Newly appointed U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, from the Eastern District of Viginia, has released a criminal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey [SEE INDICTMENT HERE].

The indictment alleges three counts. Counts one and two are ‘false statements’ to Congress on September 30, 2020, [18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)], and count three is ‘obstruction of a federal proceeding’ stemming from the same testimony. [18U.S.C. § 1505]

The first false statement charge surrounds Hillary Clinton’s “approval of a plan concerning” Donald Trump and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

[SOURCE]

♦ COUNT #1 – James Comey claimed he could not remember being made aware of the Trump-Russia collusion plan, and there is ample evidence from his own previous public statements, from public and sworn statements by former CIA Director John Brennan, from former statements by officials in the January 5, 2017, meeting memorialized by Susan Rice, from statements that remain sealed as recounted by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and from statements under oath by the former Clinton campaign team -including campaign manager Robby Mook- that James Comey was well aware of the plan.

While this first count is based on the tenuous “I don’t remember” aspect, this count holds more material benefit than simply Comey’s recollection. This count could open the door to public testimony by McCabe, Rice, Mook, Brennan and even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton herself as to Comey’s knowledge; each was a first-hand witness.

This first count holds strong material value in a public trial regardless of the outcome. This first count establishes the baseline for USAO Lindsey Halligan to bring all material witnesses into court and publicly put them on record outlining the Trump-Russia collusion scheme.

You could say, I hope the intent is not just to incarcerate Comey per se’ – but rather to use what Comey represents to indict the entire enterprise around him.  The facts behind Count #1 make this possible.

Let’s all hope this strategic intent unfolds.

(more…)

There’s a reason why the J6 Committee deleted the records of their activity, an angle missed by most.  When you understand what they hid and why they did it, you then understand why current Speaker of The House Mike Johnson will not go near the subject.

The J6 Committee used interfaces with the NSA database and pre-existing portals with aligned DHS Social Media databases (including Twitter, see prior “Twitter Files”), as research and evidence gathering mechanisms for their investigations.

🚨 BREAKING: Special Counsel Ed Martin has dropped a bombshell, announcing a full-scale investigation into the actions of the January 6th Committee for the deliberate destruction and tampering of evidence and the issuance of illegitimate pardons signed by an autopen. pic.twitter.com/qPWEJwb2UF

— TRUMP ARMY (@TRUMP_ARMY_) September 8, 2025

The J6 targets were identified through a collaboration between the legislative research group and the FBI. [That’s unlawful by the way – but that’s another matter]. The FBI contracted Palantir to identify the targets using facial recognition software and private sector databases.

Once identified, the targets were then searched in the NSA database for a fulsome context of identity. All subsequent electronic metadata of the targets was retrieved and utilized in prosecution; however, no one ever discovered this was the collaborative method. That has not come out yet.

Ultimately, the J6 Committee hiding and deleting their files and operational techniques was due to several issues. They really didn’t have a choice given the unknowns of an incoming republican majority.

(more…)

Interestingly, yesterday I posited some random thoughts about accountability on Teh Twitter, noting that a few dozen random accounts know more about Russiagate individually than any person who has ever sat in a room with President Donald Trump.  [FWIW – The author of this story I’m highlighting agreed.]

Miranda Devine notes in a New York Post article (Murdoch publication), polling shows more people are following the declassification of Russiagate documents than ever before [READ HERE].  That’s both a good thing from the perspective of an enlarged awakening but also holds a serious downside if people are focused on the delivery of accountability.

The series of documents declassified by the DNI (Gabbard), CIA (Ratcliffe) and FBI (via Grassley) has not changed the arc of the story; but they have provided strong evidence to support what was already obvious.

Essentially: the Clinton Campaign and the U.S. Intelligence Community, particularly the FBI, conspired together to exonerate Clinton from her email scandal, and frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset to assist her election win in 2016.

Everyone who has walked the deep weeds of Russiagate/Spygate has essentially known this framework for seven or more years.  The DNI, CIA and FBI evidence is providing receipts for the operation as it unfolded.  The latest evidence has proven the conspiracy researchers accurate, and the corporate media participants who participated in the ruse are not happy.

Miranda Devine breaks down the data on who is following the story and what the releases have done to squash the defenses of those who tried to label the Clinton/FBI operation as conspiracy theory.  All of this is a very positive outcome and a greater percentage of the public are now aware.

However, there’s a downside as a result of those who are new to these discoveries.  Even more people are thirsting for accountability for the conduct, and those who are very familiar with the story are renewing expectations of criminal activity against the perpetrators of the fraud.

(more…)

FN 107, 108, 109 and 110 are all in the redacted paragraph top of page 25, pertaining to Carter Page. However, the footnotes are NOT redacted.

I have long said, the FISA Application that was released to the public (by Mueller/Weissman in 2018) is NOT the same as the FISA Application that sits at the DOJ-NSD/FISC.

I told John Durham in August 2020 I suspected the publicly released FISA was *NOT* the same as the one with the court.

[*Initial and first renewal had FISC stamps (March 17, 2017). The second and third renewals did not have FISC stamps at all when released.]

Former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein said during Senate hearing (Ted Cruz question), he did not release the FISA; the special counsel team did. They held authority over DOJ/FBI on all things Russiagate.

When Mueller/Weissmann released the FISA application, July 2018 (it was part of a set of timed releases including the Warner texts) under the ridiculous auspices of releasing a Top Secret TSCI document to fulfill a FOIA request…. the first ever in history of the IC… few people stopped to ask why was this ok’d to release?

They had to release the FISA because it was already public (Warner/Wolfe illegal leak), and the underpinning of several outcomes of evidence for the Mueller indictments (fruit of the poisonous tree). But there were some aspects Mueller/Weissmann could not risk in the release.

(more…)

There is a major issue within the use of the FISA-702 authority that must be immediately understood.  A silo problem that is not being discussed within Congress as the potential for FISA-702 reauthorization is looming.

I’m setting aside my opinion of the entire process in order to just outline the facts as they appear.  I am not in support of any of this FISA process; nor do I support the baseline premise of the NSA database capturing the private electronic communication of Americans, which I do not believe is legislatively authorized to exist.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) recently released the 2023 FISC opinion on FISA-702 activity as reported by the NSA, FBI and to a lesser extent CIA and NCTC [REPORT HERE].

In this report, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is reviewing legal compliance by the NSA and FBI in accessing the NSA database that houses the private electronic records, metadata, of every American.  This is the core of the FISA-702 authorization, where 702 indicates an American citizen protected from illegal searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment.

The NSA database contains the private electronic data (metadata) of every single American – including emails, text messages, social media posts, instant messages, direct messages, phone calls, geolocation identifiers, purchases by electronic funds, banking records and any keystroke any American person puts into any electronic device for any reason. [A big issue here is the use of Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) but that’s for a different article.]

The 2023 FISC report reviews the action of the FBI and NSA to ensure compliance with rules and restrictions in the search of this database.

The NSA and FBI report violations of the process to the FISA Court; this is somewhat of an honor system.  You may have heard FBI Director Christopher Wray recently saying they have reduced the number of unauthorized searches of this database by 80%.  The FBI has presumably tightened up the rules and restrictions on who and how this database can be searched.

The ODNI release only covers the compliance of the NSA and FBI (and the CIA and NCTC) to the FISA-702 rules.  The CIA and NCTC are foreign mission authority only, therefore they should never even be involved in searching American citizens.

(more…)

I’m going to go into the deep weeds on this story, because many people are missing a key facet.  The names behind the Trump targeting operation are included, along with citations for independent checks by House congressional investigators.

Inside the recently released report by John Durham [CITATION], the special counsel outlines how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application.  Durham notes that Comey kept asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA.”  However, John Durham never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe.  The former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to John Durham.  So, how did John Durham have details about the demands of Comey?

The answer is found in the footnotes.  Durham reviewed transcripts of interviews given by Andrew McCabe to the Office of the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who previously investigated FBI conduct in the origin of the Carter Page FISA.  Durham pulled quotes from that transcript. [Footnote #1207, page 199 – Durham Report]

♦QUESTION: If Andrew McCabe gave testimony to the OIG about the motives and impetus of FBI Director James Comey in pushing for the Carter Page FISA application, why did the OIG report never outline those transcribed interviews?  Why was the interview transcript never included in the 2019 OIG report?

[ NOTE to Congress.  Now that you know a transcribed interview of Andrew McCabe exists in the OIG office, request the transcription and release it to the public.]

Let me answer those questions without the customary pretending from the DC professional political class.  The short version is that OIG Michael Horowitz was trying to protect the DOJ and FBI. The longer version is a coverup that includes Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr and yes, John Durham.  I will share that story below.

(more…)

Special Counsel John Durham has released a highly anticipated 316-page report outlining corrupt U.S. activity during the targeting of presidential candidate, president elect, and subsequent President, Donald J Trump.

[FULL REPORT pdf HERE]

I have completed my first review of the report, and suffice to say the details within it are not new.  The majority of the reaction so far has been centered around how Special Counsel Durham is not prosecuting anyone for their corrupt conduct outlined within the report.  However, for the sake of this first review, I will draw attention to a few aspects you will likely not see discussed anywhere else.

Please note this detail found at the bottom of page 3 and top two lines of page #4:

[…] “The Office exercised its judgment regarding what to investigate but did not investigate every public report of an alleged violation of law in connection with the intelligence and law enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns.”

As perhaps the only person who tracked down and subsequently interviewed the investigators on the Durham team, and as a person who subsequently came away with a full understanding of how the silo operation inside this investigation was going to play out, I can reasonably assure you that notation and reference by team Durham is entirely directed to us.

That statement above tells us why none of the DC politicians who engaged in specific violations of law were criminally charged. This is part of the silo effect within government, which I will explain later.  As a good friend said, “Yeah great, but we don’t have badges.”  So, we went to the badges with the evidence, but the badges did not want to act upon the evidence, because it would have been, in their estimation, too damaging to the framework of our government.

(more…)

Journalist Matt Taibbi released another Twitter File review today [#18 Available Here] showcasing how the opinion of government interests was pushed toward content censorship regardless of the truth within it.

File #18 release is a walk through all of government interests from COVID-19, Vaccination Compliance and maintenance of the Trump-Russia narrative.

I strongly suggest everyone to review the citations Taibbi presents from the documents contained within Twitter’s internal communication.  SEE HERE.

One aspect that draws particular interest to those who spent years deconstructing the false Trump-Russia narrative, appears in the section beginning in Tweet #34 where Taibbi again visits the influence of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).

At the epicenter of the SSCI effort we have always found then Vice-Chair Mark Warner manipulating events. Taibbi pulls this thread a little further with his review of how the SSCI contracted with outside government agencies to maintain the false premise of Russian interference in the 2016 election. A name that might be familiar to those who read the SSCI report on “Russian Active Measures and Disinformation in the 2016 Campaign” might be familiar to you.  Taibbi notes:

Profiles portray [Renee] DiResta as a warrior against Russian bots and misinformation, but reporters never inquire about work with DARPA, GEC, and other agencies. In the video below from @MikeBenzCyber, Stamos introduces [Renee DiResta] as having “worked for the CIA.”

DiResta has become the public face of the Censorship-Industrial Complex, a name promoted everywhere as an unquestioned authority on truth, fact, and Internet hygiene, even though her former firm, New Knowledge, has been embroiled in two major disinformation scandals.

(more…)

Closing arguments wrapped up on the trial of Igor Danchenko, the primary source who delivered fraudulent information to Christopher Steele for transmission to the FBI.  The jury now has the case and it’s likely they will not convict.

When you accept the FBI knew the Steele Dossier was a fabricated assembly of political dirt against Trump, the trial of Danchenko becomes more about the FBI corruption than lies by the defendant.   How can the same DOJ who willingly and willfully benefitted from the lies, now turn around and prosecute the liar.   Hillary Clinton lawyers providing the defense for Danchenko used this angle to criticize the prosecution in closing arguments.

(Via CNN) […] Danchenko lawyer Stuart Sears said prosecutors brazenly cast aside information that “doesn’t support their narrative that he’s a liar.” Sears pointed out how Durham turned on his own witnesses after they provided evidence that helped the defense.

“The special counsel attacked them mercilessly,” Sears said. “They attacked the credibility of the very witnesses they called in here, because they didn’t say what they wanted them to say.”  Sears added: “The government’s own evidence in this case proves that the defendant is not guilty.”

Durham’s team urged jurors to convict Danchenko on Monday, telling them to “look at his own words” in emails from 2016 that they believe prove that he later misled the FBI about his ties to a possible dossier source.  “You didn’t check your common sense at the courthouse door,” prosecutor Michael Keilty said. “You need to use it.”

(more…)

The legal case brought by prosecutor John Durham against Igor Danchenko is predicated on the notion that Christopher Steele’s source for his dossier willfully and intentionally lied to the FBI, and therefore Danchenko is guilty of purposefully misleading FBI investigators assigned to the Trump-Russia/”crossfire hurricane” investigation.

Transparently everyone knows the FBI were not duped by Danchenko and records indicate Danchenko told them the Steele dossier was full of fabricated nonsense. Additionally, to keep the revelation of the dossier as nonsense hidden, the FBI hired Danchenko as a confidential human source, technically shielding him from being questioned or exposed.  The FBI decision to hire Danchenko was to keep the fraudulent dossier useful for their Trump targeting operation.

So, what’s going on?

This is where John Durham is doing two things: (1) He is protecting the corrupt DOJ and FBI institutions by not investigating any government action; and yet, (2) Durham is exposing corrupt FBI and DOJ action through his court filings and cases.  Yesterday Durham provided more evidence of just how corrupt the FBI was in the lead-in to the 2016 election.

FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified Tuesday that Hillary Clinton’s contracted opposition researcher, Christopher Steele, hired by Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, was offered up to $1 million by the FBI in early October 2016 if Chris Steele could prove the claims within the Trump dirt dossier he authored.

Steele was never paid the money because he could not prove the claims within the dossier, nor would he give up the name of the primary source for the information, Igor Danchenko.  However, despite the FBI knowing the dossier could not be proved, validated or verified, later that same month they used the dossier as evidence to support a Title-1 FISA warrant against former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.

The details provided by Durham only prove the researched outline we made almost 5 years ago.

(more…)