During the pandemic, the American people started to feel that Big Government was very cozy with Big Pharma.

Now we know just how close they were.

New data from the National Institutes of Health reveal the agency and its scientists collected $710 million in royalties during the pandemic, from late 2021 through 2023. These are payments made by private companies, like pharmaceuticals, to license medical innovations from government scientists.

Almost all that cash — $690 million — went to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the subagency led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, and 260 of its scientists.

Information about this vast private royalty complex is tightly held by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). My organization, OpenTheBooks.com, was forced to sue to uncover the royalties paid from September 2009 to October 2021, which amounted to $325 million over 56,000 transactions.

We had to sue a second time, with Judicial Watch as our counsel, to pry open this new release.

Payments skyrocketed during the pandemic era: Those years saw more than double the amount of cash flow to NIH from the private sector, compared to the prior 12 combined. All told, it’s $1.036 billion.

It’s unclear if any of the COVID vaccine royalties from Pfizer and Moderna, the latter of which settled with NIH by agreeing to pay $400 million, is even included in these new numbers. NIH isn’t saying. (Read more: New York Post, 6/02/2024)  (Archive)

A video of Hunter Biden shirtless is seen on screen during the trial on Tuesday in Wilmington, Delaware. (Credit: Bill Hennessy/CNN)

The trial is expected to last about two weeks with many witnesses and will likely expose more damming information about the dysfunctional Biden family. The trial is set to resume at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday.

Two days of trial uncovered the following:

1. The defense will try to convince the jury that Hunter did not “knowingly” commit wrongdoing, as prosecutors say, in order to frame Hunter as a victim of drug addiction.
2. The defense’s strategy might be to obtain jury nullification.
3. The DOJ will frame their prosecution as “no one is above the law” and that “it doesn’t matter who you are or what your name is.”
4. The jury is split evenly between men and women, but all three alternates are women.
5. Many jurors seated in the case said they have family members who experienced drug abuse.
6. The FBI confirmed Hunter’s laptop is real.
7. President Joe Biden reportedly intends to have a phone conversation with Hunter Biden every day during the trial.
8. Biden family members and associates will likely be in court every day where the jury can see them.
9. Hallie Biden, the ex of Hunter Biden and widow of his brother, will testify about her use of crack with Hunter.

Honorable mention:

• Melissa Cohen-Biden, Hunter’s wife, verbally assaulted not-for-profit Marco Polo founder Garrett Ziegler amid proceedings.

Hunter is charged with one count of false statement in the purchase of a firearm, one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and one count of false statement related to information required to be kept by a federal firearms licensed dealer. (Read more: Breitbart, 6/04/2024)  (Archive)

Merrick Garland (Credit: Allison Bailey/AFP via Getty Images)

Attorney General Merrick Garland said this week that he will defy subpoenas from Congressional Republicans that he does not agree with.

Garland’s statement came after Republican leaders in Congress threatened to hold him in contempt “in their efforts to gain access to audio recordings from special counsel Robert K. Hur’s investigation into President Biden’s handling of classified materials,” according to the Washington Post.

Garland reportedly requested for the president to claim executive privilege on the recordings, fearing that “releasing them could harm future efforts to get officials to cooperate with investigations and sit for taped interviews,” per the Post.

Speaking before the House Judiciary Committee this week, Garland accused Republicans of “seeking contempt as a means of obtaining — for no legitimate purpose — sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations. This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department’s work.”

WATCH: Attorney General Merrick Garland Opening Statement: “I will not be intimidated and the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence and we will not back down from defending democracy.” pic.twitter.com/smgZOv9boA

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 4, 2024

Republicans shot back and accused Garland of weaponizing the Department of Justice, citing the recent indictments of former President Trump and his recent conviction by a Manhattan jury on 34 felony counts.

Though the White House has provided transcripts of Biden’s interviews, where Hur described the president as an “elderly man with a poor memory” in his report, Republicans say the audio recordings could help provide missing context. (Read more: Breitbart, 6/06/2024)  (Archive)

Andrew McCabe says employees of the FBI are worried about Trump jailing them and are thinking of fleeing the country pic.twitter.com/1SHq38jsnG

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) June 6, 2024

MI Democrat AG Dana Nessel, Lead AG Investigator in MI GOP Electors case Howard Shock, and Judge Kristen D. Simmons (Credit: Gateway Pundit graphic)

Michigan’s Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel is the top law enforcement officer in the state. Unfortunately, for the lawfare queen, the case of her career, which involves charging 15 MI GOP electors with 8 felonies each, appears to be imploding.

If Michigan’s Democrat attorney general is successful with her politically-motivated witch hunt against the Trump-supporting electors, and they are found guilty of all 8 felony charges, it would be enough to send each member of the group, which consists of primarily senior citizens, to prison for life.

MI GOP alternate electors are pictured above. The photo on the bottom row, second from the left, is James Renner, who has since accepted a plea deal with the MI AG’s office. (Credit: Gateway Pundit)

Unfortunately for the lawfare queen of Michigan, after three days of testimony by AG Nessel’s lead investigator, it is becoming increasingly clear that AG Nessel, or someone in her office, selected the wrong cop to investigate the manufactured crimes against the MI Republican electors.

On Friday, MI GOP elector James Renner, who previously worked in the security division of the Michigan State Police Department, testified in front of Judge Kristen Simmons. During his testimony, Mr. Renner revealed that he had agreed to a plea deal several months ago in return for his testimony in the case against his fellow GOP electors. According to Mr. Renner, his lawyers were in discussion with the attorney general’s office even before the AG’s office filed formal charges against 15 of his fellow GOP electors. Unfortunately for the politically-motivated MI Attorney General’s office, Mr. Renner’s testimony only helped his fellow electors, as he confirmed under oath that he believed on December 14, 2020, when he signed the alternate slate of electoral votes, that the election was stolen from President Trump. He also told the defense lawyers that he continues to hold the same belief today.

On Monday, while under oath in the pre-trial case against 5 of the 15 electors in AG Nessel’s lawfare case, Nessel’s top cop, Agent Howard Shock, was brutally cross-examined by MI GOP Elector Marian Sheridan’s lawyer, John Freeman, who effectively shredded his case against his client, and by extension, all of the electors who’ve been charged in Nessel’s lawfare case.

(…)  After Shock testified that the elector’s strategy was intended to cause a “pause” in the electoral process, Judge Simmons interrupted the cross-examination to ask him about the so-called “crime” that was allegedly committed, “How is it that citizens taking efforts to cause their legislators to pause a process is a crime?” Judge Simmons asked.

The judge asked Shock to explain if the alternate slate of electoral votes cast by the GOP electors was intended to get VP Pence to accept their slate of electoral votes over the Democratic slate of electoral votes.

Several defense lawyers jumped up to question Assistant Attorney General LaDonna Logan, one of the officials in AG Nessel’s office who reportedly approved the ridiculous charges against the 16 GOP electors, as she attempted to convince her witness, Agent Shock, to revise his statement about his claim about the “pause” in the electoral process.

When the judge accused Logan of trying to impeach her own witness by encouraging him to change his previous testimony, she replied, “I’m allowed to impeach my own witness.” Judge Simmons, who has been very fair in this case, snapped back, “Impeach away. Impeach away,” adding, “That just discredits him further and further.”

It wasn’t the first time Judge Simmons mocked the credibility of Nessel’s dirty cop, who sat in the courtroom for multiple days trying to convince the judge that she should recommend the case against the mostly senior citizen electors, which would send them to jail for life if convicted of all 8 felony charges, should be heard by a jury in a separate trial.

On Monday, Judge Simmons reminded the court that AG Nessel’s lead investigator hadn’t given a “great presentation” after days of bumbling through answers that he was either unable to provide the defense lawyers or couldn’t answer because he didn’t appear to have his notes available for his testimony. (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 6/05/2024)  (Archive)

💥Trump is now suggesting that it’s “very possible” that Hillary will be thrown into jail💥

“Hillary, with the hammering of her
cellphones and all of the things she did…wouldn’t it be terrible to throw the president’s wife and the former Secretary of State ( . . . ) into jail?… pic.twitter.com/ZMQlr3b1ys

— Red Pill USA (@Red_Pill_US) June 6, 2024

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) leads a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the fiscal year 2025 budget request for the FBI.

Full Hearing

Cassidy Hutchinson gave two hours of testimony on national television that cast Trump as enraged, June 28, 2022. (Credit: Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

Just the News is reporting that the January 6th Committee rebuffed repeated efforts from a Secret Service agent to refute the false story related by Cassidy Hutchinson alleging a violent episode with Trump in the presidential limousine during the Capitol riots. The J6 Committee staff repeatedly delayed the testimony of the agent to disprove the widely reported allegation.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the chairman of the House subcommittee that is investigating the Jan. 6 riot, has obtained a transcript of the driver’s interview that was conducted months after he first offered to testify. However, it turns out that committee staff were asked repeatedly by counsel for the agent to let him present evidence debunking the claim. Despite being reported by virtually every news outlet, the Committee slow walked his appearance as the story went viral.

The transcript of the driver’s testimony contains express objections by the lawyer that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the committee.

The account reaffirms a major criticism of the committee. After Democrats refused to allow the GOP to pick its members (as a long-accepted practice in the House), the Democrats selected two anti-Trump Republicans who did little to push for a full and fair display of witnesses and facts. The Committee was chaired by Rep. Benny Thompson, a Democrat, with Rep. Liz Cheney, as Vice Chairwoman.

Cheney and the committee members clearly knew that Hutchinson’s account was debunked by the very driver who allegedly struggled with Trump. Yet, they allowed the media to report the incident for months while rebuffing the requests of the driver. Loudermilk is quoted as saying “We’re talking about the driver of the limousine, and the head of the entire protective detail. They were brought in by the select committee to testify, but they weren’t brought in until November.”

The false account was given by Hutchinson in June of that year.

The Secret Service driver testified Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV.

Notably, the transcript shows Cheney trying to explain the delay as due to the need for the Secret Service to produce all documents in the January 6 investigation. (Read more: Jonathan Turley, 5/05/2024) (Archive)

Judge Carl Nichols was appointed by Trump in 2019. (Credit: public domain)

Former top Donald Trump advisor Steve Bannon was ordered by a federal judge on Thursday to report to prison by July 1 to begin serving his four-month sentence for contempt of Congress.

Bannon, 70, was convicted of contempt in July 2022 for defying a subpoena to testify before the congressional panel that investigated the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters.

One of the masterminds behind Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign, he was sentenced to four months in prison in October 2022, but has remained free while appealing his conviction.

A US federal appeals court upheld the conviction last month. US District Judge Carl Nichols revoked his bail at a court hearing Thursday and ordered him to report to prison by July 1. (Read more: (Breitbart, 6/06/2024) (Archive)

Judicial Watch announced today it received 54 pages of records from the Department of Justice in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit which show the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA) provided a Democrat staffer with information on FBI whistleblowers who detailed the bureau’s targeting of political opponents and retaliation for their testifying at a May 18, 2023, hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Dan Goldman (Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

A May 23, 2023, email from Damon Marx, senior counsel in the office of New York Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman, shows that the FBI provided documents apparently pertaining to the whistleblowers that were “very helpful” to Goldman.

Marx writes to an FBI Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA) official whose name is redacted:

We spoke last week before the Weaponization hearing on Thursday. Thanks again for sending over those documents. They were very helpful to the Congressman.

Francesco (my colleague cc’ed here) and I will be good points of contact for you going forward. Both of us broadly cover law enforcement; however, in terms of specifics, I cover cybersecurity, counterterrorism, and much of the Congressman’s committee work, while Francesco covers issues ranging from immigration to gun violence.

We would love to meet in person next time you have the chance. Please let us know when you’re available for coffee or just to swing by the office. And don’t hesitate to reach out on any other matters!

The CC’d colleague is Francesco Arreaga, then a Democrat staffer on the House Homeland Security Committee and former Elizabeth Warren campaign staffer.

 On May 18, 2023, a hearing was held by the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Highlights of the hearing include:

It is clear from these disclosures, and especially in wake of Special Counsel John Durham’s report, that the FBI has become politically weaponized.

To date, the Committee and Select Subcommittee have received whistleblower testimony from several current and former FBI employees who chose to risk their careers to expose abuses and misconduct in the FBI. Some of these employees—Special Agents Garret O’Boyle and Stephen Friend, Supervisory Intelligence Analyst George Hill, and Staff Operations Specialist Marcus Allen—have chosen to speak on the record about their experiences.

 During the hearing, Allen was allowed to discuss the suspension he incurred for merely forwarding open-source news articles to his colleagues, as his job required:

Q. And why exactly did you send th[e] email[s]?

A. I sent [the emails] just for awareness because the[y] . . . indicated potential problems with the investigation as far as informants were concerned, and our organization’s potential forthrightness about the utilization of informants there on that day. That might have some impact on our cases and the subjects that we’re looking up, and just a general awareness overall for the investigation as a whole, that there might have been some kind of potential Federal involvement with the activities on January 6th, and I thought it was important enough that it like warranted our attention, you know.

Q. Is it safe to say that you sending th[ose] email[s] was part of your job at the time?

A. Yes.

The Committee explained that “[b]ecause these open-source articles questioned the FBI’s handling of the violence at the Capitol, the FBI suspended Allen for ‘conspiratorial views in regards to the events of January 6th . . . .’”

The day before the hearing, the FBI revoked the security clearances of three agents who testified, Steve Friend, Garret O’Boyle, and Marcus Allen, according to a letter the bureau sent to congressional investigators and obtained by ABC News. Allen’s clearance was recently reinstated.

The records include a May 16, 2023, email to an FBI OCA official, whose name is redacted, from Marx, who writes: 

It’s my understanding that you’re out this week, but if you have a moment to chat about some of the witnesses for Thursday’s Weaponization hearing, it would be super helpful. Please let me know if you’re available tomorrow when you have a chance.

The FBI OCA official responds:

Sure, give me a call when you can.

In a May 9, 2023, email to Goldman’s then-Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director Erin Meegan, an FBI OCA official whose name is redacted writes:

I was disappointed I didn’t get the opportunity to meet you during our trip to Quantico. We are planning to take another trip there, maybe later this summer, so hopefully you’ll be able to join us then. I serve as [redacted]. OCA plays a key role in communicating with lawmakers and their staffers about FBI activities and is the primary point of contact for all Congressional matters.

I would like an opportunity to meet with you to properly introduce myself and tell you more about the mission of OCA, along with providing information about what OCA can offer your office. I would also like to know what issues Rep. Goldman and your office are interested in to see if there is any way I can assist in those areas. Additionally, based on my background, I think I may be able to provide insight or answer some questions about issues that do not require senior FBI leadership briefings or hearings.

The Judicial Watch October 2023 lawsuit that uncovered these documents was filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to a May 18, 2023, FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:23-cv-03003)). Judicial Watch asked for:

All records of communication between any official or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any member of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, any staff member for the subcommittee, or any staff member for any subcommittee member between April 1, 2023, and the present.

For purposes of clarification, in the request, Judicial Watch provided the following link, which identified the members of the committee: https://judiciary.house.gov/subcommittees/committee-judiciary/select-subcommittee-weaponization-federal-government

“These troubling records show how the FBI colluded with Democrats hostile to FBI whistleblowers who were set to testify to Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch is in the forefront of uncovering the weaponizing of the federal government against whistleblowers.

Judicial Watch represented Marcus Allen, a decorated veteran, FBI analyst and witness before the Weaponization Subcommittee, in a lawsuit against FBI Director Christopher Wray for violating Allen’s constitutional rights by falsely accusing him of holding “conspiratorial views,” stripping his security clearance, and suspending him from duty without pay. On May 31, 2024, Allen’s security clearance was  reinstated.

In June 2023, Judicial Watch sued for all FBI communications from bureau officials using several systems and databases regarding investigations carried out after an October 4, 2021, memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland instructing investigators to target American parents due to an alleged “increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools” In a March 21, 2023, report on the Garland memo, the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government cited FBI data which states that 25 inquiries under the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS” had been opened since the bureau began tracking the alleged incidents.

In September 2022, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for all records in the possession of FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten regarding an August 6, 2020, briefing provided to members of the U.S. Senate. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that raised concerns that the briefing was intended to undermine the senators’ investigation of Hunter Biden.

(Read more: Judicial Watch, 6/06/2024) (Archive)

During his interview with the January 6 Committee, Milley explained that in preparation for January 6, the role of the D.C. National Guard was defined in a memorandum he described as “very strict on the use of the military.” Milley detailed how the memorandum prohibited the use of any riot control agents, stating, “We’re not doing it … and not only not doing it, you’re not going to have it. You’re not going to have the opportunity to use it.” Additionally, he mentioned that while such measures might be authorized under different circumstances on another day, they were explicitly forbidden “at that time, on this day.”

Ryan D. McCarthy is approved by the Senate as Army secretary on Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. (Credit: Joe Gromelski/Stars and Stripes)

This directive was ultimately issued by Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to Major General William Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, on January 5, 2021. Milley disclosed to the committee that he was actively involved in advising McCarthy on the memorandum, “line by line going through this, lining it out, editing, and stuff like that, resulting in this memo.”

The January 5 memo, carefully crafted by Milley and McCarthy, authorized 340 D.C. National Guard personnel to assist law enforcement with traffic control points and metro station support, and stationed 40 personnel at Joint Base Andrews to serve as the Guard’s Quick Reaction Force (QRF) in case of an emergency. However, this memo restricted General Walker from employing the QRF without explicit personal approval from Army Secretary McCarthy—a condition previously not imposed.

In March 2021, General Walker testified before the Senate Rules and Homeland Security Committee, stating that he had the authority to employ the Guard’s QRF before January 6 and described the new restrictions as “unusual.”

As this weekend piece by @ms_haleyjane illuminated, why did Army Sec Ryan McCarthy, at the behest of Milley, change the usual chain of command for deployment of Nat Guard before Jan 6?

Gen. William Walker in his own words in 2021: pic.twitter.com/dJDDOAslr6

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 10, 2024

Major General William Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard (Credit: public domain)

He also testified to the January 6 Committee about his inability to reach Secretary McCarthy on January 6, revealing that it was the first time he found the phone number he had for McCarthy to be out of service. Additionally, General Walker noted that Colonel Earl Matthews, who had McCarthy’s private number due to their social acquaintance, was also unable to reach him.

This breakdown in communication occurred just one day after McCarthy had issued the memorandum requiring General Walker to obtain explicit approval from him for employing the Guard’s QRF. What could possibly account for McCarthy’s unavailability during those critical hours? Did McCarthy somehow overlook the crucial role he had defined for himself with the new restrictions imposed just a day earlier?

Where’s McCarthy?

On January 6, Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller approved the deployment of the D.C. National Guard by 3:04 p.m. The protocol then required Army Secretary McCarthy to convey this authorization to General Walker to enable the deployment of the D.C. National Guard. However, McCarthy never conveyed this authorization, resulting in the more than 3 hour delay.

The January 6 Committee’s final report states that after Defense Secretary Miller authorized the deployment at 3:04 p.m., Secretary McCarthy called General Walker, instructing him to “mobilize the entire Guard.” However, General Walker “categorically denies” receiving such a call. “Here’s the bottom line,” he said, “The Secretary was unavailable to me, and he never called me.”

It appears, however, that McCarthy changed his story after initially telling the committee that he had called General Walker. The committee’s final report addresses this inconsistency by detailing McCarthy’s actions and whereabouts on January 6 to explain the delay. It explains that starting around 3:00 p.m. on January 6—shortly after Defense Secretary Miller approved the Guard’s deployment at 3:04 p.m.—“25 minutes of Army Secretary McCarthy’s time was spent reassuring members of Congress that the Guard was indeed coming,” even though he had not yet conveyed the order to General Walker. The report continues, stating that by 3:45 p.m., McCarthy had completed his calls—none of which were to General Walker—and after picking up some items from his office, he headed to the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) headquarters to draft a concept of operations, a process that took an additional 20 minutes.

D.C. National Guard Brigadier General Aaron Dean II (Credit: public domain)

However, when Brigadier General Aaron Dean, another Defense Department witness who testified before the House Oversight Committee, was asked whether he ever saw the plan McCarthy claims to have prepared, he responded, “Not only did I not see the plan, but he was also at the wrong agency.” He elaborated that the lead federal agency for this particular event was the United States Capitol Police, and questioned why McCarthy was at MPD headquarters instead of coordinating with Capitol Police, who were responsible for the security of the Capitol.

The January 6 Committee report also touches on this oversight, noting that no plan from Army leaders ever made it to the troops. “If they came up with a plan, they never shared it with us,” General Walker said, “I never saw a plan from the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army.”

The committee’s report further states that by 4:35 p.m., McCarthy was ready to authorize the deployment of the Guard, but “miscommunication” led to yet another half-hour delay. McCarthy told the committee that he tried to issue the “go” order through his subordinate, General LaNeve—a claim General Walker disputes, insisting the call never occurred. McCarthy rationalized not communicating directly by stating he was at the time drafting his talking points for a planned press conference with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, explaining, “I wanted to get my thoughts collected.”

Authorization finally came at 5:09 p.m. during an ongoing video teleconference that had started at 2:30 p.m.. Defense Department witnesses present with General Walker on January 6 testified to the House Oversight Committee that General James McConville, Chief of Staff of the Army, mentioned during the conference that they had received authorization. Colonel Earl Matthews, who was present in the conference room next to General Walker, clarified that, “General McConville is not in the chain of command, so it wasn’t his order to give.” He added that General McConville was merely conveying that they were authorized to deploy. Matthews further specified that the actual authorization did not come from Secretary McCarthy but instead from Secretary Miller. (Read more: Julie Kelly/Declassified/Substack, 6/06/2024)  (Archive)

(Credit: Robert Gouvia/Rumble)

House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk intends to send a letter to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis seeking information about an interview her office allegedly conducted with key Jan. 6 Committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson.

The Daily Caller first obtained a copy of the letter in which Loudermilk requests to review copies of all communications between Hutchinson and the Fulton County DA’s office. The Subcommittee has obtained messages showing that Willis’ office tried to reach Hutchinson, but it remains unclear exactly what was said and how much information was exchanged.

“I write to you today to request your cooperation in my investigation into the security failures at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Based on information recovered by this Subcommittee, we have reason to believe that your office interviewed Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, who also provided testimony to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (‘Select Committee’),” Loudermilk, who represents Georgia’s 11th congressional district, wrote in the letter. “The testimony provided by Ms. Hutchinson in the course of your investigation is relevant to our evaluation of her testimony and the direct implications her testimony has on the security of the United States Capitol.”

“This Subcommittee obtained evidence that your staff in the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office made numerous attempts to reach out to Cassidy Hutchinson to seek her testimony. Specifically, individuals from your office reached out to Ms. Hutchinson’s mother in an attempt to reach Ms. Hutchinson,” Loudermilk continued. “The Subcommittee is evaluating the reliability of Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, which was heavily relied on by the Select Committee, and the findings related to the security of the United States Capitol, it is crucial for us to review any documents and records you have provided by or obtained from Ms. Hutchinson.”

Loudermilk followed these observations with a single question: “Did anyone affiliated with the Fulton County District Attorney’s communicate with Ms. Hutchinson at any time between January 1, 2021, and today, June 5, 2024?”

“If the answer to this question is yes, please provide the names of the individuals who communicated with Ms. Hutchinson and the dates of these communications. Additionally, please provide my staff copies of these communications to aid in our investigation,” he added. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 6/06/2024) (Archive)

The number 3 guy at the DOJ, Matthew Colangelo, takes a cut in pay and joins Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s team to prosecute Trump, December 2022. (Credit: DOJ, LinkedIn/Alvin Bragg, Michael B Thomas/Getty Images, Graphic by MEAWorldWide )

🚨IN 1 WEEK ALONE🚨

Since the political conviction of President Donald Trump in Manhattan last week, AFL has…

1️⃣Sued the DOJ to compel the immediate release of Matthew Colangelo’s gov’t records discussing President Trump before leaving the government to help orchestrate Alvin…

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 7, 2024

Full Text:

Since the political conviction of President Donald Trump in Manhattan last week, AFL has…

1️⃣Sued the DOJ to compel the immediate release of Matthew Colangelo’s gov’t records discussing President Trump before leaving the government to help orchestrate Alvin Bragg’s political prosecution.

2️⃣Launched 3 investigations into Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s abusive prosecution of President Trump to obtain records such as communications between Bragg’s office with outside groups like the DNC and Biden Campaign, communications with Judge Merchan, and Bragg’s calendar.

3️⃣Launched 3 investigations into the improper involvement of the Biden DOJ in the Manhattan DA’s prosecution of President Trump to obtain communications from top Biden DOJ officials, such as Matthew Colangelo, Matt Klapper, and Marshall Miller.

4️⃣Filed a formal request with the State of New York Ethics Commission for the Unified Court System for the release of Judge Merchan’s financial disclosures.

5️⃣Filed a federal civil rights complaint with the EEOC and state law complaint with the NY Department of Labor against Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office for alleged racial and sex discrimination in hiring and recruitment.

LAWFARE: While judges in New York criminal trials are theoretically supposed to be randomly selected, it is statistically improbable (1 in over 15,000) for Acting Justice Juan Merchan to be assigned all three Trump-related trials by chance. In reality, these cases were assigned… pic.twitter.com/eH8Wuq8xXB

— @amuse (@amuse) June 1, 2024

Full Text:

LAWFARE: While judges in New York criminal trials are theoretically supposed to be randomly selected, it is statistically improbable (1 in over 15,000) for Acting Justice Juan Merchan to be assigned all three Trump-related trials by chance. In reality, these cases were assigned by Ellen N. Biben, the Administrative Judge of the New York County Supreme Court, Criminal Term. Biben, a lifelong Democrat with a history at Sullivan & Cromwell, has the authority to assign specific cases to judges with specialized experience. Notably, before being appointed as an Acting Justice, Merchan had limited experience, having served less than three years in a Bronx family court. It raises questions about whether his ‘specialized experience’ might be influenced by his daughter’s role as a prominent Democrat fundraiser in New York.

James Clapper (Credit: public domain)

Former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says he would not retract the letter he signed about first son Hunter Biden’s laptop.

In 2020, Clapper along with 51 other officials signed a letter saying that Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” was Russian disinformation.

When Clapper recently was asked if he would retract the letter he signed, he told Fox News in a one word answer, “no.”

The infamous laptop story that was originally perceived by media outlets as “Russian disinformation” was resurrected during Hunter’s gun trial.

Hunter Biden was charged in Delaware by Justice Department Special Counsel David Weiss with three felony crimes in connection to 2018 firearm purchase while he was using drugs.

FBI Agent Erika Jensen testified that the laptop was real, according to NBC News. She said that information on the laptop contained evidence about the gun purchase. (Just the News, 6/08/2024)  (Archive)

Ex-CDC Director Drops Stunning COVID Admissions

The ship is sinking, and Dr. Redfield is jumping ship before it’s too late.

He says vaccine mandates were a “terrible decision” and based on emotions, not on science.

Why was there a push to get everyone jabbed? Redfield believes there was a “huge influence by the pharmaceutical industry” to get everyone injected.

He also says there was zero rationale for forcing shots on young people.

All these things that were once deemed “conspiracy theories” are now being confirmed by an ex-government official.

Watch and listen to these confessions flow from Dr. Redfield himself.

Ex-CDC Director Drops Stunning COVID Admissions

The ship is sinking, and Dr. Redfield is jumping ship before it’s too late.

He says vaccine mandates were a “terrible decision” and based on emotions, not on science.

Why was there a push to get everyone jabbed? Redfield believes… pic.twitter.com/ZeHCv3wCff

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 9, 2024

Hunter Biden has been convicted of all three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

Jurors found Hunter Biden guilty of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.

He faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced by Judge Maryellen Noreika, though first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum. (Read more: Western Journal, 6/10/2024)  (Archive)

In October 2022, Dr Bernard Moss revealed a team of scientists wanted to equip Clade II Mpox with genes from the more dangerous Clade I strain (Credit: The Daily Mail)

Dr Anthony Fauci‘s former department ‘deceived’ Congress over its plans to create a Frankenstein monkeypox virus that had pandemic potential, a new report says.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) submitted plans to create a more transmissible and more lethal strain of Mpox in 2015, when Dr Fauci was still in charge of the agency.

The plans only received widespread attention in late 2022 – amid concerns that Covid may have been borne out of similar experiments using US government grant money in China.

The blueprint to create a mutant Mpox virus raised major concerns among experts and led to an investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which released the results from its year-and-a-half probe this week.

The report said the HHS, NIAID and NIH repeatedly ‘obstructed and misled the committee’ about whether the risky experiments had been approved and conducted, describing their cooperation with the probe as ‘unacceptable and potentially criminal.’

Investigators added: ‘HHS and the NIH repeatedly told the Committee the… experiments had not been “formally proposed” or “planned,” had never been approved or conducted, and were not currently under consideration.

‘[These] repeated assertions were false.’

They also said NIAID, a branch of the NIH, should not be trusted to carry out this type of research: ‘The primary conclusion drawn at this point in the investigation is that NIAID cannot be trusted to oversee its own research of pathogens responsibly.

‘It cannot be trusted to determine whether an experiment on a potential pandemic pathogen or enhanced potential pandemic pathogen poses unacceptable biosafety risk or a serious public health threat.’

Monkeypox, which is in the same family of viruses as smallpox, causes a rash and flu-like symptoms and sparked a global outbreak in 2022, infecting tens of thousands of people.

There are two types of monkeypox viruses: Clade I, which causes severe illness and has killed up to 11 percent of people in previous outbreaks, and Clad II, the type that caused the global outbreak in 2022. These infections are more transmissible but less severe and nearly 100 percent of people survive.

In October 2022, a team of government scientists wanted to insert genes from the more dangerous Clade I Mpox into Clade II, making a hybrid strain that could have been both more lethal and more contagious.

Investigators said this would be classified as gain-of-function, which is research that can result in deadlier and more transmissible viruses and is feared to be behind the creation of Covid.

It was estimated the new Mpox virus would have had a fatality rate of up to 15 percent and a reproductive rate of 2.4, meaning one sick person could infect more than two other people.

At this rate, the hybrid strain would have had pandemic potential.  (Read more: The Daily Mail, 6/12/2024)  (Archive)

Kevin Spacey talks about Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell, Bill Clinton, and Young Girls on Flights to South Africa

Of course he “didn’t know” anything about Epstein or Maxwell…

He then says he was carrying out “humanitarian work” for…. Guess who…

The Clinton Foundation…

🚨Kevin Spacey talks about Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell, Bill Clinton, and Young Girls on Flights to South Africa

Of course he “didn’t know” anything about Epstein or Maxwell…

He then says he was carrying out “humanitarian work” for…. Guess who…

The Clinton Foundation…… pic.twitter.com/ySDn0OSd5J

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 12, 2024

h/t @seacaptim

🚨 Since January 6, 2021, Nancy Pelosi spent 3+ years and nearly $20 million creating a narrative to blame Donald Trump.

NEW FOOTAGE shows on January 6, Pelosi ADMITTED:

“I take responsibility.”

WATCH: pic.twitter.com/95a0totTWB

— Oversight Subcommittee (@OversightAdmn) June 10, 2024

Pelosi was surprised we didn’t have National Guard on Jan6?? I was denied National Guard support multiple times before January 6, and repeatedly for 71 minutes ON January 6.
MY STORY HASN’T CHANGED!@RepLoudermilk @oversightadmn https://t.co/BIrV49GV6d

— Chief Steven Sund (@ChiefSund) June 10, 2024

JUST IN: Nancy Pelosi just went on MSNBC calling the video of her admitting SHE refused to secure the Capitol on January 6th “revisionist history.”

Nancy Pelosi hates you and thinks you are stupid. WOW! pic.twitter.com/KeMOa2LRM9

— Alan Jacoby (@AlanJacobyJr) June 10, 2024

Just a day before, this was reported:

pic.twitter.com/1APb045NjD

— MAZE (@mazemoore) June 10, 2024

As this weekend piece by @ms_haleyjane illuminated, why did Army Sec Ryan McCarthy, at the behest of Milley, change the usual chain of command for deployment of Nat Guard before Jan 6?

Gen. William Walker in his own words in 2021: pic.twitter.com/dJDDOAslr6

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 10, 2024

Do you remember the time… when we told the truth, and everyone else lied??? pic.twitter.com/dgyGoGJZo2

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) June 12, 2024

Wanda Geter-Pataky placing absentee ballots into election drop boxes in October 2023. (Credit: screenshot/X)

City Councilman Alfredo Castillo, Vice Chair of Bridgeport’s Democrat Party Wanda Geter-Pataky were charged with election tampering.

Two campaign workers Nilsa Heredia and Josephine Edmonds were charged with election fraud and unlawful possession of another person’s ballot

Four Democratic campaign workers have been arrested in a Bridgeport mayoral primary election controversy, prompting Republican legislators to increase their calls Tuesday for new legislation to deter election fraud.

Wanda Geter-Pataky, the vice chairwoman of the city’s Democratic Town Committee, and city council member Alfredo Castillo were among those arrested in a high-profile case brought by the chief state’s attorney’s office regarding the misuse of absentee ballots.

Moore, who is not seeking reelection for her seat as state senator, was stunned by Edmonds’ arrest.

(…) “If she broke the law, she deserves the same treatment as anybody else who broke the law,” Moore told the Courant. “But I don’t encourage that. I didn’t encourage it, and I wouldn’t encourage it.”

Moore noted that she won at the polls, but then lost the race after the absentee ballots were counted. While saying that she was not sure if she would ever run again for mayor, the 75-year-old Moore added, “I want Joe Ganim to get out of my seat right now. That’s all.”

If the defendants are convicted, Moore is calling for severe penalties. The defendants, except Edmonds, have all worked at Bridgeport city hall. (Read more: Hartford Courant, 6/11/2024)  (Archive)

BREAKING: Four Democrat officials in Bridgeport, Connecticut have been charged and arrested for the mail-in ballot fraud committed in the city’s primary election

City Councilman Alfredo Castillo, Vice Chair of Bridgeport’s Democrat Party Wanda Geter-Pataky were charged with… pic.twitter.com/q9OIYTLrD2

— George (@BehizyTweets) June 11, 2024

Partners listed on Data Journalism Agency website.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) has taken swift and decisive action against the Data Journalism Agency (texty.org.ua), a Ukrainian NGO with US State Department links that recently published an ‘enemies list’ of individuals and organizations opposed to the war in Ukraine.

Texty founder Anatoly Bondarenko (Credit: Yhiah Information Agency)

Following a letter sent by Banks to his Republican colleagues, the House Appropriations Committee has passed a provision that would prohibit US funding and sever ties with the NGO, which deemed 76  organizations and 388 individuals as enemies of Ukraine – including ZeroHedge and prominent American politicians opposed to the war in Ukraine.

“Federal bureaucrats should not support or partner with foreign groups that attempt to intimidate and silence U.S. citizens and lawmakers,” Banks wrote in his letter. “I am urging the Appropriations Committee majority to support efforts in the Fiscal Year 2025 SFOPS bill to force the State Department and USAID to end all relations with foreign NGOs like TEXTY that seek to silence the speech of Americans they dislike and to sway U.S. policymakers to serve their own interests.”

Texty.org.ua was founded by Anatoly Bondarenko, a participant in the State Department’s TechCamp program, which aims to train foreign journalists and activists in digital skills. The relationship between Bondarenko and the State Department has been publicly acknowledged, adding layers to the debate over the NGO’s activities and its impact on U.S. interests.

This is also a list of anyone who has ever been critical of biden. Pretty clear pattern emerging https://t.co/kB4Vo2WPMa https://t.co/fCpmhEfdbc

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 8, 2024

This legislative action occurs amidst broader discussions about foreign influence in American politics, with increasing scrutiny on how foreign entities may use U.S.-linked platforms or resources to sway public and political opinion in the United States. As this bill moves forward, it sets the stage for further debates on the balance between global cooperation and safeguarding national sovereignty in the realm of information and policy.

On Tuesday, Banks sent a letter to journalist Jack Posobiec informing him that his name appears on the TEXTY list, and notifying him of his intent to put a stop to US taxpayers funding the organization. (Read more: Zero Hedge, 6/12/2024)  (Archive)

Is Congress’s $17 million sexual misconduct hush money fund campaign finance violations?

Rep. Thomas Massie highlights that Congress’s hush money payments would be considered campaign finance violations under Alvin Bragg’s novel theory used to target President Trump.

“Congress has paid over $17 million in hush money for sexual misconduct inside of the offices in these buildings. And what’s more, is that it was taxpayer money. The allegation is that President Trump paid $130,000 of his own money.

But here in Congress, there might be some here on this dais who had the taxpayer pay for their sexual misconduct charges. And I do know that not a single penny of it has been turned in as a campaign finance expense.”

Former FEC Commissioner Trey Trainor explains that Alvin Bragg’s novel interpretation of the law does not align with “normal campaign finance law.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey points out that the Trump verdict will likely be overturned after the 2024 election, citing constitutional violations, due process issues, and prosecutorial misconduct.

Is Congress’s $17 million sexual misconduct hush money fund campaign finance violations?

Rep. Thomas Massie highlights that Congress’s hush money payments would be considered campaign finance violations under Alvin Bragg’s novel theory used to target President Trump.

“Congress… pic.twitter.com/pFPPkeG3VG

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) June 13, 2024

Does this explain why Republicans never hold Democrats accountable? pic.twitter.com/FQvINoX02P

— ULTRA MAGA PARTY 👑 (@MaxEvansUMP) June 2, 2024

It’s been around forever the fact that they had to go to bring charges against Trump for hush money involving NDA’s is beyond the pale. https://t.co/3ZXJvB9TZB

— Mitt🧤Romney is a Hologram (@GlennWhite1) June 14, 2024

Thanks to the relentless political targeting of President Trump, there’s been a spotlight on the use of “hush money” and secret funds to sweep indiscretions under the rug in politics. This shouldn’t come as a shock to many, given the nature of fame and power, but where do we draw the line? When is it acceptable for politicians to dip into taxpayer-funded slush funds to settle their sexual indiscretions privately and without fanfare, and when is it deemed unacceptable for a private political candidate to do the same with personal funds? Here’s the thing that’s got everyone scratching their heads: Trump’s stuck in this political circus over “hush money,” where they’re all too eager to drag him through the mud over what amounts to a flimsy misdemeanor at best.

Meanwhile, our elected officials are dipping into our tax dollars to clean up all their messes. Don’t forget revelations from a few years ago that Congress has its own secret slush fund of hush money—all courtesy of you, the hapless taxpayer. Funny how that works; it’s like one rule for them and another for everyone else.

Indeed, the Office of Congressional Compliance (OOC), which was set up to ensure compliance with the ludicrously named 1995 Congressional Accountability Act, controls a whole treasure chest of disputes involving congressional officials—not just congressional officials, in fact. You’ll be pleased to know that the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, and many other legislative groups get to wet their beaks in this slush fund as well. Recent reports have indicated that over $17 million has been used from this fund to take care of various “hush” projects on behalf of members of Congress and other agencies.

The most infamous sexual abuse case we do know about involves a now-deceased former high-falutin Democrat lawmaker from Michigan named John Conyers. This article is from 2017 and basically blew the lid off the secret “sexy slush fund.”

Mr. Conyers wasn’t paraded into court for using our tax dollars to quiet down a victim, was he? We’d love to do a little digging and see if any other lawmakers or federal employees got the same treatment as President Trump, but guess what? We don’t know the names of the federally employed folks who dipped into this congressional “hush money” honey pot.

What we’re witnessing in the United States is a prime example of peak corruption in action. Federal employees can get away with sexual assault left and right, and when they’re caught, the slush fund jumps into action to hush it up, no questions asked. And instead of these scumbags facing the music, it’s President Trump who’s under the microscope and being dragged through a sham political trial. (Read more: Revolver, 6/15/2024)

Alex Stamos (left); Stanford President Richard Saller (center); Renée DiResta (r) (Credit: Public/Substack)

Over the last 18 months, Public has extensively documented the mass censorship effort led by the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) for the United States government. Accounts vary, but either the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked SIO to lead the effort or SIO’s ostensible leader, Alex Stamos, proposed the idea.

The brains of the SIO operation was Renée DiResta, an ostensibly “former” CIA employee. Senate Democrats, the New York Times, and other news media close to the Intelligence Community (IC) heavily promoted DiResta starting in 2018, when she spread disinformation exaggerating the influence of Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. In 2020 and 2021, DiResta and SIO led a DHS effort that successfully pressured social media platforms to censor disfavored views of Covid and interfere in the 2020 elections.

Now, in a major victory for free speech advocates, SIO has decided not to renew its contracts with DiResta and Stamos, who have both left the organization. A blog called “Platformer,” which is sympathetic to SIO’s censorship efforts, reported yesterday that “the lab will not conduct research into the 2024 election or other elections in the future.”

Stanford cut funding from a donor named Frank McCourt to SIO. “While SIO still had other sources of funding,” reports Platformer, the McCourt funding decision was seen by some at SIO as a clear signal that Stanford had soured on its commitment to their work.” The announcement came just two days after DiResta published a book that spreads disinformation about her critics, including me. (Read more: Public/Substack, 6/14/2024)  (Archive)

Mark Zwoniker (Credit: Probe Media)

Through our lawsuit against the DOJ, we have the full interview transcript of Mark Zwonitzer, Joe Biden’s ghostwriter with whom he shared classified information after the end of the Obama Administration.

Read it here.

In 2016 and 2017, Biden enlisted the help of Mark Zwonitzer for his book Promise Me, Dad. Zwonitzer was the key witness for Special Counsel Hur. His recordings of Biden and his testimony proved, beyond any doubt, that Biden knowingly possessed shared classified information on numerous occasions. We’re limited on space, so for a more thorough overview of Hur’s findings, read our article on his report.

Now, for the first time, we’re able to share key excerpts from Zwonitzer’s interview. While some of this information was addressed in Hur’s report, the actual transcript provides important context and also new information that has yet to be disclosed. Here it is…

On Biden providing classified materials (or materials that were likely classified) from his journals as Vice President:

FBI: It’s interesting because we’ve listened to these recordings, it’s clear some of them you guys sit down for an hour and a half.

Zwonitzer: Yeah.

FBI: And all he’s doing is reading –

Zwonitzer: Yeah.

FBI: — Sometimes relatively – in a relatively monotone voice his journal to you. And you take it down verbatim.

Zwonitzer: Exactly, yeah.

Discussing Biden’s diaries and Biden’s worries that the material was classified:

FBI: Yeah, why does it stick in your head there? What can you tell us about that meeting?

Zwonitzer: Well I just remember there was some – I think that was the meeting where, you know, the notion of something classified actually came up.

FBI: Okay. Can you tell us about that?

Zwonitzer: So what I remember is that, what I remember is that he was reading me stuff from the diary and he made a reference that he needed to be careful because he was worried that there was a possibility that, you know, some of this stuff could be classified. So there were things, you know, there were things he couldn’t tell me, lines he couldn’t cross. And I think that was also the moment where he said, I think I found something downstairs.

FBI: That was classified.

Zwonitzer: That had classified markings on it. Yeah. And that was – you know, so that was just after they had left the White House and they were just getting into Chain Bridge Road here [Biden’s home].

On Biden finding classified documents in his home:

FBI: So on the 16^th – let’s go back to that meeting at Chain Bridge. You think you were probably, based on the recording that you listened to recently or the transcript you reviewed probably on the main floor in that hallway, library, den area at Chain Bridge Road. And during the conversation when you’re going through material, Biden talks about how I just found the classified.

Zwonitzer: Yeah.

…

FBI: Did Biden seem concerned when he, when he said that, that oh, like, there’s classified down there. I’d better take care of that? Or did he seem nonchalant about it?

Zwonitzer: Well, no, it was in a discussion of I need to be careful.

…

FBI: So I can understand when you’re in the moment with the vice president or former vice president and he mentioned something like, oh this part is classified or I found all these classified things downstairs, maybe you don’t want to discuss it then or maybe it doesn’t register for you at the time, but when you’re relistening to the audio and transcribing it and typing up words like classified at that point did it raise any flags for you or have any impact?

Zwonitzer: I guess it did not.

On Biden sharing his notes of classified information he reviewed at the Archives:

Zwonitzer:  So I think I was asking him [Biden] because he was going to review the notes, not from his diary but the official notes that were at the Archives. So he was going to the Archives to look at those notes.

…

Zwonitzer: I remember him reading the notes from the Obama lunches from what I thought came from the Archives, that he took notes.

…

Zwonitzer: I thought he was reading me from notes he had taken at the Archives.

…

FBI: Biden went to the Archives and took notes, did you receive or get to look at the notes he took while he was there by any chance?

Zwonitzer: Later. He read orally – read them to me orally – the notes he took from the Archives.

Biden admitting he possessed classified information:

FBI: So I guess that brings me to – there were a couple mentions in the transcripts where Biden mentions this might be classified, or this is classified, and he skips over parts of it; did you, did you have any understanding with Biden about what kind of things he could discuss with you and what kind of things he couldn’t? And to the similar question of what he says is classified, is that – is it your understanding that that’s National Security classified, or does that mean, you know, I just want this off the record?

Zwonitzer: I don’t – I mean, I don’t know… I just don’t have any strong memory of that.

Biden admitting he shared classified information:

FBI: There’s one recording where he says to you that – he – it – you kind of – he’s showing you something, and then he says that some of this may be classified, so be careful. Do you remember that instance?

Zwonitzer: I don’t.

Biden potentially sharing classified information – and telling Zwonitzer not to write it down:

FBI: Okay. There’s a line… where Biden says, don’t write this down. I think I’ve got to clear it. Does that sound familiar? Do you remember him saying that to you ever, or something like that?

Zwonitzer: It sounds familiar.

Biden keeping Presidential Records:

FBI: He said I – when you said that they’re probably in your presidential records, he said, I don’t think so. It was in between – I didn’t want to turn them in.

Zwonitzer: Mm-hmm.

FBI: Why didn’t he want to turn them in?

Zwonitzer: Oh, I have no idea. But – I just don’t know… but I know they ended up at the Archives, because that’s where he accessed them.

Biden possessing classified records from his time as a Senator:

FBI: He’s another one. It’s another Redweld. This is 1B18 Biden Info on Soviet Officials, and it’s labeled Redweld labeled, Information on Soviet Officials. It has kind of interesting material on the people, the leaders and other individuals he’d be meeting with during his trip to the Soviet Union.

Zwonitzer: Yep. Nope. Neverf saw any of this.

Biden’s sharing of potentially classified information concerning Biden’s role in Afghanistan:

Zwonitzer: So yes, without question we talked about it, I’m sure.

…

FBI: Mark, I want to ask you now, he’s – as he talks about the points he made about the troop surge, or the debate over the troop surge in Afghanistan, he says, I just found all the classified stuff downstairs. And I know we talked about this last time we met, but I want to ask you again just to, just to do it.

Zwonitzer: Okay.

FBI: I mean, having gone through that, can you tell us what you recall about this and what he was talking about during this clip?

Zwonitzer (after a brief discussion on Afghanistan): Well, you know, McChrystal was the general, I believe, who was fired for some pretty nasty remarks about Biden, if I remember right.

FBI: Mm-hmm. And so he’s saying he just found the classified stuff downstairs, and then he – it sounds like he’s describing what he found downstairs or the nature of the stuff he found, and this handwritten 40-page memorandum.

Zwonitzer: Mm-hmm.

On Zwonitzer helping Biden read his classified journals/diaries:

FBI: And in terms of the diaries I know he kind of had them literally close.

Zwonitzer: Yeah.

FBI: He would hold on to them, again they were personal.

Zwonitzer: Yeah. Right.

FBI: There’s at least a couple of times where he kind of asked you help him read?

Zwonitzer: Yes, Yeah. Can you make it this word? That I remember.

Explaining the Deletion of Records:

Zwonitzer: So I was very concerned about the possibility of being hacked. I was very concerned about the possibility of this audio spread all over the place. And the audio, my chief concern at the time – and I’ll explain the timing – was really, was a lot of personal and emotional stuff about Beau. And so this was – I simply took the audio files subfolder from both the G drive and my laptop and slid them into the trash. I saved all the transcripts and getting rid of the audio is something that’s not – it’s something I do as a, as a rule anyway. And I make it a point because, again, I’m not doing gotcha journalism, I’m not going for a quote for the next day. These are personal and private conversations and I never save that audio. I generally save transcripts but I haven’t over the years ever saved audio.

Zwonitzer (discussing the timing of deletion): So the best of my memory it was between the end of January and the end of February. [This was after Special Counsel Hur’s appointment.]

FBI: [The FBI] reached out to you. But after news of Biden being investigated for mishandling and having a special –

Zwonitzer: I was aware.

FBI: Okay. So I assume and I assume that that – the fact that a special counsel had been appointed and you have all these recordings was in your mind when you slid these documents over into the trash, which is okay. I mean it’s okay, but I just want to be clear –

Zwonitzer: I mean I was, I was aware of the special counsel investigation when that happened.

FBI: [The] investigation, [you] saw this happening and then deleted all these audio recordings. And I assume – and it’s okay, I just need the truth on this one, but there’s some truth in that, that was what was going on. That was part of your motivation, at least something you were aware of when you did this?

Zwonitzer: I’m not going to say how much of the percentage of it was my motivation. I was aware that there was an investigation.

….

FBI: Were you trying to obstruct our investigation or prevent Special Counsel or Department of Justice investigators from getting ahold of them?

Zwonitzer: No, I was not. And in fact, you know, when I got the subpoena and when I realized that I still had audio that I did not know I had on the laptop, I made sure to preserve that for this investigation.

The litigation continues for the recordings of Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Hur. More to come, hopefully… (The Reactionary/Techno Fog/6/13/2024)  (Archive)

(Credit: Vires Law Group website)

The Vires Law Group, in conjunction with the Edward L. Tarpley, Jr., APLC and bolstered by the support of the Former Feds Group Freedom Foundation, has announced the submission of criminal referral requests to the District Attorneys of nine Louisiana parishes.

The referrals call for the initiation of criminal investigations against Dr. Anthony Fauci, Deborah “Scarf Lady” Birx, Rochelle Walensky, Peter Daszak, and other public health officials for alleged crimes committed against Louisiana citizens preceding and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parishes of Caddo, East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, St. Tammany, Orleans, Lafayette, Lafouche, Tangipahoa, and Rapides are the focus of these 30-page criminal referrals, detailing accusations that have stunned the local communities, according to the press release.

Funded by contributions from entities like the Diamond Mind Foundation and the Fight Like A Flynn PAC, this legal action raises significant questions about the conduct of public health officials during one of the most devastating health crises of our time.

Attorneys Rodriguez, Miller, and Tarpley have requested that the District Attorneys refer these cases to Attorney General Liz Murrill for further investigation and potential charges.

These referrals are made on behalf of next-of-kin relatives of nine victims in Louisiana who have sought legal assistance in investigating the deaths of their loved ones.

Allegations include mismanagement of COVID-19 infections under hospital protocols, intentional suppression, and denial of life-saving treatments within Louisiana hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities.

The criminal referrals accuse Dr. Fauci, current and former federal officers, and hospital systems providing care within Louisiana of committing crimes as per Louisiana criminal code. The alleged crimes include:

• Terrorism – by Causing Intentional Killing or Infliction of Serious Bodily Injury (La. R.S.
14:128.1(A))
• First Degree Murder (La. R.S. 14:30)
• Second Degree Murder (La. R.S. 14:30.1)
• Manslaughter (La. R.S. 14:31(A)(3))
• Human Trafficking (La. R.S. 14:46.2)
• Prohibited Racketeering Acts (La. R.S. 15:1353)
• Cruelty to Persons with Infirmities (La. R.S. 14:93.3)
• False Imprisonment (La. R.S. 14:46)
• Second Degree Kidnapping (La. R.S. 14:44.1)
• Battery (La. R.S. 14:33)
• Simple Battery of Persons with Infirmities (La. R.S. 14:35.2)

(Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 6/14/2024)  (Archive)

This interview by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner is buckets of interesting and simultaneously very revealing.

Playing along with the big club intelligence game as framed by Margaret Brennan, HPSCI Chairman Turner showcases his weasel nature and alignment with the worst actors in the Intelligence Community from the outset.  Watch it closely and you will notice that Turner frames national intelligence activity as a political product.

Instead of telling Ms Brennan that it is impossible to hold a public hearing on terror threats because her President refuses to declassify the intelligence, thereby limiting conversation to only closed-door hearing discussion, Turner intentionally obfuscates to cloud the issue.

Then the bigger reveals start to happen as Ms. Brennan brings up the fabricated issues around Scott Perry and Ronny Jackson.  Brennan says Perry is under FBI investigation (Perry is not and Turner knows he is not), but Turner refuses to say that Perry is not under investigation.  Brennan then makes an outlandish claim of Representative Jackson taking perfectly legal medication to help him sleep.  Instead of quashing the ridiculous narrative, Turner plays along with the intent to hold leverage over Jackson (think blackmail).

Representative Mike Turner really is one of the worst members of congress.  I would rank Turner’s corrupt and Machiavellian status right next to SSCI Chairman Mark Warner.  Turner will defend the corrupt IC Deep State even more than Marco Rubio.  Remember, it was Turner who manufactured the letter of support for his FISA renewal strategy, falsely attributing supportive signatures of Devin Nunes and John Ratcliffe.

IF you are good at spotting corruption, WATCH between the lines and the Turner comments shout at you:

Welcome back to Face the Nation.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER (R-Ohio): Good morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Chair Turner, last week, as you know, there were federal immigration arrests of these eight individuals with suspected ties to ISIS. They were rounded up in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and New York.

They traveled from Central Asia, Tajikistan, across the southern border into the U.S. Do you have any indication that there is an act of terror plot?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, Margaret – I’m – your – I can neither confirm nor deny all the details that you’ve just reported.

But what’s important about these reports and what we’re seeing, especially in conjunction with Director Wray’s public statements that we are at the highest level of a possible terrorist threat, that the administration’s policies have absolutely – you know, directly related to threats to Americans.

These are no longer speculative, no longer hypothetical. And we have actual administration officials stepping forward. And, certainly, our committee and our committee members have concurred on the intelligence that we’re seeing, that, as a result of the administration’s policies allowing people to cross the border unvetted, we have terrorists that are actively working inside the United States that are a threat to Americans.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the issue, as we understand it from our reporting, is that there was vetting, but that the vetting didn’t turn up any derogatory information.

Doesn’t that indicate that there’s a broader problem with the system that Congress would also have to address?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, Margaret, as you know, there – there are those who are vetted and – and in the vetting process.

They – there is no evidence the United States currently has that they’re actively engaged in terrorist plotting or engaged with terrorist groups, organizations. And this administration, by their own policy, are then allowing those individuals in, instead of fully vetting them, fully understanding what the risk is to the United States, and for the fact that they’re letting them in, and there they are – they’re entering the United States through the southern border illegally.

And that’s what the threat is. That’s what Director Wray is identifying and is bringing forward. This administration’s policies are directly resulting in people who are in the United States illegally who have ties to terrorist groups and organizations, and this is a threat.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The U.S. has already been in a heightened threat environment.

But, this past week, our CBS colleague and the former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell wrote a piece in “Foreign Affairs” warning that the United States faces a serious threat of terrorist attack in the months ahead.

He called on Congressional Intelligence Committees, like the one you chair, to have public hearings with the director of national intelligence, the CIA, the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center. Will you commit to doing that?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, we have.

In fact, the testimony that you just played of Director Wray…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Public unclassified information from those individuals?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: The – the – the testimony that you just played of Director Wray was a result of the Intelligence Committees, including mine – Director Wray was testifying before my committee and said exactly the same thing publicly of the threat.

What we have done, and continue to do, and what this administration needs to be held to, is that they need to declassify the information of the terrorist threats that they’re seeing, so that there can be a public discourse concerning what the administration’s risk and threats are.

You know, this was notable and expected as a result of the Biden administration’s policy of an open southern border. And we are seeing it absolutely across the country. The – and my – my committee has been open, my members have been open…

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: … and publicly discussing this threat and pointing the finger directly at the administration’s policies.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, as you know, the administration points back at Congress, saying they asked for more authorities and Congress refused to act.

But I want to ask you about the Intelligence Committee. You’ve tried to keep it nonpartisan, as you’ve said on this program. Speaker Johnson, though, recently decided, as you know, to add two congressmen, Scott Perry and Dr. Ronny Jackson, to your committee, reportedly at the behest of Donald Trump.

One of your members, Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan, referred to Perry as a threat to intelligence oversight – quote – “He will be on the very committee that oversees the FBI while he is directly under investigation by this very agency.”

Do you think that is a disqualifying conflict of interest?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, being concerned, obviously, about that issue, and being the chairman, I contacted the I.C. to see whether or not there was an issue that, you know, in due diligence from our committee, that we needed to – to resolve or address.

They indicated that there was not an – a – an ongoing or continuing issue or even a current issue that we needed to address.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The FBI told you that?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: The issue, I think, here that’s most important – the I.C. told us that.

I think what’s very important here is that the speaker makes this appointment and then what he’s done since. The speaker has absolutely committed himself to these two individuals following the rules, not only the laws. Both of them have military experience. Both of them have had access to classified information before.

And there’s been no reports of any incidences of their handling – mishandling of classified information. The speaker has met with our committee, Republican members. He has spoken directly to Jim Himes. We’ve had a meeting with Mr. Perry, myself and the speaker, where all of these assurances have been made.

But the speaker has said this, that he’s going to continue to monitor the situation, if there’s any indication of anything improper happening, that he will intervene. And I believe the speaker will assert leadership here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And withdraw that nomination potentially?

Well, look, I – Scott Perry has come out and took aim at you, as you know, because he said, if he gets on this committee, he’ll conduct “actual oversight, not blind obedience to some facets of our intelligence community.”

And he claimed they’re spying on the American people. How do you respond to that?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, he has – he has apologized. And, certainly, those are – are the types of words that you would not want from somebody who’s joining a committee that is obviously very dedicated to national security and very dedicated to working in a bipartisan way.

I think that, upon him joining the committee, and looking at the work that both he gets to do and the work that we’re doing, that he’ll be absolutely satisfied that he can play a role to – in the work that we’re doing for national security.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, I – I understand you said you’ve – you received assurances about their ability to handle classified information that they’ll have access to.

But, as you know, Dr. Ronny Jackson was demoted by the Navy because a Pentagon inspector general report found that he had been taking sedatives while providing medical care to two U.S. presidents. That kind of compromising behavior would be disqualifying for most people when it comes to receiving a security clearance or having any access to the nation’s secrets.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: I’m aware of those reports.

I – as you have just indicated, though, they are unrelated to the handling of classified information. And, certainly, the individuals in his district believe that those issues are resolved. He presents himself to – to Congress with his military background.

And we’re going to be certainly working with the speaker and with Mr. Jackson so that – again, that he is a very productive member of our committee. And, if there are any incidences, the speaker has indicated that, as with Mr. Perry, that he will enforce our rules.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But there are – these seats could be filled by Republicans with national security backgrounds who don’t have these kinds of compromising situations over their heads.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: There certainly was a broad range of individuals who – who sought these seats.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You were with Donald Trump when he was on Capitol Hill this past week and he met with lawmakers.

Is it true, as Congressman Matt Gaetz claims, that Mr. Trump said “Ukrainians are never going to be there for us” and that he was trashing the Ukraine aid bill to Speaker Johnson’s face, which Gaetz said is – “so epic.”

Is that true? And did anyone push back?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: I don’t believe that the president – Trump did that. I was certainly present. He did raise issues of how the Ukraine issue is being handled.

I think there’s certainly enough criticism to go around the Ukrainians not being given the authority to use weapons inside Russia to hit targets that are hitting them. But I think, overall, what was important is that – that Trump was very focused on what his issues were as to why he was seeking the presidency and the changes in policies in the Biden administration.

Border was an issue. Energy was an issue. The economy, China and inflation were an issue, all ones where he had real, concrete things that the Biden administration did to reverse his policies that have resulted in negative consequences for our country that he intends to reverse back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will see if he stands by Ukraine, then, if he is elected.

Chair Turner, thank you for your time.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: I believe he – I believe he will. And – and, certainly, the – of the members who are strongly supporting Ukraine…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: … we certainly believe that he will, and it certainly is essential.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Chair Turner, thank you for your time this morning.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Thank you.

(Conservative Treehouse, 6/16/2024)  (Archive)

The FBI learned as far back as 2016 that Hunter Biden and his partners had plotted to set up a new venture in tax-friendly Liechtenstein that would be capitalized by a whopping $120 million investment from the controversial owner of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings, according to documents obtained by Just the News that have been kept from the American public for eight years.

The mega-deal was not referenced inside Hunter Biden’s now infamous laptop or during the 2019 impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine, but was instead chronicled in a trove of 3.39 million documents the FBI seized from Hunter Biden and his business partners during an investigation of securities fraud nearly a decade ago.

Devon Archer is reportedly in talks to speak about Joe and Hunter Biden’s alleged $10 million bribes. (Credit: Alec Tabak/New York Post)

The cache of documents was recently turned over by former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer to the House Oversight Committee as part of its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden’s conduct.

The new evidence shows the major investment plan was being built at the time when Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board of directors and Joe Biden was still serving as Barack Obama’s vice president in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy.

The memos state Hunter Biden was also supposed to serve on the board of the new company called Burnham Energy Security LLC, and it was going to be capitalized in 2015 by Burisma owner Nykola Zlochevsky, who at a time was trying to get out from under corruption allegations in his home country.

The Hunter Biden-connected Burnham entity was slated to get a quarter of the new venture’s net revenues without putting up any cash, according to recent testimony to Congress from one of the partners.

Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch, meanwhile was committed to “$120 Million over thirty-six (36) months to be invested in exploration and leasehold improvements” in the new venture designed to make Burisma a global energy leader, according to a prospectus for the project.

Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.

Hunter Biden’s “credibility” for venture

Zlochevsky’s top lieutenant, Vadym Pozharskyi, wrote in an August 2015 email that it was important to his boss for Hunter Biden to be involved with Burnham Energy.

“You mentioned to me that it’s also you and HB [Hunter Biden] who will be the founders of the Llc in Delaware. Cliff mentioned only yourself,” Pozharskyi wrote Archer in August 2015 in one email obtained by Just the News. “For credibility ‘Ukrainian’ purposes you both would be better.”

It is unclear exactly what Pozharskyi meant by “credibility,” but Just the News previously reported that Burisma saw Hunter Biden’s involvement on its board as a form of protection, especially from pressure by its own government, according to Archer’s testimony for the House impeachment inquiry.

Another partner, Jason Galanis, testified to Congress that he believed Archer and Biden were placed on the board to protect the company from Ukrainian investigations and prosecutions. (Read more: Just the News, 6/17/2024)  (Archive)

Robert Garry (Credit: CSpan screenshot)

Senators grilled a scientist involved in efforts to discredit the Covid-19 lab-leak theory for receiving millions in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing this week.

Robert Garry, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology and Associate Dean for Biomedical Sciences at Tulane Medical School, co-authored an article in 2020 that was cited thousands of times in research articles and news outlets to shut down and censor proponents of the so-called lab-leak theory.

“There is no lab leak scenario that can accommodate all the available scientific evidence,” Garry stated in the article published in Nature Medicine. Co-author Kristian Andersen, professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research, wrote in a February 2020 email that they were “focused on disproving any type of lab theory.”

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed Garry, asking, “How much have you received from government grants in your career?” Garry claimed he did not know. “I have information that between you and Dr. Kristian Andersen between 2020 and 2022 you received $25.2 million in grants from the NIH,” Johnson continued. Garry admitted “that’s possible.”

Richard H. Ebright, another witness at the hearing and Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, accused Garry of scientific misconduct.

“The misconduct of highest importance was stating conclusions the authors knew at the time were untrue,” said Ebright. “This is the most egregious form of scientific misconduct.”

Garry said he did not intend to mislead people and was simply using the scientific evidence to form his conclusions at the time. Because of the paper, however, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said innocent people were ridiculed for raising questions, often at great professional detriment.

Hawley asked, “Do you regret being part of this propaganda effort?”

“I was simply writing a paper about our scientific opinions about where this virus came from,” Garry said.

Scientists who were part of Biden’s COVID propaganda cabal keep trying to deflect blame for their actions.

Here’s the truth: Biden used their propaganda papers to censor scientists & anyone else who said COVID came from a lab. Sickening abuse of power pic.twitter.com/mfY8cOaDS8

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) June 18, 2024

“The reason why the American public does not trust scientists and the federal health agencies is because of people like you,” Johnson said. “You violated the public’s trust.”

Throughout his career, Garry has received approximately $60 million in government research funding and owns a vaccine company, which Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., argued represents a “conflict of interest.” (Read more: The Federalist, 6/19/2024) (Archive)

Sen. Rand Paul questions Anthony Fauci during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee about the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic on November 04, 2021. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The year millions of people were killed worldwide by a virus likely engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese scientists in Beijing began toying with a more deadly coronavirus variant called GX_P2V that killed humanized mice 100% of the time, largely with late-stage brain infections. While not formally linked, the study referenced parallel work executed by Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist Dr. Shi Zhengli.

In March, Chinese researchers at the Hebei Medical University revealed they had created a mutant version of the virus vesicular stomaitis, known to infect cattle, by giving it a protein from the Ebola virus. The hamster test subjects infected with the recombinant virus suffered weight loss, ulcerated eyes, inflammation, multi-organ failure, and then all died.

Apparently, the Pentagon has no idea to what extent it has bankrolled these kinds of potentially ruinous experiments in communist China.

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General released a partially redacted report Tuesday detailing the results of its efforts to track down the money the Pentagon has invested helping the communist Chinese enhance deadly pathogens.

The report made clear it was referring to gain-of-function experiments, referencing a definition published in the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, which states, “The term ‘gain-of-function’ means ‘to enhance a function by genetic manipulation’ or ‘to add a new function’ and applies to much research involving genetic recombination and genetic manipulation.”

The DOD Office of Inspector General sought specifically to track the amount of federal funds given either directly or indirectly by the Pentagon to:

• the communist regime itself;
• the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other organizations administered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
• Peter Daszak’s scandal-plagued and debarred EcoHealth Alliance, whose gain-of-function subcontractor was among the likely patients zero;
• the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences; and
• any other related lab in the Asian nation.

Of special concern was whether and where funds were spent on “research or experiments that could have reasonably resulted in the enhancement of any coronavirus, influenza, Nipah, Ebola, or other pathogen of pandemic potential or chimeric versions of such a virus or pathogen.”

The conclusions of the report were damning.

The Pentagon has admitted that it has no idea to what extent it has funded the creation of deadly viruses in an adversarial nation it has identified as its “top pacing challenge” — a country whose overall biorisk management score is less than stellar.

Attorney Marc Elias preps Aug. 3, 2016, before the hearing for his lawsuit against Arizona over voting rights. (Credit: David Jolkovski/Getty Images)

(…) Marc Elias has been involved in dozens of lawsuits to make it easier for Democrats to steal elections.

Then in 2022, Marc Elias told MSNBC that the results in the midterm elections would not be known for days. This is the line they use when you know Democrats are going for another steal.

In May, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in favor of a voter ID ballot initiative.

Now, Marc Elias is hoping to overturn a Nevada election law that forces election administrators to clean up the voter rolls.

Why would Marc Elias and the Democrats be against this?

The Federalist reported:

Bogus Russian dossier peddler and Democrat Party problem fixer Marc Elias has again injected himself into a key election integrity case to “defend the broken status quo.”

Swing-state Nevada’s dirty voter rolls include hundreds of suspect addresses, at bars, strip clubs, empty parking lots, and other commercial addresses, according to an investigation by the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Doing so is clearly against the law.

“In Nevada, by the state law, you are required to be registered where you actually live, where you sleep. Not where you work, not at a P.O. Box. So we’re trying to get elections officials to enforce the law,” Lauren Bis, PILF’s director of communication and engagement, says in a video tracking bad addresses in the Las Vegas area.

To that end, the foundation has filed a petition in Washoe County, Nevada’s second-most populous county, to force elections officials to investigate and fix commercial addresses on the voter roll. PILF investigators found addresses on the rolls reported as liquor stores, empty lots, and even the Nevada Gaming Control Board, among others.

Elias Law Group and a band of leftists have sought to intervene in PILF’s petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that forcing Washoe election administrators to follow the law and clean up the county’s dirty voter rolls will “threaten” voting rights.

For the record, Nevada is still a member of ERIC, a shady group linked to the left that is a blight on this country’s elections. (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 6/20/2024) (Archive)

/1🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨

New docs reveal DHS intel group proposed:

✔️Americans should report their neighbors to the feds

✔️Reclassifying political dissent under the guise of “public health” so that “mothers and teachers” feel comfortable coming forward #DeepStateDiaries PART 1: pic.twitter.com/oo5zP88uYo

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

/3 As part 1, newly obtained documents reveal that the advisory committee that included John Brennan and James Clapper discussed ways for DHS to increase efforts to collect intelligence on Americans across the country, including attempting to “get into local communities in a…

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

/5 However, during that September meeting, the Group held a discussion on “Collection Posture and Associated Challenges,” where a Group member (likely someone from DHS) complained that there was “no mandate for state land local partners” to collect information which resulted in… pic.twitter.com/WSCtr6n9tS

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

/7 However, DHS has very limited authority to engage in intelligence collection, constrained by the Constitution and federal law. pic.twitter.com/4jap1JC9Mv

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

/9 The next speaker replied by asking if there was “an ambiguous approach” to getting into communities to gather information.

This particular speaker lamented that DHS did not have a broad enough reach into communities.

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

/11 The very next speaker proposed another solution: reclassify “concerning” behavior into the “public health catcher’s mitt” so that “mother[s] and teacher[s]” feel comfortable coming forward. pic.twitter.com/qQa40k0g5p

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

/13 The Group highlighted Denver’s “behavioral analysis response” as a potential solution and an “ambiguous approach.” pic.twitter.com/T1tYnSnbkt

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

/15 To which someone (presumably from) DHS replied: pic.twitter.com/0lAeSB1za1

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

/16 Stay tuned for the next installment of #DeepStateDiaries

Read more here: https://t.co/lTrSVMUM07

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 20, 2024

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced Thursday he will be filing a lawsuit against the State of New York for alleged election interference over former President Trump’s hush money trial.

Bailey is arguing that the case was brought against the 45th president to smear him ahead of the 2024 election.

“I will be filing suit against the State of New York for their direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump. It’s time to restore the rule of law,” he announced on X.

“We have to fight back against a rogue prosecutor who is trying to take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail. It sabotages Missourians’ right to a free and fair election,” he added. “Stay tuned.” (Townhall, 6/21/2024) (Archive)

(Credit: Adobe Stock Images / Gorodenkoff)

Today, America First Legal (AFL) is releasing the second tranche of internal files from the “Homeland Intelligence Experts Group,” obtained exclusively through AFL’s litigation with Ambassador Ric Grenell against the Biden Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This is the second installment of #DeepStateDiaries, a multi-part series of releases including newly obtained documents.

Yesterday, AFL released documents showing how the Deep State’s DHS intel group proposed expanding DHS’s reach into local communities in an “ambiguous” and “non-threatening” way and contemplating ways to get teachers and mothers to report their children.

Today’s installment exposes how the Biden Administration classifies someone as a person likely to commit “domestic violent extremist” attacks, particularly those who support President Trump, are “in the military,” or are “religious.”

Under the Brennan-Clapper committee’s approach to national security, when all else fails, DHS should use being “in the military” or “religious” to profile people and tag them as having  “indicators of extremists and terrorism” as a pretext to allow DHS to spy on them. According to the Group, “we should be more worried about these.”

The group went on to discuss how “most of the Domestic Terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president,” i.e., Trump supporters.

Read the first installment of #DeepStateDiaries here.

(America First Legal, 6/21/2024)  (Archive)

The left-leaning fact-checking website Snopes acknowledged Saturday that former President Trump never called neo-Nazis “very fine people” during his press conference following the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally in 2017.

Snopes, 6/21/2024

Critics of Trump have claimed for years that he equated neo-Nazis with counterprotesters following the event. President Biden was chief among those critics, citing the supposed incident as a main reason for launching his 2020 campaign.

“While Trump did say that there were ‘very fine people on both sides,’ he also specifically noted that he was not talking about neo-Nazis and White supremacists and said they should be ‘condemned totally.’ Therefore, we have rated this claim ‘False,'” Snopes wrote.

The Snopes fact check now aligns with years of arguments from Trump’s camp, who long stated, backed by transcript and video, that his comments were taken out of context. The fact-checker notes that the false claim about Trump’s comments “spread like wildfire” on the left, eventually being cited as a cornerstone of Biden’s election campaign.

When Biden released his 2020 campaign announcement video, the first words he said in it were “Charlottesville, Virginia.”

“The president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it,” Biden claimed in the video. “And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I’d ever seen in my lifetime.”

Snopes’ ruling removes key ammunition from Biden’s arsenal just days before he and Trump are scheduled to meet in their first debate this week. (Read more: Fox News, 6/23/2024)  (Archive)

In advance of Monday’s hearing on Jack Smith’s latest proposed partial gag order on Trump, the special counsel last night filed another hyperbolic brief filled with unsubstantiated claims of bodily threats to law enforcement in docs case.

Note how Smith says “this Court.” He… pic.twitter.com/fA1DQCihVV

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 22, 2024

Full text:

In advance of Monday’s hearing on Jack Smith’s latest proposed partial gag order on Trump, the special counsel last night filed another hyperbolic brief filled with unsubstantiated claims of bodily threats to law enforcement in docs case.

Note how Smith says “this Court.” He thinks Cannon won’t know about the similar gag order he sought (and received) from Judge Chutkan in DC.

In that proposal, he asked Chutkan to ban Trump from publicly criticizing HIM and others in special counsel’s office.

Chutkan granted—DC appellate court later reversed the part of her order covering Jack Smith, basically saying he’s a public official and should be able to take some criticism lol

As I explain here, Smith’s gag order is an attempt to cover up the reckless, sloppy, dirty FBI docs investigation and dangerous raid of MAL.

Can’t wait to hear what Judge Cannon has to say on Monday…https://t.co/niTiG1z5Q6

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 22, 2024

To tie Trump to Shiffer’s “attack” on FBI office, Jack Smith cited this post as an exhibit in latest gag order motion: pic.twitter.com/yLHsPJxcCm

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 22, 2024

(Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, Alex Brandon/ AP)

On Wednesday 6/19/2024, Bannon responded to a speech Paul Ryan made that was critical of Trump’s character and why he couldn’t support his candidacy for president.

On Saturday 6/22/2024, former Trump official Kash Patel joined Steve Bannon on The War Room to discuss his latest blockbuster report on Paul Ryan.

According to Kash Patel, Paul Ryan was the first to receive a copy of the bogus Steele Dossier back in 2016. And Paul Ryan hid this from investigators, his Republican colleagues, and Trump officials.

Kash Patel posted this on Truth Social on Thursday 6/20/2024:

Kash Patel: Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House had in his possession the Steele Dossier before he had [Devin Nunes] and I launch Russia Gate Investigation, and never told us(think, before anyone knew anything about fake intel, he had his own copy). I found it on my own then blew up FBI/DOJ. Why didnt he tell his own damn team? Report that fake news.

From Kash on The War Room 6/22/2024:

Kash Patel: Remember in 2016, let’s rewind the tape. It was Russia collusion, Russia collusion, Russia collusion. Then Speaker Paul Ryan enlisted me and Devin Nunez to investigate the Russia collusion.

Nobody knew what the Steele dossier was in 2016. They had already gone to the federal court and unlawfully surveilled Donald Trump with it. But we didn’t find out until after we completed our investigation in 2018, was that the speaker, Paul Ryan, who charged us with investigating Russiagate, was the first guy to ever get a copy of the Steele dossier in 2016.

He never told us. He still never admitted it. It finally was admitted in a British court where Christopher Steele was being sued. Just think about it, Steve. We could have asked, Where did you get it? Who did you get it from? How was it paid for? All of these secrets could have come out under this man’s very investigation, but he rigged it from the beginning.

So I’m done listening to lectures about the new conservative brand that is Paul Ryan, and anytime he wants to debate me, I’m all in. He charged us with an investigation that he rigged because he didn’t want Donald Trump to succeed. He kneecapped him from the beginning. That guy’s talking about not going to the RNC. No one wants him there. He’s so arrogant. He doesn’t understand the simple fact that we put out the truth.

Steve Bannon:  Are you telling me and telling this audience in a British court filing that Steele filed under penalty of perjury, he identified that Paul Ryan actually had the Steele dossier before he charged you guys, House Intel, to look into this, and he never informed Devin Nunez, the chairman of that? That’s impossible to believe. Are you sure about this?

Kash Patel: 100% accurate. The Steele dossier was handed to Paul Ryan’s Chief of Staff in 2016. They put out a mealy-mouth of retreat to it, response to it, which basically said, ‘Oh, we didn’t get it from Christopher Steele directly. They admitted it in court that they had a copy the entire time, and they didn’t tell us in 2016, they didn’t tell us in 2017, they didn’t tell us in 2018.

The quintessential piece of evidence which was exposed because I went to DOJ and got the FISA, which the Steele dossier was an entire part of, and Paul Ryan was the one that fought us tooth and nail, and remember, on declassifying it. Now we know why. He had it for sure. He is a total coward.

(Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 6/22/2024)  (Archive)

UPDATE 6/24/2024

CNN and the entire left are so terrified of free speech, it’s almost beyond belief. They will go to unreal lengths to control the narrative and silence anyone who dares to challenge the progressive storyline or call out—and even mock—the so-called leaders on the left. That’s exactly why, with the highly anticipated upcoming debate, the regime-run media hacks at CNN are desperate to control the narrative. This includes censoring right-wing accounts that might clip parts of the debate to share on social media. CNN has even threatened to go after any accounts that do this by citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which was created to protect copyright holders from online piracy. The law was passed in the late ’90s and is what CNN is wielding as a weapon to prevent any “undesirable” clips—like Biden’s lies, flubs, and blunders—from going viral.

Popular podcaster Tim Pool, who plans to live stream the debate, called attention to CNN’s threats in a post on X.

CNN is now threatening any social channels that provide commentary on the debate stating they will not allow the use outside of CNN

Commentary on a presidential debate is the epitome of fair use and we fully intend to provide insight and real time fact checking Thursday LIVE

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 24, 2024

This latest desperate move by CNN shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, when legitimately questioned about their extreme and radical anti-Trump agenda, instead of responding, host Kasie Hunt just cut Team Trump’s feed. Real professional, right? Once again, this is CNN stifling free speech and running cover for the regime, and at this point, they’re not even trying to hide it.

BREAKING: CNN host Kasie Hunt CUTS OFF Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt the second she brings up Jake Tapper spending years comparing Trump to Ado*lf Hit*ler

This is a preview of how CNN will act during the debate.

Shared from [JP on X] pic.twitter.com/zuGJj5HgO5

— Bruce Snyder (@realBruceSnyder) June 24, 2024

Actually, we just published an article on this topic, where Glenn Greenwald had a very interesting take on the exchange between Hunt and Team Trump that exemplifies just how trashy our propaganda media truly is:

RELATED: Glenn Greenwald reveals critical moment from CNN’s ‘feed cut’ that truly personifies what trash our media is…

Thankfully, Tim Pool thought CNN’s latest episode of mass censorship was important enough to flag for Elon Musk. Elon was quick to respond and promptly crushed CNN’s hopes of using the 1998 law to silence conservatives. According to Musk, the DMCA doesn’t apply in this context and will not be enforced on X.

Boom!

The public has a right to see Presidential debates however they would like. DMCA does not apply.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 25, 2024

(Read more: Revolver News, 6/25/2024) (Archive)

America First Legal logo and X header

Today, following its victory in disbanding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “Homeland Intelligence Experts Group,” America First Legal (AFL) is releasing the third tranche of the group’s internal meeting notes, exclusively obtained from litigation. This is the third installment of #DeepStateDiaries, a multi-part series of releases including newly obtained documents.

Today’s installment shows how the Biden administration’s allies on the Brennan-Clapper committee discussed using January 6 and the manufactured raid at Mar-a-Lago to justify further targeting and surveillance of political dissent.

January 6 as a catalyst for expanding surveillance:

One group member noted that “prior to January 6th” (i.e., under the Trump administration), analysts thought that “it was inappropriate to collect” intelligence on Americans. Following January 6, however, they observed that there had been a change in collection and reporting methods.

The documents indicate that under the Biden Administration, the federal government has used January 6 to justify expanding efforts to collect intelligence on what they deem “DVE” or “Domestic Violent Extremists.” As the second installment of the #DeepStateDiaries showed, DVE is the group’s term for people who are “religious,” “in the military,” or support President Trump.

The Brennan-Clapper-led group discussed “collection based on sites where they expect to see indicators,” suggesting that the federal government sought to monitor sites they viewed as “domestic extremism threats.”

Notably, one group member asked, “When you are looking at speech online, how do you know if it is serious? Political? Hyperbole?” The Biden Administration’s historical approach, as evidenced by these documents and the Department of Justice’s sentencing of Douglass Mackey to 7 months in prison for posting memes ahead of the 2016 election, is that speech online should be considered “serious” only when it comes from conservatives.

As another data point, later in the conversation, someone else again mentioned how “efforts to collect” intelligence have noticeably changed post-January 6.

As another data point, later in the conversation, someone else again mentioned how “efforts to collect” intelligence have noticeably changed post-January 6.

And yet another participant noted that the “support” for the “mission set” has changed post-January 6 at the “departmental” level and has “become political.”

The translation is that the committee appears to have been interested in DHS using the DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis to push the bounds on activity—traditionally thought to be off limits—and is using January 6 as the excuse to do it.

The following statement, from an unknown Group member, sheds some light on where that political support is coming from. Recall that this Group was full of security state officials who aligned themselves with the political left (98% of the political contributions from the Group members went to Democratic candidates for office, whereas 1% went to Republican candidates for office).

This Group Member went so far as to encourage I&A to lean into using practices that 1) even the FBI says it does not have the authority to do, 2) the Senate has refused to give to any law enforcement agency, and 3) Members of Congress generally oppose. But in the name of getting “actionable intelligence,” the Brennan-Clapper-led group urges I&A to ramp up “collection” on “U.S. Persons” without a “foreign nexus” and “trade authorities for civil liberties.” Click here for pages on this matter.

Disturbingly, the group went on to discuss that around January 6, the “FBI testified that they were limited with what they could do with social media,” but that “action reporting” post-January 6 may have changed. This suggests that the group was planning to potentially advise DHS to ramp up efforts to monitor political dissent on social media.

Using the raid at Mar-a-Lago as a catalyst to expand activity:

The group also discussed using the fabricated and illegal raid on President Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago – where the FBI staged photographs to manufacture incriminating evidence – to justify its expanded activities. With respect to Mar-a-Lago, one Group member said there was “reason to be concerned about a violent reaction” after the raid.

The group also discussed whether this is “politically driven or in [their] mission space,” and one group member noted they should be aware of the “public optics” of this activity.

In considering threats of “violence,” the group also discussed a hypothetical scenario in which “there is a shooting with 12 injured” and whether that would require a national response from DHS and if it falls into a “domestic violent extremism” category.

Just last week, 5 people were killed and 8 were wounded in Chicago, and in Washington, D.C., 4 people were shot. Yet, the Brennan-Clapper does not appear to be concerned with addressing the rampant rising crime and violence in American cities; it is only when they can attribute violence to political opposition that they label violence as domestic extremism.

These documents, obtained exclusively by AFL through litigation against DHS, prove there is a pronounced difference between how I&A operated (collected and reported intelligence for DHS) before and after January 6. They demonstrate how the standards followed under the Trump administration to respect Constitutional rights and civil liberties are apparently no longer followed under the Biden administration.

Stay tuned for the next installment of #DeepStateDiaries…

In the first installment, AFL released documents showing how the group proposed expanding DHS’s reach into local communities in an “ambiguous” and “non-threatening” way and contemplating ways to get teachers and mothers to report their children.

In the second installment, AFL showed how the Biden Administration proposed using military, religious, and even political (Trump supporters) affiliations to tag Americans as prone to committing violent attacks.

Follow us on social media for the latest updates on America First Legal’s fight to protect your constitutional rights! (America First Legal, 6/24/2024)  (Archive)

U.S. Postal Service logo 1970-1993

According to The Washington Post, the US Postal Service has been giving information about thousands of Americans’ letters and packages to law enforcement every year for at least ten years.

The postal service provides law enforcement with the names, addresses, and other details from the outside of boxes and envelopes without a court order.

The Washington Post, in response to a congressional probe, looked at a decade’s worth of records. Postal Service officials have received more than 60,000 requests from federal agents and police since 2015 and they rarely say no.

Postal inspectors recorded more than 312,000 letters and packages between 2015 and 2023.

It doesn’t matter if it was 100,000, or 300,000, or ten million. The government has no right to do this.

(Read more: Independent Sentinel, 6/24/2024)  (Archive)

This photo has graced our FB group page for the past eight years. Many people mistakenly believed Wikileaks released the Clinton emails. The State Department originally released them in a jumbled mess and Wikileaks reformatted the file to make them easier to research.  (Credit: Cheri Johnson/Graphic Artist and Timeline research team member)

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in which he will plead guilty to a conspiracy charge, allowing him to avoid extradition to the United States and walk free in lieu of time already served behind bars, according to court documents.

The plea agreement, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth of the United States in the western Pacific Ocean, indicates that Mr. Assange was charged with one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information.

A letter from a DOJ official to Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shows that Mr. Assange is set to make a court appearance in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands, on the morning of June 26. During that court appearance, Mr. Assange is expected to enter a guilty plea to the charge.

The DOJ official—Matthew J. McKenzie, deputy chief of the counterintelligence and export control section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division—wrote in the letter that Mr. Assange would be returned to his home country of Australia after entering the plea.

New information released by the House Judiciary Committee shows CIA contractors colluded with the Biden campaign to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop.

In October of 2020 – just days before the presidential election – 51 former intelligence officials signed and published a letter that baselessly decried the contents of Hunter’s ‘laptop from hell’ had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

This was a lie.  They all knew it was a lie. The fake news media ran with the story anyway.

High ranking CIA officials, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the Hunter Biden statement prior to its approval and publication. Because several former senior intelligence officials signed the statement, the PCRB sent the draft statement to the CIA’s then-Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis, who said he subsequently informed then-Director Haspel or then Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop that the statement would be published soon. Senior CIA leadership had an opportunity at that time to slow down the CIA’s process for reviewing publication submissions and ensure that such an extraordinary statement was properly vetted.

Some of the statement’s signatories, including Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time of the Hunter Biden statement’s publication. Throughout the course of the Committees’ investigation, the signatories claimed to not have had access to any classified information when asserting that the allegations surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. However, at the time of the statement’s publication, at least two signatories—Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were on the CIA’s payroll as contractors. Due to purported operational concerns, the CIA declined to declassify the entire universe of signatories who were on active contract. In addition, some signatories to the Hunter Biden statement also had special “Green Card” access to the CIA at the time of the statement’s publication, allowing them to gain entry to secure CIA facilities.

After publication of the Hunter Biden statement, CIA employees internally expressed concern about the statement’s politicized content, acknowledging it was not “helpful to the Agency in the long run.” At least one employee found it “[i]nteresting to see what was submitted and approved” when discussing media talking points that the statement’s co author, former Senior Intelligence Service Officer Marc Polymeropoulos, submitted related to the statement. When discussing Polymeropoulos’s talking points, another CIA official stated, “It appears [Polymeropoulos] is actively involved in a pro-Biden campaign and may be disclosing classified information in his efforts.” The CIA’s internal review board, known as the Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB), determined that Polymeropoulos’s talking points contained classified information that had to be removed prior to publication.

“The new information included in this report, based on new testimony and declassified documents, shows the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community. In the waning days before the 2020 presidential election, 51 intelligence community officials rushed to draft and release a statement using their official titles, presumably to convey access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. The statement was conceived following a conversation with a senior Biden campaign official and designed explicitly to provide talking points to the Biden campaign to discredit politically damaging allegations. Some of the signatories of the statement were on the CIA payroll at the time as contractors and others had special access to CIA facilities. Even Michael Morell—before the Committees learned of his contract with the CIA—acknowledged, “It’s inappropriate for a currently serving staff officer or contractor to be involved in the political process,” the House Judiciary Committee said. (The Gateway Pundit, 6/25/2024)  (Archive)

🚨 MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: New Information Shows CIA Contractors Colluded with the Biden Campaign to Discredit Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Read our latest report: https://t.co/nzZTNWwvUo pic.twitter.com/NPC2vhApZZ

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 25, 2024

“The House Intelligence Committee’s work provided us with solid direct evidence that in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to falsely cast doubt on an explosive New York Post story and label…

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 25, 2024

The highest officials within the CIA were aware of the statement prior to its publication. CIA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis testified that he informed Director Gina Haspel or Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about its impending release. This sequence of…

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 25, 2024

/1🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨

Biden’s DHS intel group uses the phrase “quietly making democracy work” to describe their mission of combatting the “domestic terror threat” of Trump supporters in order to “rebuild faith in the federal government.”#DeepStateDiaries PART 4: pic.twitter.com/5U2yw4JaFW

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 25, 2024

/3 Today’s release shows how the Brennan-Clapper intel committee admits the existence of a Deep State that works “quietly” to “make democracy work” in the face of “domestic terrorism threats,” or in their eyes – “supporters of the former president.”

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 25, 2024

/5 Against the backdrop of claiming that “Domestic Terrorism” only comes from supporters of former President Trump, the Group revealed the existence and mindset of the Deep State: thwarting the will of the American people through their elected representatives by. pic.twitter.com/fEtRoOgqrf

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 25, 2024

/7 Stay tuned for the next installment of #DeepStateDiaries… https://t.co/aC5p9RV73F

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 25, 2024

How can CNN debate moderator Dana Bash be impartial questioning Trump, she was married to Trump-bashing Russiagate conspiracist, Biden donor and Brennan aide JEREMY BASH who signed 2020 intel statement falsely insisting Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation. pic.twitter.com/xJGhML5E2g

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) June 25, 2024

Reminder: CNN debate moderator Dana Bash’s husband, Jeremy Bash, was one of the 51 IC members who signed onto the infamous Hunter Biden hoax letter pic.twitter.com/NZ8oVVCUoH

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) June 25, 2024

Robert Mueller is sworn in on July 24, 2019 before his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Credit: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

In 2007, Orlando residents were furious to discover that an FBI informant had organized a neo-Nazi rally through one of the city’s mostly black neighborhoods a year earlier.

“To come into a predominantly black community, which could have resulted in great harm to the black community? I would hate to be part of a game,” Orlando City Councilwoman Daisy Lynum said at the time, calling for a “full-scale investigation” into the matter.

However, an FBI agent testified that his informant participated in the event, but didn’t organize it. The city’s uproar passed without a public investigation, full-scale or otherwise—until now.

Thanks to a trove of previously unpublicized law enforcement records and interviews with several players involved, Headline USA can reveal that the Orlando neo-Nazi rally was indeed organized by the FBI. The Orlando event also seems to have been part of a larger program to hold Nazi rallies across the country. And according to FBI records, the bureau sponsored those events despite knowing they led to an increase in the number of card-carrying Nazis in America.

Moreover, the FBI’s Nazi rallies led to a much larger operation to target right-wing groups. Dubbed “Primitive Affliction,” the operation featured a motorcycle front group, rogue undercover agents, Outlaw bikers, Satanists, bomb-makers and a fugitive on the lam in Mexico.

To top it off, the FBI’s Nazi operation was briefed to the highest levels of the bureau, including to then-Director Robert Mueller, according to at least one record unearthed by this publication.

Little has been written about Primitive Affliction outside of the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center—biased groups that trained agents in the case, according to the newly revealed records.

But despite the lack of publicity, Primitive Affliction covers a crucial time in right-wing extremist history. It began where the FBI’s 1990s-era cases against the Aryan Nations trailed off, and it helped shape the neo-Nazi groups that would march at the 2017 deadly Charlottesville Unite the Right rally—an event that inspired Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential candidacy.

Along with big-picture history, the records from Primitive Affliction reveal malfeasance by FBI agents and officers who today hold higher positions at the bureau.

The FBI declined to comment. Mueller didn’t respond to an email about Primitive Affliction.

Fabricating Fascists

Former FBI operative David Gletty, at his east Orlando home, talks about being outted by the Orlando Sentinel from his undercover role in a neo-nazi group in 2007, Thursday, February 17, 2022. (Credit: Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel)

About a year after the 2006 Orlando neo-Nazi rally, the FBI source who organized the event, David Gletty, had his cover blown in open court. When the Orlando Sentinel reported that Gletty organized the march, his handler reportedly denied the accusation—saying that the informant marched, but didn’t lead the rally.

But Gletty told this publication a different story. He said the FBI instructed him to organize the rally for two main purposes: to raise Gletty’s profile in the neo-Nazi movement, and to allow the FBI to conduct surveillance of the Nazis who attended the rally.

In fact, Gletty told this publication the FBI was staging Nazi rallies across the country with the similar goals in mind: to raise the profiles of their own informants while building a database of Nazis to track.

“At the time, the FBI just before that was having me put on Nazi protests, and there were Nazi protests that were handled by the FBI, and operatives like myself.” pic.twitter.com/JuBNz4LoV8

— Ken Silva (@JD_Cashless) June 25, 2024

(Read more: HeadlineUSA, 6/26/2024)  (Archive)

EXCLUSIVE: The Hidden History of Robert Mueller’s Right-Wing Terror Factory—Part 2

(Credit: Revolver News)

(…) We at Revolver News have been enthusiastic supporters of Assange from the beginning—see, for instance, the interview we did with Assange’s fiancee here. We welcome his freedom, but of course we find it a shame that it happened this late and find the regime’s manner of saving face by forcing Assange to plea guilty to the sham conspiracy to obtain and disclose classified information in exchange for crediting Assange for his time served in Belmarsh. Many others, such as Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald, celebrated Assange’s release. Not everyone, of course, was happy. Among those who publicly registered their disapproval of Assange’s newfound freedom were none other than the goober traitor Mike Pence.

Julian Assange endangered the lives of our troops in a time of war and should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Biden administration’s plea deal with Assange is a miscarriage of justice and dishonors the service and sacrifice of the men and women of our…

— Mike Pence (@Mike_Pence) June 25, 2024

It might come as a surprise to some that a former Trump administration official, let alone Trump’s vice president, should come out so publicly against Assange. After all, didn’t Wikileaks’ exposure of Democrat corruption help Trump win in 2016?

From a broader perspective, Assange and Wikileaks’ history of exposing the crimes of the national security state, in particular the War on Terror, would seem to consort ideologically with Trump, who bravely and famously defeated the Bushes and the Clintons in one of the biggest embarrassments to the establishment in 2016. The answer here is complicated. While Trump’s anti-establishment energy certainly synergized with the efforts of Wikileaks, the very same deep state elements that took every step to undermine Trump, of course, went after Assange. Trump may have been nominally in charge of the national security bureaucracies and Justice Department, but this never stopped the bureaucracies from working tirelessly to undermine his presidency. It should come as no surprise then that the same national security bureaucracy that opposed Trump while Trump was president should have gone ahead with the indictment of Assange. Most disturbingly, there have been credible reports that Trump’s own Secretary of State secretly plotted to have Assange assassinated.

That Pompeo has always been bad news, of course, should come as no surprise to regular Revolver readers. See, for instance, our classic piece here or our interview with Trump on Pompeo here.

After a long pause, Trump admits Pompeo blocked release of JFK files

He’s the deep state’s con artist formerly known as “fat mike” pic.twitter.com/7z1DV25MN3

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) March 16, 2023

It is worth revisiting some of the reasons the establishment and deep state hate Assange so much.

Assange Exposed the Deep State and Hillary Clinton’s Criminal Policy in Syria

In the 2016 election, one of the many fundamental differences separating Trump from Clinton was foreign policy. As Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was directly involved in some of the worst foreign policy disasters since Bush’s Iraq War—for instance, Clinton’s notorious involvement in ruining Libya. A particularly hot-button geopolitical issue at the time was Syria, in which the deep state was desperate for another regime change operation to topple Bashar Assad. Many who analyzed the situation at the time noted that the United States seemed to be in a very uncomfortable alliance with the so-called “Sunni rebels,” which included radical Sunni elements and, reportedly, ISIS. There was a dark logic to it—ISIS was Assad’s enemy, so we should support them, however surreptitiously.

What was clear to keen geopolitical observers became indisputable when Wikileaks leaked an email involving Hillary Clinton in which a State Department official casually let it slip that “Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria.”

“[al-Quada] is on our side in Syria”–email from policy advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Feb 2012) https://t.co/Jq5FDgD2hr pic.twitter.com/k6hIk68nvC

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 12, 2017

Thankfully, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary, he pivoted away from US support for the Sunni rebels, Al Qaeda, and ISIS, and sure enough, this led to the fall of the ISIS caliphate in Syria.

Assange Exposed Early On the Dark Side of Big Tech

If you read one thing by Julian Assange, it must be his hilarious, incisive, and insightful assessment of big tech called “Google Is Not What It Seems.” Keep in mind that this piece was written in 2011, far before the problem of Big Tech censorship was widely understood, much less the dynamic that the censorship tools and approach were repurposed from psychological warfare tools Big Tech brought to the Arab Spring and other foreign conflicts, courtesy of former State Department Official and Google’s Censorship Architect Jared Cohen.

To get a sense of Assange’s humor and keen perception of human character, take a glance at the following two paragraphs describing his impressions of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, respectively.

Julian Assange via Newsweek:

For a man of systematic intelligence, Schmidt’s politics—such as I could hear from our discussion—were surprisingly conventional, even banal. He grasped structural relationships quickly, but struggled to verbalize many of them, often shoehorning geopolitical subtleties into Silicon Valley marketese or the ossified State Department micro-language of his companions. He was at his best when he was speaking (perhaps without realizing it) as an engineer, breaking down complexities into their orthogonal components.

I found Cohen a good listener, but a less interesting thinker, possessed of that relentless conviviality that routinely afflicts career generalists and Rhodes Scholars. As you would expect from his foreign-policy background, Cohen had a knowledge of international flash points and conflicts and moved rapidly between them, detailing different scenarios to test my assertions. But it sometimes felt as if he was riffing on orthodoxies in a way that was designed to impress his former colleagues in official Washington.

The following paragraphs capture early and perfectly the emerging role of Big Tech as a key tool of the national security state and empire.

But as Google Ideas shows, the company’s “philanthropic” efforts, too, bring it uncomfortably close to the imperial side of U.S. influence. If Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi was running a program like Google Ideas, it would draw intense critical scrutiny. But somehow Google gets a free pass.

Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and Internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend Internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the Internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history.

If the future of the Internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union and even in Europe—for whom the Internet embodies the promise of an alternative to U.S. cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony.

A “don’t be evil” empire is still an empire.

Read the full piece from Assange, published at Newsweek, here.

Assange Humiliated the Military-Industrial Complex 

Assange famously called out the sad reality that the goals of our foreign wars are not to be successful but to be endless and thereby continue to fill the coffers of our security elite.

Take, for instance, the following iconic (and representative) clip:

Today is a good day to remember this video, which encapsulates in less than 30 seconds exactly why the American government had to destroy Julian Assange’s life and health. They’ve done that and they didn’t even need to imprison him in the US. pic.twitter.com/AKFSlYxo0q

— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) June 25, 2024

It is a sad irony that just as Assange is freed, we face the very real prospect that President Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for 2024, may in fact face jail time for what amounts to the same crime: embarrassing the corrupt ruling class of the United States. We will continue to follow Assange’s case with interest and congratulate him and his family on his newfound freedom. (Read more: Revolver News, 6/26/2024)  (Archive)

James Clapper (Credit: public domain)

“Just before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton faced off in their second presidential debate, then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper met in the White House with a small group of advisers to President Obama to hatch a plan to put out a first-of-its-kind intelligence report warning the voting public that “the Russian government” was interfering in the election by allegedly breaching the Clinton campaign’s email system.

On Oct. 7, 2016 – just two days before the presidential debate between Trump and Clinton – Clapper issued the unprecedented intelligence advisory with Obama’s personal blessing. It seemed to lend credence to what the Clinton camp was telling the media — that Trump was working with Russian President Vladimir Putin through a secret back channel to steal the election. Sure enough, the Democratic nominee pounced on it to smear Trump at the debate.

And that wouldn’t be the only historically consequential maneuver for Clapper, whose role in skewing presidential campaigns might deserve a special place in the annals of nefarious election meddling – by, in this case, a domestic, not foreign, intelligence service.

In 2020, he was the lead signatory on the “intelligence” statement that discredited the New York Post’s October bombshell exposing emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which documented how Hunter’s corrupt Burisma paymasters had met with Joe Biden when he was vice president. It was released Oct. 19, just three days before Trump and Biden debated each other in Nashville. Fifty other U.S. “Intelligence Community” officials and experts signed the seven-page document, which claimed “the arrival on the U.S. political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

In hindsight, Clapper’s well-timed pseudo-intelligence in 2016 and 2020 helped Clinton and Biden make the case against Trump as a potentially Kremlin-compromised figure, charges that crippled his presidency and later arguably denied him reelection. (Read more: RealClearInvestigations, 6/26/2024) (Archive)

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy didn’t mince words in his commentary about President Joe Biden’s performance in Thursday’s debate against former President Donald Trump.

In a video posted on social media, Portnoy savaged Biden.

“The other takeaway, the major one, is everyone’s just saying how bad Joe Biden looked. And I’m not talking just Republicans and the Trump people. Democrats, CNN, just shoveling dirt on him, being like, ‘he didn’t do what he had to do, he looked weak, we may have to make a change,’” Portnoy said.

Portnoy played a series of clips of a conversation on CNN in which the anchors acknowledged how badly the proceedings went for the president. In one, Van Jones said the debate was “painful.”

The Barstool Sports founder continued, asking how Democrats are “allowing Joe Biden to do a debate” and saying he “belongs in a nursing home.”

“He can barely finish a sentence. I didn’t think he’d be able to find his way from the green room to the podium without getting lost,” Portnoy said.

Emergency Press Conference – The Dems Sent Biden out For Slaughter pic.twitter.com/SxwzJb5cKr

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) June 28, 2024

The commentator played a clip showing Jill Biden praising her husband for his performance. “Joe, you did such a great job. You answered every question,” she said, prompting cheers from the crowd.

“Yeah, no sh*t,” Portnoy chimed in. “That’s as good as Biden could be. And I know Trump’s only a couple years younger, but he’s still lucid. That could be Trump in a couple years. He’s still together. Joe Biden doesn’t know where he is.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 6/28/2024) (Archive)

Full Debate:

The Fischer decision is a huge win for the January 6th defendants – something that was expected since the oral arguments.

Bigger picture, this is a significant victory for the Constitution.

The Biden DOJ weaponized and politicized a post-Enron statute to go after their political rivals.

They want to put real Americans in real America in prison for a long time for a lawful protest permitted by the national park service.

The Fischer decision is a huge win for the January 6th defendants – something that was expected since the oral arguments.

Bigger picture, this is a significant victory for the Constitution.

The Biden DOJ weaponized and politicized a post-Enron statute to go after their… pic.twitter.com/0UFxb9ZL45

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) June 28, 2024

List of shame (of course they have none)–

DC judges who went along with the DOJ’s unlawful application of 1512(c)(2) in J6 cases:

Judge Beryl Howell (Obama, former chief judge)

Judge James Boasberg (Obama, current chief judge)

Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama)

Judge Trevor McFadden (Trump)

Judge John Bates (GW Bush)

Judge Amit Mehta (Obama)

Judge Dabny Friedrich (Trump)

Judge Royce Lamberth (Reagan)

Judge Richard Leon (GW Bush)

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton)

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama)

Judge Timothy Kelly (Trump)

Judge Randolph Moss (Clinton)

Judge Paul Friedman (Clinton)

Judge Christopher Cooper (Obama)

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Florence Pan (Biden)—Pan wrote both appellate court decisions upholding 1512c2

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Justin Walker (Trump)

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Cornelia Pillard

List of shame (of course they have none)–

DC judges who went along with the DOJ’s unlawful application of 1512(c)(2) in J6 cases:

Judge Beryl Howell (Obama, former chief judge)

Judge James Boasberg (Obama, current chief judge)

Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama)

Judge Trevor…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 28, 2024

New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (Credit: Cause of Action Institute)

The Supreme Court handed small fishing companies a victory Friday in their lawsuits against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), overturning a decades-old precedent that expanded the power of the administrative state.

Siding 6-3 with the fishermen, the Supreme Court reversed its 1984 landmark case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which lower courts relied on to uphold NOAA’s rule forcing companies to dole out $700 per day — around 20% of their revenue — to pay the salaries of federally mandated on-board observers. The principle of Chevron deference, rooted in the landmark case, instructed courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes when the language is ambiguous.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority ruling. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act] requires.”

Small fishing companies sued NOAA after the agency required businesses to pay for the on-board monitors based on its interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the law governing fishery management. In both Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, lower courts deferred to the agency’s interpretation of the law, citing the Chevron ruling.

Roberts called Chevron “a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”

“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities,” Roberts wrote. “Courts do.”

Critics of Chevron argued the doctrine, in practice, enabled agencies to assert their interpretations of the law without resistance from the judiciary, giving the government the automatic upper hand when challenged in court and raising significant separation-of-powers concerns.

New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA) highlighted the burden NOAA’s rule placed on businesses in an amicus brief. The short training sea monitors receive does not equip them for the rough conditions on board, the association argued, creating safety concerns and forcing crews to shoulder the burden.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the dissent that the majority “disdains restraint, and grasps for power.”

“Its justification comes down, in the end, to this: Courts must have more say over regulation over the provision of health care, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems, and so on,” she wrote. “A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority.”

New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) President Mark Chenoweth said that “the dismantling of the unlawful Administrative State has officially begun.”

“NCLA’s fishermen clients have landed the biggest catch of their lives by persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to take its thumb off the scale when ordinary Americans are contesting unlawful government regulations,” Chenoweth said in a statement. “When NCLA was founded less than seven years ago, taking down Chevron deference was priority number one, because agencies have used it so often to violate people’s civil liberties. That ability ends today!” (The Daily Caller, 6/28/2024) (Archive)

Freedom of Information Act: CONFIRMS

“It was a coup.” it was an interagency effort that overthrew the United States government on Nov 3, 2020.

And William fucken Barr was at the center of it all,

“I can say with experience, that prison will come out of it. Eventually they will go to prison. This is not something that’s going to be able to be swept aside.”

And starts with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a formal criminal charges have been filed for obstructing and colluding in the fraud to overthrow the U.S. government.

🚨🚨And here is,

Freedom of Information Act: CONFIRMS

“It was a coup.” it was an interagency effort that overthrew the United States government on Nov 3, 2020.

[FOIA] “We use their own emails, their own documents, their own texts. THEY INCRIMINATE ALL OF THEM.”

And William… pic.twitter.com/vjI9t0h7g9

— 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) June 29, 2024

(Credit: Amazon Books)

Parallel Election documents, in great detail and with irrefutable evidence, the massive election fraud that was perpetrated against the citizenry in the November 2020 United States general election, specifically in Delaware County, PA. This unprecedented fraud resulted in the installation of an illegitimate government. Authors Gregory Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes show you, up close, how it was done, and by whom. They call it a “parallel election,” because obtaining the fraudulent results they manufactured required the wholesale substitution of fake ballots for authentic ones.

Stenstrom and Hoopes currently have the only remaining election fraud case in Pennsylvania from the November 2020 general election. Viciously quashed, sued and sanctioned for challenging the “most secure election in history,” they fought back, and overcame overwhelming odds to successfully expose the massive election fraud they witnessed.

More Evidence It Was Sovereign Fraud: on November 13, 2020, nineteen Democrat AGs signed a letter (4 pages below) encouraging AG Barr to rescind his November 9th memo. The memo permitted federal agencies such as the FBI and federal prosecutors to investigate election fraud. The nineteen state AG’s demanded the memo be scrapped. See if your state AG’s signature is on that letter shown in this article. Wisconsin’s Josh Kaul signed it! He is the state AG I caught criminally laundering money into his campaigns, read the complaint I filed against him at www.infoccc dot com (4 in total were filed against him).
There is a video interview at the bottom of the article linked below with true bombshells being dropped by
@hoopes_leah and @GregStenstrom out of PA. Suggest starting at the 29min mark. A timeline is shown also naming who was involved in covering up election fraud. Biden planted a federal DOJ insider in Alvin Bragg’s office to prosecute Trump.

More Evidence It Was Sovereign Fraud: on November 13, 2020, nineteen Democrat AGs signed a letter (4 pages below) encouraging AG Barr to rescind his November 9th memo. The memo permitted federal agencies such as the FBI and federal prosecutors to investigate election fraud. The… pic.twitter.com/jNsw71LKwV

— Peter Bernegger (@PeterBernegger) June 20, 2024

Part 1 of 2 – Tune in to hear our exclusive interview with Greg Stenstrom & Leah Hoopes, co-authors of the book The Parallel Election: A Blueprint for Deception. This book documents, in great detail and with irrefutable evidence, the massive election fraud that was perpetrated against the citizenry in the November 2020 United States general election, which resulted in the installation of an illegitimate government. Greg and Leah call it a “parallel election,” because obtaining the fraudulent results they manufactured required the wholesale substitution of fake ballots for authentic ones. We discuss the how, the why, the where, and the what of their truth-based evidence which recently saw Greg and Leah win the first case on the 2020 election fraud, which they witnessed first-hand in Delaware County, PA. THIS IS A MUST WATCH or LISTEN people, it proves what we all suspected.

Part 2 of 2 – Tune in to hear our exclusive interview with Greg Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes, co-authors of the book The Parallel Election: A Blueprint for Deception. This book documents, in great detail and with irrefutable evidence, the massive election fraud that was perpetrated against the citizenry in the November 2020 United States general election, which resulted in the installation of an illegitimate government. Greg and Leah call it a “parallel election,” because obtaining the fraudulent results they manufactured required the wholesale substitution of fake ballots for authentic ones. We discuss the how, the why, the where, and the what of their truth-based evidence which recently saw Greg and Leah win the first case on the 2020 election fraud, which they witnessed first-hand in Delaware County, PA. THIS IS A MUST WATCH or LISTEN people, it proves what we all suspected.

h/t @seacaptim