Featured Timeline Entries

April 11, 2025 – The Crossfire Hurricane declassified binder reveals Admiral Rogers informed the FBI in June 2017 the Trump Russia collusion story was not true

Admiral Michael Rogers appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 5, 2016. (Credit: CSpan3)

The Washington Post and New York Times won Pulitzer Prizes for their numerous stories on false claims of Trump-Russia collusion. Declassified interview notes from Crossfire Hurricane now show Admiral Mike Rogers shot down one of those stories behind closed doors.

Former National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers told FBI agents that the crux of a Pulitzer Prize award-winning Washington Post story on the Russian collusion hoax was “wrong,” according to newly declassified documents obtained by Just the News.

Admiral Rogers, who retired in 2018 after four years as National Security Agency chief and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, spoke with FBI agents and a key member of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team in June 2017, where he threw cold water on a May 2017 story by the Post titled, “Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence.”

It is not yet known whether the Post had been told prior to the May 2017 publishing of their story that Rogers was denying their characterization of his talk with Trump, but it is now known that Rogers was telling federal investigators in June 2017 that the story was bogus.

The Post story — now known to have been directly refuted by one of its main subjects the month after it published — would go on to be among the Russiagate stories published by the outlet to win a Pulitzer Prize in 2018. Trump is currently suing the Pulitzer Board for defamation for continuing to defend the awards it gave to this collusion-related story and numerous others. A Florida circuit court judge denied the Pulitzer Board’s motion to delay President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against them on presidential immunity grounds.

The newly-released Rogers interview with the Mueller team shows that the then-NSA director was read a quote from The Washington Post article — that “President Trump urged [Rogers] to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election” — with the FBI notes stating that “Rogers responded that the media characterization was wrong, and the President had asked about the existence of SIGINT [signals intelligence] evidence only.” (Read more: Just the News, 4/11/2025)  (Archive)

April 11, 2025 – Crossfire Hurricane declassified: Admiral Mike Rogers and the Steele Dossier

John Brennan (l), James Clapper (c) and Admiral Mike Rogers testify at House hearing on world wide cyber threats in September 2015. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

(…)

Admiral Mike Rogers and the Steele Dossier

Admiral Mike Rogers, who retired in 2018 after four years as National Security Agency chief and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, previously expressed a certain level of skepticism about the U.S. intelligence community’s 2017 assessment of alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election — and a newly declassified interview Rogers gave to the FBI later in 2017 shines light on the dim view Rogers had of British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s discredited dossier.

“ADM Rogers decided that he would make the final analytic call on the NSA’s input to the ICA as he knew there would be a lot of pressure and attention on the final draft and he felt strongly his career analysts shouldn’t have to be responsible for something under such political pressure. In one draft of the ICA, ADM Rogers noted the contents of the ‘Steele dossier’ in the body of the product, which he did not recall seeing in previous drafts,” FBI notes dated June 17, 2017 state.

“In early January, the four principals met and ADM Rogers told the group he was unclear why the ICA needed to focus on the dossier as it was considered largely uncorroborated. Comey responded that the information was relevant and ADM Rogers suggested the information be included in an annex or appendix rather than prominently in the nearly one-page summary he had seen.”

Rogers and Comey, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, briefed President-elect Trump about their election meddling findings at Trump Tower in January 2017. Comey stayed behind to tell Trump about some of the dossier’s more salacious allegations.

Steele told the FBI in October 2017 that he was “frustrated” by his dossier’s inclusion in an annex to the ICA. The FBI agent who recounted the interview with Steele wrote, “They brought up the inclusion of their material in the ICA annex multiple times – almost to the point that it felt like fishing for information about how the ICA was constructed. In the end, I made the point that I wasn’t going to get into how the ICA was put together, how the annex came about, etc.”

The Steele dossier annexed to the ICA was largely declassified in 2020, and it relayed some of Steele’s baseless collusion claims: “The most politically-sensitive claims by the FBI source [Steele] alleged a close relationship between the President-elect and the Kremlin. The source also claimed that the President-elect and his top campaign advisers knowingly worked with Russian officials to bolster his chances of beating Secretary Clinton; were fully knowledgeable of Russia’s direction of leaked Democratic emails; and were offered financial compensation from Moscow.”

Varying assessments from intelligence services

The 2017 intelligence assessment concluded with “high confidence” that Russia worked to “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency” and “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” The NSA diverged on one aspect, expressing only “moderate confidence” that Putin actively tried to help Trump’s election chances and harm those of Clinton.

“I wouldn’t call it a discrepancy. I’d call it an honest difference of opinion between three different organizations,” Rogers told the Senate in 2017. “It didn’t have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources.”

A 2018 report from the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee concluded that “the majority of the Intelligence Community Assessment judgments on Russia’s election activities employed proper analytic tradecraft” but found the “judgments on Putin’s strategic intentions did not.”

unmasking saga

The newly-declassified FBI records also show Rogers attempted to distance himself from the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

“ADM Rogers has not been specifically briefed on the FBI investigation into the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and the nature of links between those efforts and the Trump campaign,” the notes read.” However, ADM Rogers was aware the NSA has received Letterhead Memoranda from the FBI requesting information mostly on specific interactions with U.S. Persons. ADM Rogers was aware the FBI was ‘following specific individuals’ but was not certain if it was because of the ongoing work on the ICA or for another reason.”

The FBI notes also say that “Rogers was surprised when Comey told the committee in open session on March 20, 2017 that the FBI was investigating potential links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian interference… Comey did not tell him in advance about the ongoing set of investigations.”

A host of top Obama officials received information in response to “unmasking” requests targeting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in the final weeks of the Obama administration, according to a memo declassified in 2020.

Republicans have alleged since 2017 that Obama-era officials improperly unmasked associates of then-candidate Trump’s presidential campaign during the Russia collusion investigation, while Democrats have defended the intelligence-gathering process, arguing that the collection of identifying information is inevitable.

John Durham said Rogers cast doubt on collusion claims during an interview with the special counsel team.

“Admiral Mike Rogers served as the Director of NSA during the relevant time period,” the 2023 report said. “When asked about any awareness he had of any evidence of collusion as asserted in the Steele Reports, he stated that he did not recall any intelligence that supported the collusion assertions in that reporting, nor did he have any discussions during the Summer of 2016 with his counterparts in the intelligence community about collusion between the Russians and any Republicans.

(Read more: Just the News, 4/12/2025)  (Archive)

April 11, 2025 – Crossfire Hurricane declassified: FBI internal messages reveal their efforts to get Trump and his team on fabricated rumors

UPDATE: Crossfire Hurricane — Holeee Shizzles‼️

Internal FBI Messages from January 2017 reveal Shady Structuring to Frame Trump and his team with fabricated Rumors

• Agents like Peter Strzok debated creating a “Trump Unit” to target the incoming administration, focusing on @GenFlynn for his talks with Russian ambassador Kislyak, which they tried to spin as espionage or Logan Act violations—charges that were found baseless.

• They even FLOATED RUMORS, like Putin using Trump Tower’s roof, showing they were grasping at straws desperately trying to build a case because they didn’t have one. THIS IS HUGE!

• Flynn’s early targeting—before Trump’s inauguration—suggests a PREMEDITATED effort to sabotage the administration by taking down a key ally in a conspiracy to undermine Trump with a manufactured Russia narrative.

“I’m worried Flynn will blab himself into a legit 65”

These files lend credence to the fact that the investigation was a completely politically motivated setup from the start and they were looking to frame an incoming president of the United States.

TREASON!!

UPDATE: Crossfire Hurricane

Victoria Nuland Identified being Directly involved in Handling Sensitive Information Potentially Related to the Steele Dossier

The mention of Victoria Nuland receiving investigative material from a U.S. firm tied to a former UK intelligence officer (likely Christopher Steele) is significant.

This suggests Nuland, a senior State Department official, was directly involved in handling sensitive information potentially related to the Steele dossier, which was a controversial element of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Her intent to pass this to Trump, stinks to high Heaven.

• There’s also a reference to “DRAGON” as a key asset, possibly an informant??? or operation???, who is wary of Igor Sechin and advising on legal strategies. This is a new detail.

DRAGON’s role as a career-“defining asse” for an FBI official, with concerns about exposure, indicates a high-stakes operation taking place that hasn’t been discussed in prior public releases.

April 14, 2025 – Anti-Trump ‘resistance’ leader, Michelle Wu, received funds from Chinese Communist Party intelligence official

Boston mayor Michelle Wu and CCP intel official Gary Yu (Credit: Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images and LinkedIn)

Far-left Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) received hundreds of thousands of dollars to her 2021 campaign from a fundraiser who is a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intelligence official, an investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) recently uncovered.

Wu’s mayoral campaign was the recipient of more than $300,000 fundraised by Gary Yu, the commissioner of the Asian American & Pacific Islanders Commission and president of the New England Chinese American Alliance, the DCNF reported.

Yu, whose Chinese name is Yu Guoliang, is listed as an official in the United Front Work Department (UFWD) — the CCP’s intelligence- and influence-gathering agency that operates overseas, including in the U.S.

The DCNF also reported that Yu operates as a recruiter for the Chinese government, citing Chinese state media reports and civic associations led by Yu to back up these claims.

Wu, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from Taiwan after her grandparents moved the family from mainland China, has recently made headlines for criticizing President Donald Trump for cracking down on illegal immigration in her sanctuary city.

Despite her public assertion that Boston “stand[s] with immigrants,” Trump border czar Tom Homan traveled to the city and personally oversaw hundreds of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests, including members of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua (TdA).

“The Communist Party’s UFWD never rests,” China expert Gordon Chang told the DCNF. “There is no ethnic Chinese official in America who is not targeted. It’s time for law enforcement to investigate the CCP’s ties to Gary Yu and Yu’s ties to Mayor Michelle Wu.”

The UFWD also has significant roots in Minnesota, with ties to failed Democrat vice presidential candidate Gov. Tim Walz.

According to the news foundations’ research, Yu has done extensive recruitment for different factions of the Chinese government: (Read more: Breitbart News, 4/14/2025)  (Archive)

April 14, 2025 – Pete Marocco, mastermind behind dismantling of USAID projects, leaves State Department

Pete Marocco, the official who oversaw the dismantling of USAID, has now parted ways with the agency. (Kent Nishimura/Reuters)

Pete Marocco, the official who oversaw the dismantling of USAID, has now parted ways with the agency.

Marocco, who served in the Defense, State and Commerce departments, was known as a conservative firebrand with a deep skepticism of foreign aid. His tenure sparked fierce protests on Capitol Hill and drew sharp criticism from Democrats, who celebrated his exit but said questions remain about the future of U.S. foreign aid.

“Pete was brought to State with a big mission to conduct an exhaustive review of every dollar spent on foreign assistance,” a senior administration official said of the departure. “He conducted that historic task and exposed egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars. We all expect big things are in store for Pete on his next mission.”

After President Donald Trump merged USAID with the State Department, Secretary Marco Rubio named Marocco acting deputy administrator of the agency, and he went to work whittling down the $40-billion, 10,000-employee USAID office. (Read more: Fox News, 4/14/2025)  (Archive)

April 14, 2025 – The Golden Age of American Innovation – “Our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space”

Michael Kratsios, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Credit: Official White House Photo by Keegan Barber/Wikipedia)

THE DIRECTOR: Thank you for the kind introduction. It is a pleasure to speak to you all this evening, here in the early light of the new Golden Age of America.

President Trump has given all of us who serve in his administration a monumental task—the renewal of our nation.

I know, and I think you know, too, that such a renewal will require the reinvigoration of American science and industry. Over the last few decades, America has become complacent, forgetting old dreams of building a wondrous future.

But we know the American pioneer spirit still seeks the exploration of endless frontiers. Our technologies, and what we do with them, will be the tools with which we will make the destiny of our country manifest in this century.

Yet this American hope in the possibility of progress and the power of science and technology does not allow builders and innovators to retreat from politics. Indeed, quite the opposite, which is what brings me here today. A Golden Age is only possible if we choose it.

***

There is nothing predestined about technological progress and scientific discovery. They require the efforts and energies of men and women, the collective choice for order and truth over disorder and opinion.

The last century was called the American Century, as—despite wars and domestic conflict—the United States stood at the forefront of science and technology, building the future. With the strength of our industry and ingenuity, we created the largest middle class the world has ever seen. As President Trump said to me in his letter laying out the science and technology agenda of this administration, “The triumphs of the last century did not happen by chance.”

Ours was the Atomic Age. Ours the victory in the Space Race. And ours the invention of the Internet, collecting and connecting the multiplicity of human knowledge.

Today we fight to restore that inheritance. As the failure of the Biden administration’s “small yard, high fence” approach makes clear, it is not enough to seek to protect America’s technological lead. We also have a duty to promote American technological leadership.

***

A gap lies between our moment and the speed of transformation America experienced midcentury. Progress has slowed. Yes, large language models astonish us, rockets still turn our eyes upward, and satellites envelop the globe. But as we look forward to America’s 250th birthday celebration next year, our progress today pales in comparison to the huge leaps of the 20th century. Consider the country of fifty years ago.

As the nation approached its bicentennial, Americans looked forward to electricity too cheap to meter. By the end of 1972, 30 nuclear plants were operational, 55 were under construction, and more than 80 were planned or ordered. That same year, the Apollo 17 astronauts became the 11th and 12th men to walk on the moon. Five years before, the X-15 rocket plane had set a speed record for a crewed aircraft of Mach 6.7. America was flying higher, faster, and farther than ever before…

Today, however, energy prices still burden producers and consumers alike, and the grid remains precarious. Over the past 30 years only three commercial nuclear reactors have been built and 10 have been closed. Despite spending almost twice as much on healthcare as peer nations, we have the lowest life expectancy. Apollo 17’s steps on the lunar surface have proved mankind’s last. The X-15’s record still stands, and the Concorde was decommissioned more than two decades ago. Our passenger planes are slower than they used to be. Our trains crawl compared to those in other parts of the world. Our cars do not fly

Advances have not stopped, but something has gone wrong.

***

Stagnation was a choice. We have weighed down our builders and innovators. The well-intentioned regulatory regime of the 1970s became an ever-tightening ratchet, first hampering America’s ability to become a net-energy exporter and then making it harder and harder to build. We seem to have lost focus and vision, to have lowered our sights and let systems and structures and bureaucracies muddle us along.

But we are capable of so much more.

Our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space. They leave distance annihilated, cause things to grow, and improve productivity.

As Vice President Vance said in a recent speech, the tradition of American innovation has been one of increasing the capacities of America’s workers, of extending human ability so that more people can do more, and, more meaningful work. But unrestricted immigration, and reliance on cheap labor both domestically and offshore, has been a substitute for improving productivity with technology.

We can build in new ways that let us do more with less, or we can borrow from the future. We have chosen to borrow from the future again and again. Our choice as a civilization is technology or debt. And we have chosen debt.

Today we choose a better way. (Read more: WhiteHouse.gov, 4/14/2025)  (Archive)

April 15, 2025 – Detroit-based healthcare agency Henry Ford Health is still performing transgender butchery on minors and tainting care with DEI policies

Michigan’s second-largest health system has deleted webpages promoting childhood transgenderism and DEI in an attempt to scrub its far-left footprints from the internet after conservative group Consumers’ Research launched a campaign against it on Monday, Breitbart News has learned.

In one deleted article on “how to support a transgender teen,” Henry Ford Health staff directed parents to “get help” to allow their child to transition.

“When they’re not allowed to transition, they may suffer from depression, anxiety, and an increased risk of inflicting self-harm,” the article explained.

“We’ve latched on to this idea that gender is fixed, but we know in medicine that exploring your identity as it relates to gender is a normal part of growing up,” Henry Ford pediatrician Dr. Maureen Connolly claimed.

Henry Ford Health touts itself as one of the few health systems that treats “any transgender individual,” including minors. A webpage that still remains live says services available “for adolescents” include harmful “puberty blockers” and “gender affirming hormones.”

(Credit: website clipping)

 

Another now-deleted page on the health agency’s website detailed its DEI efforts, stating that “diversity, equity and inclusion are woven into the fabric of everything we do.”

Kimberlydawn Wisdom, the agency’s senior vice president of “Community Health & Equity” and the “Chief Wellness & Diversity Officer,” believes that DEI is just the beginning.

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion are simply not enough. Diversity, equity, and inclusion alone can only mitigate the damage of the past,” she wrote in 2021. “To prevent the mistakes of the past from burdening our communities in the future, our ultimate destination must be justice.”

As part of its massive campaign to expose Henry Ford Health’s far-left bias, Consumers’ Research put together a website, FordHealthExposed.com, and mobile billboards running outside its hospitals in Detroit and Macomb County.

Images shared with Breitbart News also show stenciled sidewalk chalk messages around the Detroit location, as well as another billboard in Lansing, near the State Capitol.

“Henry Ford Health is prioritizing politics over patients. Driven by gender ideology, Henry Ford has continued performing deeply harmful and irreversible sex-change treatments on children and must be stopped,” Consumers’ Research executive director Will Hild told Breitbart News.

“The hospital’s deliberate mutilation of confused children’s bodies is being done in direct defiance of President Trump’s orders to eliminate the vile practice for good. Henry Ford Health has also committed to embedding DEI into every facet of its operation, elevating a radical ideological agenda above its fundamental duty to provide excellent scientific-based care,” he added. (Read more: Breitbart News, 4/15/2025)  (Archive)

April 15, 2025 – The Federal Housing Finance Agency refers NY AG Letitia James to DOJ over alleged mortgage fraud

Letitia James attends Trump trial, May 2024. (Credit: public domain)

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) referred New York Attorney General Letitia James to the Department of Justice for alleged mortgage fraud.

“Based on media reports, Ms. Letitia James has, in multiple instances falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms,” wrote Bill Pulte, director of FHFA, to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Pulte added: “This has potentially included 1) falsifying residence status for a Norfolk, Virginia-based home in order to secure a lower mortgage rate and 2) misrepresenting property descriptions to meet stringent requirements for government backed loans and government assistance.”

(Read more: Legal Insurrection. 4/15/2025) (Archive)

April 15, 2025 – Tucker Carlson interviews former Rep. Curt Weldon about 9-11 and how the CIA runs a dark parallel system of government

After twenty years in congress, Curt Weldon was about to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee when he publicly questioned the accuracy of the 9-11 report. In retaliation, the Bush administration sent federal agents to his daughter’s house and ended his political career. At 77, Weldon has decided to tell the truth about what actually happened on September 11, 2001. WATCH:

Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
2:33 Why Did They Oust Weldon?
7:12 Could the CIA Have Prevented 9-11?
16:00 How the FBI Tried to Intimidate Weldon
19:23 Did the CIA Lie About Osama bin Laden’s Location?
25:47 The Real Culprit Behind America’s Wars in the Middle East

31:27 Trump’s Biggest Challenge Right Now
33:11 How the Deep State Undermined Weldon’s Political Career
43:16 Will Weldon Be Killed for Speaking Out?
48:04 Why Hillary Clinton Had to Take Down Gaddafi
49:31 The 9-11 Commission Was a Scam
55:17 The Mysterious Collapse of Building 7
1:05:13 How Will This Revelation Impact America’s Future?
1:07:56 The Bush Administration and China
1:14:32 Why Politicians Are So Scared of Declassifying 9-11 Documents
1:20:14 Where Can Americans Find the Truth About 9-11?

(Conservative Treehouse, 4/15/2025)  (Archive)

April 16, 2025 – Stacey Abrams has launched a long list of nonprofits and LLCs

Stacey Abrams (Credit: Dana Scruggs/The Washington Post)

Main Story: The Remarkable Rags-to-Riches Story of Stacey Abrams
Related: EPA Mega-Grant Has Abrams’ Fingerprints All Over It 

As a Democratic politician, civil-rights activist, tax attorney and serial entrepreneur, Stacey Abrams has founded or co-founded a dizzying array of nonprofits and LLCs, some of which co-mingle funds.

Records show many of her start-ups have no office or staff and are based out of Abrams’ home in Atlanta. A number of them have failed, dissolved or have fallen into debt and had tax liens attached, and some are under state or federal investigation. A list:

  • Fair Fight Inc.
  • Fair Fight Action
  • Fair Fight PAC
  • Fair Fight Georgia
  • Fair Count
  • New Georgia Project
  • New Georgia Action Fund
  • Southern Economic Advancement Project (SEAP)
  • American Pride Rises APR Network
  • Sage Works LLC
  • Sage Works Productions Inc.
  • NOWaccount Corp.
  • NOWaccount Network Corp.
  • NOW Corp. USA
  • Nourish Inc.
  • Insomnia Consulting
  • Insomnia Group
  • Third Sector Development Inc.
  • Voter Access Institute
  • Myrina Strategies
  • The Family Room Inc.
  • SELA Technologies Inc.
  • Abrams Legal Services LLC
  • Davis Hall LLC
  • Hall Davis LLC
  • Brockington Hall LLC

Sources: Stacey Abrams website, Georgia state financial disclosure statements

(RealClearInvestigations, 4/17/2025)  (Archive)

April 16, 2025 – Judge Boasberg ignores SCOTUS ruling, finds probable cause to hold Trump Admin in criminal contempt

April 16, 2025 – Interview: Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Mike Benz discuss the recent steps taken to end government censorship

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being here with – sharing for the American people a very momentous day in the history of the State Department and the U.S. Government in restoring free speech and America’s role as the beacon of free speech. Something very historic transpired today.

Could you tell the American people what that was?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. Well, we ended government-sponsored censorship in the United States through the State Department. And let me explain how we get there. This started out 15, 10 years ago with this effort of let’s go after the messaging that al-Qaida and ISIS and others are putting to radicalize people. And who’s going to be against that? That sounds normal. And then it was, like, in 2016, oh, we had this foreign interference in our election; we need to start targeting some of that stuff. By 2020 it had grown into this movement of, like, actually going after individual American voices.

And one of the ways that was being done wasn’t just directly. Because the guy that was running this thing, Stengel, was actually a guy that was out there saying: Donald Trump talks just like a Russian spy, he talks just like a terrorist, and so do the people around him. But they were also taking money from this program and using it to fund these NGOs, these third-party groups who were supposed to be, like, impartial. Those groups were then tagging – they were literally tagging and labeling voices in American politics – Ben Shapiro, The Federalist, others – tagging them as foreign agents.

So you look at it and say, American taxpayers, through the State Department, were paying groups to attack Americans and to try to silence the voice of Americans. And there were consequences. These weren’t just a label they put on people. Some of these people got deplatformed, they got taken down, they couldn’t communicate. So it was outrageous.

So before President Trump took over, they disbanded this unit. They just renamed it and moved it somewhere else. But now over the last few months we’ve worked on it and just taken it down, and to the extent we’re spending money now – we are going to spend money on messaging; it’s going to be pro-American messaging, and it’s going to be incentivizing and protecting free speech, which is threatened all over the world, including countries that are allies of ours.

The best way to counter disinformation – if that’s what people are thinking is out there – the best way to counter disinformation is free speech —

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RUBIO: — is to make sure that what’s true has as equal or greater opportunity to communicate as what’s not true. We’ve learned that the hard way. But when you turn disinformation into a weapon, a political weapon, a label that you can use to go after people you don’t like, and say, oh, anything that person’s saying is disinformation – well, listen, I read mainstream newspapers every day, or I watch mainstream broadcasts – mainstream broadcasts every day that I know are disinformation, okay? We have an issue right now. They keep calling it “Maryland man” deported to El Salvador. No, not “Maryland man” – El Salvador citizen deported to El Salvador. That’s disinformation. Every day I – a U.S. senator yesterday said that this guy was a kidnapped American citizen, and they published it in the article without any fact check. He’s not an American citizen.

So the important thing is that we have free speech so we can counter that, so we can say this is not true.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: That’s the way you handle that. And – but we have instances now in Western countries where people are being arrested. You’ve seen this, I’m sure. You know what I’m talking about.

QUESTION: Yes, absolutely.

SECRETARY RUBIO: People out there, they put a post, and they – a cop comes knocking on their door: You’re going to go to jail for 60 days for posting something online.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: This is crazy stuff that’s happening around the – and the Vice President addressed this in his speech at the Munich conference back in February.

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RUBIO: So we got a lot of work to do, but the most important thing is we’re going to make sure that as we communicate to the world it’s going to be pro-American – things that build up what this country’s working on and explaining what we’re doing, not attacking Americans who are exercising their First Amendment rights.

QUESTION: The classic work of the State Department in the 20th century.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And you mentioned this network that was paid through the State Department through grants and contracts. And my understanding is that network also targeted the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie, who I believe played an important role in this restructuring as well.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Right.

QUESTION: And credit to you and to the under secretary. One of the questions that remains – this is obviously amazing news, I think, to the entire American people about the defunding and the restructuring. There are lingering questions about what was done during that period, where we now have so many people wondering, was I censored because of something the State Department did?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.

QUESTION: Was my news organization bankrupted? Were advertisers contacted about it? And there are aggrieved parties; there’s an important historical record that needs to be unearthed; there are active lawsuits. There are many reasons for a public disclosure effort on top of this development today. Are there any efforts underway to be able to have a kind of GEC files, as there were for the Twitter Files?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. So I think what we have to do now – and Darren will be big involved in that as well – is sort of document what happened. Because one thing is to say it in a broadcast like this, another thing is to actually put it on paper. And there’s two reasons to do it. The first is because I think people who were harmed deserve to know that, and be able to prove that they were harmed; and then the other is to make sure it never happens again, right?

QUESTION: Exactly.

SECRETARY RUBIO: So that 10 years from now, when someone has a brilliant idea like this again – not-brilliant idea like this again – you can point to that and say, oh, this was done once before, and here’s the reason why we don’t. That’s why accountability is important in these things, because it doesn’t just provide justice and – but it also prevents it from happening in the future. You have something you can point to at the same time and say, these are the kinds of things we want to stay away from.

And it’s also a very important lesson here. If I take you back 15 years and I ask somebody, do you think we should be doing more to make sure ISIS and al-Qaida are not radicalizing people online, 15 years ago we would have said, yeah, of course.

QUESTION: Yes, right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: But look what that turned into.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: And I’m not saying I’m – obviously we don’t want ISIS radicalizing everybody, but you have to understand that sometimes, some idea that starts out as innocuous or maybe even good intention, whatever, can metastasize, becomes a weapon that can be turned into something else by someone else. That’s a valuable lesson here. And everything we do, you have to understand that when you create something, what you created and what it turns into are not necessarily the same thing, especially when the people in charge change.

QUESTION: Right. A Frankensteinian monster that —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, yeah, that’s right.

QUESTION: — takes on a life of its own. So then that is to say you can commit to the American public now that there will be a transparency effort to actually —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, that’s already started, because I think as part of justifying doing all this, we had to document this, right?

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: So now I think there’s more in-depth, and we’ll create a process for people that sort of point – we already know some of the higher-profile ones, but there are more than higher-profile ones, right? There are a lot of other, including everyday, individual American citizens —

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: — who suddenly were labeled. And I think this is going to require some cross-jurisdictional work because some of it’s going to require us to go back and prove, okay, somebody got deplatformed in 2021, right?

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY RUBIO: And back in the middle of COVID – 2020. Someone got deplatformed, and tracking – we can prove that; people can show, hey, I got deplatformed by the old Facebook or by the old Twitter or whatever. But then linking that. So why were they deplatformed? Who told them to deplatform? And if we could somehow with internal review create a linkage between some information that came from something the State Department paid for and an actual aggrieved party, that’s what’s important.

Because I think that one thing is to point to the high-profile cases, which we’re aware of, but I think when people see that there were actually just individual, everyday Americans that were deplatformed and for whatever – silenced because somebody associated with this program identified them, I think that’s what’s really going to be eye-opening to a lot of people. But we didn’t want to wait for that to take action. We know enough to already act.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: But we obviously want to know the depth and the scope of this. That’s going to happen. It’s already happening.

QUESTION: Right. This is a program that has been shrouded in secrecy. Journalists like Matt Taibbi have tried to FOIA for many of these grants and contracts and have encountered the stone wall. So this is, I think, amazing news.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.

QUESTION: I know that you’re a very busy man, and appreciate all the time here. So the final question is on the international stage. As you are repositioning the State Department to have the U.S. once again be the global beacon for free speech and liberty, we face threats around the world from censorship laws coming out of the European Union, coming out of Brazil, coming out of really a network of countries that have taken the legitimacy of things like the Global Engagement Center and said, oh, it’s okay in the Western world to have media literacy programs, information integrity, mis/dis/malinformation programs. And many of those Global Engagement Center partner – ecosystem partners have been involved in the shaping of those foreign laws; many have – are actually – have been funded by the State Department and USAID, being signatories on the EU Code of Disinformation, implementing the EU Digital Services Act, which was threatened to be turned against Americans when Elon Musk famously had that X Space with Donald Trump during the election season.

So my question to you is: Is there any insights that you can provide to the American people about how the State Department is going to go about once again restoring free speech —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.

QUESTION: — in a world where we are facing foreign threats from the European Union and Brazil and other places to Americans’ ability to talk to Americans?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, so the first thing obviously is our number one priority is Americans. So we don’t want to see an American who happens to be living in London or happens to be living in Europe post something online about American politics or any politics, and all of a sudden they’re facing ramifications over there or they’re denied entry and something happens – “Oh, we’re denying them into our country or we’re going to arrest them because they posted something while living overseas.” So our number one interest is the impact that it has on Americans.

The broader point, which is the one I think the Vice President made very clear in Munich at the Security Conference – people freaked out about what he said, but it’s true. What is it that links us with Western Europe? What is it that links us with these – it’s our shared values. And one of those shared values, we hope, is freedom of expression. I know they don’t have a First Amendment, but freedom of expression, right? And if that is eroded – if suddenly these become places where people are targeted because of what they said or what their opinion is – then one of the pillars of our shared interest, beyond military cooperation or anything else, is under attack. And I think he made a very vibrant point that in some ways you are attacking – by attacking freedom of expression, you are attacking one of the pillars of our shared interest, our shared culture, our shared values.

And so I think – we raise that. We’ve raised that. I mean, I can tell you we were at a Oval Office meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, and this issue came up. So this has been raised. It becomes part of our diplomatic —

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY RUBIO: — situation that we raise when we interact with foreign interlocutors. I think what’s troubling is we understand, like, that’s always going to be an issue when you – certain countries around the world. But when you’re dealing with Western European allies and that’s who you’re talking to about this stuff, it really tells you how far it’s gone and how big a problem. And so that’s a new thing for us to have to raise in those capitals, but we do it and we do it everywhere. And I personally witnessed the President and the Vice President raise it with multiple —

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RUBIO: — foreign leaders. And I think you’re going to continue to see an emphasis on that in our diplomacy and what we talk about.

QUESTION: That’s fantastic. And I think the actions today will send a message to those foreign bodies that what was done for a very brief period here really in the scope of our history is not a legitimate way to pursue international laws. So – and just on the EU Digital Services Act, I’d feel remiss if I didn’t mention that the EU commissioning body there threatened Elon Musk, a non-EU citizen, talking to Donald Trump —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.

QUESTION: — a non-EU citizen —

SECRETARY RUBIO: During the campaign in October.

QUESTION: — running for President.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.

QUESTION: And threatened them specifically not to talk about the unrest – the street protests in the UK at the time. The UK is no longer a member of the EU. So the EU is threatening – and today, they’re now – we’re hearing they’re threatening a billion dollars in fines against X for noncompliance with disinformation. And we’ve seen the head of their commission target non-EU citizens talking to non-EU citizens about non-EU territories. And so this is just one of these things – as this code becomes mandatory in July – to know that the State Department is focused on protecting free speech both within and without is, I think, an important thing.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, just beyond Elon, if a country or a group of countries in the case of the EU – although it considers itself sort of a country because these countries have given over a significant amount of sovereignty in order to become a member of the EU – when you have foreign entities taking actions that go after Americans for speech —

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RUBIO: — that becomes a foreign policy irritant for the United States, and more than an irritant. It becomes an impediment in some cases to cooperate when they’re going – not just after a high-profile person like Elon, but anybody for that matter. I mean, I think if you extend this out, you could see it threatening commentators, threatening people that are opining about world events, potentially threatening office holders in the United States.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: I mean, so what if – what if an American political figure, on the left or right, criticized something that was happening in Europe – imagine right now if all these people freaking out over Bukele in El Salvador were suddenly being threatened by some Western Hemisphere version of the EU – oh, we’re going to come after you because you’re attacking the President of El Salvador. The left would be freaking out.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: So I think that this is a very legitimate issue for us to raise as a bilateral or in this case with the EU irritant in our foreign policy. It has to become part of one of the things that we raise when we interact with them about the impact this is having on American citizens. At the end of the day, the number one priority of the State Department is to serve the national interest of the United States and the interest of the American people. We work for the American people.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: It’s the United States Department of State.

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RUBIO: So that – we need to return that principle in everything we do, including this.

QUESTION: Right. And this is such a fair and frankly merciful way of doing this as well. You don’t – it sounds like you don’t want the power to go after the other side for misinformation and things like this. So —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Oh, we would be here all day.

QUESTION: No —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, I mean, we could – I could build a whole building to go after that.

QUESTION: Right. Exactly.

SECRETARY RUBIO: But the best way to do it is just to say they’re lying; here’s the truth.

QUESTION: Right. Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: That’s why we have things like this today.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: And that’s why we’re able to interact with you and others. That’s the best way to do it. And it’s annoying; don’t get me wrong. I mean, they say things that aren’t true. Every day stuff is leaked in the press that’s reported on as fact, and it’s not fact.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Or stuff is reported and commentary – not – look, commentators say what they want. Mainstream newspapers and mainstream media outlets report things as fact that are completely not true. So our approach to that is not shut them down, not fine them.

QUESTION: (Inaudible). Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Right. Our approach to that is to say they’re lying; here’s the truth.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: It’s harder. It’s annoying. But that’s the best way to do it. If you don’t do it that way, then you recognize that some day in the future if you create this power to shut that down, someone in my position will do it to us.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RUBIO: And I just think that begins to devolve very rapidly, as we’ve seen with this experiment that they did.

QUESTION: You’re putting the censorship gun down, and the American people are incredibly grateful for it. So thank you so much for making the time today.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, it was the right thing to do. Thank you, and thanks for your attention to this topic. I know you’ve been on this a long time.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

(Department of State, 4/16/2025)  (Archive)

Over 150,000 federal workers, including 5,000 IRS employees, owe $1.5 BILLION in back taxes

April 18, 2025 – White House rips Fauci in revamped COVID-19 website detailing virus’s ‘true origins’

President Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci shortly before the end of his presidency. (Credit: White House)

The White House has revamped the COVID-19 guidance page, which now states the likely origin of the virus was a lab leak involving gain-of-function research.

The website features the heading “Lab Leak,” with a subheading of “The True Origins of COVID-19.” The White House lists five key points regarding the coronavirus’s genesis:

  1. “The virus posses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.“
  2. “Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.”
  3. “Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research (gene altering and organism supercharging) at inadequate biosafety levels.”
  4. “Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.”
  5. “By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t.” [emphases original]

The website also challenges “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication, which asserted that the virus originated organically.

“’The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2′ publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature,” the website states. (Read more: Breitbart News, 4/18/2025)  (Archive)

April 18, 2025 – DNI Tulsi Gabbard releases declassified files of RFK and Biden domestic terrorism plan

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has declassified and released two sets of files today. 1. the first tranche of the RFK assassination files (10,000 pages HERE); and 2. The Joe Biden Domestic Terrorism Plan (SEE HERE)

Following President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14176, DNI Gabbard is releasing all the archive documents around the RFK assassination.

“Nearly 60 years after the tragic assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the American people will, for the first time, have the opportunity to review the federal government’s investigation thanks to [President Trump] leadership and commitment to maximum transparency.”

[LINK TO RELEASE]

“As promised, I have declassified the Biden Administration’s Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism.” ~ DNI Tulsi Gabbard

[LINK TO RELEASE]

(Conservative Treehouse, 4/18/2025)  (Archive)

April 19, 2025 – Biden’s declassified internet censorship plan relied on USAID to censor Americans; consulted with foreign governments and globalist groups on what was disinformation

 

April 21, 2025 – Jamie Raskin vows vengeance on foreign leaders who work with Trump and his administration

 

Putting partisan politics far above patriotism (if he has any), top Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin is outright threatening vengeance on foreign leaders who work with the Trump administration.

Yes, he washes it through rhetoric about fighting “authoritarianism in our country,” but that’s simply cover for goonish threats.

Raskin (D-Md.) issued it on the “Pod Save America” podcast, after progressive host Tommy Vietor cited (surely left-wing) Latin America experts as urging Democrats to warn off “any foreign government that participates in the extraordinary rendition of American citizens.”

Reality check: No one is proposing any “extraordinary rendition of American citizens.”

Democrats keep trying to confuse people into thinking Team Trump is doing that, as cover for their efforts to fight the administration’s deportations of illegal migrants — which is not remotely authoritarian.

Naturally, Raskin ran with Vietor’s implied point, specifically pointing to El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele as someone Dems “are not going to look kindly upon” “when we come back to power — and we will.”

His complaint is that Bukele refuses to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia (a Salvadoran citizen) back to the United States.

Abrego Garcia has never had any legal right to be here, though the Trumpies erred in sending him home without clearing an outdated 2019 order that said he could be deported, but not to El Salvador because he claimed a gang there was gunning for him.

(Bukele has eviscerated all the Salvadoran gangs, infuriating US “Latin America experts” of the kind Vietor surely relies on.)

Raskin’s also plainly peeved that Bukele is assisting the Trump “deport violent-criminal illegal migrants” efforts, but that’s still no reason to issue threats to a foreign prez.  (Read more: New York Post, 4/21/2025) (Archive)

April 22, 2025 – The ‘Due Process’ hoax: Democrats and the media are lying about an illegal alien’s right to due process in America

On Tuesday’s “Alex Marlow Show,” host and Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow talked about the debate over deporting illegal immigrants and levels of due process.

Marlow stated, “[W]e’re seeing some interesting re-framing going on from Stephen Miller and the White House. He’s flipped the script. He’s saying this isn’t due process, what the left wants is infinity process that keeps illegals here forever.”

“The Alex Marlow Show,” hosted by Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow, is a weekday podcast produced by Breitbart News and Salem Podcast Network. You can subscribe to the podcast on YouTube, Rumble, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.

Follow Breitbart.tv on Twitter @BreitbartVideo

April 22, 2025 – Texas Judge blows the whistle on ACLU lawyer for breaking The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges in an ex-parte communication

(Credit: Revolver News)

There’s a reason conservatives have been screaming from the rooftops about lawfare. What we’re seeing in courtrooms across the country isn’t just legal activism—it’s straight-up manipulation and injustice. The left is no longer trying to win in the court of public opinion. That’s out the window. Now, they’re trying to literally rig the legal process from the inside out, and now we’ve got more proof, and investigative reporter Julie Kelly is calling it all out.

In Texas, a federal judge is blasting the weaponized ACLU for crossing way over the line—and not just once.

The case in question involves the Alien Enemies Act and the left-wing push to block deportations of Venezuelan nationals and the left’s precious gangbangers. But instead of sticking to the courtroom, it looks like the ACLU lawyer tried to take a sneaky shortcut… by picking up the phone and actually calling the judge directly.

Julie Kelly has all the sorted details.

Judge James Wesley Hendrix (Credit: public domain)

It all started when the judge blew the whistle on the ACLU Lawyer for breaking the court’s rules.

Judge James Hendrix didn’t mince words. After denying an emergency motion to stop deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, he was contacted directly—by phone—by ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. That kind of move is called ex parte communication, and it’s strictly forbidden for a reason: it’s sneaky, improper, and gives one side an unfair advantage. So, of course the left would pull that move, right?

Judge Hendrix not only documented the call but also raised the question of whether Gelernt pulled the same move with another judge—good ol’ Jeb Boasberg—about a month ago in a nearly identical case.

Red flags are flying everywhere.

Julie Kelly:

WHOO BOY: In an order filed last night, Judge James Hendrix–the judge in Texas presiding over latest Alien Enemies Act case which prompted unprecedented intervention by SCOTUS–accused ACLU atty of violating federal code of conduct rules by calling his chambers AFTER Hendrix denied the 1st emergency temp restraining order on April 17. This was noted on the docket after Hendrix filed his order. Now it makes me wonder if Lee Gelernt did not do exactly the same thing with Judge Jeb Boasberg–which could explain Boasberg’s quick action on March 15. This is not allowed:

Image

It turns out Gelernt left a voicemail asking Judge Hendrix to talk and issue a broader ruling that would cover not just the two immigrants in question but any immigrant who is impacted by the Alien Enemies Act. Keep in mind that the government already agreed not to deport those two particular individuals—but the ACLU wanted to expand the case and strong-arm the judge into going along with their plan.

Thankfully, Obama-appointed Judge Hendrix held the line. He refused.

So what did the ACLU do?

Well, they appealed his ruling, took it to a higher court, and yanked the case out from under him.

Now, everybody wants to know how many other calls like this Gelernt has made. Julie Kelly goes on:

Here is the voicemail from Gelernt.

What are the chances he left the same message with Boasberg in the wee hours of March 15? In fact (and I will look at transcript), I believe Boasberg admitted to being “in communication” with ACLU prior to issuing any order or setting hearings.

Hendrix denied the emergency motion bc Trump adm said the 2 anonymous Venezuelan illegals cited in the lawsuit would not be removed. But–just like in the Boasberg case–that was not enough.

ACLU was demanding the case be converted into a class action suit covering ANYONE in the jurisdiction that might be subject to the Alien Enemies Act–which is what Boasberg did before his “return the planes” stunt.

ACLU was hoping for same outcome here. Hendrix was not playing their game. Even so, he was advancing the suit on Good Friday–but that wasn’t good enough for ACLU, which is used to running roughshod over the courts.

They immediately appealed, taking the matter out of Hendrix’s hands. Then they cried to SCOTUS, who bailed ACLU (and the illegals) out.

SCOTUS just got involved in what looks like a very dirty case from the start. Good to see at least one judge stand up for himself and for the process. (Read more: Revolver News, 4/22/2025)  (Archive)

April 22, 2025 – Dershowitz: Harvard Law doesn’t focus on principle, morality and neutrality; Produces people like Schiff, Raskin, and Warren

 

On Tuesday’s broadcast of Newsmax TV’s “The Record,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz stated that “places like Harvard Law School don’t emphasize principle, morality, and neutrality. It’s all about who wins today.” And that produces people like Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

After host Greta Van Susteren referenced past Democratic support for packing the Supreme Court and how if they had done so, it would give President Donald Trump the ability to pack the court, Dershowitz stated, “It just shows you these are such short-sighted, results-oriented, partisan, do it for me now people. They wouldn’t understand a point of principle if they fell over it. These are people who just want to get their way today and tomorrow and not worry about principled decisions or about what the implications could be. If we start packing the court, we’ll never stop packing the court.”

Van Susteren then referenced Schiff and said he was dishonest about Russian collusion, Dershowitz responded, “And it’s all Harvard’s fault.” He then laughed before continuing, “These are my former students. Adam Schiff went to Harvard Law School. Jamie Raskin was in my class. Elizabeth Warren was my colleague for so many years. The problem is that places like Harvard Law School don’t emphasize principle, morality, and neutrality. It’s all about who wins today. And when you educate your people that way, don’t expect anything different. We are no longer a principled nation who make decisions based on neutral, objective principles that are enduring. People like Jefferson and Madison will be turning over in their grave[s] when they see what has happened to today’s Congress. It’s just a shame. And the losers are the American people.” (Video here: Breitbart News, 4/22/2025)  (Archive)

April 22, 2025 – Catherine Herridge: Top US neuroscientist & military advisor confirms reports are ‘credible’ that Directed Energy Weapon attacks have happened on US soil

Top US Neuroscientist & Military Advisor Confirms Reports Are ‘Credible’ That Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Have Happened on US Soil And Targeted US Personnel Abroad; Exclusive New Records Reveal Exposure to “Microwave Weapon” After Intel Officer Discovered Secret Op.

“These are weapons of maximum disruption…It allows you to get in fast, hit hard, get out, and only then will the effects begin to be known.”

1:50 Reports of DEW Attacks on US Soil Are Credible

2:50 Different Types of DEWs: Sonic & Scalable, Directable Microwaves

3:30 Retired Counterintelligence Officer Mike Beck Now In Assisted Living Following DEW Attack

4:50 DEW Attack Happened After Beck And His Partner Discovered Operation Targeting USA By Hostile Country

6:40 How DEW Attacks Disrupt & Destroy Brain Networks

7:30 DEW Attack Aftermath: Brain Cell Death & The Domino Effect

8:20 Big Three: USA, Russia & China Have DEW Capability

9:05 Why Beck’s Case Stands Out And The Legacy of Suffering

10:20 CIA Whistleblower ‘Alice’ Targeted by DEW in Africa

11:00 Exclusive New Medical Records Document Beck’s Microwave Weapon Brain Injury

11:55 US Government Denied Beck Workers’ Compensation Multiple Times Before Approving It

12:10 US Government Currently Three Months Behind ($25,000+) On Payments for Beck’s Assisted Living

13:00 Beck: US Government Has Critical Evidence About Attacks & Weapons

14:20 Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Started in 2016: False

14:50 Trump Administration Openly Addresses Havana Syndrome: Secretary Rubio

15:50 Beck’s Request for President Trump

April 22, 2025 – Stephen Miller rips SCOTUS for blocking deportation of criminal illegal aliens and sets the record straight on birthright citizenship

@StephenM opened by absolutely ripping into SCOTUS for its 7–2 ruling that blocked the deportation of violent Venezuelan gang members tied to Tren de Aragua—an organization he said operates under orders from Maduro’s regime.

“You have in this case, illegal aliens from Venezuela,” he said.

“Sent here by Maduro, who are members of a foreign terrorist organization… carrying out criminal enterprises to destabilize the political system in United States.”

“They’re all illegal. They’re all gang members. They’re all foreign terrorists.”

But instead of being expelled?

“We are being told they cannot be expelled from our country without an extraordinary amount of individualized adjudication, at the district court, circuit court, Supreme Court—up and down, up and down, up and down.”

Then came the gut punch:

“No American citizen receives this level of so-called due process—because it isn’t due process. This is called infinity process to keep you here forever.”

That’s when Miller laid into the double standard—how foreign criminals get luxury treatment, and American citizens get steamrolled.

“No American citizen charged with a crime—with a serious crime inside the United States, a U.S.-born American citizen—receives this kind of process. Millions of dollars in free legal services. Representation at every single level.”

And if you think the courts treated J6 defendants the same?

“Do you think that there is any American citizen who was persecuted, who was innocent, related to January 6th—do you think they could just get this kind of relief? This kind of process? It was NEVER available to them.”

He didn’t stop there.

“How many pressing constitutional issues have been swept aside that American CITIZENS need resolve—who are being persecuted by left wing mayors, left wing governors, left wing bureaucrats, who actually need relief,” Miller said.

How many? This is unfathomable.

“How many of their concerns have been swept aside? So our entire judicial system can spend hour after hour, week after week, month after month, scrutinizing every single last detail of a deportation of an invader sent here by a foreign government!”

That’s when Miller dropped what may be his fiercest claim of all time: Birthright citizenship is the biggest scam in American history.

This quickly turned into an exposé that will make your blood boil.

“Birthright citizenship is the biggest, costliest scam in financial history,” he said.

He explained how foreign nationals game the system by arriving pregnant:

“An illegal alien can come here nine months pregnant or on a tourist visa… have a baby. That baby is then declared an automatic citizen, which then entitles the entire family to come here and live here, and every one of them can get welfare.”

“Yes, they can get unlimited welfare, applying as the custodian of this citizen, so-called child.”

But to Miller, it’s not just a welfare issue—it’s a national security threat.

“See, we can keep out a foreign spy who has a Visa… But what happens when a foreign government uses this ridiculous birthright scam in order to create automatic citizens who then grow up as assets of a foreign government?”

“So it’s a major national security threat.”

He dismantled the legal basis behind it:

“The 14th Amendment… was ratified for the CHILDREN of FREED SLAVES… The idea that this was meant to provide illegal alien children with automatic citizenship——Do you really think that in the 19th century… they passed an amendment to say that people Congress has forbidden from entering here can have automatic children, citizens?”

His closing line?

“No human being who suggests it should be taken seriously.”

April 23, 2025 – OMG undercover: DoD Branch Chief calls Trump “illegitimate,” vows to “resist him, everything he does”

DRAINING THE DEEP STATE: DoD Branch Chief Calls President Trump “Illegitimate,” Vows to “Resist Him, Everything He Does,” Claims Pete Hegseth Is “Insanely Young” and Unfit to Lead: “Nobody I Know Should Be the Secretary of Defense”

“The same guy who tried to overthrow an election is just, like, truly setting us down a path of dictatorship.”

“I think they [Government] don’t care who they hurt.”

“We could be facing a worst-case scenario,” said Nicolas Turza, a Branch Chief at the Department of Defense (@DeptofDefense), during an undercover date with an OMG journalist. Turza, whose role places him in a position of influence within the Pentagon, openly expressed opposition to the Commander-in-Chief.

Referring to President Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Turza stated, “The same guy who tried to overthrow an election is just, like, truly setting us down a path of dictatorship. He’s illegitimate. He’s terribly immoral, breaking every norm. We’re going to resist him. Everything he does.”

He added, “I’m a very patriotic person, and I’ve never been less patriotic.”

Turza also criticized Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (@SecDef), saying, “This is insane… That’s not a good reflection on me. That’s a bad reflection on Trump… Nobody I know should be the Secretary of Defense.” He questioned Hegseth’s qualifications, calling him “insanely young to be the part” and adding, “he wasn’t that high up in the military.”

Discussing the Pentagon’s culture under the current administration, Turza revealed, “I think they don’t care who they hurt… They do a lot of the things that they do to enact a change that they see is making America in a populist, conservative framework that is more traditional, even if that means being sexist or racist or chauvinist.”

When asked his personal opinion of the president, Turza didn’t hold back: “The worst thing about him is his utter lack of moral principle… The second worst thing about him is how stupid he could be.”
OMG has reached out to the Department of Defense and Nicolas Turza for comment.

@PeteHegseth

UPDATE 4/24/2025

April 24, 2025 – 49 and counting: Activist judges who are violating presidential powers under Article 2 of the Constitution

Corrupt Judicial Coup ongoing in America!
49 and Counting…Activist Judges, Filed, 196 legal challenges, in just a few months.
All Violating Presidential Powers Under The Constitution Article 2!

1-Judge Paul Englemayer
2-Judge Amy Berman Jackson
3-Judge Emmet Sullivan
4-Judge Ketanji B Jackson
5-Judge Angel Kelly
6-Judge John D Bates
7-Judge Jeannette Vargas
8-Judge John J McConnell
9-Judge Bredan Hurson
10-Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali
11.Judge Carl J Nichols
12-Judge Rudolph Contreras
13-Judge Anthony J. Trenga
14-Judge Adam Abelson
15-Judge Jamal Whitehead
16-Judge Loren Alikhan
17-Judge Sharon J Coleman
18-Judge William Alsup
19- Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
20-Judge Lauren King
21-Judge Deborah Boardman
22- Judge Jesse M Furman
23-Judge Christopher Cooper
24-Judge Myong Joun
25-Judge Gabriel Fuentes
26-Judge Ana Reyes
27-Judge William Alsup
28-Judge Tanya Chutkan
29-Judge James Boasberg
30-Judge Beryl Howell
31-Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
32-Judge Theodore D. Chuang
33-Judge Ana de Alba
34-Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander
35-Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles
36-Judge Edward Chen
37-Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín
38-Judge Mary S. McElroy
39-Judge Paula Xinis
40-Judge Trevor McFadden
41-Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr
42-Judge Alvin Hellerstein
43-Judge Indira Talwani
44-Judge John A. Woodcock
45-Judge Julia Eleanor Kobick
46-Judge Royce Lamberth
47-Judge Charlotte Sweeney
48-Judge Stephanie Gallagher
49-Judge William Orrick

#SupremeCourtComprimised

According to Litigation Tracker, there are 209 legal filings against the Trump’s executive actions.

This public resource tracks legal challenges to Trump administration actions. If you think we are missing anything, you can email us at lte@justsecurity.org. Special thanks to  Just Security Student Staff Editors Anna Braverman, Isaac Buck, Rick Da, Charlotte Kahan, and Jeremy Venook, and to Matthew Fouracre and Nour Soubani.

The Tracker is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions. Readers may also be interested in signing up for our free Early Edition roundup of news and our end-of-day newsletter with Just Security articles from the day (We respect your privacy. We do not use your email address for any other purpose except to automatically send you the requested email.)

Stay In the Know with co-editor-in-chief Ryan Goodman’s weekly newsletter with key takeaways from legal challenges to the Trump administration’s actions by subscribing (for free) via Substack.

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strzok overjoyed that Flynn case not closed

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

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

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

The leaks begin

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

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

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

The leakers of the Flynn calls were never found.

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

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

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

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

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

Obama White House kept tabs on Flynn

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

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

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

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

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

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

The task fell to Comey, McCabe, and Strzok.

The Flynn-Kislyak call and the FBI interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flynn, Pence, and the Kislyak call

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leakers not caught

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Mock (Credit: X.com)

Brian was denied justice.

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

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

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

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

⚖️ This is not due process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reparations and justice for those shot, mischarged, or silenced

April 25, 2025 – FBI arrest Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan and charge her for obstructing an illegal alien arrest

 Eduardo Flores Ruiz and Judge Hannah Dugan (Credit Fox News)

Just NOW, the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction — after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week.

We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest.

Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since, but the Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.

We will have more to share soon. Excellent work @FBIMilwaukee.