Featured Timeline Entries
June 22, 2024 - Julie Kelly covers Jack Smith's gag order motions on Trump in advance of hearing

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

June 22, 2024 - Kash Patel: According to British court docs, Paul Ryan was first to receive Steele Dossier and then didn't tell anyone about it

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE 6/24/2024

June 24, 2024 -CNN wants to censor viewers who might clip parts of the upcoming presidential debate and post/discuss on social media; Elon Musk says he will not comply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boom!

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

June 24, 2024 - AFL Part 3: New docs from disbanded DHS group reveal how January 6 and the raid at Mar-a-Lago emboldened DHS to expand monitoring Americans

America First Legal logo and X header

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

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

January 6 as a catalyst for expanding surveillance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned for the next installment of #DeepStateDiaries…

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

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

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

June 24, 2024 - The US Postal Service helps surveil Americans

 

U.S. Postal Service logo 1970-1993

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 24, 2024 - Wikileaks founder Julian Assange reaches plea deal and is free

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

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

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

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

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

“We appreciate the Court accommodating these plea and sentencing proceedings on a single day at the joint request of the parties, in light of the defendant’s opposition to traveling to the continental United States to enter his guilty plea and the proximity of this federal U.S. District Court to the defendant’s country of citizenship, Australia, to which we expect he will return at the conclusion of the proceedings,” Mr. McKenzie wrote.

Under the terms of the plea deal, Mr. Assange will serve no additional time than the 62 months that he’s already served in a British prison.

Before spending five years in a prison in the UK, Mr. Assange spent seven years at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he was granted refuge until his asylum was revoked and he was carried out of the embassy and arrested.

Mr. Assange has been fighting extradition to the United States for over 10 years. (Read more: The Epoch Times, 6/24/2024)  (Archive)

June 25, 2024 - New information shows CIA contractors colluded with Biden campaign to discredit Biden laptop story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 25, 2024 - CNN debate moderator, Dana Bash, was married to one of the "Spies Who Lied" about the Biden laptop; questions of her impartiality during the debate ensues

June 26, 2024 - Clinton, Pompeo, Pence, and other Deep State critters, still hate Assange—here’s why

(Credit: Revolver News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assange Exposed Early On the Dark Side of Big Tech

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

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

Julian Assange via Newsweek:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assange Humiliated the Military-Industrial Complex 

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

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

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

June 26, 2024 - James Clapper, Mr. October Surprise: How Obama's intel czar rigged 2016 and 2020 debates against Trump

James Clapper (Credit: public domain)

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

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

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

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

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

June 27, 2024 - Trump and Biden debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full Debate:

 

June 28, 2024 - SCOTUS Fischer decision is a win for J6 defendants and a loss for the weaponized DOJ

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

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

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

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

June 28, 2024 - The DC judges who sentenced J6'ers based on the DOJ's unlawful application of 1512(c)(2)

List of shame (of course they have none)–

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

Judge Beryl Howell (Obama, former chief judge)

Judge James Boasberg (Obama, current chief judge)

Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama)

Judge Trevor McFadden (Trump)

Judge John Bates (GW Bush)

Judge Amit Mehta (Obama)

Judge Dabny Friedrich (Trump)

Judge Royce Lamberth (Reagan)

Judge Richard Leon (GW Bush)

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton)

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama)

Judge Timothy Kelly (Trump)

Judge Randolph Moss (Clinton)

Judge Paul Friedman (Clinton)

Judge Christopher Cooper (Obama)

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

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

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Cornelia Pillard

June 28, 2024 - Supreme Court delivers crippling blow to permanent bureaucracy’s power over American lives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2024 - FOIA docs prove it was an interagency effort that overthrew the U.S. government on Nov 3, 2020

Freedom of Information Act: CONFIRMS

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

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

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

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

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

(Credit: Amazon Books)

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

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

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

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

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

h/t @seacaptim

July 1, 2024 - SCOTUS rules any President of the United States has "absolute immunity" from prosecution for his official, not personal acts

Special Counsel Jack Smith arrives to give remarks on a recently unsealed indictment against former President Donald Trump on August 1, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

My Statement on the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision:

The Supreme Court of the United States followed 40-year-old precedent and correctly ruled the President of the United States—any President—is immune from criminal prosecution for his official—not personal—acts.

Federal judges and Members of Congress are immune from criminal prosecution for their official acts, and the Supreme Court today made clear that so is the President.

This is a crucial decision to protect the separation of powers, the presidency, and therefore, our country.

We would not be here today but for the fact that President Biden politicized and weaponized his Justice Department to destroy his political enemy.

The Supreme Court rebuked Biden’s republic-ending tactics.

No longer does President Obama have to fear imprisonment for his drone strike of two American citizens, nor does Biden for his illegal release of violent criminal migrants into America.

The Supreme Court is our line of defense against tyranny, including Biden’s unprecedented lawfare and election interference against Trump. The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most monumental decisions in its history.

Clipping from SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity (Pg. 1)

Members of Congress have immunity both in civil and criminal instances for their official acts. And so do federal judges.

So it makes sense for the President to have the same protections.

The only reason we’re deciding this now is due to the fact that we’ve never had a former president charged in the history of our nation for something done as an official act.

Biden and his Democrat henchmen broke that precedent, and they’ll come to regret it.

Thanks to @VinceCoglianese and @dbongino for having me on during this pivotal moment in American history.

July 1, 2024 - Newly released 2008 Epstein transcript reveals prosecutors knew Epstein had sex with underage girls years before plea deal

Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest drew national attention, particularly focusing on a deal that allowed him to plead guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor for prostitution in Florida and avoid more serious federal charges. | (Credit: Richard Drew/Associated Press)

…last week a Florida judge dropped a bombshell 150-page transcript related to a 2006 grand jury investigation of Jeffrey Epstein (readers may remember him if not his clients, none of whom it would appear are notable enough to be criminally charged), revealing that prosecutors were aware that Epstein sexually abused underage girls.

As Breanna Morello explains, the transcripts reveal that the deal between Epstein and prosecutors came two years after they learned that Epstein engaged in statutory rape of teenage girls, and resulted in minimal punishments for the billionaire human trafficker. In the end, Epstein was charged with only one count of solicitation of prostitution from a minor, despite evidence of multiple rapes and a pattern of behavior. Thanks to this slap on the wrist which meant he would be free shortly after, Epstein went on to sexually exploit children until his “suicide” in 2019 and made hundreds of millions from child trafficking with countless billionaires and political oligarchs, ferrying them back and forth on his Lolita Express to Epstein island, where countless underage girls were raped by the true ruling class which to this day remains immune from the legal system.

“Details in the record will be outrageous to decent people,”Judge Luis Delgado wrote, adding that the transcript has (further) diminished public perception of the criminal justice system, which in recent months is best known for getting hijacked to serve Biden’s failed crusade to incarcerate Trump before the election. The filings were released after a 2024 Florida law made it legal to do so for transcripts related to Epstein.

As noted above, the 2008 charges boiled down to a count of solicitation of prostitution from a minor, despite investigators’ knowledge of Epstein’s pattern of behavior, including numerous incidents of rape. The charge was significantly less severe than the evidence warranted, especially since investigators had knowledge of Epstein’s pattern of behavior, including numerous incidents of rape. The limited charge ignored the full extent of Epstein’s criminal activities.

Florida’s Southern District Attorney, Alex Acosta (Credit: public domain)

The filing, which itself further unveils prosecutorial missteps that enabled Epstein’s later conduct, came years after the lenient, and delayed, sentence was criticized.

“The story of how Jeffrey Epstein victimized some of Palm Beach County’s most vulnerable has been the subject of much anger and has at times diminished the public’s perception of the criminal justice system,” Delgado wrote.

Florida’s Southern District Attorney, Alex Acosta, who served for a period of time as Trump former Secretary of Labor, approved a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2008, despite prosecutors’ knowledge of the rapes. Acosta eventually left the Trump administration in scandal after details emerged outlining his botched prosecution of the prolific trafficker.

Watch the full report below.

(Read more: Zero Hedge, 7/06/2024)  (Archive)

July 1, 2024 - Justice Thomas writes Jack Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel may be unconstitutional

In Monday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the secondary issue regarding the constitutionality of Jack Smith‘s appointment as a special prosecutor for Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ). Smith is currently overseeing two separate prosecutions targeting former President Donald J. Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee and currently favored to defeat Biden in November’s election.

“In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States,” Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. He continued: “But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”

At the heart of Justice Thomas‘s argument is that Article II of the U.S. Constitution specifically grants the power to create inferior offices in the executive branch not to the President but to Congress. He contends that without legislative authorization, Attorney General Merrick Garland‘s appointment of a Special Counsel is unconstitutional.

Justice Thomas quotes the Appointments Clause in his concurring opinion on presidential immunity (pg. 53).

“By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” the justice wrote, adding: ” If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” (Read more: The National Pulse, 7/01/2024)  (Archive)

July 1, 2024 - Biden makes remarks on Supreme Court immunity ruling

Jonathan Turley comments:

No, President Biden, the Supreme Court Did Not Remove All Limits on the Presidency

July 2, 2024 - CNN expert says SCOTUS immunity decision could impact evidence used in Alvin Bragg’s case; Bragg agrees and suspends sentencing

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams (Credit: CNN)

A former Justice Department official said on Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity could impact Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s business documents case against former President Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s claims of immunity over “official acts” as president in a case stemming from an indictment secured by special counsel Jack Smith over the former president’s efforts to contest the 2020 election in a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams told “CNN This Morning” host Kasie Hunt that some of the evidence introduced in the trial, including the testimony of former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, might be in question.

“Let’s talk about what the Supreme Court decided,” Williams said. “What they‘d said was that evidence of official acts cannot even be used to help support prosecuting someone for unofficial acts of the presidency. So case in point, let’s use Donald Trump’s New York trial. Obviously it‘s personal conduct, private behavior, sleeping with porn stars, cooking the books of your corporation, whatever else, right however, it relied on the testimony of Hope Hicks, a former White House aide, and other evidence that is tied to his time in the White House. Now, Trump’s team can plausibly claim some of these were official acts that can’t even be used as evidence.”

(Read more: The Daily Caller, 7/02/2024)  (Archive)

A short while later:

Prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office agreed on Tuesday to delay former President Donald Trump’s sentencing, The New York Times reported.

A Manhattan jury convicted Trump May 30 on 34 felony counts of falsification of business records. Bragg’s office agreed to a request to delay the sentencing in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that found presidents have immunity from prosecution for “official acts” taken in office, but called the motion by Trump’s attorneys meritless, according to the NYT.

“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Joshua Steinglass, an assistant district attorney, wrote in response, according to the NYT. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 7/02/2024)  (Archive)