News. He said, “the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free, that’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. “
On several counts, former President Obama is wrong. Flynn was not charged with perjury, but with lying to the FBI. He did not get off “scot-free” as his stellar reputation was ruined, the investigation consumed his life for 40 months and he was fired from the Trump administration. In addition, he incurred millions of dollars in legal fees and was forced to sell his house.
Flynn was set up by corrupt FBI agents who were sent to the White House in the early days of the Trump administration. He casually met with them without the assistance of a White House attorney. In newly released documents, it shows the agents wanted to “get him to lie” so Flynn would be fired or prosecuted. As these underlying documents reveal, the case against Flynn was totally improper.
The vendetta against Flynn began in August of 2016 when the FBI opened an investigation into him. In documents released this week, three very questionable reasons for the investigation were given: he was a Trump adviser, he traveled to Russia and he was supposedly connected to “state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation.” These entities include RT network, owned by the Russian government, which paid for Flynn to speak in Moscow. Not surprisingly, the FBI did not investigate Bill Clinton and other politicians for accepting high paid speeches in Moscow.
The investigation may have been launched because of Obama’s antipathy toward Flynn. He was fired as Obama’s Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014 for supposed insubordination. According to Flynn, he was removed because of his hardline strategy toward dealing with ISIS and other Islamic jihadists.
After firing Flynn, Obama continued to disparage him and advised Trump officials not to hire him for their administration. It must have been aggravating to Obama that Trump chose Flynn to be his National Security Adviser and satisfying to him that he was charged with a crime.
Newly released documents show that Obama knew that Flynn’s conversations with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak has been intercepted by the FBI. This conversation was held during the Trump administration transition period. Although there was nothing wrong with Flynn contacting a Russian colleague to ease tensions, it led to the FBI interview, his firing from the Trump administration for misleading Vice President Pence and his eventual guilty plea.
The entire narrative started to change when Flynn hired his new attorney Sidney Powell. He withdrew his guilty plea after his lawyers claimed he was tricked into lying by the FBI and forced to admit wrongdoing only to protect his son from prosecution.
As more documents are released it seems clear that Flynn was targeted by none other than Obama himself. Not only did he know about the investigation, but he probably authorized it as well. This entire case is an outrage, a total miscarriage of justice. As President Trump tweeted “What happened to General Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again.” Amen.
The very powerful online conservative media smell blood. As do millions of Americans on the right side of the aisle. They sense that Obama is very vulnerable because of his involvement in his Administration’s allegedly illegal spying on Trump officials during the presidential election campaign.
The same media sense Obama is vulnerable and open to serious Senate scrutiny due to his personal involvement with Obama officials (and complicit liberal media) in the Flynn matter, the fake Steele Dossier funded by the DNC and the fake Russian/Trump collusion hoax during the Trump presidency.
According to constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, on his Twitter feed:
“President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free”. It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury.
“Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has not been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional.
“Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally there is precedent.
“There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court Cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals.
“The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case. That was requested by President Obama’s own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan.
“How is that for precedent?”
Why did Obama come out publicly with his 3,000 cult followers in a telephone call that was conveniently leaked to Yahoo News?
“One explanation is that with the Flynn dismissal and the disclosure of related Flynn documents, Obama has been exposed as being personally involved
in the Flynn matter and in the Steele Dossier and the fake Russian/Trump collusion hoax.
Obama is trying, but failing miserably to change the narrative; that he and Biden are up to their necks in the allegedly illegal spying on the Trump campaign and on trying to undermine the presidency of a duly and democratically elected president based on a fake Trump-Russian collusion hoax.
As in the Watergate scandal, what did Obama and Biden know of the coup to bring down the Trump presidency and when did they know it?
Trey Gowdy appears purple-tied on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing DOJ/FBI revelations from document releases related to the Michael Flynn prosecution.
After numerous appearances in 2018 and 2019 proclaiming the integrity of Robert Mueller, IG Horowitz and FBI leadership, Trey Gowdy now holds a divergent perspective. Perhaps because he is now a paid Fox contributor, Ms. Bartiromo never asks Gowdy to reconcile previous assertions against current information. Additionally, Gowdy says there’s no reason to take the investigation to former President Obama because the current spotlight reaches high enough. WATCH:
A very interesting dynamic all things considered. During a recent interview Vice President Mike Pence says he would welcome former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn back into the administration:
“Gen. Michael Flynn is an American patriot,” Pence told Axios in an interview. “And for my part, I’d be happy to see Michael Flynn again.”
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 documentto 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 contact with 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.
•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI.
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.
•Wednesday January 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.”
•Thursday January 26th – (morning) Sally Yates called White House Counsel Don McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.
•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, “who was overseeing the matter”, that is Mary McCord. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Mary McCord presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”
Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”
•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions *McGahn asked Yates: “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
[*If you consider that McGahn was trying to thread the needle between Mike Pence’s poorly worded response to CBS, and Michael Flynn’s FBI questioning that came after Pence’s statement, McGahn would see the no-win situation Flynn was in during that inquisition.]
McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t: “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates claims to have told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”
•Friday January 27th, 2017 – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation. Trump was, but to continue the auspices of the ongoing investigation, Comey lied and told him he wasn’t.
This why the issue of how the FBI agents write the 302 summary of the Flynn interview becomes such an important facet. We see that dynamic again playing out in the messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; with Andrew McCabe providing the guidance.
Don’t forget, part of this background plan required a person to leak the content of the Mike Flynn phone call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak to the Washington Post (January 14th). A massive leak of highly classified information that set up the questioning of Mike Pence on January 15th.
Within the case against Michael Flynn, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack later filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and a delay in the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, 2017, and then another edit on May 31st, 2017.
To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)
What the special counsel appeared to be obfuscating was a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview. Likely how best to word the FBI notes for maximum damage.
In late 2018 Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations within the FBI. In hindsight it seems he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.
However, we know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):
Stunningly in private messages (Lync microsoft instant messaging) Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are discussing how they are editing the FD-302 report on February 10th.
Lisa Page is “pissed off” because Peter Strzok previously edited the 302 and she says he “didn’t even attempt to make this cogent and readable”:
Peter Strzok replies back to Lisa Page that he was “trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save Joe’s voice”, because Joe Pientka was the actual author.
Peter Strzok is re-writing the interview notes of Pientka in order to construct the framework to accuse Flynn of lying. Lisa Page is editing the re-write to make it more cogent and readable.
What is happening behind this instant message conversation on February 10, 2017, is the evidence the FBI continued to hide from the Flynn defense. The original FD-302 written by Joe Pientka has never been seen. The FBI only produced the copy of the interview notes that were re-written by Peter Strzok and then re-edited by FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
This is the big fraud completely exposed.
What they were actually doing is the risk to the small group who were framing Flynn.
Four days after Lisa Page finished editing the version of the notes that Strzok re-wrote, they are texting each-other about the finished product. Peter asks Lisa if Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is “good with the F 302?”
Lisa Page replies to Peter Strzok “Launch on f 302”, it appears that Andrew McCabe has approved it.
The text message conversation above is February 14, 2017.
The modified, re-written and edited Michael Flynn FD-302 was then officially entered into the record on February 15, 2017, per the report:
The Flynn interview took place on January 24, 2017.
The Joe Pientka FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited by Peter Strzok Feb 10th, shaped by Lisa Page Feb 10th, and ultimately approved by McCabe on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.
It was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text and instant messages we know the 2018 cover letter from Special Counsel Brandon Van Grack was intentionally misleading. The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it (three weeks after the FBI interview).
May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.
This level of overt corruption, and corrupt intent within the special counsel, is one of the more brutally obvious reasons why authorizing Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein should be regarded as participating in a political framing against the Trump White House.
The FBI interpretation of the Flynn interview was the way the DOJ and FBI could control the interview content. Flynn’s original defense team Covington never requested to see the 302 prior to convincing Michael Flynn to take a plea deal.
See what happened?
Does it all make sense now?
Do you see why there are reports of the second FBI agent, Joe Pientka, saying he didn’t believe Flynn lied to them in the interview. Likely because Flynn didn’t lie; but the McCabe crew jumped on the opportunity to frame a lose/lose.
Either Flynn accepts a version of the 302 report where he lied, or: (A) Flynn has to take the position that Vice President Mike Pence lied to the nation in the Jan 15th CBS Face The Nation interview; and (B) Flynn needs to somehow discover the original 302 to prove the FBI was lying about it, not him.
See how that went down?
However, after Mueller, Weissmann and Van Grack enter the picture, they need to force Flynn to admit to the construct of the 302 as presented. For that they need some leverage.
The original authorization for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was May 17th, 2017. The Mueller report shows there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe.
The second scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel.
A Third scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017. The transparent intent of the third scope memo was to provide Mueller and Van Grack with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes.
One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.
As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:
This third scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr. Additionally this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.
The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unknown. However, the second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.
This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and cornering him into a guilty plea.
Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo #3) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.
Emails from Covington show the deal: “We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that they are unlikely to charge Junior in light of the Cooperation Agreement” (see below).
Forcing a plea for ‘lying to investigators‘ by threatening prosecution for sketchy FARA violations was the identical strategy used against both George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn.
The October 20, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Van Grack wanted. After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby.
The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening.
A month after Rosenstein approved Special Counsel Prosecutor Van Grack to target Flynn Jr, his father General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:
Authors note: The original research outline for this was written in December of 2017. Nothing in the nearly three years since it was written has changed. This was all clearly known to media three years ago. The only thing added to this expanded outline is the documentary evidence proving what took place.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 