Dan Bongino Has a Theory Devin Nunes Memo Contains References To Obama PDBs and FISA Documents…

Former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino appeared on Tucker Carlson TV show tonight to discuss the release of Chairman Devin Nunes intelligence memo.

During the segment Mr. Bongino highlighted his theory that Chairman Nunes memo not only holds references to the DOJ and FBI use of fraudulent FISA702 application evidence, but that the memo also contains compartmented intelligence exclusive to former President Obama’s Presidential Daily Briefings (PDB’s).  WATCH:


If true, this exclusive Bongino revelation could be explosive.  Let’s explore.

What exactly is “The Nunes Memo”? From all indications it is an outline written by senior intelligence committee staff, with major input from Devin Nunes describing evidence, people and events who conspired back in 2016 and 2017. In essence it is a summary of facts, that Chairman Nunes knows to exist.

No-one actually knows what the underlying supportive material is, because no-one, other than Chairman Devin Nunes, has seen the full material in the context of his reference.

People are *assuming* the memo is heavily written around FISA-702 issues and documents (FISA application, Steele Dossier, wiretaps, surveillance, intercepts etc.), but no-one actually knows what is behind the memo, other than Devin Nunes.  There could be much more than just FISA evidence.

Now, as we go forward with this we’ll be lost unless we have a full understanding of the March 2017 outline about “The Nunes Paradox” – SEE HERERemember, the issue on March 22nd, 2017 was:

[…] Our research indicates that Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of the President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.

The intelligence product would be delivered to that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI. It would be removed from that SCIF system after his review. No systems are connected.

Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”. So the product itself was likely a product for the President, that was not part of the ongoing FBI counter-intel product.

Again, this is why it seems likely it was part of a PDB – unless it was a separate product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intel on something Trump.]


Couldn’t Adam Schiff (another gang of eight member) go look at the same intelligence as Nunes did?

Yes. However, purely from the standpoint of politics: why would he?

If Representative Schiff saw the same intelligence that substantiates Nunes he couldn’t keep up the fake outrage and false narrative. Right now Schiff can say anything about it he wants because he hasn’t seen it. If Schiff actually sees the intelligence Nunes saw he loses that ability. He would also lose the ability to criticize, ridicule and/or marginalize Devin Nunes. (read moreCritical to understand)

Back in March and April 2017, it was more valuable, politically, at least initially, for ranking member Adam Schiff never to go look at the same information compiled within the Eisenhower SCIF for Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to see.  Schiff did, eventually, go to see the information, but he waited a week to do so.

Absent of knowledge of the underlying evidence, Adam Schiff could say anything he wanted about Nunes and work to isolate him. Simultaneously, because the information was highly classified, Nunes could never explain it or defend himself. Thus Nunes was stuck in the compartmented intelligence box; that’s The Nunes Paradox.

Sneaky Schiff used a week of Nunes being in this boxed-in position, knowing Nunes could not defend himself, to demand Nunes step aside from the House Intelligence “Russia investigation”.  It worked.

However, all the way through to today no-one except Devin Nunes has any idea the totality of what Nunes actually witnessed in March 2017, and what he was later able to connect to that evidence after the FISA Court release (late April 2017) [Nunes could see unredacted FISC opinion], and also overlay evidence provided to the House Intelligence Committee.

However, we have an idea of the earlier evidence Nunes saw from his March 22nd, 2017,  statements and we can also overlay the FISA court information .

It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017. It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide information, Chairman Devin Nunes begins reporting his concerns.  It was also Dan Coats who declassified the FISA court opinion on April 28th, 2017.

After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was: “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.  Later it was reported the incoming White House National Security Council may have assisted Nunes with information at the Eisenhower SCIF. 


1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”

2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”

3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”

4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.

“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”

•“Who was aware of it?”

•“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”

•“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”

•“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”

•“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”

“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”

Again, this is why the intelligence reports seem likely to have been political opposition research -that was part of Obama’s PDB– unless it was a separate intelligence product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intelligence against political adversaries, ie candidate Donald Trump.]

Additionally, there is further evidence that surfaced a week after Nunes expressed his March 22nd, 2017 concerns. April 4th, 2017 Susan Rice appears:

With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared April 4th, 2017, on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell. This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘, to the push-back that was an outcome of Evelyn Farkas earlier statements on the same network.

Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer. Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.

You already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:

However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.

Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:

[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part. According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “top strategic communications aide”, Ben Rhodes, and “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.

In the interview, Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”, “NSA” ‘ODNI’ etc….

So under Obama’s watch the list of recipients was massive and included Asst. Secretaries of national security departments like the DOJ-National Security Division (John P Carlin) and FBI Counterintelligence Division (Bill Priestap). Massive numbers of administration officials including the DOJ and FBI had access to the PDB.

See where this is going?

Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material. That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities, including the DOJ and FBI units investigating candidate Donald Trump.

This is the widespread distribution of intelligence information that former Asst. Deputy of Defense, Evelyn Farkas was discussing. Now, we go back to Farkas’s March 2nd, 2017 MSNBC statement for additional context:

“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill. … That’s why you had the leaking”.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]

That right there is the story. With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes, as outlined by Evelyn Farkas who was ultimately one of the recipients of the unmasked intelligence.

Additionally, that same material went directly to the people in the DOJ-NSD and FBI Counterintelligence who were conducting the “Trump Operation”.

The DOJ and FBI officials could comply with FISA-702 “minimization rules” (hiding of U.S. person’s names etc.) knowing full well that the unmasking could be done by the recipient of the FISA-702 source material, which would then be relayed back to the DOJ and FBI officials; the “small group”.

If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice was then hugging the security of the Presidency. To take Rice down amid all of this unmasking, means to take down President Obama – back in March 2017 this was a safe play on her part.

Reverse the safety. No-one in ideological media or allies in congress were going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice and by extension President Obama. They had no choice.

Back to the interview and note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”:

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking. She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence. She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.

Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes. The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value. The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.

The interview goes much further. There is a lot of news in this interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.

Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Rice states the PDB intel community, those assembling the information, to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers), and she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review (like a dude in mom’s basement):


Summary: In addition to the FISA702 material, and the material given by the current DOJ and FBI to Devin Nunes, there are strong indications the PDB material is part of the underlying information which backstops the Nunes Memo.

Devin Nunes, Admiral Mike Rogers and ODNI Dan Coats likely know exactly what Nunes has seen and where all of the underlying evidence is located. No-one else does, including Adam Schiff, despite having read the Nunes memo.

The important part of the House Memo release will be within the *footnotes* and *citations*, and the need to declassify that material will be the next phase in the sunlight.

Now we can see how Nunes brilliantly reversed the Paradox?

With help from a few friends:

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, CIA, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, Jeff Sessions, media bias, Notorious Liars, NSA, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

389 Responses to Dan Bongino Has a Theory Devin Nunes Memo Contains References To Obama PDBs and FISA Documents…

  1. Jason says:

    I think it may be worth your while to go back and look at how Nunes was completely put into a corner when he was investigating this while Obama was still in office, remember that? They knew even then but tried to silence him but ultimately ran out of time as Obama’s term ended.

    May be a good idea to revisit that to tie all this together.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Steve says:

      “Devin” in French is someone with the power to see the future – a seer, soothsayer. Good name for this brave patriot. Thank God there are a few good and Godly men and women left to defend this great nation.

      Liked by 12 people

    • Theo West says:

      I was thinking about that too while reading this. And it guarantees Nunes is out for blood. Looks like he’s winning. Vindication is sweet!

      Liked by 1 person

    • EWEatherwax says:

      Maybe I’ve missed something, but what does Sundance (or anyone) expect to be in the Nunes memo? He (Nunes) said it didn’t have anything to do with the Russia investigation, yet everyone is talking about the 702 quires and intelligence laundering, which would be related to the Russia investigation, no? So if it’s not that (or at least not only that), and this info was in the PDBs what else could there be?

      Spying on all Republican candidates? Otherwise trying to fix the election?


  2. Bill says:

    Mr. Bongino, “Old Yeller 2.0”, gets some of the information out to a wider audience. Cool. Appreciated.

    But, for me anyway, the issue is not about attribution. The issue is Bongino’s childish response to Sundance pointing out the tactical error Bongino was making a few days ago. I watched it unfold in real time on my Twitter Machine. In Bongino’s words I clearly saw Mr. Levin. Once someone shows me his/her inner Levin, I wash my hands.

    Sad because I had begun a daily habit of listening to Bongino’s podcast. Oh well.

    Mr. Bongino gets some of the information out to a wider audience. Cool. Appreciated. Yay.

    But no more Old Yeller 2.0 for me thank you.


    Liked by 10 people

    • Theo West says:

      Yeah, nothing like a childish tantrum in public to turn off one’s fans. But I think it’s big of Sundance to continue using his work when it’s merited. That’s what grownups do.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. zimbalistjunior says:

    has someone i.e. SD, done an analysis of the prevalence of family ties in the IC? For example, the multi-generational Strzoks and Obama (Dunhams).
    And all the husband/wife power couples at FBI, DOJ etc.
    What gives?

    Liked by 8 people

    • Theo West says:

      And between politicians and media, too. Lots of “intermarrying,” and I think it is for political purpose. Spouses can’t testify against each other in court, you know. Talk about gaming the system.

      Liked by 5 people

      • sat0422 says:

        I’m thinking Weiner and Huma….married by Bill Clinton at an estate property owned by the Soros family. Ya think???

        Liked by 3 people

      • Tegan says:

        I’m not sure I buy the “marrying for political purposes” but rather people meeting in law school with same ideology, etc. Or, even as singles going to DC and being in like-minded after hours bars, etc. I DO see a blatant Pay-for-play in Obama’s Administration with the media/WH Staff…it seems every major network had family members working in the West Wing.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. DanO64 says:

    Finally I see the picture again. Who is the woman setting next to Obama on the couch? Anyone!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Eilert says:

    The Obama PDB, which is referenced in the Memo, was seen in the SCIFF, by 7 Congressional members + 3 Senators + 2 former Obama senior officials + 4 outside contractors, all had no TOP SECURITY CLEARANCE, which is MANDATORY FOR ADMISSION.

    Jan 30 2018 06:36:24
    Narrative shift.
    Nation on alert.
    Firing RR = block Mueller.
    Firing RR = set up to firing Mueller.
    Firing RR = Red line.
    What was the Senate conf vote re: RR?
    Why did RR [BEG] Ryan to block the FISA MEMO from Congressional review/further advancement?
    REAL TIME: [7] Congressional members + [3] Senators + [2] former O-senior officials + [4] OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS [NO C/TOP/SENS-LEVEL CLEARANCE] @ SCIF [DC-CAP].

    Liked by 6 people

  6. thinkwell says:

    Natasha: Boris, how we are going to help comrade Hillary steal government from Trump, moose and squirrel?

    Boris: Easy, we are goingk into fake news business.

    Natasha: On purpose?

    Boris: Da, da, iz beeg trouble for Trump, moose and squirrel.

    Natasha: Boris, iz real FBI at front door.

    Boris: #%*&@$## !!

    There once was a flunky named Farkas,
    whose leaks she thought would mark-us.
    The beans she did spill,
    to her friends on the Hill.
    Now “the Russians” cannot save her carcass.

    There once was a hack named Susan,
    Who was sad when her queen wasn’t chosen.
    “That mean Trump is to blame!”
    So she unmasked his name,
    And for that her freedom she’ be losin’.

    There once was a most despicable dame
    who felt so entitled in the political game
    that she ran and she lost
    at great personal cost.
    Now everyone but her is to blame.

    The woman who married Bill Clinton,
    ran for pres, but she din’t win.
    She called us deplorable. . .
    we thought she was horrible.
    Why Trump won she din’t have a hint in.

    There once was a hag named Hillary,
    Who drank like she owned a distillery.
    She drained the whole jug,
    . . . then lied like a rug.
    Thus she should be locked up in a pillory.

    Hillary wakes up one day and realizes that Trump is still president. She can’t stand it, so she walks into a bar, then she walks smack into another bar, looks around and realizes that is because she is in prison.

    Liked by 13 people

    • colddeadhandsyoudirtyape says:

      Enjoyable prose…more please!


      • thinkwell says:

        These are somewhat raunchy, so avoid if easily offended.

        There once was a woman named Broaddrick,
        who was assaulted by Billy-boy’s rawdick.
        He bit her lip hard,
        then faked his regard,
        “Put some ice on that lip, it’s grown thick.”
        – – –
        There once said a Clinton named Chelsea,
        “My father a rapist? Mmmm, we’ll see.”
        But she didn’t go far. . .
        When she found the cigar,
        That you can sniff for a small fee.
        – – –
        Huma and Bill went up to the Hill (ary)
        to scratch an itch in their knickers.
        She said with a shrug,
        I’d rather munch rug . . .
        and Huma proceeded to lick hers.
        – – –
        Even though they normally spend little time together (especially after Bill threw Hill’s latest failed book in the trash), Hillary ran into Bill at Walmart’s big holiday clothing sale — they both had heard that the little girls’ underwear was half off.
        – – –
        At their last meeting Bill and Bathhouse Barry were both standing around awkwardly, each contemplating his own shoelaces when the subject of Mrs. Clinton’s fainting spells and failing health came up. . .

        Barry Soetoro /aka obama: “Uh, er, ah — how is Hillary’s head?”

        President rapist: “Well, she’s no Monica.” [slaps knee]
        – – –
        BJ Clintoon was righteously impeached for lying under oath, but he should have been convicted for his attempt at bribery — don’t forget, when the investigators unfurled the blue dress they found a huge wad of Bill’s.
        – – –
        Some say Hillary lost 20 percent of our uranium.
        But I say Hilary lost 20 percent of her cranium (vodka for breakfast every day will do that).

        Liked by 1 person

        • colddeadhandsyoudirtyape says:

          Oh my! I even blushed a bit…but not as much as overhearing a gaggle of women talking, they get Brutal!

          Good Stuff! LOL


  7. frank field says:

    Bongino should publicly and repeatedly cite Sundance as his main source of airtight, solid knowledge and evidence. This is only fitting and proper as it would display some humility on his part while driving traffic to this site and showing proper respect to Sundance.


    Liked by 5 people

  8. KBR says:

    So, Susan Rice, who was “the man in mom’s basement” to whom you so blithely refer?

    Was his name something like Barry Sotero?

    Look up who Susan’s own mom WAS, what she did.

    Scroll down and see photo 2006 at Brookings institute: Rice, her mom, and BO


    This link might not produce the photo, but I will try. But you can go to the link ^ read it and see for yourself.

    Susan is apparently enjoying her “man in mom’s basement” comment. BO would too.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Tonawanda says:

    I also saw the Sundance/Bongino Twitter dialogue in real time and no question Bongino was childish and illogical.

    Instead of acknowledging and addressing a point Sundance made, Bongino created a silly straw man and used that to block Sundance. Bongino also blocked me when I explained to him how illogical he was being.

    Bongino is an untrustworthy self-promoter with a mediocre mind and poor character.

    But I now see Bongino being spammed on Twitter and the internet, so like Ben Shapiro (another weasel) there is a publicity campaign intended to win over “conservatives” who have glimpsed the unvarnished truth and might draw the correct conclusions.


  10. Then Bongino doesn’t correct Kilmeade on F&F this morning. He let Kilmeade go on about how the memo is based on the dossier. Looked like F&F and Bongino got the 4 am talking points for today. Maybe I’m just confused.


    • steph_gray says:

      No one who has not seen the memo knows exactly what’s in it. I don’t believe “leaks” can be trusted. “Leaks” is far too often just another word for “lies.”


  11. Clyde says:

    Sundance is motivated by Jesus.
    Jesus is the truth.
    Sundance seeks the truth.
    Jesus is the truth, the life and the way.
    No credit is necessary his/hers treasures are in Heaven.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Michael says:

    Never forget this!
    ” “given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.””

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Zippy says:

    Hey, sundance, create and post what you think happened in bullet format. Summarize and post!


    • Zippy says:

      An example of my confusion:

      “During the segment Mr. Bongino highlighted his theory that Chairman Nunes memo not only holds references to the DOJ and FBI use of fraudulent FISA702 application evidence, but that the memo also contains compartmented intelligence exclusive to former President Obama’s Presidential Daily Briefings (PDB’s).”

      I thought you’d already pointed this out as being part of the scandal. That’s exactly what I was thinking when I heard Bongino say that last night.

      Here’s my very short and basic take on part of the dots you’ve connected so far:

      1. FBI did not present the full provenance of the dossier in order to make sure surveillance was FISA approved.
      2. Names from the FISA approved surveillance were then improperly unmasked.
      3. Those unmasked names and intel were in the PDBs which were passed along to all kinds of people they shouldn’t have been.


      • Tonawanda says:

        I will connect the dots for you.

        Bongino was presenting the work of Sundance as if Bongino thought it up himself.

        Bongino irrationally attacked and insulted Sundance a week or so ago before blocking Sundance on Twitter.

        Bongino is a leech and a parasite who is working hard to brand himself based on stolen ideas. He does not have the class or integrity to give credit to another.

        Bongino seems to have paid for a publicity campaign on Twitter and the internet to build up his brand, appealing to “conservatives.”

        But like a lot of other parasites who are doing the same thing, he is working for himself only (or possibly worse; his character is bad enough to think this may be so), not for America, something to keep in mind when watching his self-promotional appearances.

        Liked by 1 person

        • cozette says:

          Why do so many, during these perilous times, tear down allies, however imperfect, rather than concentrating on our very real enemies who want us ALL dead? Conservatives seem to get distracted by purity pissing contests that allow the Left to win. Sad. He who is not against us is for us. United we stand, divided we fall. The splinter strategy is used intentionally by those who want us to fall. God bless.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Tonawanda says:

            An ally does not steal from and create false attacks on his “friends” the way Bongino did (and does).

            I NEVER had a good feeling about Bongino, even while agreeing with him. He always struck me as a self-promoting scammer.

            There was no point in saying so until I saw him reveal his character to me.

            You can trust who you want, but I will never trust an untrustworthy person just because he is saying things I like to hear.


          • Tegan says:

            Agree…do you not think that POTUS and his cabinet members deal with this daily? We Conservatives are so quick to stab each other over truly petty things…and this is why the liberals win so much. Please stop with the “mine is bigger than yours” contests and focus on the goals.


  14. Zippy says:

    BTW, I hope this focus on FISA abuse doesn’t divert everyone’s attention away from investigating obstruction of justice with the Clinton email whitewash.


    • mutantbeast says:

      its all related. My personal gut tellsme the real big fish is Uranium One. Muleface is likely directly involved with that and the counter intel divsion of the FBI was run by his old pals like Preistep and Strzok, Im also speculating that one of the reasons the FBI cretins were so anti-Trump is Hilldebeech was promisimg Federal judgeships to all of them if she won.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Fred Graf says:

    As a reservist I was in Naval Intelligence from 1989 to 2000. At that time we were still living under the old intelligence oversight rules developed by the Church Commission in the late 1970s. The rules were taken seriously, and they were pretty restrictive. There really was a “Wall” between domestic law enforcement and military intelligence, and info passed from one side to the other was tightly controlled. CIA and military intelligence didn’t maintain information on “U.S. persons” – if some was inadvertently collected, it was transferred to a law enforcement intelligence group (in my case it was usually Coast Guard) ASAP, and all references to any “U.S. person” were dropped from our files. It was worth my job if an audit revealed that I was keeping such a file. I knew that the Patriot Act relaxed things somewhat, but I was incredulous when Evelyn Farkus (a DOD official) admitted to scattering this info, with U.S. persons unmasked, to DOD intelligence agencies. With such widespread distribution of supposedly compartmented information, the odds of somebody leaking it to the press is multiplied several times over, with identification of the leaker very difficult. And Farkus admits she’s doing it to “protect” this information from the next administration – that’s domestic politics, not national security. This is a rank abuse of intelligence powers, whether it’s technically legal or not.

    I was in favor of the Patriot Act’s relaxation of the intelligence oversight rules when it was originally passed – it certainly improved inter-agency communications for anti-terrorism efforts – but if this abuse is the result, we need to go back to the old Church Commission rules.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. chojun says:

    Does anyone have a link to the Dan Coats declassified FISA court opinion from April 28th, 2017?

    I’ve been searching and searching for it but have come up empty.

    Thanks a bunch!


  17. NickW. says:

    Go back to the Evelyn Farkas interview; last half of the last paragraph.

    “I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

    Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

    What that suggests to me is that Obama and his administration had arranged for the information conduits to remain open after he had left office, and they were afraid they were going to lose that access; access which they needed to overthrow Trump.


  18. wooddux says:

    Is it possible that this is only one part of Rogers’ story? The Obama admin went to great lengths to attempt to ensnare Trump, specifically to prove Hatch Act violations with Russia. Example: the Obama Administration closes Russian annexes in America and the Trump team gets a call from the Russians which is collected under the open FISA warrant. This communication was used by Muller to attempt to prove collusion.

    On the day before Rogers visits Trump tower, he reportedly single-handedly stopped an international incident with Russia. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) launched IRON99, the BOEING E-6 doomsday plane without warning early on the morning of the 16th. Under the START treaty with Russia, anytime the IRON99 flies the Russian Ministry of Defense must be notified. Earlier in the day ONI launched the plane without this crucial notification.



    What if this was bait?

    What if Clapper was told by Obama to launch this plane without notification hoping Trump would receive a call from Russia and place himself in the middle of a Russian nuclear controversy? It was reported that Rogers single-handedly shut down this operation and landed at Trump’s door the next day. Two days later, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, be removed.


    Liked by 1 person

  19. Rob Byrde says:

    after Shiff read it…Obama lawyered up that to me says it all


  20. William Dorritt says:

    The Govt was overthrown a long time ago; when the first bullet hit JFK.

    TRUMP’s election was the first not controlled candidate to win the Presidency who can still remember when we had representative Govt..

    The Globalists, both parties, have systematically disabled the checks and balances in the Constitution and Bill of Rights over the past 60 years, Hilary was to be the erasure of the remnants of the Republic.

    Everyone knows that Barry was never the President; likely born in Kenya, and naturalized as an Indonesian Citizen, he was never eligible to hold the Office.

    Every Judge, Military Officer, Civil Servant etc appointed or promoted by Obama should and must be removed or demoted. Every law and order signed by Obama is null and void. Every Case decided by the vote of an Obama Appointed or promoted Judge must be vacated and retried by a valid Judge and the Fake Judges Removed from their offices, they were never Judges.

    The Federal Bureaucracy especially the FBI and DOJ and other law related Departments must be purged of their Chain of Command and replaced with retired Military Officers.

    The Legal Systems are so compromise and corrupted at this point that the only way to restore the Republic may be via Nuremberg Courts for the Conspirators, Infiltrators and Traitors with severe punishments.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s