Featured Timeline Entries
April 24, 2025 - Newly-declassified McCabe memos show how disgraced FBI leader kept Trump-Russia collusion hoax alive in 2017

(L–R) Former FBI agent Peter Strzok; former FBI Director James Comey; and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. (Credit: Getty Images/Illustration by Epoch Times)

Newly-declassified memos written by disgraced FBI official Andrew McCabe shine new light on how he kept the Trump-Russia collusion hoax investigation alive during a critical period in the first half of 2017 before he got it handed off to a special counsel.

The eight memos penned by McCabe, most of which had never been released until earlier this month, span his discussions and meetings (including with President Donald Trump) held from January 24, 2017 to May 21, 2017 — a critical time period ranging from just before the FBI sprung an interview on retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn to just after Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. The memos were more fully declassified through efforts by Trump and FBI Director Kash Patel earlier this month.

(…)

January 24, 2017 — Mike Flynn’s call with McCabe

McCabe created his first memo related to a discussion he had with Flynn just before he was interviewed by FBI agents on January 24, 2017. Versions of the memo were previously released with various redactions in 2019 and 2020, but the version released this month has the fewest redactions yet.

The FBI had been plotting how to potentially prosecute Flynn related to his December 2016 call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, including potentially under the Logan Act.

McCabe said that “I told LTG Flynn that I had a sensitive matter to discuss. I explained that in light of the significant media coverage and public discussion about his recent contacts with Russian representatives, that Director Comey and I felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down with the General and hear from him the details of those conversations. LTG Flynn asked if I was referring to his contacts with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, and indicated that I was.”

McCabe said in his memo that Flynn explained that he had been trying to “build relationships” with the Russians, and that he had calls in which he “exchanged condolences.” McCabe said Flynn then stated that McCabe probably knew what was said in these calls because “you listen to everything they say.”

McCabe said of his talk with Flynn that “I reiterated that in light of everything that has been said about these contacts, the important thing now was for us to hear directly from him what he said and how he felt about the conversations.”

Comey later admitted in 2018 that he took advantage of the chaos in the early days of Trump’s administration when he sent FBI special agents Peter Strzok and Joseph Pientka to talk to Flynn.

“I sent them,” Comey said to MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace, prompting laughter in the audience. “Something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in … a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration.”

“In both of those administrations, there was process, and so, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, and there’d be discussions and approvals and who would be there, and I thought, it’s early enough — let’s just send a couple guys over,” Comey added.

Strzok overjoyed that Flynn case not closed

 The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case in May 2020 stated that Strzok learned in early January 2017 that the Flynn case had not been closed despite the lack of evidence for keeping it open, and relayed the “serendipitously good” news to McCabe’s special assistant Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair. Strzok remarked that “our utter incompetence actually helps us.” Strzok then instructed FBI agents to “keep it open for now” at the behest of “the 7th Floor” of the bureau.

The DOJ said that “the FBI kept open its counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn based solely on his calls with Kislyak — the only new information to arise since the FBI’s determination to close the case.” McCabe did not tell Flynn that he was being interviewed by the FBI as part of an investigation targeting the Trump campaign.

McCabe said in his memo that “LTG Flynn questioned how so much information had been made public and asked if we thought it had been leaked” and “I replied that we were quite concerned about what we perceived as significant leaks and that we were in the process of completing a referral to the Department of Justice requesting authority to initiate a leak investigation.” McCabe said that “I further indicated that these cases were hard to prove but that we thought the significance of this situation demanded a thorough review.”

The leaks begin

Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak were leaked to the media in early 2017. Republicans have alleged since 2017 that Obama-era officials improperly unmasked associates of then-candidate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign during the Russia collusion investigation. Democrats defended the intelligence-gathering process.

A Washington Post column in mid-January 2017 contained classified details that set off a media frenzy. Citing a “senior U.S. government official,” it said Flynn and Kislyak spoke on the phone in December 2016, the day former President Barack Obama announced actions against Russia, and suggested Flynn had violated the archaic Logan Act. A follow-up article by the Washington Post in early February 2017 revealed classified details from Flynn’s monitored calls with Kislyak, citing “nine current and former officials” in “senior positions at multiple agencies.”

John Bash, ​​the U.S. attorney tasked in 2020 with investigating the “unmasking” scandal, concluded that Flynn’s name had not even been hidden to begin with when the FBI shared information across the Obama administration.

The leakers of the Flynn calls were never found.

McCabe said in his memo that he told Flynn that it would not be a good idea for Flynn to have a lawyer present when he was questioned by the FBI that afternoon.

“I explained to LTG Flynn that my desire was to have two of my agents interview him as quickly, quietly, and discretely as possible. He agreed and offered to meet with the agents today,” McCabe wrote. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between him and the agents only. I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that  would need to involve the Department of Justice. He stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”

William Barnett, the FBI agent who handled Flynn’s case in 2016 and 2017, called the Trump-Russia investigation “Collusion Clue” and argued many investigators were out to “get Trump.”

Top FBI officials had discussed the possibility of prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their January 2017 interview of the Trump national security adviser, bureau notes show.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” Bill Priestap, the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, wrote in January 2017. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Obama White House kept tabs on Flynn

An email that Obama national security adviser Susan Rice sent herself detailing an early January 2017 Oval Office meeting was declassified in 2020, revealing just how focused the outgoing Obama administration was on Flynn.

“Director Comey affirmed that he is processing ‘by the book’ as it relates to law enforcement. From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information,” Rice wrote.

Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told Mueller’s team that she first learned the FBI possessed and was investigating recordings of Flynn’s conversations following an early January 2017 national security meeting at the White House, and that it was Obama — not Comey — who told her about it.

Obama “started by saying that he had ‘learned of the information about Flynn’ and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak,” Yates said, according to FBI notes. “Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently.”

Yates told investigators that “at that point,” she “had no idea what the President was talking about.” She “recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act” but could not remember if Comey specifically said there was an “investigation.”

Handwritten notes by Strzok released by the Justice Department in 2020 seem to quote then-Vice President Joe Biden directly raising the “Logan Act” related to Flynn, according to an apparent conversation Strzok had with Comey after an early January 2017 White House meeting. Strzok wrote that Comey said the Flynn-Kislyak calls “appear legit.” Obama emphasized that “the right people” should look into Flynn.

The task fell to Comey, McCabe, and Strzok.

The Flynn-Kislyak call and the FBI interview

The transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak — which occurred on December 29, 2016 — was declassified in 2020.

One transcript portion stated: “Flynn wants to convey the following [to Moscow]: Do not allow this [Obama] administration to box us in right now! Kislyak says they have conveyed it very clearly.”

“So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff, where they are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don’t go any further than you have to because I don’t want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?” the transcript says Flynn said, with the transcript adding that “Kislyak says he understands what Flynn is saying, but Flynn might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow.”

The transcript stated that Flynn said that “I really do not want us to get into the situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We don’t need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.”

“Kislyak agrees. Now when FSB and GRU are sanctioned and Kislyak asks himself, does it mean that the U.S. is not willing to work on terrorist threats, Kislyak poses a question. Flynn says, yes. Kislyak says he heard Flynn and he will try people in Moscow to understand. Flynn repeats asking to reciprocate moderately,” the transcript stated.

The transcript added that Flynn also said, “Let’s keep this at even-kill level; then when we come in, we will have a better conversation where we are going to go regarding our relationship.”

The FBI’s notes of the interview of Flynn by Strzok and Pientka on January 24, 2017 were also released in a further declassified form this month. The interview occurred just a few hours after McCabe’s call with Flynn.

The FBI notes state: “FLYNN expanded that he had no particular affinity for Russia, but that KISLYAK was his counterpart, and maintaining trusted relationships within foreign governments is important.”

The notes state that “the interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or the closing of Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. FLYNN stated that he did not.”

The FBI notes also state that “the interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouraged KISLYAK not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal,” or not to engage in a “tit-for-tat.” The FBI notes say that Flynn responded, “Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t ‘Don’t do anything.’”

Strzok was a key player throughout the FBI’s deeply flawed Crossfire Hurricane investigation — including writing the opening communication that launched the inquiry.

Pientka had conducted the FBI’s first counterintelligence briefing of then-candidate Trump in August 2016 at its New York field office — and the briefing had been used as a “pretext” to gather evidence on him and Flynn, according to 2019 testimony from DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz.

“They sent a supervisory agent to the briefing from the Crossfire Hurricane team, and that agent prepared a report to the file of the briefing about what Mr. Trump and Mr. Flynn said,” Horowitz testified. “So the agent was actually doing the briefing but also using it for the purpose of investigation.”

It was Strzok who signed off on Pientka’s summary of that pretextual briefing.

The interview by Strzok and Pientka with Flynn in January 2017 would soon be leveraged by McCabe and the FBI to facilitate the firing of Flynn — and to underpin a prosecution.

Trump DOJ later points out flaws with FBI’s Flynn interview

The Trump Justice Department later pointed out significant problems with how McCabe and the rest of the FBI leadership had handled the Flynn affair.

“FBI Director Comey took the position that the FBI would not notify the incoming Trump administration of the Flynn-Kislyak communications. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and other senior DOJ officials took the contrary view and believed that the incoming administration should be notified,” the DOJ said in 2020. “Deputy Attorney General Yates and another senior DOJ official became ‘frustrated’ when Director Comey’s justifications for withholding the information from the Trump administration repeatedly ‘morphed,’ vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.”

The DOJ said in 2020 that the morning of January 24, 2017 — right around when McCabe held his call with Flynn — Yates contacted Comey “to demand that the FBI notify the White House of the communications” but that “Comey did not initially return her call” — and when Comey called Yates back later that day, Comey “advised her that the FBI agents were already on their way to the White House to interview Mr. Flynn.” Yates said she was “flabbergasted” and “dumbfounded” while other senior DOJ officials “hit the roof” upon hearing of this development, given that “an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with DOJ.”

But the machinations by McCabe and Comey ensured the FBI interview of Flynn happened the way they wanted.

Strzok and Pientka “didn’t show him the transcripts” of his calls when interviewing Flynn, the DOJ said, “nor did the agents give, at any point, warnings that making false statements would be a crime.”

And the DOJ said that “after the interview, the FBI agents expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr. Flynn had lied.” The DOJ wrote that Strzok and Pientka “had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” And even Comey had his doubts about whether Flynn had even lied, saying, “I don’t know. I think there is an argument to be made he lied. It is a close one.”

“With its counterintelligence investigation no longer justifiably predicated, the communications between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak — the FBI’s sole basis for resurrecting the investigation on January 4, 2017 — did not warrant either continuing that existing counterintelligence investigation or opening a new criminal investigation,” the Trump DOJ determined in 2020. “The calls were entirely appropriate on their face. Mr. Flynn has never disputed that the calls were made. Indeed, Mr. Flynn, as the former Director of Defense Intelligence Agency, would have readily expected that the FBI had known of the calls — and told FBI Deputy Director McCabe as much.”

The Trump DOJ added: “The Government does not believe it could prove that Mr. Flynn knowingly and willfully made a false statement beyond a reasonable doubt. … The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.”

Yet the FBI interview with Flynn would help end his brief tenure as national security adviser, and would result in his prosecution.

January 31, 2017 — McCabe talks to Bannon in the West Wing

McCabe wrote another memo about a meeting in the West Wing, accompanied by FBI official Bill Priestap, with then-White House official Steve Bannon on January 31, 2017.

The McCabe memo stated that “the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a piece of intelligence regarding Eugene Chin Yu, who claimed to be under consideration by Mr. Bannon for a position as Special Envoy to North Korea or the United States Ambassador to South Korea.” But the meeting soon led to a discussion about Trump and Comey.

“Mr. Bannon requested that he be given an opportunity to speak to me privately, and Mr. Priestap left the room. Mr. Bannon then mentioned that President Trump told him that he had a positive experience dining with Director Comey last Friday night and he inquired about whether the Director mentioned it to me,” McCabe wrote. “I replied that Director Comey was also very positive about their engagement. Mr. Bannon stated that he thought it was important to put the two men together to find out if Director Comey wished to stay in his position and whether President Trump wanted to retain him.”

McCabe later told Mueller’s team in September 2017 that he had essentially lied to Bannon, with the FBI’s notes of its interview with McCabe stating that “McCabe knew Comey did not have a good time, but answered that way in order to ‘move the issue off the table.’”

“Mr. Bannon explained that President Trump wished to be very supportive of law enforcement and to the FBI specifically Mr. Bannon was eager to identify opportunities for President Trump to visit the FBI, or to participate in FBI events, in an effort to publicly support the organization,” McCabe’s memo of the conversation stated. “Mr. Bannon pointed to the President’s recent speech at CIA headquarters as an example. He said President Trump would probably be quite interested in seeing the FBI Training Academy at Quantico, Virginia, and possibly could participate in a New Agent’s graduation. I told Mr. Bannon that I appreciated his and the President’s interest and indicated that I would discuss the matter with Director Comey.”

McCabe would later undercut efforts by Trump to pay a visit to the FBI, and McCabe would also soon exacerbate the tensions between Flynn and then-Vice President Mike Pence.

Flynn, Pence, and the Kislyak call

Obama had announced on December 29, 2016 that “I have ordered a number of actions in response to the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election.”

“I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners,” Obama said. “I have sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.”

Obama also said that “the State Department is also shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes, and is declaring ‘persona non grata’ 35 Russian intelligence operatives.”

Then-Vice President Mike Pence had told CBS News on January 15, 2017 that “I talked to General Flynn about that conversation [with Kislyak]… It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”

“It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,” Flynn later told the Daily Caller in February 2017 about his call with Kislyak. “So that’s what it turned out to be. It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.”

But Flynn signed a guilty plea in November 2017 after being targeted by the Mueller investigation. The Mueller team contended that “FLYNN’s false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

Flynn’s legal team moved to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea in January 2020, declaring their client was “innocent” and pointing to “the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement.”

Flynn’s lawyers told the court in the summer of 2020 that they believed the declassified information was exculpatory evidence “demonstrating (i) his innocence; (ii) the absence of any crime; (iii) government misconduct in the investigation of General Flynn; and (iv) prosecutorial misconduct in the suppression of evidence favorable to the defense.”

February 10, 2017 — McCabe meets with Pence about Flynn controversy

McCabe penned an additional memo about a counterintelligence briefing that he and Priestap gave at the Office of the Vice President on February 10, 2017 — just three days before Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser at the behest of Pence. The memo shows that it was McCabe who showed Pence and other White House officials the Flynn-Kislyak transcript, and that McCabe discussed the Logan Act with Pence and others.

McCabe wrote that “I went to the White House to provide a basic CI [counterintelligence] defensive brief to the staff members of the Office of the Vice President” and that, after leaving the briefing and preparing to head back to FBI quarters, a yet-redacted FBI special agent “informed me that the White House Counsel’s office had been trying to reach me. Before leaving the White House grounds, I contacted the Sit Room. They informed me that White House Counsel Donald McGahn requested that I meet him in the West Wing to discuss an urgent matter in person.”

McCabe first went to McGahn’s office and then went to Pence’s office in the West Wing, where he met with Pence, McGahn, White House counsel’s office lawyer James Burnham, Pence chief of staff Josh Pitcock, and White House chief of staff Reince Priebus.

“After entering the office, Mr. Priebus informed me that he wanted to review ‘the transcripts.’ I understood he was referring to the transcripts of the telephone conversations between National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak that were recently revealed in an article in the Washington Post,” McCabe wrote. “He mentioned that he knew the FBI previously allowed John Eisenberg, Legal Advisor to the National Security Staff, to review the transcripts. I indicated to Mr. Priebus and the others that I could have Bill Priestap retrieve the transcripts from FBI HQ so that they could review them. The Vice President asked me to dispatch Bill Priestap so that they could review the materials as soon as possible.”

McCabe said that he left the room to call Priestap and to direct him to retrieve the transcripts, and that he also spoke with FBI general counsel James Baker, who “agreed that the review was permissible.”

McCabe said he returned to the office and “I received several questions from Mr. Priebus about how the transcripts could have leaked to the media, and whether or not the FBI was investigating the leak. I replied that we did not know how information about the transcripts had been leaked but that we had submitted a referral to the Department of Justice requesting authorization to begin a media leak investigation. I explained that the investigations would include recent and previous revelations in the Washington Post and other news outlets.”

Leakers not caught

McCabe also wrote in his memo that “Pence asked if I had read the transcripts and I indicated that I had. He then asked if the articles were correct. I first stated that I could not confirm whether the reporter had access to the transcripts or if they had merely spoken to someone who had such access. I then stated that I thought the article in the Post accurately reflected the substance of the transcripts. The Vice President asked, ‘Did they talk about the sanctions?’ I understood him to be asking whether Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia at the end of December 2016. I indicated that they did discuss the sanctions in those conversations.”

The memo by McCabe stated that “the Vice President indicated that he needed to discuss the matter with his staff, so I left the room to wait for Mr. Priestap to return with the transcripts.”

Once the transcripts were retrieved by Priestap, McCabe wrote that “I provided the Vice President with transcripts of telephone calls captured on 12/23/2016, 12/29/2016 and 12/31/2016. All three calls were between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak.” McCabe said that “I brought the Vice President’s attention to the call on 12/29/2016” — the call McCabe knew the FBI had grilled Flynn on the month prior.

“While reading the first two pages he commented that several items were consistent with what Mr. Flynn previously informed him had been discussed on the call. He requested that Mr. Pitcock get him a transcript of his comments to CBS news and one was produced. He also asked when the Obama administration announced the sanctions against Russia and someone confirmed that the sanctions were made public on 12/29/2016,” McCabe said of Pence. “Upon reading the portion of the transcript that detailed Mr. Flynn’s comments about the sanctions, the Vice President appeared frustrated and noted that Mr. Flynn initiated the discussion on that topic. The Vice President and the others compared Mr. Flynn’s statements in the transcripts with the Vice President’s comments to CBS News, and discussed what Mr. Flynn had told the Vice President about his conversations.”

McCabe wrote that Priebus, McGahn, Burnham, and Pitcock also reviewed some of the transcripts.

“Mr. Priebus asked me questions about whether or not the discussions related in the transcripts could constitute a violation of the Logan Act. I replied that he would need to ask the Department of Justice whether or not the calls constituted a violation of the act,” McCabe wrote. “I further stated that I was not aware of any prior prosecutions of Logan Act violations. Mr. Priebus asked if previous administrations had similar contacts with foreign representatives prior to taking office officially. I indicated that although I could not speak authoritatively about the actions of previous administrations, I thought it was possible that considerations like that could have been why the act had not been charged in the past.”

McCabe knew quite well that the FBI had indeed considered investigating and potentially prosecuting Flynn under the Logan Act.

“The FBI had in their possession transcripts of the relevant calls,” the Trump DOJ wrote in May 2020 when seeking to throw out the Flynn prosecution. “Believing that the counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn was to be closed, FBI leadership determined to continue its investigation of Mr. Flynn on the basis of these calls, and considered opening a new criminal investigation based solely on a potential violation of the Logan Act.”

McCabe’s memo concluded by saying that “the Vice President finished reading the transcripts and thanked us for providing them.”

Flynn was pushed to resign just a few days after McCabe’s meeting in the West Wing with Pence.

February 15, 2017 — McCabe refuses to shoot down ‘false’ NYT story on Trump & Russia

McCabe’s memos also detailed a meeting with Priebus at the White House on February 15, 2017 — now just a few days after Flynn’s ouster — where McCabe refused to publicly shoot down a New York Times article on alleged Trump-Russia collusion, even though McCabe acknowledged it was “false.” McCabe also advised Priebus that Trump should not shoot the story down either. McCabe was again accompanied to this meeting by Priestap, and the meeting again began as a defensive briefing which devolved into a discussion about Russia.

“I went to the White House for a meeting with Chief of Staff to the President Reince Priebus. FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap accompanied me. We were met by William Evanina, who is an FBI agent currently on detail to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the Director of the National Counterintelligence Security Center. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a counterintelligence defensive briefing to Mr. Priebus,” McCabe wrote. “We convened in Mr. Priebus’ office on the second floor of the West Wing. Joining us were White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Joe Hagin, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs Ezra Cohen, and one of Mr. Priebus’ briefers from the President’s Daily Briefing Staff. Over the course of about 25 minutes, Mr. Priestap provided the briefing and Mr. Evanina contributed details about cyber espionage and other counterintelligence topics.”

McCabe wrote that “the briefing concluded when Mr. Priebus indicated he had another meeting to attend. I asked Mr. Priebus if he had a moment to discuss a sensitive matter privately. He said he did and the other individuals left the room. I informed Mr. Priebus that the article that appeared in the New York Times this morning which purported to detail FBI efforts to investigate contacts between Russian intelligence officers and several individuals associated with the Trump campaign was largely inaccurate. … I further stated that I was aware of only two White House employees who were in contact with the Russian government: Michael Flynn and Hope Hicks. I reminded him that we discussed the substance of Mr. Flynn’s contacts on Friday, 02/10/2017. I further stated that the FBI’s assessment was that Hope Hicks’ contacts were innocuous, within the scope of her duties, and that we had already provided her with a defensive briefing.”

The article contended that “American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee… The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.”

The McCabe memo said that “Priebus seemed surprised by my comments and indicated that he also thought the article was false. He indicated that the administration was frustrated by having to spend so much time and effort refuting press stories that the White House perceived to be false. Mr. Priebus asked if the FBI would publicly state that the article was false. I told him that we did not do that sort of thing because when we corrected inaccurate news accounts we might inadvertently telegraph to our adversaries our capabilities and our operational activity. He asked if he could share what I told him with others in the White House, including the President. I told him he could share it with whoever he felt he needed to, as long as they did not share it publicly.”

Priebus asked, “What if I told the President and he inadvertently tweeted it?” McCabe wrote that “I told him that would not be a good thing. He continued to press me to consider how the FBI could issue some sort of statement to address this issue. I told him that I would discuss the matter with Director Comey and then get back to him.”

May 9, 2017 — McCabe meets with Sessions and Trump the day Comey is fired
Comey’s firing spurs McCabe into action
May 10, 2017 — McCabe meets Trump again and quietly undercuts FBI visit
May 12, 2017 — McCabe meets with Sessions and Rosenstein
The Comey memos
May 16, 2017 — Rosenstein suggests wearing a wire
The “Gang of Eight”
Rosenstein denies McCabe’s claims — and critiques McCabe
May 21, 2017 — McCabe meets with Mueller and refuses suggestion to recuse
McCabe defends Trump-Russia investigation — and trashes Durham

(Read more: Just the News, 4/24/2025)  (Archive)

April 24, 2025 - Susan Rice is fired from the Defense Policy Board; The 'Hidden Resistance' to Trump's agenda that remains

I will admit, when I first read that Susan Rice was still ensconced on the Defense Policy Board well into the new Trump administration, I thought it must surely be fake news, some hallucination conjured by an overactive internet rumor mill. Yet, with the bitter taste of disbelief still fresh, the facts became clear. Not only had she lingered, she had lingered officially, and with all the institutional imprimatur the position carries. It is the sort of stunning oversight that shakes one’s faith in the assumption that elections carry consequences.

Rice, a veteran of Obama-era foreign policy failures and perhaps best remembered for her calculatedly deceptive Sunday show performances following the Benghazi disaster, was somehow still whispering counsel into the halls of the Pentagon in 2025. Her known hostility to President Trump, his America First doctrine, and the foundational pillars of his administration did not, apparently, disqualify her. Her presence was not merely inappropriate, it was absurd, a lingering ghost from an administration the voters had quite emphatically rejected.

Thankfully, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth acted swiftly. Upon confirming the disgraceful truth, he took the only responsible course available: he discharged the entire cadre of Pentagon advisory board members, wiping the slate clean. Yet the discovery of Rice’s lingering influence opened a larger question in my mind. How many other advisory boards, spread across the vast administrative sprawl of Washington, remained populated by individuals not just ideologically distant from the president but openly hostile to his agenda?

When I dug deeper, the findings were no less alarming.

At the State Department, Thomas Donilon, a consummate Democratic insider who served as Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, continued to co-chair the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Donilon, whose worldview is saturated in the globalist dogmas that Trumpism explicitly rejects, was not some neutral technocrat offering dispassionate advice. He was, and remains, a committed architect of the very foreign policy status quo that voters repudiated.

Serving alongside Donilon was Cecilia Muñoz, another alumnus of the Obama White House, celebrated in progressive circles for her aggressive domestic policy advocacy. That she too advised the State Department in 2025 suggests not malevolent intent by Trump officials, but the lingering inertia of an entrenched bureaucracy and the sheer pace at which the new administration had to operate.

The situation at the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board was equally disquieting. Janet Napolitano, former Obama DHS Secretary and Democratic governor, lent her counsel, as did Evan Bayh, a loyal son of the Democratic establishment. Jane Harman, the California Democrat whose tenure on the House Intelligence Committee made her a fixture of Beltway orthodoxy, also held a seat, alongside Calvin Smyre, the “Dean” of Georgia Democrats.

It must be said: these appointments were not acts of sabotage, they were inherited artifacts of the prior administration, relics that had, perhaps through bureaucratic oversight, been allowed to persist longer than they should have. The Trump administration, moving at a breakneck pace to secure cabinet confirmations, implement executive orders, and dismantle the administrative state’s more overt structures, may not have fully cleared the decks of every board and commission.

The President’s Export Council, ostensibly a forum for economic growth, suffered from a similar inertia. Keisha Lance Bottoms, former Atlanta mayor and Democratic partisan, advised on export matters, flanked by Lacy Johnson, a Democratic operative from Indiana, Patrick Murphy, a Democratic former congressman from Florida, and Juan Verde, a Democratic strategist from the Obama Commerce Department.

These individuals are not mere advisors offering technical expertise from some neutral Olympus. They are political actors, shaped by decades of partisan struggle, invested in the success of the Democratic Party and the failure of the Republican vision for America. Their continued presence on federal advisory boards confers undeserved credibility, allowing them to subtly or not so subtly undermine the president’s directives under the guise of “expert opinion.”

Even within the Department of Defense itself, figures like Michael Bloomberg and Reid Hoffman, both prominent Democratic donors and partisans, held advisory positions on the Defense Innovation Board. Robert Wolf, famously dubbed “Obama’s Wall Street ally,” lingered on the Defense Business Board. Their appointments predated the new administration and, in the tumult of transition, may not yet have been formally revoked.

Advisory boards matter. They shape the information a president and his cabinet receive, frame the choices deemed “serious,” and create institutional momentum behind or against policy initiatives. A hostile advisor is not a harmless academic adding “diversity of thought.” He is a wedge, a saboteur in slow motion, capable of cloaking opposition in the respectable garments of “best practices” and “expertise.”

To appreciate the peril, one need only revisit George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which he warned against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence.” Today, foreign influence often enters not through emissaries but through the porous membranes of a permanent political class, credentialed, networked, and ideologically committed to resisting populist correction.

What President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and others must recognize is that elections, though decisive at the ballot box, are never self-executing within the bureaucratic labyrinth. Personnel, as the old Reagan maxim goes, is policy. Without loyal personnel, policy becomes little more than rhetorical flourish, mocked and resisted within the very apparatus charged with carrying it out.

It is not sufficient, therefore, to appoint secretaries and department heads. The advisory bodies must be purged of those whose loyalty lies with other agendas. It is not a question of suppressing dissent or banishing disagreement. It is a question of ensuring that advice flows from those who share, at a fundamental level, the vision that voters endorsed.

Nor should we shy away from acknowledging that credibility itself is a weapon. A Donilon or a Napolitano or a Rice can, with the simple weight of a title, influence media narratives, congressional investigations, and public perceptions. The mere fact that such a figure “advises” the president creates the illusion of bipartisan concern when, in fact, what exists is partisan subversion.

The stakes are not academic. As Mark Twain once noted, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” In our era, an ill-placed advisor can seed narratives, foment resistance, and hamstring executive action before the ink on a policy directive has even dried.

The Trump administration must move swiftly to correct these oversights. A full review, department by department, board by board, is essential. Those whose affiliations, records, and loyalties stand in opposition to the constitutional mandate entrusted to President Trump must be thanked for their prior service and formally dismissed. Moreover, it is vital that these removals are publicly reported, ensuring that neither the media nor the bureaucratic establishment can operate under the false assumption that these old holdovers remain in positions of influence.

In doing so, we reaffirm a basic principle: the American people have the right to see their political choices honored not merely symbolically but operationally. Anything less is a betrayal disguised as continuity.

April 24, 2025 - Judge Boasberg denied Jan 6 prisoner due process and discovery evidence; Violated his civil rights

Brian Mock (Credit: X.com)

Brian was denied justice.

This is not a conspiracy theory — it’s a documented civil rights violation.

“I specifically asked for this video and others at my trial. I had access to http://evidence.com from inside the D.C. Gulag. But AUSA Michael Gordon told me I wasn’t allowed to view it — because I’m not a lawyer.”

Brian represented himself pro se, which means he was legally entitled to all discovery.
Instead, the DOJ blocked him.

And Judge James Boasberg sided with them — denying Brian access to any evidence in the global discovery.

⚖️ This is not due process.

This is prosecutorial abuse, judicial betrayal, and systemic injustice.

How can a trial be fair if the defendant is blindfolded in the courtroom?

We are demanding a full congressional review and public release of all suppressed January 6 discovery.

VIDEO ANALYSIS: “7 Headshots” – U.S. Capitol, Jan 6, 2021 | 1:06 PM
📍 Location: West Plaza, U.S. Capitol
🕐 Time: 1:06 PM, January 6th, 2021
🔒 Status: Footage was buried in a classified folder labeled “Previously Highly Sensitive” and withheld from hundreds of January 6 survivors and legal defense teams.
🚨 Key Observations:
7 Rubber Bullets — 7 Direct Headshots.
The video shows a Capitol Police officer systematically firing rubber bullets directly into the heads and faces of multiple demonstrators in rapid succession.
No Active Threat Justified That Force.
The crowd is densely packed, with no clear indication of violent aggression. Most of the targets are either standing still, raising hands, or attempting to shield themselves.

No Warnings, No De-escalation.
There’s no audible warning or demand for dispersal before the shots are fired. The use of force is immediate, targeted, and arguably punitive.
Several Victims Collapse or Stumble.
One man takes a direct hit to the face and drops instantly. Another doubles over. No officers render medical aid. No EMS teams are visible.
🧨 Why This Matters:

This was not crowd control — this was retaliatory violence.
Rubber bullets are classified as “less-lethal,” but direct headshots violate all recognized use-of-force protocols. These shots could have caused permanent brain damage, blindness, or death.
And this footage was hidden.

Defense attorneys, survivors, and the public were deliberately denied access to a clip that undermines the official narrative — that protesters initiated violence and police merely responded.
⚖️ This Footage Demands:

Immediate public release of all related bodycam angles
Formal congressional review of suppressed evidence

Reparations and justice for those shot, mischarged, or silenced

April 25, 2025 - Letitia James’ defense lawyer Abbe Lowell, in response to a federal criminal referral, accidentally confirms fraud allegations

Letitia James Brooklyn property (Credit: Google Maps)

In a high-stakes response to a federal criminal referral, Letitia James’ defense lawyer, Abbe David Lowell, submitted a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi that made a stunning error: he fundamentally misunderstood the very property at the center of the investigation. The letter, prompted by the FHFA’s referral for potential mortgage fraud, falsely claimed James’ Brooklyn property “has always functioned as a four-person residence.” But official records, utility infrastructure, and tenant complaints paint a very different—and legally significant—picture.

In his letter to the US Attorney General, James’ lawyer made these specific claims about 296 Lafayette Avenue:

“In 2001, Ms. James purchased her Brooklyn, New York home with her savings to facilitate supporting her mother (sick at the time) and give other family members a place to live. Ms. James and her family members have lived there since 2001. The co-occupancy dwelling has four floors and, for as long as Ms. James has lived there, the property has always functioned as a four-person residence. Initially, Ms. James’ mother lived on the first floor; Ms. James occupied the second floor; a close family friend occupied the third floor; and her brother occupied the fourth floor. The basement did not have any unit. After Ms. James’ mother died, and to this day, Ms. James has occupied the first and second floor units for herself, while her close family friend and brother occupy units on the top two floors.”

This description reveals a lawyer completely unfamiliar with:

  • The building’s legal classification
  • The physical layout of the property
  • The actual utility services present
  • The documented complaint history

Most strikingly, the Certificate of Occupancy shows no fourth floor exists—yet the lawyer claims James’ brother lives there. That alone should have disqualified the letter.

The lawyer appears to be operating from a completely misaligned floor numbering system — a critical error that fundamentally affects how we understand the entire property and the tenant complaints:

Lawyer’s Floor Numbering
  • “Basement”: Actually the cellar — not legal for residential use. Lawyer conflates this with the basement.
  • “First Floor”: Actually the basement, which contains Unit 1 (which the lawyer claimed was occupied by James’ mother, but records show was occupied by tenants)
  • “Second Floor”: Actually the first floor (location of Unit 2B, a registered tenant unit)
  • “Third Floor”: Actually the second floor (lawyer claims it’s a single unit, but C/O says otherwise)
  • “Fourth Floor”: Doesn’t exist—this is pure fabrication
Actual Building (Per C/O)
  • Cellar: Not a legal residential space
  • Basement: One legal unit (“Unit 1” in HPD records)
  • First Floor: One legal unit (however, includes “Unit 2B” in HPD complaint records)
  • Second Floor: One legal unit
  • Third Floor: TWO separate legal units
  • Fourth Floor: Does not exist

This misalignment is critical because tenant complaints from “Unit 1” and “Unit 2B” correspond to spaces the lawyer claims were exclusively occupied by James and her mother—not by unrelated tenants. When we correctly align the floors, we see that these complaints directly contradict the lawyer’s claims about who lived where.

This isn’t just an embarrassing error in a routine real estate transaction, but in a letter to the U.S. Attorney General defending New York’s chief legal officer. The attorney isn’t just mistaken—he’s describing a building that doesn’t exist. (Read more: White Collar Fraud, 4/25/2025)  (Archive)

April 27, 2025 - California homeowners find hidden cameras on their property that are connected to "Burglary Tourism Groups" from South America

April 27, 2025 - Rogan and Musk discuss the details surrounding the Butler, PA Trump assassin

(…) In this powerful chat, Joe and Elon break down just how bizarre and disturbing this entire story really is.

They go through the strange facts one by one, from the assassin’s spotless house and missing online life to the shady ties to BlackRock, mind-blowing Secret Service failures, and the suspicious lack of transparency from federal officials.

These questions are very serious, yet nobody in power seems willing to answer them.

Wall Street Apes:

Never stop talking about this

Joe Rogan and Elon Musk point out the INSANE details surrounding the Butler, Pennsylvania Donald Trump assassination attempt shooter

– The assassins house was PROFESSIONALLY scrubbed
– His home was scrubbed so well there wasn’t even silverware left in the home
– No footprint on the internet
– No social media footprint (completely wiped)
– He was in a BlackRock commercial
– Joe Rogan says some individuals inside BlackRock may have “recognized that it’s beneficial to them if he gets assassinated”
– There was never a formal report
– There was never press conferences where they detailed all the information they know currently and where the investigation stands at the moment
– He was a very young g kid there with a rangefinder (used to measure distances, very suspicious)
– CNN streamed it live, which Joe Rogan does not believe they did for any other rally. And certainly not for a rally that’s in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania
– They wouldn’t let people be on that roof because the Secret service lady said it was sloped and it was dangerous
– The snipers that were on the other roof was a, a steeper pitch (It made no f*cking sense)
– Random people saw him and pointed him out on the roof with a gun for a long time before it happened
– The kid had 5 phones
– His body was immediately cremated
– There was some indications that there was a phone that had been traveling from outside the FBI offices in D.C to where this kid lived multiple times

We need answers.

(Read more: Revolver News, 4/27/2025) (Archive)

April 30, 2025 - RFK Jr. reports: “During the Biden administration, HHS became a collaborator in child trafficking and for sex and for slavery"

April 30, 2025 - Rubio reports he found dozens of "dossiers" kept by Joe Biden's State Department that classified American citizens as "vectors of disinformation"

This is NUTS: Secretary Rubio just announced that he found DOZENS of files kept by Joe Biden’s State Department that classified American citizens as “vectors of disinformation” — with the intention of censoring them.

That’s not all.

Marco Rubio says that there’s someone in President Trump’s cabinet meeting RIGHT NOW that was being monitored.

“There’s at least one person at THIS TABLE TODAY who had a dossier in that building…”

Joe Biden’s administration was corrupt ALL THE WAY THROUGH!

@JDVance: “Was it me, or @elonmusk?!”

Townhall’s @KatiePavlich responds to the Biden admin HIRING people to CENSOR conservative individuals who purveyed information they didn’t like!

“A number of us, including Townhall…were getting shadow banned…The federal government was used against regular everyday citizens…

…The Biden Administration decided they were going to use the full force of the federal government, taxpayer money, to go after people for talking about things they didn’t like.”

Catch the rest on the @WillCainShow_

April 30, 2025 - FBI reassigns agents from iconic 'take a knee' photo during George Floyd D.C. protest

FBI agents take a knee with BLM and George Floyd demonstrators on June 4, 2020, in Washington, DC. (Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reassigned several agents who were photographed kneeling with demonstrators during a 2020 protest in the wake of police killing of George Floyd, people briefed on the matter told CNN.

The reassignments, viewed as demotions by many inside the FBI, come nearly five years after the episode that ignited controversy inside the bureau. FBI officials offered no explanation for changing the roles to less coveted positions for the agents, according to sources.

The FBI declined to comment to CNN, citing its policy to not discuss personnel matters. Agents affected didn’t respond to requests for comment. (Read more: CNN, 4/30/2025)  (Archive)

May 1, 2025 - Grassley releases emails of Biden FBI agents plotting and celebrating Peter Navarro’s indictment (VIDEO)

Peter Navarro (Credit: public domain)

On Thursday, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) made public internal emails from Trump-hating FBI agents “planning and celebrating” the indictment of Trump advisor Dr. Peter Navarro.

In an email to a colleague, former FBI official Timothy Thibault celebrated Navarro’s impending indictment, “Wow! Great!”

However, Grassley noted, when a criminal referral was issued for Nellie Ohr, the FBI and DOJ chose not to press charges against her.

Read the full email exchange here by Biden regime officials plotting and celebrating Navarro’s indictment.

In June 2022, a federal grand jury indicted Trump advisor Dr. Peter Navarro for contempt of Congress after he refused to cooperate with Liz Cheney’s unconstitutional January 6 Committee.

Navarro faced two contempt counts: one for his failure to produce documents demanded by the committee and the other for failing to show up for subpoenaed testimony before House investigators.

According to Navarro, the feds put him in leg irons and threw him in a cell.

“They intercepted me gettin’ on the plane and then they put me in handcuffs, they bring me here. They put me in leg irons. They stick me in a cell,” Navarro said to reporters after his arrest. (Read more: Gateway Pundit, 5/1/2025)  (Archive)

May 1, 2025 - Stephen Miller participates in WH Press briefing and eviscerates the legacy propaganda media

Full Briefing:

May 2, 2025 - Ashli Babbitt’s family reaches a settlement with DOJ in their $30 million wrongful death lawsuit

After 3+ years of lies, the DOJ quietly folds.

Ashli Babbitt’s family just reached a settlement in their $30 million wrongful death lawsuit.

She was unarmed.
Surrounded by cops.
Posed no threat.
And they executed her.
After witnessing Rosanne Boyland’s murder in the West Tunnel, I moved to D.C. and helped guard
@michellewittho1 — Ashli’s mom — when she was assaulted by a D.C. Gulag guard during the first week of her now 4+ year vigil.
I wore a T-shirt with Ashli and Rosanne’s faces — and the truth:
“They Were Murdered by the Police.”

And now the U.S. government just admitted it.

We wore that shirt through dozens of committee hearings, trials, interviews across D.C., and every night at the vigil, where thousands watched from around the world.

We built a resistance.
We built a community.
And yes—we changed the world.

I love Micki with all my heart.
It was the honor of my life to stand beside her.
To wear Ashli’s face.
To speak Rosanne’s name.
To look evil in the eye and not blink.

This is what winning looks like.
We never gave up. And we never will.

#JusticeForAshli #JusticeForRosanne #January6 #J6Truth #MickiWitthoeft #DOJ #Coverup #PoliceBrutality

May 2, 2025 - A look at a chilling essay written in 1993 by George Soros, "Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO"

THREAD: GEORGE SOROS, THE MASTERMIND Today’s systems of NGOs isn’t accidental – it was laid out in a vision 30 years ago by none other than George Soros.

I joined @MikeBenzCyber on a livestream last night, where he was kind enough to walk us through the basics.

As my bio says, I am just a tool builder. I am not a historian or academic.

The information in this thread is common knowledge for many. It wasn’t for me.

I want to walk you through an essay which Mike pointed me to- a chilling essay written in 1993 by George Soros, “Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO”

May 2, 2025 - Texas AG Ken Pax­ton announces six indict­ments and arrests (including a judge) in Frio Coun­ty for ille­gal vote har­vest­ing scheme

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (Credit: public domain)

Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the indictments and arrests of six people, including several public officials, for election crimes related to a vote harvesting scheme in Frio County.

“The people of Texas deserve fair and honest elections, not backroom deals and political insiders rigging the system. Elected officials who think they can cheat to stay in power will be held accountable. No one is above the law,” said Attorney General Paxton. “My office will continue to work with Frio County District Attorney Audrey Louis to protect the integrity of our elections.”

In August 2024, Attorney General Paxton’s Criminal Investigation Division executed multiple search warrants in Frio, Atascosa, and Bexar Counties as part of a multi-year election integrity investigation into credible allegations of vote harvesting. On May 1, 2025, Frio County District Attorney Audrey Louis and the Election Integrity Unit of the Office of the Attorney General presented a criminal vote harvesting case to a grand jury in Frio County. The grand jury returned true bills for the following indictments:

  • Frio County Judge, Rochelle Camacho: 3 counts of Vote Harvesting
  • Former Frio County Elections Administrator, Carlos Segura: 1 count of Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence
  • Pearsall City Council, Ramiro Trevino: 1 count of Vote Harvesting
  • Pearsall City Council, Racheal Garza: 1 count of Vote Harvesting
  • Pearsall ISD Trustee, Adriann Ramirez: 3 counts of Vote Harvesting
  • Alleged Frio County Vote Harvester, Rosa Rodriguez: 2 counts of Vote Harvesting

Each suspect was arrested on May 2, 2025, with the exception of Rochelle Camacho, who will be processed at a later date. Attorney General Paxton’s Election Integrity Unit continues to investigate the case along with the Frio County DA. (Texas Attorney General, 5/7/2025)  (Archive)

May 4, 2025 - ‘60 Minutes’ hosts Marc Elias, infamous for the Clinton dossier, to compare Trump to a ‘mob boss’ in one-sided segment

(Credit: 60 Minutes)

“60 Minutes” ran a highly partisan segment likening President Trump to a cold-blooded mob boss Sunday — even as its corporate parent, Paramount Global, is currently in talks to settle a $20 billion lawsuit with the Trump administration over election interference.

Correspondent Scott Pelley — who recently accused his bosses at Paramount of restricting journalistic independence in an astonishing on-air rant — compared the executive orders the president has enacted against multiple law firms to how a “mob boss” would use intimidation tactics.

“The fact is that these law firms are being told, ‘If you don’t play ball with us, maybe somethin’ really bad will happen to you,’” he said during Sunday night’s episode.

Pelley also sat down with Marc Elias, a longtime rival of Trump and a former Perkins Coie partner hired by the Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign, in the one-sided segment.

“Donald Trump is the walking embodiment of everything that is wrong with the American political system,” said Elias, who first crossed paths with Trump while a part of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

“And so when Donald Trump says that I am unethical or that I am undermining his vision of America, I say, ‘Boy I must be doin’ something right.’”

Sunday’s scathing “60 Minutes” segment comes as Paramount Global is in talks to settle its high-stakes lawsuit with the president. (Read more: New York Post, 5/5/2025)  (Archive)

May 4, 2025 - Democrats loved deportation - A brief deportation history lesson

It wasn’t very long ago when the leaders of the Democrat Party were all in favor of mass deportations. From Bill Clinton to Barack Obama and just about every Democrat in between, they were saying the same things that the Trump Administration is saying today. This message from a Gen-Z influencer is the right message for the right time. She can reach some of the younger generation in ways that old folks like me simply cannot.

May 5, 2025 - Trump signs Executive Order to stop federal funding for gain-of-function/bioweapon virus research

Earlier today President Trump signed an executive order blocking the U.S. development of “gain of function” research, the manipulation of biological agents to weaponize their lethality. [Executive Order Here]

As Health and Human Service Secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr noted in his remarks, the modern U.S. development of the bioweapons program was an outcome of a little-known subset within the Patriot Act that allowed scientists to develop bioweapons without legal accountability for any negative outcome.  Let us not pretend….

In 2014 a U.S. developed bioweapon escaped a lab and in response President Obama stopped the program.  However, the stoppage only blocked development of the bioweapons on U.S. soil.  The various government agencies then continued the “gain of function” bioweapon development by offshoring the experiments and conducting the research in foreign countries.  The SARS-CoV-2 weapon, COVID-19, was developed in one of those labs in Wuhan, China, and escaped creating the pandemic of 2020.  WATCH:

EXECUTIVE ORDER – Section 1. Purpose. Dangerous gain-of-function research on biological agents and pathogens has the potential to significantly endanger the lives of American citizens. If left unrestricted, its effects can include widespread mortality, an impaired public health system, disrupted American livelihoods, and diminished economic and national security.

The Biden Administration allowed dangerous gain-of-function research within the United States with insufficient levels of oversight. It also actively approved, through the National Institutes of Health, Federal life-science research funding in China and other countries where there is limited United States oversight or reasonable expectation of biosafety enforcement.

This recklessness, if unaddressed, may lead to the proliferation of research on pathogens (and potential pathogens) in settings without adequate safeguards, even after COVID-19 revealed the risk of such practices.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to ensure that United States federally funded research benefits American citizens without jeopardizing our Nation’s security, strength, or prosperity. My Administration will balance the prevention of catastrophic consequences with maintaining readiness against biological threats and driving global leadership in biotechnology, biological countermeasures, biosecurity, and health research.

Sec. 3. Stop Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research. (a) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) identified by the Director of OSTP, shall establish guidance for the heads of relevant agencies, to the extent consistent with the terms and conditions of the funding, to immediately:
(i) end Federal funding of dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by foreign entities in countries of concern (e.g., China) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6627(c), or in other countries where there is not adequate oversight to ensure that the countries are compliant with United States oversight standards and policies; and
(ii) end Federal funding of other life-science research that is occurring in countries of concern or foreign countries where there is not adequate oversight to ensure that the countries are compliant with United States oversight standards and policies and that could reasonably pose a threat to public health, public safety, and economic or national security, as determined by the heads of relevant agencies.
(b) The Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the APNSA, and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall establish guidance for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies with respect to suspension of federally funded dangerous gain-of-function research, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relevant research funding, at least until the completion of the policy called for in section 4(a) of this order. Heads of agencies shall report any exception to a suspension to the Director of OSTP for review in consultation with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies.

Sec. 4. Secure Future Research Through Commonsense Frameworks. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6627 and in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall revise or replace the 2024 “United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential” to:
(i) strengthen top-down independent oversight; increase accountability through enforcement, audits, and improved public transparency; and clearly define the scope of covered research while ensuring the United States remains the global leader in biotechnology, biological countermeasures, and health research;
(ii) incorporate enforcement mechanisms, including those described in section 7 of this order, into Federal funding agreements to ensure compliance with all Federal policies governing dangerous gain-of-function research; and
(iii) provide for review and revision at least every 4 years, or as appropriate.

(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall revise or replace the 2024 “Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening” (Framework) to ensure it takes a commonsense approach and effectively encourages providers of synthetic nucleic acid sequences to implement comprehensive, scalable, and verifiable synthetic nucleic acid procurement screening mechanisms to minimize the risk of misuse. The heads of all agencies that fund life-science research shall ensure that synthetic nucleic acid procurement is conducted through providers or manufacturers that adhere to the updated Framework. To ensure compliance, the updated Framework shall incorporate the enforcement mechanisms described in section 7 of this order. The Framework shall be reviewed and revised at least every 4 years, or as appropriate

Sec. 5. Manage Risks Associated with Non-federally Funded Research. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the APNSA, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall develop and implement a strategy to govern, limit, and track dangerous gain-of-function research across the United States that occurs without Federal funding and other life-science research that could cause significant societal consequences. This strategy shall include actions to achieve comprehensive, scalable, and verifiable nucleic acid synthesis screening in non-federally funded settings. Any gaps in authorities necessary to achieve the goals of this strategy shall be addressed in a legislative proposal to be sent to the President, through the Director of OSTP and the APNSA, within 180 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 6. Increase Accountability and Public Transparency of Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research. The Director of OSTP, in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall ensure that the revised policy called for in section 4(a) of this order includes a mechanism whereby research institutions that receive Federal funding must report dangerous gain-of-function research, and to the maximum extent permitted by law, include research that is supported by non-Federal funding mechanisms. The reporting mechanism shall provide a publicly available source of information about research programs and awards identified pursuant to this section, including, where permitted by law, those that have been stopped or suspended pursuant to sections 3(a) and 3(b) of this order, and all future programs and awards that are covered by the updated policy developed in section 4(a) of this order. This reporting shall be conducted in a way that does not compromise national security or legitimate intellectual property interests of subject institutions.

Sec. 7. Future Enforcement Terms. The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies shall, consistent with existing laws and regulations, include in every life-science research contract or grant award:
(a) a term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with the terms of this order and any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-offering agency is material to the Government’s payment decisions for purposes of 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(4);
(b) a term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate, participate in, or fund any dangerous gain-of-function research or other life-science research in foreign countries that could cause significant societal consequences or generate unnecessary national security risks, and that does not comply with this order and the policies ordered herein;
(c) a term stating that a violation of the terms of this order or any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-offering agency by any grant recipient may be considered a violation of such term by the recipient’s employer or institution; and
(d) a term stating that any grant recipient, employer, or institution found to be in violation of the terms of this order or any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-making agency may be subject to immediate revocation of ongoing Federal funding, and up to a 5-year period of ineligibility for Federal life-sciences grant funds offered by the Department of Health and Human Services and other relevant agencies.

Sec. 8. Definitions. For the purposes of this order,
“dangerous gain-of-function research” means scientific research on an infectious agent or toxin with the potential to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or increasing its transmissibility. Covered research activities are those that could result in significant societal consequences and that seek or achieve one or more of the following outcomes:
(a) enhancing the harmful consequences of the agent or toxin;
(b) disrupting beneficial immunological response or the effectiveness of an immunization against the agent or toxin;
(c) conferring to the agent or toxin resistance to clinically or agriculturally useful prophylactic or therapeutic interventions against that agent or toxin or facilitating their ability to evade detection methodologies;
(d) increasing the stability, transmissibility, or the ability to disseminate the agent or toxin;
(e) altering the host range or tropism of the agent or toxin;
(f) enhancing the susceptibility of a human host population to the agent or toxin; or
(g) generating or reconstituting an eradicated or extinct agent or toxin.

(Conservative Treehouse, 5/5/2025)  (Archive)

COVID.GOV

May 5, 2025 - Grassley, Johnson target key dirty players in Mar-a-Lago raid

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

(…) Grassley and Johnson demanded the National Archives turn over all communications with the Biden White House, FBI and DOJ related to the Mar-a-Lago raid.

“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) are calling on the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to release all government records demonstrating the Biden administration’s role in advancing investigations into then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. The senators are also opening an inquiry into NARA and its Inspector General’s role in those investigations,” the Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Monday.

The chairmen requested:

  • All records between or among Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI and Biden White House officials referring or relating to President Trump’s election interference case, that began as the Arctic Frost investigation and ultimately became part of Jack Smith’s elector case.
  • All records between or among DOJ, FBI and Biden White House officials referring or relating to the investigation into President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified information.
  • All NARA records, including the NARA Office of Inspector General, referring or relating to the Arctic Frost and the classified document investigations.

Last month Grassley and Johnson released new records detailing the FBI and DOJ’s sweeping investigation that formed the basis of Jack Smith’s DC case against President Trump.

Grassley and Johnson previously blew the lid off another sham investigation orchestrated by Biden’s corrupt Department of Justice and compromised FBI.

According to the documents released last month, the FBI and DOJ weaponized their power to target President Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence, and their allies through a probe dubbed “Arctic Frost.”

“Operation Arctic Frost” was a taxpayer-funded witch hunt launched in April 2022 that seized government-issued cell phones belonging to Trump and Pence while conducting a barrage of interviews across the country.

The FBI did not require a warrant to take possession of government phones from the Biden White House. However, after securing the devices, agents began preparing a search warrant to access their data, sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News.

The senators claim anti-Trump FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault violated FBI protocols—specifically the “No Self-Approval Rule”—to kickstart the investigation, which later turned into Special Counsel Jack Smith’s bogus lawfare case against Trump, relying on fabricated justifications, including the absurd claim that Trump and his associates had engaged in “fraudulent” activities related to the 2020 election. (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 5/5/2025)  (Archive)

May 6, 2025 - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “No more dudes in dresses”

May 6, 2025 - Treasury Secretary Bessent: Over 500 million payments made in 2024 were untraceable back to an appropriation

FULL HEARING – HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE 5/6/2025