Posted originally onDec 23, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
Wikipedia has degenerated into nothing but a government propaganda avenue. Here was their definition of a woman with the photograph of the transgender Rachel Levine, Biden’s 17th Assistant Secretary of Health. Apparently, this offended so many that Wikipedia removed this page and replaced it with the following. The mere fact that they used Levin’s photo for the DEFINITION of a woman is just astonishing. A biological woman is no longer a woman. As I have said, in Thailand, the sex change capital of the world, they simply call themselves Ladyboys. They do not demand that they be called a woman, so there is no longer a definition of a woman. The fact that Wikipedia did this shows its hidden agenda and why universities now tell students they cannot use Wikipedia as a source for research papers. DO NOT DONATE ANYTHING TO WIKIPEDIA – They are no longer a valid independent source to be trusted, especially about anything that has a political implication.
Posted originally on Dec 22, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Do you think we will enter a civil war?
FD
ANSWER: I do not think that we will be in civil war, but we do have to understand if any state tries to succeed, it could turn to violence based on precedent. Everything will depend on the military. If they turn on the people, then yes. If they support the people, it can be a bloodless event like Yeltsin standing on the tank in 1991.
The computer shows that the nation is deeply divided, and we will see civil unrest post-2024 because this is spinning out of control. The Democrats are not unified, and neither are the Republicans, for that matter. We need reform, and that is what Washington is fighting against. The party is over. They have to realize it is time to clean the garbage in DC. This whole nonsense with Trump is trying to block him to maintain the status quo. It only divides the country.
Our future will be determined by the military, as in just about every situation throughout history.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 22, 2023 | Sundance
Using his Twitter/X platform to promote the 5-minute-long teaser, Tucker Carlson has finally released the interview with Julian Assange that took place on November 2, 2023. Why wait 51 days? Your guess is as good as mine. {Direct Rumble Link Here}
Within the prologue, and after interviewing Julian Assange, Tucker Carlson references the extremely important DNC email issue and states unequivocally, “democrats claim the emails had been hacked by the Russian government. But they hadn’t been, that was a lie. The emails had been leaked from within the DNC itself, almost certainly by a disgruntled employee.” WATCH:
It is an exceptionally good teaser, and the only way to see the full Julian Assange interview is through THIS LINK (TuckerCarlson.com).
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 DNC hack claim is the fulcrum issue structurally underpinning the Russian election interference narrative pushed by the Weissmann and Muller Special Counsel. However, this essential claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as outlined during a Dana Rohrabacher interview and by Julian Assange’s own on-the-record statements.
Assange was arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London immediately after the Weissmann/Muller report was released to Bill Barr. Despite investigating the background of the Trump-Russia nonsense, John Durham never touched the DNC hacking claim – the core of the Mueller report. Why? Because Durham knew the U.S. Government threw a bag over Assange to protect the fraudulent Trump-Russia and Russian interference claims.
Again, this reality speaks to the corruption within the John Durham investigation. Durham was protecting Weissmann, Mueller and the core of their justification for a 2-year investigation. Durham knows why Assange was arrested. Durham stayed away from it, intentionally.
The Russians HAD TO have made efforts to interfere in the election, or else the factual basis for the surveillance operation against candidate Donald Trump is naked to the world.
That’s why so much DOJ, FBI and Mueller special counsel energy was exhausted framing the predicate.
“Seventeen intelligence agencies,” the December 29th Joint Analysis Report, the expulsion of the Russian diplomats which was an outcropping of the JAR, the rushed January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, shoving microphones in everyone’s faces and demanding they answer if they believed Russia interfered – all of it, and I do mean every bit of it, is predicated on an absolute DC need to establish that Russia Attempted to Interfere in the 2016 election.
The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” (full pdf) is pure nonsense. It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor. However, it was needed to help frame the Russian interference narrative.
There were no Russian diplomats involved; there was no Russian election interference; there was no Russian hacking of the DNC; it was all a fraud created by the intelligence community (IC), FBI and Main Justice to support Hillary Clinton’s lies and then cover their own targeting tracks.
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 Mueller investigation and the U.S. intelligence community. Specifically, the motive intentionally not outlined by Yahoo News.
What I am going to share is a deep dive using the resources and timeline from within that Yahoo 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 the Mueller-Weissmann special counsel.
This fully cited review is not for the faint of heart. This is a journey that could shock many; it 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 Mueller special counsel, 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} John Durham ignored him.
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. Again, John Durham ignored it.
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. If Durham went into this intelligence rabbit hole, there would be a paper trail that leads back to Robert Mueller. Durham didn’t go there.
John Durham and IG Michael Horowitz both outlined how very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and Main Justice, yet that evidence was withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page and/or it was ignored. The FBI 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 indicted and 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 the media in a frenzied effort to continue the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy.
The Trump-Russia 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 Strzok and Lisa Page that Peter Strzok had a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA.
♦ Former CIA Director John Brennan admitted Peter Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it was also Peter Strzok who authored the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane.” Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.
In short, Peter Strzok was a profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for 2016’s CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.
Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open-Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015, at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons. One, if not the primary extractors, has now been identified as Rodney Joffe at Neustar. “The campaign plot was outlined by Durham in a 27-page indictment charging former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann with making a false report to the FBI. The plot was also outlined in the finished Durham report. Eight individuals who allegedly conspired with Sussmann but does not identify them by name. The sources familiar with the probe confirmed that the leader of the team of contractors was Rodney L. Joffe.” {Go Deep}
It was also Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskaya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working as a double agent for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S as part of his Trump-Russia creation.
Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting, back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan died in a helicopter crash.
Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against Republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}
All of this context outlines the extent to which the FBI/CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit. A large international operation directed by the FBI/CIA and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin] Durham eviscerated the predicate for all of this in his report, yet stayed away from the part that leads to Robert Mueller in 2017.
Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA) and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr. (CIA, Fusion GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Trump and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).
Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer hired by Fusion GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.
All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence, and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate was what John Durham was reviewing in November of 2019, and then released in his final report – while whitewashing the parts that led to the Mueller silo.
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 know John Durham looked 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:
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, in May 2017 Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann effectively took over the DOJ. The purpose of the Mueller investigation was to cover up the illegal operation that took place in the preceding year. The people exposed in the Trump-Russia targeting operation included all of those intelligence operatives previously outlined in the CIA, FBI and DOJ operations. These are the people John Durham did not indict.
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)
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.
That contact between Rohrabacher and Assange explains why those same government officials 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 Julian Assange 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 researched this 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 not 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. Again, John Durham stayed away from it!
♦ 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 underpinning the Russia election interference narrative. However, this core and essential claim is directly disputed by 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 held a massive conflict of self-interest problem surrounding the Russian hacking claim as it pertained to their own activity in 2016. The FBI and DOJ always held a massive interest in maintaining the Russian hacking 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 claimed he has evidence it was from an inside DNC leak, not from a DNC hack.
The 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 Main Justice and the U.S. intelligence community did.
This is why John Durham never touched it.
All of them know what happened.
All of them know why Julian Assange was taken from the Embassy in London. A bag had to be thrown over Assange in order to retain the justification for the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel and the larger Russian election interference claims. None of them do not know this. They all know.
Start asking the right questions about the timeline of Assange being arrested. Ask about the DNC hack and Russian provenance according to Crowdstrike. Ask key and specific questions about the FBI working with Crowdstrike and about the DOJ and EDVA case against Assange.
The people around the Deep State all know what happened. SO DO WE!
Posted originally on the CTH on December 22, 2023 | Sundance
As we stated yesterday, following the Smith request, the Trump attorney response, and the Smith re-response, the transparency of the special counsel motive is obvious. For the Supreme Court to accept the request of Smith, would be for the Supreme Court to pretend the political motive was unknown.
The Supreme Court did not pretend and was curt in their retort: “The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith argued in his petition to the court, the speedy resolution of Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is of an urgent national interest. The motive was/is a transparent speedy timeline effort to influence the 2024 GOP presidential primary race. The court, heck, the entire world can see it.
Arguments on the presidential immunity issue, within the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, are set for January 9, 2024. The decision of the 3-judge panel will come thereafter. Depending on the outcome, Donald Trump can then ask for a full panel appellate court review. If the Circuit Court appeal results in a non-favorable outcome, the next step is the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the DC trial of Donald Trump is frozen awaiting a determination on the original issue of presidential immunity.
Posted originally on Dec 21, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
The turmoil of 2024 will be unprecedented. Scandals are certain to erupt after January 1 after a judge ruled to unseal court documents that will reveal 177 high-profile associates of Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Loretta Preska ordered the documents to be “unsealed in full” to reveal first and last names, along with previously unreleased documents regarding their association with Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein has been dead since August 10, 2019, and the elites are still shielding his client list. Ghislaine Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence and no longer holds loyalty to Epstein. She recently claimed meeting Epstein was the “greatest mistake” of her life. However, she still insists that she is an innocent victim of “cancel culture.” “All this is a fictional version of me,” she said. “It has been created to fit the storyline. It has absolutely nothing to do with who I am… I find it curious that so many people choose to contribute to the fake, created version, sort of like a Disney character, the Wicked Witch, if you will. The real people who know me and still love me have never spoken.”
The FBI and CIA have been sitting on a mountain of evidence for four years. Not a single person, besides Maxwell, has been arrested or prosecuted. We know of numerous high-profile members of Epstein’s inner circle already but they have neither been canceled or investigated. The government is deliberately releasing information incrementally to distract the public from bigger issues. These news stories reach every outlet GLOBALLY, but nothing ever comes of it.
I believe Epstein was running one of the largest honey pot schemes in modern history. He likely offered two big services: one being the most detestable crime known to man and the other would be offering the service of blackmail. He used his money and connections to grow his successful operation and was protected by his powerful clients. The blackmail he compiled on countless elites is now in the hands of the US government.
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency William Burns met Epstein thrice in 2014. Burns even visited Epstein’s personal residence in NYC. That means the nation’s top intelligence agency was likely using Epstein’s services and protecting him from prosecution. Numerous people with ties to the Clinton, Obama, and Trump Administrations also solicited Epstein.
Kathryn Ruemmler, a White House counsel under President Barack Obama, later became the top lawyer at Goldman Sachs. She met him dozens of times, and he introduced her to his good friend Bill Gates. According to a Goldman Sachs spokesperson, Epstein even asked Ruemmler if she would be interested in representing the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He also helped her network with Ariane de Rothschild, now chief executive of the Swiss private bank Edmond de Rothschild Group. There are countless examples of people meeting with Epstein to propel their personal careers.
He donated, or rather bribed and bought, countless organizations. Epstein provided millions to institutions like Harvard, MIT, and Bard College. “We looked him up, and he was a convicted felon for a sex crime,” the president of Bard College said in an interview. “We believe in rehabilitation.” This was the sentiment among those in his extended network until his story gained more traction. But these people were the low-level clients on Epstein’s list.
Remember that Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, who was a member of “The Club” before his untimely death. Epstein was a nobody until he met Ghislaine, who was born into wealth. Robert Maxwell was deeply involved with Salomon Brothers and also worked with Goldman Sachs. He found himself amid a scandal after stealing hundreds of millions of pounds from his own companies’ pension funds to prevent them from falling into bankruptcy. Britain’s Department of Trade and Industry said investment bank Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. had “substantial responsibility”for allowing Maxwell to manipulate the stock market prior to the collapse of his businesses; behind the scenes, there may have been trading losses with “The Club,” and again, if there had been a trial concerning the missing $700 million, then all other parties would have been exposed.
Robert’s protege is William Browder, who began Hermitage Capital Management with Edmond Safra in 1996 amid the privatization of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Browder has deemed himself Putin’s top enemy and yields massive power. When Russia attempted to investigate Browder in 2018, the US government stepped in to protect him. Browder is not even a US citizen.
Epstein’s web is extremely intricate. His black book was revealed years ago, as were his flight logs. The celebrities and low-level millionaires or even billionaires who make the front pages for visiting Epstein Island were merely pawns. Major banking institutions and governments are involved and potentially helped run the operation. This could not be the work of one man acting alone. Epstein was disposable to “The Club,” as was Ghislane. The truth will never be revealed.
Posted originally on Dec 21, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
Homelessness has reached a new high in America, the wealthiest nation in the world. The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report compiled by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealed that over 650,000 Americans have nowhere to call home. The number of homeless individuals spiked by 12% from 2022; worse, homelessness levels are now at 16% for families with children.
“HUD data indicates that the rise in overall homelessness is largely due to a sharp rise in the number of people who became homeless for the first time,” the report found. The number of people who became “newly homeless” rose 25% from 2021 to 2022. The number of people previously homeless declined by 8%.
Around 49% of the homeless population is within the state of California. New York saw the largest uptick in homelessness after rising an astounding 42% (25,185 human beings) from 2022 to 2023. Of the major US cities, New York City (88,025), Los Angeles (71,320), and Seattle (14,149) have the largest homeless populations.
HUD speaks extremely highly of the Biden-Harris Administration and its efforts to combat homelessness in the report. HUD primarily blames housing affordability for the crisis, stating that new construction on government-assisted living properties funded through the American Rescue Plan will help get people off the streets. What the report fails to mention is that you must have next to nothing to qualify for government assistance.
Numerous assisted living plans require an individual to earn less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Level. The federal poverty level (FPL) in the United States varies based on the number of individuals in a household and the state of residence. For instance, the 2023 FPL for a household of one is $14,580, and for a family of four, it is $30,000. If a minimum wage worker held a full-time job at $7.25 per hour and worked 40 hours per week, they would earn $15,080 and exceed the poverty level.
People basically must completely exit the workforce and rely entirely upon the government to qualify. There are countless Americans sleeping in their cars or couch surfing who work respectable jobs and contribute to our society. People are moving in with their parents well into their adult years, and the Baby Boomer generation is nearing retirement and must rely on rapidly dwindling savings. People have begun calling tent cities “Bidenvilles” as a nod to the shantytown “Hoovervilles” during the Great Depression.
We are seeing society separated into the “haves” and “have nots.” The average American is either successful enough to live paycheck to paycheck and make ends meet or utterly dependent on government.
This is all by design. They cannot usher in 15-minute cities and Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) if everyone is thriving. Every time you hear of a new spending package for a foreign nation, remember that your neighbor, who has paid taxes all of his or her life, is likely a few missed paychecks away from homelessness.
Posted originally on Dec 20, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
The Democrats simply have no voice within their own party, and the Republicans are no better. Joe Biden admitted that he is only seeking a second term to prevent a Trump victory. Biden does not want to be in the Oval Office and has no passion for the job, but it is expected of him. The establishment has him completely under their thumb. Biden allegedly received more votes than any president in US history, but most of the people who voted for him did so because they also hated Trump. Now, over half of Democrats want him out of office.
A recent poll conducted by Fox News revealed that 54% of Democrat primary voters would prefer an alternative to President Joe Biden as the 2024 nominee, while only 43% want to keep Biden. The poll also showed a slight increase in negative sentiment against the president compared to previous months. The Democratic Party is reported to have no “plan B” if Biden does not run for reelection because the establishment does not plan on having a fair election.
What could Joe Biden possibly campaign on? I genuinely cannot name one accomplishment. His presidency has set historical records for border crossings, inflation, homelessness, crime, and government spending, to name a few items. The bribery attempts made during the last election will not work as Biden failed to make good on his promises. Then you have strong support for Palestine among liberals, especially the youth who predominately vote blue. Hence, Biden’s people indicted his main opponent and painted his supporters as domestic terrorists. They weaponized the FBI and CIA and manipulated the media with endless propaganda. The establishment now refuses to allow any Democrat to run against him. Do you still believe we live in a democracy?
That GP article starts to scratch the surface, but if people ever decide to dig, I mean really dig, they will find McCord is a thread that unravels some of the biggest undiscovered background stories in DC media. Including: (1) The likely leaker of the Flynn conversation with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and (2) the almost certain leaker of the Supreme Court “Dobbs Decision.” Hint: They eat dinner together nightly.
First, a context review, because so many are only just awakening.
If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord. More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.
When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important. It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.
When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016). John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.
♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.
♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.
♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.
When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.
♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith. In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.
As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.
Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary McCord.
♦ SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.
You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.
What happened next….
November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)
That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.
First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court? ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application. In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing. See how that works?
Now, let’s go deeper….
When Mary McCord went to the White House with Sally Yates to talk to white house counsel Don McGhan about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.
The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.
Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?
This is where a big mental reset is needed. Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue. In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so. There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.
So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House? Why did the DOJ-NSD even care? This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle. People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.
Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls. They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts” as described within internal documents, and later statements.
After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked. Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey. Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.
Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor. Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.
That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “buy the book” three times.
It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge. The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.
Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House. [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]
So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.
But wait, there’s more….
Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.
Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job, to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.
In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.
At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states. Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel. By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.
After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened. Sheldon Snook left his position. If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.
Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility. In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.
If you were Chief Justice John Roberts and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount. Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly. Which is exactly what happened.
The timeline holds the key.
Last point…. Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff all going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump? Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her background efforts continue today as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team that is still attacking Donald Trump.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 