AUSTRALIA ➤ DIGITAL IDENTITY QR CODE CATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM BEING RELEASED INTO PUBLIC LIFE


First Published on BITCHUTE at 07:27 UTC on October 16th, 2021.

Be watchful this is coming to the US as well, or maybe its already is there?

Facebook Hearings Parody


Armstrong Economics Blog/Humor Re-Posted Oct 16, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

The usually left-leaning Saturday Night Live mocked the recent Facebook whistleblower testimony. Although it is still left-leaning, the writers must have realized that most US lawmakers are completely out of touch with reality and the very issues they make decisions on. They display false outrage but fail to act. “What Facebook has done is disgraceful, and you better believe Congress will be taking action right after we pass the infrastructure bill, raise the debt ceiling, prosecute those responsible for the January 6 insurrection, and stop Trump from using executive privilege, even though he’s no longer president. But after all that, you watch out, Facebook,” Senator Dianne Feinstein’s character commented.

It would be funny if it were not true, and I contemplate whether to categorize this as humor. In the skit, Senator John Neely Kennedy’s character was perplexed by the Facebook algorithm, and well, algorithms in general. “You’ve told us a lot of disturbing information about this so-called ‘algorithm.’ I just want to clear up a few points… Where is it? Do you have it with you now?” he questioned. I have faced similar interrogations over Socrates’ algorithm. The government wants what they cannot have and do not understand. These are the people we are expected to trust to dictate our future.

Victoria, Australia, Police Speak Out


Armstrong Economics Blog/Police State Re-Posted Oct 16, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Did Klaus Schwab and World Economic Forum Admit The COVID Vaccine Injects Traceable Markers? Their Promoted “COVIDPass” Blood Test Requires Them


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 16, 2021 | Sundance | 158 Comments

An article and video promoted by the World Economic Forum, intended to propose and outline a globally accepted “COVIDPass”, actually reveals stunning background admissions. [Article Here – VIDEO Below]

The basic premise of the proposal is for a global COVIDPass that will be universally accepted permitting vaccinated people to travel around the world and enter all venues and facilities that require proof of vaccine.   However, there is something in the proposal that tells a story all by itself.  First, WATCH the Video:

.Don’t get caught up in the esoteric weeds about the COVID passport angle of this; and don’t let yourself focus on the vaxxed vs non-vaxxed aspect.  Additionally, for now do not focus on the privacy aspects or the issues with tracing or tracking.  Instead, focus like a laser on something far more critical in the background of the proposal itself.

The entire premise of the World Economic Forum’s “COVIDPass” is predicated on a blood test being able to identify whether a person has been vaccinated or not.

Think about that carefully.

Think about that deeply.

Right now, all vaccination ID’s, all COVID passports, are dependent on a registration process that takes place at the time of vaccination within each nation’s unique healthcare system:

(1) You get vaccinated, you get registered in a system that shows you have been vaccinated; and that’s how you eventually get to a place where you establish a linked “QR” code to the vaccination registration -most commonly on your cell phone- that grants you permitted access at checkpoints or gateways.

-OR-

(2) You get vaccinated, you get registered in a system that shows you have been vaccinated; and you are given a paper vaccination card to carry on your person that grants you permitted access at checkpoints or gateways.

Those are essentially the only two registration systems for COVID passports currently in place. Both of them are dependent on registration with the healthcare system or provider who then grants you the paper ID; or triggers the authorization process to connect your vaccination status to a system where you download the QR code.

Regardless of which process is followed, the registration is with the healthcare system.

What the World Economic Forum (WEF) is describing is NOT that…. and this is the critical point.

The WEF proposal is based on a blood sample, or a blood test, to prove you have been vaccinated.  The only way that is possible is if the vaccine itself carries some form of marker that permanently stays (at a cellular level) in your body which can then be detected in a blood test.

If the vaccine does not leave an identifiable marker or imprint in your blood, then a blood test for vaccinated status would not be possible.

If you understand that critical point, then keep reading.  If you don’t understand the significance of that point, then it’s best to just quit right here.

♦ If you were to go into a doctors office, blood lab or hospital right now and tell them you needed a blood test to prove you have been vaccinated, they would look at you like you’re a crazy person.  Their response would be for you to contact your healthcare provider -where the vaccine shot was given- to get the verification or duplicate authentication you would need to prove you have been vaccinated.

Yet somehow the World Economic Forum knows of a process for testing blood to see if the vaccine is present?

Think about that.

Let’s call whatever is in your blood system a “marker“, because generically we do not know what they would specifically be looking for to isolate blood as vaccinated -vs- non vaccinated.  They are looking for something, so let’s call that a marker.  That means the following points are evident:

  • Whatever that marker is, has to be present in all versions of the vaccine.
  • Whatever that marker is, has to be present permanently.
  • Whatever that marker is, was known by the World Economic Forum to exist prior to this proposal.

Without a way to identify vaccinated blood, the entire premise of the COVIDPass proposed by the WEF is moot.

So, the question becomes: what is that marker?

Without extrapolating into conspiracy theory or suspicious imaginings, the basic point to drive home from this WEF proposal is their awareness of a blood test that can guarantee you have been vaccinated.  [The next step, where your blood test is linked to your unique identification for authenticity in society, is another kettle of fish altogether.]

COMMON SENSE – Factually it would defeat the entire premise of the COVIDPass as outlined if your unique id was not being traced/tracked.

If, as an example, I were to use your cell phone QR code at the boarding gate of an international flight, there would have to be some cross referenced database that pulls up your unique identification in order to stop me from traveling under your vaccinated status.

Under the concept of a globally accepted, bloodline-authenticated vaccination ID, there has to be a central database from which your vaccination identification -your blood- was registered to your specific personage.  But that’s going further into the future.

For now, it is worth noting that in mid-2020, even before the various vaccine’s deployed in clinical trials, the World Economic Forum knew that a blood test for a COVID vaccination was the best scenario for vaccine passport identification.  [Article Here]

Thoughts?

Unstable White House Occupant Erupts Into Angry Outbursts While Delivering Remarks in Connecticut


Posted originally on the conservative tree house October 15, 2021 | Sundance | 316 Comments

The White House occupant visited Storrs, Connecticut, today for the dedication of the Dodd Center for Human Rights at the University of Connecticut.

However, during the rebranding/rededication ceremony a familiar angry and intemperate disposition erupted. A very inappropriate disposition familiar to anyone who has been around a dementia patient.  WATCH:

.

BLS Report – 4.3 Million US Workers Voluntarily Quit Their Jobs in August


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 12, 2021 | Sundance | 260 Comments

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released the job openings and labor report for August today [DATA HERE].  The data shows that 4.3 million U.S. workers voluntarily quit their jobs in the month of August.  This is a significant jump from prior.

The “Quits” section [Table 4 breakdown] shows quits increased in August to 4.3 million (+242,000). The quits rate increased to a series high of 2.9 percent. Quits increased in accommodation and food services (+157,000); wholesale trade (+26,000); and state and local government education (+25,000). Quits decreased in real estate and rental and leasing (-23,000). The number of quits increased in the South and Midwest regions:

While this data is interesting and significant, it is only one data point within the larger U.S. main street economy.  Rather than me extrapolating on this data, I would like to hear your perspective based on your own local feeling about what is going on in your area.

Key points of reference would include:

  • While this is potentially related to vaccine mandates, the time frame in August is before the Biden mandatory vaccination requirement made on September 9th.
  • Housing prices overall (macro level) were/are high.  There is a lot more home equity amid working class families who own homes.  This could translate to a greater ability to change jobs or cash out for  a longer financial plan.
  • Workers in the real estate and leasing segment did not quit.
  • The highest quit rates were in the regions with the lowest cost of living.
  • Inflation is massive

I am interested to read your opinions on what could potentially be the largest contributing factor based on your town, city or neighborhood.

Ignore the financial pundits.  The question is: what do you make of this?

Jennifer Psaki was asked about this quit jump and she was poorly briefed in order to answer the question.  She is clueless.

Airline and Transportation Group, US Freedom Flyers, Speak Out Against COVID-19 Forced Vaccinations


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 11, 2021 | Sundance | 216 Comments

A group of transportation workers led by airline pilots speak out about the danger of forced medical procedures represented by the the vaccine mandate.  This video from US Freedom Flyers might help explain the current airline industry issues that have recently been in the news.   From their website:

“We are a group of transportation professionals representing the air, rail, and trucking industries who are spearheading efforts to protect medical health freedom. Our goal is to push back against the US government’s threats of vaccine mandates for private businesses. We know this effort is not simply a matter of employees versus companies, but citizens opposing illegal and tyranical mandates by the US government.” (link)

“US Freedom Flyers is a group of transportation industry employees who have come together to fight federal and state mandates which aim to strip Citizens of their right to medical freedom. Together, in partnership with Health Freedom Defense Fund and The Davillier Law Group, we lead to preserve Informed Consent and defend Constitutional rights.” (read more)

The co-founder of US Freedom Flyers, Joshua Yoder, appeared on Fox News with Tucker Carlson earlier this evening to discuss:

As we previously outlined, this is not about vaccines per se’, this is more about a slippery slope of having the government dictate how you can live your life and earn a living.

If they can force you to have a medical procedure, and then carry documentation of that procedure in order to work… why can’t they force you to get a small electronic implant of your identification, which would coincidentally include your medical authorizations for work?

It’s just a metal detector…. it’s just taking off your shoes… it’s just wearing a mask…. it’s just a vaccination….. it’s just a COVID passport… it’s always, “just”.

Factually I do not believe a federal mandate for a vaccine is even possible or legal. It appears to me that all of Biden’s threats in this regard are simply that, threats.

The purpose of the threat is to push people to take the vaccine without actually attempting a legal federal mandate; and that approach so far has been successful.  However, now they are going to encounter the more hard-core groups who will not concede liberty or freedom to a federal mandate.

It is obvious Anthony Fauci also knows a federal mandate will lose in court when challenged.  The fact that Fauci brings up state vaccination requirements for education, as examples of historically forced vaccinations is both a strawman argument and structurally false.  There has never been a FEDERAL mandate for any vaccination.  All the vaccinations Fauci discusses (ex. his kids) were state mandates.  Each state also has a different set of standards and laws for children and vaccines.  There is nothing federal.

The federal government is attempting to set up a federal work authorization standard for private businesses.  Non compliance means you cannot work, or you lose your existing job if your employer goes along with the government demand. THAT alone should alarm everyone.

Stew Peters Interviews LA Port Worker To Get Ground Report on Cargo Ship Backlog


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 11, 2021 | Sundance | 320 Comments

An anonymous worker from the West Coast Port of Los Angeles came forward on “The Stew Peters Show” to discuss the claimed issues around the cargo ship backlogs.  {Direct Rumble Link} As the port worker noted, based on his 18-years working there, there is no supply disruption on the unloading end of the supply chain; though they are a little backed-up, but the port is offloading at a high capacity.

The interview is interesting because the ground report contradicts the popular narrative about COVID impacts on the current supply chain.  There are ample goods flowing into the supply chain from the ports, yet there are claims of shortages at the warehouse and distribution level. WATCH

Stew Peters accurately reminds his audience that no nation generates and exports as much raw material foodstuff as the United States.   This is a key point seemingly overlooked by most media.  The U.S. exports around $73 billion in food products annually. The next closest food export nation Germany isn’t even close at $34 billion.

In very general terms, about one-third of U.S. food exports are North/Central America (Canada, Mexico, etc) exports; approximately one-third go west (Asia) and about one-third go east (Europe).   There have been no reported issues with those shipments departing the U.S.

However, one point worth noting, by the LA dock worker, is the influence of predictive orders or automated-purchases based on historic norms and patterns.  I think that overheard note by the worker was somewhat misconstrued, and a correct interpretation could explain part of the backlog of container vessels offshore.

It is technically correct that large multinational importers use AI (artificial intelligence) to predict orders.  However, it’s not something weird or as complex as it sounds.  As supply chains have optimized computer assisted ordering has become the norm, you might have heard it referenced as ‘automated replenishment’.

Essentially, decades of manufacturer, retail or consumer scan data for all kinds of goods create a historic reference point for inventory needs.  Large retailers use automated ordering to restock their warehouses with raw materials, interim assembly products (parts), and also finished goods.  Prior sales data helps to determine or predict future ordering needs.

The advent of technology tracking has thinned the supply chain to a process of ‘just-in-time’ replenishment.  This is JIT inventory management and now how most companies operate.  The goal for Just In Time (JIT) inventory is for the new stuff to arrive just as the last of the old stuff is distributed or sold.  This means you don’t have to carry excess inventory or tie up money in material waiting for consumer sales or manufacturing use.

AI automated purchasing is just a larger scale version of JIT.  People involved in the supply chains and logistics simply facilitate and tweek the arrival/departure times by coordinating with suppliers and distribution on a frequency schedule.  You watch the supply chain and make requests for slight modifications as you take daily use or sales information into account.

It’s not totally or fully automated; it’s more akin to computer assisted depending on the type of product being managed.   However, it does become more automated every year, and there are less and less people who remember the olden ways of making predictive purchases/orders with human brain power instead of computer assistance.

That said…..  Think about the economy suddenly grinding to a halt.  Which, we will remind people, CTH said happened quietly at the end of May of this year.

April and May of this year was when the first batch of stunningly fast inflation prices on food, energy and gasoline hit the checkbook of working-class Americans like a thundershock.  At the end of May and beginning of June the data was clear.  We were seeing our first double digit inflation months in recent memory.

So, think about the impact of that massive first round of Biden inflation hitting the wages of 70% of American workers all at once.  Spending priorities immediately change.  Disposable income immediately shrinks.  Consumer purchasing patterns immediately shift.

The consumer impact is sudden.  However, the supply chain impact is more akin to slowing down a freight train with thousands of boxcars.  It takes time.

What I would say, based on my experience in overlay with the conversation with the dock worker (Stew Peter interview), is that many of those off shore container vessels are full of goods that have already slowed at the consumption end.  People have stopped buying some stuff, some types of goods, and those ships are carrying cargo that is no longer needed within the supply chain…. at least not at the rate within the automated replenishment system.

Part of the reason for the excessive container ships could simply be a reflection of a U.S. economy that has slowed so drastically that inbound durable goods are not needed by those on the destination side.  As a consequence, there’s no rush for the importing corporation to take immediate control of the inventory.

This outlook would also explain why the worker was saying some of the delivery containers are just being stored full of goods without being distributed; and why the executives within the LA port were leasing additional storage space to house containers that were in no hurry to get picked up.

Back when import wholesalers were more important because they distributed to a larger population of smaller retailers, when this type of a scenario unfolded the importers then begin prioritizing durable good cargo that was needed more urgently, and they delayed the off-loading of durable good cargo that was less urgent.   In modern days, there are less ‘wholesalers’ because small retailers have been replaced by massive multinational corporations and giant box stores.  Those big corporations have their own in-house purchasing, supply chain and inventory management specialists.

[Note: Perishable cargo and fuel oil always get a priority offload regardless when they arrive in the port system.]

I can make a few calls and trace this down, but I suspect that’s essentially what is driving a significant portion of this backlog of cargo container ships that are not in a hurry to offload.  Keep in mind, with Joe Biden inflation going bananas, that durable good inventory is going up in value even as it sits there idle.  So unlike times when purchasing agents desperately need to turn the merchandise to get their profit, an increasing static inventory valuation simply becomes another reason for a multinational to be okay with any port delay.

If my suspicions are correct, that also means the U.S. economy is in much worse shape than financial media are reporting… another reason for the media to avoid telling the story of cargo vessels and instead deflect the story to imaginary COVID-19 supply chain disruptions.  So there’s that.

Go figure, Kamala Harris Hired Child Actors For Rebranding Effort That Failed


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 11, 2021 | Sundance | 214 Comments

The Washington Examiner dug a little deeper into the background of the Kamala Harris cringe video.  Apparently, team Harris hired child actors to help create the illusion for her rebranding effort.   There are many details in the report that represent just how artificial and fake the Biden administration is.

WASHINGTON – […] Trevor Bernardino, a 13-year-old actor from Carmel, California, and one of five teenagers featured in the video, was asked to submit a monologue discussing something he is passionate about and three questions for a world leader, according to an interview with KSBW TV. Trevor then interviewed with the production director. “And then after that, like a week later, my agent called me, and he’s like, ‘Hey Trevor, you booked it,’” Trevor said. 

Bernardino was joined by Derrick Brooks II, another child actor , Emily Kim, likewise a child actor , Zhoriel Tapo, a child actor and aspiring journalist who has interviewed former first lady Michelle Obama , and Sydney Schmooke.

[…] “I am so so so excited this project is out!” wrote Emily Keller, a YouTube executive overseeing progressive civics content partnerships, according to her LinkedIn . She was the Democratic National Committee’s social media director until June.

[…]  Last month, the vice president’s office hired two messaging gurus to help finesse her communications efforts. One of Harris’s new advisers, Lorraine Voles, has a portfolio including “crisis management” and “marketing and rebranding.”  (read more)

A fake stage set for Joe Biden to pretend he’s giving discussions from the White House.  A group of kids hired by the White House to play the role of kids for a Kamala Harris propaganda effort.  Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see just how fake this entire effort is as constructed.

The Fourth Branch of U.S. Government Targeted Julian Assange For Kidnapping or Assassination in 2017, A Transparently Obvious Motive Being Overlooked


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 11, 2021 | Sundance | 324 Comments

On September 26, 2021, Yahoo News published an extensive article about the CIA targeting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2017 and the extreme conversations that were taking place at the highest levels of the U.S. government about how to control him. There is a much bigger story transparently obvious when overlapped with CTH research files on the Intelligence Branch of government; specifically the motive missed by Yahoo News for the stunning activity they outline.

What I am going to outline below, is a deep dive using the resources and timeline from within that article and the specific details we have assembled that paints a clear picture about what interests existed for the Deep State, the Intelligence apparatus and what I call the Fourth Branch of Government.

This fully cited review is not for the faint of heart. This is a journey that could shock many; could alarm more, and will likely force more than a few to reevaluate just what the purpose was for Mike Pompeo within the Donald Trump administration.

As the Yahoo News article begins, they outline how those within the Trump administration viewed Assange as a risk in 2017.  Here it is critical to accept that many people inside the Trump administration were there to control events, not to facilitate a policy agenda from a political outsider.   In the example of Assange, the information he carried was a risk to those who attempted and failed to stop Trump from winning the 2016 election.

Julian Assange was not a threat to Donald Trump, but he was a threat to those who attempted to stop Donald Trump.  In 2017, the DC system was reacting to a presidency they did not control.  As an outcome, the Office of the President was being managed and influenced by some with ulterior motives.

Yahoo, via Michael Isikoff, puts it this way: “Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request “sketches” or “options” for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration, said a former senior counterintelligence official. “There seemed to be no boundaries.”

As we overlay the timeline, it is prudent to pause and remember some hindsight details.  According to reports in November of 2019, U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were spending time looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state noted:

“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that, “It is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official as there was extensive pre-2016 election evidence of an FBI/CIA counterintelligence operation that also involved U.K. intelligence services. There was an aspect to the FBI/CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to FBI/CIA interests, and effectively the Fourth Branch of Government, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the FBI/CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok was clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now, people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor generally identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the FBI/CIA to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion, the FBI tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor, Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent, under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets legal and much easier.

One of the more interesting aspects to the unfinished Durham probe is the possibility of a paper trail created as a result of the intelligence community tasking operations. If Durham has indeed gone into this intelligence rabbit hole, we could see evidence of a paper trail.

Personally, I am doubtful Durham will put what you are reading into any actionable scenario.  Nor do I anticipate a report that could outline the risk of Julian Assange to the activities that took place within the political weaponization of the intelligence apparatus.

HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has outlined how very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. The FBI also fabricated information in the FISA and removed evidence that Carter Page was previously working for the CIA.  This is what FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was convicted for doing.

One week after the FBI and DOJ filed the second renewal for the Carter Page FISA [April 7, 2017], Yahoo News notes how Mike Pompeo delivered his first remarks as CIA Director:

[…] On April 13, 2017, wearing a U.S. flag pin on the left lapel of his dark gray suit, Pompeo strode to the podium at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank, to deliver to a standing-room-only crowd his first public remarks as Trump’s CIA director.

Rather than use the platform to give an overview of global challenges or to lay out any bureaucratic changes he was planning to make at the agency, Pompeo devoted much of his speech to the threat posed by WikiLeaks. (link)

Why would CIA Director Mike Pompeo be so concerned about Julian Assange and Wikileaks in April 2017?

In April of 2017 Pompeo’s boss, President Donald Trump, was under assault from the intelligence community writ large, and every deep state actor was leaking to media in a frenzied effort to continue the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy.   The effort was so all consuming that FBI Director James Comey was even keeping a diary of engagement with President Trump in order to support an ongoing investigation built on fraud…  yet, Mike Pompeo is worried about Julian Assange?

Again, here it is important to put yourself back into the time of reference.  Remember, it’s clear in the text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that Strzok had a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of this context outlines the extent to which the FBI/CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.  A large international operation directed by the FBI/CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

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

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

All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate was presumably what John Durham was reviewing in November of 2019.

The key point of all that contextual background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ and a multitude of political operatives put a hell of a lot of work into it.

We also know that John Durham was looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This context is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  This is where the motives of Mike Pompeo in mid/late 2017 come into play.

[…] By the summer of 2017, the CIA’s proposals were setting off alarm bells at the National Security Council. “WikiLeaks was a complete obsession of Pompeo’s,” said a former Trump administration national security official. (link)

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

(Link to pdf)

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

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

Why the delay?

What exactly was the DOJ waiting for from March 2018 to April 2019?   This timeframe is the peak of the Robert Mueller/Andrew Weissmann special counsel investigation.

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The Yahoo article outlines, “there was an inappropriate level of attention to Assange“, by the CIA according to a national security council official.  However, if you consider the larger ramifications of what Julian Assange represented to all of those people inside and outside government interests who created the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy, well, there was actually a serious risk.

Remember,why in May 2017 Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann effectively took over the DOJ.  The entire purpose of the Mueller investigation was to cover-up the illegal operation that took place in the preceding year.   The people exposed to the risk included all of those intelligence operatives previously outlined in the CIA, FBI and DOJ operations.

The FBI submission to the Eastern District of Virginia Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Dana Rohrabacher later published this account of the events:

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative; and knowing that Assange could essentially destroy the baseline predicate for the entire Trump-Russia investigation – which included the use of Robert Mueller; it would make sense for corrupt government officials to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange.  And that would explain why those same government officials, willfully or by direction, would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury seating (Nov/Dec 2017), the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA then sat on the indictment while the Mueller/Weissman probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

♦ This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election.  This claim is the fulcrum point that structurally underpins the entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative.  However, this important claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange’s on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment (Peter Strzok); and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from another Michael Sussmann partner, Shawn Henry at Crowdstrike, yes another DNC contractor and collaborator with the Clinton campaign.

The CIA always held a massive conflict of self-interest problem surrounding the Russian hacking claim as it pertains to their own activity in 2016. The FBI and DOJ always held a massive interest in maintaining that claim.  Robert Mueller and Andrew Weismann did everything they could to support that predicate; and all of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also carried a self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange was/is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This Russian “hacking” claim was ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K Intelligence apparatus…. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.

And that is exactly what the Fourth Branch of Government did.

The Yahoo Article does a great job outlining who, how, when and where the CIA and intelligence community were targeting Julian Assange.  However, what they did not connect -and ideologically they would not want to connect- was exactly WHY the U.S. government, not Trump, was targeting Assange.