Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons 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 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.

What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their ideological opposition became the target of the new national security system.  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.  DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed.  When Barack Obama and 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.

(more…)

Before getting into bigger picture analysis and intellectual discussion about FISA and the 702 reauthorizations, let me just reveal some inside DC crap that drives me nuts and at the same time will help y’all understand the nonsense.

First, the Intelligence Community (IC) tells congress, particularly the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, that all hell will break loose if they don’t reauthorize full electronic surveillance of Americans.  Congress is petrified of the IC.

Speaker Johnson and all of the key participants are totally siloed from understanding that 702 has nothing to do with incidental collection of American data whilst the honorable IC were doing foreign intercepts.   Johnson and most Republicans believe the IC nonsense. They really do.

The politicians and their key staff cannot fathom how the FBI, DOJ, NSD, DHS and contractors use this database to conduct political and “other” (think corporate espionage for sale) surveillance.  They really do think the IC is full of honorable rank-and-file.  They are inside a DC bubble.

Second, the IC argument is now something akin to we have let thousands of terrorists into the country through the southern border crisis.  They say:  “My god, we need to monitor the terrorists, and if you take away 702 the foreign terror cells will activate and start killing us all.  Do you want that blood on your hands?”   You cannot take away surveillance tools.

Third, FISA 702 reauthorization is used as a bargaining chip by people who don’t want to get caught up in the surveillance.

(more…)

For some reason Tucker Carlson interviewed Chris Cuomo.  The majority of the lengthy interview is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.  Chris Cuomo is either intellectually incapable of understanding the Russia dynamic and how the U.S Intelligence Community (USIC) conducts propaganda efforts against American citizens, or Chris Cuomo is a paid actor within the system he describes as “the game.”  From my perspective the former is more likely than the latter.

That said, please pay attention to the prompted segment about Russia, as outlined by Tucker Carlson, that begins at 34:18 and runs through 37:55.  If you stay with it until 46:00 it’s worth it; however, the important part is the key four minutes outlined above.  Carlson frames the “western” or U.S-led sanction regime against Russia very accurately, and the consequences he describes for the rest of the world is accurate.   WATCH FIRST:  

.

After watching this specific segment, I am left with a few takeaways.

First, Tucker is the only person -beside myself- who I have seen accurately outline the cause and consequence of the Russia sanction regime.  Why hasn’t Tucker expanded on this in granular detail?   The issue is much, much larger, than just simple sanctions.  There is a global agenda afoot, an intentional global cleaving, which was predicated by that specific sanction regime.

READ THIS from 2022 !!!

Second, he knows.  You can tell by the way Tucker frames the “I don’t know what’s really going on” aspect, that he really does know…. but he’s scared.  Tucker is scared of the consequences if he outlines in detail how the USIC and by extension the entire USA governmental system, is using Russia as a tool toward a larger corporate/globalist agenda.

It is annoying, albeit somewhat understandable in the larger picture, to see important voices who have reach – recoil and self-censor because they are fearful of the personal consequences.   Things are about to get very ugly. The Western dollar-based financial system is being weaponized against liberty. The American people are about to discover the scale and scope of consequence behind this intent, and the American people deserve to know the details of how and why this global cleaving is being pushed.

(more…)

The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE] highlighting just how political the J6 committee was.  The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.

WASHINGTON– Today, Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)

[SOURCE]

The last bullet point has a name.  The “Select Committee staff” who met with Fani Willis was likely Mary McCord.

(more…)

The next six weeks will be very interesting, as the April 19th clock-ticking dynamic leading up to the expiration of the 702-surveillance authority looms louder.  Some voices have said to me that President Trump needs to be careful of the Title-1 surveillance that surrounds him. I completely reject that approach.

There was a specific reason the Lawfare group charged Donald Trump with “national security” violations. Smart people can well understand the benefit to the surveillance state of the U.S. intelligence community, when Jack Smith defines President Trump as a national security threat under the same justification framework used against Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki. The options for the FBI-CoIntel unit assigned to monitor Trump are expanded by the definitions of the DOJ-National Security Division.

Ultimately, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the best defense against the FBI counterintelligence surveillance is to conduct affairs in a very public way.  This approach, which I fully advocate and endorse, leaves the institutional watchers with gritted teeth as transparency makes it more difficult to create narratives that are contingent upon defining the innocuous as nefarious.

Additionally, if concern over the content of any meeting (think the insufferable Logan Act construct as previously created by Mary McCord) is generated, those approaches -when contrast against the ongoing Lawfare tactics- are made moot and useless to the NSD – and by extension the judicial branch, when President Donald Trump includes his legal counsel in any meeting.  [Hi Mary]

Hungarian Prime Minister Orban is well advised by his counsel as is President Donald Trump. As an outcome of their nationalist ideology, both leaders are targets of the U.S. intelligence community (CIA) and national security state (DoS and USAID).

WASHINGTON DC – Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán traveled to Florida on Friday to visit Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, in a meeting blasted by U.S. President Joe Biden.

(more…)

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and accepted the case of President Trump arguing presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office.  At the heart of the issue the court will determine if the charges brought by Jack Smith need to be dropped, or if the case against President Trump can continue forward.

If the Supreme Court begins defining what types of immunity exist for Presidents in office, they are beginning to open the door to multiple Lawfare efforts against the chief executive by agencies of the administrative state.  This could be extremely troublesome for the future abilities of the presidency far beyond Donald Trump.

[SOURCE]

WASHINGTON DC – In a one-page order Wednesday, the court set an expedited schedule to hear the immunity issue, with oral arguments to be set during the week of April 22. In the meantime, proceedings in the trial court will remain frozen.

(more…)

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has admitted the lawfare deployed against the Trump organization and President Donald Trump himself was a specific plan for his targeting and any other business interests or people within New York should not be concerned.

It’s a rather brazen admission all things considered; however, if it changes the public outlook as the various New York lawfare cases against President Trump continue, is yet to be determined.

(Via The Hill) – New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a new interview and told them there was “nothing to worry about” after former President Trump was hit with a $355 million fine and a ban on conducting business in New York for three years.

Hochul joined John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM, where she was asked if other New York businesspeople should be worried that if “they can do that to the former president, they can do that to anybody.”

(more…)

Three judges from the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals have denied the immunity request from President Trump.

In a rather stark decision reached by the panel [SEE Ruling Here] “We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed,” the court wrote in its ruling Tuesday.   “We conclude that the interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation.”

WASHINGTON  – The judges put their decision on hold only until Monday to allow Trump to ask the Supreme Court to take up the immunity fight on an emergency basis. If he does so, the decision won’t take effect until the high court acts on his request, the appeals panel decreed.  (read more)

The court essentially stayed its own ruling, pending a punt to the Supreme Court.

(more…)

If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.

Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {link} Why?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

(more…)

In honor of our national gaslighting embarrassment, the third anniversary of the FBI’s fedsurrection, the FBI laughed in the faces of the general population under their control.  The DC-based FBI sent out this message:

Yes, the national kidnappers have removed their masks. Y’all know what that metaphor means.

Once again, for those who just walked in…. Following the scale of manipulation within the 2020 election, those who did the manipulation, which included support from the FBI and DOJ, justified to keep their institutional agencies from being exposed, needed to do something to stop any state delegate challenge.  One successful state election challenge would have upended the entire system.  They needed an emergency session for the January 6th electoral certification.

The pipe bombs found in DC on January 6th, were essentially the insurance policy.  The FBI was supporting the need for a stoppage of the 2020 electoral certification session in congress.  If the FBI could not manipulate the crowd into entering the Capitol Building, the “discovery” of the pipe bombs would have been used to shut down the certification session.  Speaker Pelosi would then gain emergency power, switch to an emergency session upon return, and any effort to challenge the delegate affirmation would be nulled.  The latter described action by Pelosi is exactly what happened.

(more…)