Featured Timeline Entries
December 14, 2023 - Rep. Clay Higgins discusses the FBI "ghost buses" with Lara Logan

December 18, 2023 - American scientists misled Pentagon on research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology

American researchers concealed their intention to conduct high-risk coronavirus research in Wuhan under lax safety standards from the Pentagon the year before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know.

A 2018 grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, coauthored by the Wuhan Institute of Virology and American scientists, has stoked concern that the pandemic resulted from a lab accident.

It proposed engineering high-risk coronaviruses of the same species as SARS and SARS-CoV-2. Most worrying to some scientists: The proposal involved synthesizing spike proteins with furin cleavage sites — the same feature that supercharged SARS-CoV-2 into the most infectious pandemic pathogen in a century. Indeed, some scientists have likened DEFUSE to a blueprint for generating SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.

New documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know now show that these experiments were proposed to occur in part in Wuhan with fewer safety precautions than required in the U.S. — apparently to save on costs. American scientists at the center of the “lab leak theory” controversy appear to have concealed this from their desired funder — the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — in order to evade any national security concerns about doing high-level biosecurity work in China.

The documents call into question the credibility of these scientists’ assurances that the pandemic could not have sprung out of their collaboration on coronavirus engineering research with the lab in Wuhan.

EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak (Credit: public domain)

U.S. Right to Know has obtained an early draft of DEFUSE with comments from “PD” and “BRS.” Emails show these commenters to be “Peter Daszak” and “Baric, Ralph S.”

Daszak leads EcoHealth Alliance, an organization that discovers novel viruses. Baric helms a University of North Carolina lab with a focus on coronaviruses. Both Daszak and Baric have worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on gain-of-function research making coronaviruses more deadly or infectious.

The formal DEFUSE grant proposal states that Baric in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, will engineer the coronavirus spike proteins and test their ability to infect human cells.

But in a comment on an early draft of the proposal, Daszak clarifies that the Wuhan Institute of Virology will in fact do much of this work, but that this is excluded from the formal proposal to make DARPA “comfortable.” The comment is addressed to Baric and Wuhan Institute of Virology Senior Scientist Zhengli Shi.

“Ralph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,” Daszak wrote. “Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well…”

In another comment, Daszak said that he sought to “downplay the non-US focus of this proposal” to DARPA by not highlighting the involvement of the Chinese researchers, Shi and Duke-NUS Medical School Professor Linfa Wang.

EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak (Credit: public domain)

“I’m planning to use my resume and Ralph’s,” Daszak wrote. “Linfa/Zhengli, I realize your resumes are also very impressive, but I’m trying to downplay the non-US focus of this proposal so that DARPA doesn’t see this as a negative.”

In addition to the national security risks, conducting coronavirus engineering and testing work in Wuhan entailed greater biosafety risks, the American researchers privately acknowledged.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has conducted research on SARS-related coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 in biosafety level two (BSL-2) conditions. Biosafety levels range from one (BSL-1) to four (BSL-4), with BSL-4 being the most stringent.

BSL-2 labs involve ventilated biosafety cabinets, with researchers in surgical masks and lab coats. Many scientists say viruses that may be transmitted through the air should at minimum be studied in BSL-3 conditions with ventilation and with researchers in more protective respirators.

An early draft of DEFUSE acknowledged that the engineering and testing of novel coronaviruses would occur at BSL-2. The proposal advertised this approach to DARPA grantmakers as “highly cost-effective.”

But “BSL-2” was edited to “BSL-3.”

In a comment on the document, Baric acknowledged that U.S. researchers would “freak out” if they knew the novel coronavirus engineering and testing work would be conducted in a BSL-2 lab.

“In the US, these recombinant SARS-CoV are studied under BSL3, not BSL2, especially important for those that are able to bind and replicate in primary human cells,” Baric wrote.

University of North Carolina virologist Ralph Baric (Credit: public domain)

Recombinant viruses are viruses made by combining different genetic elements of interest.

“In china, might be growin these virus [sic] under bsl2. US reseachers [sic] will likely freak out,” he said.

Daszak and Baric did not respond to emailed questions.

“That’s really damning,” said Justin Kinney, a quantitative biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and co-founder of Biosafety Now, an organization that seeks tighter regulations for gain-of-function research. “These revelations are important because these specific experiments could, quite plausibly, have led to the genetic engineering and accidental release of SARS-CoV-2.”

“BSL-2 experiments are more convenient and less expensive than BSL-3 experiments … However, BSL-2 provides a far lower level of biosafety than BSL-3 does. This lower safety level is especially dangerous for experiments involving viruses that can be transmitted by air,” Kinney said. “It is very concerning that Daszak and Baric appear to have considered it legitimate to move high-risk experiments from BSL-3 to BSL-2. It is also concerning that they appear to have considered doing so in secret, instead of disclosing this important change of experimental plans and biosafety precautions in their grant proposal.”

The formal DEFUSE proposal states under “risk mitigation” that “experimental work using bats and of transgenic mice will be conducted at the BSL- 3 level in WIV, Duke-NUS, UNC, or [USGS National Wildlife Health Center],” without specifying an institution. It does not appear to mention the biosafety level in which high-risk research in cell lines will be undertaken.

Defuse Project Rejection by Darpa by Zerohedge Janitor

DARPA rejected the DEFUSE proposal, despite the scientists apparently whitewashing the national security and biosecurity dangers.

The documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know suggest the gain-of-function work of concern was not funded before the grant submission in 2018. However, questions remain about whether the work was subsequently completed without the DARPA funding.

Original DARPA logo

Daszak has insisted that the experiments proposed in DEFUSE were never carried out.

“The DARPA proposal was not funded. Therefore, the work was not done. Simple,” Daszak said last year.

However, Daszak had the ability to push forward with research without funding when a separate National Institutes of Health grant was halted, an email obtained by U.S. Right to Know shows.

A progress report for that NIH grant for the year ending in May 2018 shows that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance conducted gain-of-function research on coronaviruses and tested them in mice engineered to express human receptors.

‘Your luck may eventually run out’

Daszak has previously deflected concerns about the DEFUSE proposal in part by pointing to language in the final proposal stating that the gain-of-function research would occur at the Baric lab in North Carolina.

“This section of the proposal was written by collaborators at UNC in the U.S., where the work would have been carried out,” Daszak told Science earlier this year.

Wang has also said that the gain-of-function virology would occur in North Carolina.

The new documents show these statements to be misleading.

In addition, Baric has in recent years called for “accountability” for labs in China for conducting risky experimentation with novel SARS-like coronaviruses at a BSL-2 level.

“As a sovereign nation, China decides their own biological safety conditions and procedures for research, but they should also be held accountable for those decisions,” he told MIT Technology Review in 2021. “If you study hundreds of different bat viruses at BSL-2, your luck may eventually run out.”

But Baric did not disclose his own foreknowledge and apparent complicity in the Wuhan lab’s lax biosafety standards.

While Shi was included in the email chain and addressed in Daszak’s comments on the draft proposal, it’s not clear whether Baric ever brought up the issue of biosafety levels directly with Shi or anyone else at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“I would like to know if Baric had concerns about the risky live virus experiments being redistributed to labs operating at potentially low biosafety once funding was awarded,” said Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute. “Seeing as how Baric recently described the pangolin SARS-like virus as an ‘optimal model’ for introducing a furin cleavage site into, is he at all worried that his collaborators might have carried out the experiments in DEFUSE independently of him and at lower biosafety?”

Daszak’s apparent effort to deceive DARPA fits a pattern of nondisclosure around the DEFUSE proposal. Despite its potential relevance to the origins of the pandemic, as well as Daszak’s role on the World Health Organization mission to uncover the origins, Daszak never disclosed the proposal to the public. It only became known to the world because of a leak to the independent online group DRASTIC.

The documents showing American collaborators may have concealed the extent of risky coronavirus virology happening in Wuhan follows years of revelations concerning inadequate biosafety precautions and trained personnel at that lab.

‘Freak out’

Evidence suggests Baric was accurate in his prediction that researchers would “freak out” about the coronavirus gain-of-function research underway in Wuhan’s BSL-2 labs.

When the novel coronavirus first appeared in Wuhan, prominent scientists noticed with alarm that the gain-of-function work on novel coronaviruses occurred at an inadequate safety level.

“Performing these in BSL-3 (or less) is just completely nuts! IMO it has to be performed at BSL-4 with extra precautions,” Scripps Institute virologist Kristian Andersen would observe privately in February 2020.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci — who had endorsed gain-of-function research and whose institute had helped underwrite the collaboration between EcoHealth Alliance, UNC and the Wuhan Institute of Virology — asked in February 2020 whether certain experiments could have led to the evolution of SARS-CoV-2.

He asked whether a technique called serial passage — in which successive infections speed up evolutionary changes — had been conducted in mice engineered to express human receptors called ACE2. Baric had shared transgenic mice expressing ACE2 — the receptor that both SARS and SARS-CoV-2 bind to — with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“Surely that wouldn’t be done in a BSL2 lab?” asked Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health.

“Wild West,” responded Jeremy Farrar, former head of the Wellcome Trust and current chief scientist at the World Health Organization.

Ian Lipkin, a Columbia University virologist and former collaborator of the EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology, told a reporter in an email that the work occurring in BSL-2 was “unacceptable.”

“The Wuhan Institute of Virology has worked with bat samples and cultured bat viruses at BSL-2. This is a matter of published record – materials and methods in two papers. This is unacceptable,” he said.

‘Mice don’t sneeze’

Before the pandemic, Baric played a role in convincing the NIH to lift a pause on gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.

A 2014 panel discussion about gain-of-function research regulations included Baric and involved discussion of polybasic cleavage sites like the furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2.

“Mice don’t sneeze,” Baric told NPR in 2014 in opposition to the gain-of-function research pause, alleging mice could therefore not transmit coronaviruses.

However some viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 can transmit through airborne aerosols.

The revelations about DEFUSE come on the heels of Congress passing a provision in an annual military spending bill last week that bars EcoHealth Alliance from using any defense funds in China.

The new documents also show the researchers intended to use less regulated SARS-related coronavirus research as proof of concept in order to extend their high-risk methods to more deadly viruses like Ebola, Marburg, Hendra and Nipah.

“While we are specifically targeting SARS-realted CoVS, this strategy will be applicable to ALL bat-borne viruses in future,”reads a comment apparently made by Wang.

U.S. Right to Know obtained the documents in this report from a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Geological Survey. Read all of the documents here.

Karolina Corin contributed reporting.

(U.S. Right to Know, 12/18/2023)  (Archive)

December 18, 2023 - Michael Dreeben, the man behind three major anti-Trump operations, joins Jack Smith's team

Michael Drebeen (Credit: Duke University of Law)

Eyebrows were raised last week when it was discovered that Special Counsel Jack Smith had added attorney Michael Dreeben to his legal team.

“An interesting detail: Michael Dreeben somehow snuck into Jack Smith’s office. He was Mueller’s appellate guy,” enthused Marcy Wheeler, a proponent of the debunked conspiracy theory that Donald Trump stole the 2016 election by colluding with Russia.

Fellow Russia-collusion hoaxer Rachel Maddow of MSNBC ran an entire segment to announce the exciting news that Dreeben is “helming this part of the case,” meaning Smith’s request to the Supreme Court to look at whether American presidents may be prosecuted for actions taken while they are president. Left-wing legal activist (and, yes, another bitter clinger Russia-collusion hoaxer) Joyce Vance said her “friend” Dreeben had “framed this petition” before the Supreme Court.

Mueller, of course, is Robert Mueller, the ostensible head of the Mueller probe that treated the Russia conspiracy scam as credible and leaked information to the propaganda press to ensure it had maximum effect. After 18 months, the investigation concluded with not a single American, much less a single Trump official, being found to have colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. On the way to that conclusion, it wreaked havoc on Republicans across the country, and a strong majority of Democrats still believe the “big lie” that Russians stole the 2016 election for Donald Trump.

(…) Now Dreeben has joined the Biden administration’s effort to try to convict Trump on Jan. 6-related charges before the 2024 election. This is not the first Democrat effort Dreeben joined. He was also brought on to help Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance’s successful effort at the Supreme Court in 2020 to get Trump’s taxes and related financial records.

New York Magazine reported that Dreeben was part of a key group of former Mueller prosecutors brought in by Vance to figure out ways to politically prosecute Trump. They weren’t the only lawyers brought into the Democrat operation. Vance secured legal help from a Biden-connected law firm in New York City to design the “get Trump” operation. The powerhouse law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison lent Mark F. Pomerantz, Elyssa Abuhoff, and Caroline Williamson to Vance. The law firm had held a $2,800-per-plate fundraiser for Biden during his presidential campaign.

By the spring of 2023, Dreeben was publicly noting his affiliation with Just Security, “the legal beachhead of the Trump resistance.” The group helped launder Mueller probe legal theories into the general public and helped transition the Russia-collusion impeachment theory to the Ukraine issue once it became apparent that the Russia hoax was only believed by Democrats in echo chambers. Dreeben left the federal government in June 2019 after the Mueller probe ended, and he was viewed by Republican congressional staffers as being involved in Democrats’ impeachment efforts later that year along with Norm Eisen. Eisen, a frequent author at Just Security, was the House Democrats’ counsel for the 2019 impeachment.

Dreeben is one of the most experienced advocates before the Supreme Court, having argued 105 cases during his time in the solicitor general’s office. That the elite attorney is helping Democrats with their 2024 campaign strategy of lawfare is significant and showcases how much coordination between key Democrat operatives is behind this Soviet-style attempt to imprison President Joe Biden’s political opponents.

Democrat prosecutors began indicting Donald Trump and other Republican political opponents earlier this year. Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Vance’s successor, indicted Trump in March in a widely panned case involving payments to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election. After the shocking raid on Mar-a-Lago in August 2022, Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump in Florida in a classified documents case in June 2023. Democrat activist Fani Willis indicted Trump and more than a dozen other Republicans in August for contesting the poorly run 2020 election in Georgia. Smith also indicted Trump in Washington, D.C., in August on charges related to the Jan. 6 protest of the controversial 2020 election.

This is all happening while the Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James, who ran on an explicit campaign of using lawfare to harm Trump, is attempting to seize the Trump family business as punishment for his political views.

The focus on Smith’s second indictment in Washington, D.C., is occurring along with the realization that the other cases might not secure the quick and easy convictions in front of biased juries that are the hallmark of other show trials. (Read more: The Federalist, 12/18/2023)  (Archive)

December 19, 2023 - An ODNI investigation reveals how the CCP interfered in US election

(Credit: The Epoch Times/Shutterstock/clipping)

The Chinese regime interfered in the U.S. 2022 midterm elections through various means, according to a declassified intelligence report and multiple private-sector investigations.

The effort included a broad array of techniques orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), including retaliation against U.S. lawmakers, the promotion of divisive content, and the impersonation of American voters online.

Noted China hawk Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) said the regime will continue its efforts to interfere in U.S. elections until the Biden administration deals more seriously with Beijing.

“Communist China has shown time and time again that they will stop at nothing to interfere in America’s elections,” Mr. Tiffany told The Epoch Times.

“The Biden administration needs to take a harder line on PRC meddling and espionage.”

PRC is the acronym for communist China’s official name, the People’s Republic of China.
assessment published by the director of national intelligence (DNI) in December 2023 found that the regime tried to “influence” U.S. congressional elections involving both Democrats and Republicans who espoused tough-on-China policy stances.

The report also found that the scale and scope of foreign activity targeting the elections surpassed that of the prior midterms but remained below the level expected in presidential years.

The report assessed that the CCP had a “greater willingness to conduct election influence activities than in past cycles,” partly because it didn’t fear retaliation from the Biden administration.

The report states that CCP officials gave operatives more freedom to interfere in U.S. elections because the regime “believed that Beijing was under less scrutiny … and because they did not expect the current administration to retaliate as severely as they feared in 2020.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 1/25/2024)  (Archive)

December 19, 2023 - Mary McCord's husband worked with Chief Justice John Roberts counsel; McCord is at center of all Trump investigations

(…) If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.  More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.

(Credit: Safe and Effective podcast/Jeff Melody)

When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’).  That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important.  It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.

When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin.  Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016).  John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.

♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.

A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents.  The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.

♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson.  In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ.  Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.

♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission.  Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint.  It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules.  Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General?  Michael Atkinson.

When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to?  Mary McCord.

Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment.   As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.

♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith.  Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.

When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.

♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith.  In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome.  Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.

As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.

Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus?  Mary McCord.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

♦ SUMMARY:  Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier.  Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn.  Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee.  Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.

You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.

What happened next….

November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)

That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.

First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court?  ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application.  In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing.  See how that works?

Now, let’s go deeper….

When Mary McCord went to the White House with Sally Yates to talk to white house counsel Don McGhan about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.

The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.

Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?

This is where a big mental reset is needed.  Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue.  In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so.  There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.

So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?  Why did the DOJ-NSD even care?  This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle.  People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.

Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls.  They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts” as described within internal documents, and later statements.

After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked.  Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey.  Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.

Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor.  Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.

That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “buy the book” three times.

It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge.  The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.

Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House.  [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]

So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.

But wait, there’s more…. 

Sheldon Snook (Credit: X)

Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.

Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts.  The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job, to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts.  The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.

In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.

At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states.  Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel.  By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.

After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened.  Sheldon Snook left his position.   If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.

Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility.  In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.

If you were Chief Justice John Roberts and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount.  Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly.  Which is exactly what happened.

The timeline holds the key.

Last point….  Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff all going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump?   Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her background efforts continue today as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team that is still attacking Donald Trump.  (Conservative Treehouse, 12/19/2023)  (Archive)

December 19, 2023 - Former AG Ed Meese and two constitutional scholars file an amicus brief with SCOTUS claiming Jack Smith's appointment is unconstitutional

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese applauds as President Donald Trump speaks during a ceremony to present the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Meese, Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2019. (Credit: Alex Brandon/AP)

Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional and so the Supreme Court must reject his petition against Donald Trump, lawyers representing former Attorney General Ed Meese and two top constitutional scholars in the country argued in a brief filed on Wednesday.

Their amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief argues that Smith lacks authority to represent the United States by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in (called a petition for certiorari) because the office he holds has not been created by Congress and his appointment violates the “Appointments Clause” of the Constitution.

The filing essentially claims U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland improperly appointed Smith to an office that does not exist with authority Garland does not possess.

Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a prominent constitutional law professor, first argue that only Congress can create federal offices such as Smith currently holds, which Congress has not done.

While the Constitution creates the offices of President and Vice President, Congress has the sole authority to create additional offices, because the Constitution says those offices must be “established by Law.” Congress previously passed a law to authorize a similar position called an “independent counsel,” but that statute expired in 1999.

Garland cannot hire a mere employee to perform tasks that Congress has not authorized, the attorneys write. Only an “officer” can hold such a significant level of authority. In creating the Department of Justice, Congress gave it certain powers by law, yet it authorized no office with all the powers of a U.S. Attorney that Garland has given Smith.

The amicus brief further argues, “Even if one somehow thinks that existing statutes authorize appointment of stand-alone special counsels with the full power of a U.S. Attorney, Smith was not properly appointed to such an ‘office.’” They assert even if special counsels were authorized by Congress, anyone in possession of such powers would require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

Moreover, the brief argued that Smith has so much power, just like a U.S. Attorney, he is a “principal officer” under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which means he must first be nominated by the president and then confirmed by a majority of the U.S. Senate.

“Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” they write.  (Read more: Breitbart, 12/19/2023)  (Archive)

December 20, 2023 - Rep. Tim Burchett reveals that some of his colleagues are being entrapped and blackmailed to suppress the Epstein Client List

Rep. Tim Burchett reveals that entrapment/blackmail are being used to suppress the #EpsteinClientList:

“And too many of my colleagues, I’m afraid, are compromised in this area for whatever reason.

Somebody just whispered in their ear, said, hey, you don’t want something to come out on something else, you better keep your mouth shut on this.

And that’s exactly what they’ve done. And it continues to go, whether it’s the honey pot that the Russians used to use or something worse, I don’t know.”

December 24, 2023 - Former DNI John Ratcliffe discusses intel that proves China's interference in the 2020 election

Former DNI John Ratcliffe tells Maria Bartiromo Russia, China, and Iran wanted a Biden presidency and they all have grown stronger since he entered the White House.

Maria Bartiromo: Former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe was breaking news with me last month on FOX Business’s Mornings with Maria on China interfering in US elections. Now a new declassified report is out from the National Intelligence Council which confirms exactly what John Radcliffe told me there, revealing the extent of the CCP’s operation happening under President Biden’s watch. The report writes this, quote, “We assess that these directives gave PRC influence actors more freedom to operate ahead of the midterms than the presidential election in 2020, probably because PRC officials believe that Beijing was under less scrutiny during the midterms and because they did not expect the current administration to retaliate as severely as they feared they would in 2020.” Joining me right now with reaction is former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe…

… I’ve got the intelligence community assessment in front of me right now. Is China getting ready to interfere in our elections in 2024?

John Ratcliffe: Very clearly they are, Maria. But what the report also tells you is what you outlined there, which is that the intelligence community has to grudgingly walk back the erroneous assessment that in 2020, China was sitting on the sidelines.

Look, I was very vocal that we had collected specific intelligence of a specific plan or campaign by China to interfere in 2020 for the specific purpose of helping Joe Biden become president and – to harm President Trump in his reelection efforts.

And what this report acknowledges is that that’s exactly what happened. And they had to walk it back because the independent ombudsman came forward and said, look, there were analysts for China that were suppressing intelligence deliberately because they feared it would help President Trump. And so now you have Joe Biden’s own Director of the NSA and head of cyber command, acknowledging that China is going to intensify those efforts in 2024, that our greatest geopolitical foe has and will continue to want Joe Biden to be the president for the next four years because, stating the obvious, he’s been very good to China. China wanted him in the first place because Donald Trump had been so tough in terms of trade and tariff sanctions against China.

China correctly believed that Joe Biden would be more pro-China and frankly thought that he would be weaker as a Commander in Chief. And clearly, those things have played out.

Maria Bartiromo: And now we know that during their cakewalk in the park, when Joe Biden met with Xi Jinping in San Francisco, Xi Jinping was very clear to Joe Biden, telling him, yes, we are taking Taiwan, and we are expecting you’re not going to do anything about it. Your thoughts on what was said during that meeting in the park?

John Ratcliffe: …You know, the same Joe Biden and the administration that won’t confront China on Covid wouldn’t confront China on the spy balloon. All of these are the reasons why Joe Biden is, in many ways, the dream candidate for China to continue for the next four years. They’ve advanced so much, they’ve undermined us in the Middle east. They’ve gained footholds further in the Asian Pacific regions. Everything has gone well for China from their foreign policy standpoint, and it’s gone poorly for us…

… And so what, Maria, they’re going to do and what the acknowledgement is, is they’re going to intensify their efforts, meaning they’re going to deploy cyberweapons to try and influence election infrastructure. It means they’re going to engage in social media influence campaign to influence American voters, and they’re going to do the things that they can to help Joe Biden continue to be president because it is good for China if he is.

December 27, 2023 - DC police officer Byron Evans who sued Republicans under KKK Act for racist attacks on Jan. 6, now admits he was watching it on TV that day

Officer Byron Evans and seven black Capitol Police Officers sued Brandon Straka and several Trump supporters under the KKK Act for “racist” attacks on him and seven other police officers on January 6, 2021.

Officer Evans sued Brandon Straka and Roger Stone who was not even at the US Capitol that day along with leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and others.

Brandon Straka released video on Wednesday of Officer Byron Evans admitting he was watching the January 6 protests on a TV in a room in a secure location.

CNN reporter: Did you ever think this might be a life or death situation for you?

Officer Byron Evans: I remember specifically thinking it when I was on the floor. I remember thinking all that stuff. Like, Byron, this is the day. All those times you’ve given thought on what you would do. You’re doing it.

CNN hack: 4 hours. Evans and the senators watched the riot on tv from a secured location.

Officer Byron Evans: I just remember the anger I felt when I saw those images. Busting windows, climbing the walls and stuff like that. It was an audible gasp in the room.

Here is the video:

(Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 12/27/2023)  (Archive)

December 27, 2023 - Jack Smith files motion to stop Trump from raising new J6 evidence in his defense

Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a motion Wednesday morning seeking to prevent former President Donald Trump from claiming in his federal case that he was targeted for political prosecution by President Joe Biden as a form of “election interference.”

Donald Trump, unironically, stands accused of “election interference” in connection to his legal and constitutionally protected election challenges over the 2020 election.

Smith said in his motion that Trump should be barred from “introducing evidence, making arguments, or framing questions to advance a theory of selective or vindictive prosecution.”

Judge Chutkan, an anti-Trump jurist who has consistently sided with the state’s prosecution efforts, is expected to fulfill all of Smith’s demands, no matter how contrary to due process or deleterious to the cause of justice.

The excessively constrictive measures would further rein in the speech of the 2024 presidential candidate in the midst of a campaign that has thus far established him as the clear favorite.

The absurdity of Smith’s court demands were further illuminated by legal analyst Julie Kelly.

(Read more: The Politics Brief, 12/27/2023) (Archive)

December 19, 2023 - Judge approves lawsuit against CIA and Mike Pompeo over Assange surveillance

November 16, 2023 — A U.S. court considered a lawsuit against the CIA and former CIA director Mike Pompeo for their alleged role in spying on American attorneys and journalists who visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

In August 2022, four Americans — lawyers Margaret Ratner Kunstler and Deborah Hrbek, journalist John Goetz and Charles Glass sued the CIA and Pompeo. The lawsuit they brought alleges that as visitors Glass, Goetz, Hrbek, and Kunstler were required to “surrender” their electronic devices to employees of a Spanish company called UC Global, which was contracted to provide security for the Ecuador embassy. Furthermore, UC Global “copied the information stored on the devices” and shared the information with the CIA. The agency even had access to live video and audio feeds from cameras in the embassy.

Now, Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York refused to accept Assistant U.S. Attorney Jean-David Barnea position who neither confirmed nor denied that the CIA had targeted Americans without obtaining a warrant. He also invited attorneys for the Americans to update the lawsuit so that claims of privacy violations explicitly dealt with the government’s lack of a warrant.

In his report about the hearing, journalist Kevin Gosztola notes that “the government effectively asserted in a U.S. courtroom that Americans cease to have constitutional privacy protections from U.S. government intrusion when they travel abroad.” (AssangeDefense.org, 11/16/2023) (Archive)

December 19, 2023 — Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York ruled that four American attorneys and journalists, who visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while he was in the Ecuador embassy in London, may sue the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for their role in the alleged copying of the contents of their electronic devices.

After refusing to accept Assistant U.S. Attorney Jean-David Barnea position, who neither confirmed nor denied that the CIA had targeted Americans without obtaining a warrant, at the first hearing in November, the federal judge has now ruled that the plaintiffs are allowed to proceed with the lawsuit. (AssangeDefense.org, 12/19/2023) (Archive)

Richard Roth is the lead attorney suing the CIA and former CIA head Mike Pompeo for spying on journalists and lawyers for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange while he was living in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. A judge recently ruled that the lawsuit can go forward, rejecting the CIA’s contention that copying data from the visitors’ electronic devices was perfectly aboveboard.

Watch Jimmy’s interview with Roth about the case and the outrageous CIA overreach in the Assange case.

 

December 2023 - DOJ drops six charges against Sam Bankman-Fried, including campaign finance charges for giving customers money to Democrat congressional members

The U.S. government is dropping six charges against crypto scammer Sam Bankman-Fried including campaign finance violations and conspiracy to commit bribery charges.

Making bribes with stolen money is fine as long as that money is going to U.S. politicians.

SBF donated $100 million during the 2022 midterms, pouring tens of millions into dark money groups with customers’ funds.

Some of these groups were linked to Senate leaders including Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer.

Here is Maxine Waters blowing him a kiss.

January 3, 2024 - Epstein Files: Epstein victim was "lended out" to “obtain blackmail information” on “prominent American politicians” and others

New information released as part of the second round of Epstein data shows that a teenage girl was used to “obtain potential blackmail information” on “prominent American politicians” and other world leaders.

According to the allegations from a victim, “Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people.”

The goal of the operation was to put powerful people in compromising positions and then use that information against them.

“Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information,” the document states.

The document emphasizes that Jane Doe #3 was trafficked “for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders.”

Most of the names of the “powerful people” mentioned, notably the Presidents and Prime Ministers, have not seen the light of day.

As we document in the video below, there’s a good chance information about them is contained in the hard drives and CDs that were photographed by the FBI during their raid of Epstein’s New York mansion in July 2019.

(Read more: Modernity News, 1/5/2024) (Archive)

January 4, 2024 - Trump and the Trump Org served as assets to the FBI/DOJ for decades

The release of new Epstein/Maxwell-related documents has refreshed allegations that Trump was somehow complicit in the blackmailing enterprise that they ran.

This could not possibly be more untrue.

Though some of the transcripts that mention Trump, Mar-a-Lago, and the Atlantic City Casino are newly public, it was previously known and recently testified to in the Maxwell trial that Epstein/Maxwell targeted Mar-a-Lago and that one of the girls in that trial, “Jane,” was taken there in 1994.

It was also previously known that Trump chartered one of Epstein’s planes to take him from Florida to New Jersey. This was testified to by the pilot when he took the witness stand in Maxwell’s trial.

However, what is key here is that Epstein messed up by putting himself on Trump’s radar. Here’s how:

The Atlantic City hotel was a trap for criminals from day one. The FBI and the Trump Organization coordinated during the pre-construction phase to set it up as such. Mar-a-Lago is likely similarly set up.

Epstein/Maxwell’s targeting of Mar-a-Lago employees and guests later caused Trump to ban them from the property in 2008, shortly before Epstein pleaded guilty.

Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly as it concerns these new documents, the very attorney who helped get them unsealed says that Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and was eager to help him investigate Epstein and Maxwell. And that was back in 2009.

Do you know of any other acquaintances or clients of Epstein who were eager to help any investigator or journalist who was looking into Epstein or Maxwell?

So, when you include this information (and I put the citations below), Epstein and Maxwell were walking directly into a trap set up by Commissioner Gordon and Bruce Wayne/Batman when they engaged with Trump and visited his properties!!

PS: Another bad move Epstein made was trying to “weasel” his way back into Trump’s world in 2016, no doubt trying to make friends in high places ahead of a Trump Presidency (no doubt a Clinton Presidency would have been preferable to him, of course). And so Epstein had lunch with Trump ally Peter Thiel, who we now know was also a DOJ asset! Hahahaha!!

PSS: Y’all know that it was Trump’s DOJ who indicted both Epstein and Maxwell, right?

Citations:

Atlantic City Casino source:

Further reading:

“Jane” goes to Mar-a-Lago and pilot says Trump chartered plane

Trump bans Epstein from Mar-a-Lago

Trump and the Trump Org served as assets to the FBI/DOJ for DECADES h/t: @DawsonSField

Video of Brad Edwards saying Trump helped him in 2009.

And look, if you don’t believe me about Trump and the Trump Org serving as assets of DOJ for decades, fine. I get it. Seems wild given what the news says and what Trump says. But I must point out to you that a journalist recently filed a FOIA that resulted in DOJ having to confirm it to be true.

Epstein contacts Peter Thiel in attempt get back into Trump’s orbit

January 5, 2023 - Judicial Watch lawsuit: After shooting Ashli Babbitt, Capitol Police Lt. made false radio report

Within a minute after firing the fatal bullet that struck Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd broadcast a radio report claiming shots were being fired at him in the Speaker’s Lobby and he was “prepared to fire back,” a federal lawsuit alleges.

The previously undisclosed radio dispatch is also contained on an audio recording obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times of the “OPS2” dispatch channel used by Capitol Police on Jan. 6.

Information on the recording is contained in a federal lawsuit filed on Jan. 5 by Ms. Babbitt’s widower, Aaron Babbitt of San Diego. Mr. Babbitt, backed in his lawsuit by Judicial Watch, is seeking $30 million from the U. S. government for wrongful death.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Byrd fired his Glock 22 .40-caliber pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, then announced that he was being fired upon and was ready to return fire.

“In fact, no shots were fired at Lt. Byrd or his fellow officers,” the lawsuit stated. “The only shot fired was the single shot Lt. Byrd fired at Ashli. He heard the loud noise of the gunshot. He saw her fall backward from the window frame.”

(…) An unknown U.S. Capitol Police officer first reported shots fired in the U.S. House just before 2:43 p.m., followed later by Mr. Byrd’s shots-fired announcement, according to the audio recording obtained by The Epoch Times. Both reports turned out to be unfounded.

Officer: “Shots fired, House floor. Shots fired, House floor. Immediate assistance.”

Dispatch: “Shots fired, House floor. Shots fired, House floor.”

2nd Dispatcher: “I need units to re…,” which was cut off mid-sentence. That message ceased on the OPS2 channel but was heard in full on the OPS1 channel:
“I need units to respond to the chamber, the House chamber floor,” the dispatcher said. “Again, units need to respond to the House floor in reference to shots fired. They were shots fired at the House floor. Again, units to respond. They’re taking shots into the House floor. We need units to respond to that location. 1443 hours.”

Lt. Byrd: “405-B. We got shots fired in the lobby. We got fot (sic), shots fired in the lobby of the House chamber. Shots are being fired at us, and we’re prepared to fire back at them. We have guns drawn. [Unintelligible] Don’t leave that end! Don’t leave that end!”

(Read more: The Epoch Times, 1/5/2024)  (Archive)

January 5, 2023 - Part 3: Epstein Files - Epstein recruiter, Adriana Ross, (John Doe) removed computers from Epstein's Palm Beach mansion before the FBI could search the premises

Adriana Ross (Credit: Shutterstock)

(Part 3 Document link/@seamusbruner, (A good X account to follow for all Epstein docs), 1/5/2024)

January 6, 2024 - Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò links Hillary Clinton to Pizzagate

(Credit: Revolver News)

The Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case has brought the “Pizzagate” narrative back into the spotlight, and now, with the release of the Epstein files, it has gained even more momentum.

That’s why it comes as no surprise that a video clip has been circulating online featuring Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who openly discusses Pizzagate and doesn’t shy away from naming people like Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

Now, we always approach this type of thing with a healthy amount of skepticism, but we like to share it with you so you can draw your own conclusions.

The truth is, when it comes to Hillary and her husband, she has earned a notorious reputation for treating Bill’s accusers like second-class citizens and attempting to silence their voices. This is precisely what Juanita Broaddrick, one of Clinton’s rape accusers, says happened to her.

Needless to say, Hillary doesn’t have the most glowing “pro-woman” reputation. So, Archbishop Viganò held nothing back in his “revelations” about Pizzagate and his direct references to Hillary Clinton. Again, there’s no proof of this, but many people have very strong opinions.

And truth be told, it has us a bit worried. Perhaps the archbishop should sleep with both of his eyes open?

We may never fully uncover the truth about Pizzagate, or even the depths of the Epstein case and similar incidents, but it’s essential to encourage people to remain engaged in the conversation and seek out information for themselves. After all, that’s the American way. (Read more: Revolver News, 1/10/2024) (Archive)

January 6, 2024 - Jeffrey Epstein's connection to biolabs and the founder of Metabiota, Nathan Wolfe

Nathan Wolfe and Ghislaine Maxwell (Credit: public domain)

Say hello to Nathan Wolfe.

American virologist and founder of METABIOTA!

The Biden-funded biolab company via Rosemont Seneca, studying bat coronaviruses in Ukraine circa 2014, via project PREDICT with CIA proxy, USAID.

He is the epicenter of the Deep State bio network.

Not only is he the founder of Biden’s Metabiota, he is a WEF member, DoD employee, sat on the board of Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance involved in Wuhan, funded by DARPA, Gates Foundation, funded Ghislaine Maxwell’s TerraMar project with the Clintons, member of The Edge Foundation collecting microbes and housing animal viruses all over the world, AND Russia have accused him directly of being the key player in creating SARS-CoV-2 from a bat coronavirus he discovered in Ukraine.

Before I get started, I’d like to clarify that other people have dug into this subject already for years, I am not breaking any news here. However some new developments have fallen into place, specifically as it pertains to Russia and the Epstein blackmail operation, and I personally have connected some dots that I was unaware of until now, and the world needs to see it.

I might be late to the party, but this is INSANE!

So Nathan Wolfe is a virologist that calls himself the “Virus Hunter”.

He wrote a book in 2012, “The Viral Storm: The Dawn of a New Pandemic Age”.

He warned that Humans are becoming more susceptible to pandemics and that we will see many pandemics in the future.

He claims the only way to stop these future pandemics, it is to hunt down new animal pathogens before they can jump to humans, genetically enhance these animal pathogens to “gain the function” of infecting humans (aka bioweapon production), so we can study these human-engineered pathogens, and make vaccines for them preemptively JUST IN CASE these animal pathogens mutate this way naturally, so we have the medical deterrent on hand.

This dude literally wrote the book on how they created SARS-CoV-2 and the “vaccines”. He wrote a book preemptively justifying his future bioweapon production.

But that’s not all. He thanked 16 people for their assistance with all the information in his book, and one of the people he thanked was none other than Jeffrey Epstein himself.

What does Epstein know about virology?

The entire Nathan Wolfe timeline is laid out to perfection here by Rhonda Wilson via The Exposé.

It’s an absolute MUST READ.

The Bio Biden timeline, Terra Mar with Ghislaine, his help with making the movie “Contagion”.

Read it. It will blow your mind.

Nathan Wolfe is at the epicenter of the global zoonosis network and the production of SARS-CoV-2.

But then you add his affiliation with the Clintons, Bill Gates, Maxwell, and Epstein, and it’s a whole new ballgame.

Was Wolfe compromised by Epstein?

We now have confirmation, via witness testimony, that Epstein was seeking out the most powerful people on Earth, to compromise and blackmail them, to essentially rule the world via proxy.

What I’m getting at is, Epstein/Maxwell and their handlers, were involved in the plot to create and release SARS-CoV-2, via their connection to Nathan Wolfe.

The Epstein blackmail operation didn’t just control Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Ministers, and British Royalty; they also controlled the virologist who discovered and enhanced the virus that would eventually turn into the Covid-19 pandemic…

And Russia claim one of the main reasons they invaded Ukraine, was to stop this bioweapon production, at Nathan Wolfe’s Biolabs in Ukraine, via his company Metabiota, that was funded by the Bidens. At the biolabs the media told you didn’t exist.

I don’t know exactly who is higher in the power structure, but all the top players in Epstein’s blackmail operation, are also heavily involved in the global zoonotic virology network, the Biolabs in Ukraine, and American vaccine production. (Read more: Clandestine/Substack, 1/6/2024)  (Archive) h/t@TheThe1776

January 8, 2024 - Judicial Watch files FOIA lawsuit against DoD for reports submitted by Ciaramella and Misko on how to "get rid of Trump"

Sean Misko (Credit: Center For a New American Century)

(…) “Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense for reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:24-cv-00068)),” the legal watchdog announced.

Judicial Watch “sued after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for”:

Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an “all-hands” NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and regarding trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.

Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.

All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.

At a meeting of the NSC staffers two weeks into the Trump administration, an anonymous military staffer sat directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko and verified hearing them discuss deposing Trump.

Eric Ciaramella: The Democratic national security “whistleblower,” whose complaint led to President Trump’s impeachment, ending in an acquittal.  (Credit: whitehouse.gov)

“After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’”

According to the military detailee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary. They were triggered by Trump’s and Flynn’s vision for the world. This was the first ‘all hands’ [staff meeting] where they got to see Trump’s national security team, and they were huffing and puffing throughout the briefing any time Flynn said something they didn’t like about ‘America First.’”

He said he also overheard Ciaramella telling Misko, in reference to Trump, “We can’t let him enact this foreign policy.”

The military worker was alarmed by their chat and promptly reported what he had heard to his superiors.

“It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”

“The intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Biden Defense Department’s sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.”

“Judicial Watch previously sued for information about Ciaramella,” the report added. “In November 2019 Judicial Watch reported that among those visiting Ciaramella at the White House were several officers in leftist George Soros organizations.”

In December 2019, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the DOJ and the CIA over contacts between Ciaramella and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and/or the Special Counsel’s Office. In both instances, the government declined to provide records, “refusing to confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of responsive records” because “confirming or denying the existence or non-existence of responsive records would reveal information protected by the CIA Act, namely the existence or non-existence of an employment relationship between the Agency and Mr. Ciaramella.” And, would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The NSC staff meeting, as described, would be evidence of high treason against a sitting President of the United States. It would be a true “insurrection” to topple the Commander-in-Chief, and would typically be prosecuted in a court of law, leading to arrest or court martial. The secret documents are thus critical to exposing a reported CIA and NSC plot to remove Donald Trump as President of the United States “by any means possible.” (Read more: The Politics Brief, 1/21/2024)  (Archive)

January 11, 2024 - House Judiciary Committee subpoenas DNI Haines in censorship investigation

Avril Haines appears on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell to complain about President Trump’s abuse of power after removing Brennan’s security clearance. (Credit: MSNBC screenshot)

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on Thursday subpoenaed Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines as part of the panel’s probe into the federal government’s alleged collusion with Big Tech firms to censor disfavored viewpoints online.

“The investigative work performed by the Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, along with other publicly available information, have revealed how the federal government has pressured and colluded with Big Tech and other intermediaries to censor certain viewpoints on social media in ways that undermine First Amendment principles,” Jordan wrote. “The First Amendment prohibits government officials from imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on speech. State action doctrine prohibits government officials from circumventing constitutional strictures by using private actors—whether through coercion, encouragement, entwinement, or joint participation—to accomplish what the government cannot directly.”

Jordan subpoena of Haines

Jordan, in notifying Haines, observed that the committee previously sought voluntary cooperation from his office, but that the ODNI did not “produce a single document” and deemed the office’s limited responses “woefully inadequate.”

He specifically demanded that Haines provide documents and communications between ODNI employees, private companies, and other relevant parties related to online content moderation. (Read more: Just the News, 1/11/2024)  (Archive)