Featured Timeline Entries
July 9, 2025 - Documents reveal USAID PREDICT shipped thousands of virus samples to Wuhan Lab

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) transferred thousands of viral samples to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China over a 10-year period without securing a formal agreement to govern the exchange, according to newly obtained internal documents.

These documents, which were not previously disclosed, highlight significant gaps in oversight and accountability during a global public health program partially funded by the American government.

At the center of the matter is USAID’s $210 million PREDICT program, led by the University of California-Davis.

The initiative collected viral samples across several countries, including China’s Yunnan Province, a region known to host coronaviruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19.

The program aimed to identify pandemic threats but lacked clear protocols for long-term sample storage and tracking once federal funding concluded in 2019.

Documentation from the program, reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF), revealed that 11,000 samples were exported to WIV with no indication of safeguards to ensure the materials were not diverted for unauthorized use, such as bioweapons development, or that the U.S. government could later access them for investigation.

[predict] Re: Action required: PREDICT Close Out Sample Disposition Plan by Red Voice News

(LifeZette, 7/9/2025) (Archive)

As a sidenote, our PREDICT tag timeline reveals this story:

October 2009 – SoS Hillary launches USAID’s PREDICT, a project to study emerging pandemic threats; Metabiota founded by Nathan Wolfe in 2008 becomes a partner; Hunter Biden later invests in Metabiota in Ukraine

July 10, 2025 - Alan Dershowitz: “Documents are being suppressed to protect individuals. I know the names of the individuals; I know why they’re being suppressed; I know who’s suppressing them"

Dershowitz, who was named as John Doe in the Epstein court documents, said that he knows the names of the individuals on Epstein’s client list.

“Documents are being suppressed to protect individuals. I know the names of the individuals. I know why they’re being suppressed. I know who’s suppressing them. But I’m bound by confidentiality from the judge on the case and I can’t disclose what I know,” Dershowitz told Sean Spicer.

Full Interview:

(Read more: Gateway Pundit, 7/10/2025)

July 10, 2025 - Senator Mike Lee: "I’ve been asked today why I think Jeffrey Epstein *might* have been a gov asset"

July 10, 2025 - Six Secret Service agents suspended from 10 to 42 days for failures in Butler, PA

The popular headlines read that six secret service agents were suspended last month.  However, a more fulsome review of the disciplinary action highlights a slight slap on the wrist as the suspensions were from 10 to 42 days.

The disciplinary action follows an internal review of the failures of the Secret Service during President Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania that almost cost him his life.

WASHINGTON – Six agents were suspended by the U.S. Secret Service for failures connected to last year’s attempted assassination of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, an official told ABC News.

The personnel moves were confirmed four days shy of the anniversary of the July 13, 2024, shooting incident that left Trump’s ear bloodied.

Corey Comperatore, a firefighter attending Trump’s campaign rally that day, died in the attack.

[…] The discipline against the six agents was issued in recent months, and the agents were given the right to appeal. The suspensions ranged from 10 to 42 days, according to the official, who was briefed on the agency’s actions.

The positions of those suspended ranged from supervisory level to line agent level, a source familiar with the agency’s decision told ABC News. (read more)

(Conservative Treehouse, 7/10/2025)  (Archive)

EXCLUSIVE AND #BREAKING: The real story behind the six Secret Service suspensions over Butler failures:
Key supervisors who signed off on the Butler security plan and two who were on the final walkthroughs before the J13 rally were never disciplined but instead received BIG PROMOTIONS, multiple sources in the Secret Service community tell RealClearPolitics @RCPolitics.

One of those supervisors on the final walkthroughs, Nick Menster, was assigned this year as the No. 2 in charge of the Lara and Eric Trump protective detail. The other, Nick Olszewski, ironically, became the chief (special agent in charge) of the Inspection Division, which is responsible for ensuring the accountability and integrity of the agency’s personnel and operations.

Inexperienced agents positioned for failure and a more senior agent who spoke out about the ambiguity about the AGR roof coverage, according to Secret Service sources and Congressional testimony, are taking the fall.

Rank-and-file agents are incensed over the decision not to hold the supervisors accountable, further sinking the low morale and exacerbating retention problems throughout the agency. Secret Service Director Sean Curran was in charge of the Donald Trump detail at the time of the rally, and Menster served under his command.

Another big point – multiple Secret Service sources tell me that the original Secret Service disciplinary recommendations varied but maxed out at 52 days without pay. However, lawyers for the agents were able to scale that discipline down to 10 to 42 days without pay. This is a relatively light punishment for such egregious failures, but the fact that some of these agents didn’t receive the supervisory oversight that an outdoor rally of this magnitude required is likely a mitigating factor. If so, that begs the question of why key supervisors appear to have skated.

The agents being suspended may still decide to sue the agency.

“We avoided more severe sanctions, and now we’re assessing the next steps with respect to these discussions,” said Larry Berger, an attorney for several of the suspended agents who previously has served as a general counsel for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. Berger now has his own firm, Berger and Deplas.

Three of the six who are taking the fall (unpaid suspension) are:

Myotsoty Perez – an inexperienced agent (according to Congressional testimony, which did not name her) who was the “site agent” in charge of the security for the rally. She was part of the regular Donald Trump detail and was not chosen for the big outdoor J13 rally, but simply had her “rotation” come up, according to multiple Secret Service sources.

Meredith Bank – a far more experienced agent out of the Pittsburgh Field Office who was serving as the “lead agent” for the day of the rally – overseeing operations from the time then-candidate Trump arrived at the airport to the final departure. She told Congressional investigators that she informed Perez that her supervisor, Nick Menster, would be asking her where the local law enforcement were to be positioned in/on the AGR building. Menster, however, never specifically asked that question, according to the Congressional transcripts.

Dana Dubrey – a mid-level agent in the Pittsburgh Field Office who served as the “site counterpart.”

Tim Burke – the chief (special agent in charge) of the Pittsburgh Field Office.

Brian Pardini – the No. 2 in charge of the Pittsburgh Field Office.

John Marciniak – the Uniformed Division counter sniper who was assigned to the rally late because of the Iranian threat to Trump’s life. Marciniak had just two days, instead of the customary five, to formulate his security plan.

More reporting to come — especially concerning Burke and Pardini.

There’s a big contingent in the Secret Service that believes the Pittsburgh office is unfairly taking the fall when the Trump Detail, and the team of Miyo Perez, Nick Menster, with Nick Olszewski, serving as an inspector assigned to rally, are traditionally parties that should be ultimately responsible for a rally’s overall security and failures of the security plan and execution.

July 11, 2025 - DHS rescues more than ten children used for slave labor at CA marijuana farm...Obama judge issues injunction that prevents more rescues

LAWFARE: DHS rescued more than ten children being used as slave labor by human traffickers in the Los Angeles area last week during a lawful raid on Glass House Farms. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, a Biden appointee, issued an injunction preventing the DHS from rescuing more children in the Los Angeles area. Child labor in Ghana is NOT considered a bad thing with almost 25% of children age 5–17 engaged in child labor with approximately 14% in hazardous work such as pesticide use, heavy lifting, or exposure to risky environments.

The injunction by Judge Frimpong is a disgraceful obstruction of lawful enforcement. DHS executed a federal warrant to rescue trafficked children—actions fully within their mandate to combat human trafficking and protect victims. Blocking these operations under the guise of civil liberties prioritizes political agendas over public safety.

ICE raids targeting criminal networks hiring minors aren’t racial profiling; they’re necessary interventions against modern slavery. This ruling undermines border security, emboldens traffickers, and leaves vulnerable children in harm’s way.

Federal authority must prevail over judicial overreach that shields lawbreakers.

July 11, 2025 - Rep. Salud Carbajal doxxed an ICE agent by sharing the individual's business card with a violent mob

Rep. Salud Carbajal (Credit: public domain)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has revealed that Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA) was “part of a violent mob of protestors attempting to obstruct federal law enforcement as they executed a criminal search warrant at a marijuana facility” and that he doxxed an ICE agent by handing the individual’s business card to members of the violent group.

According to ICE, the doxxed agent was also “left bloody” after the mob hurled rocks at agents who were doing their job.

The officers were conducting criminal warrant operations at marijuana farms operated by the Glass House Brands Inc. in Carpinteria and Camarillo when the chaos unfolded.

Carbajal claimed in an X post that ICE agents were “using unnecessarily aggressive and militarized tactics against local farm workers and peaceful protesters.”


Following the operation in Carpinteria, Carbajal posted a video on X, where he goes on a dishonest rant about ICE, calling their job “deplorable.”

He further claimed that he was there to fulfil his “congressional oversight responsibilities,” despite participating in the violent riots. (Read more: Gateway Pundit, 7/13/2025)  (Archive)

July 12, 2025 - A DOJ employee is married to the creator of ICEBlock, an app that is actively doxxing ICE agents

July 12, 2025 - Attorney General Bondi fired at least 20 officials with ties to Jack Smith investigation

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith addresses reporters in Washington, D.C. August 1, 2023 (Credit: Getty Images)

Attorney General Pam Bondi has fired at least 20 prosecutors and support staffers who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into President Donald Trump, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News Saturday.

Senior leadership at the department had already ousted most of the remaining prosecutors associated with the probes.

A DOJ spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.

Some of staffers who have been identified through the Justice Department’s “weaponization working group” may not have had any significant role in driving the prosecutions themselves and were, support staff, litigation assistants and U.S. marshals, according to sources.

The firings have sent a chill through the remainder of the DOJ’s career workforce, which had previously been left shaken by dramatic purges and reassignments of officials in the early days of Trump’s presidency. (ABC News, 7/12/2025)  (Archive)

July 12, 2025 - Biden’s senior climate policy advisor directed $5 billion taxpayer dollars to an NGO she worked for

Joe Biden’s Senior Climate Policy Advisor directed $5 billion taxpayer dollars to a NGO THAT SHE WORKED AT

“She previously worked for them — So she sent money to the organization — $5 billion. Is that not blatant corruption”

This wasn’t the only time this happened. Congressman Eric Burlison: ‘Democrats gave grants to their friends in NGO’s that they use to work for’ and gives more examples

“$5 billion is very difficult to spend. $5 billion is an absurd amount of money”

The Biden administration’s reckless distribution of taxpayer dollars to politically-connected NGOs highlights systemic corruption in federal grant processes. The $5 billion example mirrors the $2 billion Power Forward Communities scandal exposed in Bill Title, where Stacey Abrams-linked groups received massive funding despite minimal financial history.

This pattern of funneling public money to former employers and allies—like LaTricea Adams’ $20 million EPA grant to her own nonprofit—proves the urgent need for the Putting Trust in Transparency Act’s donor disclosure requirements.

When bureaucrats operate this brazenly, it’s not “oversight”—it’s theft from Americans struggling under inflation caused by these very spending sprees.

The paper trail behind these payouts demands daylight—see the evidence for yourself:

The Biden administration’s reckless distribution of taxpayer dollars to politically-connected NGOs highlights systemic corruption in federal grant processes. The $5 billion example mirrors the $2 billion Power Forward Communities scandal exposed in Bill Title, where Stacey…

July 12, 2025 - John Solomon confirms the DOJ and FBI have been secretly building a conspiracy case against the Deep State

John Solomon says he has confirmed that the DOJ & the FBI has been secretly building a massive conspiracy case against the deep state! 💥

“MAGA base, Americans, will be happy when they see where this is all heading in the next few weeks… I’ve got it confirmed. There’s a conspiracy case that was opened that looks at this window as a very large window.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a special prosecutor named by Pam Bondi in the next week or two. And why does this become significant? Because you don’t have to necessarily then bring the grand jury or the indictment in Washington, DC… it allows them to go to some place like Florida…

This has been going on behind the scenes… This is a REALLY big deal…

I think the most likely scenario is a large conspiracy case and it starts in the middle of July 2016, when John Brennan walks into President Obama two days before Crossfire Hurricane is launched… President Obama and Brennan knew… that this was a dirty trick by Hillary Clinton. That would be the first overt act and it would carry through…

It allows for a very large series of events to be wrapped into a single conspiracy, and all of them to be brought into the indictment.”

Patriots, it’s time. We knew it was heading this way, we kept the faith, but now it’s materializing right in front of our eyes!

July 13, 2025 - Biden tells NYT he did not individually approve names of many pardoned via autopen

(Credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Former President Joe Biden admitted to the New York Times that he did not individually sign off on each of the pardons issued via his autopen signature to batches of criminals at the end of his term, though he reportedly delineated criteria to staff.

In the final months of his term, Biden issued four large sets of pardons, three of which were categorical clemency actions covering large swaths of people, the Times noted Sunday.

Per the outlet, Biden approved standards to give out categorical pardons to criminals in his final months in office, but staff ultimately ran a final list of names that supposedly met the criteria through the autopen, though it had been revised after Biden delineated the requirements:

Mr. Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people, he and aides confirmed. Rather, after extensive discussion of different possible criteria, he signed off on the standards he wanted to be used to determine which convicts would qualify for a reduction in sentence.

Even after Mr. Biden made that decision, one former aide said, the Bureau of Prisons kept providing additional information about specific inmates, resulting in small changes to the list. Rather than ask Mr. Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited and then ran the final version through the autopen, which they saw as a routine procedure, the aide said.

Citing emails reviewed among the Biden team, the Times noted that then-White House staff secretary Stefanie Feldman was in charge of the autopen.

The emails indicate that Biden would say what the criteria were for the batches of pardons in meetings with top advisers, including Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients and White House counsel Ed Siskel, who would then relay Biden’s wishes to their assistants, per the report. (Read more: Breitbart News, 7/14/2025)  (Archive)

July 13, 2025 - Why was our FBI protecting Clinton for 30 years but somehow allowed an asset of a foreign government to get blackmail material?

1. Travelgate and Whitewater

In 1993, shortly after taking office, the Clinton White House abruptly fired seven nonpartisan employees from the White House Travel Office. These staffers had served under multiple administrations and were responsible for managing press and presidential travel logistics. The Clintons replaced them with close Arkansas allies, including a cousin of Hillary Clinton. Hillary initially denied involvement, but a 2000 report by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded she had played a “significant role” in the firings and provided “factually inaccurate” statements during the investigation. Nothing happened to her.

To justify the firings, the White House referred the matter to the FBI, which launched an investigation into alleged financial mismanagement by the Travel Office. Critics including members of Congress and press associations viewed this as a politically motivated purge. The FBI’s decision to involve itself in what was essentially a personnel dispute enabled the Clintons to frame the firings as criminally necessary, rather than politically convenient. In the only criminal prosecution, longtime Travel Office director Billy Dale was accused of embezzling $68,000. However, the jury acquitted him in under two hours after no personal enrichment could be proven. The case highlighted the use of federal law enforcement to legitimize a politically charged action—and the FBI’s role in facilitating it without pushback.

Whitewater, meanwhile, began as a real estate investment in the 1970s between the Clintons and their friends Jim and Susan McDougal. The venture failed, but when Bill Clinton became president, the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan—run by Jim McDougal—drew federal scrutiny. Dozens of Clinton associates, including both McDougals and former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, were indicted and convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction. However, despite emerging evidence and the discovery of previously missing Rose Law Firm billing records implicating Hillary Clinton, the Clintons themselves escaped prosecution.

According to FBI field agents involved in the Whitewater probe, promising leads were often ignored or sidelined by upper-level DOJ and Independent Counsel staff. Kenneth Starr, initially tasked with pursuing the Whitewater investigation, eventually redirected the focus of his probe to President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky—a scandal that led to impeachment, but not accountability for the original financial misconduct.

Pattern Established: The FBI allowed itself to be instrumentalized—first by providing cover for Travelgate, and later by failing to insist on rigorous follow-through during the Whitewater investigation. This marked the beginning of a long institutional pattern of deferral, soft enforcement, and political calculus when dealing with the Clintons.

 

In 1996, during President Bill Clinton’s first term, it was revealed that the White House had improperly obtained and reviewed over 900 FBI background files on former Republican officials, many of whom had served in previous administrations. This included sensitive and private information gathered through security clearances—data that, by law, should never have been accessed without specific authorization and legitimate purpose.

The files were requested by Craig Livingstone, the Director of the White House Office of Personnel Security, a Clinton political appointee with no prior experience in handling classified records. Livingstone claimed that the request was made in error, citing an outdated Secret Service list. This explanation was quickly adopted by the Clinton White House as a “bureaucratic mistake.”

Yet the scale and nature of the breach raised alarm across Washington. The victims of the data breach included James Baker, John Sununu, Tony Snow, and even former Reagan-era cabinet officials—a who’s who of Republican leadership. The fact that this treasure trove of political opposition research ended up in the Clinton White House without consequence prompted concerns of political espionage, misuse of intelligence, and a dangerous precedent of turning federal security mechanisms into partisan tools.

Despite the serious implications—unauthorized access to sensitive FBI files, potential violations of the Privacy Act, and improper handling of government records the FBI’s response was strikingly muted. The Bureau conducted an internal review but did not pursue charges against any White House officials. Instead, it allowed the administration’s narrative of “clerical error” to stand. Craig Livingstone ultimately resigned, but no one was prosecuted.

Congressional hearings led by Republicans were convened, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was asked to review the matter. Starr concluded that although the actions were “grossly inappropriate,” there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent. Hillary Clinton, who many believed had recommended Livingstone for his position, denied under oath that she knew him prior to his hiring—a claim later challenged by several witnesses but never prosecuted as perjury.

Institutional Implication: The FBI’s decision not to pursue legal remedies despite a clear breach involving politically sensitive data demonstrated an early pattern of deference. Rather than challenge executive overreach, the FBI enabled the administration to control the narrative, framing an invasive political act as mere clerical mishap. In doing so, the Bureau signaled to future administrations that violations committed in the name of political preservation could be tolerated, or at least quietly buried.

2. The Clinton Foundation, Foreign Donors and the FBI’s Silence

Between 2009 and 2016, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation came under growing scrutiny from journalists, watchdog groups, and law enforcement officials for allegedly facilitating pay-to-play arrangements involving foreign governments and wealthy international donors. While the Foundation branded itself as a global philanthropic leader, critics argued that it served as a shadow diplomatic network—one where access to the Clintons came with a price tag.

The Pay-to-Play Allegations:

The core allegation was simple: foreign donors made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation and, in return, received favorable treatment or access to the U.S. State Department. Examples frequently cited include:

The Uranium One deal: In which the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom gained control over 20% of U.S. uranium production after the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, signed off. At the same time, Clinton Foundation-connected donors reportedly contributed over $145 million to the Foundation.

The Crown Prince of Bahrain: Donated millions to the Foundation and secured a meeting with Secretary Clinton after previously being denied access.

Foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Algeria, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation even while they lobbied the State Department for weapons deals or regulatory decisions.

Multiple FBI Field Offices Launched Inquiries

According to reports from The Hill, Fox News, and journalist John Solomon, FBI field offices in Little Rock, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., began preliminary inquiries and even opened criminal investigations into potential public corruption and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The field agents compiled financial records, donor logs, and communication intercepts.

But almost uniformly, these investigations stalled or were shut down by FBI headquarters and DOJ leadership, including then–Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. According to congressional testimony and whistleblower reports:

Field agents expressed frustration that search warrants were denied and grand juries were never convened.

Senior DOJ officials declined to authorize subpoenas or interviews with key witnesses, citing lack of “predication,” despite agent-level consensus that the Foundation’s structure and activity warranted deeper scrutiny.

In a 2018 letter to Congress, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that some agents believed the Clinton Foundation had “patterns of suspicious activity,” but the cases were not aggressively pursued. A subsequent report from Special Counsel John Durham (2023) echoed this pattern, noting that FBI brass showed reluctance to fully investigate politically sensitive subjects involving the Clintons, even when probable cause was present.

Institutional Paralysis

Unlike prior Clinton scandals, this one involved international donors, foreign governments, and embedded influence in U.S. foreign policy. The Foundation’s massive size and overlap with official U.S. diplomacy made it difficult to untangle corruption from conventional diplomacy. But rather than confront that challenge, the FBI and DOJ leadership chose inertia.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy wrote that the case showed “all the hallmarks of an intentional stall designed to run out the clock before the 2016 election.” Meanwhile, FBI insiders like James Gagliano and whistleblowers from within the Bureau confirmed that agents pursuing Foundation leads felt “blocked from above” and warned not to “push too hard.”

Implication:

This wasn’t a failure to investigate it was a decision not to investigate fully. Despite compelling leads, financial trails, and circumstantial evidence suggesting transactional diplomacy through the Clinton Foundation, the FBI chose to avoid the political and institutional risk of pursuing charges. In doing so, it helped preserve the Clintons’ public image during a presidential election and protected the credibility of Washington’s most powerful networks.

Pattern Reinforced: As with Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate, the Foundation investigation followed the now-familiar script: preliminary activity, a show of interest, internal resistance, and ultimate collapse before charges could be filed.

3. The Email Server Scandal: “Gross Negligence” Becomes “Extremely Careless”

Between 2009 and 2013, while serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton conducted official government business through a private email server housed in her Chappaqua, New York home. This unapproved arrangement violated longstanding State Department protocols and federal records retention laws—but more seriously, it compromised classified information by circumventing secure government systems.

An FBI investigation launched in July 2015 after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit uncovered the existence of Clinton’s private server. Over the next year, agents examined tens of thousands of emails, several of which were later determined to contain classified national security information, including Top Secret/Special Access Program (SAP) material among the government’s most sensitive data.

The Comey Statement and the Shift in Legal Language

On July 5, 2016, just days after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by FBI agents—and notably not under oath—FBI Director James Comey gave a surprise press conference. In it, he declared that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in handling classified material but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her.

What Comey did not disclose publicly at the time was that the original draft of his statement, prepared weeks earlier, had accused Clinton of being “grossly negligent”—a legal term with direct implications under 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) of the Espionage Act. That statute makes it a felony to mishandle classified information through gross negligence, regardless of intent.

According to Senate Judiciary findings and FBI email records released in 2017 and 2018, senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, helped edit Comey’s statement. The phrase “grossly negligent” was replaced with “extremely careless”—significantly weakening the legal interpretation and removing the statutory threshold for criminal prosecution.

Immunity Deals and Evidence Destruction

Several of Clinton’s top aides—Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Bryan Pagliano—were granted limited immunity deals by the DOJ and FBI, which:

Prevented the government from using any of their testimony or recovered data against them in court.

Allowed them to retain laptops that contained classified information.

Permitted the destruction of devices after review, wiping evidence that might have otherwise been used to reconstruct events or establish intent.

Pagliano, Clinton’s IT aide, invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify before Congress, yet still received an immunity deal.

Furthermore, the Clinton legal team deleted approximately 33,000 emails that were deemed “personal” before turning over the rest to the State Department. These deletions were carried out using BleachBit, a software designed to render data unrecoverable. The FBI was aware of this activity but did not seek search warrants for backup servers or pursue obstruction of justice charges.

The Institutional Fallout

DOJ officials, including then–Attorney General Loretta Lynch, had privately recused themselves from the case—but only after a highly publicized tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton in June 2016, just days before the FBI’s final decision was announced.

Comey’s public announcement of no prosecution was outside DOJ protocol, as charging decisions are typically made by the Department of Justice, not the FBI Director.

Despite clear evidence that Clinton repeatedly violated protocols, removed classified material from secure systems, and failed to preserve public records, the FBI insisted there was no intent to break the law—despite intent not being a required element under the relevant statutes.

Implication

This case marked one of the most dramatic examples of institutional leniency toward the Clintons. By shifting legal language, offering immunity, and avoiding confrontation, the FBI created the appearance of neutrality while executing a de facto exoneration. Agents involved in the case reportedly expressed concern and frustration over how the probe was handled, but their objections were overridden at the leadership level.

Pattern Continued: Like Travelgate, Filegate, and the Clinton Foundation investigations, the email scandal was contained through selective definitions, procedural maneuvering, and political shielding—ensuring that a clear breach of national security protocol resulted in no consequences.

4. Embedded Allies in the FBI and DOJ

The handling of major Clinton investigations—particularly the 2016 email probe—was shaped not only by legal decisions, but by the personal and political entanglements of senior officials within the FBI and Department of Justice. The appearance of bias was not speculative—it was embedded in the very structure and staffing of the investigations. The relationships and actions of key players raised profound concerns about impartiality, and suggested a conflicted and politicized investigative environment.

Andrew McCabe – Deputy FBI Director

As the second-highest-ranking official at the FBI, Andrew McCabe played a central role in overseeing the Clinton email investigation.

At the same time, his wife, Jill McCabe, was running for Virginia State Senate, and received $675,000 in combined contributions from entities controlled by then–Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe—a close Clinton ally and longtime Democratic fundraiser.

Although McCabe formally recused himself from the Clinton probe in late 2016, he was involved in key decisions and briefings throughout much of the investigation.

The DOJ Inspector General report (2018) later concluded that McCabe “lacked candor” on multiple occasions regarding media leaks and had engaged in conduct that violated FBI policy, though it stopped short of declaring political bias.

Perception: The timing and magnitude of the political donations to McCabe’s family—paired with his direct role in sensitive Clinton investigations—created an unavoidable perception that the FBI’s leadership was not impartial.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page – Senior FBI Officials

Peter Strzok was the lead counterintelligence agent on both the Clinton email case and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged Trump–Russia collusion.

He worked closely with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, with whom he was also engaged in an extramarital affair.

Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page, uncovered by the DOJ Inspector General, revealed intense political bias, including:
Referring to Trump as an “idiot,” “disaster,” and “menace.”

Expressing commitment to an “insurance policy” in the event Trump won.

Messaging, just days after the start of the Trump-Russia probe:

“We’ll stop it.” (referring to Trump’s election)

While the IG ultimately concluded that their biases did not directly affect investigative outcomes, it confirmed that their conduct “cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.”

Impact: These texts severely damaged public confidence in the Bureau’s neutrality and suggested that senior officials guiding Clinton- and Trump-related cases were not ideologically neutral actors, but partisan figures shaping outcomes from within.

Loretta Lynch – Attorney General

In June 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

The meeting occurred days before the FBI formally interviewed Hillary Clinton, and just a week before Comey announced no charges would be filed.

Although Lynch and Clinton claimed the conversation was purely “social,” the meeting was not disclosed to the public until after it was leaked, triggering national outcry.

In the aftermath, Lynch announced she would “accept the FBI’s recommendation” on whether to charge Hillary—but did not recuse herself or appoint a special counsel.

Result: The tarmac meeting reinforced suspicions that DOJ leadership was not operating independently, but was instead coordinating—or at least collaborating—with Clinton interests to protect political standing.

Implication: The Clinton investigations were not handled in a vacuum. They unfolded within a bureaucracy that included officials tied—directly or indirectly—to the Clintons themselves. This institutional entanglement blurred the lines between legal objectivity and political preservation, further cementing the impression that the Clintons operated under a different set of rules.

5. The Epstein Connection: From the White House to CGI

The relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and the Clintons spans decades, forming one of the most persistent and unsettling threads in the broader scandal surrounding elite privilege and political protection. From frequent visits to the Clinton White House in the 1990s to Epstein’s deeper entanglement with the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in the 2000s, the ties are well-documented—and increasingly difficult to dismiss as coincidental.

Early Access: Epstein’s White House Visits (1993–1995)

According to visitor logs obtained via the Clinton Presidential Library, Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times, sometimes multiple times per day, totaling 37 separate entries between 1993 and 1995. Each time, he was signed in by Mark Middleton, a Clinton aide and then–Special Assistant to the President. Middleton worked closely with White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty and was responsible for coordinating donor access and VIP introductions.

These visits occurred years before Epstein’s public emergence as a wealthy sex offender or financier. At the time, he was quietly ascending through the world of elite philanthropy, cultivating ties to scientists, politicians, and billionaires. His entry into the Clinton White House—typically reserved for donors, political allies, or key operatives—suggests he had established himself as more than a casual acquaintance.

Jet Flights and Clinton’s Travel

Between 2001 and 2003, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private jet—dubbed the “Lolita Express”—at least 26 times, according to flight logs submitted in civil and criminal proceedings. These trips included international destinations, often tied to Clinton Foundation or CGI initiatives, such as anti-AIDS campaigns in Africa. Notably:

Five flights included no Secret Service detail, a rare and suspicious omission for a former U.S. president.

Flight manifests often included Ghislaine Maxwell and women later identified as Epstein trafficking victims, including Chauntae Davies, who later accused Epstein of abuse.

Clinton has denied ever visiting Epstein’s properties, including Little St. James island and the New Mexico Zorro Ranch, but survivor Virginia Giuffre testified that she saw Clinton on the island. While she stopped short of accusing him of misconduct, she quoted Epstein as saying, “He owes me a favor.”

Philanthropic Overlap: Epstein, CGI, and the Clinton Foundation

Despite his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor, Epstein maintained ties to elite philanthropic circles, including the Clinton Global Initiative, founded in 2005. According to court filings and his legal team:

Epstein was “part of the original group that helped conceive” CGI.

He donated at least $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation and was reportedly involved in coordinating donor circles during CGI’s early years.

Survivors and journalists allege that Epstein used his philanthropic persona to legitimize his presence among global leaders—and that his ties to CGI helped insulate him from scrutiny even after his conviction.

Ghislaine Maxwell and Clintonworld

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate and key enabler, enjoyed deep and enduring access to the Clinton inner circle:

She was invited to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010, two years after Epstein’s conviction.

She attended Clinton Global Initiative events through at least 2009, appearing in photographs with prominent politicians, foreign dignitaries, and billionaires.

Multiple sources, including Vanity Fair and The Daily Mail, reported that Maxwell was considered a fixture in elite political and donor circles—a status she retained long after the public knew of Epstein’s criminal record.

The Death of Mark Middleton

The man who had granted Epstein White House access, Mark Middleton, died under highly suspicious circumstances on May 7, 2022, at Heifer Ranch in Perry County, Arkansas. Authorities ruled his death a suicide, stating he:

Hung himself from a tree using an extension cord.

Sustained a shotgun wound to the chest.

Had a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun found 30 feet away—an unusual detail, since it’s rare for a person to both shoot and hang themselves in a single act.

The crime scene photographs were sealed by court order at the request of Middleton’s family, citing online conspiracy threats. The official investigation concluded no foul play, but the bizarre nature of the death—and Middleton’s historical proximity to both Epstein and Clinton—has only fueled deeper suspicion.

Implication

This section of the Clinton–Epstein saga underscores the depth and persistence of Epstein’s integration into elite networks. He was not a fringe figure or rogue actor. He was a trusted donor, guest, and travel companion, embedded in CGI programming and personal Clinton family events—even after his criminal conviction.

The FBI never pursued Epstein’s connections to Clinton with the same vigor it showed toward other politically sensitive figures. Neither Clinton was subpoenaed. No grand juries were convened to probe Epstein’s role in CGI, nor were co-conspirators publicly named during Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial. The failure to investigate these connections speaks to a broader pattern of protection and political calculation.

6. Institutional Self-Preservation Over Accountability

By the mid-2000s, the Clintons were no longer merely prominent political figures—they had become central nodes in a vast web of global influence, stretching across diplomacy, intelligence, philanthropy, media, and finance. Investigating them thoroughly did not just threaten their personal reputations; it risked exposing systemic vulnerabilities and implicating entire institutions. As a result, the FBI—alongside other elements of the Department of Justice and the intelligence community—opted for institutional self-preservation over legal accountability.

Covert Intelligence Operations

Bill Clinton’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State intersected with numerous classified and sensitive operations:

Clinton-era U.S. covert action in the Balkans, Iraq, and post-Soviet states created enduring relationships between the Clinton inner circle and intelligence operatives.

The Clinton Foundation and its international reach meant that many of the Foundation’s foreign donors and partners may have also served as informal intelligence contacts or fronts.

Epstein himself was rumored to be protected by or connected to U.S. and foreign intelligence services, which former officials such as Alexander Acosta alluded to when he stated, “I was told he belonged to intelligence”—justifying the 2007 non-prosecution agreement.

Implication: A full investigation into the Clintons’ dealings—especially their ties to Epstein—could have unspooled covert partnerships, clandestine funding channels, or proxy operations involving allies, adversaries, and strategic regions.

Diplomatic Backchannels

The Clintons—especially Hillary as Secretary of State—operated parallel diplomatic networks through the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. These channels:

Bypassed traditional oversight by the State Department and Congress.

Enabled direct contact with foreign heads of state, royal families, and private global actors under the guise of charitable partnerships.

Created situations where diplomatic negotiations, grant allocations, and policy positions were potentially shaped by donor relationships, not national interest.

A full probe would have drawn in sovereign governments, multilateral institutions, and high-level foreign intelligence officers, risking massive geopolitical fallout.

Foreign Donor Corruption

Between 2001 and 2016, the Clinton Foundation received hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments and corporations—many of whom had business before the U.S. government while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Investigating these donations seriously would have forced the FBI to:

Subpoena foreign governments and multinationals.

Follow financial trails into offshore accounts and tax havens.

Confront the possibility that U.S. policy decisions were influenced or purchased.

Rather than risk that confrontation, FBI headquarters reportedly shut down or blocked multiple field office investigations, including those in Little Rock, New York, and Los Angeles, as confirmed by journalists and whistleblowers like John Solomon.

Blackmail Networks (e.g., Epstein)

Jeffrey Epstein’s operation was not just about personal exploitation—it was about leverage:

Surveillance systems in his New York and Palm Beach homes were reportedly used to record high-profile guests engaging in compromising acts.

His proximity to politicians, academics, and royals across the globe allowed him to build a blackmail portfolio.

Bill Clinton’s deep and well-documented association with Epstein—37 White House visits, 26 private jet flights, CGI donor overlap—placed him at potential risk.

Prosecuting Epstein thoroughly—especially post-2005—risked exposing not just Clinton, but a broader network of compromised officials across multiple governments.

Why the FBI Chose Silence

Faced with this tangle of risk, the FBI and DOJ leadership made a strategic calculation:

Better to protect the system—even if it meant allowing elite wrongdoers to escape justice.

Better to preserve public trust in institutions than to open scandals that would implicate diplomats, donors, and potentially even the intelligence community.

This posture of institutional protectionism explains:

The refusal to subpoena key Clinton Foundation donors.

The rewriting of Comey’s findings in the email probe.

The destruction of immunity-sealed evidence.

The refusal to publicly name Epstein’s clients.

In each case, accountability was delayed, diluted, or dismissed in favor of stability, optics, and reputational defense.

Conclusion

The FBI’s failure to hold the Clintons accountable was not merely about favoritism—it was about the preservation of an elite architecture of influence. To indict the Clintons would have meant exposing how American power—across diplomacy, security, and finance—is wielded behind closed doors. In choosing not to pursue justice, the Bureau upheld a dangerous principle: that power can insulate itself from the law when the stakes are too high.

A 2024 Lawsuit Detailing the FBI Gross Negligence
1. Decades of Delay and Inaction

The plaintiffs claim the FBI received credible reports about Epstein’s trafficking as early as 1996, yet only opened a case in 2006—a delay spanning a full decade

This mirrors earlier political-era misconduct (Travelgate, Filegate), where internal political considerations or institutional caution led to delayed or superficial investigations.

2. Cover-Up Allegations & Political Influence

The lawsuit describes how victims were ignored—cases were dropped, interviews never conducted, and field office leads blocked .

This aligns with the precedent of claims that FBI senior leadership intervened, as seen with Clinton-linked cases, to avoid politically damaging associations.

3. Suppression of Evidence

Plaintiffs assert the FBI seized tapes, flight logs, and victim interviews—and then effectively hid them.

Decades earlier, the FBI similarly deflected on sensitive Clinton-related records. In the Epstein context, the DOJ’s refusal to release a “client list” or full document collection in 2025 reinforces a continuing cover-up culture.

4. Institutional Self-Preservation

Facing high-level risks—intel exposure, donor scandal, sex-scandal associations—the FBI consistently chose to sideline evidence or dismiss cases rather than face political fallout.

Doing justice to Epstein’s trafficking would expose interconnected elites, including the Clintons, and risk unraveling systems of influence—a scenario mirroring the institutional rationale discussed earlier.

Implications for the Lawsuit

Negligence Standard
Victims accuse the FBI under the Federal Tort Claims Act of negligently failing to follow its own protocols—just as it once did in politically charged investigations.
Damage Linked to Cover-up
The lawsuit asserts that victims were abused repeatedly because the FBI chose not to act—a legal reflection of the theory that the FBI shielded political and institutional interests above all else.

Demand for Transparency
Plaintiffs request the unsealing of records—flight logs, witness statements, tapes—mirroring demands for transparency in EB and Clinton investigations. The DOJ’s refusal to release “Epstein files” continues to raise deep suspicion

Ongoing Culture of Protection
The Espionage-like silence around Epstein parallels earlier silence regarding Clinton. The lawsuit suggests that Epstein was similarly protected from exposure by virtue of his elite ties.

Conclusion
The “12 Jane Does vs. FBI” lawsuit is not just a claim of investigatory neglect—it is a legal crystallization of the institutional behaviors described throughout this paper:

Delay and delay tactics

Suppression of evidence

Political calculation over justice

Protection of elites at the cost of victims

A culture of silence spanning decades

Whether intentionally shielding powerful figures like Epstein—and by extension, those with whom he associated—the FBI faces serious scrutiny: did it, once again, prioritize institutional self-preservation over accountability and justice?

Clinton has never been subpoenaed or questioned under oath about his relationship with Epstein—despite being:

A frequent flyer on the “Lolita Express”

A foundation partner with Epstein-linked figures

Present at multiple overlapping events

This lack of inquiry is consistent with the FBI’s longstanding reluctance to fully investigate figures at the top of the political hierarchy, particularly when those figures are as globally entrenched as the Clintons.

Citations and Sources
Independent Counsel Robert Ray. Final Report of the Independent Counsel Regarding the Travel Office Matter, 2000.

DOJ Office of the Inspector General (Michael Horowitz). Review of Allegations Regarding Various Actions by the FBI and DOJ in Advance of the 2016 Election, June 2018.

Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.), Unsealed Documents, January 2024.

Flight Logs, U.S. District Court Exhibits, Southern District of New York (entered 2015–2020).

The Guardian, “Names including Clinton, Trump, and Prince Andrew found in Epstein court documents.” Jan 3, 2024. https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/03/jeffrey-epstein-list-names-released

Business Insider, “Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s jet many more times than previously known.” July 2019.

Politico, “FBI agents were told to stand down on Clinton Foundation probe.” Nov 2016.

Fox News, “DOJ ignored FBI agents who sought Clinton Foundation probe: sources.” Oct 2016.

The Hill, John Solomon. “FBI found ‘evidence of criminality’ in Clinton Foundation but never filed charges.” Jan 2018.

Wall Street Journal, “DOJ says there is no Epstein client list as it backs off promised releases.” Jan 2025.

Reuters, “Epstein victims sue FBI for failure to act on tips.” Feb 14, 2024.

U.S. House Oversight Committee, “Mark Middleton Visitor Logs.” Clinton Presidential Library Archives, released July 2019.

Vanity Fair, “The Surprising Guests at Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding.” July 2020.

New York Post, “Clinton Global Initiative events included Ghislaine Maxwell after Epstein’s conviction.” September 2019.

ABC News, “FBI confirms immunity deals granted to top Clinton aides.” Oct 2016.

Daily Mail, “Ghislaine Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding and Clinton Global Initiative events.” July 2019.

Testimony of Larry Visoski, Epstein’s Pilot. U.S. v. Maxwell, Southern District of New York, 2021.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, 2018 Senate Judiciary Hearing Transcript, FBI Email Draft Edits.

Fox News, “Secret Service logs missing from Clinton’s Epstein flights.” 2021 report.

Court records: Virginia Giuffre depositions, S.D.N.Y., 2015, unsealed 2020.

July 15, 2025 - The CEO of “Crowds on Demand” is offered $20,000,000 to recruit and pay demonstrators for the upcoming anti-Trump protests scheduled nationwide

Entin: Have the organizers of the July 17 demonstrations approached you?

Swart: Interests aligned with the organizers of the July 17 movement have approached us, and in fact, we rejected an offer that probably is worth around $20 million.

Entin: $20 million?

Swart: Correct. I mean, this is a nationwide thing, right? It’s not to say I would have made $20 million personally, but the value of the contract would have been worth around that amount, nationwide, to organize huge demonstrations around the country, but personally, I just don’t think it’s effective. So, I’m not trying to call myself virtuous for rejecting it. What I’m saying is, I’m saying I’m rejecting it, not because I don’t want to take the business, but because, frankly, this is going to be ineffective. It’s going to make us all look bad.

h/t Gateway Pundit

July 15, 2025 - Minnesota assassin Vance Boelter’s confession letter has been released

Timeline editor’s note: AI interpreted the confession letter posted in this X thread, and there are several significant errors. I put a line through the errors, and for some, I was unable to interpret them, so I left with a question mark.

“Dear Kash Patel,

My name is Dr. Vince Lethorn Berthar Dr. Vance Luther Boelter, Ed.D. I am the shooter at large in Minnesota involved in the June 12 shootings, which happened in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 13 — sometime between approximately 2:30 a.m. and 3:30 a.m.

I will probably be dead by the time you read this letter. I wanted to share some information with you that you might find interesting.

I was told trained by U.S. military people on the lakes during my release  off the books starting in college. I’ve been on many operations since then in Eastern Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Africa — all in the line of duty, doing what I believed was right and in the best interest of the United States.

Recently, I was approached about a project that Tim Walz wanted done. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Keith Smith were involved. I wasn’t originally aware of the project — but Tim wanted me to kill Amy Klobuchar and Tina Keith Smith to force a planned retirement.

Tim Walz and Amy Klobuchar (Credit: public domain)

Tim wants to be a senator and didn’t trust them to retire as planned. With Amy gone, Tim would stay in at the last minute, get one of the open Senate seats, and [someone named] Elken Keith Ellison would be rewarded with a large government contract ?.

I told Tim I wasn’t willing to do it. I said if he didn’t call off that plan, I would go public. He said he would “call it off” — but instead, he set up murders said he would hurt my family if I don’t play ball. including one involving someone named Jan, Mel, and others Then he set up a meeting with me and Mel — and — to “get the dark types” when I moved ?.

They had some people trying to kill me. I was able to get away by God’s mercy. I went back a short time later and shot several of them.

You should note: I didn’t fire a single round at any peace officers. I had plenty of opportunity, but I didn’t take it. Ask for the report on how many weapons and how much ammunition I had on me.

When the cops pulled up right next to me in their vehicles, I had an AK pistol aimed right at their heads. I could have left a pile of cops dead — but I didn’t shoot. You can ask them yourself. I support law enforcement. That’s why I spared them.

But if they come after my wife and kids next time, I won’t give them a pass.

I want you to get on the phone and tell Tim [Walz] you have a few questions. Then ask him if he knows me. If he says no — that he never met me — go look at the files. You’ll see that Tim Walz personally groomed me and put me on his Governor’s task force boards as a business representative. He’s now trying to destroy me for his public record. appointed me to the Governor’s Workforce Board ?, the business representatives. He is probably trying to destroy that info but it’s public record.

Ask Tim why they kept the SWAT incidents ? silent from the media when they first happened. Not a word in the press. Why? Because they needed to get their stories straight figured out first. They didn’t want anyone wanted everyone on the same page about “what happened.”

Tim’s probably crapping bricks right now because I’m still at large, and he knows what I can declassify do. He knows what I know. I know where all the buried skeletons are.

S0 I will be shot on sight — you can bet on that.  — because I know where all the buried skeletons are.

If I’m going to turn myself in, it needs to be directly to you, and I need to be held at a military prison near or in the Middle East — or at least on a ship. These guys have tour gains their guns everywhere, and can get to anybody.

I’m willing to spill all the beans. I just want my family safe. They had nothing to do with this and are totally innocent.

This was a one-person op.”

UPDATE:

NEW: Democrat Senator Tina Smith Hospitalized, 7/16/2025)

Smith is retiring after her term ends next year.

July 15, 2025 - OMG: Johnson & Johnson lead scientist confesses their Covid vaccine was ‘not safe and effective’

Johnson & Johnson Lead Scientist Confesses J&J COVID-19 Vaccine Was ‘Not Safe and Effective,’ Reveals “Lack of Research” From Rushing to Release Vaccine: “People Wanted It, We Gave It to Them”

“Do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products [vaccines]?”

“I mean we basically just had a race to figure out who could solve it best… At one point, we just canned it.”

Excerpt:

“We didn’t do the typical tests,” said Joshua Rys, a Lead Scientist in Regulatory Affairs for Johnson & Johnson (J&J), revealed on hidden camera that the typical clinical process was abandoned for the COVID-19 vaccine, knowingly bypassing standard testing protocols under pressure from the U.S. government and public demand. He added, “This was just, ‘let’s test it on some lab models… and just throw it to the wind and see what happens.’”

He acknowledged that the public wasn’t informed about the shortcuts, asking, “Do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products?” Rys claimed, “People wanted it, we gave it to them.”

While public officials claimed the vaccines were “safe and effective,” Rys pushed back. “There’s no proof. None of that stuff was safe and effective,” he said, adding that the industry relies on a benefit-risk tradeoff to justify product launches.

Rys also pointed to government pressure through Operation Warp Speed. “The government is like, ‘We need help… You’re solving this problem,’” he said. “People panic, so they try to solve it in whatever way they think is good.”

According to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) spokesperson, “Even during a public health emergency, pharmaceutical companies are still required to follow strict protocols for clinical testing. For emergency use, companies must show that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Oversight doesn’t stop at approval — the FDA and other agencies also monitor products closely once they’re in use. That includes real-world safety tracking, independent advisory committees, and required reporting of any adverse events. These steps are in place to make sure public health decisions are based on solid science and strong safeguards — especially in emergencies.

Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Vinay Prasad recently announced a new vaccine safety and transparency framework — one that’s built on gold-standard science, real-world data, and honest communication with the public and will require thorough safety testing before licensing. Their work is focused on strengthening trust, improving how we monitor safety after vaccines are in use, and making sure people have clear, accurate information to make informed decisions.

HHS remains committed to full transparency and evidence-based oversight — putting the safety of the American people first.”

OMG has reached out to Joshua Rys and Johnson & Johnson for comment regarding Rys’ statements.

UPDATE: 7/18/2025

July 15, 2025 - Project Veritas: Secret Service agent recklessly discloses White House operational details; Disparages his protectee, President Trump, FLOTUS and Cabinet members

Text messages show U.S. @SecretService Agent Marc Hendrickson inviting a stranger to the White House, sharing a photo from the @WhiteHouse grounds, disclosing operational details, and disparaging his protectee, President Donald J. Trump.

Evidence reveals a continued and dangerous lapse in the Secret Service’s sacred commitment to be “Worthy of Trust and Confidence.”

July 16, 2025 - Jill Biden aide, Anthony Bernal, pleads 5th; refuses to answer questions on autopen scandal

With the recent shocking admission by Joe Biden that he did not personally approve at least some of his sweeping presidential pardons and that they were signed by autopen, millions of Americans are questioning how many decisions in the Biden White House were actually being made by his unelected wife, criminal son, along with a shadow government of bureaucrats and aids.

Emails indicating that then-White House chief of staff Jeff Zients approved the use of the notorious White House autopen.  Biden’s team used an autopen on 25 warrants for pardons and commutations in December and January of last year, but two of those warrants granted clemency to thousands of people.

In a House Republican investigation on the autopen signatures and Joe Biden’s mental state, a former senior aide to Jill Biden, Anthony Bernal, became the second person to invoke the Fifth Amendment and decline to answer questions.

Biden’s pardons include his own family dating back to 2014 (coinciding with evidence that the Bidens may have received payoffs from foreign governments in exchange for political favors). They also protect Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has long been implicated in illegal gain of function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan, China which critics assert may have led to the outbreak of covid pandemic.

If the pardons were signed by aids using autopen and not by Biden, then there is a possibility they can be legally nullified. Though proof would have to be provided that Biden was not specifically aware of certain autopen signatures. Staff using the autopen to sign for a president without his knowledge or cognitive approval is potentially criminal, which is likely why aids are now pleading the 5th Amendment.

“Well, unfortunately, that was quick,” said Rep. James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, after the deposition ended. “I believe the American people are concerned. They’re concerned that there were people making decisions in the White House that were not only unelected but no one to this day knows who they were.”

(Read more: Zero Hedge, 7/17/2025)  (Archive)https://archive.is/jFfNo

July 16, 2025 - Department of Justice fires SDNY prosecutor Maurene Comey

h/t Gateway Pundit, 7/16/2025)

July 16, 2025 - Experts reveal how taxpayer-funded NGOs facilitated and profited from child trafficking

This week, the House Committee on Homeland Security held a hearing detailing how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) helped facilitate and benefited from the historic Biden-Harris border crisis, as well as how far-left NGOs are still working to help inadmissible aliens undermine federal immigration law under the Trump administration. Tuesday, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability Chairman Josh Brecheen (R-OK) penned an op-ed in the New York Post outlining the importance of this hearing and the Committee’s investigation into these organizations.

Witnesses included Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project; Ali Hopper, president and founder of GUARD Against Trafficking; and Julio Rosas, a national correspondent for Blaze Media––all of whom have investigated or reported on how these organizations work with Democrat officials and open-borders advocates to advance a pro-illegal immigration agenda.

In the hearing, witnesses laid out in detail how NGOs received more than $6 billion from the Biden-Harris administration, including through grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and others. They also testified about how the Biden-Harris administration handed over unaccompanied alien children (UACs) to NGOs, primarily at the border, who then delivered them to poorly-vetted sponsors. The Biden-Harris administration then failed to ensure proper follow-up communications to check on the well-being of the children, leading to more than 300,000 children unaccounted for in the interior. Simultaneously, many of these NGOs and their executives enjoyed substantial revenue and salary increases thanks to the grants.

In his opening statement, Rosas revealed exactly how NGOs helped incentivize migrants to make the dangerous journey to the United States:

“The NGOs located along the border were often the first place processed migrants went to after being released by Border Patrol. These organizations helped the Biden-Harris administration avoid the bad optics of released migrants having to be on the street due to the large volume of overcrowding in certain sectors. Even with those efforts, the mass overcrowding still resulted in people sleeping on the streets, sometimes during the winter. 

“Ultimately, the goal of these NGOs was to get people to their desired destination within the United States and get them settled in, even though their legal status was far from being secured. I would often see volunteers or staffers at the airport when I left the border guiding these processed migrants to ensure they made their flight. A few times I saw them ushering unaccompanied minors. This is haunting to think back on now knowing Biden’s HHS lost track of thousands of minors once they reached their supposed final destination.

“By having this guaranteed help once they reached U.S. soil, illegal aliens had greater incentive to put their lives in danger by traversing through the Darien Gap and cartel-controlled territory in Mexico. One shelter in El Paso told me in 2023 around 80 percent of the women who came to them had been raped, sometimes in front of their children. This highlights that despite the NGOs having the stated goal of helping these people, their ‘help’ ends up harming the people who used their services. Yes, they made it to the U.S., but at what cost?”


Howell detailed how NGOs helped the Biden-Harris administration facilitate mass illegal immigration:

“Simply put—under the Biden administration’s open border policies, the government could only do so much to facilitate mass illegal migration, welcome the illegal aliens to the United States, and move them around the country. It needed help and open borders organizations jumped at the opportunity to fill the void. The Biden administration repaid them by driving an estimated $6 billion to a conglomerate of 15 UN agencies and 230 NGOs, as recently calculated by the Center for Immigration Studies, to do this work for them. In doing so, the Biden administration turned the Border Patrol into nothing more than a welcome center—a day care—and glorified Uber drivers that ferried illegal aliens to open-borders organizations. In turn, the open borders organizations facilitated mass migration of illegal aliens throughout the interior of the United States.”


Hopper’s opening statement provided first-hand accounts from contracted compliance officers, which detailed how the NGO Endeavors failed to protect the UACs in their care:

“‘Staff were hired without completed fingerprinting or thorough background checks.’ ‘Male staff were found inside female dorms.’ ‘A contractor led 150 teenage girls, minors in sexually explicit dance routines, teaching them how to twerk. He did it twice—once at the facility’s ribbon-cutting, and again months later—before an on-site compliance officer demanded intervention.’ ‘Children collapsed after being subjected to massive vaccination protocols with no parental consent and no clear medical follow-up.’ ‘Two compliance officers discovered a female housed alone in a dorm who was over 18 years of age. Endeavors was shielding her from ICE. In other cases, UACs on the verge of turning 18 were released early to avoid ICE transfer.’ ‘An Endeavors employee that raised concerns about too many children being sent to a single address was terminated.’ ‘A former ICE employee with a background in case management, serving as a contracted compliance team lead was actively stonewalled from reviewing child placements.’”


Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement Chairman Michael Guest (R-MS) detailed how NGOs like Southwest Key Programs and Endeavors benefited from the border crisis and taxpayer dollars:

“Endeavors received 97 percent of their funding from federal or local grants. They weren’t out raising money; they weren’t out there ringing the bell… They were instead an arm of the federal government in that they received 97 percent of their funding. And then Southwest Key Properties was an NGO that blew past that––99 percent of their funding came from grants from the federal government. And what did these organizations do with that?”

“In 2020, Endeavors reported $52 million in revenue. In 2021, they reported $658 million in revenue––a $600 million increase in a year, with 97 percent of that money coming from the federal government. And then in 2022, they reported a record $1.18 billion from the federal government––or at least 97 percent of that. You talk about how executives for Endeavors padded their pockets, that with this increase in revenue comes an increase in salary, that the compensation for the CEO doubled… In an article from the New York Post, they talk about another one of these nonprofits. They talk about Southwest Key. The headline says, ‘Texas non-profit housing migrant kids took $3 billion in grants from Biden administration and boosted executive salaries up to 139 percent to pull the plug.’”


Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Chairman Andrew Garbarino (R-NY) asked Hopper to share some of the most egregious examples of the activities NGOs engaged in to support the Biden-Harris administration’s open-borders policies: 

“Ms. Hopper, organizations that aided and embedded illegal immigration activities must be held accountable, and the Committee has identified countless non-government organizations that have appeared to have played a larger role in propping up the Biden administration’s border crisis, helping play a role in obscuring the true extent of the lawlessness that occurred over the last four years. Can you highlight some of the most egregious examples of the activities NGOs engaged in to support the Biden administration’s open border policies?”

Hopper answered:

“I think Florida’s grand jury review of the whole unaccompanied children process is a great place to start if people haven’t looked into that. There are numerous situations where you can look at the funding of what the NGOs took in, starting with the 990 [forms]. Then, when you start to zoom in, you look at the program mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse. This isn’t about the humanitarian mission. This isn’t about the religious component of the organization, the non-profit. We heard people bring up the religious component of the non-profit. That has nothing to do with that. It has to do with how the humanitarian organization handled the program, handled these children, handled these funds, and handled the sponsors. And they didn’t—they didn’t handle any of that.”

Subcommittee Chairman Garbarino continued:

“Can you also elaborate on the extent to which the Biden administration’s reliance on non-governmental organizations endangered the lives of those children.”

Hopper concluded:

“Once NGOs were sending children to their sponsors, they were supposed to have an individual traveling with them to make sure that they got to their destination. We were actually on a flight with numerous UACs. They were unaccompanied, couldn’t speak the language, and the airline struggled to communicate with them. They were traveling alone. When we spoke with the flight attendants, they outlined numerous situations where children showed up in correct locations [and] CPS would have to be called because the sponsor either didn’t show up [or] they were at the wrong location. They couldn’t communicate with these unaccompanied children, and they were not supposed to be traveling alone. Once they got to that state, there wasn’t a follow-up.”


Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security Chairman Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) asked Hopper about the Biden administration’s failure to keep track of UACs once they were delivered to sponsors:

“How many children do you think that DHS basically lost and didn’t have track of during the four years of the Biden administration that were in the United States?”

Hopper answered:

“The reports vary, but as of the last number that we were made aware of, it was over 325,000 children that went unaccounted for.”

Subcommittee Chairman Gimenez also explained why Democrats refuse to speak out about the atrocities of the Biden border crisis:

“My colleagues on the other side don’t want to speak about this hearing. They want nothing to do with this hearing. Why? Because of the failure. And one of the greatest failures in American history of the Biden administration, I believe, was not keeping track of children. And it wasn’t like the folks that sit on the other side of this aisle weren’t made aware by people sitting on this side of the aisle that it was happening. And they failed to do anything or speak out against this atrocity that was happening to the children that were coming through the border… What we’re trying to bring to light is—we want to make sure this never happens again. We need to bring it to light right now because it wasn’t going to be brought to light under the Biden administration… I thank God that we have President Trump in office who has controlled the border.”


Representative Clay Higgins (R-LA) blasted the Biden-Harris administration for facilitating human trafficking by partnering with these NGOs:

“Much to the chagrin of a whole abhorrent industry of child trafficking that prospered from the open border policies of the Biden administration for four years, 2021—‘22, ‘23, and ‘24. Much to the chagrin of these people that made bank… Mr. Howell, are you aware that ongoing right now, right now in our country, DHS, ICE, FBI, local and state law enforcement agencies [are] working on classified operations to locate, find, and rescue trafficked, tender-aged, mostly girls—we’re talking about girls 14 and younger—across the country that were trafficked into our country in 2021, ‘22, ‘23, and ‘24. Are you aware that those operations are ongoing?”

Howell answered:

“Yes, sir. They’re trying to find the children the Biden administration lost.”

Rep. Higgins continued:

“They’ve rescued so far, 35,000 [kids]…Now, according to Ms. Hopper’s research, which I find fascinating—everybody up here should—70 percent of the documentation turned in by so-called sponsors [were fraudulent or incomplete], which were lined up by who? The NGOs. Through whom primarily? HHS. It was a pipeline, man. We fed a pipeline of tender-aged children into sex trafficking and slave labor into our country. We’re finding these kids—we’re tracking these fraudulent documents.”


Representative Eli Crane (R-AZ) asked Hopper to detail how the Biden-Harris administration failed to protect these children:

“Our colleagues are very upset that we’re having this hearing today. They don’t want to talk about this stuff. They don’t want to talk about the 300,000 kids that we still don’t know where they are. They’re upset that President Trump got elected. They’re upset that he’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do, and we’re backing him up here in Congress. This is what the American people voted for because they saw four years of the carnage that these open border policies plagued on the United States. We’re talking about the NGOs that they used as middlemen to carry out their operations.”

“Ms. Hopper, you’ve worked closely with trafficking victims and survivors. I’d like to explore the role that the NGOs have played in enabling the trafficking and exploitation of unaccompanied alien children. Under the last administration, what safeguards were put in place to protect vulnerable unaccompanied children?”

Hopper answered:

“I previously discussed the post placement welfare checks, which consisted of two phone calls. Again, if the sponsor didn’t answer, the case was no longer followed up on. But there was also a notice of concern hotline where people could report concerns about the unaccompanied child’s safety. But what this administration found was from August 2023 to January of 2025, 65,000 calls went unanswered. Those calls spanned from complaints about stale bread all the way to being abused. One case where a child’s call was reporting that grown men were coming into his room at night, and they were touching him. Nothing happened with that call. That call went unanswered—until this administration took office [and] went through those 65,000 calls, made follow-ups, conducted a welfare check, and now that child has been rescued and that sponsor has been arrested. These are the safeguards that were put in place—but accountability and oversight was not had.”

###

(House Homeland Security Committee, 7/17/2025)  (Archive)  (Oversight Project-Witness Testimony, 7/16/2025)

July 17, 2025 - Federal housing official submitted Schiff criminal referral to DOJ over mortgage documents

Longtime President Donald Trump political foe Democrat California Sen. Adam Schiff was referred to the Department of Justice to face criminal prosecution over alleged mortgage fraud that reportedly stretches back years.

Schiff, who was elected to the Senate in the 2024 election cycle following decades as a House lawmaker, is under scrutiny after the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) sent a letter to the Department of Justice in May sounding the alarm that in “multiple instances,” Schiff allegedly “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, impacting payments from 2003-2019 for a Potomac, Maryland-based property.”

FHFA is an independent federal agency that oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System.

This week, Trump publicly lambasted Schiff over the alleged mortgage fraud, while Fannie Mae’s financial crimes investigations concluded Monday in a letter to the FHFA that Schiff allegedly engaged in “a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on five Fannie Mae loans, Fox News Digital previously reported this week. (Read more: Fox News, 7/17/2025)  (Archive)