Featured Timeline Entries
July 6, 2025 - Deep Dive: $500 million in media funding; Who's calling the shots behind the headlines?

It’s not just censorship – it’s coordination. In Episode 2 of Deep Dive, we go inside the censorship-industrial complex with @MikeBenzCyber, @NakedHedgie, @laszloan, and @LucyKomisar.

USAID. Soros. Internews. OCCRP. Bellingcat. They say they support democracy. But from Hungary to Brazil, Slovakia to the U.S., they’ve become the new information warlords.

This isn’t about truth.

It’s about power and who controls the story.

DEEP DIVE Episode 2 – ONLY on 𝕏

00:10 – “The Blob”: Pentagon, State, USAID, donors, and 10,000+ NGOs – all moving in sync.

02:15 – Internews trained 9,000 journalists and reached 778M people…in one year.

03:47 – Reagan’s CIA workaround: how Internews and NED were born after Church Committee fallout.

05:09 – Internews’s playbook: media ops for regime change in Brazil, Serbia, Belarus, and more.

06:42 – “They glorify protests. Amplify resistance. Demonize governments.”

08:02 – Censorship business model: media pressure + ad boycotts + AI.

08:33 – Hungary’s 2022 election: $10M in foreign influence and NGO pipelines exposed.

10:04 – How USAID money is laundered through subgrants to influence media and activism.

11:38 – “This wasn’t about aid. It was political warfare with U.S. tax dollars.”

11:54 – “Pentagon money goes offshore.” @LucyKomisar on how Lichtenstein & Luxembourg hide the flow.

13:16 – OCCRP and Bellingcat: same fake HQ in Amsterdam – a glorified PO box.

14:51 – OCCRP: “We launder money for other journalists.”

16:29 – Bellingcat isn’t independent, it’s an intel proxy with NATO ties.

18:03 – MH17: How unverified claims became global consensus.

19:51 – @MikeBenzCyber: “AI is the weapon. This is the New Manhattan Project for censorship.”

21:05 – Germany’s NetzDG law sparked a global AI censorship arms race.

22:32 – 859M tweets scanned in 2020. 22M flagged. One election.

23:42 – EU’s censorship network: think tanks, academia, public funds — and no oversight.

24:40 – @NakedHedgie: “My book was banned twice for challenging a Western narrative.”

25:31 – Amazon deletes your book. And your reviews. And your voice.

26:25 – “Every post is filtered. Every view is ranked. This is algorithmic control.”

27:46 – Who codes the AI…controls the world.

29:01 – CCDH’s STAR framework: the UN-backed blueprint for silencing “unapproved” news.

July 7, 2025 - Democrats are told to 'get shot' for the anti-Trump resistance

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined by fellow Democrats, speaks out against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act at a press conference on July 02, 2025. (Credit: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

At town halls in their districts and in one-on-one meetings with constituents and activists, Democratic members of Congress are facing a growing thrum of demands to break the rules, fight dirty — and not be afraid to get hurt.

Why it matters: House Democrats told Axios they see a growing anger among their base that has, in some cases, morphed into a disregard for American institutions, political traditions and even the rule of law.

  • “This idea that we’re going to save every norm and that we’re not going to play [Republicans’] game … I don’t think that’s resonating with voters anymore,” said one House Democrat.
  • Another told Axios that a “sense of fear and despair and anger” among voters “puts us in a different position where … we can’t keep following norms of decorum.”
  • Axios spoke to more than two dozen House Democrats for this story, with many requesting anonymity to offer candid insights about their interactions with constituents and activists.

Zoom out: For months, Democratic lawmakers have fumed that their base’s demands to “fight harder” misunderstand the lack of legislative and investigative power afforded to the minority party in Congress.

  • “We’ve got people who are desperately wanting us to do something … no matter what we say, they want [more],” Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), the chair of the center-left New Democrat Coalition, told Axios.
  • Liberal voters have angrily accosted Democrats at town halls for — in their view — not doing enough to counter President Trump’s agenda.
  • In response, some Democrats have tried to up the ante: Heckling Trump, mounting rogue impeachment attempts, and getting tackled by law enforcement and even indicted in their efforts to scrutinize the president’s deportation campaign.

What we’re hearing: The grassroots wants more. “Some of them have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot” when visiting ICE facilities or federal agencies, a third House Democrat told Axios.

  • “Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough … [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public,” the lawmaker said.
  • A fourth House Democrat said constituents have told them “civility isn’t working” and to prepare for “violence … to fight to protect our democracy.”
  • A fifth House Democrat told Axios that “people online have sent me crazy s*** … told me to storm the White House and stuff like that,” though they added that “there’s always people on the internet saying crazy stuff.”

Between the lines: While other Democratic lawmakers said their discussions haven’t gone that far, nearly every one who spoke to Axios cited examples of voters’ panic and fury fueling demands to adopt brute force tactics. (Read more: Axios, 7/7/2025)  (Archive)

July 8, 2025 - Another color revolution is forming against President Trump – this one darker than ever…

(Credit: Revolver News)

For decades, the United States government has run covert psychological operations overseas to destabilize foreign regimes and engineer regime change under the false banner of spreading democracy. They make these color revolutions look like spontaneous protests and “people power” movements. But they’re all staged. They’re run by government spooks, globalist nonprofits, and media hacks. This is the same script they’ve used overseas for years, and now they’re running it here, against Americans.

And they’re at it again, but this time the colors are darker than ever and the revolution is sneakier than ever before. More on that shortly…

Since Donald Trump splashed on the political scene, riding that Trump Tower escalator down to political history, the national security blob has turned its arsenal against the American people. The intelligence tricks that were once used on foreign authoritarians are now being used to destroy Trump and his movement.

We at Revolver didn’t just call this early; we actually laid it all out. Our original Color Revolution series exposed how deep this US psyop went. We named names. We connected dots. We pulled receipts. And that’s exactly why we became a target.

Revolver:

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a component of the Department of Homeland Security — yes, the same Department of Homeland Security that housed the ill-fated, Orwellian Disinformation Governance Board led by everyone’s favorite Harry Potter erotica musician Nina Jankowicz (we’re not kidding).

While CISA was engaged in fairly aggressive censorship efforts designed to combat foreign disinformation, it ran into some First Amendment limitations when it came to its true desire to censor domestic political speech in the lead-up to the 2020 election. This is where the other organization Taibbi mentions comes into play–the technically non-governmental Election Integrity Partnership (EIP). Because the EIP was not technically part of the government, it could engage in the aggressive censorship that CISA and DHS wanted, without having to worry about minutiae such as the First Amendment…

That little nugget above might sound like a weird alphabet soup of censorship, but when you break it down, it’s actually the building blocks of a full-blown regime control machine that’s cleverly hiding behind words like “safety” and “integrity,” and of course their precious “democracy.”

(…) And that’s the key here, folks. Color revolutions aren’t just about protests or elections. They’re about controlling the way people absorb and think about events. They shape perception. And that brings us to the next chapter of this playbook.

Because now, the same regime change operatives that Trump fired from the federal government are back, and they’re pissed and aren’t hiding their agenda, not even a tiny bit. Here’s what these bad guys are up to now.

NOTUS:

Some of the democracy-building experts President Donald Trump fired this year from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department are now reapplying the skills and knowledge they built up over decades to undermine Trump’s power.

For years, these officials were stationed across the globe actively supporting opposition movements in autocratic nations. Now they’ve got time, a network of former colleagues and a growing sense of moral indignation. “Take it from those of us who worked in authoritarian countries: We’ve become one,” said a currently employed federal official, who spoke to NOTUS on condition of anonymity. “They were so quick to disband AID, the group that supposedly instigates color revolutions. But they’ve done a very foolish thing. You just released a bunch of well-trained individuals into your population. If you kept our offices going and had us play solitaire in the office, it might have been safer to keep your regime.” The former officials tell NOTUS they’re holding workshops on a tactic called “noncooperation.”

They’re building a network of government workers willing to engage in even minor acts of rebellion in the office. And they’re planting the seeds of what they hope could become a nationwide general strike. Some in the informal network of Trump opponents are sharing an old CIA pamphlet with allies who still work in the government: It’s called “Simple Sabotage.”

So, to put it as simply as possible, Trump didn’t just fire a few bureaucrats; he inadvertently scattered an entire trained insurgency out into the wild. These are people who spent their careers funding revolutions, starting civil unrest, and pushing political dissidents into so-called “peaceful protest” in authoritarian states. And now they’re applying all that expertise… right here at home, in the land of the “free.”

They’re actually holding workshops on “noncooperation.” They are literally passing around CIA sabotage manuals as some quiet bedside reading material. And they’re setting up nationwide “resistance” networks. And yes, you know this all sounds familiar, because this isn’t our first rodeo. We busted the color revolution door wide open with our reporting on the actual architect of this very playbook: Norm Eisen.

READ MORE:

Revolver:

In our report on Never Trump State Department official George Kent, Revolver News first drew attention to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government employs in so-called “Color Revolutions” and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats, NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump. Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George Soros-linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened “war games” exercises suggesting the likelihood of a “contested election scenario” and of ensuing chaos should President Trump refuse to leave office.

We further showed how these “contested election” scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out in Revolver News’ first installment in the Color Revolution series. This third installment of Revolver News’ series exposing the Color Revolution against Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the Transition Integrity Project’s biased election “war games” exercise—a man by the name of Norm Eisen. As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, and who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump.

Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen—a key architect of nearly every attempt to delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue, and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the United States—is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color revolution playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver’s thesis that the very same regime change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US government in order to undermine or overthrow alleged “authoritarian” governments overseas are running the very same playbook to overturn Trump’s 2016 victory and to preempt a repeat in 2020.

To put it simply, what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but the same people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity against targets overseas—same people, same playbook. In Norm Eisen’s case, the “same people, same playbook” refrain takes an arrestingly literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual and conveniently titled it “The Playbook.”

(Read more: Revolver News, 7/8/2025)  (Archive)

July 8, 2025 - FBI launches criminal investigations of John Brennan, James Comey

(Credit: Fox News)

Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump–Russia probe, including allegedly making false statements to Congress, Justice Department sources told Fox News Digital.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital.

The sources said that the referral was received and told Fox News Digital that a criminal investigation into Brennan was opened and is underway. DOJ sources declined to provide further details. It is unclear, at this point, if the investigation spans beyond his alleged false statements to Congress.

As for Comey, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital that an investigation into the former director is underway, but could not share details of what specifically is being probed.

(Read more: Fox News, 7/8/2025)  (Archive)

July 8, 2025 - Mike Benz: “Jeffrey Epstein was working with the CIA since 1981"

As the debate rages over the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, Foundation for Freedom Online founder Mike Benz took a close look at Epstein’s history with the intel community talking to host Jesse Kelly. Benz has promised a deep dive on the topic soon.

Mike Benz: Epstein was working with the CIA in the early 1980s at the very start of his career after he left Bear Stearns. In 1981, right after leaving Bear Stearns, Jeffrey Epstein created a one-person for-profit company in his one-bedroom New York apartment. It was called the Intercontinental Assets Group, and it held itself out as an international bounty hunter for high-net-worth individuals to both recover money and shield money internationally. Right away in 1981, he starts this company that basically helped royalty and high-net-worth individuals basically recover loan debts or assets owed to them that were held in cryptic offshore bank accounts, as well as helping them structure their own assets in a way that would make it difficult or impossible for others to collect those assets.

And in 1982, just one year into that, he got a fake passport, an Austrian passport, listing his residence as Saudi Arabia. This is a fake passport. This was recovered by the FBI in 2019 when they drilled a hole in Jeffrey Epstein’s safe and recovered this. Prosecutors held this passport up at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Now, this fake passport was so good that it was able to go through four different country checkpoints. It had a false name, but Jeffrey Epstein’s photo, so that he could get back and forth. And why Saudi Arabia? Well, because Jeffrey Epstein, one of his main clients for the group that he set up in 1981, was Adnan Khashoggi.

Adnan Khashoggi was the CIA arms runner for the Iran-Contra affair when Congress blocked the U.S. federal government through a congressional law called the Bolan Amendment, with the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives, banning any U.S. funds from being directed to the overthrow of the Nicaraguan Sandinista government. And the Reagan White House and National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency wanted to do it anyway. They were left with a problem, which was that the CIA had been neutered during the Jimmy Carter years. There had been prohibitions on the categories of covert activity it could do, and the Bolan Amendment from Congress blocked them from using U.S. aid funds or State Department funds to run the operation.

Enter Jeffrey Epstein and Adnan Khashoggi, his client. During the Iran-Contra affair, which dogged the entire Reagan administration when all this came out, the U.S. was selling arms together with Israel to Iran, which is kind of ironic as the current geopolitics of Israel-Iran play out around missiles flying overhead earlier this month between those two countries. Israel and the U.S. were selling weapons to Iran at that time through Adnan Khashoggi, the Saudi arms dealer who had been working with the CIA for 30 years.

In fact, this all came out in formal, under-oath testimony from the Paris office of BCCI, which was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, one of the largest banks in the world, which was effectively a CIA proprietary bank for running arms to the Mujaheddin when the CIA was creating the Islamo-terrorist network that would later become Al Qaeda and then ISIS. Adnan Khashoggi was a client of that bank, together with the CIA, and the head of the head of the Paris branch said that Adnan Khashoggi personally told him that he was working for the Central Intelligence Agency and Jeffrey Epstein was his money bundler. This is at the height of the Cold War, mind you.

And so you see this relationship going back to the early 1980s. In 1985, Jeffrey Epstein becomes linked up with Les Wexner in Columbus, Ohio. Les Wexner was the head of what at the time was the largest retailer in the entire United States, limited brands, famous for Victoria’s Secret and many, many others. Les Wexner’s tax attorney, Arthur Shapiro, was murdered in a gangland style assassination in 1985, the day before he was set to testify in an IRS grand jury investigation. The IRS had been looking into the Wexner empire’s finances and failure to, I think, file taxes for something like five years and seven years of investigation. Arthur Shapiro, who ran that, was supposed to testify to the IRS grand jury just one day before he was gunned down.

It was right after that that Jeffrey Epstein appears to meet Les Wexner and then go on to have durable power of attorney over the entire Wexner enterprise. In 1993, Jeffrey Epstein personally negotiated the sale, the transfer of Air America, which would then become Southern Air Transport, a CIA proprietary airline straight from Miami, where it got busted as part of the Iran-Contra gun trafficking and narcotics trafficking in order to run this illicit operation in Iran-Contra. That very airline used Jeffrey and that Jeffrey Epstein was a critical part in the structuring of this CIA operation. He then negotiated the transfer of that CIA airliner straight to Columbus, Ohio, where the Wexner empire was based for the primary purpose of transporting the limited cargo between Ohio and Hong Kong, which is another one of these narco states. Hong Kong was won by the British during the opium wars and has been kind of a lawless gun and drug running zone ever since.

How does one get to be the financial bundler for the CIA’s main arms, illicit arms trafficker in the Middle East without having any scrutiny from the Central Intelligence Agency? How does one personally negotiate the transfer of a CIA proprietary airline? By the way, Southern Air Transport declared bankruptcy in Columbus, Ohio, the very day the CIA put out an acknowledgement of Air America’s role in the gun running and narco trafficking in Iran-Contra. Subsequent to that, the US State Department personally made Jeffrey Epstein the tenant on the lease for one of the second largest residents in all of New York City. This residence was seized from the government of Iran as the US was putting sanctions on it and then personally leased out to Jeffrey Epstein. How do you have the State Department as your personal landlord? Do you think you or I, Jesse, could score something like that?

The State Department then ended up in a legal dispute with Jeffrey Epstein because Jeffrey Epstein subleased that apartment to the defense lawyer for the “French Connection” and “Pizza Connection” drug scandals (Ivan Fisher), where you had CIA involvement in narco trafficking that was effectively dealt, you know, hushed over in this trial through this very defense lawyer that Jeffrey Epstein then leased the State Department building seized from Iran from. What I’m trying to communicate here is that every aspect of the Jeffrey Epstein story is part of the restructuring of intelligence work after the scandals of the 1970s when the CIA was barred from doing activity directly. And that’s when USAID came into the picture and took the baton from CIA and these and the NGO apparatus that we’re now living under with the National Endowment for Democracy and Internews and the US Agency for US Institute of Peace and the web of private contractors and private financiers in order to be the front men for CIA operations. Jeffrey Epstein was present at creation of that entire apparatus. There is zero chance on God’s green earth that there are no CIA files on this guy.

And the fact that this justice department has effectively pointed us to the FBI when this is a CIA job is not a good look for transparency.

(Gateway Pundit, 7/13/2025)

July 8, 2025 - Speaker Johnson reveals new federal law codifies 28 Executive Orders signed by President Trump

(Credit: The White House / Flickr)

Speaker Mike Johnson has announced that 28 of President Donald J. Trump’s executive orders have been officially codified into federal law under the newly passed “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

“Last week, when House GOP passed the One Big Beautiful Bill, we codified into law 28 executive actions taken by President Trump.   More to come!,” Johnson wrote in X.

The legislation enshrines a robust America First agenda — ranging from national security to economic revival — making it nearly impossible for future administrations to undo without going through Congress. Among the codified executive actions:

  1. Securing our borders
  2. Declaring a national emergency at the southern border of the United States
  3. Protecting the American people against invasion
  4. Ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders
  5. Restricting the entry of foreign nationals to protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats
  6. Implementing the President’s “DOGE” cost efficiency initiative
  7. Protecting America’s bank account against fraud, waste, and abuse
  8. Continuing the reduction of the federal bureaucracy
  9. Stopping waste, fraud, and abuse by eliminating information silos
  10. Iron Dome for America
  11. Unleashing American drone dominance
  12. Restoring America’s maritime dominance
  13. Unleashing American energy
  14. Reinvigorating America’s beautiful clean coal industry
  15. Unleashing Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential
  16. Declaring a national energy emergency
  17. Immediate measures to increase American mineral production
  18. Immediate expansion of American timber production
  19. Clarifying the military’s role in protecting the territorial integrity of the United States
  20. Keeping Americans safe in aviation
  21. Improving education outcomes by empowering parents, states, and communities
  22. Reforming accreditation to strengthen higher education
  23. Establishing the President’s Make America Health Again Commission
  24. Further amendment to duties addressing the synthetic opioid supply chain in the People’s Republic of China as applied to low-value imports
  25. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) global tax deal (Global Tax Deal)
  26. Enforcing the Hyde Amendment
  27. Celebrating America’s 250th birthday – Garden of Heroes
  28. Making the District of Columbia safe and beautiful

(Read more: Gateway Pundit, 7/8/2025)  (Archive)

July 8, 2025 - Biden doctor, Kevin O'Connor, refuses to testify on Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, pleads the 5th

h/t Gateway Pundit

July 9, 2025 - Marc Elias tells media to ignore the FBI's criminal investigations of John Brennan and James Comey

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.