Dr. Joseph Mercola Uses the Youtube video “The Mafia, CIA & Jeffrey Epstein Worked TOGETHER To Traffic Minors” as the starting point to examine how the U.S. Government (whose Constitutional function WAS to protect and to serve We The People) partnered with organized crime to enhance the capabilities of America’s Intelligence Community. (DISAPPOINTING NOTE: The Youtube video is not Trump friendly in an indirect manner. In full disclosure I’m a Trump supporter ergo I need a bit more corroboration before I believe the side-ways swipes as concrete rather than just another pile of unproven besmirching.)
The intriguing concept – for me – explains how today’s power Elites currently ruling the USA has made the U.S. Government an untrustworthy corrupt tyranny that has NOT served We The People for quite some time. NOW RATHER the once limited by the U.S. Constitution – Government – RULES with authoritarian diktats demanding We The People bend like Sheeple to unchecked Elitist demands.
Dr. Mercola has two videos in his post. I suggest you read his analysis before watching the shared videos. It is my sense the analysis will deepen the understanding of the videos.
As a bonus I am also cross posting four videos showing tyranny in America and a world-wide tyranny affecting the one-time Free West:
Organized crime fused with intelligence agencies during World War II, forming the precursor of the CIA — the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)
The web of corruption grew from there, as criminal factions and intelligence agencies developed a symbiotic relationship using blackmail as a tool to achieve their goals
There’s evidence that the fusion of organized crime and government occurred even before what was formally termed Operation Underworld, beginning with the Democratic party in New York City, which was entwined with organized crime in the early 20th century
It’s not just about money, although wealth is certainly part of it; it’s about power and control, which those involved, including Jeffrey Epstein, would stop at nothing to achieve
Webb explains her reasons for believing Epstein won’t be replaced with a cadre of new blackmailers; thanks to modern surveillance technology, they can find blackmail material on anyone without any help
When you get into this fascinating read, you learn that organized crime fused with intelligence agencies during World War II, forming the precursor of the CIA — the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).
The web of corruption grew from there, as criminal factions and intelligence agencies developed a symbiotic relationship using blackmail as a tool to achieve their individual ends. It’s not just about money, although wealth is certainly part of it. It’s about power and control, which those involved, including Jeffrey Epstein, would stop at nothing to achieve.
When I interviewed Webb in 2022, she started at the beginning, going back to World War II, detailing the connections between the intelligence community in the U.S. and organized crime. There was a decentralized network of different organized crime groups operating in the U.S. in the early 20th century. It was known as the national crime syndicate. Webb told Dore:1
“Historically, organized crime in the U.S. — most people are probably familiar with it because of Hollywood — tended to be an ethnic enclave. So you’d have Irish organized crime, the Jewish mob, the Italian mafia and so on. The national crime syndicate broke down those silos and brought these different groups together. That made them a lot more successful.”
According to Webb, the main people behind this were Meyer Lansky, representing the Jewish mob, and Lucky Luciano of the Italian mafia. The pair formally teamed up with the Office of Naval Intelligence and the OSS during World War II.
“OSS is the precursor to the CIA,” Webb said, “and this was justified as necessary because it was the war, right? So a wartime necessity justification.” Webb continued:2
“Then the war ends and the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. and these mob guys realize they have a lot in common and they work really well together. So that’s why in the ’60s and ’50s you see a lot of people involved in assassination stuff for the CIA … you see a lot of mob guys around, for example. There’s a lot of other examples of them interacting on and off over the years.”
From there, it expanded into shadow banking, finance and the world of corporate power as well “and just really became out of control,” Webb said.3 This was a worldwide effort, however, not one contained to the U.S.
“The Israeli intelligence got involved in this developing power nexus,” she continued, “because the Jewish mob side of the national crime syndicate was heavily involved in the arming of the Haganah [a paramilitary group] and the precursor to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]. So, basically, by the time the state of Israel is created, these alliances are part of its national security state from the off.”4
Operation Underworld — The Consolidation of Power Networks
Webb states there’s evidence that the fusion of organized crime and government occurred even before what was formally termed Operation Underworld, beginning with the Democratic party in New York City, which was entwined with organized crime in the early 20th century. The mob had taken over most of the unions, which means they had also largely taken over the Democratic party.
Later it expanded to the Republican party as well, but initially power consolidation began in New York, including with the political machine Tammany Hall. Infamous New York described it this way:5
“Organized, politically connected and deadly, by the 1870s the gangs of New York had metastasized from leaderless hordes of criminals of the Civil War era into a cancerous pox, directed and controlled by New York’s political machine, Tammany Hall. With names like the Dead Rabbits, the Whyos, the Monk Eastmans, and the Five Pointers, gangs became a hallmark of New York politics in the early 20th Century.”
Sexual Blackmail’s Role in US History
One theme that pops up repeatedly in Webb’s book is the use of sexual blackmail in various scandals in U.S. history. She ties it back to Jeffrey Epstein, who, she says, is not an anomaly with behavior exclusive to him:6
“This is a type of activity that has been done over and over again in our political system … It’s a type of operation that was perfected first by the mob. So this is something that’s really born out of, in my opinion, this organized crime intelligence team. It’s been going on for an excessive amount of time at this point.”
J. Edgar Hoover, who led the FBI from 1924 to 1972 and was the top law enforcement official in the U.S., was sexually blackmailed by the mob in the ’30s, Webb said, which is why he didn’t go after organized crime:7
“The sexual blackmail operation that entrapped him [Hoover] also intimately involved a man named Roy Cohn, who was best known as Donald Trump’s mentor. And the two of them, along with the mob-linked businessman named Lewis Rosenstiel, were seen engaging in sexual blackmail operations themselves. But, again, Hoover and Cohn only joined that after they had been entrapped — and this involved minors.”
Epstein’s Ties to the Powerful Elite
Scandals involving sexual blackmail are numerous in U.S. political history. Webb rattles off several, including the page boy scandal in 1982, where congressmen were caught engaging in sex with underage Congressional pages, as well as the Franklin Scandal, a nationwide child-trafficking and pedophilia ring. The most prominent modern-day scandal, however, involves Epstein.
Epstein, while dismissed as a simple sex criminal, was far more instrumental to the globalist cabal than it first appears. In addition to being a mastermind at shadow banking and illicit finance, he engaged in major financial crimes and had ties to many powerful people, from Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and Donald Trump to the CIA, which Webb details in her book:8
“In my book I talk about how, in my opinion, Jeffrey Epstein was involved in two parallel operations of sex trafficking. So there’s the one that everyone knows about — the underage exploited girls — but then there’s these women that he invested a lot of time in when they’re minors, then funds their education and what have you over time. He developed them as assets and then married them off to his powerful friends.”
Webb also delves into Epstein’s ties to Bill Gates. While mainstream media narrative states that Epstein and Gates didn’t meet until 2011, Webb says that’s not true:9
“There’s mainstream media articles from 2001 saying that Jeffrey Epstein made all his money from his business connections — to three men — and those three men are Leslie Wexner [former owner of Victoria’s Secret], Donald Trump and the third one is Bill Gates.”
One example of the deep connection that actually existed between Epstein and Gates involves Melanie Walker, who is also, by the way, involved with the World Economic Forum:10,11
“She was recruited by Epstein in 1992, allegedly as a Victoria’s Secret model, but there’s no evidence she ever actually modeled for Victoria’s Secret. He apparently was funding her education, hires her as his science adviser in the late ’90s and then a couple years after that, in the early 2000s, she becomes the science adviser to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So if you’re going to apply to be science adviser to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and your CV says my most recent experience is being the science adviser to Jeffrey Epstein, and you’re Bill Gates hiring your top science adviser, you would have to know who Jeffrey Epstein is and what kind of science he’s into.”
Webb believes Gates is lying about his ties to Epstein not only to protect himself but also to protect Microsoft. “You also have, in the ’90s, Jeffrey Epstein flying around on planes to official Microsoft functions in Russia, apparently giving women to the chief technology officer who was very close to Bill Gates … all sorts of stuff going on there with Epstein and Microsoft,” Webb explained.12
Suspicious ‘Suicides’ Continue
From Epstein’s death to the death of Ghislaine Maxwell’s father Robert, many “suicides” appear to be tied back to the global cabal and intelligence agencies attempting to hide incriminating information. One such death is that of Mark Middleton, special assistant to the chief of staff at the Clinton White House, who was responsible for setting up Epstein’s visits to the White House:13
“Jeffrey Epstein had 15 meetings in about a year with a guy named Mark Middleton. Mark Middleton died earlier this year with an extension cord around his neck and a shotgun wound to the chest in Little Rock, Arkansas, which was ruled a suicide.
Here’s the other thing. Mark Middleton was so scandalous for what he was doing at the same time Jeffrey Epstein was meeting with him that he was being investigated by Congress, and the only reason that investigation never finished is because the first time George W. Bush — the subsequent president — invoked executive privilege was to keep documents about Mark Middleton from being made available to Congress.
Mark Middleton was not a big fish, you would think, at the White House. He was just an aide to the chief of staff to Bill Clinton. So what was going on with Mark Middleton there?
Well, it’s mostly remembered as this scandal in 1996 called The Campaign Finance Scandal of ’96. It’s related to the fundraising of the DNC for Clinton’s re-election campaign, but a lot of what was going on is that foreign citizens were laundering campaign contributions, filling DNC coffers, but a lot of it was targeting Ron Brown.”
Ron Brown, Clinton’s secretary of commerce, also died under mysterious circumstances:14
“A lot of what was going on there were efforts to change Commerce Department policy so that a lot of very sensitive military technology could be sent to adversary nations when that was normally not allowed.
And some of the people at the center of this were people like Lockheed Martin’s CEO, who actually later goes on to create InQTel for the CIA. And you have a guy named Bernard Schwartz that runs a race to run Loral Space. He was one of Biden’s biggest donors in 2020.
So basically you have this huge effort to undermine the Commerce Department and buy off Ron Brown. Ron Brown at some point — as all of this kept going on pieces of it began to unravel — he agreed to cooperate with investigators. Not long after that he was unexpectedly invited to go on a trade mission to Croatia, and the plane crashes because of a supposedly aging navigational system.
Everyone on the plane dies except for a flight attendant that apparently walked away but then when she arrived at the hospital in a military helicopter, she arrived with a broken neck. Ron Brown’s body was so odd when it was discovered that people in Congress called for it to be investigated because he appeared to have a bullet wound in the skull not caused by a plane crash.”
The Solution — Don’t Be Afraid and Get Local
In her book, Webb explains her reasons for believing Epstein won’t be replaced with a cadre of new blackmailers. They don’t need people like him anymore, thanks to modern surveillance technology.
They can access everything, all your accounts, cameras, phones, microphones, surveillance cameras, you name it. They can find blackmail material on anyone these days. Of course, this tech is also being used to enslave and control the rest of us. They’re counting on you taking your cellphone with you everywhere, and adopting other forms of digital control, like vaccine passports and central bank digital currencies.
You don’t have to volunteer to give this information and give up your control, however. You can opt out. Stay local and build connections in your community. Webb explained:
“What we need are regular people to take responsibility. So many of us are looking for the good guy versus the bad guy on the level of nation state leadership. No. The good guys are just the regular people like you and me, and the bad guys are the people most often at the top that have stomped on heads and clawed their way to the heights of power, regardless of what nation state you’re talking about.
It’s among regular people where you will find the ‘good guys’ you’re looking for and it’s time for those people to come together and say ‘Enough!’ And we really can do it. It just is about taking personal responsibility … We have to take our power back and that starts on an individual level.”
It is becoming increasingly well-known and understood that the UN’s “climate” agenda is about shackling the planet in the name of saving it. At last November’s “climate” COP27 conference in Egypt, the UN took another step in this direction by calling for climate reparations entailing a gargantuan transfer of wealth from the United States and other developed nations to poor nations supposedly suffering from the bad effects of climate change. But less well known than the UN’s political/economic power grab is the emerging New World (Green) Religion that is occurring in tandem. Yet the religious implications of the UN’s overall agenda, according to The New American’s Alex Newman, is even more important than the UN’s very serious and frightful political machinations. In this interview with “Beyond the Cover” host Gary Benoit, Newman explains why.
Newman attended COP27, where the New World Religion was on full display. He is also the author of “The UN’s New World Religion” and other articles about the UN’s “climate” agenda in the January 16, 2023 issue of The New American magazine.
I have kept a very small presence on Facebook since after maintaining a profile there for over a greater part decade while experiencing multiple Facebook jail sentences ultimately ending with a permanent ban of my original Facebook presence.
THEN I waited a couple of months and joined Facebook with new profile information primarily to reconnect with old graduating High School classmates (Class of 1975). Sadly being in Washington State I discovered too many of those Classmates were members of the Sheeple Darkside Dem-Marxist Party swallowing lying propaganda hook-line-and-sinker. BUT some were teen friends and acquaintances so – Que Sera, Sera – I avoid writing politics to old Classmates for memory’s sake.
Maybe it was an error on my part. I joined 10 Conservative-oriented Groups and a couple anti-Medical Tyranny Groups. Apparently a FB protected troll sifted through some of my old posts on the anti-Medical Tyranny Groups which have landed me AGAIN in Facebook Jail for about 5-days with an implied warning that if keep telling documented truth the Facebook Censors label “Misinformation”, I AGAIN could be permanently banned.
Yet another banning will not break my heart, because in all truth I spend a very limited time on truth-deficient Facebook. AND YET, I will miss checking some of the Class of 1975 because none of us are spring chickens any longer. I just hope I was not trolled by a Dem-Marxist Sheeple Class of 1975 and my current jail term is the result of downright Leftist Facebook Censors.
On the other hand, if I survive ye-old-permanent-ban, I’ll not be posting on Facebook much to stay in contact with the non-brainwashed. In case anyone is curious I belong to many other Social Platforms, some of which lack Facebook technical sophistication but censorship is not an issue. My largest presence is on MeWe. I’ve heard from others that they have face MeWe censorship as in mostly some form of shadow-culling. Fortunately for me I have not experienced one bit of censorship on MeWe. My MeWe profile: https://mewe.com/i/johnhouk7
In the spirit of thumbing my nose at Facebook, I have a couple of Bitchute videos that would undoubtedly raise the ire of their lying censors and an interesting cross post from Valiant News on faux-elected Biden’s Intel Brown Shirts redefining truth as “misinformation” to go after American Conservatives and Patriots who believe in the ORIGINAL premises of the U.S. Constitution prior to judicial fiat extra-constitutionally diluting ORIGINAL INTENT.
Hit Me With Your Death Shot mRNA! (Bill Gates Parody)
I hope you enjoy this hilarious musical parody aimed at Bill Gates, but on a serious note, below you will find more information on how to combat the COVID Plandemic.
Thank you to those who have stepped up! READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty: Please Support NCCR Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
******************************
Intelligence Community Developing AI Tool To Unmask Anonymous Writers
The program will also be used to scramble linguistic patterns, making it impossible to crack the identity of authors that they wanted to keep under lock and key…
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has announced they are developing an AI tool to unmask anonymous writers.
A press release on Tuesday from the ODNI revealed that the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), their research and development arm, is starting work on the Human Interpretable Attribution of Text Using Underlying Structure program – HIATUS for short.
“Humans and machines produce vast amounts of text content every day,” with “text containing linguistic features that can reveal author identity,” a document from IARPA notes. The HIATUS tool would therefore use AI to identify anonymous writers via features such as “word choice, sentence phrasing [and] organization of information.”
“Think about it as like your written fingerprint, right?” program manager Dr Timothy McKinnon said in February. “What characteristics make your writing unique? So the technology would be able to identify that fingerprint compared against a corpus of other documents, and match them up if they are from the same author.”
McKinnon said that the AI program would be used by the intelligence community to track “disinformation campaigns,” and combat “human trafficking and other malicious activities that go on in online text forums.”
In the same vein, HIATUS would be able to detect whether text was not authored by a human, but generated by another machine.
The second use of the HIATUS program is to hide the identity of authors that it wanted to keep under lock and key. Using the same system, HIATUS could rewrite and modify text so that those same linguistic fingerprints in a text could be scrambled, making it impossible to attribute authorship.
With AI models that use deep learning, they often function as a “black box,” where the AI works perfectly well, but their methods are undecipherable to the human eye. HIATUS will be designed differently, implementing “explainable AI techniques” so that human operators can understand why it has identified a text as having a certain authorship, so that no mistakes are made.
20 different contracts have been awarded as part of the HIATUS project, including to groups such as Raytheon, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern California.
“We have a strong chance of meeting our goals, delivering much-needed capabilities to the Intelligence Community, and substantially expanding our understanding of variation in human language using the latest advances in computational linguistics and deep learning,” McKinnon concluded.
According to the timeline provided by the ODNI, the project will take at least three and a half years to conclude before the intelligence community will be able to use it, if it is successful.
Jack Hadfield is the Associate Editor at Valiant News. An investigative reporter from the UK, and the director and presenter of “Destination Dover: Migrants in the Channel”, his work has appeared in such sites as Breitbart and The Political Insider. You can follow him on Gab @JH, on Telegram @JackHadders, or see his other social media by visiting jackhadfield.co.uk.
The Dem-Marxist Plan to make America a One-Party Cultural Marxist nation has been in execution for quite some time as you read at The Last Refuge (aka TheConservativeTreehouse.com) with this title: “The J6 Motive – Why Donald Trump Must be Removed, The Political Surveillance of American Citizens.” You will discover a significant history of the Patriot Act transformed America into a surveillance state monitored by our alphabets of the Intelligence Community but exploited by the Obama transformation agenda to plant Obama Marxist acolytes in the UNELECTED bureaucracy to cement the transformation. BUT the monkey wrench in the works was the 2016 Trump election. Trump’s removal and barring from future elections is the agenda to allow the Dem-Marxist cement to harden. The irony is I’m not as huge a Trump as before because of his support for the mRNA Jab. But merely because of America’s current Dem-Marxist Tyrants’ hatred of Trump, I’d vote him praying his mRNA support is relegated to voluntary rather than mandatory. THIS IS MUST READ MATERIAL at The Last Refuge!
JRH 7/18/22
READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty with your SUPPORT:
Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act. What Obama and Holder did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.
This point is where many people understandably get confused.
In the era shortly after 9/11 the DC national security apparatus, instructed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.
After 9/11/01 the electronic surveillance system that was originally created to monitor threats from abroad was retooled to monitor threats inside our country. That is when all of our electronic ‘metadata’ came under federal surveillance.
That inflection point, and the process that followed, was exactly what Edward Snowden tried to point out.
What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political opposition became the target of this new national security system.
The problems we face now as a country are directly an outcome of two very distinct points that were merged by Barack Obama. (1) The post 9/11 monitoring of electronic communication of American citizens; and (2) Obama’s team creating a fine-tuning knob that it focused on the politics of the targets. This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.
Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. The Department of Homeland Security came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was formed.
When President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.
The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus: a domestic surveillance state. However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology.
The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.
We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake. However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design. By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath. The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.
As time passed, and the system operators became familiar with their new tools, technology allowed the tentacles of the system to reach out and touch us. That is when we first started to notice that something very disconcerting was happening. Those four pillars are the root of it, and if we take the time to understand how the Fourth Branch originated, questions about this current state of perpetual angst will start to make sense.
Grab a cup of your favorite beverage and take a walk with me as we outline how this was put together. You might find many of the questions about our current state of political affairs beginning to make a lot more sense.
Remember, it is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding Fourth Branch of Government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.
History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military) to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all the modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell.
None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.
Instead, we pick up the expansive and weaponized intelligence system as it manifests after 9/11/01, and my goal is to highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life. We The People are under surveillance.
If we take the modern construct, originating at the speed of technological change, we can also see how the oversight or “check/balance” in our system of government became functionally obsolescent.
After many years of granular research about the intelligence apparatus inside our government, in the summer of 2020 I visited Washington DC to ask specific questions. My goal was to go where the influence agents within government actually operate, and to discover the people deep inside the institutions no one elected, and few people pay attention to.
It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.
After days of research and meetings in DC during 2020; amid a town that was serendipitously shut down due to COVID-19; I found a letter slid under the door of my room in a nearly empty hotel with an introduction of sorts. The subsequent discussions were perhaps the most important. After many hours of specific questions and answers on specific examples, I realized why our nation is in this mess. That is when I discovered the fourth and superseding branch of government, the Intelligence Branch.
I am going to explain how the Intelligence Branch works: (1) to control every other branch of government; (2) how it functions as an entirely independent branch of government with no oversight; (3) how and why it was created to be independent from oversight; (4) what is the current mission of the IC Branch, and most importantly (5) who operates it.
The Intelligence Branch is an independent functioning branch of government, it is no longer a subsidiary set of agencies within the Executive Branch as most would think. To understand the Intelligence Branch, we need to drop the elementary school civics class lessons about three coequal branches of government and replace that outlook with the modern system that created itself.
The Intelligence Branch functions much like the State Dept, through a unique set of public-private partnerships that support it. Big Tech industry collaboration with intelligence operatives is part of that functioning, almost like an NGO. However, the process is much more important than most think. In this problematic perspective of a corrupt system of government, the process is the flaw – not the outcome.
There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives.
None of the people operating deep inside the Intelligence Branch were elected; and our elected representative House members genuinely do not know how the system works. I assert this position affirmatively because I have talked to House and Senate staffers, including the chiefs of staff for multiple House & Senate committee seats. They are not malicious people; however, they are genuinely clueless of things that happen outside their silo. That is part of the purpose of me explaining it, with examples, in full detail with sunlight.
We begin….
In April of 2016, the FBI launched a counterintelligence operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The questioning about that operation is what New York Representative Elise Stefanik cites in March of 2017, approximately 11 months later (First Two Minutes).
♦ Notice how FBI Director James Comey just matter-of-factly explains no one outside the DOJ was informed about the FBI operation. Why? Because that’s just the way things are done. His justification for unilateral operations was “because of the sensitivity of the matter“, totally ignoring any constitutional or regulatory framework for oversight; because, well, quite simply, there isn’t any. The intelligence apparatus inside the DOJ/FBI can, and does, operate based on their own independent determinations of authority.
♦ Notice also how FBI Director Comey shares his perspective that informing the National Security Council (NSC) is the equivalent of notifying the White House. The FBI leadership expressly believe they bear no responsibility to brief the Chief Executive. As long as they tell some unknown, unelected, bureaucratic entity inside the NSC, their unwritten responsibility to inform the top of their institutional silo is complete. If the IC wants to carve out the Oval Office, they simply plant information inside the NSC and, from their perspective, their civic responsibility to follow checks-and-balances is complete. This is an intentional construct.
♦ Notice how Comey obfuscates notification to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), by avoiding the fact James Clapper was the DNI from outset of the counterintelligence operation throughout the remainder of Obama’s term. When I get deeper into the process, we will understand how the Intelligence Branch has intentionally used the creation of the DNI position (established post 9/11/01) as a method to avoid oversight, not enhance it. Keeping an oblivious doofus like James Clapper in position held strategic value [Doofus Reminder HERE].
That video of James Comey being questioned by Elise Stefanik was the first example given to me by someone who knew the background of everything that was taking place preceding that March 20, 2017, hearing. That FBI reference point is a key to understand how the Intelligence Branch operates with unilateral authority above Congress (legislative branch), above the White House (executive branch), and even above the court system (judicial branch).
Also, watch this short video of James Clapper, because it is likely many readers have forgotten, and likely even more readers have never seen it. Watch closely how then White House national security adviser John Brennan is responding in that video. This is before Brennan became CIA Director, this is when Brennan was helping Barack Obama put the pillars into place. WATCH:
[Sidebar: Every time I post this video it gets scrubbed from YouTube (example), so save it if you ever want to see it again. {Blog Editor: Due to this sidebar note, I decided to upload this video to my Bitchute Channel in case there is a Youtube scrub:https://www.bitchute.com/video/33zWOo6FRFER/}]
The video of James Clapper highlights how the ODNI position (created with good national security intention) ended up becoming the fulcrum for modern weaponization, and is now an office manipulated by agencies with a vested interest in retaining power. The Intelligence Branch holds power over the ODNI through their influence and partnership with the body that authorizes the power within it, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).
Factually, the modern intelligence apparatus uses checks and balances in their favor. The checks create silos of proprietary information, classified information, vaults of information that work around oversight issues. The silos, which include the exploitation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court, or FISC) are part of the problem.
Ironically, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created in the aftermath of 9/11/01 expressly to eliminate the silos of information which they felt led to a domestic terrorist attack that could have been prevented. The ODNI was created specifically upon the recommendation of the 9/11 commission.
The intent was to create a central hub of intelligence information, inside the Executive Branch, where the CIA, NSA, DoD, DoS, and DIA could deposit their unique intelligence products and a repository would be created so that domestic intelligence operations, like the DOJ and FBI could access them when needed to analyze threats to the U.S. This, they hoped, would ensure the obvious flags missed in the 9/11 attacks would not be missed again.
However, the creation of the DNI office also created an unconstitutional surveillance system of the American people. The DNI office became the tool to take massive amounts of data and use it to target specific Americans. Weaponizing the DNI office for political targeting is now the purpose of the DNI office as it exists.
The illegal and unlawful nature of the surveillance creates a need for careful protection amid the group who operate in the shadows of electronic information and domestic surveillance. You will see how it was critical to install a person uniquely skilled in being an idiot, James Clapper, into that willfully blind role while intelligence operatives worked around the office to assemble the Intelligence Branch of Government.
• The last federal budget that flowed through the traditional budgetary process was signed into law in September of 2007 for fiscal year 2008 by George W. Bush. Every budget since then has been a fragmented process of continuing resolutions and individual spending bills.
Why does this matter? Because many people think defunding the Intelligence Community is a solution; it is not…. at least, not yet. Worse yet, the corrupt divisions deep inside the U.S. intelligence system can now fund themselves from multinational private sector partnerships (banks, corporations and foreign entities).
• When Democrats took over the House of Representatives in January 2007, they took office with a plan. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, and Democrats controlled the Senate where Harry Reid was Majority Leader. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois.
Pelosi and Reid intentionally did not advance a budget in 2008 (for fiscal year 2009) because their plan included installing Barack Obama (and all that came with him) with an open checkbook made even more lucrative by a worsening financial crisis and a process called baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting means the prior fiscal year budget is accepted as the starting point for the next year budget. All previous expenditures are baked into the cake within baseline budgeting.
Massive bailouts preceded Obama’s installation due to U.S. economic collapse, and massive bailouts continued after his installation. This is the ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ aspect. TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program), auto bailouts (GM), and the massive stimulus spending bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, i.e.. those shovel ready jobs) were all part of the non-budget spending. The federal reserve assisted with Quantitative Easing (QE1 and QE2) as congress passed various Porkulous spending bills further spending and replacing the formal budget process.
Note: There has never been a budget passed in the normal/traditional process since September of 2007.
• While Obama’s radical ‘transformation‘ was triggered across a broad range of government institutions, simultaneously spending on the U.S. military was cut, but spending on the intelligence apparatus expanded. We were all distracted by Obamacare, and the Republican Party wanted to keep us that way. However, in the background there was a process of transformation taking place that included very specific action by Eric Holder and targeted effort toward the newest executive agency the ODNI.
The people behind Obama, those same people now behind Joe Biden, knew from years of strategic planning that ‘radical transformation’ would require control over specific elements inside the U.S. government. Eric Holder played a key role in his position as U.S. Attorney General in the DOJ.
AG Holder recruited ideologically aligned political operatives who were aware of the larger institutional objectives. One of those objectives was weaponizing the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) a division inside the DOJ that had no inspector general oversight. For most people the DOJ-NSD weaponization surfaced with a hindsight awakening of the DOJ-NSD targeting candidate Donald Trump many years later. However, by then the Holder crew had executed almost eight full years of background work.
• The second larger Obama/Holder objective was control over the FBI. Why was that important? Because the FBI does the domestic investigative work on anyone who needs or holds a security clearance. The removal of security clearances could be used as a filter to further build the internal ideological army they were assembling. Additionally, with new power in the ODNI created as a downstream consequence of the Patriot Act, new protocols for U.S. security clearances were easy to justify.
Carefully selecting fellow ideological travelers was facilitated by this filtration within the security clearance process. How does that issue later manifest? Just look around at how politicized every intelligence agency has become, specifically including the FBI.
• At the exact same time this new background security clearance process was ongoing, again everyone distracted by the fight over Obamacare, inside the Department of State (Secretary Hillary Clinton) a political alignment making room for the next phase was being assembled. Names like Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were familiar on television while Lisa Monaco worked as a legal liaison between the Obama White House and Clinton State Department.
Through the Dept of State (DoS) the intelligence apparatus began working on their first steps to align Big Tech with a larger domestic institutional objective. Those of you who remember the “Arab Spring”, some say “Islamist Spring”, will remember it was triggered by Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo – his first foreign trip. The State Department worked with grassroots organizers (mostly Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar and Libya. Obama leaned heavily on the organizational network of Turkish President Recep Erdogan for contacts and support.
Why does this aspect matter to us? Well, you might remember how much effort the Obama administration put into recruiting Facebook and Twitter as resources for the various mideast rebellions the White House and DoS supported. This was the point of modern merge between the U.S. intelligence community and Big Tech social media.
In many ways, the coordinated political outcomes in Libya and Egypt were the beta test for the coordinated domestic political outcomes we saw in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The U.S. intelligence community working with social media platforms and political operatives.
Overlaying all of that background activity was also a new alignment of the Obama-era intelligence apparatus with ideological federal “contractors“. Where does this contractor activity manifest? In the FISA Court opinion of Rosemary Collyer who cited the “interagency memorandum of understanding”, or MOU.
Hopefully, you can see a small part of how tentacled the system to organize/weaponize the intelligence apparatus was. None of this was accidental, all of this was by design, and the United States Senate was responsible for intentionally allowing most of this to take place. The tools the government used to monitor threats were now being used to monitor every American. WE THE PEOPLE were now the threat the national security system was monitoring.
That’s the 30,000/ft level backdrop history of what was happening as the modern IC was created. Next, we will go into how all these various intelligence networks began working in unison and how they currently control all of the other DC institutions under them; including how they can carve out the President from knowing their activity.
♦ When Barack Obama was installed in January 2009, the Democrats held a 60 seat majority in the U.S. Senate. As the people behind the Obama installation began executing their longer-term plan, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was a tool to create the Intelligence Branch; it was not an unintentional series of events.
When Obama was installed, Dianne Feinstein was the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), and Democrat operative Dan Jones was her lead staffer. Feinstein was completely controlled by those around her including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The CIA was in the process of turning over personnel following the Bush era, and as a result of a massive multi-year narrative of diminished credibility (Iraq WMD), a deep purge was underway. Obama/Holder were in the process of shifting intelligence alignment and the intensely political Democrat Leader Harry Reid was a key participant.
THE TRAP – Many people say that Congress is the solution to eliminating the Fourth and superseding Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. This is an exercise in futility because the Legislative Branch, specifically the SSCI, facilitated the creation of the Intelligence Branch. The SSCI cannot put the genie they created back in the bottle without admitting they too are corrupt; and the background story of their corruption is way too intense to be exposed now.
Every member of the SSCI is compromised in some controlling manner. Those Senators who disliked the control over them; specifically disliked because the risk of sunlight was tenuous and, well, possible; have either left completely or stepped down from the committee. None of the SSCI members past or present would ever contemplate saying openly what their tenure involved.
[Note: You might remember when Vice Chairman Mark Warner’s text messages surfaced, there was a controlled Republican SSCI member who came to his defense in February of 2018. It was not accidental that exact Senator later became the chair of the SSCI himself. That Republican Senator is Marco Rubio, now vice-chair since the Senate re-flipped back to the optics of Democrat control in 2021.]
All of President Obama’s 2009 intelligence appointments required confirmation from the Senate. The nominees had to first pass through the Democrat controlled SSCI, and then to a full Senate vote where Democrats held a 60 vote majority. Essentially, Obama got everyone he wanted in place easily. Rahm Emmanuel was Obama’s Chief of Staff, and Valerie Jarrett was Senior Advisor.
Tim Geithner was Treasury Secretary in 2010 when the joint DOJ/FBI and IRS operation to target the Tea Party took place after the midterm “shellacking” caused by the Obamacare backlash. Mitch McConnell was Minority Leader in the Senate but supported the targeting of the Tea Party as his Senate colleagues were getting primaried by an angry and effective grassroots campaign. McConnell’s friend, Senator Bob Bennett, getting beaten in Utah was the final straw.
Dirty Harry and Mitch McConnell saw the TEA Party through the same prism. The TEA Party took Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts (Scott Brown); Sharon Angle was about to take out Harry Reid in Nevada; Arlen Spector was taken down in Pennsylvania; Senator Robert Byrd died; Senator Lisa Murkowski lost her primary to Joe Miller in Alaska; McConnell’s nominee Mike Castle lost to Christine O’Donnell in Delaware; Rand Paul won in Kentucky. This is the background. The peasants were revolting…. and visibly angry Mitch McConnell desperately made a deal with the devil to protect himself.
In many ways, the TEA Party movement was/is very similar to the MAGA movement. The difference in 2010 was the absence of a head of the movement, in 2015 Donald Trump became that head figure who benefited from the TEA Party energy. Trump came into office in 2017 with the same congressional opposition as the successful TEA Party candidates in 2011.
Republicans took control of the Senate following the 2014 mid-terms. Republicans took control of the SSCI in January 2015. Senator Richard Burr became chairman of the SSCI, and Dianne Feinstein shifted to Vice-Chair. Dirty Harry Reid left the Senate, and Mitch McConnell took power again.
Republicans were in control of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2015 when the Intelligence Branch operation against candidate Donald Trump was underway. [Feinstein’s staffer, Dan Jones, left the SSCI so he could act as a liaison and political operative between private-sector efforts (Fusion GPS, Chris Steele) and the SSCI.] The SSCI was a participant in that Fusion GPS/Chris Steele operation, and as a direct consequence Republicans were inherently tied to the problem with President Trump taking office in January of 2017. Indiana Republican Senator Dan Coats was a member of the SSCI.
Bottom line…. When it came to the intelligence system targeting Donald Trump during the 2015/2016 primary, the GOP was just as much at risk as their Democrat counterparts.
When Trump unexpectedly won the 2016 election, the SSCI was shocked more than most. They knew countermeasures would need to be deployed to protect themselves from any exposure of their prior intelligence conduct. Immediately Senator Dianne Feinstein stepped down from the SSCI, and Senator Mark Warner was elevated to Vice Chairman.
Indiana’s own Mike Pence, now Vice President, recommended fellow Hoosier, SSCI Senator Dan Coats, to become President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). [Apply hindsight here]
• To give an idea of the Intelligence Branch power dynamic, remind yourself how House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Chairman Devin Nunes, tried to get access to the DOJ/FBI records of the FISA application used against the Trump campaign via Carter Page.
Remember, Devin Nunes only saw a portion of the FISA trail from his review of a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) previously given to President Obama. Chairman Nunes had to review the PDB at the White House SCIF due to compartmented intelligence, another example of the silo benefit.
Remember the massive stonewalling and blocking of the DOJ/FBI toward Nunes? Remember the back and forth battle over declassification surrounding the Nunes memo?
Remember, after Nunes went directly to House Speaker Paul Ryan for help (didn’t get any), the DOJ only permitted two members from each party within the HPSCI to review the documents, and only at the DOJ offices of main justice?
Contrast that amount of House Intel Committee railroading and blocking by intelligence operatives in the DOJ, DOJ-NSD and FBI, with the simple request by Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner asking to see the Carter Page FISA application and immediately a copy being delivered to him on March 17th 2017.
Can you see which intelligence committee is aligned with the deepest part of the deep state?
The contrast of ideological alignment between the House, Senate and Intelligence Branch is crystal clear when viewed through the prism of cooperation. You can see which legislative committee holds the power and support of the Intelligence Branch. The Senate Intel Committee facilitates the corrupt existence of the IC Branch, so the IC Branch only cooperates with the Senate Intel Committee. It really is that simple.
• The Intelligence Branch carefully selects its own members by controlling how security clearances are investigated and allowed (FBI). The Intelligence Branch also uses compartmentalization of intelligence as a way to keep each agency, and each downstream branch of government (executive, legislative and judicial), at arm’s length as a method to stop anyone from seeing the larger picture of their activity. I call this the “silo effect”, and it is done by design.
I have looked at stunned faces when I presented declassified silo product from one agency to the silo customers of another. You would be astonished at what they don’t know because it is not in their ‘silo’.
Through the advice and consent rules, the Intelligence Branch uses the SSCI to keep out people they consider dangerous to their ongoing operations. Any appointee to the intelligence community must first pass through the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, before they get a full Senate vote. If the SSCI rejects the candidate, they simply refuse to take up the nomination. The president is then blocked from that appointment. This is what happened with President Trump over and over again.
• Additionally, the Intelligence Branch protects itself, and its facilitating allies through the formal classification process. The Intelligence Branch gets to decide unilaterally what information will be released and what information will be kept secret. There is no entity outside the Intelligence Branch, and yes that includes the President of the United States, who can supersede the classification authority of the Intelligence Branch. {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} This is something 99.9% of the people on our side get totally and frustratingly wrong.
No one can declassify, or make public, anything the Intelligence Branch will not agree to. Doubt this? Ask Ric Grenell, John Ratcliffe, or even President Trump himself.
• The classification process is determined inside the Intelligence Branch, all by themselves. They get to choose what rank of classification exists on any work product they create; and they get to decide what the classification status is of any work product that is created by anyone else. The Intelligence Branch has full control over what is considered classified information and what is not. The Intelligence Branch defines what is a “national security interest” and what is not. A great technique for hiding fingerprints of corrupt and illegal activity.
[For familiar reference see the redactions to Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The Intelligence Branch does all redactions.]
• Similarly, the declassification process is a request by an agency, even a traditionally superior agency like the President of the United States, to the Intelligence Branch asking for them to release the information. The Intelligence Branch again holds full unilateral control. If the head of the CIA refuses to comply with the declassification instruction of the President, what can the president do except fire him/her? {Again, GO DEEP} How does the President replace the non-compliant cabinet member? They have to go through the SSCI confirmation. See the problem?
Yes, there are ways to break up the Intelligence Branch, but they do not start with any congressional effort. As you can see above, the process is the flaw – not the solution. Most conservative pundits have their emphasis on the wrong syllable. Their cornerstone is false.
For their own self-preservation, the Intelligence Branch has been interfering in our elections for years. The way to tear this apart begins with STATE LEVEL election reform that blocks the Legislative Branch from coordinating with the Intelligence Branch.
The extreme federalism approach is critical and also explains why Joe Biden has instructed Attorney General Merrick Garland to use the full power of the DOJ to stop state level election reform efforts. The worry of successful state level election control is also why the Intelligence Branch now needs to support the federal takeover of elections.
Our elections have been usurped by the Intelligence Branch. Start with honest elections and we will see just how much Democrat AND Republican corruption is dependent on manipulated election results. Start at the state level. Start there…. everything else is downstream.
♦ COLLAPSED OVERSIGHT – The modern system to ‘check’ the Executive Branch was the creation of the legislative “Gang of Eight,” a legislative oversight mechanism intended to provide a bridge of oversight between the authority of the intelligence community within the Executive Branch.
The Go8 construct was designed to allow the President authority to carry out intelligence operations and provide the most sensitive notifications to a select group within Congress.
The Go8 oversight is directed to the position, not the person, and consists of: (1) The Speaker of the House; (2) The Minority Leader of the House; (3) The Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI; (4) The Ranking Member (minority) of the HPSCI; (5) The Leader of the Senate; (6) The Minority Leader of the Senate; (7) The Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI; and finally (8) the Vice-Chair of the SSCI.
Example: When the Chief Executive (the President) initiates an intelligence operation on behalf of the United States, the President triggers a “finding memo.” In essence, the instruction to the intel agency or agencies to authorize a covert operation. When that process takes place, the Go8 are the first people notified. Depending on the sensitivity of the operation, sometimes the G08 are notified immediately after the operation is conducted. The notification can be a phone call or an in-person briefing.
Because of the sensitivity of their intelligence information, the Gang of Eight hold security clearances that permit them to receive and review all intelligence operations. The intelligence community are also responsible for briefing the Go8 with the same information they use to brief the President.
The Go8 design is intended to put intelligence oversight upon both political parties in Congress; it is designed that way by informing the minority leaders of both the House and Senate as well as the ranking minority members of the SSCI and HPSCI. Under the concept, the President cannot conduct an intelligence operation; and the intelligence community cannot carry out intelligence gathering operations without the majority and minority parties knowing about it.
The modern design of this oversight system was done to keep rogue and/or corrupt intelligence operations from happening. However, as we shared in the preview to this entire discussion, the process was usurped during the Obama era. {GO DEEP}
Former FBI Director James Comey openly admitted to Congress on March 20, 2017, that the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing the Go8. Comey justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying, “because of the sensitivity of the matter.”
Stupidly, Congress never pressed James Comey on that issue. The arrogance was astounding, and the acceptance by Congress was infuriating. However, that specific example highlighted just how politically corrupt the system had become. In essence, Team Obama usurped the entire design of congressional oversight…. and Congress just brushed it off.
Keep in mind, Comey did not say the White House was unaware; in fact he said exactly the opposite, he said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC). The unavoidable implication and James Comey admission that everyone just brushed aside, was that President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was informed of the intelligence operation(s) against Donald Trump. After all, the NSC reports to the National Security Advisor.
Does the January 20, 2017, Susan Rice memo look different now?
Again, no one saw the immediate issue. What Comey just described on that March day in 2017 was the usurpation of the entire reason the Gang of Eight exists; to eliminate the potential for political weaponization of the Intelligence Community by the executive branch. The G08 notifications to the majority and minority are specifically designed to make sure what James Comey admitted to doing was never supposed to happen.
Team Obama carried out a political operation using the intelligence community and the checks-and-balances in the system were intentionally usurped. This is an indisputable fact.
Worse still, the entire legislative branch of Congress, which then specifically included the Republicans that now controlled the House and Senate, did nothing. They just ignored what was admitted. The usurpation was willfully ignored.
The mechanism of the G08 was bypassed without a twitch of condemnation or investigation…. because the common enemy was Donald Trump.
This example highlights the collapse of the system. Obama, the Executive Branch, collapsed the system by usurping the process; in essence the process became the bigger issue, and the lack of immediate Legislative Branch reaction became evidence of open acceptance. The outcomes of the usurpation played out over the next four years, Donald J. Trump was kneecapped and lost his presidency because of it. However, the bigger issue of the collapse still exists.
The downstream consequence of the Legislative Branch accepting the Executive Branch usurpation meant both intelligence committees were compromised. Additionally, the leadership of both the House and Senate were complicit. Think about this carefully. The Legislative Branch allowance of the intelligence usurpation meant the Legislative Branch was now subservient to the Intelligence Branch.
That’s where we are.
Right now.
That’s where we are.
Term-3 Obama is now back in the White House with Joe Biden.
NOTE: Former Obama National Security aide and counsel to the President, Lisa Monaco, is in her current position as Deputy Attorney General, specifically to make sure all of these revelations do not become a legal risk to Barack Obama and the people who created them. The SSCI confirmed Monaco for this purpose because the Senate is just as much at risk.
Term-1 and Term-2 Obama usurped the ‘check and balance‘ within the system and weaponized the intelligence apparatus. During Trump’s term that weaponization was covered up by a compliant congress, complicit senate intelligence committee, and not a single member of the oversight called it out. Now, Term-3 Obama steps back in to continue the cover up and continue the weaponization.
Hopefully, you can now see the scale of the problem that surrounds us with specific citation for what has taken place. What I just explained to you above is not conspiracy theory, it is admitted fact that anyone can look upon. Yet….
Have you seen this mentioned anywhere? Have you seen this called out by anyone in Congress? Have you seen anyone in media (ally or adversary) call this out? Have you seen any member of the Judicial Branch stand up and say wait, what is taking place is not okay? Have you seen a single candidate for elected office point this out? Have you seen anyone advising a candidate to point this out?
This is our current status. It is not deniable. The truth exists regardless of our comfort.
Not a single person in power will say openly what has taken place. They are scared of the Fourth Branch. The evidence of what has taken place is right there in front of our face. The words, actions and activities of those who participated in this process are not deniable, in fact most of it is on record.
There are only two members of the Gang of Eight who have existed in place from January 2007 (the real beginning of Obama’s term, two years before he took office when the Congress flipped). Only two members of the G08 have been consistently in place from January of 2007 to right now, today. All the others came and went, but two members of the Gang of Eight have been part of that failed and collapsed oversight throughout the past 15 years, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.
♦ TECHNOLOGY – On a global scale – the modern intelligence gathering networks are now dependent on data collection to execute their intelligence missions. In the digital age nations have been executing various methods to gather that data. Digital surveillance has replaced other methods of interception. Those surveillance efforts have resulted in a coalescing of regional data networks based on historic multi-national relationships.
We have a recent frame of reference for the “U.S. data collection network” within the NSA. Through the allied process the Five Eyes nations all rely on the NSA surveillance database (U.K, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and U.S.) The NSA database provides the digital baseline for intelligence operations in defense of our allies. The portals into the NSA database are essentially an assembly of allies in like-minded ideological connection to the United States.
Unfortunately, there have been some revelations about the NSA database being used to monitor our allies, like in the example of Germany and surveillance on Angela Merkel’s phone. As long as “the good guys” are operating honorably, allies of the United States can feel confident about having protection from the NSA surveillance of global digital data. We warn our friends if we detect something dangerous etc.
The U.S. has nodes on communication pipelines to intercept and extract data. We have also launched hundreds, perhaps thousands, of satellites to conduct surveillance and gather up data. All of this data is fed into the NSA database where it is monitored (presumably) as a national security mechanism, and in defense of our allies.
However, what about data collection or data networks that are outside the NSA database? What do our enemies do? The NSA database is just one intelligence operation of digital surveillance amid the entire world, and we do not allow access by adversaries we are monitoring. So what do they do? What do our allies do who might not trust the United States due to past inconsistencies, i.e. the Middle East?
The answers to those questions highlight other data collection networks. So, a brief review of the major players is needed.
♦ CHINA – China operates their own database. They, like the NSA, scoop up data for their system. Like us, China launches satellites and deploys other electronic data collection methods to download into their database. This is why the issues of electronic devices manufactured in China becomes problematic. Part of the Chinese data collection system involves the use of spyware, hacking and extraction.
Issues with Chinese communication company Huawei take on an added dimension when you consider the goal of the Chinese government to conduct surveillance and assemble a network of data to compete with the United States via the NSA. Other Chinese methods of surveillance and data-collection are less subversive, as in the examples of TicTok and WeChat. These are Chinese social media companies that are scraping data just like the NSA scrapes data from Facebook, Twitter and other Silicon Valley tech companies. [ Remember, the Intelligence Branch is a public-private partnership. ]
♦ RUSSIA – It is very likely that Russia operates their own database. We know Russia launches satellites, just like China and the USA, for the same purposes. Russia is also very proficient at hacking into other databases and extracting information to store and utilize in their own network. The difference between the U.S., China and Russia is likely that Russia spends more time on the hacking aspect because they do not generate actual technology systems as rapidly as the U.S. and China.
The most recent database creation is an outcome of an ally having to take action because they cannot rely on the ideology of the United States remaining consistent, as the administrations ping-pong based on ideology.
♦ SAUDI ARABIA – Yes, in 2016 we discovered that Saudi Arabia was now operating their own intelligence data-gathering operation. It would make sense, given the nature of the Middle East and the constant fluctuations in political support from the United States. It is a lesson the allied Arab community and Gulf Cooperation Council learned quickly when President Obama went to Cairo in 2009 and launched the Islamist Spring (Arab Spring) upon them.
I have no doubt the creation of the Saudi intelligence network was specifically because the Obama administration started supporting radical Islamists within the Muslim Brotherhood and threw fuel on the fires of extremism all over the Arab world.
Think about it., What would you do if you were Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, Oman or Yemen and you knew the United States could just trigger an internal uprising of al-Qaeda, ISIS and the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood to seek your destruction?
Without a doubt, those urgent lessons from 2009, 2010, 2011 triggered the formation of the Arab Intelligence Network as a network to defend itself with consistency. They assembled the network and activated it in 2017 as pictured above.
♦ Israel – Along a similar outlook to the Arab network, no doubt Israel operates an independent data collection system as a method of protecting itself from ever-changing U.S. politics amid a region that is extremely hostile to its very existence. Like the others, Israel launches proprietary satellites, and we can be sure they use covert methods to gather electronic data just like the U.S. and China.
As we have recently seen in the Pegasus story, Israel creates spyware programs that are able to track and monitor cell phone communications of targets. The spyware would not work unless Israel had access to some network where the phone meta-data was actually stored. So yeah, it makes sense for Israel to operate an independent intelligence database.
♦ Summary: As we understand the United States Intelligence Branch of government as the superseding entity that controls the internal politics of our nation, we also must consider that multiple nations have the same issue. There are major intelligence networks around the world beside the NSA “Five-Eyes” database. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel all operate proprietary databases deploying the same tools and techniques for assembly.
The geopolitical conflict that has always existed has now shifted into a digital battle-space. The Intelligence Agencies from these regions are now operating as the backbone of the government that uses them, and has become dependent on them. [<- Reread that].
Once you accept the digital-era intelligence apparatus of China, Russia, Saudi-Arabia, The United States and Israel, are now the primary national security mechanisms for stabilization of government; then you accept the importance of those intelligence operations.
Once you understand how foundational those modern intelligence operations have become for the stability and continuity of those governments…… then you begin to understand just how the United States intelligence community became more important than the government that created it.
From that point it is then critical to understand that domestic intelligence operations are underway to monitor the electronic communication of American citizens inside our own country. YOU are under surveillance. The parents who confront school boards are under surveillance. The political operatives inside the FBI are monitoring everyone who comes onto the radar, that is why the National School Boards Association asked the White House, then the DOJ, to have the FBI start targeting parents. Are things making sense now?
♦ Public Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazened they have made public admissions.
The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.
Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):
[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”
Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.
Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.
When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.
The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.
The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.
Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.
What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.
July 26 (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.
Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.
The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)
The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives.
In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize against domestic enemies.
After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. Simultaneously the mission of the intelligence community now encompassed monitoring domestic threats as defined by the people who operate the surveillance system.
The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the network of President Barack Obama did.
The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons (we should never have allowed to be created) and turned those weapons into political tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation.
Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.
This is the scale of corrupt political compromise on both sides of the DC dynamic that we are up against. Preserving this system is also what removing Donald Trump is all about…. And like I said in the precursor, I doubt Donald Trump fully comprehends the motives of his opposition.
Frank Camp in a Daily Wire interview with a former CIA employee Bryan Dean Wright about the machination of an America Deep State. Wright self-describes himself as a lifelong Dem which for me has become a dirty word in the English language.
In the part one of the interview he describes Dems of his admiration in the past contrasted with present day Dems epitomized by AOC and Bernie Sanders. A point I can relate to because I grew up in a Dem Party family hailing from the Pacific Northwest just as Wright.
My Dem family’s devotion to Dems was due to their perception it was the Franklin Roosevelt Dems that saved Americans from starvation resulting from joblessness of the Great Depression. (I have since learned my family’s perception was probably misplaced of actual facts were more public in 1930s, 40s, 50s and right into the 60s. BUT that’s another story.) The Dem Senators of my childhood and early teen years were Henry (Scoop) Jackson and Warren Magnuson. Both Jackson and Magnuson were old fashioned Americans more concerned about benefitting the State of Washington they represented than the USA at large. Jackson in his day was considered a Liberal yet extremely Anti-Communist to the point of committing the U.S. Military to confront Communist expansionism. In essence Jackson was a motivated Anti-Communist Hawk more than he was a Liberal. It is this personal memory of Jackson I have that convinces me the Jackson of yesteryear would have deserted the Democratic Party of today because of that political Party’s lurch toward Marxist Socialism.
WELL … Back to Pacific Northwest exposer of the Deep State Dem Bryan Dean Wright. Wright is going out on limb exposing how the Deep State is operating ergo I half-way suspect a tragic accident, mysterious suicide or unexplained homicide might be in his future. I pray not.
Below is a cross post of The Daily Wire interview that was posted on 1/25 and 1/26/20.
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
*********************************
INTERVIEW (Part I): Former CIA Officer Explains The Shocking Details And Dangers Of The ‘Deep State’
Over the last several years, the term “Deep State” has been used frequently by both President Trump, during speeches and on social media, as well as by some Trump-supporting pundits. President Trump and the commentators who support him often use the term to describe a group of bureaucratic insiders who want the president out of office.
These individuals represent a loosely-connected web of unelected bureaucrats, often left over from previous administrations, who allegedly utilize their intel and reach in order to disrupt the agenda of the president and his allies.
But what exactly is the Deep State? Who exactly are the Deep State players? What damage can they do? And what can be done to stop them?
On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with Bryan Dean Wright, a former CIA officer who now serves as a contract instructor for the military. Wright, a self-described “lifelong Democrat,” was not only able to answer my questions about the Deep State, but provide incredible insight into this not-so-well-understood world of leakers and bad actors.
In part one of this interview, Wright discusses his own background in the CIA, the origins of what we would call the modern “Deep State,” the bad actors operating from the inside, the damage they have done, and much more.
DW: What was your former job at the CIA?
WRIGHT: I first served as an operations officer. These are the folks that, in short, go abroad to recruit spies and steal secrets. I did that for a number of years, then transitioned to the private sector and did some work in New York. I went back into the agency after a hiatus and served as what’s called a targeting officer. That role finds the people and organizations that can fill in the gaps of our understanding of particular adversaries, specifically their leadership and their plans and intentions. I developed targeting packages of how to get in front of those people and recruit them as clandestine sources.
DW: Why did you decide to leave the agency?
WRIGHT: The original reason back in the mid-2000s was because my brother needed to go into rehab for his alcohol addiction, and unfortunately my family didn’t have the money to send him. So, I had to go in the private sector and earn it. Once I was able to do that – after my brother achieved his sobriety – I got back into the agency.
And then in December of 2015, I left for the second and final time. The reason I left then was more out of sorrow and anger for what I saw happening. And it really gets to the issue of the “Deep State.” I met with a bunch of people that were tied-in to some of our covert action operations – I was reviewing and auditing them – and these senior executives weren’t taking it seriously or tried to hinder my efforts. A lot of people didn’t want to have accountability for their failures. Or, secondarily, they didn’t want to have to go back to the National Security Council or even the President or Vice President and say, “Actually, what we’ve been telling you was wrong, or it wasn’t quite true.” And so I became very frustrated and I just didn’t see myself being complicit with that degree of unprofessionalism at a minimum or flat out treachery at worst. So, I transitioned out.
DW: What is your primary job now?
WRIGHT: I serve as a contract instructor for the military – and some of those details I can’t dive into at present – but that’s part of what I do. And I spend a lot of time writing and going on different TV outlets, Fox in particular, to talk in part about national security-related issues.
I also write and talk a lot about politics. As a lifelong Democrat, I share with my readers and audiences what I see as this horrific drift by the party away from what I grew up with in the Pacific Northwest: a moderate, sensible Democratic Party. For instance, I remember men like Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House, who was from rural Eastern Washington. Or a guy like Cecil Andrus, a sensible, no-nonsense Democratic Governor of Idaho. These folks are the Democrats who I grew up with, and my family was a part of. But that is no longer the party that we see. Instead, we see the party of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Tom Perez, and it’s these absolute bonkers elements that I don’t identify with, are horrifying, and I think ultimately will bring the entirety of the Democratic Party down. And if that’s what has to happen, well, I hope the Republicans can keep a light on for me.
DW: So, what is the “Deep State?” We hear it all the time in conservative media, especially on outlets like Fox News. But what is the “Deep State” really?
WRIGHT: To understand the Deep State, you have to understand a man named Aldrich Ames. He was a CIA officer who, in the 1980s, decided to commit treason and work for the Soviet Union, and his treachery cost the lives of many of our Soviet agents. When Ames was asked why he did it, his response was this, “I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security … and I’m going to act on that.” That’s the definition and the ethos of the Deep State. It’s an unelected group of men and women with profound powers of the surveillance state who use those powers to advance their own interests, whether it be personal or partisan.
And that last bit I think is important. Why do they do it? In the distant past, guys like Aldrich Ames, they’d leak to our enemies because of ego and for money. But in the recent past, like what we’ve seen with Former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Director of the CIA John Brennan, they’re leaking to The New York Times or CNN because, yes ego and money, but clearly a sense of partisan warfare. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t discount their ego and monetary motivations. I mean, look, they’ve taken paid media contributorships and I’m sure it makes them feel very important. But what we’re seeing is more than that. It’s partisan, and it’s personal. I think that’s different and that’s frightening. I would say that, in essence, is the “Deep State,” and that is what’s driving Deep State actors today.
DW: This may be a bit of a redundant question, but who are the Deep State? Who would you identify as major Deep State actors?
WRIGHT: In the recent past, Comey, Brennan, Clapper are the most obvious, big names. But based on the IG reports, we’re also seeing more mid-level bureaucrats, like the Lisa Pages and the Peter Strzoks and the Bruce Ohrs. These are Deep Staters: folks who are unelected and frankly unaccountable to anyone, using their power and knowledge to satisfy a personal agenda, irrespective of the law. That’s certainly what we’ve seen in the IG reports regarding Crossfire Hurricane, and it’s clear that these bureaucrats had no problem executing their own partisan or personal agendas believing their relative anonymity would hide them from accountability.
I think that those individuals are just the ones we know about. And I think, God willing, Attorney General Bill Barr and United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham are going to flush out other actors and bring them to account, and lead to further clarity on if indeed the Comeys and Brennans and Clappers of the intelligence community can be brought forward on charges. That’s certainly the hope if the facts allow.
DW: In what malign activities specifically have members of this Deep State participated?
WRIGHT: Let’s start with Comey. We know that he was leaking to The New York Times, and he wasn’t leaking because he had any reasonable belief that President Trump was up to no good. I mean, the IG has shown conclusively that he was leaking to advance his own personal interests. In fact, [it] labeled Comey as a dangerous example to the tens of thousands of current and former FBI employees. So, that opens up this horrific floodgate of the Aldrich Ames ethos that, if you think that you know best for national security or foreign policy, that you, FBI employee, can damage whomever you’d like. You, Mr. FBI or CIA employee, who has access to secret human or signals intelligence – emails, phone calls – you get to decide what material should be leaked to kneecap politicians you don’t like. Oh, and you will face no consequences for it! That, I think, is the horrific legacy that Comey leaves behind.
And again, let’s emphasize something here: Comey knew early on that Trump was not going to be found guilty of having engaged in impropriety with the Russian government. Comey had participated with others in the intelligence community to investigate these allegations. He and the others knew, in early 2017 if not before, that there was nothing there. Think of this: if the intelligence community had any information in 2016 or 2017 that Trump was a Russian spy, they wouldn’t have sat on it. They would have immediately gotten it to Mueller or folks on Capitol Hill, and they would have rightfully brought that forward to the American people and removed the president. But that didn’t happen.
So, certainly Comey has a very clear record, demonstrated record, of doing a number of things that weren’t just atypical, but that were wrong. And again, I think that’s what AG Barr and John Durham are trying to fully flush out.
I think that the other characters – John Brennan especially, but also Comey and Clapper – used the dossier and Christopher Steele as pawns in a political game. Both Steele and his dossier were known to be unreliable in the fall of 2016. Indeed, by mid January 2017, Brennan was specifically on record as saying he gave the dossier no particular credence, according to The Wall Street Journal. Well, that’s amazing. Because they included that dossier in a brief to not only then President-elect Trump, but to then President Obama and Joe Biden and, of course, the principals on Capitol Hill. Why would they have done that? There was no legal or intelligence value. They knew Steele and the dossier were verified garbage. But they briefed it anyway. To lots of people.
As a former intelligence officer, I can tell you that this isn’t normal operating procedure. At all. You don’t brief an unvetted document like the dossier to the president-elect and tell him that he’s a corrupt Russian traitor. And you certainly wouldn’t do it if you had already done a degree of investigation and found that there was no veracity to any of the claims. I mean, hell, you don’t even have to be an intelligence officer to understand that.
But what Steele and his dossier lacked in legal or intelligence value, both more than made up for it in political value. And Brennan, Comey, and Clapper knew it. They knew how damaging it would be to Trump if America were to believe the dossier’s allegations. They just needed to give the news media a hook to run with the claims, which were widely known in Washington but went unreported because they were unverified. So their solution, it turns out, was to make themselves the media’s necessary hook. By their simple act of briefing the dossier to so many, it gave credence to the claims and that in fact the dossier existed. Naturally, the Resistance Media – which went all in against President Trump – was happy to distribute their propaganda.
Let me emphasize: the dossier had been refuted by the intelligence community after considerable investigation. There was no legal or intelligence value to briefing the dossier. In fact, the CIA at the time was calling it “internet rumor.” But Brennan, Comey, and Clapper clearly didn’t care. Why? Because they had an end goal: if they could get the media to report on this dossier, then that would be effectively the end of the Trump presidency, or certainly put the president on his heels for a couple of years. They would utterly kneecap him. At least that was their hope.
So, I think that that is the gravest example of Deep State treachery.
DW: To what extent does the media participate in enabling these Deep State actors to do what they want and feel they need to do, and how should that be approached?
WRIGHT: The most obvious and demonstrable connection between these Deep State actors and the media is that guys like Comey, Brennan, and Clapper now, to varying degrees, have paid contributorships with media outlets. Think of it: we know that they were leaking classified information to these outlets when they were government employees, and now they have jobs with them. I mean, my god, what does that tell other intelligence community professionals? What are the consequence for breaking the law? Because, as of today, my former colleagues can apparently leak based on their own personal or partisan agenda to the media, and then, in turn, can get a great, cushy job from that same media outlet when they quit or retire. That’s a horrifying example with profound consequences to our Republic because you’re incentivizing intelligence professionals to leak or kneecap people they don’t like. If that takes root, what in the hell will prevent us from becoming Pakistan or Egypt? These countries, by the way, are run by the intelligence or military communities, sprinkled with a veneer of democracy.
Is that what we are to become? Because that really is the end result of allowing a politicized intelligence community to go unchecked. And that’s why Barr and Durham’s work is so important. These people have to be held to account.
Now at the same time, it’s not just the media who are gaining from this. They’re also being manipulated by the Brennans, the Comeys, and the Clappers. In March of 2018, for example, The Daily Beast reported that Brennan and Clapper were doing a roadshow around the country to various elite groups and big money people, and they stopped by Hollywood. Brennan told them that Trump would not finish out the year (2018) as President of the United States; he would be removed because of his treacherous relationship with Vladimir Putin and the Russians.
Clapper was also there, and they were doing this to both create and then fan the flames of hysteria. Remember that their audience was made up of the Hollywood elites, the very individuals who control or contribute mightily to the public sphere, create narratives, create truth. So, it is not an accident that Brennan and Clapper would be there in Hollywood in March of 2018 spreading these lies. Again, they knew that the Trump/Russia narrative wasn’t true but, as with the dossier, they needed the media to continue to manipulate the American people to achieve their political end. And who better to have in their back pocket than those Hollywood executives who have our eyeballs and our ears, whether it be on movie screens or television screens. Brennan and Clapper needed them because they needed hysteria. And that’s precisely what they’ve been committed to. Virulently and unapologetically so.
DW: There are criticisms, mostly from the Left, that the “Deep State” is blamed for every bad thing that surrounds the Trump presidency and the administration. It’s almost like a joke to many people on the Left. “Oh, the Deep State! It must be the Deep State!” Is the idea of the Deep State in any way overblown? And if so, to what degree?
WRIGHT: You know, in 2017, when Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, was being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, she was telling him about Trump’s taking on the CIA or the intelligence community, and his response, then and now, was so illustrative and so jaw dropping.
If you recall, he said, “If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.” So, Chuck Schumer recognizes that the Deep State is real, and that they will exact revenge at a time and a place and on people of their choosing.
Let’s pause for a second and really think about the modern Left’s response to the fact that the Deep State is real, and that these intelligence officials will decide our nation’s political winners and losers. Really consider Chuck Schumer’s flippant acceptance of it all. I can’t imagine a more horrifying thing for any person of any party to say ever – because think of the consequence of that. The modern American Left is basically saying, “You know, we love those Deep State guys. They’re real, and we love it because Orange Man Bad. And they’ll take this guy out for us. Because we just don’t like him.”
I mean, they’re incentivizing a bunch of people to continue to break the law because it fits their temporary, short-term partisan goals. Never mind the fact that they’re setting a brush fire to the Republic. I mean, it’s amazing to me knowing how many folks on the Left who have been so virulently opposed to the CIA and FBI, given some of the sins, unquestionable sins – starting in the 40s and ramping up through the Cold War in the 50s, through the 70s and 80s – to now see that our own “progressive” leadership is somehow winking and nudging with our good friends like John Brennan and the rest because they’re taking on Orange Man. So, this suggestion by the people on the Left, my fellow Democrats, who would say, “Well, that’s just silly. It’s a conspiracy…” Well, they need to take it up with Chuck Schumer because he thinks the Deep State is real, too. And he fears them.
DW: Is this type of behavior something that has gone on for a long time?
WRIGHT: The short answer is yes. There is a history of individuals who get this profound power when working for the FBI or the CIA or NSA and abuse it. I can tell you, I worked with individuals who used their abilities to tap phone calls and emails to look after ex-boyfriends or ex-spouses. And those individuals were eventually found out and rightfully fired. In other words, human frailty – or the part of the human condition that is indeed so frail as to be given profound powers and then use them for ill – that has always existed, and that will always exist. That’s why it’s so important to conduct oversight of law enforcement and intelligence, and indeed military communities.
The difference, though, from that unfortunate low level abuse of power is that the treachery of modern Deep State actors – Comey, Brennan, and Clapper – is that they wanted to overrule the American voters. They wanted to upend the free and fair election of Donald Trump. They wanted to choose a different leader to run the nation. Their purpose in leaking to the media was to take out a duly-elected president because they either didn’t like the guy or they wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Many of them, I suspect, liked Clinton because they knew that they were going to have positions of authority or influence in her administration.
That degree of audacity I think is new, and I think that it is incredibly dangerous. And the lack of focus on that treachery is one of the profound lost opportunities of our political class, particularly on the Left, of the past few years. They could have said, “The actions of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan were horrifically wrong and they should face justice. And, meanwhile, we oppose the president on X, Y, and Z policies.” That would have been the right thing to do. As an opposition party, you can do both of those things, but that’s not what the Left has done. That’s certainly not what Pelosi and Schumer and our friends Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Jerry Nadler are doing right now with the impeachment.
All of this has been 100% focused on bringing down the president from day one, instead of having a much more balanced, nuanced approach to his presidency. And I think, and frankly I hope, that that’s why the Democratic Party loses in 2020. I don’t know of any other way to get rid of the rot that is in Washington, and within the leadership of the Democratic Party. Because if a progressive wins – Sen. Elizabeth Warren or, God forbid, Sen. Bernie Sanders – or even if Joe Biden wins, the lesson for the Democratic leadership, the lesson for the media, will not be that their treachery was bad, but that it worked.
In part two of this interview, which will be released on Sunday, Wright talks about what the Deep State would look like if a Democrat wins in 2020, what can be done to root out these malign actors, what the media can do, the dangers of normalizing socialism, and more.
I’d like to thank Bryan Dean Wright for taking the time to speak with me about such an important issue. For more, you can follow Wright on Twitter, and check out his official website.
++++++++++++++++++++++
INTERVIEW (Part II): Former CIA Officer On What The ‘Deep State’ Looks Like If A Democrat Wins In 2020, And What Can Be Done To Recover
Over the last several years, the term “Deep State” has been used frequently by both President Trump, during speeches and on social media, as well as by some Trump-supporting pundits. President Trump and the commentators who support him often use the term to describe a group of bureaucratic insiders who want the president out of office.
These individuals represent a loosely-connected web of unelected bureaucrats, often left over from previous administrations, allegedly who utilize their intel and reach in order to disrupt the agenda of the president and his allies.
But what exactly is the Deep State? Who exactly are the Deep State players? What damage can they do? And what can be done to stop them?
On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with Bryan Dean Wright, a former CIA officer who now serves as a contract instructor for the military. Wright, a self-described “lifelong Democrat,” was not only able to answer my questions about the Deep State, but provide incredible insight into this not-so-well-understood world of leakers and bad actors.
In part one of this interview, which you can read here, Wright discussed his own background in the CIA, the origins of what we would today call the “Deep State,” the bad actors operating from the inside, the damage they have done, and more.
In part two below, Wright talks about what the Deep State might look like if a Democrat wins 2020, what can be done to rein in the Deep State, what the media can do, as well as the way President Trump has brought this bureaucratic monster into the light.
DW: Do you believe that if a Democrat is elected in 2020, the Deep State actors will continue to disseminate information, but for the other side? Are there proportionate actors on both sides, or is it disproportionate leaking on one side?
WRIGHT: You are out of your mind if you think there aren’t Trump supporters within the intelligence community, and that if he loses in 2020, won’t be absolutely outraged that Trump was, in their eyes, taken down because of the media and because of the Deep State actors. And you’re equally foolish to think that they won’t use their knowledge and their influence to kneecap the next Democratic president – President Sanders, President Warren, President Biden. Of course there will be people in the conservative world who work in the intelligence community who will find ways to strike back, and that is something that I have been warning about for years. Once you start this process of politicizing the intelligence community, when does it stop? We are marching down a very dangerous road where each side is so hellbent to exact revenge, and we get these political blood feuds that are wildly difficult to stop.
So, I would not be surprised at all if there were attempts by Trump supporters within the intelligence community to strike back at a progressive or otherwise Democratic president in 2020 and beyond because if we are looking at the example of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan as of today, what consequences would they face? What consequences did James Comey face when he unquestionably leaked to The New York Times to force the appointment of special counsel? He leaked classified information. What were the consequences that James Comey has had to face? He got a professorship at William and Mary University teaching ethics, he’s gone on a nationwide book tour, and he has a movie coming out based on his life and times. I mean, are you f***ing kidding me? That’s the consequence that the intelligence community is now looking at if they leak classified information. So you tell me, are we setting up the Republic for a problem? The answer is absolutely yes.
DW: You mentioned AG Bill Barr several times, but what can be done at this point to reign in the Deep State? Not only by the government and people like the attorney general, but by everyone else who has some sort of power?
WRIGHT: Let’s start first with the CIA. Gina Haspel, who’s the CIA director, she can start change. She is in control of the culture of her senior intelligence service, her senior executives, and they are the ones who engage directly with her and the White House, the National Security Council, on a regular basis. She can make sure that these folks understand there are in fact consequences for their behavior, remind them of things like the Hatch Act, what they can and can’t do. She can also, if she has suspicions or wants to make an example of someone, pull those individuals in for re-investigations and have them polygraphed for connections to the press.
She also has that same ability with her mid-level or junior staff, to pull them in on an ongoing basis to remind them of the same things, like the Hatch Act, and that what is happening in the public sphere is wrong; that while they absolutely have an opportunity, a right, to engage in our political process, they certainly should not be emulating the behavior of James Comey. She can use her leadership and her platform to do that.
She can also work with the human resources folks when they’re bringing people on board, to talk about building a new culture within the CIA that reminds people that they are subservient to the President and ultimately subservient to the American people; that it is an honor and a privilege to work at the agency, and if they are found to be abusing the profound powers that they are given, they will be held to account.
Now, that becomes a much more difficult message to sell when James Comey gets away with it. And that’s why the work of Attorney General Barr and John Durham is so important. Gina Haspel has to have concrete examples of consequences for this Deep State treachery. There are other modest things you can do, like stripping security clearances of former professionals who leave and no longer use them on a daily basis, or a project basis – but that stuff is ultimately not as important as changing the culture for why intelligence professionals, law enforcement professionals should not be leaking, A) at all, and B) classified information, and that there will be consequences if they do.
DW: Is there anything the media can do? I mean, responsible media.
WRIGHT: One of the things that I think would be very helpful is if we understood the bias of a particular reporter or media outlet, and then grade that severity of bias with each story that’s aired or published. For instance, I’d love to hover my cursor over a reporter’s name and have a bubble pop up that rates likely bias, with links to examples of said bias. Yes, I recognize the tricky nature of what I’m suggesting – who ranks the bias? But I think there’s a market-based solution to be found.
Another way we consumers ought to flag biased or untrustworthy reporting is when a reporter or outlet uses unnamed sources. Given that Comey has now admitted to being an anonymous media source, it should tell Americans that they should be very suspicious about the motivations of these mysterious people making allegations. And, frankly, it says a lot about the lack of moral character by these sources. They should stand up and say the right thing on the record if they suspect fraud, waste, and abuse, for example. Because that’s how it’s supposed to be done. If you are within the intelligence community and you have problems with your leadership, even the president themself, there are ways that you address that, and it’s not leaking to the press.
So, I think because of our beautiful Constitution, we give our media a lot of leash to report on the facts. But without understanding the bias of the outlet and the reporter, we don’t know if we’re really getting facts, but rather spin. I believe that there’s some good work that could be done on this thorny issue, and on a self-regulating basis. I’m not sure that it’s the government’s role to do that, but nevertheless, a more honest accounting of bias, I think, would be a really critical step to restoring people’s belief and faith in the media. The goal is giving the American people a way to read or watch something and say, “Oh, that reporter is biased, and I’m going to discount this report or give it much less weight than I otherwise would have.”
DW: Which would require self-reflection by individual members of the media to assess their own biases.
WRIGHT: Yeah.
DW: I know that you’re a self-professed “lifelong Democrat,” but what is your political ideology, and has the Trump presidency and the seemingly steroidal Deep State shaped your opinions in a new way that perhaps you hadn’t thought of before?
WRIGHT: Well, I think that like many Americans, I was trepidatious about President Trump, certainly in 2015 and 2016, as the noise was getting louder that he would be a viable candidate and then indeed the President of the United States. But what I have seen over the past three years is that’s he’s playing a very important, a vital role in fact, of blowing up the status quo, of blowing up a system that fundamentally wasn’t working. I’ve come to appreciate that his presidency could be used by the people to create the kind of country, the kind of Republic, that we deserve, which is one that’s accountable to people, that actually gets stuff done, that doesn’t focus on partisanship as much. At least that is, I think, the promise that I have begun to see in President Trump.
And I certainly would say that his positions are reflective of most Democrats, certainly ten years ago. On the border issues, on immigration, he’s saying the exact same things the Democrats were saying not long ago. In 2008, if you looked at the DNC’s platform, Obama was not a hell of a lot different than President Trump on this issue.
So, I think that he represents a lot of common sense on a number of issues that I’ve come to appreciate. Most especially, I think that he’s exposed this Deep State garbage that would have never, ever been exposed under a President Clinton. James Comey would likely still be the FBI director. Think about that. All these others, the McCabes and the Brennans and the Comeys, would all still be in D.C. with their hands on the levers of power.
I think that Trump’s service to this country, of exposing that Deep State, may be one of his greatest legacies.
Depending on how the China issue shakes out, I think that he could be a monumental president regarding how we take on the Chinese. Again, we’ll see.
I’ve really appreciated his approach to the War on Terror. What he has done with Soleimani in Iran, for instance. Under Bush and Obama, Soleimani and the Iranians basically had us buffaloed into a corner, and we wouldn’t take them on because we feared World War III. Well, Trump just gave that a gigantic middle finger and reminded them that they are the junior partner in this relationship, and that we would be setting the agenda. That’s precisely what needed to happen for over 16 years under two different administrations from two different political parties, and Trump finally did the right thing.
And I will tell you, from people that I know who worked the Iran issue inside the intelligence community, they were absolutely elated with Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani.
So overall, I think that the president is doing much better than many of us may have been concerned about, and he deserves a very serious consideration of our vote in 2020.
As it relates to my own personal ideology or philosophy, I would like to say I’m an old school Democrat of the Kennedy/Foley ilk, a Democrat who understands that America was and remains exceptional, and that we have a critical role to play in the world, and that it’s a role that will be respected by our partners even when they don’t like it. It’s leadership through unabashed strength. Trump has restored some of that which was lost under Bush and Obama, contrary to the media hype that would tell you otherwise. I think that’s lost on the modern American Left.
On domestic policies, I think that I believe the same things that I did ten years ago, like the importance of controlled immigration, that we have to have borders. I don’t see that as something that is part of the modern Democratic Left. Trump’s brought that out in stark relief.
But this schism within the Democratic Party isn’t because of Trump. It’s a fight that’s been had over many decades, in fits and starts. We dealt with this desire to unreasonably expand the state, for example, back in the 60s and 70s. Meanwhile, I thought we had put the socialist genie back in the bottle and marginalized those radical leftist elements around that same time. But very clearly, as the DNC declares Ocasio-Cortez the future of the Democratic Party, I think these dark forces are at play again. And we have a huge problem – we being the party, and the nation. It’s a problem that would leave people like Jack Kennedy and Tom Foley rolling over in their graves.
I don’t know where people like me go if a progressive wins the Democratic nomination or the presidency. Polling shows that moderate and conservative Democrats make up anywhere from 35% to 50% of the party. I think our vote will be up for grabs. I think many of us will gravitate to a new Republican Party.
DW: Is there something that you would want our readers to know that you and I haven’t touched on, or perhaps that you think is important that hasn’t been really talked about in the various interviews in which you’ve engaged?
WRIGHT: I don’t think that most Americans understand what the socialist movement in this country is up to. I think many people understand that socialism is bad, although a shocking number of Democrats, particularly younger voters, don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. Still, people don’t appreciate appreciate what Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are doing with the Democratic Party, and I don’t think that most people appreciate why that’s bad, not just for the Democratic Party, but for the country. And ultimately the world.
Let me explain.
Our Republic requires multiple parties to hold each other to account. We have to have multiple voices at the table to challenge each other, to question each other. Our Republic thrives or falls based on that broad contribution and debate, and right now, the Democratic Party is becoming a movement that doesn’t warrant consideration. The reason is its embrace of socialists and their wicked ideology.
The Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders movement – Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA – started many years ago, of course. But their plans really morphed and solidified in 2012, as the DSA put forward a strategy document that basically said to its members, “Look, as socialists, we know that we can’t win in this country running as the Socialist Party. We have to rebrand ourselves. That means we register as Democrats, we run as Democrats, and then push the party so far to the Left as fast as we can that the party fissures into progressives vs. moderates and conservatives. We will then break off, taking with us the bulk of the party, the base. Then and only then can we revive the Socialist Party. Because then we won’t be scary anymore. We will have normalized the socialist agenda.” It’s an agenda, of course, that has been rightfully smeared by its decades of mass death and destruction in every country that has adopted it. So, no wonder they’re trying to rebrand it.
That’s where we’re at. And that’s what Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie are doing. So, when you hear them talk about “free stuff” – education, housing, health care, jobs – know that they’re rebranding themselves with unserious policy proposals that they can’t possibly afford not because they’re being serious, but only trying to make the Socialist Party less scary.
It’s all in the 2012 DSA strategy document, all available on the DSA website for anyone to read. I wish more Americans took the time to review it, understand it, and grasp the treachery of Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. They’re using the Democratic Party as though it’s a host to be invaded and occupied by a socialist virus. The only aim is to strip the Democratic Party down to nothing, destroy it, and then leave with the voters who would serve their revived Socialist Party.
If that were to happen, think of the consequences not just for the Democratic Party or even America. What would happen to the world? What would happen to humanity if, somehow, the United States were to succumb to socialism?
Who would step into that vacuum of global leadership that for so long has defended liberty and freedom? The clear answer is China, a country that persecutes its people, that embraces murderous concentration camps for the Uighur people. That is the government that would be controlling humanity’s future.
That is what’s at stake. That’s what happens to liberty, to freedom, if the United States, imperfect as we are, is no longer on the scene because we embrace socialism.
And for those who argue that Russia might step up, count me skeptical. With an economy the size of Italy and a leadership that enjoys oppression as much as the Chinese, these are not the people we want to lead humanity.
So, if the Democratic Party falls to the socialist wing with all their horrific values, and the United States is handicapped and is no longer able to play the role that it does in the world, imperfect as we may be, we will jeopardize all the progress that we have fought so hard for, certainly since World War II, to create a more just and a more peaceful world.
That’s really what is at stake for me as I watch the Democratic Party fall into the socialist trap, as I watch Chuck and Nancy and the DNC embrace Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders as the future of the Democratic Party. I watch in horror as progressives in the media fawn over Ocasio-Cortez. People like Rachel Maddow and Joy Behar package her as some fun, dance-on-the-roof kind of girl that’s just a lovely representation of womanhood or being black or brown.
If that bologna salesmanship convinces enough Americans that socialism isn’t so bad after all, and we start going down that path, then we will lose everything that we have fought for over the past 100 years. So we have to get this right. We have to self-correct – as a Democratic Party, as a country – because so much is at stake.
I’d like to thank Bryan Dean Wright for taking the time to speak with me about such a monumental issue. For more information, you can follow Wright on Twitter, or check out his official website.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
________________________________
Personal Thoughts Leading to B.D. Wright Deep State Interview
Daniel Greenfield writes “A Tale of Two Deep States”. Interesting scenario – Two Deep States. Greenfield tells us both Deep States are against the Trump Administration. The Greenfield labels are the Obama Deep State and the Russian Deep State. Intrigued? Read the Greenfield essay.
That was the question that the White House’s cybersecurity coordinator was asked after Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, issued a stand down order on Russia.
Testimony at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on Russian interference in the election once again raised the central paradox of the Russia conspiracy theory. If Russian interference in the election represented the crisis that we are told it did, why did Obama fail to take any meaningful action?
The White House’s own cybersecurity people wanted an aggressive response before being told to stand down. Obama issued a bloodless warning to Russia while his people deliberately crippled our offense.
Democrats and the media blamed the Russian hacking on Trump. But it was Susan Rice who had told the cybersecurity team to “knock it off” and Obama’s people who hadn’t wanted him to be “boxed in” and forced to respond to Russian actions. Was this just the usual appeasement or was there more to it?
Why didn’t Obama and his team want to stop Russian hacking? Because they needed the Russians.
The 2016 election is really the story of two deep state intelligence operations that dovetailed neatly with each other. One was an ongoing Russian operation that took advantage of a weak president to sow chaos in America and Europe. The other was a domestic political operation utilizing counterintelligence resources in the United States and Europe to spy on, undermine and try to bring down Trump.
Contrary to claims made by Obama operatives, the Russian operation was not new. Russian hackers and spies had done enormous damage to America’s intelligence community. But they had succeeded so well because the mission of the intelligence community had shifted from deterring foreign adversaries to suppressing domestic political opponents. And this new mission made the Russians attacks irrelevant.
The Russian attacks on the formerly formidable NSA were so easy to accomplish because it was no longer countering the Russians. Instead Obama viewed it as a police state tool for spying on pro-Israel activists, members of Congress and Trump campaign officials. The NSA’s opposite numbers in Russia, posing as rogue hackers, were no longer hammering rivals, but a twisted and crippled organization.
Obama didn’t want to fight the Russians, but the Russian attacks were very useful because they justified the NSA’s powers, which he was abusing not to go after the Russians, but after American political rivals. And the Russian election hacks played perfectly into his hands by justifying the counterintelligence investigations supposedly aimed at the Russians, but really aimed at domestic political opponents.
The Mueller investigation is only the latest of these disguised counterintelligence police state gimmicks.
Without the Russians, Obama’s people would have just been nakedly abusing their powers to spy on Americans. But as long as the Russians were active, his deep state had the excuse that it needed.
The two intelligence operations, the Russian one and the Obama one, were interdependent. Their deep state symbiosis was possible only because neither side threatened the core interests of the other.
The Russians were a national security threat, but Obama’s people didn’t care about national security. And Obama’s counterintelligence operation was aimed at domestic political opponents rather than the Russians. It’s still unknown if the Russians and Obama’s people actively colluded in these operations, but it’s likely that seasoned professionals on both sides had a quiet understanding of their respective roles.
The Russians had not set out to alter the outcome of the election. Nor did they have that capability. Their attacks followed the pattern of the Dulles Plan, a fictional piece of Soviet propaganda which attributed any anti-Soviet activity to an American conspiracy to undermine Communism. The KGB veterans running Russia as an actual deep state sought to undermine the American political system by feeding extremism, creating panic and discrediting elections. And that also fit the Obama agenda.
Obama’s people had spent eight years dismantling political norms and undermining America. The KGB deep state conspirators in Russia and their leftist counterparts in Washington D.C. had emerged from the same ideological school. Their aims and allegiances had diverged, but the ex-Communists in Moscow and Adams Morgan Socialists in Washington D.C. shared a common hatred for America and its values.
There was no reason to interfere with the Russian interference. Obama and his people did not believe that the Russians would significantly affect the election. But if his efforts to eavesdrop on Trump officials came to light, the Russians had provided him with an alibi. Susan Rice, as national security adviser, was at the center of the eavesdropping effort and had every reason to protect the Russian operation.
Protecting the Russians also protected the Obamas.
Nor did the Obama deep state have any particular allegiance to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Obamas and the Clintons loathed each other. Though both factions were leftists, their approaches were as much at variance as Bolsheviks and Trotskyists. Obama had been forced to make a deal with the Clintons to secure his hold on the Democrat operation. But his support for Hillary Clinton was only an endorsement of the lesser evil. Her defeat left him and his political allies in total control of the Democrat operation.
And the chaos and violence of his anti-Trump resistance achieved his goal of radicalizing the Democrats.
The Russians didn’t hack the election. That conspiracy theory remains wishful thinking. But the allegation proved very useful in enabling everything from the pre-election eavesdropping on political opponents to the post-election sabotage of the Trump administration to the move away from electronic voting to paper ballots which enable the old-fashioned kind of Democrat ballot stuffing.
But like an iceberg, the most troubling development of the Russian conspiracy is mostly underwater.
After 9/11, the intelligence community was revived with a new purpose. That purpose was fighting Islamic terrorism. During Obama’s two terms, the intelligence community was compromised, crippled and transformed into a domestic deep state aimed at suppressing the political opposition. Tragically, it came to resemble the KGB, with its domestic surveillance and investigation of political opponents.
This transformation of law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not emerge out of thin air.
The Founders were rightly cautious of the power of a strong central government. And a national law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure was always ripe for the worst big government abuses.
The FBI’s record of political tampering under Hoover was no secret. And it didn’t end there. Everything in Washington D.C. is political. Especially the apolitical. Its engine of careerism runs on networking and connections. The apolitical bureaucracy is a buzzing hive of ambition and backstabbing. Every agency has its own Machiavellian subcultures with courtiers, saboteurs, spies and manipulators. And every agency culture has a leftist ideological component, among its other agendas, some more than others.
The Obama years politicized everything from the food you ate to the clothes you wore. Certainly no arm of government survived those terrible two terms without being substantially transformed.
As the cold winter sun set on another year in Washington D.C., the deep state was reborn.
The Democrats have spent two years accusing Republicans of colluding with Russia. But as usual they were accusing their political opponents of their own crime. Republicans had not undermined national security. The Democrats did. A Republican president hadn’t sat across from Putin’s agent and assured him that he would have more flexibility to make deals after the election. A Republican president hadn’t let the Russians hack our national security secrets to provide a casus belli for targeting his opponents.
That was all Obama.
Barack Obama and Susan Rice sabotaged efforts to stop the Russians because their deep state domestic spying program depended on Russian collusion, both the reality and the allegation. Everything from the original allegation, Clinton campaign opposition research which drew on claims by a Russian intelligence operative, to the Mueller counterintelligence investigation, which has done nothing to actually stop the Russians, but has gone after Republican campaign pros, needed the Russians as its stalking horse.
Russian hacking didn’t change the election. But Obama’s exploitation of Russian hacking nearly did. We still don’t know what materials were gathered by the eavesdropping operation. Or who saw them. Information is the ultimate weapon in national security and election campaigns. Obama used the former to tamper with the latter. And all these years later, we still don’t know what damage was done.
While Mueller prowls around pursuing Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theories, those crimes remain unexplored. But we do know that the Russians didn’t do anything that Obama didn’t allow them to do.
Any serious effort to investigate Russian election hacks must begin with the man who let them to do it.
___________________
Daniel Greenfieldis a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center’s Front Page Magazine.
Tim Brown at Freedom Outpost discusses the reaction of Sharyl Attkisson to the Dems and the Dem-supporting allies in the FBI and DOJ stonewalling on the Republican members of the House Intel Committee desire to release the FISA Memo put together by the Chairman Rep. Gerald Nunes which exposes criminal conspiracy in those departments.
Brown’s analytical thoughts on Attkisson are spot-on. I should say Attkisson is spot-on. She insightfully claims Conservatives are asking the wrong question pertaining to the release of the FISA Memo. Here’s quote from an Attkisson Tweet:
“The main story isn’t about what they allegedly did to try to stop Trump. It’s *why.* It’s about what they feared Trump & Co. would expose.”
Before I get to the Brown post, I think it will help the reader to know a little about Sharyl Attkisson. She worked at CBS for over two decades until ran afoul with the network over her investigative reporting on (treasonous) President Barack Hussein Obama over Benghazigate. No matter what the MSM may paint her to be in her present incarnation as a reporter she has an awesome journalistic pedigree indicating she is no slouch investigator. First a little bio info from Wikipedia:
Sharyl Attkisson (born January 26, 1961[4]) is an American author and host of the weekly Sunday public affairs program Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, which airs on television stations operated by the Sinclair Broadcast Group.[5] She was formerly an investigative correspondent in the Washington bureau for CBS News. She had also substituted as anchor for the CBS Evening News. She resigned from CBS News on March 10, 2014, after 21 years with the network. Her book Stonewalled reached number 3 on The New York Times e-book non-fiction best seller list in November 2014[6] and number 5 on The New York Times combined print and e-book non-fiction best-seller list the same week.[7]
…
… Her step-father is an orthopedic surgeon, and her brother is an emergency roomphysician. Attkisson graduated from the University of Florida with a degree in broadcast journalism in 1982.[9]
Career
Attkisson began her broadcast journalism career in 1982, aged 22, as a reporter at WUFT-TV, the PBS station in Gainesville, Florida. She later worked as an anchor and reporter at WTVX-TV Fort Pierce/West Palm Beach, Florida from 1982–1985, WBNS-TV, the CBS affiliate in Columbus, Ohio from 1985–86, and WTVT Tampa, Florida (1986–1990).[10]
1990s
From 1990–1993, Attkisson was an anchor for CNN, and also served as a key anchor for CBS space exploration coverage in 1993.[11] Attkisson left CNN in 1993,[12] moving to CBS, where she anchored the television news broadcast CBS News Up to the Minute and became an investigative correspondent based in Washington, D.C.[10]
She served on the University of Florida‘s Journalism College Advisory Board (1993–1997) and was its chair in 1996.[10] The University gave her an Outstanding Achievement Award in 1997. From 1997 to 2003, Attkisson simultaneously hosted CBS News Up to the Minute and the PBS health-news magazine HealthWeek.[13]
In 2002, she co-authored a … READ THE REST (Sharyl Attkisson; Wikipedia; page was last edited 12/31/17 12:46)
Well, that’s Attkisson’s pedigree. Now read a bit of the details that has probably made her anathema among the typical Leftist MSM outlets:
Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist who became the story when she quit CBS News after two decades amid allegations that the network refused to run some of her stories that were critical of President Barack Obama. Ahead of the Tuesday release of her book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, she spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about her struggles with CBS executives and her assertion that her computers were hacked, possibly by Obama operatives.
…
Who did you tell at CBS that your computers were hacked?
The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.
Did he believe you?
He appeared to.
Did CBS care? Did they do anything about it?
God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.
Did they ever find out who hacked your computers and spied on you?
I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.
Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?
Not to my knowledge. Executives discussed with me that they assumed that was the case. And we discussed how to proceed with that information and what we could do about it.
So what did you do about it?
It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.
Did they conclude anything yet?
Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.
…
Do you believe that people working for the president of the United States hacked your computer and spied on you?
The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.
…
Did your colleagues give you grief about your negative stories on Obama?
Not my reporter colleagues.
But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?
Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.
Who were the ones discouraging it?
Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.
…
It sounds like you’ve been telling me that journalists at CBS who don’t toe a certain line have something to fear there. Is that the case at other networks, too?
I’m not sure we have anything to fear. It’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don’t think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don’t fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray. … READ ENTIRETY (Former CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Claims Existence of Obama Enemies’ List; By Paul Bond; HollywoodReporter.com; 11/3/2014 11:00 PM PST)
In a tweet on Wednesday, Attkisson wrote, “My take for what little it’s worth: The main story isn’t about what they allegedly did to try to stop Trump. It’s *why.* It’s about what they feared Trump & Co. would expose. I think that will turn out to be the bigger can of worms.”
My take for what little it's worth: The main story isn't about what they allegedly did to try to stop Trump. It's *why.* It's about what they feared Trump & Co. would expose. I think that will turn out to be the bigger can of worms.
She was then asked, “Is the [Robert] Mueller Investigations real purpose is to cover up the FBI/DOJ mistakes, attempting to bring down a sitting President?”
Attkisson replied, “I believe the better question is *why* some bad actors in intel community were so panicked at the thought of Trump being president, bringing in people who would examine what they’ve been doing the past 15+ years.”
I believe the better question is *why* some bad actors in intel community were so panicked at the thought of Trump being president, bringing in people who would examine what they've been doing the past 15+ years. https://t.co/Q8yIq8mog3
Attkisson went on to tweet, “It’s fair to say there’s panic among some bad actors within our intel agencies who are now pulling out all the stops to try to spin Congress & the media & keep from getting inside. That kind of panic can lead to mistakes being made.”
“Interesting to see “open govt.” groups & advocates pressing to keep “the memo” secret. This may be unprecedented.” she added.
Interesting to see "open govt." groups & advocates pressing to keep "the memo" secret. This may be unprecedented. 2/2
She did follow up her tweets with an op-ed at The Hill in which she asked:
What happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing — also control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they’re the ones in charge of who inside their agencies — or connected to them — ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?
She then followed up with two very important issues to keep in mind during the investigation.
Those questions are moving to the forefront as the facts play out in the investigations into our intelligence agencies’ surveillance activities.
There are two overarching issues.
First, there’s the alleged improper use of politically-funded opposition research to justify secret warrants to spy on U.S. citizens for political purposes.
Second, if corruption is ultimately identified at high levels in our intel agencies, it would necessitate a re-examination of every case and issue the officials touched over the past decade — or two — under administrations of both parties.
This is why I think the concerns transcend typical party politics.
It touches everybody. It’s potentially monumental.
Of course, she pointed out that not only are there people in the Justice Department, as well as Congress, trying to stop the FISA memo from being presented to the public, but even media outlets and reporters are attempting to keep it secret.
She wrote, “Meantime, the Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence Committee not to release its memo. It’s like the possible defendant in a criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury.”
“This is the first time I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the argument to keep the information secret,” she added. “They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against Americans. ‘Don’t be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods,’ they plead.”
She then followed up with what everyone should agree on simply because we don’t have two Constitutions, but one.
“As for me? I don’t care what political stripes the alleged offenders wear or whose side they’re on,” she wrote. “If their sources and methods are inappropriate, they should be fully exposed and stopped.”
Indeed, and they should be prosecuted. The why is important, but the simple violations of the law are enough that indictments and arrests should be taking place.
____________________
Intro to The Main Story Is Not What They Did To Stop Trump, It’s Why
John R, Houk, Editor
Posted January 26, 2018
_________________
Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson: “The Main Story Is Not What They Did To Stop Trump, It’s Why”
Intro to ‘Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections’
Blog Editor John R. Houk
By Fred Fleitz
Posted 4/6/17
The Dems and the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) have been hell-bent to disqualify President Trump since election day 2016. All disqualification agendas seem to gravitate around President Trump colluded with Russia to win over Crooked Hillary.
It is my belief the “collusion” accusation is horse pucky, but Russian attempts to manipulate the American voter is very possible. AND if POSSIBLE turns into reality, Russia needs to suffer any kind consequences the Trump Administration is willing to inflict. By inflict I mean at least with a Cold War-style agitation to see how far the Russians are willing to confront the still most powerful nation in the world which of course is the United States of America.
That being said, the continuous disparaging of President Trump should be examined by the Trump Administration Department of Justice for crimes by Dems, the Left MSM, current government civil servant lifers loyal to BHO AND former Obama Administration Officials INCLUDING the treasonous former President Barack Hussein Obama.
The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close.
Although there are strong indications the Obama administration abused intelligence collection by U.S. agencies to gather information on the Trump campaign to leak to the news media, it also appeared to abuse another U.S. intelligence mission: intelligence analysis.
Congressional Democrats and the mainstream media consider it gospel truth that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump win. But should we treat this assessment as true in light of major errors in U.S. intelligence analysis in the past and its politicization? Is something gospel truth just because U.S. intelligence agencies say it is?
The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close.
What Intelligence Has Really Confirmed About Russia
U.S. intelligence agencies issued two assessments on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The first was an October 7 statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that said WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails during the election were “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.
Moreover, although this statement said the U.S. intelligence community held this position, the memo was issued by only two agencies, and was called a “Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement.” Hillary Clinton seized on this statement in the last presidential debate on October 19 by inaccurately claiming “We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.”
The fact that this memo was not an intelligence community document issued by all agencies with equities in this issue was very unusual. It also was suspicious that an unclassified intelligence analysis so advantageous to one presidential candidate was issued just before the election and only two weeks before the last presidential debate. In my view, this looked like looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to issue an intelligence assessment to boost Clinton’s presidential campaign and hurt the Trump campaign.
The second intelligence assessment on this question, issued on January 6, 2017, I believe represents a serious instance of a presidential administration manipulating U.S. intelligence analysis to issue a politicized analysis to sabotage an incoming president from a different political party. The January 6 analysis found that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and hurt Hillary’s candidacy to promote Trump. The assessment said this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
What About All the Missing Intelligence Agencies?
Like the October memo, congressional Democrats and the news media have said this was the unanimous conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. But also like the October memo, this was not the case. The January 6 assessment was an “Intelligence Community Assessment.” Such analyses are usually issued and cleared by most if not all U.S. intelligence agencies and have a statement on the first page that usually reads “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”
The January 6 Intelligence Community Assessment lacked such a statement because it reflected the views of only three U.S. intelligence agencies: Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Security Agency. The CIA and FBI concluded with high confidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win. NSA concluded this with moderate confidence.
Why did other U.S. intelligence agencies with major equities in this issue not participate in the January 6 assessment? Why were the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security part of the October assessment but not the January one? Where were the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the military intelligence agencies?
The January assessment also was very unusual because it was such a conclusive analysis of a very controversial subject with no dissenting views. Based my CIA experience, this is unprecedented and makes me wonder whether intelligence agencies that may have dissented were deliberately excluded.
There also is the question as to whether this assessment was written to conform to a predetermined conclusion by the Obama White House to undermine the Trump administration. The U.S. intelligence community has played political games like this before with interagency assessments to promote political agendas. One of the most notorious examples of this was the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program that was intended to undermine President Bush’s Iran policy.
There Are Indications Intelligence Has Been Politicized
CIA Director John Brennan’s role in approving this assessment raises serious questions about whether it was manipulated for political reasons. Brennan has been heavily criticized for politicizing intelligence for the Obama administration. This includes the role he played in the 2012 CIA talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. He also has been openly and extremely hostile toward Trump before and after the election.
Given FBI Director James Comey’s statements at a recent House Intelligence Committee hearing that the conclusion in the January 6 assessment that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump was based on logic and not evidence, it is hard to believe this was not a pre-cooked conclusion driven by the highly partisan Brennan.
I strongly believe that if there were any evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win, or that Russia and the Trump campaign collaborated to affect the outcome of the election, this intelligence would have been leaked by Obama holdovers in government and the so-called “Deep State” to The New York Times long ago. The fact that Comey could not point to such evidence and this information has not been leaked suggests there is no such evidence because this didn’t happen.
The current congressional investigations of possible Russian interference in the election and the Obama administration’s misuse of U.S. intelligence collection to surveil the Trump campaign must also include whether intelligence analysis was politicized to damage Trump’s candidacy and presidency. These investigations must look at how the above analyses were drafted, who drafted them, and why some agencies did not participate. The committees also need to uncover any evidence of the White House trying to influence the outcome of these assessments or excluding certain agencies from participating.
It is time to call out Democrats and reporters who portray the idea that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win as established truth because it is the unanimous assessment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. I expect the congressional investigations will conclude this claim is false and actually represented a deliberate effort to manipulate intelligence analysis to undermine the Trump presidency.
________________
Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy. He worked in national-security positions for 25 years with the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.
Setting a dangerous precedent for the future of America, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other Leftist propaganda machines and an army of the Obama administration’s holdovers, nothing less than saboteurs, have waged a war of innuendo and speculation and felony leaks for months in an attempt to destroy President Donald Trump’s administration and the government American voters demanded. They have turned their backs on the Constitution and the American people, their oath to protect and defend both, and they have sought to undermine our democratic process and the Republic of the United States of America.
Classified information leaked to the media – a felony – set speculation in motion as the New York Times and the left-leaning Mother Jones alleged collusion between Donald Trump and his advisors and Russia for the past six months, even though their own reports show an initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant targeting Trump and several associates was denied and nothing criminal was ever proven. And, according to Heat Street [HERE & HERE], a more narrowly drawn FISA warrant was granted in October to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russia’s Alfa Bank and SVB Bank; the FBI found nothing “nefarious” and attributed the raised alarm to “spam”.
Essentially, Donald Trump was not named in the second FISA warrant, but surveillance of him and his inner circle, private citizens such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, continued up to the general election [HERE & HERE]. One can only surmise that Obama and his leftist minions banked on finding information that would defeat Trump; and after Donald Trump won, they continued surveillance in hopes of eventually impeaching and unseating President Trump.
If phone calls to Russia merit an investigation, shouldn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been investigated for accepting a $145 million bribe from Russia and ROSATOM [HERE & HERE] in exchange for helping them acquire twenty-five percent of America’s uranium resources? Oh, wait a minute — Hillary is a Democrat, so just overlook any criminal behavior.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested the Obama administration’s extensive surveillance of Trump’s presidential campaign was troubling but not surprising. Hatch “suspected that they were going to do that anyways.”
How could the media and the Obama machine — the Obama Foundation, billionaire George Soros and Organizing for America — not expect Trump to counter-punch? But incredulously, they were unprepared for President Trump’s March 4th 2017 allegation on Twitter that former President Obama “had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory”.
Who in the Obama administration ordered the FISA wiretaps and why?
U.S. citizens normally cannot be searched or subjected to electronic eavesdropping without probable cause of a crime, however FISA makes exceptions if there is probable cause they are agents of a foreign power. No one person can state with a straight face that “Trump is a Russian spy”.
Retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer, a defense intelligence officer trained by the CIA (Fox News), said, “I put this right at the feet of John Brennan and Jim Clapper, and I would even go so far as to say the White House was directly involved before [Obama} left”. He also asserted that it was clear sensitive information was divulged to the media by people who had access to beyond Top Secret material.
[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Shaffer on Fox & Friends Weekend –
On the same day of President Trump’s bombshell, Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, told Judge Jeanine Pirro (Fox News) that the Obama administration was also “listening to conversations between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and the Ambassador from Russia while he was in his U.S. Senate office’. (And) the fact that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act is being used to listen to a political opponent is “very, very damaging”.
[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Pirro/Lewandowski interview:
Please note that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and many other Democrats met with this same Russian Ambassador. Their hypocrisy is on full display.
Some sort of surveillance of the Trump campaign occurred, if one can believe James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. Clapper told NBC and ABC News that during his tenure in the Obama administration, up to January 20th 2017, there wasn’t any collusion or collaboration between Donald Trump’s campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
The NYT’s story “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” on January 19th 2017 states: “The FBI is leading the investigation, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks … intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.”
With FBI Director James Comey’s motivation suspect, he asked the Justice Department to confirm that President Trump’s allegation was “absolutely false”. This was followed recently with Congress’s demand for any and all documents concerning any Department of Justice investigation of President Trump and his campaign.
Once the Democrats had their “uh oh moment”, as Garth Kant of WND called it, they realized that a scandal bigger than Watergate was beginning to unfold. The Obama Justice Department had apparently used its legal authorities to target a political opponent and a presidential candidate.
Any outrage from the Obama White House is extremely exaggerated. Obama does not deny that Trump was being monitored by his Justice Department, and any spying on his arch rival, a man with the ability to diminish his legacy, was done with Obama’s blessing. Only a fool could believe that Obama was ignorant of the spying. [Editor’s Bold Text]
From the DOJ’s seizure of Associated Press phone records and Fox News reporter James Rosen’s email records, to heavy IRS scrutiny of the Tea Party and on to the NSA’s warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens, the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for surveillance and using government power against its political enemies is a matter of shameful record. Obama’s and the Leftists’ so-called “Resistance” to the Trump administration has developed the feel of a not-so-covert coup against President Trump. [Editor’s Bold Text]
Americans are entitled to the full truth surrounding former President Obama’s use of nation-state resources for the purposes of political gain. Sycophantic rogue agents of the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and the Justice Department, all Democrat ideologues and communists, have apparently subverted the U.S. Constitution and spied on President Trump’s presidential campaign in a manner that was not approved by any court, in order to derail his election and the Democratic process, leaking sensitive national security secrets along the way. And anyone involved, including Obama, must be prosecuted and placed behind bars. [Editor’s Bold Text]
By Justin O. Smith
___________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
