Featured Timeline Entries
April 27, 2024 - Eva Vlaardingerbroek at CPAC Hungary: The Great Replacement Is No Longer A Theory, It's Reality

Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek delivered a speech at the 2024 CPAC Hungary convention.

EVA VLAARDINGERBROEK: Hello, Hungary, hello, Budapest, hello, fellow Europeans and American friends. Thank you so much for having me. Allow me to skip formalities for a moment and dive right into a subject that is not so cheerful, but very, very necessary to discuss.

Let me walk you through the past seven days in Europe. This week in Stockholm, three elderly women in their 70s were stabbed in broad daylight on the streets. In London, four people were stabbed in a time span of just 42 hours.

In Paris, hundreds of African migrants took to the street to riot. And in Brigolo, also in France, yet another church was burned down to the ground. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just a few incidents in just a couple of days on our beautiful continent.

But we all know that these incidents aren’t incidents anymore. If there’s one thing that’s for sure, it’s that we know, and our governments also know, that there is a link between mass migration and crime. In a Dutch city of Dordrecht, something interesting happened the other day.

They announced, and this is a small city in the Netherlands, in my home country, that a new asylum center will be put in that little town. And what did the municipality do? They said, we are going to offer citizens who live in the vicinity of this center a thousand euros to take extra safety measures. Our new reality in Europe consists of frequent rapes, stabbings, killings, murders, shootings, even beheadings.

But let me be clear about one thing. This did not used to happen before. This is a newly imported problem.

Samuel P. Huntington predicted this over 25 years ago, when he wrote, and I quote, in the new world of mass migration, the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be between the social classes. They will not be between the rich and the poor. They will be between peoples belonging to different cultural entities.

Tribal wars and ethnic conflicts will occur within civilizations. Well, boy, was he right. And the worst part is, we as a society seem to have become indifferent to it.

When another white boy or white girl dies at the hands of an immigrant, we might shake our head, we might let out a sigh, we might even get angry for a minute or two, and then we go on with our lives. We offer the family thoughts and prayers, but nothing ever changes. Ladies and gentlemen, what does that say about us? This is the response of a society that has already given up.

A society that has already accepted its defeat. But is this true? Have we given up? Do we really accept the new reality that our globalist leaders have in mind for us? I know one thing for sure, and that is that if nothing changes, if we don’t start to seriously fight for our continent, for our religion, for our people, our countries, then this time that we live in will go down in history as the time in which Western nations no longer had to get invaded by hostile armies in order to be conquered. This time will then go down in history as the period in which the invader was actively invited in by a corrupt elite, and not only did this corrupt elite invite the enemy in, they made the native population pay for it too.

Everyone who has eyes can see it. The native white Christian European population is being replaced at an ever-accelerating rate. Let me back this up for you with some statistics from my home country.

Let’s take Amsterdam, the capital. Amsterdam currently consists of 56 per cent migrants. The Hague, 58 per cent migrants.

Rotterdam, almost 60 per cent migrants. And, of course, most of these immigrants come from non-Christian, non-Western, African and Middle Eastern countries. Conclusion, the Dutch population is already outnumbered in the majority of our cities.

But let’s look onwards. London, 54 per cent migrants. Again, conclusion, native population outnumbered.

Brussels, colour me shocked, 70 per cent migrants. Conclusion, native population majorly outnumbered. And other Europeans will, of course, follow suit soon if they haven’t already.

So, I’m going to draw the forbidden conclusion here. The Great Replacement Theory is no longer a theory. It’s reality.

And what’s interesting about replacement is that the establishment will either deny its existence or, when they admit to it, they say that it’s a good thing that the native European population is soon no longer a majority on its own continent. Dutch national disgrace and dubbed climate pope, Frans Timmermans, already stated in 2015 that diversity is humanity’s destiny. And that Europe will be diverse.

And, of course, by now, I think we all know what they mean with the word diversity. It means less white people, less of you. Imagine this in an Asian or an African country.

Imagine their leaders rejoicing in the fact that their people will soon no longer be a majority in their own country. Absolutely unthinkable. Unimaginable.

So, what in the world is wrong with our leaders? The underlying sentiment of what they say is always the same. Our establishment claims that white people are evil and that our history is somehow fundamentally different from that of others. Consciously or unconsciously, they have sucked up the lies and the anti-white dogmas of the neo-Marxist critical race theory.

That’s why the totalitarians in Brussels are trying to force you, the Hungarian people, a sovereign nation to accept immigrants despite the fact that the population has said no and so has the government. But make no mistake, the majority of the Dutch people haven’t asked for this either. Just like Brussels is forcing Hungary to accept these words of immigrants, they are doing the same now even in the smallest of towns in the Netherlands.

No part may remain Dutch in the traditional sense of the word. No part of Europe may remain European. And it’s not difficult to understand why.

If the old Europe still exists in certain places, then people will be able to compare the new Europe to the old and newsflash, they will prefer the old. That’s why the Eurocrats hate Hungary so much. And their message is clear.

Our way of life, our Christian religion, our nations, they have to go without exception. Their vision of the future is the neo-liberal, unrecognisable Europe, where every city becomes kind of like Brussels. Ugly, dirty, unsafe, zero social cohesion, where the buildings are constantly under construction and they never, ever seem to finish, and even when they do, the end result is uglier somehow than what they started with.

And what are we left with? A permanent state of isolation, confusion, and disorientation. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the New World Order. So what’s the antidote? A strong, Christian Europe of sovereign nation states.

That’s why we need to outright reject the lie that nationalism causes war. It’s not nationalism or national sovereignty that causes war. It’s expansionism.

And where in Europe do we find that nowadays? In one place and one place only, Brussels. Isn’t it funny how the same people who erode our national sovereignty and love to do it, give it all up to the Eurocrats there, that those people are now telling us that we need to spend billions and billions of euros on the national sovereignty of Ukraine? It’s a joke, honestly, and it’s a pretty sick, expensive, and dangerous joke. During a recent interview, I got asked by an interviewer, do you think that you ever go too far? Do you think that you’re ever too radical? I thought about it for a second, and I said, no.

No, I don’t think I go too far. Truth be told, ladies and gentlemen, I think we in Europe do not go far enough. I think that if we really think about the organized, structural attack on our civilization, that we don’t do enough.

Do we do enough to stop the attack on our families, on our continent, on our countries, on our religion? When we hear about another murder, another stabbing of a young, innocent child, do we do enough? When we know that our national sovereignty has been given up in less than a century to Brussels, do we do enough? When we hear that Christian kids in Germany are now converting to Islam to fit in, do we do enough? I don’t think so. The totalitarian institute of the European Union needs to come down. Let me be clear, I don’t believe in reforms.

When the foundation of your institution is rotten, and that is the case in Brussels, you can rebuild the house on top of it all you want, but it’s still going to crumble. So the only answer is the Tower of Babel needs to be destroyed. Ladies and gentlemen, we are the daughters and sons of the greatest nations on earth.

And we need to ask ourselves, what has happened to us? Where do we come from? And more importantly, where are we going? Our elites have declared a war on us, and now it is time for us to put on the full armor of God, fight back, and win. Thank you so much.

(RealClearPolitics, 4/27/2024)  (Archive)

April 27, 2024 - Arabella Advisors is the $2.4 billion leviathan that funnels money to the lefts NGO machine

Arabella Advisors manages six nonprofits that serve as incubators and accelerators for a range of other left-of-center nonprofits: the New Venture Fund, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Hopewell Fund, the Windward Fund, the North Fund, and the Impetus Fund.

They use these companies to heavily influence our elections, our SCOTUS picks and their new goal of making the court illegitimate.

They use money from Soros, Zuckerberg, Gates and even foreign born billionaire Hansjoerg Wyss.

Here is a look at how they plan to influence the 2024 election.

April 28, 2024 - Judge Cannon unredacts FBI affidavit for search warrant to raid Mar-a-Lago

April 29, 2024 - White House visitor log shows that NARA's David Ferriero met with Biden's WH counsel Dana Remus twice in Sept 2021

April 30, 2024 - The DOJ refuses to disclose the audio recordings of Biden's special counsel interviews citing privacy interests

Judicial Watch graphic

Judicial Watch announced that the Justice Department has told the court that it will not disclose the audio recordings of special counsel interviews with President Joe Biden in order to protect Biden’s “privacy” interests.

The Biden Justice Department informed Judicial Watch and the court that it would assert Exemptions 6 and 7(C) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to prevent the release of the two audio recordings of Biden’s interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur. Exemption 6 applies to “personnel and medical files and similar files” when disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Exemption 7 (C) applies to “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,” the disclosure of which “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

On March 11, 2024, Judicial Watch filed its FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a February 2024 FOIA request for records of all Special Counsel interviews of President Biden (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-00700)). A redacted transcript of the Biden interview was released on April 15.

On February 5, 2024, Special Counsel Robert Hur issued the “Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and Disclosure of Classified Documents Discovered at Locations Including the Penn Biden Center and the Delaware Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.”

In the report, Hur called Biden a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and declined to charge Biden with a “serious felony:”

We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.

Prior to the finalization of the report, the White House issued a letter to the Special Counsel’s office attacking the report’s “treatment of President Biden’s memory,” and added “there is ample evidence from your interview that the President did well in answering your questions …”

“This is yet another brazen cover-up. The Biden Justice Department’s political gambit in asserting Joe Biden’s privacy concerns in order to withhold audio of his criminal interviews with the special counsel really takes the cake,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Obviously, the public’s right to know outweighs Joe Biden’s privacy in this widely public case. And, of course, President Biden can simply waive any privacy so the public can fully understand why he was given a pass from criminal prosecution.”

Judicial Watch has several ongoing FOIA lawsuits about Biden’s document scandals and the related unprecedented partisan prosecutorial and judicial abuses of former President Donald J. Trump. (Judicial Watch, 4/30/2024)  (Archive)

May 1, 2024 - House Weaponization Committee holds hearing with the Biden White House censorship regime

Former White House Director of Digital Strategy Robert Flaherty on Wednesday was unable to state the “five tenets of the First Amendment” when Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack asked him at a hearing on government censorship.

Flaherty joined President Joe Biden’s White House in Jan. 2021, and was involved in efforts to influence social media companies to censor certain viewpoints, particularly on issues of COVID-19 and vaccinations. Flaherty said he is familiar with the First Amendment, but could not recall the five tenets, which are “freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition,” according to United States Courts.

“Can you please outline the five tenets of the First Amendment for me?” Cammack asked.

“Congresswoman, I’m not gonna be able to do it off the top of my head, but generally the First Amendment relates to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly,” Flaherty said. “Off the top of my head, I’m not able to recall all of the planks.”

Flaherty sent an email in April 2021 to demand a Facebook employee censor Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson’s video about COVID-19 vaccines.

“Oof, well that’s disappointing and a little embarrassing, but not surprising considering what we’re dealing with here today,” Cammack said. “Now I certainly wouldn’t expect that someone who can’t outline the basic tenets of the First Amendment to uphold the First Amendment of which you took an oath to defend, but here we are today.”

(Read more: Daily Caller, 5/1/2024)  (Archive)

More questions:

Committee Reports:

Full hearing:

May 1, 2024 - 10 examples of Facebook, YouTube & Amazon explicitly saying they only passed censorship policies because they were threatened by the Biden government

May 1, 2024 - O'Keefe Media exposes CIA contractor who claims the intel community kept information from Trump...names Haspel and Pompeo

Full Text:

BREAKING – EXPOSING THE CIA: “So the agencies kind of, like, all got together and said, we’re not gonna tell Trump…Director of the CIA would keep [information from Trump]…” A project manager working in Cyber Operations for the @CIA and an @NSAGov contractor with top-secret clearance working for @Deloitte, Amjad Fseisi, is caught on undercover cameras implicating the highest levels of the intelligence agencies, including “The executive staff. We’re talking about the director and his subordinates,” former CIA Directors “Gina Haspel….And I believe Mike Pompeo did the same thing too,” “kept information from him [Trump] because we knew he’d fucking disclose it.” Amjad reasons “There are certain people that would…give him a high-level overview but never give him any details. You know why? Because he’ll leak those details…He’s a Russian asset. He’s owned by the fucking Russians.” @mikepompeo

Amjad reveals to OMG’s Undercover American Swiper that intel agencies not only kept intelligence information from a sitting United States President and Commander-In-Chief, they also used FISA to spy on @realDonaldTrump and his team and are still monitoring President Trump according to Amjad who says, “We monitor everything.” Amjad adds “we also have people that monitor his ex-wife. He likes to use burner phones” – information only an insider with access to highly sensitive information would state.

“We steal it [information]” and “We hack other countries just like that,” Amjad, who states he currently works on the CIA’s China Mission Center, explains how intel agencies obtain information. He also describes a broken intelligence system where “We don’t share information across agencies” because the CIA is “very reluctant” to share information with the “careless” NSA.

O’Keefe Media Group’s bombshell undercover footage supports earlier reports by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Alex Gutentag that revealed how the American intelligence community illegally ran a spy operation against then-candidate Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016 and illegally acquired intelligence that was later used to justify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (@FBI) official probe, “Crossfire Hurricane,” which in turn led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that ultimately did not find evidence of Russia collusion by the 2016 Trump campaign. @shellenberger @mtaibbi @galexybrane

Contractors like Fseisi hold the duty to withhold sharing confidential or national security information. In denying his statements, Fseisi may have realized he could be held liable for violating internal agency provisions and federal laws like the Executive Agency ethics provisions, which restrict what he may share with others outside of his contracted-to agency. Additionally, any government worker or agency head who withheld information from a superior (i.e. President Trump) may violate: (a) obstruction of justice by deception (18 USC 1512); (b) conspiracy to obstruct (18 USC 371); and false statements (18 USC 1001). Agency regulations may also provide offenses related to insubordination, reflecting poorly on the agency in public, or misrepresentation or dishonesty.

When James O’Keefe caught up with Amjad Fseisi on the streets of Washington, D.C., Fseisi could not tell O’Keefe whether he had top secret clearance, denied making statements clearly caught on camera, and would not even confirm it was him on the video saying only “It looks like me.” When asked directly if he works at the CIA, Fseisi said, “I can’t tell you that.”

Full Text:

CIA COMMENT: The official appears to have been terminated as a result of our reporting today. When the CIA was asked for comment, O’Keefe Media received an exclusive statement on the record from a CIA spokesperson today:

“These claims about CIA are absolutely false and ridiculous. CIA is a resolutely apolitical institution that provides intelligence support to policymakers including the President of the United States, irrespective of who occupies the office. We are a foreign intelligence focused Agency and do not monitor the former President. The individual making these allegations is a former contractor who does not represent CIA.”
In the video which was taken last week, the CIA official waves his intelligence community green badge. Green Badges are specifically hired for those contracted by the agency. Kash Patel, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, said “An individual possessing a contractor Green badge is only allowed to lawfully possess it while official employed as a contractor to the intelligence community. Upon any termination, credentials are returned to the home agency and destroyed immediately.”

Comments:

May 1, 2024 - 49 Republican Senators sign letter to Biden asking he withdraw support for a treaty that would expand WHO's pandemic authority and compromise U.S. sovereignty

All Republican senators (49), led by Senator Ron Johnson, have formally urged Biden to withdraw his support for a treaty that would expand the WHO’s pandemic authority and compromise U.S. sovereignty.

Full Text:

Dear Mr. President:

Next month, during the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly (WHA), your administration is expected to commit the United States to two international agreements that would strengthen the World Health Organization’s (WHO) authority to declare public health emergencies of international concern and expand the WHO’s authority over member states during such emergencies. This is unacceptable.

The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country. The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic function and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) or any new pandemic-related treaty that would increase WHO authority. We are deeply concerned that your administration continues to support these initiatives and strongly urge you to change course.

Article 55 of the IHR requires the text of any IHR amendment to be communicated to member states at least four months before the WHA at which they are to be considered. As the WHO has still not provided final amendments text to member states, we submit that IHR amendments may not be considered at next month’s WHA. Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty. As such, it was essential that the WHO abide by the four-month notice period to allow member states time to ensure that no traces of such proposals were included in a final amendment package for consideration by the WHA. Having failed to do so, amendments are not in order.

The WHO’s most recent publicly available draft of its new pandemic response treaty is dead on arrival. Instead of addressing the WHO’s well-documented shortcomings, the treaty focuses on mandated resource and technology transfers, shredding intellectual property rights, infringing free speech, and supercharging the WHO. Moving forward with a new pandemic preparedness and response treaty ignores the fact that we are still unsure of COVID-19’s origins because Beijing continues to block a legitimate independent investigation. We strongly urge you not to join any pandemic related treaty, covenant, or agreement being considered at the Seventy-seventh WHA. Should you ignore this advice, we state in the strongest possible terms that we consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.

In light of the high stakes for our country and our constitutional duty, we call upon you to (1) withdraw your administration’s support for the current IHR amendments and pandemic treaty negotiations, (2) shift your administration’s focus to comprehensive WHO reforms that address its persistent failures without expanding its authority, and (3) should you ignore these calls, submit any pandemic related agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent.

Sincerely,

Ron Johnson, United States Senator

Rick Scott, United States Senator

Plus, the signature of 47 other US Senators.

Original letter can be found here.

May 2, 2024 - MSNBC panel says Stormy Daniels' former lawyer is a challenging witness for the prosecution and benefits Trump

Keith Davidson testifies May 2, 2024. (Credit: Jane Rosenberg/Reuters)

Members of an MSNBC panel on Thursday said porn star Stormy Daniels’ former lawyer Keith Davidson was a challenging witness for the prosecution and benefited former President Donald Trump’s defense.

Davidson, who also previously represented Karen McDougal, testified Thursday in the trial where Trump faces 34 felony counts of allegedly falsifying business records about reimbursing his former attorney Michael Cohen for $130,000 paid to Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 election. Former assistant New York State Attorney General Adam Pollock said his testimony was “difficult” for the prosecution while MSNBC legal analyst Catherine Christian said he was “helpful” to the defense because Trump’s attorneys will have more ammunition to allege that Daniels’ attorney exploited the then-presidential candidate.

“I think Davidson is one in a line of difficult witnesses that already come before and are going to be coming in this trial,” Pollock said in response to host Katy Tur asking about how his testimony impacted the prosecution’s case. “This is a messy trial, and sort of gives us all an insight, a crack into what this sordid world is about between the National Enquirer and selling stories. It’s not pretty to watch.”

“He was helpful in that he established that there was a payoff and he negotiated with Michael Cohen, but he was helpful to the defense because he has, particularly since the prosecution didn’t bring out some of his bad acts on their direct examination, he appears to be in the defense view, just a lawyer who shakes down people, whether it was Hulk Hogan or other people,” Christian said in response to the same question. “That’s what he did and maybe that’s what happened here. That’s what the defense will say. This was a shake down of Donald Trump. This wasn’t about paying someone as an illegal campaign contribution. This was a shake down, and Michael Cohen, it’s an understatement to say how difficult of a witness he is for the prosecution. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 5/02/2024) (Archive)

May 3, 2024 - Prosecutors admit key evidence in the Mar-a-Lago documents case has been tampered with

In a stunning admission, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team is admitting that key evidence in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents criminal case was altered or manipulated since it was seized by the FBI, and that prosecutors misled the court about it for a period of time.

Legal experts told Just the News the revelation could prove to be a serious problem for prosecutors and a violation of court rules to preserve evidence in the state it was seized.

In a new filing Friday, Smith’s team said that the order of documents in some of the boxes of memos that were seized by the FBI from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was altered or jumbled, leaving two different chronologies: one that was digitally scanned and another the physical order in the boxes.

“Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants’ review of the boxes,” Smith’s team wrote in a new court filing to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

“There are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans,” the prosecutors wrote.

Smith’s team in a footnote also conceded it had misled the court about the problem by previously declaring that the evidence had remained in the exact state it had been seized.

“The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court,” the footnote said.

You can read the filing here:

gov.uscourts.flsd_.648653.522.0.pdf

The organization of the documents in storage boxes at Mar-a-Lago is likely to be an important part of Trump‘s defense. His team is expected to argue the documents were stored in the White House in chronological order on the days that Trump received them, and that staff simply boxed them up and sent them to his home without him accessing them or knowing they contained classified information.

Smith’s team tried to downplay the problem and argued it’s not a reason for a delay in Trump’s case.

But several legal experts told Just the News the court filing essentially is an admission of evidence tampering, and could be problematic.

“Prosecutors and investigators should never tamper with or alter evidence in their possession, including the order of documents in a box because one never knows what may become relevant or crucial to a court or jury later in a case,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said. (Read more: JustTheNews, 5/03/2024)  (Archive)

Former President Donald Trump argued that special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against him should be tossed after prosecutors wrote that they misled a judge about the order of items in an evidence box.
In a post on Truth Social over the weekend, President Trump called for the arrest of Jack Smith and argued that the case should be thrown out based on the new court filing.

It came after Mr. Smith’s team wrote that that the order of items within a box was “not the same” as they appear in digital photographs of materials after the FBI obtained those boxes from President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in August 2022. (Read more: The Epoch Times, 4/05/2024)  (Archive)

May 3, 2024 - Col. Earl Matthews says Army leaders stripped Trump of authority on January 6

Col. Earl Matthews was the Staff Judge Advocate on January 6, 2021. He came forward as a whistleblower before the subcommittee reviewing the investigation by the Select Committee on January 6. (Credit: CSpan/DailyMail)

Donald Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief was ignored by senior military leadership on January 6, 2021, claims the chief legal advisor for D.C. National Guard on that day.

Colonel Earl Matthews came forward as a whistleblower to the House subcommittee reviewing the January 6 Select Committee’s investigation.

He sat down with DailyMail.com two weeks after the public hearing to explain what he saw happen that day.

He claims that Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, and then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, were plotting to disobey any orders handed down by Trump because they ‘unreasonably’ assumed the then-president was going to break the law and try to use the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) to stop certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

A lot has been made about the breakdown in military and administration communication when it came to the timeline of deploying DCNG to the Capitol.

But Matthews claims senior military leadership was solely focused on getting the heat off of them and putting it back onto Trump.

The Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, Matthews claims, was more than happy to lean into this narrative and blame the entire ordeal on the then-president.

But Matthews says that senior military leadership essentially stripped the president of his authority as commander-in-chief by preemptively planning to go against orders because they didn’t like the optics of uniformed soldiers at the Capitol.

‘I think a very plausible argument can be made that through no fault of his own, President Trump’s command authority over both the D.C. National Guard and the U.S. Army itself had been surreptitiously curtailed by the senior leadership of the Army on January 6, 2021,’ Matthews told DailyMail.com.

He continued: ‘Army leadership had unreasonably anticipated an ‘unlawful order’ from the President, an order that the President had no plans to issue, and were preemptively seeking to curtail his discretion to issue such an order.’ (Read more: The Daily Mail, 5/03/2024) (Archive)

May 6, 2024 - New court filings reveal the DOJ's crime scene photo of the Mar-a-Lago raid was doctored

The picture that launched a thousand pearl-clutching articles.

(…) New court filings in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s espionage and obstruction case against Trump and two co-defendants conclusively demonstrate that the government used the cover sheets to deceive the public as well as the court. The photo was a stunt, and one that adds more fuel to this dumpster-fire case.

Jay Bratt (Credit: cyber security
summit)

Jay Bratt, who was the lead DOJ prosecutor on the investigation at the time and now is assigned to Smith’s team, described the photo this way in his August 30, 2022 response to Trump’s special master lawsuit:

“[Thirteen] boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings, and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings…were seized. Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. (Emphasis added.) See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the ‘45 office’).”

The DOJ’s clever wordsmithing, however, did not accurately describe the origin of the cover sheets. In what must be considered not only an act of doctoring evidence but willfully misleading the American people into believing the former president is a criminal and threat to national security, agents involved in the raid attached the cover sheets to at least seven files to stage the photo.

Classified cover sheets were not “recovered” in the container, contrary to Bratt’s declaration to the court. In fact, after being busted recently by defense attorneys for mishandling evidence in the case, Bratt had to fess up about how the cover sheets actually ended up on the documents.

Here is Bratt’s new version of the story, where he finally admits a critical detail that he failed to disclose in his August 2022 filing:

“[If] the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet. The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose.”

But before the official cover sheets were used as placeholder, agents apparently used them as props. FBI agents took it upon themselves to paperclip the sheets to documents—something evident given the uniform nature of how each cover sheet is clipped to each file in the photo—laid them on the floor, and snapped a picture for political posterity.

That raises many troubling questions, to say the least, about the FBI’s handling of the alleged incriminating documents.

For example, who made the on-site determination as to the classification level appropriate for each document? Did agents have security clearance and expertise related to classification? Did the agents know whether the document had been declassified by Trump while still in office?

The hasty assessment also appears to contradict Bratt’s statements in court about the classification status of the seized documents. Bratt told Judge Aileen Cannon during a hearing last year that the records were undergoing a classification review, presumably conducted by the intelligence community, to determine the correct level of secrecy.

Did the final analysis confirm or dispute the assessments by the field FBI agents who conducted the raid?

But Jack Smith might have bigger problems. During the raid, agents took a box in its entirety if it contained papers with classified markings; the box usually contained other items, which is how the FBI ended up with so many of Trump’s personal belongings.

So, in order to flag the location of the alleged classified record in the box, agents, as Bratt noted, used the cover sheets as placeholders. (The classified records were then placed in a separate secure file.)

But now defense attorneys claim, and the special counsel concedes, that some placeholders do not match the relevant document. “Following defense counsel’s review of the physical boxes…and the documents produced in classified discovery, defense counsel has learned that the cross-reference provided by the Special Counsel’s Office does not contain accurate information,” attorneys representing Trump’s co-defendant Waltine Nauta wrote in a May 1 motion.

The motion forced the special counsel to admit the error. “In many but not all instances, the FBI was able to determine which document with classification markings corresponded to a particular placeholder sheet,” Bratt wrote.

In other words, in their zeal to stage a phony photo using official classified cover sheets, FBI agents might have failed to accurately match the placeholder sheet with the appropriate document. This is a potentially case-blowing mistake, particularly if the document in question is one of the 34 records that represents the basis of espionage charges against Trump. (Read more: Declassified/Julie Kelly/Substack, 5/06/2024)  (Archive)

May 6, 2024 - FBI confirms it’s restarting online censorship efforts ahead of 2024 election

On Monday, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters that federal agencies such as the FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) restarted discussions with Big Tech platforms. According to NextGov/FCW, this coordination will focus on “removing disinformation on their sites as the November presidential election nears.” Warner claimed these talks resumed in March, around the same time oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri — which centers on the feds’ censorship efforts — were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.

When pressed on the validity of Warner’s remarks, an FBI representative confirmed to The Federalist that the agency has resumed communications with social media companies ahead of the 2024 election.

“The FBI remains committed to combatting foreign malign influence operations, including in connection with our elections. That effort includes sharing specific foreign threat information with state and local election officials and private sector companies when appropriate and rigorously consistent with the law,” the representative claimed. “In coordination with the Department of Justice, the FBI recently implemented procedures to facilitate sharing information about foreign malign influence with social media companies in a way that reinforces that private companies are free to decide on their own whether and how to take action on that information.”

CISA Logo (Credit: public domain)

Jen Easterly (Credit: Wikipedia)

CISA External Affairs Specialist Tess Hyre declined The Federalist’s request for comment on whether the agency has resumed discussions with social media companies to combat what it claims to be “disinformation,” but she said that CISA Director Jen Easterly will be participating in an “Election Security” hearing in “the coming weeks.”

Neither the FBI nor CISA responded when pressed on when they restarted communications with social media companies on efforts to remove posts containing so-called “disinformation” from their platforms. The FBI and CISA did not identify the specific companies they’re working with on such efforts. Neither agency provided an answer when questioned on how they determine what constitutes “disinformation” or what other federal agencies they are collaborating with in these efforts to have “disinformation” removed from social media platforms.

The issue of government-compelled censorship is front and center in Murthy v. Missouri, a case before SCOTUS focused on allegations from Missouri and Louisiana that the federal government’s pressuring of social media companies to censor free speech online constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction in July 2023 barring federal agencies from colluding with Big Tech to censor posts they don’t like. In his ruling, Doughty wrote, “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” (Read more: The Federalist, 5/08/2024)  (Archive)

May 6, 2024 - A key player in Wisconsin's 2020 election steal has been fired

Full Text:

BREAKING: The most corrupt election clerk from the biggest city in Wisconsin has been FIRED. Claire Woodall-Vogg was a key player in stealing the 2020 election

“She printed 64,000 ballots in the back conference room of City Hall, Room 501. For the Nov 3rd 2020 election. She had city employees and others (CTCL) fill some of those out on the 4th, 6th and other floors of city hall. Then kicked out observers around 10-10:30pm on Nov 3rd. Then brought in large amounts of ballots at 1:15am on Nov 4th. All illegal, unconstitutional – number one way however the liberals stole the Presidential election in 2020.”

Full Text:

And here is,

why the swing states stopped counting on the night of Nov 3, 2020,

Wisconsin Election Commission Executive Director was printing 64,000 ballots on 4th, 6th floor of Milwaukee City Hall, all in favor of the Manchurian candidate Joe Biden.

Claire Woodall-Vogg
“I would just say as a reminder that is a felony, it is voter fraud to abuse the system.”

📝U.S. Congress certified the overthrown of your government. And they all know it.

May 7, 2024 - Judge Cannon vacates May 20 Trump trial date; set hearings with focus on Jack Smith

Case Documents

May 7, 2024 - Georgia Election Board member Janice Johnston states over 300,000 ballot images are missing from their 2020 election

Full Text:

“Does the investigation confirm that there are missing ballot images?”

“Yes.”

Case closed. No cover up operation can conceal the fact that Fulton County did not have the votes it claimed it had. The recount could not replicate the original results.

Oh, and it’s “news” to Fulton County that they are missing over 300,000 ballot images from Election Day.

May 8, 2024 - House Intelligence Committee holds a 'bipartisan' party dubbed 'FISA Fest' after renewing FISA 702 warrantless spying on Americans

Reps. Mike Turner and Jim Himes appear on Face the Nation, February, 2024. (Credit: CBS)

The lawmakers responsible for allowing the FBI to continue its warrantless spying on Americans threw an actual party to celebrate that fact, according to a report in Wired.

The tech publication reported Wednesday that the House Intelligence Committee had a party scheduled for that night, to celebrate last month’s renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows for the warrantless collection of Americans’ communications.

“The US House Intelligence Committee is throwing a party Wednesday night to celebrate the recent extension of the 702 surveillance program, multiple sources tell WIRED,” the publication reported.

“House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Turner and ranking member Jim Himes blasted out invitations announcing a ‘bipartisan celebration’ of the 702 program’s continuation last week. The event, which the lawmakers have dubbed FISA Fest, is being held in a reception room in the US Capitol building Wednesday night.” (Read more: Headline USA, 5/09/2024)  (Archive)

May 8, 2024 - Missouri AG blasts Media Matters for trying to stop his investigation into their fraudulent solicitations of donations from Missourians

On Wednesday, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that Media Matters is attempting to halt an investigation from the AG’s office into the organization for “allegedly fraudulent solicitation of donations from Missourians amidst its efforts to target X.”

Bailey posted about the motion from Media Matters online. “Media Matters is attempting to shut down Missouri courts. They filed a motion to HALT our investigation and lawsuit into their fraudulent practices,” Bailey wrote.

“DC courts have no say over Missouri courts. I have filed a motion to protect our ability to litigate in Missouri,” he added.

Baily filed a counter motion to Media Matters’ attempt to stop the investigation, which stated, “How shocking it would be if the Missouri Attorney General asked a state court to issue an order preventing this Court from hearing this case. Yet Media Matters seeks exactly that extreme remedy, just in reverse.”

The case filing from Bailey added, “Media Matters does not dispute that it can raise all its claims and defenses in the ongoing proceeding in Missouri state court. It has already begun doing so. It filed a motion to exercise legal rights guaranteed by Missouri law, which the state court granted. Nevertheless, Media Matters now asks a federal court in the District of Columbia to enter an order that would force the courts of the State of Missouri to stop adjudicating an ongoing case.”

Bailey also called the attempt to block the lawsuit an “attack on federalism” for the country.

Motion AG Bailey by Tommy

(The Post Millennial, 5/10/2024) (Archive)

May 9, 2024 - Turley skewers Hillary Clinton for attacking Trump over payments despite her labeling payment for Steele Dossier as legal expenses

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley skewered former First Lady Hillary Clinton Thursday for attacking former President Donald Trump over the alleged payout to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Clinton appeared on Morning Joe, where she alleged that the $130,000 payout to Daniels in 2016 was a form of “election interference” by the Trump campaign while discussing Trump’s trial on a 34-count indictment secured by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee agreed to pay a $113,000 fine after failing to report funding of the now-debunked Steele dossier through the Perkins Coie law firm.

“They are saying you rigged an election or a race that was already run, that’s what doesn’t make sense to us,” Turley said. “The hilarious aspect of that earlier clip with Hillary Clinton is that she actually makes the case for Trump, because when she ‘says how dare you keep information from the public,’ The Clinton campaign lied to the media about funding the Steele dossier. How did they hide it? They said it was legal expenses with Marc Elias. And when they were facing a fine, they litigated that and said no, it really is a legal expense. So her campaign did exactly what she is suggesting here, but they did it before the election.”

The Steele dossier was a key source behind the FBI’s investigation into allegations that the Trump campaign engaged in election interference with Russia in 2016. In October 2016, the FBI offered the dossier’s author, Christopher Steele, $1 million to corroborate allegations made in the document, according to testimony by FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten.

Steele ultimately failed to “prove the allegations,” Auten testified.

“What Trump is being accused of is giving the wrong notation, which he may not have had anything to do with, after the election was over that somehow affected the election,” Turley said. “The fact that judge Juan Merchan has allowed this case to go forward on these conflicted elements of the theory is one of the biggest complaints I have against him, that most judges, I think, would have approached this case very differently and many would not have had this case go to trial.” (The Daily Caller, 5/10/2024)  (Archive)