My opinion on our current FBI Director is the same as it was the day his nomination was announced.  The best, the most competent, the smartest, the most insightful and stable thinking people do not originate on a track from inside government work.  The most effective way to get the best outcome is to approach and enlist the smart ones from outside government to come and assist.  Patel was always an insider.

The FBI is an institution built upon corruption and fraud.  Unfortunately, neither President Trump, nor the American people, will ever get the vindication and accountability he/we deserve until Kash Patel is no longer the one in charge of delivering it. It’s just that painfully simple.  Trying to reform a corrupt system while maintaining the structures that enabled the corruption leads to endless discussions and ‘trust me bro’ delays.

In this interview FBI Director Kash Patel sits down with Sean Hannity to discuss current and prior events within the FBI.  Patel’s primary objective is the performance; the presentation of what he thinks will endear him to President Trump the most. This is not effectiveness; the outcome is the illusion of leadership.  The video is prompted. WATCH:

.

Kash Patel is to the FBI as Pam Bondi was to the DOJ.

(more…)

Anyone who has ever dealt with a toxic narcissist understands the psychology behind their manipulative language, words and intents.  What Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is doing here is very dangerous, particularly for the Canadian people.

After a year of increased provocative language intended to confront President Trump for U.S. nationalist policy changes on economics, trade and security, Prime Minister Carney travelled to Europe where he again delivered strong remarks saying that Europe is now the center of the “rules based international order,” the western government control mechanisms that have maintained economic and security relationships for the past one-hundred years.

Essentially, Carney, after saying the USA was no longer a reliable or obedient partner, emphasized the opposition to state nationalism must come from a collective decision to retain the old geopolitical structures.  President Trump must be opposed, and Europe -according to Carney- represents the assembly that will not permit state government nationalism (sovereignty) to replace their long-constructed globalist systems.

Today, Prime Minister Carney faced questions about those remarks. I don’t want to influence the audience, but with the context in mind, watch and listen closely to his response. [Prompted]

[NOTE: The question comes from the Toronto Star, the only ‘conservative’ media outlet permitted under the rules of the Canadian regime to ask questions.  All other outlets who might challenge the government viewpoints are strictly controlled and not permitted audience.]

Notice how Carney divides the world of opposition to President Trump, indicating the 5-Eyes nations of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand are in opposition to Trump and in alignment with the old control mechanisms.  Adding to this grouping, Carney pulls in the entire European continent and boldly proclaims his position as lead diplomat and representative for their effort against the USA.

This is a very dangerous game that Prime Minister Carney is choosing to play here.  This is the behavior of a person who is toxically narcissistic and prepared to claim victim status as soon as his target hits back.  Carney has carefully and purposefully deceived his domestic audience, and things are about to get very ugly.

(more…)

I apologize for the deep weed details, but this stuff will soon become critical.  If James Comey is indicted for leaking the “Comey memos” suddenly the door opens wide to see how the Robert Mueller appointment was a coordinated ongoing ‘conspiracy’ effort to target Donald Trump.

Back in June 2017 CNN (and other media) filed a FOIA suit to gain the Comey memos.  As the lawsuit progressed through a lengthy battle -where the Mueller team did not want to turn over those memos- Mueller’s lead FBI agent, David Archey, made sworn declarations to the court. Those statements became known as the “Archey Declarations”.  Inside those declarations agent Archey provided a specific outline of the FBI and the memos.

There are two sets of documents that outline a very specific picture.  Robert Mueller’s lead FBI Agent David Archey made sworn declarations to the court. However, at the time of his sworn statement, Archey did not have knowledge of an inside FBI “whistleblower” who provided information to DOJ Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.

There is a distinct conflict within the IG Horowitz report on James Comey (and memos) [Available Here] and the David Archey declarations [Available Here].  However, beyond the conflict there’s an even more alarming picture of how Robert Mueller was deployed, when all the information is overlaid in a timeline.   A very clear picture emerges; very clear.

Note the date: Agent Archey states the “investigative team” came into full possession of the Comey memos: “on or by May 12th, 2017,”…

[Page #3 of Exhibit A – Archey Declarations]

The “investigative team” would be Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and then James Baker as lead counsel for the group.  The “Director’s staff” would be James Rybicki, who is identified by Archey as having “maintained” possession of the memos.

This “small group”, particularly Comey’s Chief of Staff, James Rybicki, is the center of the team.  This team is also confirmed by the IG Horowitz report. This team had the memos on May 12th, 2017.

Now we move into the aspect where the motives and ideology become clear as we look at the IG custodial record of the memos, as outlined by the Supervisory Special Agent in charge of Comey’s documents within the IG report, compared to the Archey declarations.
(more…)

In the first case against James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress, there was no dismissal; instead, the judge rejected US Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s involvement. After that, the statute of limitations ran out.  However, if the report below is accurate, this would represent the third currently active investigation against former FBI Director James Comey, and Lindsey Halligan might get the last laugh.

The first investigative notice to Comey was in mid-March from the Sunshine State.  Essentially the ‘conspiracy case’ being reviewed by Jason A. Reding Quiñones, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida {SOURCE}.  The second investigative case was in North Carolina, where a grand jury released an indictment for threats against President Trump {SOURCE}.  Now, Bloomberg is reporting on a third investigation against Comey for leaking classified documents to his friend and special government employee, Daniel Richman.

BLOOMBERG – […] The investigation is tied to his dissemination of documents to Columbia University Law Professor Daniel Richman, the individuals added. If successful, it would be the Trump DOJ’s third time indicting Comey since last fall.

[…] It hasn’t been decided if the department will present an indictment to a grand jury in Eastern Virginia, where Comey resides, or if the case could be pursued in a different location—such as in Richman’s home of New York. (read more)

It doesn’t really matter whether New York or the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), either location would be the third state where the disgraced former FBI Director Comey would have to defend himself. Again, I remind everyone of ‘pressure points’ in Lawfare.

If the EDVA/NY case proceeds it is based around James Comey leaking his memos to his friend Daniel Richman.

(more…)

Today, in a very important 6-3 decision at the Supreme Court [Full pdf Ruling Here] the high court ruled in Louisiana -vs Callais that congressional districts drawn by considering race are an unconstitutional gerrymander.  Race should not be a consideration in the drawing of district boundaries.

Chief Justice John Roberts had previously described Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.  “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the three leftist, activist justices. “The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan wrote, referencing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

(Via Politico) – […] Alito said a revised interpretation of Section 2 was needed in part because of the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that the Constitution does not prohibit gerrymandering for partisan purposes. As a result, he suggested, plaintiffs in voting discrimination lawsuits are now often “dressing their political-gerrymandering claims in racial garb.”

“Failing to account for political considerations in redistricting … can allow plaintiffs to undo a State’s legitimate, non-racial decisions under the banner of Section 2,” Alito wrote, appearing to express concern that Democrats could use voting rights lawsuits for partisan purposes rather than to target racial discrimination.

(more…)

Prior to 2018 any public mention of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would be cause for you to immediately lose your security clearance in government. However, by mid-2018 DC officials were not only openly discussing FISA in public settings, but the DOJ released a Top-Secret Compartmented Intelligence Title-1 FISA warrant.

Why was a TSCI Title-1 FISA warrant made public in 2018?

The Carter Page FISA application and subsequent warrant would have been the easiest document to keep hidden from the public. You cannot FOIA classified documents. However, someone in the DOJ released their exclusive national security equity. I am certain it was Andrew Weissmann who made the call.

Additionally, when the DOJ FISA application was made public, few people noticed the date stamp on the application itself [copy from FISC 3/17/17].

Why was the DOJ releasing the warrant to the public, and why did they use that specific copy that came from the FISC on March 17, 2017. Why not release their own copies from their own DOJ-NSD files? What was it about the FISC copy that made it the option of their choice?

Just as the Atkinson transcript, whistleblower report and IC IG investigative material showed a fraudulent and corrupt impeachment effort, the background details of the FISA application being made public shows the fraudulent and corrupt intent of the Robert Mueller investigation that preceded it.

You will remember the massive media debate in early 2018 about the FISA application deployed against former short-time Trump campaign aide Carter Page.  The DOJ, at the time under the control of the Mueller special counsel for all things Trump-Russia related, wouldn’t let congress see the FISA application. Devin Nunes complained to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Eventually a deal was struck and two members from the House Intelligence committee (democrats and republicans) and two members from the House Judiciary Committee, were allowed to go to Main Justice and read the FISA application, but not copy it.  Four congressmen were allowed to go read and take notes. Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe represented the two republicans, and their notes formed the basis for what later was called “The Nunes Memo.”

The Democrats were not happy with the claims in the Nunes memo, and subsequently HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff wrote the democrat version.

Both of those sets of memos then needed to be declassified, more delays, before they could be made public.  For weeks and weeks, the Nunes -vs- Schiff memos were debated by both sides, with each saying their version was the truth and the other party’s version was spin and/or false.   All of this was happening in January, February and March 2018.

Then, later in the summer, something really weird happened.  On July 21, 2018, Main Justice completely reversed position on keeping the FISA application secret, and for the first time in U.S. history a top secret classified Title-1 FISA application was released to the public (with redactions).

People were so filled with curiosity about the Carter Page FISA application that few, heck, almost no one, stopped to ask why it was released?

Why the sudden secrecy reversal by the DOJ?

(more…)

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel will be holding a joint press conference today at 5:30pm ET.  Livestream link below:

.

(more…)

In the next few days, much more about the overall investigative review underway in Florida will likely begin to surface.  The review has been led by USAO Jason A. Reding Quiñones, a federal prosecutor for the Southern District of Florida. Quinones is now supported by Counsel to the AG, Joe diGenova.

As with all investigations containing multiple players and actors, the first investigative information is extracted from testimony by those furthest away from the principals, yet closest to the granular details of the events being reviewed.  The questioning then goes upstream, using information collected to assemble more specific questions as the principal players are approached.

The widest concentric circles are questioned first. Then, using the responses and investigative information from that circle, the questioning and inquiry goes to the next inner circle of participants.  The information is assembled, and more pointed questions are then targeted to the next inner circle; the process continues until the core is questioned.

Beginning with the end in mind, the biggest challenge is knowing what the correct questions are to ask of those who were closest to the corrupt activity (the outer circle).

Background research then becomes critical. From those pointed questions you get answers.  Then, next level of more specific questions get focus, and so on, and so on.

On March 20, 2026, James Comey was subpoenaed.

Also remember, there are two distinct and different aspects to the overall conspiracy and timeline.

There was surveillance of the 2016 Republican candidates by contractors working on behalf of the FBI who was institutionally collaborating with the Clinton campaign; that is known as “Spygate.”   There was then an FBI operation to target and eliminate the threat represented by the 2016 GOP primary winner, Donald Trump; that is known as “Russiagate.”

‘Spygate’ and ‘Russiagate’ are two distinctly different corrupt pathways that eventually merged due to common interests.

The Mueller investigation, an extension of Crossfire Hurricane (Russiagate) was used by Obama-era politicians and internal government officials as a mechanism to block President Trump from executing a divergent foreign policy.  The primary policy of focus was to protect the Obama era operations, including the Iran deal.

Based on mounting evidence, a pattern in other international activities and U.S. participants, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry Iranian deal likely included a mechanism for return payments to U.S. officials following the release of billions in frozen Iranian asset funds and the loosening of sanctions – (ie. pallets of cash).  Qatar was the mediator/broker.

However, it is speculated, perhaps being evidenced, that return payments to the Obama team contained a timing mechanism, and the quid-pro-quo payments were stopped after President Trump withdrew from the Iran deal and re-instituted sanctions.

Thus, a much larger background context exists for why the totality of the U.S. government and Intelligence Community opposed President Donald Trump.   Is it all about the money? Time will tell.  Current events may not be coincidental.

(more…)

Leaks, probably from individuals just starting to receive subpoenas, are now quickly making their way to the media. The goal seems to be to rally as much corporate media support as possible, with a subtle push to initiate an Alinsky process.

The media’s formerly predictable compliance toward generating a needed Alinsky lawfare strategy is, however, made more complicated by the recent purchases of several major corporate media conglomerates by Larry and David Ellison.  A shifted tone, that can be noted, is in the responsive outcome of the leak received by CBS News:

(Via CBS) – Former senior intelligence and FBI officials who are cooperating with the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal probe into whether former CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress were subpoenaed over the weekend to testify before a grand jury in Washington, D.C., multiple sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.

The subpoenas went out shortly after the Justice Department appointed conservative Trump ally Joe DiGenova to formally take over the criminal investigation into Brennan after the career prosecutor handling the case was removed late last week, CBS previously reported.

DiGenova is a staunch loyalist of President Trump who previously represented his campaign in its failed efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

The cooperating witnesses are scheduled to appear before the grand jury as soon as this week, sources said. Many of them have been cooperating with the probe and were already scheduled to sit down for interviews with FBI agents and prosecutors before the new grand jury subpoenas came out over the weekend.

(more…)

A formal announcement is likely tomorrow; however, leading information now affirms Acting AG Todd Blanche is moving Joe DiGenova and Christopher-James DeLorenz into positions in South Florida to assist U.S. Attorney Jason Quiñones in ongoing investigation of the Donald Trump targeting.  The venue puts any grand jury information in the court orbit of Judge Aileen Cannon.

Before getting into the substance, the alignment here is critical to understand.  Judge Cannon saw firsthand exactly what the Lawfare constructs consist of when she had the Jack Smith operation in her court during the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  Judge Cannon knows the context of weaponized justice and saw the techniques through first-hand experience.  This cannot be emphasized enough.

There are a lot of people who want to see some form of accountability finally delivered for the decade-long corrupt Lawfare operation that took place against Donald Trump before he took office (Spygate), during his administration (Russiagate, Mueller, Impeachment), after he left office took office (Jack Smith and Mar-a-Lago) and even through today (Judicial Intervention).  Many of those voices have concerns about 81-year-old Joe diGenova, so let me address that first by pointing out how the issues that frame the criticism are also a valuable asset.

Joe diGenova has a very rare current perspective; he completely sees the timeline of Trump targeting for what it is.  This is immensely valuable because not enough people understand the complex continuum enough to stand back and see the bigger picture.  diGenova sees the bigger picture.

diGenova can see the 2015/2016 FBI contractor political spying operation (Spygate) and how it connects to the later Fusion GPS/Clinton construct of Russiagate. More importantly, diGenova sees the connective tissue -the actual characters- flowing from Spygate, through Russiagate, into the Mueller investigation, then into the impeachment effort and then into the Jack Smith operation.  Seeing the big picture is the first step.

Now, critics point out that diGenova is a creature of DC. Yes, that is true. However, that’s also an asset given that he understands just how difficult it is to navigate through all of these ridiculous DC interests.  diGenova is also a character, boisterous perhaps intemperate and easy to Alinsky (isolate, ridicule, marginalize). So what? It doesn’t matter who is involved in this effort, they are going to be Alinsky’d by the Lawfare operatives on the other side.

Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing see the big picture and have a skillset to tell the story.  They can assist brilliantly and direct the telling of the story by connecting the lead prosecutors to the background script of how everything unfolded over the past decade.  If Quiñones is researching a “conspiracy” case, it is the primary job of the investigative researchers to connect each of the evidence dots to the larger conspiracy.  Sounds perfect for diGenova.

(more…)