Posted originally on the CTH on November 1, 2024 | Sundance
On January 17, 2017, just three days before President-Trump was sworn into office, outgoing President Obama had a secret conference call with progressive media allies.
Again, this is three days before Trump took office, when the Obama White House and Intelligence Community were intentionally pushing the Trump-Russia conspiracy story into the media in an effort to disrupt President Trump’s transition to power. President Obama is essentially asking his progressive allies to help defend his administration. Part of the 20-page transcript is below:
Barack Obama– […] “I think the Russia thing is a problem. And it’s of a piece with this broader lack of transparency. It is hard to know what conversations the President-elect may be having offline with business leaders in other countries who are also connected to leaders of other countries. And I’m not saying there’s anything I know for a fact or can prove, but it does mean that — here’s the one thing you guys have been able to know unequivocally during the last eight years, and that is that whether you disagree with me on policy or not, there was never a time in which my relationship with a foreign entity might shade how I viewed an issue. And that’s — I don’t know a precedent for that exactly.
Now, the good news there, I will say, is just that there’s a lot of career folks here who care about that stuff, and not just in the intelligence agencies. I think in our military, in our State Department. And I think that to the extent that things start getting weird, I think you will see surfacing objections, some through whistleblowers and some through others. And so I think there is some policing mechanism there, but that’s unprecedented.
And then the final thing that I’m most worried about is just preserving the democratic process so that in two years, four years, six years, if people are dissatisfied, that dissatisfaction expresses itself. So Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department and what’s happening with the voting rights division and the civil rights division, and — those basic process issues that allow for the democratic process to work. I’d include in that, by the way, press. I think you guys are all on top of how disconcerting — you guys complain about us — (laughter) — but let me just tell you, I think — we actually respected you guys and cared about trying to explain ourselves to you in a way that I think is just going to be different.
On balance, that leads to me to say I think that four years is okay. Take on some water, but we can kind of bail fast enough to be okay. Eight years would be a problem. I would be concerned about a sustained period in which some of these norms have broken down and started to corrode.
Q Could you talk a bit more about the Russia thing? Because it sounds like you, who knows more than we do from what you’ve seen, and is genuinely —
THE PRESIDENT: And can say less. (Laughter.) This is one area I’ve got to be careful about. But, look, I mean, I think based on what you guys have, I think it’s — and I’m not just talking about the most recent report or the hacking. I mean, there are longstanding business relationships there. They’re not classified. I think there’s been some good reporting on them, it’s just they never got much attention. He’s been doing business in Russia for a long time. Penthouse apartments in New York are sold to folks — let me put it this way. If there’s a Russian who can afford a $10-million, or a $15- or a $20- or a $30-million penthouse in Manhattan, or is a major investor in Florida, I think it’s fair to say Mr. Putin knows that person, because I don’t think they’re getting $10 million or $30 million or $50 million out of Russia without Mr. Putin saying that’s okay.
Q Could you talk about two things? One is, the damage he could do to our standing in the world through that. I mean, just this interview he gave the other day, and what you’re worried about there. And then the other side — and you sat down with him. I found the way in which he screamed at Jim Acosta just really chilling. If you just look at the face in a kind an authoritarian or autocratic, whatever word you want to use, personality — would you, on those two?
THE PRESIDENT: On the latter issue, EJ, you saw what I saw. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that.
Q But you sat down with him privately. I’m curious about —
THE PRESIDENT: Privately, that’s not — his interactions with me are very different than they are with the public, or, for that matter, interactions with Barack Obama, the distant figure. He’s very polite to me, and has not stopped being so. I think where he sees a vulnerability he goes after it and he takes advantage of it.
And the fact of the matter is, is that the media is not credible in the public eye right now. You have a bigger problem with a breakdown in institutional credibility that he exploits, at least for his base, and is sufficient for his purposes. Which means that — the one piece of advice I’d give this table is: Focus. I think if you’re jumping after every insult or terrible thing or bit of rudeness that he’s doing and just chasing that, I think there’s a little bit of a three-card Monte there that you have to be careful about. I think you have to focus on a couple of things that are really important and just stay on them and drive them home. And that’s hard to do in this news environment, and it’s hard to do with somebody who, I think, purposely generates outrage both to stir up his base but also to distract and to — so you just have to stay focused and unintimidated, because that’s how you confront, I think, a certain personality type.
But in terms of the world — look, rather than pick at one or two different things — number one, I don’t think he’s particularly isolationist — or I don’t think he’s particularly interventionist. I’m less worried than some that he initiates a war. I think that he could stumble into stuff just due to a lack of an infrastructure and sort of a coherent vision. But I think his basic view — his formative view of foreign policy is shaped by his interactions with Malaysian developers and Saudi princes, and I think his view is, I’m going to go around the world making deals and maybe suing people. (Laughter.) But it’s not, let me launch big wars that tie me up. And that’s not what his base is looking from him anyway. I mean, it is not true that he initially opposed the war in Iraq. It is true that during the campaign he was not projecting a hawkish foreign policy, other than bombing the heck out of terrorists. And we’ll see what that means, but I don’t think he’s looking to get into these big foreign adventures.
I think the bigger problem is nobody fully appreciates — and even I didn’t appreciate until I took this office — and when I say “nobody,” I mean the left as well as the right — the degree to which we really underwrite the world order. And I think sometimes from the left, that’s viewed as imperialism or sort of an extension of a global capitalism or what have you. The truth of the matter, though, is, if I’m at a G20 meeting, if we don’t initiate a conversation around human rights or women’s rights, or LGBT rights, or climate change, or open government, or anti-corruption initiatives, whatever cause you believe in, it doesn’t happen. Almost everything — every multilateral initiative function, norm, policy that is out there — it’s underwritten by us. We have some allies, primarily Europe, Canada, and some of our Asia allies.
But what I worry about most is, there is a war right now of ideas, more than any hot war, and it is between Putinism — which, by the way, is subscribed to, at some level, by Erdogan or Netanyahu or Duterte and Trump — and a vision of a liberal market-based democracy that has all kinds of flaws and is subject to all kinds of legitimate criticism, but on the other hand is sort of responsible for most of the human progress we’ve seen over the last 50, 75 years.
And if what you see in Europe — illiberalism winning out, the liberal order there being chipped away — and the United States is not there as a bulwark, which I think it will not be, then what you’re going to start seeing is, in a G20 or a G7, something like a human rights agenda is just not going to even be — it won’t be even on the docket, it won’t be talked about. And you’ll start seeing — what the Russians, what the Chinese do in those meetings is that they essentially look out for their own interests. They sit back, they wait to see what kind of consensus we’re building globally, they see if sometimes they can make sure their equities are protected, but they don’t initiate.
If we’re not there initiating ourselves, then everybody goes into their own sort of nationalist, mercantilist corners, and it will be a meaner, tougher world, and the prospects for conflict that arise will be greater. I think the weakening of Europe, if not the splintering of Europe, will have significant effects for us because, you may recall, but the last time Europe was not unified, it did not go well. So I’m worried about Europe.
There are a lot of bad impulses in Europe if — you know, Europe, even before the election, these guys will remember when we were, like, in Hanover and stuff, and you just got this sense of, you know, like the Yeats poem — the best lacked all conviction and the worst were full of passion and intensity, and everybody on their heels, and unable to articulate or defend the fact that the European Union has produced the wealthiest, most peaceful, most prosperous, highest living standards in the history of mankind, and prior to that, 60 million people ended up being killed around the world because they couldn’t get along.
So you’d think that we’d have the better argument here, but you didn’t get a sense of that. Everybody was defensive, and I worry about that. Seeing Merkel for the last time when I was in Berlin was haunting. She looked very alarmed.
Q What can you share with us about what foreign leaders, like Merkel and others, have expressed to you about what happened here in this election and what’s happening internationally generally since November 8th?
THE PRESIDENT: I think they share the concerns that I just described. But it’s hard for them to figure out how to mobilize without us. This is what I mean — I mean, I’ll be honest, I do get frustrated sometimes with like the Greenwalds of the world. There are legitimate arguments to be made about various things we do, but overall we have been a relatively benign influence and a ballast, and have tried to create spaces — sometimes there’s hypocrisy and I’m dealing with the Saudis while they’re doing all kinds of stuff, or we’re looking away when there’s a Chinese dissident in jail. All legitimate concerns. How we prosecute the war against terrorism, even under my watch. And you can challenge our drone policy, although I would argue that the arguments were much more salient in the first two years of my administration — much less salient today.
You can talk about surveillance, and I would argue once again that Snowden identified some problems that had to do with technology outpacing the legal architecture. Since that time, the modifications we’ve made overall I think have been fairly sensible.
But even if you don’t agree with those things, if we’re not there making the arguments — and even under Bush, those arguments were made. I mean, you know, they screwed up royally with Iraq, but they cared about stuff like freedom of religion or genital mutilation. I mean, there was a State Department that would express concern about these things, and push and prod and much less NATO, which you kind of would think, well, that’s sort of a basic, let’s keep that thing going, that’s worked okay.
So I think the fear is a combination of poor policy articulation or just silence on the part of the administration, a lack of observance ourselves of basic norms. So, I mean, we started this thing called the Open Government Partnership that’s gotten 75 countries around the world doing all kinds of things that we’ve been poking and prodding them to do for a long time. It’s been really successful making sure that people know what their budgets are and how they can hold their elected officials accountable, and we’re doing it in Africa, in Asia, et cetera. And now, if we get a President who doesn’t release his tax returns, who’s doing business with a bunch of folks, then everybody looks and says, well, what are you talking about? They don’t even have to, like, dismantle that program, it’s just — our example counts too.
Q Mr. President, can I ask you to go to kind of a dark place for a second in terms of —
THE PRESIDENT: I was feeling pretty dark. (Laughter.) I don’t know how much — where do you want me to go exactly?
Q I can bring us lower, trust me.
Q The John McCain line, everything is terrible before it goes completely black. (Laughter.)
Q I know that you feel that there’s a lot you can’t say on the Russia story, but just even speaking hypothetically, if there were somebody with the powers of U.S. President who Russia felt like they could give orders to, that Russia felt like they had something on them, what’s your worst-case scenario? What’s the worry there in terms of the kind of damage that could be done?
And also domestically, with a truly malign actor, if he’s, way worse than we all think he might be, and he wanted to use the powers of the U.S. government to cause — to advance his own interests and cause other people harm that he saw as his enemies, are there breaks out there that you see? What are the places where you worry the most in terms of damage being done?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, on the foreign policy, the hypothetical is just — I can’t answer that because I’ll let you guys spin yourselves.
What I would simply say would be that any time you have a foreign actors who, for whatever reason, has ex parte influence over the President of the United States, meaning that the American people can’t see that influence because it’s not happening in a bilateral meeting and subject to negotiations or reporting — any time that happens, that’s a problem. And I’ll let you speculate on where that could go.
Domestically, I think I’ve mentioned to Greg the place that I worry the most about. I mean, I think that the dangers I would see would be — and we saw some hints of this in my predecessor — if you politicize law enforcement, the attorney general’s office, U.S. attorneys, FBI, prosecutorial functions, IRS audits, that’s the place that I worry the most about. And the reason is because if you start seeing the government engaging in some of those behaviors and you start getting a chilling effect, then looking at history I don’t know that we’re so special that you don’t start getting self-censorship, which in some ways is worse, or at least becomes the precursor.
We have enough institutional breaks right now to prevent just outright — I mean, you would not, even with a Supreme Court appointment of his coming up, Justice Roberts would not uphold the President of the United States explicitly punishing the Washington Post for writing something. I mean, the First Amendment — there’s certain things that you can’t get away with.
But what you can do — it’s been interesting watching sort of a handful of tweets, and then suddenly companies are all like, oh, we’re going to bring back jobs, even if it’s all phony and bullshit. What that shows is the power of people thinking, you know what, I might get in trouble, I might get punished. And it’s one thing if that’s just verbal. But if folks start feeling as if the law enforcement mechanisms we have in place are not straight, they’ll play it straight. That’s dangerous, just because the immense power — one of the frustrations I’ve had over the course of eight years is the degree to which people have, I think in the popular imagination and certainly among the left, this idea of Big Brother and spying and reading emails and writing emails — and that’s captured everybody’s imaginations.
But I will tell you, the real power that’s scary is just basic law enforcement. If the FBI comes and questions you and says it wants your stuff, and the Justice Department starts investigating you and is investigating you for long periods of time, even if you have nothing to hide, even if you’ve got lawyers, that’s a scary piece of business, and it will linger for long periods of time.” …. (Much More Continues after Page, 10)
Posted originally on the CTH on June 23, 2024 | Sundance
Mike Morell was the Deputy CIA Director when the Benghazi attack happened under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. {GO DEEP} Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta used Qatar to organize the sale of shoulder fired missiles to al-Qaeda in Libya. At the time of the Benghazi attack Ambassador Chris Stephens was working with the CIA in Eastern Libya trying to buy-back the missiles.
General David Petraeus became CIA Director shortly before the 9-11-12 Benghazi attack (Panetta moved to Defense Secretary) and had no risk from the previous missile sales as they took place before his tenure. This made Petraeus a risk.
After Benghazi, the Intelligence Community, supported by Mike Morell, quickly organized a removal operation to get rid of Petraeus using the blackmail they held over him from CBS correspondent Paula Broadwell.
Petraeus was threatened and eventually removed, Mike Morell took his place as Acting CIA Director to protect the CIA, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and the larger Obama administration, from the aftermath of the Benghazi mess.
After the cleanup operation was successful, Morell then went to work for Hillary Clinton and CBS. Morell is a deeply professional liar. He knows I watch him.
When working for Hillary Clinton in August of 2016, Mike Morell published the first outline of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in the New York Times. It was all a lie; we all know it – no one ever held him to account.
Four years later, in the 2020 presidential election cycle Mike Morell did it again; this time organizing the 51 intelligence officers to claim the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. Morell led this effort with the State Dept and CIA. Again, it was all a lie; we all know it – no one ever held him to account, and Mike Morell remains working for CBS to this day.
2024 is another presidential election year. The problem for the Intelligence Community (IC), is their prior lies have caught up with them. They cannot lie Biden back into office. The IC needs something else, something more severe. Something more dramatic. Mike Morell is now saying a terrorist attack is about to happen on USA soil. WATCH:
[TRANSCRIPT] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by former CIA Deputy Director, Mike Morell. He’s also our CBS News senior national security contributor. Good to have you here.
MIKE MORELL: Good to be here, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You just had that Foreign Affairs article that got all this attention, “The Terrorism Warning Lights are Blinking Red Again.” You compare the moment we are in now to what happened in the lead up to 9/11. And I want to play something FBI director Chris Wray said earlier this month.
[START SOUND ON TAPE]
FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY: Our most immediate concern has been that individuals or small groups will draw a twisted inspiration from the events in the Middle East to carry out attacks here at home. But now, on top of that, increasingly concerning is the potential for a coordinated attack here in the homeland, not unlike the ISIS-K attack we saw at the Russia concert hall back in March.
[START END ON TAPE]
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s chilling. The White House says the president is briefed regularly on threats. If that is true, do you think he’s doing enough?
MIKE MORELL: Hard for me to say whether he’s doing enough because a lot of what needs to be done we wouldn’t see publicly. What I would say is, I ran into a lot of current- former intelligence- current intelligence officers and current policymakers. After we published the article, the response was almost universal. And we’re glad you wrote this. It’s really important. I read that as maybe there’s a lack of sense of- of a sense of urgency here. And that’s really important.
MARGARET BRENNAN : A lack of sense of urgency among members of the public? Or the government?
MIKE MORELL: The administration. Yeah. And Congress, quite frankly. There needs to be a sense of urgency about this. And I think the American public needs to understand what the threat is. That’s why we called for a public congressional hearing just on the terrorist threats to the homeland. Right, not a hearing on threats broadly, but threats to the homeland. And then we need to hear what the administration is doing about this in a broad sense, right. Not the details, but in a broad sense.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I asked the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Mike Turner, about exactly your proposal, and he- he really kind of dismissed it. He said, Oh, we’ve covered that.
(CROSSTALK)
MIKE MORELL: He said- we already covered that. They haven’t.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, he did call for the administration to declassify information. Our colleague, Sam Vinograd who ran vetting at the border for DHS, said basically that the information that feeds those vetting lists, the watch lists, is dependent on how much good intelligence is collected, and that has been under-resourced. Do you agree with that?
MIKE MORELL: I- I agree with that 100%. We’ve shifted resources from the counterterrorism community to the China community. Now, that’s understandable to some degree, it’s been significant. So I think there’s a cost to the intelligence we’re collecting. The vetting system beyond not having the information- the vetting system does not provide all of the information that the government has. There was just a DHS inspector general report that outlined all the problems with the vetting system. So it’s lack of information and it is the system itself.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That- and we have it on a graphic, the report said Customs and Border Protection could not access all federal data necessary to enable complete screening and vetting of non-citizens seeking admission into the United States. This is the government saying we can’t vet everyone properly.
MIKE MORELL: Right. And Customs and Border doesn’t have the technology, right? To even connect. There are all sorts of issues here that need to be resolved.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mike Morell, stay with us. I have to take a break but there’s much more I want to talk to you about.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face The Nation. We return now to our conversation with CBS News senior national security contributor, Mike Morell. Mike, I want to ask you about some video that CBS broadcasted earlier this week, 60 Minutes obtained it. It’s Saudi national Omar al-Bayoumi walking around the US Capitol back in 1999. We’re seeing that video now. It was shot within 90 days of the time when senior al Qaeda planners were deciding on 9/11 targets according to the FBI. At the time you were at the CIA. We know now the FBI identified this man, al-Bayoumi, as an intelligence operative with close ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers. But in that 9/11 commission report it said there was no credible evidence that he was a violent extremist or aided extremists. Now that you have seen this video, what do you think it reveals?
MIKE MORELL: No doubt in my mind, that it is a casing video, that it is a casing video for some sort of terrorist attack. Number one. Number two, pretty clear to me that al-Bayoumi was- was either working for al Qaeda, or was Al Qaeda. Did he know about the 9/11 attacks? Probably not. Did he know that the two individuals he was interacting with were 9/11 hijackers? Probably not. But- but no doubt in my mind that al Qaeda tasked him to do this casing video. The video is chilling. It’s chilling in terms of what he was- what he was videotaping, his narration over the top of it which- which is part what tells you it was a casing video. And his- his- his extremist comments. Let me just give you two examples, Margaret. On- on the casing part. At one point he says I will get over, he’s looking at the Washington Monument, I will get over there and I will report. I will report to you in detail what is there. He’s talking to somebody, right? He’s- and- and he’s talking about a plan–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — Not like a tourist would?
MIKE MORELL: Not like a tourist video. And then in terms of the extremism, he’s- he’s- he’s looking at the Capitol. And he says they say that our kids are demons. However, these are the demons, what he’s looking at.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the FBI concluded he was not a threat. The 9/11 commission report concluded he was not a threat. You’re saying it’s clear he was Al Qaeda and living under the noses and examination of law enforcement undetected. He’s now living in Saudi Arabia as we speak. That’s pretty- that’s a pretty big oversight by US law enforcement and intelligence. Did the CIA know about this video?
MIKE MORELL: We did not. You know, I’m 99.9% confident that we did not have this video. I was the President’s briefer at the time. If somebody had shown me this video, I would have shown it to the President.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It was, as I understand it, UK officials- UK intelligence that scooped up this video?
MIKE MORELL: Yes, just so- so- so when he left the United States, he went to the UK. And after- after 9/11, the FBI discovered that he had signed- helped- helped- helped the two 9/11 hijackers get their first apartment. He- and the FBI learned that they learned that he was in the UK. So they go to the UK Government and they say- they share all this information. The British government arrests him, detains him, interrogates him, gets all this material. They say they provided it back to the FBI.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And it just stayed at the FBI.
MIKE MORELL: It looks- it looks that way.
MARGARET BRENNAN: A lot more to come on this including on 60 Minutes in the fall. Thank you so much for your analysis Mike Morell. We’ll be right back.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 7, 2024 | Sundance
I think deep down all intellectually honest political researchers knew The Lightbringer could not possibly permit: (a) Joe Biden to try winning an election on his own without fraud; and (b) the scale of risk that Donald Trump represents. There is far too much personal risk to the Obama embeds who have weaponized the systems of government.
The media are now reporting that Chicago Jesus has stepped back into the arena.
There was a report in the Washington Post outlining the Obama concerns, and NBC has confirmed some of the details. [Short Video then article]:
.
After reviewing the WaPo article, I’ll show you what I think is triggering the Lightbringer.
WASHINGTON DC – Former president Barack Obama has raised questions about the structure of President Biden’s reelection campaign, discussing the matter directly with Biden and telling the president’s aides and allies the campaign needs to be empowered to make decisions without clearing them with the White House, according to three people familiar with the conversations.
Obama grew “animated” in discussing the 2024 election and former president Donald Trump’s potential return to power, one of the people said, and has suggested to Biden’s advisers that the campaign needs more top-level decision-makers at its headquarters in Wilmington, Del. — or it must empower the people already in place. Obama has not recommended specific individuals, but he has mentioned David Plouffe, who managed Obama’s 2008 race, as the type of senior strategist needed at the Biden campaign.
Obama’s conversation with Biden on the subject took place during a private lunch at the White House in recent months, one of the people said, a meeting that has not been previously reported. Biden, who has long used Obama as a sounding board, invited his former boss to lunch, and the two discussed a range of topics including the 2024 election. (read more)
The rest of the article is blah, blah, blah… talking about David Plouffe possibly joining Team Biden to lead the reelection. Yes, thatDavid Plouffe.
If you have not been following CTH research and election road mapping, you might not have the accurate context for the next part. So, a brief summary:
In 2020 in order to avoid Bernie Sanders, The Lightbringer and South Carolina’s James Clyburn agreed to merge BLM with AME. [Biden was oblivious] BLM would use George Floyd to activate action – the AME church network would use their implanted precinct captains. Chicago Jesus/Clyburn then agreed to Kamala. Shortly before Super Tuesday they told pudding brain, who had no options. Then Obama got on the phone, organized the exit strategy for the other candidates, and made the promises of the precursory indulgences they would receive. The bringer of all progressive enlightenment told Elizabeth Warren to stay in a little longer to ensure the Sanders (progressive) group was divided, and Super Tuesday went as planned. That’s how 2020 rolled. The AME team then fabricated the ballots as needed in the general.
So, what’s happened recently that has Obama triggered?
Ask James Clyburn….. WATCH:
.
Obama and Clyburn are worried about Trump’s appeal to black voters. Specifically, if the BLM/AME network will activate as strongly in 2024 – given the potential for scrutiny as the AME precinct group in Philly, Fulton, Racine, Clark, Wayne and Pittsburgh counties might be nervous about doing the ballot scheme again.
That’s it.
That’s the fear.
[ps. My guess is the BLM ’24 trigger event will be activated by the FBI on/around April 19th.]
Posted originally on the CTH on September 7, 2023 | Sundance
Tucker Carlson interviews Larry Sinclair, the man who had drug-fueled sex with Barack Obama in Chicago. {Direct Rumble Link}
In the Chicago gay circles, it was well known that Barack Obama liked to receive oral sex from older white men with grey hair. That’s why many people held a side-eye when Obama and Florida Governor Charlie Crist were visibly hugging in 2009.
Larry Sinclair goes into details about people, places and events surrounding the times that he and Barack Obama were together. Sinclair also notes that Donald Young, the gay choir director from Jerimiah Wright’s church, was the person selected by Obama to make contact with Sinclair and clean up the issue.
Posted originally on the CTH on September 5, 2023 | Sundance
I’m not exactly sure why Tucker Carlson would be putting attention on the Lightbringer, but it seems rather odd and funny at the same time. {Direct Rumble Link}
Most of these stories are well known, despite the media trying to cover them up for 15+ years. The full broadcast is schedule to air tomorrow. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on August 11, 2023 | Sundance
REPOST BY REQUEST – We cannot fight our way through the issues until we first realize what lies at the root of the problem.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act. What Obama and Holder did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.
This point is where many people understandably get confused.
Elevator Speech:
(1) The Patriot Act turned the intel surveillance radar from foreign searches for terrorists to domestic searches for terrorists.
(2) Obama/Biden then redefined what is a “terrorist” to include their political opposition.
In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus, instructed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.
After 9/11/01, the electronic surveillance system that was originally created to monitor threats from abroad was retooled to monitor threats inside our country. That is when all of our electronic ‘metadata’ came under federal surveillance.
That inflection point, and the process that followed, was exactly what Edward Snowden tried to point out.
What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political opposition became the target of this new national security system.
The problems we face now as a country are directly an outcome of two very distinct points that were merged by Barack Obama. (1) The post 9/11 monitoring of electronic communication of American citizens; and (2) Obama’s team creating a fine-tuning knob that it focused on the politics of the targets. This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.
Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. The Department of Homeland Security came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was formed.
When President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.
The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus – a domestic surveillance state. However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology.
The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.
We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake. However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design. By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath. The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.
As time passed, and the system operators became familiar with their new tools, technology allowed the tentacles of the system to reach out and touch us. That is when we first started to notice that something very disconcerting was happening. Those four pillars are the root of it, and if we take the time to understand how the Fourth Branch originated, questions about this current state of perpetual angst will start to make sense.
If we take the modern construct, originating at the speed of technological change, we can also see how the oversight or “check/balance” in our system of government became functionally obsolescent.
After many years of granular research about the intelligence apparatus inside our government, in the summer of 2020 I visited Washington DC to ask specific questions. My goal was to go where the influence agents within government actually operate, and to discover the people deep inside the institutions no one elected, and few people pay attention to.
It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.
After days of research and meetings in DC during 2020; amid a town that was serendipitously shut down due to COVID-19; I found a letter slid under the door of my room in a nearly empty hotel with an introduction of sorts. The subsequent discussions were perhaps the most important. After many hours of specific questions and answers on specific examples, I realized why our nation is in this mess. That is when I discovered the fourth and superseding branch of government, the Intelligence Branch.
The Intelligence Branch is an independent functioning branch of government, it is no longer a subsidiary set of agencies within the Executive Branch as most would think. To understand the Intelligence Branch, we need to drop the elementary school civics class lessons about three coequal branches of government and replace that outlook with the modern system that created itself.
…”There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives”…
The Intelligence Branch functions much like the State Dept, through a unique set of public-private partnerships that support it. Big Tech industry collaboration with intelligence operatives [Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Meta, Instagram, Twitter, etc] is part of that functioning, almost like NGOs. However, the process is much more important than most think. In this problematic perspective of a corrupt system of government, the process is the flaw – not the outcome.
There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives.
None of the people operating deep inside the Intelligence Branch were elected; and our elected representative House members genuinely do not know how the system works. I assert this position affirmatively because I have talked to House and Senate staffers, including the chiefs of staff for multiple House & Senate committee seats. They are not malicious people; however, they are genuinely clueless of things that happen outside their silo. That is part of the purpose of me explaining it, with examples, in full detail with sunlight.
We begin….
In April of 2016, the FBI launched a counterintelligence operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The questioning about that operation is what New York Representative Elise Stefanik cites in March of 2017, approximately 11 months later (First Two Minutes).
Things to note:
♦ Notice how FBI Director James Comey just matter-of-factly explains no one outside the DOJ was informed about the FBI operation. Why? Because that’s just the way things are done. His justification for unilateral operations was “because of the sensitivity of the matter“, totally ignoring any constitutional or regulatory framework for oversight; because, well, quite simply, there isn’t any. The intelligence apparatus inside the DOJ/FBI can, and does, operate based on their own independent determinations of authority.
♦ Notice also how FBI Director Comey shares his perspective that informing the National Security Council (NSC) is the equivalent of notifying the White House. The FBI leadership expressly believe they bear no responsibility to brief the Chief Executive. As long as they tell some unknown, unelected, bureaucratic entity inside the NSC, their unwritten responsibility to inform the top of their institutional silo is complete. If the IC wants to carve out the Oval Office, they simply plant information inside the NSC and, from their perspective, their civic responsibility to follow checks-and-balances is complete. This is an intentional construct.
♦ Notice how Comey obfuscates notification to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), by avoiding the fact James Clapper was the DNI from outset of the counterintelligence operation throughout the remainder of Obama’s term. When I get deeper into the process, we will understand how the Intelligence Branch has intentionally used the creation of the DNI position (established post 9/11/01) as a method to avoid oversight, not enhance it. Keeping an oblivious doofus like James Clapper in position held strategic value [Doofus Reminder HERE].
That video of James Comey being questioned by Elise Stefanik was the first example given to me by someone who knew the background of everything that was taking place preceding that March 20, 2017, hearing. That FBI reference point is a key to understand how the Intelligence Branch operates with unilateral authority above Congress (legislative branch), above the White House (executive branch), and even above the court system (judicial branch).
Also, watch this short video of James Clapper, because it is likely many readers have forgotten, and likely even more readers have never seen it. Watch closely how then White House national security adviser John Brennan is responding in that video. This is before Brennan became CIA Director, this is when Brennan was helping Barack Obama put the pillars into place. WATCH:
[Sidebar: Every time I post this video it gets scrubbed from YouTube (example), so save it if you ever want to see it again.]
The video of James Clapper highlights how the ODNI position (created with good national security intention) ended up becoming the fulcrum for modern weaponization, and is now an office manipulated by agencies with a vested interest in retaining power. The Intelligence Branch holds power over the ODNI through their influence and partnership with the body that authorizes the power within it, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).
Factually, the modern intelligence apparatus uses checks and balances in their favor. The checks create silos of proprietary information, classified information, vaults of information that work around oversight issues. The silos, which include the exploitation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court, or FISC) are part of the problem.
Ironically, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created in the aftermath of 9/11/01 expressly to eliminate the silos of information which they felt led to a domestic terrorist attack that could have been prevented. The ODNI was created specifically upon the recommendation of the 9/11 commission.
The intent was to create a central hub of intelligence information, inside the Executive Branch, where the CIA, NSA, DoD, DoS, and DIA could deposit their unique intelligence products and a repository would be created so that domestic intelligence operations, like the DOJ and FBI could access them when needed to analyze threats to the U.S. This, they hoped, would ensure the obvious flags missed in the 9/11 attacks would not be missed again.
However, the creation of the DNI office also created an unconstitutional surveillance system of the American people. The DNI office became the tool to take massive amounts of data and use it to target specific Americans. Weaponizing the DNI office for political targeting is now the purpose of the DNI office as it exists.
The illegal and unlawful nature of the surveillance creates a need for careful protection amid the group who operate in the shadows of electronic information and domestic surveillance. You will see how it was critical to install a person uniquely skilled in being an idiot, James Clapper, into that willfully blind role while intelligence operatives worked around the office to assemble the Intelligence Branch of Government.
• The last federal budget that flowed through the traditional budgetary process was signed into law in September of 2007 for fiscal year 2008 by George W. Bush. Every budget since then has been a fragmented process of continuing resolutions and individual spending bills.
Why does this matter? Because many people think defunding the Intelligence Community is a solution; it is not…. at least, not yet. Worse yet, the corrupt divisions deep inside the U.S. intelligence system can now fund themselves from multinational private sector partnerships (banks, corporations and foreign entities).
• When Democrats took over the House of Representatives in January 2007, they took office with a plan. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, and Democrats controlled the Senate where Harry Reid was Majority Leader. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois.
Pelosi and Reid intentionally did not advance a budget in 2008 (for fiscal year 2009) because their plan included installing Barack Obama (and all that came with him) with an open checkbook made even more lucrative by a worsening financial crisis and a process called baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting means the prior fiscal year budget is accepted as the starting point for the next year budget. All previous expenditures are baked into the cake within baseline budgeting.
Massive bailouts preceded Obama’s installation due to U.S. economic collapse, and massive bailouts continued after his installation. This is the ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ aspect. TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program), auto bailouts (GM), and the massive stimulus spending bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, ie. those shovel ready jobs) were all part of the non-budget spending. The federal reserve assisted with Quantitative Easing (QE1 and QE2) as congress passed various Porkulous spending bills further spending and replacing the formal budget process.
Note: There has never been a budget passed in the normal/traditional process since September of 2007.
• While Obama’s radical ‘transformation‘ was triggered across a broad range of government institutions, simultaneously spending on the U.S. military was cut, but spending on the intelligence apparatus expanded. We were all distracted by Obamacare, and the Republican Party wanted to keep us that way. However, in the background there was a process of transformation taking place that included very specific action by Eric Holder and targeted effort toward the newest executive agency the ODNI.
The people behind Obama, those same people now behind Joe Biden, knew from years of strategic planning that ‘radical transformation’ would require control over specific elements inside the U.S. government. Eric Holder played a key role in his position as U.S. Attorney General in the DOJ.
AG Holder recruited ideologically aligned political operatives who were aware of the larger institutional objectives. One of those objectives was weaponizing the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) a division inside the DOJ that had no inspector general oversight. For most people the DOJ-NSD weaponization surfaced with a hindsight awakening of the DOJ-NSD targeting candidate Donald Trump many years later. However, by then the Holder crew had executed almost eight full years of background work.
• The second larger Obama/Holder objective was control over the FBI. Why was that important? Because the FBI does the domestic investigative work on anyone who needs or holds a security clearance. The removal of security clearances could be used as a filter to further build the internal ideological army they were assembling. Additionally, with new power in the ODNI created as a downstream consequence of the Patriot Act, new protocols for U.S. security clearances were easy to justify.
Carefully selecting fellow ideological travelers was facilitated by this filtration within the security clearance process. How does that issue later manifest? Just look around at how politicized every intelligence agency has become, specifically including the FBI.
• At the exact same time this new background security clearance process was ongoing, again everyone distracted by the fight over Obamacare, inside the Department of State (Secretary Hillary Clinton) a political alignment making room for the next phase was being assembled. Names like Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were familiar on television while Lisa Monaco worked as a legal liaison between the Obama White House and Clinton State Department.
Through the Dept of State (DoS) the intelligence apparatus began working on their first steps to align Big Tech with a larger domestic institutional objective. Those of you who remember the “Arab Spring”, some say “Islamist Spring”, will remember it was triggered by Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo – his first foreign trip. The State Department worked with grassroots organizers (mostly Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar and Libya. Obama leaned heavily on the organizational network of Turkish President Recep Erdogan for contacts and support.
Why does this aspect matter to us? Well, you might remember how much effort the Obama administration put into recruiting Facebook and Twitter as resources for the various mideast rebellions the White House and DoS supported. This was the point of modern merge between the U.S. intelligence community and Big Tech social media.
In many ways, the coordinated political outcomes in Libya and Egypt were the beta test for the coordinated domestic political outcomes we saw in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The U.S. intelligence community working with social media platforms and political operatives.
Overlaying all of that background activity was also a new alignment of the Obama-era intelligence apparatus with ideological federal “contractors“. Where does this contractor activity manifest? In the FISA Court opinion of Rosemary Collyer who cited the “interagency memorandum of understanding”, or MOU.
Hopefully, you can see a small part of how tentacled the system to organize/weaponize the intelligence apparatus was. None of this was accidental, all of this was by design, and the United States Senate was responsible for intentionally allowing most of this to take place. The tools the government used to monitor threats were now being used to monitor every American. WE THE PEOPLE were now the threat the national security system was monitoring.
That’s the 30,000/ft level backdrop history of what was happening as the modern IC was created. Next, we will go into how all these various intelligence networks began working in unison and how they currently control all of the other DC institutions under them; including how they can carve out the President from knowing their activity.
♦ When Barack Obama was installed in January 2009, the Democrats held a 60-seat majority in the U.S. Senate. As the people behind the Obama installation began executing their longer-term plan, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was a tool to create the Intelligence Branch; it was not an unintentional series of events.
When Obama was installed, Dianne Feinstein was the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), and Democrat operative Dan Jones was her lead staffer. Feinstein was completely controlled by those around her including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The CIA was in the process of turning over personnel following the Bush era, and as a result of a massive multi-year narrative of diminished credibility (Iraq WMD), a deep purge was underway. Obama/Holder were in the process of shifting intelligence alignment and the intensely political Democrat Leader Harry Reid was a key participant.
THE TRAP – Many people say that Congress is the solution to eliminating the Fourth and superseding Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. This is an exercise in futility because the Legislative Branch, specifically the SSCI, facilitated the creation of the Intelligence Branch. The SSCI cannot put the genie they created back in the bottle without admitting they too are corrupt; and the background story of their corruption is way too intense to be exposed now.
Every member of the SSCI is compromised in some controlling manner. Those Senators who disliked the control over them; specifically disliked because the risk of sunlight was tenuous and, well, possible; have either left completely or stepped down from the committee. None of the SSCI members past or present would ever contemplate saying openly what their tenure involved.
[Note: You might remember when Vice Chairman Mark Warner’s text messages surfaced, there was a controlled Republican SSCI member who came to his defense in February of 2018. It was not accidental that exact Senator later became the chair of the SSCI himself. That Republican Senator is Marco Rubio, now vice-chair since the Senate re-flipped back to the optics of Democrat control in 2021.]
All of President Obama’s 2009 intelligence appointments required confirmation from the Senate. The nominees had to first pass through the Democrat controlled SSCI, and then to a full Senate vote where Democrats held a 60-vote majority. Essentially, Obama got everyone he wanted in place easily. Rahm Emmanuel was Obama’s Chief of Staff, and Valerie Jarrett was Senior Advisor.
Tim Geithner was Treasury Secretary in 2010 when the joint DOJ/FBI and IRS operation to target the Tea Party took place after the midterm “shellacking” caused by the Obamacare backlash. Mitch McConnell was Minority Leader in the Senate but supported the targeting of the Tea Party as his Senate colleagues were getting primaried by an angry and effective grassroots campaign. McConnell’s friend, Senator Bob Bennett, getting beaten in Utah was the final straw.
Dirty Harry and Mitch McConnell saw the TEA Party through the same prism. The TEA Party took Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts (Scott Brown); Sharon Angle was about to take out Harry Reid in Nevada; Arlen Spector was taken down in Pennsylvania; Senator Robert Byrd died; Senator Lisa Murkowski lost her primary to Joe Miller in Alaska; McConnell’s nominee Mike Castle lost to Christine O’Donnell in Delaware; Rand Paul won in Kentucky. This is the background. The peasants were revolting…. and visibly angry Mitch McConnell desperately made a deal with the devil to protect himself.
In many ways, the TEA Party movement was/is very similar to the MAGA movement. The difference in 2010 was the absence of a head of the movement, in 2015 Donald Trump became that head figure who benefited from the TEA Party energy. Trump came into office in 2017 with the same congressional opposition as the successful TEA Party candidates in 2011.
Republicans took control of the Senate following the 2014 mid-terms. Republicans took control of the SSCI in January 2015. Senator Richard Burr became chairman of the SSCI, and Dianne Feinstein shifted to Vice-Chair. Dirty Harry Reid left the Senate, and Mitch McConnell took power again.
Republicans were in control of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2015 when the Intelligence Branch operation against candidate Donald Trump was underway. [Feinstein’s staffer, Dan Jones, left the SSCI so he could act as a liaison and political operative between private-sector efforts (Fusion GPS, Chris Steele) and the SSCI.] The SSCI was a participant in that Fusion GPS/Chris Steele operation, and as a direct consequence Republicans were inherently tied to the problem with President Trump taking office in January of 2017. Indiana Republican Senator Dan Coats was a member of the SSCI.
Bottom line…. When it came to the intelligence system targeting Donald Trump during the 2015/2016 primary, the GOP was just as much at risk as their Democrat counterparts.
When Trump unexpectedly won the 2016 election, the SSCI was shocked more than most. They knew countermeasures would need to be deployed to protect themselves from any exposure of their prior intelligence conduct. Immediately Senator Dianne Feinstein stepped down from the SSCI, and Senator Mark Warner was elevated to Vice Chairman.
Indiana’s own Mike Pence, now Vice President, recommended fellow Hoosier, SSCI Senator Dan Coats, to become President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). [Apply hindsight here]
• To give an idea of the Intelligence Branch power dynamic, remind yourself how House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Chairman Devin Nunes, tried to get access to the DOJ/FBI records of the FISA application used against the Trump campaign via Carter Page.
Remember, Devin Nunes only saw a portion of the FISA trail from his review of a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) previously given to President Obama. Chairman Nunes had to review the PDB at the White House SCIF due to compartmented intelligence, another example of the silo benefit.
Remember the massive stonewalling and blocking of the DOJ/FBI toward Nunes? Remember the back-and-forth battle over declassification surrounding the Nunes memo?
Remember, after Nunes went directly to House Speaker Paul Ryan for help (didn’t get any), the DOJ only permitted two members from each party within the HPSCI to review the documents, and only at the DOJ offices of main justice?
Contrast that amount of House Intel Committee railroading by intelligence operatives in the DOJ, DOJ-NSD and FBI, with the simple request by Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner asking to see the Carter Page FISA application and immediately a copy being delivered to him on March 17th 2017.
Can you see which intelligence committee is aligned with the deepest part of the deep state?
The contrast of ideological alignment between the House, Senate and Intelligence Branch is crystal clear when viewed through the prism of cooperation. You can see which legislative committee holds the power and support of the Intelligence Branch. The Senate Intel Committee facilitates the corrupt existence of the IC Branch, so the IC Branch only cooperates with the Senate Intel Committee. It really is that simple.
• The Intelligence Branch carefully selects its own members by controlling how security clearances are investigated and allowed (FBI). The Intelligence Branch also uses compartmentalization of intelligence as a way to keep each agency, and each downstream branch of government (executive, legislative and judicial), at arm’s length as a method to stop anyone from seeing the larger picture of their activity. I call this the “silo effect“, and it is done by design.
I have looked at stunned faces when I presented declassified silo product from one agency to the silo customers of another. You would be astonished at what they don’t know because it is not in their ‘silo’.
Through the advice and consent rules, the Intelligence Branch uses the SSCI to keep out people they consider dangerous to their ongoing operations. Any appointee to the intelligence community must first pass through the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, before they get a full Senate vote. If the SSCI rejects the candidate, they simply refuse to take up the nomination. The president is then blocked from that appointment. This is what happened with President Trump over and over again.
• Additionally, the Intelligence Branch protects itself, and its facilitating allies through the formal classification process. The Intelligence Branch gets to decide unilaterally what information will be released and what information will be kept secret. There is no entity outside the Intelligence Branch, and yes that includes the President of the United States, who can supersede the classification authority of the Intelligence Branch. {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} This is something 99.9% of the people on our side get totally and frustratingly wrong.
No one can declassify, or make public, anything the Intelligence Branch will not agree to. Doubt this? Ask Ric Grenell, John Ratcliffe, or even President Trump himself.
• The classification process is determined inside the Intelligence Branch, all by themselves. They get to choose what rank of classification exists on any work product they create; and they get to decide what the classification status is of any work product that is created by anyone else. The Intelligence Branch has full control over what is considered classified information and what is not. The Intelligence Branch defines what is a “national security interest” and what is not. A great technique for hiding fingerprints of corrupt and illegal activity.
[For familiar reference see the redactions to Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The Intelligence Branch does all redactions.]
• Similarly, the declassification process is a request by an agency, even a traditionally superior agency like the President of the United States, to the Intelligence Branch asking for them to release the information. The Intelligence Branch again holds full unilateral control.
If the head of the CIA refuses to comply with the declassification instruction of the President, what can the president do except fire him/her? {Again, GO DEEP} How does the President replace the non-compliant cabinet member? They have to go through the SSCI confirmation. See the problem?
Yes, there are ways to break up the Intelligence Branch, but they do not start with any congressional effort. As you can see above, the process is the flaw – not the solution. Most conservative pundits have their emphasis on the wrong syllable. Their cornerstone is false.
For their own self-preservation, the Intelligence Branch has been interfering in our elections for years. The way to tear this apart begins with STATE LEVEL election reform that blocks the Legislative Branch from coordinating with the Intelligence Branch.
The extreme federalism approach is critical and also explains why Joe Biden has instructed Attorney General Merrick Garland to use the full power of the DOJ to stop state level election reform efforts. The worry of successful state level election control is also why the Intelligence Branch now needs to support the federal takeover of elections.
Our elections have been usurped by the Intelligence Branch. Start with honest elections and we will see just how much Democrat AND Republican corruption is dependent on manipulated election results. Start at the state level. Start there…. everything else is downstream.
♦ COLLAPSED OVERSIGHT – The modern system to ‘check’ the Executive Branch was the creation of the legislative “Gang of Eight,” a legislative oversight mechanism intended to provide a bridge of oversight between the authority of the intelligence community within the Executive Branch.
The Go8 construct was designed to allow the President authority to carry out intelligence operations and provide the most sensitive notifications to a select group within Congress.
The Go8 oversight is directed to the position, not the person, and consists of: (1) The Speaker of the House; (2) The Minority Leader of the House; (3) The Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI; (4) The Ranking Member (minority) of the HPSCI; (5) The Leader of the Senate; (6) The Minority Leader of the Senate; (7) The Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI; and finally (8) the Vice-Chair of the SSCI.
Example: When the Chief Executive (the President) initiates an intelligence operation on behalf of the United States, the President triggers a “finding memo.” In essence, the instruction to the intel agency or agencies to authorize a covert operation. When that process takes place, the Go8 are the first people notified. Depending on the sensitivity of the operation, sometimes the G08 are notified immediately after the operation is conducted. The notification can be a phone call or an in-person briefing.
Because of the sensitivity of their intelligence information, the Gang of Eight hold security clearances that permit them to receive and review all intelligence operations. The intelligence community are also responsible for briefing the Go8 with the same information they use to brief the President.
~ 2021 Gang of Eight ~
The Go8 design is intended to put intelligence oversight upon both political parties in Congress; it is designed that way by informing the minority leaders of both the House and Senate as well as the ranking minority members of the SSCI and HPSCI. Under the concept, the President cannot conduct an intelligence operation; and the intelligence community cannot carry out intelligence gathering operations without the majority and minority parties knowing about it.
The modern design of this oversight system was done to keep rogue and/or corrupt intelligence operations from happening. However, as we shared in the preview to this entire discussion, the process was usurped during the Obama era. {GO DEEP}
Former FBI Director James Comey openly admitted to Congress on March 20, 2017, that the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing the Go8. Comey justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying, “because of the sensitivity of the matter.”
Stupidly, Congress never pressed James Comey on that issue. The arrogance was astounding, and the acceptance by Congress was infuriating. However, that specific example highlighted just how politically corrupt the system had become. In essence, Team Obama usurped the entire design of congressional oversight…. and Congress just brushed it off.
Keep in mind, Comey did not say the White House was unaware; in fact he said exactly the opposite, he said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC). The unavoidable implication and James Comey admission that everyone just brushed aside, was that President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was informed of the intelligence operation(s) against Donald Trump. After all, the NSC reports to the National Security Advisor.
Does the January 20, 2017, Susan Rice memo look different now?
Again, no one saw the immediate issue. What Comey just described on that March Day in 2017 was the usurpation of the entire reason the Gang of Eight exists; to eliminate the potential for political weaponization of the Intelligence Community by the executive branch. The G08 notifications to the majority and minority are specifically designed to make sure what James Comey admitted to doing was never supposed to happen.
Team Obama carried out a political operation using the intelligence community and the checks-and-balances in the system were intentionally usurped. This is an indisputable fact.
Worse still, the entire legislative branch of Congress, which then specifically included the Republicans that now controlled the House and Senate, did nothing. They just ignored what was admitted. The usurpation was willfully ignored.
The mechanism of the G08 was bypassed without a twitch of condemnation or investigation…. because the common enemy was Donald Trump.
This example highlights the collapse of the system. Obama, the Executive Branch, collapsed the system by usurping the process; in essence the process became the bigger issue, and the lack of immediate Legislative Branch reaction became evidence of open acceptance. The outcomes of the usurpation played out over the next four years, Donald J. Trump was kneecapped and lost his presidency because of it. However, the bigger issue of the collapse still exists.
The downstream consequence of the Legislative Branch accepting the Executive Branch usurpation meant both intelligence committees were compromised. Additionally, the leadership of both the House and Senate were complicit. Think about this carefully. The Legislative Branch allowance of the intelligence usurpation meant the Legislative Branch was now subservient to the Intelligence Branch.
That’s where we are.
Right now.
That’s where we are.
Term-3 Obama is now back in the White House with Joe Biden.
NOTE: Former Obama National Security aide and counsel to the President, Lisa Monaco, is in her current position as Deputy Attorney General, specifically to make sure all of these revelations do not become a legal risk to Barack Obama and the people who created them. The SSCI confirmed Monaco for this purpose because the Senate is just as much at risk.
Term-1 and Term-2 Obama usurped the ‘check and balance‘ within the system and weaponized the intelligence apparatus. During Trump’s term that weaponization was covered up by a compliant congress, complicit senate intelligence committee, and not a single member of the oversight called it out. Now, Term-3 Obama steps back in to continue the cover up and continue the weaponization.
Hopefully, you can now see the scale of the problem that surrounds us with specific citation for what has taken place. What I just explained to you above is not conspiracy theory, it is admitted fact that anyone can look upon. Yet….
Have you seen this mentioned anywhere? Have you seen this called out by anyone in Congress? Have you seen anyone in media (ally or adversary) call this out? Have you seen any member of the Judicial Branch stand up and say wait, what is taking place is not okay? Have you seen a single candidate for elected office point this out? Have you seen anyone advising a candidate to point this out?
This is our current status. It is not deniable. The truth exists regardless of our comfort.
Not a single person in power will say openly what has taken place. They are scared of the Fourth Branch. The evidence of what has taken place is right there in front of our face. The words, actions and activities of those who participated in this process are not deniable, in fact most of it is on record.
There are only two members of the Gang of Eight who have existed in place from January 2007 (the real beginning of Obama’s term, two years before he took office when the Congress flipped). Only two members of the G08 have been consistently in place from January of 2007 to right now, today. All the others came and went, but two members of the Gang of Eight have been part of that failed and collapsed oversight throughout the past 15 years, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.
♦ TECHNOLOGY – On a global scale – the modern intelligence gathering networks are now dependent on data collection to execute their intelligence missions. In the digital age nations have been executing various methods to gather that data. Digital surveillance has replaced other methods of interception. Those surveillance efforts have resulted in a coalescing of regional data networks based on historic multi-national relationships.
We have a recent frame of reference for the “U.S. data collection network” within the NSA. Through the allied process the Five Eyes nations all rely on the NSA surveillance database (U.K, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and U.S.) The NSA database provides the digital baseline for intelligence operations in defense of our allies. The portals into the NSA database are essentially an assembly of allies in like-minded ideological connection to the United States.
Unfortunately, there have been some revelations about the NSA database being used to monitor our allies, like in the example of Germany and surveillance on Angela Merkel’s phone. As long as “the good guys” are operating honorably, allies of the United States can feel confident about having protection from the NSA surveillance of global digital data. We warn our friends if we detect something dangerous etc.
The U.S. has nodes on communication pipelines to intercept and extract data. We have also launched hundreds, perhaps thousands, of satellites to conduct surveillance and gather up data. All of this data is fed into the NSA database where it is monitored (presumably) as a national security mechanism, and in defense of our allies.
However, what about data collection or data networks that are outside the NSA database? What do our enemies do? The NSA database is just one intelligence operation of digital surveillance amid the entire world, and we do not allow access by adversaries we are monitoring. So what do they do? What do our allies do who might not trust the United States due to past inconsistencies, ie. the Middle East?
The answers to those questions highlight other data collection networks. So, a brief review of the major players is needed.
♦ CHINA – China operates their own database. They, like the NSA, scoop up data for their system. Like us, China launches satellites and deploys other electronic data collection methods to download into their database. This is why the issues of electronic devices manufactured in China becomes problematic. Part of the Chinese data collection system involves the use of spyware, hacking and extraction.
Issues with Chinese communication company Huawei take on an added dimension when you consider the goal of the Chinese government to conduct surveillance and assemble a network of data to compete with the United States via the NSA. Other Chinese methods of surveillance and data-collection are less subversive, as in the examples of TicTok and WeChat. These are Chinese social media companies that are scraping data just like the NSA scrapes data from Facebook, Twitter and other Silicon Valley tech companies. [ Remember, the Intelligence Branch is a public-private partnership. ]
♦ RUSSIA – It is very likely that Russia operates their own database. We know Russia launches satellites, just like China and the USA, for the same purposes. Russia is also very proficient at hacking into other databases and extracting information to store and utilize in their own network. The difference between the U.S., China and Russia is likely that Russia spends more time on the hacking aspect because they do not generate actual technology systems as rapidly as the U.S. and China.
The most recent database creation is an outcome of an ally having to take action because they cannot rely on the ideology of the United States remaining consistent, as the administrations ping-pong based on ideology.
♦ SAUDI ARABIA – Yes, in 2016 we discovered that Saudi Arabia was now operating their own intelligence data-gathering operation. It would make sense, given the nature of the Middle East and the constant fluctuations in political support from the United States. It is a lesson the allied Arab community and Gulf Cooperation Council learned quickly when President Obama went to Cairo in 2009 and launched the Islamist Spring (Arab Spring) upon them.
I have no doubt the creation of the Saudi intelligence network was specifically because the Obama administration started supporting radical Islamists within the Muslim Brotherhood and threw fuel on the fires of extremism all over the Arab world.
Think about it., What would you do if you were Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, Oman or Yemen and you knew the United States could just trigger an internal uprising of al-Qaeda, ISIS and the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood to seek your destruction?
Without a doubt, those urgent lessons from 2009, 2010, 2011 triggered the formation of the Arab Intelligence Network as a network to defend itself with consistency. They assembled the network and activated it in 2017 as pictured above.
♦ Israel – Along a similar outlook to the Arab network, no doubt Israel operates an independent data collection system as a method of protecting itself from ever-changing U.S. politics amid a region that is extremely hostile to its very existence. Like the others, Israel launches proprietary satellites, and we can be sure they use covert methods to gather electronic data just like the U.S. and China.
As we have recently seen in the Pegasus story, Israel creates spyware programs that are able to track and monitor cell phone communications of targets. The spyware would not work unless Israel had access to some network where the phone meta-data was actually stored. So yeah, it makes sense for Israel to operate an independent intelligence database.
♦ Summary: As we understand the United States Intelligence Branch of government as the superseding entity that controls the internal politics of our nation, we also must consider that multiple nations have the same issue. There are major intelligence networks around the world beside the NSA “Five-Eyes” database. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel all operate proprietary databases deploying the same tools and techniques for assembly.
The geopolitical conflict that has always existed has now shifted into a digital battle-space. The Intelligence Agencies from these regions are now operating as the backbone of the government that uses them and has become dependent on them. [<- Reread that].
Once you accept the digital-era intelligence apparatus of China, Russia, Saudi-Arabia, The United States and Israel, are now the primary national security mechanisms for stabilization of government; then you accept the importance of those intelligence operations.
Once you understand how foundational those modern intelligence operations have become for the stability and continuity of those governments…… then you begin to understand just how the United States intelligence community became more important than the government that created it.
From that point it is then critical to understand that domestic intelligence operations are underway to monitor the electronic communication of American citizens inside our own country. YOU are under surveillance. The parents who confront school boards are under surveillance. The political operatives inside the FBI are monitoring everyone who comes onto the radar, that is why the National School Boards Association asked the White House, then the DOJ, to have the FBI start targeting parents. Are things making sense now?
♦ Public Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazened they have made public admissions.
The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.
Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):
[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”
Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.
Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.
When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.
The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.
The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.
Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.
What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.
July 26 (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.
Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.
The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)
The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives.
In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize against domestic enemies.
After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. Simultaneously the mission of the intelligence community now encompassed monitoring domestic threats as defined by the people who operate the surveillance system.
The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the network of President Barack Obama did.
The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons (we should never have allowed to be created) and turned those weapons into political tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation.
Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.
This is the scale of corrupt political compromise on both sides of the DC dynamic that we are up against. Preserving this system is also what removing Donald Trump is all about…. The targeting of President Trump in order to preserve the system, the system that was weaponized during the Obama administration, is what the actions of the DOJ and FBI are all about.
What would powerful people in DC do to stop the American people from finding this out?
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 