Trey Gowdy appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the latest known information from the background of the John Durham probes into DOJ, FBI and CIA corrupt intent and activity in the “spygate”, Trump surveillance, saga.

Within the interview Gowdy notes he does not expect to see any legal consequences as an outcome of the John Durham investigation beyond the current pleading by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.  While Gowdy can be an insufferable voice at times, on this issue and given the nature of the current political calendar, he would appear to be correct.

Gowdy asks the question about where everything started.  In the earlier interview with Peter Strzok (CBS), the FBI justification (current narrative) was pointed back to George Papadopoulos and his thin gruel conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

.

At this point the corrupt DC elements appear to have successfully ran out the clock for 2020; and that is very frustrating from the position of two-tiers of justice.

However, that said there is a possibility more focus on the special counsel operation could lead to some rather eye-opening information. The public needs to know how corrupt the special counsel investigation was; what their exact intents and purposes were; and there is ample evidence mounting.

(more…)

It should be remembered that CBS interfered in the 2012 election by purposefully hiding an interview with President Obama where the former president denied terrorists were involved in the attack in Benghazi, a statement he denied in the 2012 debates.  As a result the politics of CBS are very clear in the narratives they choose to advance.

That said, in a heavily edited interview with former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, CBS once again attempts to shape a defensive narrative to cloud the truth of the DOJ and FBI intents within the 2016 election.  You’ll note this interview is actually very light on broadcasting the actual interview statements by Peter Strzok because: (a) Strzok has legal risk from any statement; and (b) the intent of this interview is shaping a defensive narrative.  WATCH:

.

This interview is frustrating on many levels.  First, because it shows how the absence of accountability by current DOJ officials has led to Strzok’s brazen ability to lie publicly.  Strzok has no fear in his appearance and is shamefully blame-casting and pushing a justification that is completely devoid from truth.

Secondly, this interview is a direct result of AG Barr failing to aggressively hold these former FBI officials accountable for intentional wrongdoing and purposeful corruption. There is no excuse.

(more…)

Restoration PAC founder Doug Truax interviews former Acting DNI Richard “Ric” Grenell about his RNC speech and details surrounding the intelligence community perspective on “Spygate” surveillance.

In this segment Ric Grenell explains the current challenges and issues that confront current DNI John Ratcliffe and gives a more in depth background about the people and processes.

(more…)

Author Jack Cashill shares a great perspective on the current political dynamics as contrast against a history of DOJ, FBI and CIA operations.  In the fist eight minutes of the interview Cashill outlines the challenge to AG Bill Barr considering that 96 percent of the DC population supported Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Cashill surmises that any actual evidence against the officials who were involved in operations against Donald Trump will likely have to wait until after the election due to the overall DC sentiment to diminish any outcome as politically motivated.   Additionally, the entire functional apparatus of the DOJ is “entirely loaded with operatives” who protect the administrative state.  [Cashill Website Here]

(more…)

From the heart….  recent events have highlighted the great conflict within this election year.  On one hand we can exhaust ourselves revealing every granular detail from years of institutional corruption – and to what end?  On the other hand we can focus intently on transmitting the winning uplifting message to re-elect President Trump.

We cannot, effectively, do both; here’s why.

First, we must accept the DOJ and FBI blind spot and tone-deafness toward the fourth amendment.  No single proposition has so brutally outlined the intent of the Bill Barr DOJ than an institutional agreement to carve the fourth amendment into two parts; with two different standards for a FISA application.  One standard for DC elites, the second standard for everyone else.  There is no excusing this.  The institution is an echo-chamber.

Second, I have no doubt the recent article by Sara Carter outlining how the Wood’s File for the Carter Page application was “lost” two years ago and reconstructed by the special counsel for Michael Horowitz FISA report.  Everything about Carter’s source information, including the exact timeline, aligns with my own research and discussion with quiet insiders about the purpose of the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel.  Considering what they did with the Brian Dugan file in 2018 why wouldn’t they do the same thing with the Woods File for the Page application?… Both actions have the same corrupt purpose.

There is no evidence to suggest the United States Attorney General has any intent to  expose severe corrupt activity; the special counsel is a great example.  However, there is ample evidence DOJ leadership intent is to preserve the institution(s).  Nothing can be forced upon them from the outside to change that dynamic; so we have decisions to make.

(more…)

When you know the process, you know the methods and purposes.  Remember: CIA messaging is transmitted through the Washington Post; FBI messaging is transmitted through the New York Times; and State Dept. messaging is transmitted through CNN. This flow is the one constant in the narrative engineering process.

Ten days ago former CIA Director John Brennan was interviewed by the investigative unit led by John Durham.

Two days ago Brennan told the “small group” of politicians and corrupt Obama officials what his official line to those Durham investigators was.

Brennan tells his allies this through an Op-Ed published in the Washington Post.

The motive, intent and purpose is the same as Dianne Feinstein’s leak of the Glenn Simpson testimony… get all messaging on the same page.

Here’s the Brennan narrative to assist the “by the book” justification:

[Washington Post – John Brennan] – […] President Barack Obama already knew the Russians were hacking into the networks of U.S. presidential campaigns, but on the afternoon of July 28, 2016, I informed him in a hurriedly scheduled meeting that Russian President Vladimir Putin had authorized his intelligence services to carry out activities to hurt Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and boost the election prospects of Donald Trump.

(more…)

Last night the FBI interview notes (known as a “302 report”) with Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud were released. The story of Mr. Mifsud and his discussions with former Trump campaign aid George Papadopoulos was said to be the originating seed for the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign contacts with Russia known as “Crossfire Hurricane”.

A narrative, pushed through a series of FBI leaks in 2017 outlining Mifsud as a Russian entity, was at the center of how the media justified the FBI targeting the Trump campaign for colluding with Russia. Later the special counsel used FBI conversations with Papadopoulos to claim he was less than honest about his contacts with Mifsud.

However, the actual FBI interview notes with Mifsud on February 10, 2017, show a remarkably different story.

(more…)

The minute order filed by Judge Emmet Sullivan outlines a protracted time-frame for the next sequence of events in the case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn:

As noted in the order, Sullivan is now telling the DOJ and Flynn defense to file a joint status report outlining their “recommendation for further proceedings” by September 21, 2020.  From there a briefing schedule which will require both parties to respond to Sullivan’s personal amicus (Gleeson), and additionally respond jointly to any other amicus not ordered by the court.   Lastly, Sullivan is requesting three dates for oral arguments.

In essence, despite his ability to quickly convene the parties to settle all matters before the court; which includes the unopposed motion by the DOJ and defense to drop the case; Sullivan intends to drag this case out as long as possible and use the amicus as a tool forcing responses from both parties (DOJ and Flynn).  So much for the “quick dispatch” outlined within the DC Circuit opinion, this case is going on for several more months.

Expressing the righteous indignation that many political observers feel today, Fox host Lou Dobbs interviews Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell.

As Ms. Powell rightly notes: “We’ll keep it going until they get it right”… and indeed she will. We should all be as fortunate to have such defense in our corner when targeted by the full weight of the administrative state. :::spit:::

(more…)

I have a standing rule never to write about current events in a state of anger; forgive me for violating my own standard… this is infuriating (albeit not unexpected).  The two-tiered judicial process to target a ‘transparently innocent’ man continues.  [Links Below]

As anticipated, on the last day prior to DC Circuit Judge Griffith departure, the DC en banc panel has rejected the Flynn writ of mandamus and now sends the case back to Judge Emmet Sullivan for final disposition.  One way of looking at this is the DC circuit attempting to save face for Judge Sullivan by granting him the ability to do the right thing.

Another way of looking at this is a judicial stall tactic allowing the case to drag on even further until after the election.  [60-page ruling pdf here – also available here]

As expected the majority of the panel hung their argument on the fact that Judge Sullivan had not yet ruled prior to the request for the writ of mandamus; and as an outcome Sullivan should be allowed to reach final disposition.  As noted: “we expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch“…

The unopposed motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn is now back in the court of presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan.

(more…)