Election issues in Utah will take the main stage Saturday night in Saint George. The event, “Election Integrity Matters” will feature Utah leaders and activists who are exposing the problems Utah faces and the solutions needed to insure that Utah elections return to being free from error and corruption.
Most state leaders and county clerks tell us that our system is free from flaws and can be trusted. Yet, they offer no proof of that, and ignore the evidence when presented to them. In the case of Willie Billings, who recently lost by a few votes in the GOP primary, the county clerk, in consultation with the Lt.Governor, refused a forensic audit despite evidence that Billings had likely won the election. A simple audit would have ended the debate on the issue of accuracy with our currant mail-in ballot system and machine tabulation. Why would the county and state fight against a procedure that would prove their assertion that the system works?
That, and other questions, will be answered by the noted panelists tonight.
The panalists include, Two Red Pills (Jen Orten & Sophie Anderson), who have brought national attention to the problems that we face in Utah; National radio host Kate Dalley and David “Uncle Milty” Brady; activist Eric Moutsos (the Founder of Utah Revival); Utah State Representative Phil Lyman, HD69; and Willie Billings (mentioned earlier). There will be other special guests and the Liberty Academy Youth Choir will sing the National Anthem.
The event is sponsored by “Unfurl the Truth”, a group of concerned constitutionally conservative citizens who creat events to help inform the public about election integrity and work to restore the freedoms that we have lost..
The event begins at 6:30 (doors open at 6) at the Desert Hills High School Auditorium, Desert Hills Dr, in Saint George. Admission is $10.00 cash.
In an article from USAToday.com dated December 12, 2018, the author wrote ”To Alyssa Milano, the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing underscores a point many women have been arguing for nearly 100 years: The country needs an Equal Rights Amendment. It will just put women on an equal footing in the legal system, particularly in areas where women have historically been treated like second-class citizens, especially in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. What would it do? The ERA would prohibit denying equal rights on the basis of sex in the same way the United States prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion and national origin. It would give women new legal recourse on issues including pay equity, gender-based violence and pregnancy discrimination. It would protect men facing gender discrimination, too.” Similar claims are made by supporters of the ERA in 2022, whether in college courses, or the media. However, these claims are disputed by the ERA’s legislative history, as adopted by the Congress when the ERA was proposed. The ERA’s ratification ran from 1972 to 1982, so what was the ERA to do? Let’s take a look.
(Address given 14 February 1977 to Bristow, Oklahoma Rotary)
Late in the evening of April 14, 1912 a large ocean liner was sailing on its maiden voyage from Liverpool, England to New York City. Since it was in the early spring, the weather was fairly nice in the North Atlantic with a bit of a breeze coming from the passage of the ship through the dark inky black waters. The Titanic was the proudest ship in the British White Star Company. It had been constructed so that it was virtually unsinkable. in that it had waterproof compartments to protect against any mishap in the open sea. There were several classes of passengers in the multi-deck ship, and they enjoyed the various activities and parties that were planned for each of their assigned passages. There were wood inlaid handrails, marble dancing floors, 30 piece orchestras with grand pianos, violins, clarinets, cornets, tympani, harp, french horns, cellos and basses. The passage of the liner was a very festive occasion because of its importance to the British passenger ships. It was even outfitted with the most modern equipment, including Marconi’s wireless radio which could keep in constant contact with the land based coast guard. It could receive news, weather and stock market summaries. Nevertheless fate struck the liner; going at nearly full speed, it collided with a large iceberg that sliced it open like a knife in a stuffed sausage roll. There was a 300 foot tear under the water line through numerous compartments. As the ship began to fill, the captain realized the danger and hopelessness of the situation. The ship was inadequately equipped with lifeboats and life preservers; even though the wireless immediately began to broadcast the SOS throughout the area, help would still be many hours away. Because of the freezing water in the North Atlantic)a person could survive no longer than 30 seconds in the open ocean. The broadcast went out over the microphone and let’s imagine that this is the way it sounded ringing through the different decks: This is your captain speaking. I must report that the crew has been notified that we have hit an iceberg and the decision has been made to abandon ship. We have special instructions for the different nationalities. British, French and Italian shall go to the starboard, women and children first in the lifeboats. American citizens shall proceed to the port side and we have been notified that the 38th state has just ratified the 27th Amendment to the Constitution and the instructions are, “every man for himself.” Now can you imagine. if your wife or children were on the Titanic and you were not there to look after their safety; Your reliance upon the crew of the White Star Line to outfit them in the life preservers and to assist in lowering the lifeboats to the open ocean? Can you imagine their helplessness if they were told “every man for himself?” In the tragedy of April 15, 1912 the Titanic sank in the North Atlantic with a loss of 1,517 lives. This would fully demonstrate the result of the Equal Rights Amendment. Perhaps I can provide a bit of history and background for the amendment. Such an amendment was first submitted to Congress in 1923, three years after women received the vote, but there was little pressure to do anything since the majority of feminists opposed it. They had a reason; the equal rights amendment would nullify protective laws. which were hard won legislation, that gave the over-worked and under-paid factory woman something resembling decent working conditions. The act was again submitted in 1970 and a question as to what “equal rights” meant was debated. This was answered by an article in the Yale Law Journal in 1971 by three students Barbara Brown, Ann Friedman and Gail Faulk, and Professor Thomas Emerson as to what “equal rights” should mean. They are all contemporaries of mine. The Congress seized upon Emerson’s article and adopted it as the official explanation of what “equal rights” should mean; it became legislative history, carrying a great deal of weight as to its interpretive outcome.
There are two issues proposed by equal rights supporters that the ERA is necessary to provide: protective legislation in the area of employment and business opportunities. We shall return to those but first a summary of the activities of the Equal Rights Amendment will be appropriate. In an article in the July 1976 issue of McCall’s the author, Marilyn Mercer, asks the following questions and gave the answers in the text of the material.
For your convenience, I am going to give you the answers immediately. If ERA becomes the law of the land, what will it mean?
Will women lose their right to be supported by their husbands and, in the case of divorce, their claims to alimony and child support? Yes, they will lose their right to alimony but not to child support. Will it mean no legal restraints on abortion? Yes. Will public restrooms go coed? Yes Will women be drafted and assigned to combat duty if there is another war? Yes. Will wives be responsible for their husbands’ debts? yes. Will it legalize homosexual marriages? Yes. Will widows lose their husband’s Social Security benefits? Yes, unless widowers will get the same benefits and there is enough money to go around.] This was vacated by the Supreme Court. The Equal Rights Amendment has generated substantial support and opposition by almost every group. The number of nationally known groups to oppose the ERA include the Knights of Columbus, the National Council of Catholic Women, the Mormon church, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the John Birch Society and the American Communist party. Those that support the Equal Rights Amendment argue that it is necessary to obtain equal pay for equal work. But, there has been no demonstration that any sex discrimination in employment is not remediable under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The discussion of the Equal Rights Amendment has based itself mostly upon the concept of the rights of women in job discrimination and equal employment opportunities. The legislative history (House Report #92-359) stated in the words of Representative Emanuel Ce1ler: Discrimination against women does exist. Of that there is no denial. Let it be understood that opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment is not to be equated with condoning practices or patterns of discrimination. The dissent runs not against the purpose of the Equal Rights Amendment but against the method. The report is as revealing in matter not alluded to as it is in issues covered. No proponents of the Amendment explain in what manner current legislative power fails to provide all the remedy necessary to correct the wrongs listed. The Department of Justice stated; Even if one were to determine for himself that all of these differences in treatment ought to be abandoned, under a federal system such as ours, the questions would remain as to whether a unitary rule should be promulgated by constitutional amendment which would deny to each state the right to choose for itself among rational alter≠native policies. For instance there is no dispute that the ERA will mandate the drafting of women on the same basis as men should another mandatory draft be adopted. This is defended in the ERA literature on the basis that either women want to fight, as demonstrated by the Russian, Israeli and other European women, or that women would be as much exempt from the draft as men and that the fear that mothers will be conscripted from their children is totally unfounded unless Congress sought to do so. If you will recall that during Vietnam the fathers with one child were draftable. and during World War II fathers with two children were subject to the draft. Thus mothers with two children would also be subject to the draft. If the ERA is passed there will undoubtedly be litigation. Individuals and groups with special interests may institute test cases. A gay liberation group, for instance, might claim that if the male homosexual cannot have a male spouse, that’s discrimination based on sex. But such marginal cases seldom succeed until the public as a whole wants them to succeed. The issue of homosexuality has been brought up and it has been receiving the support on the basis that it will guarantee homosexual legality. In the area of education, ERA will require that public schools and colleges be coeducational and have equalized admission standards for male and female students. It is alleged that private girls’ and boys’ schools would continue to exist, if they did not obtain tax exemptions or any federal funding. I’ll believe when I see it.
Private colleges that received federal government funding would be required to hire male and female faculty members on an equal basis. The issue is the law in New York would be the law in Oklahoma, the rules in California would be the rules in Louisiana. Representative Edward Hutchinson expressed the issue in this manner: “Legislative power already exists to strike down every vestige of inequality between the sexes. A Constitutional amendment is not needed either to create that power, to extend it, or to perfect it. If any inequality between the sexes still exists in the law and public policy demands complete equality, then why not remove those inequalities legislatively? The proponents of the constitutional amendment answer the question by expressing their impatience with the piecemeal approach of the legislative process. They want to remove all inequalities at one time by denying the power of government to recognize any inequality. What they apparently fail to see is that they are simply trading one piecemeal approach for another. Instead of working with state legislatures and the Congress to write laws, amend laws, and repeal laws to remove such vestigial inequalities as yet remain, they will be suing in the courts to define the word equality, case by litigated case. All they will have accomplished is to change the form from the legislature to the courts. The phrase ‘equality of rights under the law’ will mean whatever the Supreme Court says it means, and that meaning may change from time to time as the membership of the court changes . . . in fact, it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that the court may find, sometime in the future, that by this amendment, particularly the second section thereof, Congress was vested with power to take from the states the whole body of domestic relations law and perhaps part of their property law as well . . .” Proponents want to leave all of these policy decisions to the courts. I believe they should be left in the legislatures and in the Congress, and the way to leave them here is to defeat this amendment.” The absolutist nature of the ERA is such that Professor Paul Freund of the Harvard Law School testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Indeed, if the law must be as indiscriminating concerning sex as it is toward race, it would follow that laws outlawing wedlock between members of the same sex would be as invalid as laws forbidding the miscegenation. Whether the proponents of the amendment shrink from these implications’ is not clear.” Professor James White of Michigan Law School said; “Conceivably a court would find that the state had to authorize marriage and recognize marital legal rights between members of the same sex.” Senator Sam J. Ervine, Jr. added: “This matter illustrates as well as any of the radical departures from our present system that the ERA will bring about in our society.” A later study in the Yale Law Journal in January 1973 shows clearly that the Equal Rights Amendment will authorize homosexual marriages because of the ERA’s stringent requirements that “sex is to be an impermissible legal classification.” This issue of homosexuality has been glossed over by some supporters of the ERA on the grounds that these are technicalities which are not reasonably to be tolerated in our society. Nevertheless, at the time of the 16th Amendment concerning the legalization of the income tax, Joseph Hodges Choate went to the Senate committee and requested that they add a 10% limit to the amendment that was being proposed. The reaction of the Senators was, “Don’t insult our intelligence, we are only asking for a 1% tax, and the 10% limitation is absolutely unnecessary.” Within five years after the adoption of the income tax amendment, the rate had increased to 65%. Later the rate was to vary as high as 90% during World War II. The Senators who felt insulted by these requests, were misunderstanding the potentiality of their laws. They needed an eternal vision, they needed to imagine the sinking of the Titanic and the requests of women and children first. The issue of any Equal Rights Amendment certainly merits everyones earnest study. I have a daughter aged 32 months who will be of draftable age for the next war. It is difficult enough to imagine the strains on the family when the sons are in combat, but to include wives and daughters is unfathonable. What will the American law be, women and children first? Or every man for himself? This issue merits your independent and earnest study. I end this with a statement from Bernard M. Baruch, “Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in the facts.”
The past 24 hours have provided a great deal of clarity on several issues. CTH will be outlining the entire story behind the raid on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, including what documents the DOJ and FBI are determined to control. However, before getting into the specifics, it is important to remember the full context of the threat that only Donald J Trump represents.
When you understand what documents President Trump was/is holding, the desperation of the DC response will make sense.
First, we need to remind everyone where the documents originated. What was President Trump asking the Office of Director of National Intelligence, Dept of Justice and FBI to release for the past four years? What is contained within those documents?
This is Part 1 that explains the actions in the background of those documents. This is the activity outlined within the evidence contained in the documents.
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.
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.
Grab a cup of your favorite beverage and take a walk with me as we outline how this was put together. You might find many of the questions about our current state of political affairs beginning to make a lot more sense.
Remember, it is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding Fourth Branch of Government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.
History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military) to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all the modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell.
None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.
Instead, we pick up the expansive and weaponized intelligence system as it manifests after 9/11/01, and my goal is to highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life. We The People are under surveillance.
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.
I am going to explain how the Intelligence Branch works: (1) to control every other branch of government; (2) how it functions as an entirely independent branch of government with no oversight; (3) how and why it was created to be independent from oversight; (4) what is the current mission of the IC Branch, and most importantly (5) who operates it.
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.
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 is part of that functioning, almost like an NGO. 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 were all about.
What would powerful people in DC do to stop the American people from finding this out?
In Part II we will outline the evidence that President Trump declassified, asked to be released, waited patiently and then eventually held as an insurance policy against the threats and promises of people who held office during and after his administration, through today. Then hopefully people will grasp why the Deep State system is so desperate.
In Part One we explained who, what, when and why around the modern construct of the modern DC system {Go Deep}. Now we move into Part Two, the targeting of President Trump and the specific trail of documented evidence that exists behind the targeting.
It is critical to understand that foundationally our corrupt political system is built upon a network of surveillance. It is through monitoring information and people, together with intercepting risk, that operations can continue to maintain a corrupt administrative state; what some might call the Deep State.
Within the system information is key, and the actions taken by DOJ and FBI officials are an outcome of this information. As Edward Snowden explained, the surveillance state is critical to power retention. President Trump carried documents that outlined how this process took place as it pertained to his entry into politics, thus the raid to retrieve them.
There is a common misconception about why the FBI and intelligence apparatus began investigating the political campaign of Donald Trump.
During the timeframe of December 2015 through April 2016 the NSA database was being exploited by contractors within the intelligence community, specifically within the FBI, doing unauthorized searches.
On March 9, 2016, oversight personnel doing a review of FBI system access were alerted to thousands of unauthorized FBI search queries of specific U.S. persons within the NSA database.
NSA Director Mike Rogers was made aware.
Subsequently NSA Director Rogers initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify who was doing the searches; & what searches were being conducted.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 “about”(17) and “to/from”(16) search queries were being done without authorization.
Thus begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.
When you compile the timeline with the people involved; and the specific wording of the resulting NSA review, which was then delivered to the FISA court; and then you overlay the activity that was taking place in the 2016 political primary; what we discover is a process where the metadata collected by the NSA was being searched for political opposition research and surveillance.
Exposing this method of surveillance is where the Trump phrase, “they are not after me – they are after you, and I’m just in the way,” takes on a massive amount of clarity. Because, in the final analysis, what Trump experienced as a target of this system actually pertains to anyone, not just him.
Tens-of-thousands of unauthorized and unlawful searches were identified by the 2017 FISA court as likely extending much further than the compliance review period: “while the government reports it is unable to provide a reliable estimate of the non-compliant queries since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high error rate”.
In short, during the Obama administration access to the NSA database was continually used to conduct surveillance. This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of “Spygate”, as it unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.
It was the discovery of the database exploitation and the removal of access as a surveillance tool that seemed to create the initial problem for the FBI political unit in Washington, DC. Here’s how we can tell.
In December 2015 there were 17 GOP candidates, all needing opposition research.
However, when Donald Trump won New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina the field was significantly whittled. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson remained.
On Super Tuesday, March 2, 2016, Donald Trump won seven states (VT, AR, VA, GA, AL, TN, MA) it was then clear that Trump was the GOP frontrunner with momentum to become the presumptive nominee.
On March 5th, 2016, DonaldTrump won Kentucky and Louisiana; and on March 8th Trump won Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii.
The next day, March 9, 2016, is when NSA security alerts warned internal oversight personnel that something sketchy was going on. This timing is not coincidental.
As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer later wrote in her report, “many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.” Put another way: attributes belonging to a specific individual(s) were being targeted and queried, unlawfully. Given what was later discovered, it seems obvious the primary search targets, over multiple date ranges, were political candidates, specifically Donald Trump.
There were tens-of-thousands of unauthorized search queries; and as Judge Collyer stated in her report, there is no reason to believe the 85% non compliant rate was any different from the abuse of the NSA database going back to 2012, the same year the FBI collocated a workspace within Perkins Coie.
As you will see below the NSA database was how political surveillance was being conducted during Obama’s second term in office. However, when the system was flagged, and when NSA Director Mike Rogers shut down “FBI contractor” access to the system, the system users needed to develop another way to get access.
Mike Rogers shuts down contractor access on April 18, 2016.
Coincidentally, on April 19, 2016, Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s wife, Mary Jacoby visits the White House. Immediately thereafter, the DNC and Clinton campaign contract Fusion GPS… who then hire Christopher Steele. At the tail end of that enterprise Michael Sussmann (Perkins Coie lawyer) is delivering material to FBI legal counsel James Baker, and DOJ official Bruce Ohr is serving as a secondary conduit of information from Chris Steele to the FBI.
Knowing it was federal “contractors”, outside government with FBI access to the NSA system doing the unauthorized searches, the question becomes: who were the contractors?
The possibilities are quite vast. Essentially anyone the FBI or intelligence apparatus was using could have participated. Crowdstrike was a known FBI contractor; they were also contracted by the DNC. Shawn Henry was the former head of the FBI office in DC and later become part of Crowdstrike’s leadership team, a rather dubious contractor for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic company.
We know from the Michael Sussmann trial that electronic data was extracted by Neustar, a federal contractor. The head of the organization, Rodney Joffe, then used cyber tech resources from Georgia Tech to assemble the data and deliver a false report to the Clinton campaign of Trump-Russia connections.
FBI Director James Comey’s special friend Daniel Richman was also an unpaid FBI “special employee” with security access to the database. Nellie Ohr began working for Fusion-GPS on the Trump project in November 2015 and she was a previous open-source CIA contractor; and now that we know the FBI and Perkins Coie were in a collaborative relationship, we can also see the DNC law firm as FBI contractors with similar clearances and access.
On May 31st of this year, Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) made an explosive announcement as an outcome of a whistleblower providing information to him and Jim Jordan about the FBI having a collaborative relationship with the Clinton/DNC law firm Perkins Coie. {Go Deep} Specifically, the explosive element surrounds the FBI having a workspace within the DNC law firm that would have given Democrats an open portal into FBI databases for use in opposition research.
Additionally, remember the Sharyl Attkisson computer intrusions? It’s all part of this same network of contractors. Attkisson even named Shawn Henry as a defendant in her ongoing lawsuit. Shawn Henry was in charge of the FBI field office and former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was then head of the Virginia U.S. attorney office that was identified as part of the Attkisson targeting operation.
All of the aforementioned names, and so many more, held a political agenda in 2016.
It seems likely if the NSA flags were never triggered then the contracted FBI system users would have continued exploiting the NSA database for political opposition research; which would then be funneled to the Clinton team. However, once the unauthorized flags were triggered, the system users (including those inside the FBI and sister agency the CIA) would need to find another back-door to continue… Again, check the timing and actions become transparent.
Immediately after NSA flags were raised March 9, 2016, the same FBI and CIA intelligence agencies began using confidential human sources (CHS’s) to run into the Trump campaign. By activating intelligence assets like Joseph Mifsud and Stefan Halper the IC (CIA, FBI) and system users had now created an authorized way to continue the same political surveillance operations.
When Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort on March 28, 2016, it was a perfect scenario for those doing the surveillance. Manafort was a known entity to the FBI and was previously under investigation. Paul Manafort’s entry into the Trump orbit was perfect for Glenn Simpson to sell his prior research on Manafort as a Trump-Russia collusion script two weeks later.
The shift from “unauthorized exploitation of the NSA database” to legally authorized exploitation of the NSA database was now in place. This was how they continued the political surveillance. This is the confluence of events that originated “spygate”, or what officially blossomed into the FBI investigation known as “Crossfire Hurricane” on July 31.
If the NSA flags were never raised; and if Director Rogers had never initiated the compliance audit; and if the FBI political contractors were never blocked from access to the database; they would never have needed to create a legal back-door, a justification to retain the surveillance. The political operatives/contractors would have just continued the targeted metadata exploitation.
Once they created the FBI surveillance door, Fusion-GPS was then needed to get the FBI known commodity of Chris Steele activated as a pipeline. Into that pipeline all system users pushed opposition research. However, one mistake from the database extraction, likely during an “about” query, shows up as a New Yorker named Michael Cohen in Prague.
That misinterpreted data from a FISA-702 “about query” is then piped to Steele and turns up inside the dossier; it was the wrong Michael Cohen. It wasn’t Trump’s lawyer, it was an art dealer from New York City with the same name; the same “identifier”.
A DEEP DIVE – How Did It Work?
Start by reviewing the established record from the 99-page FISC opinion rendered by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer on April 26, 2017. Review the details within the FISC opinion.
I would strongly urge everyone to read the FISC report (full pdf below) because Judge Collyer outlines how the DOJ, which includes the FBI, had an “institutional lack of candor” in responses to the FISA court. In essence, the Obama administration was continually lying to the FISA court about their activity, and the rate of fourth amendment violations for illegal searches and seizures of U.S. persons’ private information for multiple years.
Unfortunately, due to intelligence terminology Judge Collyer’s brief and ruling is not an easy read for anyone unfamiliar with the FISA processes. That complexity also helps the media avoid discussing it; and as a result most Americans have no idea the scale and scope of the Obama-era surveillance issues. So we’ll try to break down the language.
For the sake of brevity and common understanding CTH will highlight the most pertinent segments showing just how systemic and troublesome the unlawful electronic surveillance was.
Early in 2016 NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was alerted of a significant uptick in FISA-702(17) “About” queries using the FBI/NSA database that holds all metadata records on every form of electronic communication.
The NSA compliance officer alerted Admiral Mike Rogers who then initiated a full compliance audit on/around March 9th, 2016, for the period of November 1st, 2015, through May 1st, 2016.
While the audit was ongoing, due to the severity of the results that were identified, Admiral Mike Rogers stopped anyone from using the 702(17) “about query” option, and went to the extraordinary step of blocking all FBI contractor access to the database on April 18, 2016 (keep these dates in mind).
Here are some significant segments:
The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were conducting searches and then removing, or ‘exporting’, the results. Later on, the FBI said all of the exported material was deleted.
Searching the highly classified NSA database is essentially a function of filling out search boxes to identify the user-initiated search parameter and get a return on the search result.
♦ FISA-702(16) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (“702”); and the “16” is a check box to initiate a search based on “To and From“. Example, if you put in a date and a phone number and check “option 16” as the search parameter the user will get the returns on everything “To and From” that identified phone number for the specific date. Calls, texts, contacts etc. Including results for the inbound and outbound contacts.
♦ FISA-702(17) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (702); and the “17” is a check box to initiate a search based on everything “About” the search qualifier. Example, if you put a date and a phone number and check “option 17” as the search parameter the user will get the returns of everything about that phone. Calls, texts, contacts, geolocation (or gps results), account information, user, service provider etc. As a result, 702(17) can actually be used to locate where the phone (and user) was located on a specific date or sequentially over a specific period of time which is simply a matter of changing the date parameters.
And that’s just from a phone number.
Search an ip address “about” and read all data into that server; put in an email address and gain everything about that account. Or use the electronic address of a GPS enabled vehicle (about) and you can withdraw more electronic data and monitor in real time. Search a credit card number and get everything about the account including what was purchased, where, when, etc. Search a bank account number, get everything about transactions and electronic records etc. Just about anything and everything can be electronically searched; everything has an electronic ‘identifier’.
The search parameter is only limited by the originating field filled out. Names, places, numbers, addresses, etc. By using the “About” parameter there may be thousands or millions of returns. Imagine if you put “@realdonaldtrump” into the search parameter? You could extract all following accounts who interacted on Twitter, or Facebook etc. The search result is only limited by the operators’ imagination and the scale of the electronic connectivity.
As you can see below, on March 9th, 2016, internal auditors noted the FBI was sharing “raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information”. Who were they sharing it with? Perkins Coie?
In plain English the raw search returns were being shared with unknown entities without any attempt to “minimize” or redact the results. The person(s) attached to the search results were named and obvious. There was no effort to hide their identity or protect their 4th amendment rights of privacy; and database access was from the FBI network:
But what’s the scale here? This is where the story really lies.
Read this next excerpt carefully.
The operators were searching “U.S Persons”. The review of November 1, 2015, to May 1, 2016, showed “eighty-five percent of those queries” were unlawful or “non compliant”.
85% !! “representing [redacted number]”.
We can tell from the space of the redaction the number of searches were between 10,000 and 99,999 [six digits]. If we take the middle number of 50,000 – a non compliant rate of 85 percent means 42,500 unlawful searches out of 50,000.
The [six digit] amount (more than 10,000, less than 99,999), and 85% error rate, was captured in a six-month period, November 2015 to April 2016. The timeframe of highest interest in the republican presidential primary.
Also notice this very important quote: “many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.” This tells us the system users were searching the same phone number, email address, electronic identifier, repeatedly over different dates. Put another way, specific person(s) were being tracked/monitored.
Additionally, notice the last quote: “while the government reports it is unable to provide a reliable estimate of” these non lawful searches “since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 coincided with an unusually high error rate”.
That means the 85% unlawful FISA-702(16)(17) database abuse has likely been happening since 2012.
2012 is an important date in this database abuse because a network of specific interests is assembled that also shows up in 2016/2017:
Who was 2012 FBI Director? Robert Mueller, who was selected by the FBI group to become special prosecutor in 2017.
Who was Mueller’ chief-of-staff? Aaron Zebley, who became one of the lead lawyers on the Mueller special counsel.
Who was 2012 CIA Director? John Brennan (remember the ouster of Gen Petraeus)
Who was ODNI? James Clapper.
Remember, the NSA is inside the Pentagon (Defense Dept) command structure. Who was Defense Secretary? Ash Carter
Who wanted NSA Director Mike Rogers fired in 2016? Brennan, Clapper and Carter.
And finally, who wrote and signed-off-on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and then lied about the use of the Steele Dossier? The same John Brennan, and James Clapper along with James Comey.
Tens of thousands of searches over four years (since 2012), and 85% of them are illegal. The results were extracted for?…. (I believe this is all political opposition use; and I’ll explain why momentarily.)
OK, that’s the stunning scale; but who was involved?
Private contractors with access to “raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to FBI’s requests“.
So, someone using the justification of FBI “requests”, was exploiting their access to the FBI portal; and they were searching for material “well beyond” the justification of “FBI requests” the used. Doesn’t this exactly sound like someone in Perkins Coie using their FBI portal access?
And as noted, the contractor access was finally halted on April 18th, 2016.
[Coincidentally (or likely not), the wife of Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby, goes to the White House the very next day on April 19th, 2016.]
None of this is conspiracy theory.
All of this is laid out inside this 99-page opinion from FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer who also noted that none of this FISA abuse was accidental in a footnote on page 87: “deliberate decisionmaking“:
This specific footnote, if declassified, could be a key. Note the phrase: “([redacted] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into [redacted])”, this sentence has the potential to expose an internal decision; withheld from congress and the FISA court by the Obama administration; that outlines a process for access and distribution of surveillance data.
Note: “no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016“, that is important.
Summary: The FISA court identified and quantified tens-of-thousands of search queries of the NSA/FBI database using the FISA-702(16)(17) system. The database was repeatedly used by persons with FBI contractor access who unlawfully searched and extracted the raw results without redacting the information and shared it with an unknown number of entities.
The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation; and we are not the only one to think that’s what this system is being used for.
Back in 2017 when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was working to reauthorize the FISA legislation, Nunes wrote a letter to ODNI Dan Coats about this specific issue:
SIDEBAR: To solve the issue, well, actually attempt to ensure it never happened again, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers eventually took away the “About” query option permanently in 2017. NSA Director Rogers said the abuse was so inherent there was no way to stop it except to remove the process completely. [SEE HERE] Additionally, the NSA database operates as a function of the Pentagon, so the Trump administration went one step further. On his last day as NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers -together with ODNI Dan Coats- put U.S. cyber-command, the database steward, fully into the U.S. military as a full combatant command. [SEE HERE] Unfortunately it didn’t work as shown by the 2018 FISC opinion rendered by FISC Judge James Boasberg [SEE HERE]
There is little doubt the NSA database system was used by Obama-era FBI officials and political allies, from 2012 through April 2016, as a way to spy on their political opposition.
Quite simply, there is no other intellectually honest explanation for the scale and volume of database abuse that was taking place; and keep in mind these searches were all ruled to be unlawful. Searches for repeated persons over a period time that were not authorized.
When we reconcile what was taking place and who was involved, then the actions of the exact same principle participants take on a jaw-dropping amount of clarity.
All of the action taken by CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, ODNI Clapper and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter make sense. Including their effort to get NSA Director Mike Rogers fired.
Everything that comes after March 9, 2016, had a dual purpose: (1) done to cover up the weaponization of the FISA database. [Explained Here] Spygate, Russia-Gate, the Steele Dossier, and even the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (drawn from the dossier and signed by the above) were needed to create a cover-story and protect themselves from discovery of this four-year weaponization, political surveillance and unlawful spying.
Even the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel makes sense. (1) Mueller was FBI Director when this began. And (2) they needed to keep the surveillance going.
The beginning decision to use FISA(702) as a domestic surveillance and political spy mechanism appears to have started in/around 2012. Perhaps sometime shortly before the 2012 presidential election and before John Brennan left the White House and moved to CIA. However, there was an earlier version of data assembly that preceded this effort.
Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term “Secret Research Project” originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S. Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the FISA abuse:
The IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The transaction occurred in October 2010 (link)
Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there’s a pre-existing financial crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the surface in early spring 2012.
The IRS scandal was never really about the IRS, it was always about the DOJ asking the IRS for the database of information. That is why it was transparently a conflict when the same DOJ was tasked with investigating the DOJ/IRS scandal. Additionally, Obama sent his chief-of-staff Jack Lew to become Treasury Secretary; effectively placing an ally to oversee/cover-up any issues. As Treasury Secretary Lew did just that.
Lesson Learned – It would appear the Obama administration learned a lesson from attempting to gather a large opposition research database operation inside a functioning organization large enough to have some good people that might blow the whistle.
The timeline reflects a few months after realizing the “Secret Research Project” was now worthless (June 2012), they focused more deliberately on a smaller network within the intelligence apparatus and began weaponizing the FBI/NSA database. If our hunch is correct, that is what will be visible in footnote #69:
How this all comes together.
Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 to research Donald Trump. As shown in the evidence provided by the FISC, politically motivated FBI contractors were already doing surveillance and spy operations. The Clinton campaign through people like Rodney Joffe (cutout) already knew everything about the Trump campaign. They were monitoring everything by exploiting their FBI relationship and the Perkins Coie location for portal access to the database.
However, after the NSA alerts in/around March 9th, 2016, and particularly after the April 18th shutdown of contractor access, the Clinton Team and DOJ/FBI needed Fusion GPS to create a legal albeit ex post facto justification for the pre-existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion GPS gave them that justification in the Steele Dossier.
That’s why the FBI small group, which later transitioned into the Mueller team, were so strongly committed to and defending the formation of the Steele Dossier and its dubious content. The Steele Dossier was used in lieu of the ‘Woods File‘, underpinning the justification for the Carter Page Title-1 surveillance warrant.
The Steele Dossier, an outcome of the Fusion contract, contains two purposes: (1) the cover-story and justification for the pre-existing FBI surveillance operation (protect Obama and Clinton); and (2) facilitate the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (assist Clinton and Perkins Coie).
An insurance policy would be needed.
The Steele Dossier becomes the investigative virus the FBI wanted inside the system. To get the virus into official status, they used the FISA application as the delivery method and injected it into a Title-1 search warrant against Carter Page. The FBI already knew Carter Page (he worked for the CIA); essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {Go Deep}.
The Obama FBI needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for already existing political surveillance and spy operations. Fusion-GPS gave them that justification and evidence for a FISA warrant with the Steele Dossier.
Ultimately that’s why the Steele Dossier was so important; without it, the FBI would not have the tool that Mueller needed to continue the investigation of President Trump. In essence by renewing the FISA application in 2017, despite them knowing the underlying dossier was junk, the FBI was keeping the surveillance gateway open for Team Mueller to exploit later on.
Additionally, without the Steele Dossier the DOJ and FBI are naked with their surveillance (FISA-702) abuse as outlined by John Ratcliffe.
In this video NSA Director Mike Rogers explains how he was notified of what was happening and what he did after the notification. WATCH:
Knowing that Perkins Coie and the FBI were working together on this targeting operation, makes everything else make sense.
However, the involvement of official government agencies like NSA Admiral Mike Rogers, creates a paper trail. Search query logs, notifications to Mike Rogers, notifications to the FISA Court, notifications to FBI officials of the suspension of contractor access, and subsequent FISA court opinions like the 99-pages from Rosemary Collyer, all of it creates an internal trail of government documents that tell the story.
It’s those documents that become a risk to the people who operate within the system. In this example of government documents, the trail outlines the targeting of Donald Trump and that was what he continued to ask the ODNI, DOJ and FBI to release.
Frustrated by the lack of action, in March 2022 Donald Trump filed a massive civil lawsuit against the Clinton campaign and everyone involved in this targeting operation. [SEE LAWSUIT HERE] “Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty,” the president states.
“Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust. They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump,” says one segment of the lawsuit.
All of the claims within the filing are substantiated by documents outlining the history of the events. I’m not sure any defendant is going to be successful getting themselves out of the target zone on the lawsuit. The suit alleges “racketeering” and a “conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood,” among other claims.
The basis for the evidence against the entire crew? That was likely part of the assembly of evidence, the declassified documents at the heart of the battle, that were targeted by the DOJ and FBI raid. That’s where we enter, Part III.
In Part One we outlined the origination of the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. In Part Two we outlined the specific targeting of Trump that was carried out through the tools that originate in the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. Here in part three, we outline how and why President Trump was blocked from releasing the evidence.
The motives of the DOJ and FBI are clear when you have a full comprehension of the background. However, it’s the threats and betrayals against President Trump that most people have a hard time understanding. Why he was blocked is clear, but how Trump was blocked is where you realize the scale of the threat that exists within this corrupt system.
In the spring and summer of 2018 everyone became aware of the DOJ and FBI collective effort to target President Trump under the false guise of a Trump-Russia collusion claim. It must have been extremely frustrating for a sitting president to know there was nothing to the claims yet be constantly bombarded by media and political people in Washington DC who held a vested interest in maintaining them.
By the time we get to September of 2018 the basic outlines of the Trump-Russia targeting operation were clear. However, the Robert Mueller investigation was at its apex, and anyone in/around Donald Trump was under investigation for ancillary issues that had nothing to do with Russia.
It was into this fray of constant false narratives that President Trump first made statements that he would declassify documents related to his targeting. It was after Trump made those statements when the real motives of putting Robert Mueller as a special counsel became clear.
With Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused from anything to do with the Trump-Russia investigation, it was Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who delivered the message to President Trump in September of 2018, shortly before the midterm election, that any action by him to release documents, now under the purview of the Mueller special counsel, would be considered an act of “obstruction” by the DOJ/FBI people charged with investigating him.
Immediately after meeting with Rod Rosenstein, Trump tweeted:
This was the first act of betrayal by political operatives within Main Justice who did not recognize or accept the concept of the ‘unilateral executive.’ According to Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director James Comey, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and even later (including recently) AG Bill Barr, the office of the president cannot exercise unilateral executive authority when he himself is the subject of their investigative power.
In essence the DOJ and FBI, along with white house counsel and a collaborating senate and media, kept President Trump from declassifying and releasing documents by threatening him with impeachment and/or prosecution if he defied their authority. The threats created a useful Sword of Damocles, and blocked Trump from acting to make documents public.
In the months that followed President Trump frequently made public statements and tweets about the frustration of documents not being declassified and released despite his instructions to do so. Many Trump supporters also began expressing frustration.
The external debate and consternation surrounded how the Administrative State has seemingly boxed-in President Trump through the use of the Mueller/Weissman counterintelligence probe, authorized by Rod Rosenstein, where President Trump was the target of the investigation.
A widely held supporter perspective was that President Trump could expose the fraudulent origination of the counterintelligence investigation; of which he is now a target; if he were to declassify a series of documents as requested by congress and allies of his administration. This approach would hopefully remove the sword of Damocles.
The core issue within the debate surrounded two contradictory reference points: (1) President Trump has ultimate declassification authority. Yes; however, in this example President Trump is also the target of the investigation; so, (2) declassification could be viewed by elements within the investigation as ‘obstruction’. Both of these points were true.
Also true was the reality that both laws and politics were in play.
In November 2018 President Trump gave an interview where he discussed the situation as it was visible to him. Democrats and republican opposition, writ large, were working earnestly to remove him from office.
Here’s a link to the General Principles of declassification [SEE HERE] Yes, the President can declassify anything; however, there is a process that must be followed. Executive order 13526 [Citation Here]
Following that declassification process the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, then Dan Coats, and the FBI Director, Christopher Wray, and the Attorney General, in this example Rod Rosenstein, needed to “sign-off” on the declassification.
The process reasoning is simple in the ordinary (non-corrupt) flow of events. The intelligence agencies might need to protect part of the information, such as “sources or methods” of intelligence contained within the classified material.
Under ordinary declassification procedures the President would likely not want to compromise the ‘sources’ and ‘methods’ and would defer to the intelligence experts.
President Trump is aware of material that he can use to defend himself from the ongoing ‘impeachment’ plans of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. However, President Trump is also seemingly aware of the issues within the process to gain access to the material and actually use it. This is where the concentric circle of lawyers around the Office of The Presidency come into play.
We have the constitution, we have laws, and we have politics.
Moving forward there are three background threads that are critical to understanding how this process has unfolded so far:
Unfortunately, if you have not already invested the time in those three aspects it is easy, very easy, to get lost.
Because none of the legal linguistics took into account the reality of the actual process for declassifying information, many people were stuck thinking President Trump held sole authority to classify and declassify intelligence without understanding the process.
Declassification of intelligence is a process, and each person -within the executive branch- inside the process must agree to the process. Making the process even more riddled with issues is the reality that President Trump was the target in a counterintelligence investigation. President Trump was being investigated by Mueller to see if he is under the direct or indirect influence of a foreign power. [In this example, Russia]
The Mueller probe is an originating counterintelligence investigation that ‘can find’ espionage (see Russian indictments) as well as violations of law (Papadopoulos, Manafort, Flynn). It is critical to remember, the originating probe is not a criminal probe; but Mueller and Weissmann can charge criminality if the investigators encounter interference of their counterintelligence probe; these are the process crimes (perjury, obstruction, lying to congress); or if the probe uncovers direct criminal activity (tax evasion, money laundering, FARA violations etc.).
Yes, technically President Trump can declassify anything. However, it is also true that technically POTUS doesn’t actually declassify anything. The Office of the President asks for a document to enter into a declassification review process.
Officials within that process (ODNI, DoD, DoS, FBI, DOJ-NSD, CIA, NSA, etc), based on their unique relationship to the interests within the document(s), can approve or refuse to sign-off based on their specific intelligence interests. This is where compartmented intelligence comes into play.
Any officer who refuses the request for declassification must justify to the intelligence hub; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, Dan Coats). The executive branch intelligence official tells the ODNI (Dan Coats) why they, their unique interests, cannot approve of the declassification request.
DNI Dan Coats then informs POTUS why the document is not cleared for declassification.
If he disagrees with the decision of the intelligence official, POTUS then would have to fire, replace and hope the next person in the chain-of-command would sign-off. Given the nuance in the example of President Trump declassifying information that would show he was targeted, and considering the President is under a counterintelligence cloud it was unlikely any officer would break ranks.
President Trump would have to fire people, and keep firing people, until he gets to a person, inside that specific agency, who would comply.
Now stop and be reasonable.
Think about the general political ramifications to that decision. And then think about the ramifications against the reality that President Trump is a target, under the cloud of a counterintelligence probe.
President Trump asks DNI Dan Coats (intelligence hub) to coordinate the declassification of [fill_in_blank]. If he agrees, in November of 2018 Dan Coats then asks all of the compartmented principles with interest in that specific document. That likely includes the DOJ (after the midterm it’s Matt Whitaker), FBI (Chris Wray), and likely DoS (Mike Pompeo – because of the State Dept aspect to Chris Steele). Also, possibly the NSA and/or Cyber Command.
If FBI Director Christopher Wray refuses to declassify the document(s) because it is part of the current Mueller counterintelligence probe, of which Trump was a target, then President Trump would have to fire Chris Wray; and, while awaiting a replacement (Senate confirmation seriously doubtful), the request then falls on FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich. [Who would also likely refuse]
As this hypothetical declassification example is unfolding you can imagine the political damage being carried out. In addition, there’s the looming impeachment process waiting to start. Hopefully, you can see how President Trump could easily be accused of interference or obstruction of justice. So, he had to wait for Mueller to finish.
Here comes the second betrayal and threat.
Mueller completed his investigation in April of 2019.
Within a few weeks, May 2019, the newly appointed and confirmed Attorney General Bill Barr tells
President Trump to remove himself from the declassification issue and give him the authority to declassify and release documents because Barr has an investigator (John Durham) to look into the corrupt activity behind the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
Ten days before he made the request, Bill Barr had enlisted John Durham to look into all of the issues surrounding the targeting of President Trump and the Clinton campaign involvement in the creation of the Trump-Russia collusion story.
At the time most people thought what Barr was doing was a good thing. As a result, President Trump agrees to support Bill Barr and on May 23, 2019, delegates the declassification and release to the Attorney General.
The President is trusting his cabinet officer, the highest law enforcement officer in the country, to do the right thing and expose the wrongdoing he has been the subject of for the past two years.
It was an easy sell, because the purpose of declassification was ultimately to facilitate a DOJ review of how the intelligence apparatus was used in the 2016 election.
However, because the DOJ review encompassed intelligence systems (DOJ, FBI, NSA) potentially weaponized in 2016 for political purposes and intents, a strange dynamic existed.
President Trump carries: (a) declassification authority; but also: (b) an inherent conflict.
In the DOJ endeavor using John Durham, candidate Trump would have been the target of corrupt agency activity; and therefore, Trump would be considered the target/victim if weaponization were affirmed by evidence collected by Durham.
To avoid the conflict President Trump designated the U.S. Attorney General as arbiter and decision-maker for the purposes of declassifying evidence within the investigation:
…”The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information.”
Additionally, AG Bill Barr did not need to assemble the intelligence product for approval by the executive (Trump). Instead, the office of the president is granting the AG full unilateral decision-making as to each product being considered for declassification.
At the time we noted, this was a huge amount of trust from the President to the Attorney General, and a big responsibility for William Barr:
[Sec 2] …”With respect to any matter classified under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 (Classified National Security Information), the Attorney General may, by applying the standard set forth in either section 3.1(a) or section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence that relates to the Attorney General’s review referred to in section 1 of this memorandum.”
The position-designate slightly works around custom insofar as the intelligence hub, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Dan Coats), is given conference – but the decision-making was designated to the Attorney General (Bill Barr).
Essentially the DNI will be following the instructions of the AG for this Memorandum. This is slightly unusual; but given the purpose, necessary and expected.
Following protocol, the 2019 Memorandum was specific to the agencies carrying the documentation to be reviewed by the Attorney General: The Secretary of State (Pompeo); the Secretary of Treasury (Mnuchin); the Secretary of Defense (Shanahan); the Secretary of Energy (Perry); the Secretary of Homeland Security (McAleenan); the Director of National Intelligence (Coats); the Director of the CIA (Haspel), and the Attorney General himself (Barr).
Within the memorandum President Trump did not allow AG Bill Barr to delegate authority. However, all agencies were required to respond to Barr’s authority.
The purpose of the Declassification Directive, as it was sold to President Trump, also appeared to permit the DOJ Inspector General to include classified material in the body of the (early 2019) pending report on FISA abuse; this memorandum was granting AG Bill Barr the autonomy to make that decision and declassify that content.
While the purpose of the authority was to empower AG Bill Barr to collect, process and declassify intelligence product that was part of the DOJ investigative review, President Trump did not preclude the public release of intelligence information in advance of the 2019 IG report on FISA abuse.
Much of the intelligence information may be collected external to the IG review parameters (FISA process) and may be released independently as part of stand-alone declassification that pertains to weaponized DOJ, FBI and CIA political activity. Ultimately the decision to release, and the timing therein, was then in the hands of U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
On May 23, 2019, with the Mueller investigation in the rear-view President Trump tweeted:
Unfortunately, as time continued throughout 2019, Attorney General Bill Barr took no action that would declassify any material of interest to the targeting of President Trump.
AG Bill Barr used the “ongoing criminal investigation,” led by the man he appointed, John Durham, as a justification for non-release of documents.
Frustration continues to mount as impeachment efforts against President Trump and the painful reality of the Bill Barr motive starts to settle in.
Bill Barr replaced the obstruction and interference threat carried by Mueller special counsel, with the obstruction and interference threat carried by the Durham special counsel. The ‘ongoing investigation‘ narrative created both swords of Damocles. One created by Rosenstein/Mueller the other created by Barr/Durham.
Then Bill Barr did something even worse. He made sure Donald Trump could never remove it.
The result?
The special counsel block of investigative material continued from May 13, 2019, all the way to today. The Durham special counsel is an active and ongoing investigation.
This is the dynamic behind the declassification of records.
This is the dynamic where the law is used, structurally weaponized by the institutions who are sworn to uphold it, to protect the interests of the DC Deep State.
This is the dynamic that exposes how the DOJ and FBI are structurally corrupt.
Even as he was departing office, President Trump wanted those documents released. Documents he declassified and outlined in this memo to the DOJ:
This is the heart of the battle over documents between the current DOJ/FBI and President Trump.
Again, the threats of a corrupt administration of justice are at the heart of the issue.
This four-year sequence of events, including all of the betrayals and threats made against Donald Trump, all intended to keep him from allowing the public to see the full nature of the corrupt Deep State operation that lies at the heart of our current political strife, is ultimately what led to an FBI raid on his home in Mar-a-Lago this week.
This is the scale of the issue.
In the final part four of this series, I will outline what specific documents are the most likely to have been retained by President Trump.
I hope the previous three outlines have provided a solid context for people to understand the scale of our national issue. The DOJ and FBI will do anything to stop the release of those documents that outline how the system worked to target candidate and President Trump.
If the broader American public understood what tools and surveillance systems were used; if the broad American public knew what the DOJ, FBI, intelligence apparatus and aligned Senate committees have done; if the broad American public became aware of the scale and scope of the corruption in DC as it now exists; entire institutions within that framework would start to collapse.
This is what they are trying to stop. That is the scale of their zero-sum approach.
In Part One we outlined the background of the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. In Part Two we outlined the specifics of how President Trump was targeted by political operatives using tools created by the DC system {Go Deep}. In Part Three we outlined how and why President Trump was blocked from releasing documents {Go Deep}. Here in Part 4, we begin to assemble the specifics of what documents likely existed in Mar-a-Lago.
It is important to remember, the presidential records act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute. An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.
The DOJ-NSD warrant, and the subsequent raid on Mar-a-Lago can only be related to records the U.S. government deems “classified” and material vital to national security interests. Hence, DOJ National Security Division involvement.
In prior outlines we have exhaustively covered the details of President Trump’s desire to publicly release information about DOJ and FBI conduct in their targeting of him during the fabricated Trump-Russia claims. However, to understand the nature of the documents he may hold, we first review the declassification memo provided by President Trump to the DOJ upon his departure from office.
In broad terms there are two sets of documents that intermingle and are directly related. First, documents that highlight the activity of Hillary Clinton’s team in creating the false Trump-Russia conspiracy theory (2015/2016). Second, documents that highlight the activity of government officials targeting Donald Trump within the same timeframe (Crossfire Hurricane), that continued into 2017, 2018 and 2019 (Robert Mueller).
Think of the two sets of documents as evidence against two teams working in synergy. Team one (Clinton) was outside government. Team two (DOJ/FBI) was inside government. The documents pertain to both groups but are also divided. That helps to explain the wording of the memo above.
The documentary evidence against the outside group (Clinton et al) would also involve government documented evidence as the DOJ/FBI inside group interacted with them. Notes from interviews, materials provided, FBI 302 summaries of interviews, etc.
We can extract a lot of information on the first sets of evidence from the lawsuit filed by President Trump in March of this year, mostly against the outside actors. [LINK HERE]
The lawsuit was filed against specific persons and most of those persons were interviewed by the FBI as part of the originating investigation. Within the subjects of the lawsuit we find names and groups including:
Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe.
In addition to being named in the lawsuit, many of those names were interviewed by the FBI as part of the origination of the Trump-Russia investigation, and/or part of the ongoing investigation of the Trump-Russia fabrication. Each of those interviews would carry an FD-302 report summarizing the content of the interview, the questions and answers given.
The totality of those 302 documents is a lot of evidence likely consisting of hundreds of pages.
For the government officials on the inside, in addition to 302’s (ex Bruce Ohr) there would be documents of communication between them.
Think about the full unredacted text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok as an example. The DOJ publicly released over 600 pages of those text messages, and that wasn’t all of them. The text messages were also redacted, under claims of privacy and national security. We can assume any version of these text messages declassified by President Trump would not be redacted. Hence, you go back to the January 20th memo and see the notes about “privacy.”
We also know there are many pages of communication between DOJ lawyer Lisa Page and her boss in the FBI Andrew McCabe. Almost none of them were ever made public; but they exist. This internal communication is likely the type of material contained in both the “binder,” left for the DOJ to release, and the boxes at Mar-a-Lago to be used as evidence against the named defendants in the lawsuit.
Bruce Ohr has 302’s and emails relating to his involvement as a conduit between Fusion GPS and the FBI. Some of those were released in redacted form, and some of them were never released. Additionally, Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, who worked at Fusion GPS invoked spousal privilege when called to testify before the House committee investigating the issues. However, it is almost certain the FBI interviewed her so there are likely 302’s on Nellie Ohr.
Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko and Rodney Joffe were also interviewed by the FBI. Those 302’s were never released. Presumably John Durham has stakeholder equity in that part of the Trump-Russia hoax, but the documentary evidence prior to January 20, 2021, that exists outside the special counsel could also be records at Mar-a-Lago.
Then we get to the big stuff…. The records and evidence in unredacted and declassified state, that would drive the DOJ-NSD to claim vital national security interests.
The NSA compliance officer notified NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers of unauthorized use of the NSA database by FBI contractors searching U.S. citizens during the 2015/2016 presidential primary. That 2016 notification is a classified record.
The response from Mike Rogers, and the subsequent documentary evidence of what names were being searched is again a classified record. The audit logs showing who was doing the searches (which contractors, which agencies and from what offices), as noted by Director Rogers, was preserved. That is another big-time classified record.
In addition, we would have Admiral Rogers writing a mandatory oversight notification to the FISA court detailing what happened. That’s a big and comprehensive classified record, likely contained in the documents in Mar-a-Lago… and then the goldmine, the fully unredacted 99-page FISA court opinion detailing the substance of the NSA compromise by FBI officials and contractors, including the names, frequency and dates of the illegal surveillance. That is a major classified document the Deepest Deep State would want to keep hidden.
These are the types of documents within what former ODNI John Ratcliffe called “thousands of pages that were declassified by President Trump,” and given to both John Durham and Main Justice with an expectation of public release when the Durham special counsel probe concluded.
In short, President Trump declassified documents that show how the institutions within the U.S. government targeted him. However, the institutions that illegally targeted President Trump are the same institutions who control the specific evidence of their unlawful targeting.
These examples of evidence held by President Donald Trump reveals the background of how the DC surveillance state exists. THAT was/is the national security threat behind the DOJ-NSD search warrant and affidavit.
The risk to the fabric of the U.S. government is why we see lawyers and pundits so confused as they try to figure out the disproportionate response from the DOJ and FBI, toward “simple records”, held by President Trump in Mar-a-Lago. Very few people can comprehend what has been done since January 2009, and the current state of corruption as it now exists amid all of the agencies and institutions of government.
Barack Obama spent 8 years building out and refining the political surveillance state. The operators of the institutions have spent the last six years hiding the construct.
President Donald Trump declassified the material then took evidence to Mar-a-Lago. The people currently in charge of managing the corrupt system, like Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Chris Wray and the Senate allies, are going bananas. From their DC perspective, Donald Trump is an existential threat.
Given the nature of their opposition, and the underlying motives for their conduct, there is almost nothing they will not do to protect themselves. However, if you peel away all the layers of lies, manipulations and corruption, what you find at the heart of their conduct is fear.
What do they fear most?…
…..THIS!
People forget, and that’s ok, but prior to the 2015 MAGA movement driven by President Donald J Trump, political rallies filled with tens-of-thousands of people were extremely rare; almost nonexistent. However, in the era of Donald J Trump the scale of the people paying attention has grown exponentially. Every speech, every event, every rally is now filled with thousands and thousands of people.
The frequency of it has made us numb to realizing just how extraordinary this is. But the people in Washington DC are well aware, and that makes President Trump even more dangerous. Combine that level of support with what they attempted in order to destroy him, and, well, now you start to put context on their effort.
The existence of Trump is a threat, but the existence of a Trump that could expose their corruption…. well, that makes him a level of threat that leads to a raid on his home in Mar-a-Lago.
In a world seemingly obsessed with war, where any American who dares question the wisdom of providing tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine is immediately condemned as an apologist for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Utah resident David Pyne has been spending much of his time over the past year publishing his innovative ideas on how the U.S. might act to prevent and resolve conflicts utilizing a Reaganesque policy of peace through strength, and the world is taking note.
David Pyne
Mr. Pyne reveals that his mentor, Dr. Peter Pry, who tragically passed away a couple weeks ago following a year long battle with cancer, served as one of his main sources of inspiration for trying to formulate a national security strategy designed to prevent the U.S. from stumbling into an unnecessary war with the Sino-Russian alliance, in order to buy us more time to rebuild America’s aging and increasingly inadequate strategic deterrent. He states that all of the nuclear superpowers would prefer to avoid fighting a Third World War if at all possible, but that both Russia and China believe that America will not abandon its provocative foreign policies and will continue to attempt to intervene militarily in their respective spheres of influence and have thus spent the past couple of decades preparing to defeat the U.S. using unconventional weapons likely within the first few weeks of any conflict..
The Russian government recently indicated its tacit support for Pyne’s 15-Point Peace Plan that would end the Russo-Ukrainian war. The plan provides a just and lasting peace that would resolve all existing conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, restore peaceful relations between Russia and NATO, and avert a potential World War Three that could quickly escalate to the nuclear level. Pyne states that President Trump was absolutely right in stating that Ukraine could have easily averted a Russian invasion. All it had to do was renounce its pursuit of NATO membership, declare permanent neutrality and implement the Minsk 2 agreement, which it agreed to back in 2015..
Mr. Pyne’s proposal is unique in that it is the first comprehensive peace plan which has been published in a Western journal, which attempts to address and permanently resolve, rather than postpone the resolution of, all existing areas of contention between Russia and Ukraine to ensure that Russia won’t have any reason to resume hostilities against Kyiv in the future. His proposal also addresses some of Russia’s most pressing security concerns while serving to enhance the security of NATO members by reducing the prospects of a future conflict with Russia.
David Pyne currently serves as Deputy Director of National Operations for the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security, as a Vice President for the Association of the United States Army’s Utah Chapter and as a West Valley City Police Honorary Colonel. He previously served as Director of the Utah EMP Task Force, National Security Policy Director for U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), as the founder of Sen. Lee’s Military Advisory Committee and as 2nd Vice President of the Salt Lake Total Force Chapter of the Military Officers Association of America. He also served as Chairman/Vice Chairman of the Utah State Legislative Compensation Commission from 2009-2017.
Russia state media outlet Sputnik News recently interviewed Mr. Pyne and linked their news article to his revised 15 point peace proposal which was modified in late June to be more favorable to Ukraine. The fact that Russia’s state media included a link to the proposal strongly suggests that the Kremlin views his peace proposal as an acceptable compromise for them as they would not have done so without express Russian government approval as to the overall terms of his proposal. If anything, Russia signaled support that the government is more open to a compromise peace deal with Ukraine now than at any time since the war began.
While many Western analysts continue to claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not interested in peace, the truth is that, according to former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder who remains friends with Putin, he remains very interested in negotiating a formal peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Rather, it is Ukrainian President Zelensky who continues to refuse to negotiate peace with Russia until Russia withdraws all of its troops from Ukrainian territory to its pre-war positions, something Russia will never do. In fact, Mr. Pyne asserts that Russia’s peace terms are relatively modest and have remained unchanged since early March. While Russia has remained open to peace talks, the Biden administration deliberately cut off all high-level diplomatic communications with the Russian Foreign Ministry when the war began. In so doing, it missed the chance to mediate an end to the war several months ago, which would have saved the lives of tens of thousands of Ukrainians.
Pyne states that until the Biden administration is willing to pressure Zelensky into resuming peace talks by suspending U.S. weapons shipments, the prospects for a negotiated end to the war will likely remain dim. According to a new CBS News report, only about 30 percent of the weapons the US and NATO have sent to Ukraine are actually reaching the front lines with many of the rest being resold to other countries, perhaps to enrich Ukraine’s notorious billionaire oligarchs.
While Russia and Ukraine were close to finalizing their own fifteen point peace plan in late March, the Russian military withdrawal from northern and northeastern Ukraine in early April caused the Biden administration to provide a blank cheque of U.S. military assistance to Kyiv in April leading Ukraine to pull out of peace negotiations. The specific terms of the agreement were never released to the public by either the Russian or Ukrainian side. Thus, for the first time since the war began nearly six months ago, Western leaders now have a concrete example of what a peace agreement acceptable to Russia would look like, after several months of stating they have no idea what Russia’s final objectives are in the Ukraine War or what Putin really wants.
Mr. Pyne’s plan is based, in part, on details released from Russia’s previous peace offers to Ukraine as well as the likelihood of it winning the Battle of the Donbass, and are the best terms we could realistically expect Russia might accept. He warns that, unfortunately, Ukraine may be running out of time to negotiate the return of most of its occupied territories as Putin is reportedly planning on holding popular referendums in all four Ukrainian regions they mostly or fully control as early as September 11th on whether they want to re-unite with Russia as the prelude to their full annexation.
The specific terms of his proposal include holding a popular referendum in the Donbass to vote on whether to become independent from Ukraine, a full Russian military withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory except for Luhansk and Donetsk Oblast in exchange for permanent Ukrainian neutrality as well as a mutual security agreement potentially withdrawing all western NATO and Russian troops from Eastern Europe. Sputnik News’ decision to report favorably on Mr. Pyne’s peace proposal clearly indicates that Moscow would still prefer a peace deal with Ukraine restoring its neutral buffer state status between Russia and NATO with only minimal territorial gains to annexing all of their occupied Ukrainian territory including 70% of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, giving it a land bridge to Crimea but having it remain allied with NATO. Such a negotiated compromise peace agreement could be mediated by France, Germany, Italy,
The war has resulted in the greatest refugee crisis since the end of World War II and its aftermath. It is estimated that nearly five million Ukrainians have left the country while an additional eight million have been displaced within Ukraine. These are staggering numbers which equate to nearly one-third of Ukraine’s citizens being forced to leave their homes. Furthermore, President Volodymyr Zelensky recently declared that Russian forces now control at least twenty percent of Ukraine’s territory.
While Western media outlets continue to mistakenly report that Ukraine is winning the war, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has indicated that Russia is continuing to make incremental progress towards achieving its military objectives. According to a recent Western intelligence report, even while the US is providing Ukraine with four to five times more military aid then they spend on their armed forces each year, Ukraine is losing the Battle of the Donbass and suffering “extreme losses” being “outgunned 20 to 1 in artillery” with Ukrainian troops running out of ammunition, increasingly demoralized and beginning to desert. It also states that Ukraine’s bargaining position has been weakened due to the fact that Russia has over ten times more prisoners of war than Ukraine has.
While conceding the risks of Russian nuclear escalation, President Biden recently clarified that the US does not seek a direct war with Russia, nor will it support the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin. After declaring last month that its objective was to weaken Russia and destroy its ability to wage offensive war by prolonging the conflict in Ukraine for many months if not years to come, the Biden Administration now says that the purpose of increased U.S. military assistance is merely to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to negotiate a more favorable peace agreement.
Mr. Pyne points out the irony that during World War Two, the U.S. government shipped its most high tech weapons to Soviet Russia to help them re-conquer Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe (and kill millions of Ukrainians in the process) and now the U.S. is shipping them to Ukraine to prevent Russia from re-conquering part of Ukraine. The one thing that seems not to have changed is that U.S. leaders can always be trusted to do the wrong thing and betray U.S. national security interests.
He notes that almost everything about the Ukraine war that is being reported in the Western media is potential Ukrainian security services disinformation including stories reported on Fox News many of which they don’t even bother to fact check. War is all about propaganda. The Roosevelt administration was especially masterful at persuading our citizens to believe government propaganda disseminated during WW2 including pro-Soviet Communist propaganda suggesting that Josef Stalin, then the most murderous dictator in world history, was a champion of democracy who only wanted to liberate central and Eastern Europe from Nazi rule to restore their freedom and independence..
Ukraine and Russia are two of the most corrupt and dictatorial countries in the world. Then again, it’s hard to believe Ukraine is any more corrupt than the Biden regime which is without a doubt the most corrupt government in the Western Hemisphere with one of the least free and fair election systems. Even the Russian state news media has proven more truthful than the Ukrainian gov’t war propaganda that has dominated liberal cable news networks over the past six months.
And, not only is Russia not weak, as many Western pundits continue to mistakenly assert, but it has never been stronger relative to the US over the past 22 years since Putin took power than it is today, particularly its superiority over us in terms of strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons as well as Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapons.
While the Biden administration continues to claim that Russian President Vladmir Putin is pursuing maximalist objectives in Ukraine, Mr. Pyne asserts that his objectives are much more limited than most realize. Rather, he states, it is the U.S. NATO and Ukraine that is pushing maximalist objectives to compel Russia to collapse, surrender, or even overthrow Putin himself so they can try Russian leaders as “war criminals” holding the Russian leader to a very different standard than U.S. political and military leaders during World War Two who were never tried for killing 540 times more civilians than Russia has killed in this war. Indeed, 25,000 civilians were killed in one day during the Allied bombing of Dresden in 1945.
What happened in Dresden in 2/1945 was apocalyptic.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission has confirmed that 5,256 civilians have been killed in Ukraine after six months of fighting. Mr. Pyne asserts that the U.S. and U.K. killed that many on average in 2.5 days during WW2 yet Biden claims Putin is guilty of genocide. He says that these low numbers objectively prove Russia isn’t systematically targeting civilians. Putin is, without question, a bad guy and a murderous dictator but he is no more of a war criminal than President George W Bush who killed many times more civilians fighting his illegal, unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq which he started in 2003.
He concludes by saying that the good news is that Putin is no modern-day Hitler or Stalin but warns that if we keep provoking him and Chinese President Xi to attack the U.S. then they may end up teaming up to mass murder tens of millions of our citizens in a nuclear or EMP first strike on our homeland.
In addition to his peace proposal to end the war in Ukraine, David Pyne has recently proposed a comprehensive national security strategic framework which could be utilized by U.S. leaders to counter Communist China’s grand plan to become the world’s global hegemon. That link can be found here: A New U.S. National Security Strategy to Counter the Rise of Communist China
All of his articles may be found on his blog, “The Real War” and at The National Interest where he serves as a frequent contributor.
Here is a little more about David Pyne:.
Mr. Pyne served as a United States Army officer and worked as an International Programs Manager on the Department of the Army Headquarters staff responsible for the countries of the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Americas and Africa from 2000-2003.
In addition, he has worked as a Lead Acquisition Analyst and Consultant for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, as an International Analyst for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and for the Department of the Navy.
David holds a Masters of Arts in National Security Studies from Georgetown University’s prestigious School of Foreign Service and a Juris Doctorate from Southwestern University School of Law.
He has been interviewed on television and talk radio shows and has been quoted in a number of newspapers, magazine articles and books. He has had his op-eds published in The National Interest, RealClearHistory, Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, the Provo Daily Herald, WorldNetDaily.com and Military.com.
He also served as a contributor to Dr. Peter Pry’s groundbreaking new book, “Blackout Warfare” as well as to his upcoming book “Will America Be Protected?”In addition, he serves as the host of the Defend America Radio Show on KTALK AM 1640 and as Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.
It’s back to school! You bought all the school supplies and new clothes, but what about insulating your children against school indoctrination? Sadly, indoctrination resistance is now part of going back to school so you must stay vigilant and teach your children personal boundaries.
Lesson plans about “social identity,” which may be called social and emotional learning, critical race theory, cultural competency, or other names, obliterate the personal boundaries of children in order to break down kids emotionally and build them back up as social justice activists. The process involves forging emotional bonds to influence children to become political proteges of the teachers and peers that emotionally manipulated them.
Adopting leftists’ mindsets and behaviors becomes an act of loyalty to a collective identity that is prioritized over individual human value.
Classes may commence with “get to know you” questions and exercises about kids’ gender, culture, and identity so that kids can “share their stories” to “feel safer” and “build trust” on the very shaky premise that culture, gender, and identities inform learning styles. But children should not have to talk about their gender or “share their stories” just to learn algebra.
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
Can you imagine having to talk about your sex life at work to establish workplace collegiality? Divulging personal information should not be a prerequisite to learning history. School is for academic instruction, not group therapy.
But that’s exactly what social and emotional learning facilitates—a navel-gazing, emotional environment that pretends to enhance learning when really it distracts from it.
Some approaches to social and emotional learning seem to focus on helping children manage their emotions and make important decisions, but children primarily look to their parents for these important life skills, rather than government employees.
Social and emotional learning and critical race theory programs claim to make children “feel safe,” but often these pedagogies make children feel vulnerable and disoriented so that the child will cling to whatever the teacher prescribes to extinguish the social anxiety created by social and emotional learning in the first place. The result is inappropriate emotional bonds forged in place of healthy professional relationships and academic pursuits.
To combat this, teach your child that his personal information is private and he is not allowed to share it in formal instruction at school. If asked about his identity, instruct your child to give one response, “I feel unsafe talking about that.” Also, any survey with invasive questions given without parental consent is a violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment and you should file a complaint here.
Opt your child out of surveys and submit public records requests for all surveys and critical race theory/social and emotional learning materials. Here is an example request.
Talk to your child about his identity before government employees do. View the social and emotional learning program at school to understand the anti-parent rhetoric you must counter at home.
These programs are not compatible with religions that believe the most important identity comes from God and is greater than any immutable characteristic. Talk to teachers about your religion to preempt problems in the classroom.
If you feel that your school is attempting to indoctrinate your child about his social identity, you are not alone. And you have options.
You can invoke opt-out laws if they exist in your state, report your concern to the school board, or contact a public-interest legal group for free legal advice.
Remember that public school is the government, which cannot compel speech, invade privacy, violate your religion, or discriminate. Legal action is the only effective way to stop school indoctrination.
You can also unenroll your child from the offending school. Many parents have already made the difficult choice to disenroll from woke public schools and either homeschool, pay for private school, or use an education freedom program to cover education expenses. The takeover of many public schools by left-wing interests demonstrates more than ever the importance of school choice.
If you don’t insulate your child against woke indoctrination, public school will insulate them against your values instead.
The US education system is under attack by perverts, sexual predators and dark, corrupting forces that seek to destroy the adolescent mind, biological reality, innocence of childhood, and the family unit.
K-12 teachers are currently being turned into puppets for the predatory LGBTQIA+ agenda. In Austin, Texas, teachers are being compelled to take LGBTQIA+ training so they can brainwash their students with perverse sexual propaganda. This disgusting process is taking place on the taxpayer’s dime and is targeted toward children as young as five.
Training documents brainwash students to depart from their “sex assigned at birth”
The Washington Free Beacon published a series of training documents called “Be a Beacon.” These documents are being used to train teachers on how to talk about gender with their students. Teachers are trained to define gender identity as “one’s authentic identity” and the “innermost concept of self as male, female neither or both.” Students are taught that they can identify as any gender they like and take on a sexual orientation of their choice.
Teachers are trained to confuse young children who are questioning their sexuality and gender identity, so they can freely reject the biological reality of who they are, who they are designed to be. The training teaches students to depart from the “sex assigned to them at birth.” “For transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity may not be the same,” the presentation deceives.
One of the slides in the training presentation, states: “A 14-year-old youth, who recently asked to be called Ronnie not Veronica, discloses to you a desire to go by ‘they’ pronouns.” The presentation gives several examples on how to make students come against their parents and engage is deviant sexual behaviors. “Ronnie wants to cut their hair short but isn’t sure how their parents will react, making them feel anxious. Ronnie is also stressed because while they have been dating Julie and ‘came out as a lesbian’ in 7th grade, they have started to have feelings for Ted, who identifies as male, and this is confusing for them.”…
Radical gender theory has made sudden inroads in America’s schools. Many parents have watched in confusion as their children repeat the movement’s slogans and adopt synthetic sexual identities such as “non-binary,” “pansexual,” and “genderqueer.” The next question for many families is: Where does this surge in left-wing sexual ideology come from? One answer: from a network of professional activists, who have smuggled university-style gender theory into more than 4,000 schools under the cover of “gender and sexuality” clubs, or GSAs.
The main national organization behind this campaign, the GSA Network, is a professionally staffed nonprofit with a multimillion-dollar annual budget. GSA Network serves as an umbrella organization for more than 4,000 “gender and sexuality alliances” across 40 states. Once called the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, the group rebranded in 2016, reflecting a new focus on “the limits of a binary gender system.” The individual chapters, which operate in elementary, middle, and high schools, often use the language of “LGBTQ inclusion” and “anti-bullying” in their public relations, but behind the scenes, the central organization is driven by pure left-wing radicalism that extends far beyond sexuality.
