Thursday, March 16, 2023

The 2020 Election Steal Required an “Emergency” on Jan 6 to Complete the Coup


EXPLOSIVE: The 2020 Election Steal Required an “Emergency” on Jan 6 to Complete the Coup

An “emergency” was required on Jan 6 to prevent the 2020 election coup from being uncovered. 

(When I first read and put this together I jumped out of my chair and said aloud – “No Way”)

The Conservative Treehouse laid this out in an article a couple of days ago.  This is a very important read.  What this shows is that the Democrats and the Deep State needed an “emergency” on January 6th to culminate their 2020 Election steal.

In order to complete the 2020 Election coup, Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell and Pence needed to create an emergency.  The only way to prevent Congress from delaying the certification of state electoral votes was to create a crisis that could easily be designated an emergency.

Just moments, literally 3 minutes before two representatives issued a vote for motions to suspend the certification, the House members were “informed” by capitol police and other “agents” that a protest was about to breach the chambers. It was at this time that key people: Pence, Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconnell can be seen being walked out and escorted from the chamber. This effectively halted the Entire Chamber Process…

The crisis was created to eliminate the motion challenges to halt the certification and to begin voting to look into voting irregularities and fraud.

The two motions were completely legal and constitutional under at least two constitutionally recognized procedures… procedures that would REQUIRE the House to pause the certification and then vote to determine whether the motions of suspend could move forward…

Conservative Treehouse opines that by eliminating the motions from the records of the House, they could certify the fraud with no detractors on record and give SCOTUS a reason to claim that cases before it lacked standing.

In order to prevent those two motions, the Speaker of the House, the Minority Leaders, and the President of the Congress (VP Pence) could not be PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS.

This allowed Speaker Pelosi to suspend the Congress UNILATERALLY UNDER EMERGENCY RULES. This protest was necessary. The crisis was created because there is no other way to suspend the business of certification UNILATERALLY.  The crisis invoked emergency procedures and Pelosi was able to prevent the delay of certification herself.

When Congress returned later that night, Pelosi was in charge:

The Speaker initiated the NEW sessions under special emergency rules. These rules abandon and make it clear that the ONLY purpose of the new session was to EXPEDITE the certification and dismiss all prior regular session procedural rules. This is why those two motions to table votes to consider a debate and pause to the certifications of state vote electors never happened later that evening when the house business was reconvened!…

…it was at THIS NEW SESSION that VP Pence, President of Congress, would also have no ability to even consider pausing the electoral certification, because there were no motions of disagreements on the matter. So, in a technical legal claim, he is correct that he had no constitutional authority to address any issues of fraud or doubts about electoral irregularities.

But how did Pence know this ahead of time so that he could clarify it in his statement that he released while President Trump was still talking?

This was a coup….it was a very organized and carefully planned coup. VP Pence without a doubt as well as most members of the house were quite aware of how the certification was going to be MANAGED.  It would require new rules to prevent the debate clause from occurring!  New rules that ONLY AN EMERGENCY CRISIS COULD CREATE! So, they created an emergency.

The Jan 6 riots were planned.  We all know it.  Now we better understand why.

Monday, March 6, 2023

Will Japan throw its old people on the tracks?


Demographic train wreck: Will Japan throw its old people on the tracks?

- - Saturday, March 4, 2023

It didn’t take long to start heading where no civilized people should go. A Japanese professor at Yale is talking about euthanasia for his country’s growing population of older adults.

One-third of Japanese are over 65. One in 5 live alone. More than 30,000 die alone each year. A small industry has sprung up to remove their remains.

Japan’s elderly crisis is a consequence of its demographic crisis. The nation has one of the world’s lowest fertility rates — an average of 1.3 children per woman, with 2.1 needed to maintain population stability.

In 2022, its population declined by 800,000. It’s projected to fall an additional 30% by 2045. Back in the 1980s, Japan’s economy seemed invincible, and we were all learning Japanese business techniques. It worked for a while. In 1990, the nation’s gross domestic product grew 4.9%. By 2019, this growth had slowed to 0.3%. There aren’t enough young workers to keep the economy growing and pay social benefits to care for the aged.

In such a situation, ice floes look increasingly inviting. Professor Yusuke Narita, who is 38, told The New York Times in a Feb. 12 interview: “I feel like the solution is pretty clear. In the end, isn’t it mass suicide and mass seppuku of the elderly?”

And it needn’t necessarily be voluntary. “The possibility of making it mandatory in the future will come up in the discussion,” the professor remarked.

Mr. Narita has a huge social media following. Some Japanese lawmakers are saying he’s creating the conditions for a much-needed discussion. “There is criticism that older people are receiving too much pension money and young people are supporting all of the old people,” a leading member of the Diet says.

Solutions — other than seppuku?

In a Jan. 23 policy address, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that “it’s now or never” for addressing the nation’s demographic tailspin. He wants to double child-related spending, including more for day care and childrearing support — the sort of unimaginative solutions that politicians on the left and right favor.

But Japan also has a low marriage rate, a precursor of a low birthrate. Will the government set up Vegas-style wedding chapels where couples can be united by Elvis impersonators? Can young couples be bribed to have children?

Nippon isn’t alone. After decades of its ruinous one-child policy, China faces its own demographic disaster. In 2022, for the first time since the mass starvation of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, China lost a population of 850,000 from the previous year. And it will only get worse. China’s population is expected to decline by 100 million by 2050 and 600 million by the end of the century.

Some China watchers say Chinese President Xi Jinping is panicking over his nation’s coming population collapse, which may force him to try to achieve his territorial ambitions while he still has the military muscle.

Ailing Asian dragons are at the forefront of what could be the great plague of the 21st century. But the West can’t afford to be complacent. America’s fertility rate has fallen to 1.6. Over the past decade, fewer babies have been born each year — the first time that’s happened since we began keeping records.

East and West, all of us suffer from the same ailment. In each generation, fewer are marrying, and those who do aren’t having enough children.

We live in an anti-child culture driven by the myths of climate change and overpopulation and good old-fashioned misogyny.

James Cameron, director of the noble-savage Avatar movies, told Time magazine that he can “relate to Thanos,” the villain in Marvel’s Infinity Wars, who wants to wipe out half of all life in the universe, in the belief that population growth is unsustainable.

I keep thinking of another work of fiction — “The Children of Men,” a dystopian novel set in Britain, where a worldwide plague of infertility leads to forced euthanasia. In ceremonies called Quietus, the old are towed offshore on barges that are sunk, and the people drown. Those who survive to reach the shore are clubbed to death.

Are such horrors to mark the end of civilization? The answer isn’t a change of policy but a change of heart. We must return to a culture of life — one that doesn’t sacrifice the vulnerable on either end of life’s spectrum but treats each as a gift from God.

Those with faith in the future have children. Those who don’t don’t. Where does faith in the future come from? It comes from faith in a higher power.

Wednesday, March 1, 2023

Musk: Electric Cars Will Require a Lot More Electric Power Than We Currently Have

Tesla CEO Elon Musk says we’ll need more electricity to power cars like his. A lot more.

Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said on Tuesday that electricity consumption will double if the world’s car fleets are electrified, increasing the need to expand nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind energy generating sources.

Increasing the availability of sustainable energy is a major challenge as cars move from combustion engines to battery-driven electric motors, a shift which will take two decades, Musk said in a talk hosted by Berlin-based publisher Axel Springer.

There’s no unicorn energy source or free lunch. Currently, electric cars are primarily powered by coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Those are the sources we use to generate electricity, after all, according to the Energy Information Agency. Renewables are growing but still account for less than 20% of U.S. electricity.

There’s no free lunch when it comes to renewable energy sources, which may not even be all that renewable. Wind and sun are free, but the means of generating power from them are not.

They require batteries, which requires extensive mining and the use of toxic chemicals.

Mining is a dirty business.

Weighing those trade-offs — between supporting mining in environmentally sensitive areas and sourcing metals needed to power renewables — is likely to become more common if countries continue generating more renewable energy. That’s according to a report out Wednesday from researchers at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney in Australia. The report, commissioned by the environmental organization Earthworks, finds that demand for metals such as copper, lithium and cobalt would skyrocket if countries around the world try to get their electric grids and transportation systems fully powered by renewable energy by 2050. Consequently, a rush to meet that demand could lead to more mining in countries with lax environmental and safety regulations and weak protections for workers.

“If not managed responsibly, this has the potential for new adverse environmental and social impacts,” the report says.

The giant composite glass blades on modern windmills are not efficiently recyclable, so after they’re used up they end up in landfills, Bloomberg reported in February 2020.

Tens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF. It’s going to get worse: Most were built more than a decade ago, when installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.

They’re so durable they’re practically indestructible.

Built to withstand hurricane-force winds, the blades can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed. That’s created an urgent search for alternatives in places that lack wide-open prairies. In the U.S., they go to the handful of landfills that accept them, in Lake Mills, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Casper, where they will be interred in stacks that reach 30 feet under.

Removing them and transporting them to landfills increases windmills’ energy footprint over time.

All of this is true, but Barack Obama still wants you to know that he disapproves of your wish to have a car you can use and that you can afford to drive. Because that means using gasoline.

On page 570 (of his second autobiography before turning 60 -ed.), the former commander in chief recounts a press conference he gave more than a month into the oil spill – now considered one of the largest in history – saying his comments did not adequately express the frustration he truly felt.


He then chastised Americans for not being willing to foot the bill for technology to “quickly plug the hole because it would be expensive to have such technology on hand, and we Americans didn’t like paying higher taxes—especially when it was to prepare for problems that hadn’t happened yet.”

The only way to truly prevent another catastrophe, like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Obama says, “was to stop drilling entirely.”

“But that wasn’t going to happen because at the end of the day we Americans loved our cheap gas and big cars more than we cared about the environment, except when a complete disaster was staring us in the face,” he writes.

“Paying higher taxes…stop drilling entirely…”

There’s no free lunch and that’s not even middle school-level realism from the former president. Energy comes at some cost and likely always will. Stopping drilling wouldn’t just stop gas-powered cars. It would eventually stop the whole economy. Natural gas, our largest source of electricity, is a byproduct of drilling for crude oil. Stopping drilling for crude means little or no natural gas as well. That would reduce our electric generation by about a third by itself. Even if America stopped drilling because Obama said so, the rest of the world wouldn’t. Russia and the Middle East would go right on drilling, and we would become far more dependent on them for our energy, in turn endangering our national security and making the world less stable.

Musk is being a realist, which is refreshing. He recognizes the simple fact that more electric cars will require more electric generation. Electric cars are seen by too many as some escape from the ways we currently run our cars. But they’re not. At best, electric cars currently just transfer where the energy gets created, from burning dead dinosaurs inside of the vehicle itself to burning them someplace else. But for the most part, something is still being burned somewhere to make Teslas move.

At this point, electric cars move — as long as the grid to support them is available. For the most part, it’s not. So, of course, electric car owners are calling on government to fund that, which would mean more taxes.

And let’s take a look at Barack Obama’s massive new home, shall well?

The (6,982 square foot) home features seven bedrooms, eight and a half baths and several stone fireplaces. There is a two-car garage, a detached barn and a pool.

The property also offers direct access to the pond, and includes a boat house and a private beach front with deeded rights, as per the listing on LandVest.

It’s on 29 acres and cost over $11 million.

But he wants you to pay higher taxes to fuel his unrealistic power plays while he enjoys his Netflix money.


Monday, February 27, 2023

Abolish the White Race

Abolish the White Race

September-October 2002

This excerpt from When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories, edited by Bernestine Singley, appeared in 2002 as part of Harvard Magazine’s coverage of recent books by Harvard affiliates. The excerpt concerns author Noel Ignatiev’s role in launching a journal “to chronicle and analyze the making, remaking, and unmaking of whiteness.”


"The good news is that there are now a host of writers and a growing number of courses and workshops designed to enlighten white people as to the real benefits and the great cost of their property in whiteness," writes former Harvard Law School professor Derrick Bell in his epilogue to When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories, edited by Bernestine Singley, LL.M. '76 (Lawrence Hill Books, $26.95). Many of those engaged in this Herculean task are white, Bell notes, among them Noel Ignatiev, Ed.M. '85, Ph.D. '94, C.A.S. '95, author of How the Irish Became White and a fellow at the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute, who writes:


In the interests of survival, Afro-Americans have always studied whiteness. There is a long tradition among them that the white race is a peculiar sort of social formation, one that depends on its members' willingness to conform to the institutions and behavior patterns that reproduce it. By the early was becoming commonplace in the academy to speak of race, along with class and gender, as a social construct....

 In addition to the notion of race as a social construct, [an old friend, John Garvey, and I] shared another, which we owed to the West Indian Marxist C.L.R. James: that ordinary Americans are drawn by the conditions of their lives in two opposite directions, one that mirrors and reproduces the present society of competition and exploitation, and another that points toward a new society based on freely associated activity. We believed that this internal antagonism played itself out as a civil war within the white mind, between the desire of whites to wall themselves off from black Americans and their desire to overcome the boundaries that kept them apart.

John and I decided that it was time to launch a journal to document that civil war. The result was Race Traitor, whose first issue appeared in the fall of 1992 with the slogan "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity" on its cover. The aim was to chronicle and analyze the making, remaking, and unmaking of whiteness. My book on the Irish was the story of how people for whom whiteness had no meaning learned its rules and adapted their behavior to take advantage of them; Race Traitor was an attempt to run the film backwards, to explore how people who had been brought up as white might become unwhite....

The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Of course we expected bewilderment from people who still think of race as biology. We frequently get letters accusing us of being "racists," just like the KKK, and have even been called a "hate group." ...

Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc....

Every group within white America has at one time or another advanced its particular and narrowly defined interests at the expense of black people as a race. That applies to labor unionists, ethnic groups, college students, schoolteachers, taxpayers, and white women. Race Traitor will not abandon its focus on whiteness, no matter how vehement the pleas and how virtuously oppressed those doing the pleading. The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, "Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed—not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

Lauren Boebert Pulls Out Literal Giant Surprise from Elon Musk's Staff Seconds After Twitter Execs Lie to Her Face


Lauren Boebert Pulls Out Literal Giant Surprise from Elon Musk's Staff Seconds After Twitter Execs Lie to Her Face

GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado led some former Twitter executives down the primrose path during a congressional hearing Wednesday, only to spring a surprise on them.

The House Oversight and Accountability Committee conducted a hearing regarding Twitter’s past censorship policies, particularly in relation to the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety; Vijaya Gadde, former chief legal counsel; and James Baker, former Twitter deputy general counsel (and former FBI general counsel), were all on hand for a grilling.

Boebert began her questioning of the former executives by quoting from a tweet from the “Twitter Files” made by journalist Matt Taibbi in December.

“Twitter’s contact with the FBI was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary,” Taibbi said.

“Mr. Roth, while at Twitter, how many meetings did you have with the FBI?” Boebert asked.

“I couldn’t say for sure but I would say –,” Roth began to answer.

“More than 10?” the congresswoman interjected.

“That’s a reasonable estimate,” he responded.

“More than 20?” she followed up, which brought Roth back to his original stance of being uncertain of the number.

Asked if the total was more than 50, Roth responded, “That seems a bit high.”

The New York Post reported in December that the FBI held weekly meetings with Twitter and Facebook during the 2020 presidential campaign.

Boebert next asked how many former FBI agents were working at Twitter.

Roth said that he knew of two.

The congresswoman responded there was actually a group chat made up of nine former FBI agents at the company.

“It’s almost impossible to tell where the FBI ends and where Twitter begins,” she asserted. “We have Mr. Baker here, a former FBI agent, and there seems to be a revolving door between the FBI and Twitter itself.”

Boebert said Baker had previously stated there was no collusion with the federal government and Twitter, to which she said, “Mr. Baker, that’s you. You are the collusion between the federal government and the FBI.”

The congresswoman asked Roth and Gadde if either had approved the shadow banning of her Twitter account.

Roth said he did not, while Gadde answered, “Not to the best of my recollection.”

In law school, students are instructed not to ask a question of a witness at trial you don’t already know the answer to, and Boebert appeared to follow that counsel.

Boebert announced she was in fact shadow banned in early 2021 just after she took office.

“For members of Congress to be shadow banned, it had to go before you, Mr. Roth,” she said, citing Twitter policy.

“So I’ll ask again, did you shadow ban my account, yes or no?” Boebert questioned.

Roth followed Gadde’s lead responding, “Not to the best of my knowledge.”

“So the answer is, Mr. Roth, yes you did,” Boebert fired back. “I found out last night from Twitter staff that you suppressed my account” for a joke she tweeted about Hillary Clinton being angry that she couldn’t rig her election.

“You placed a 90-day account filter so I could not be found,” she said.

Proof of that was then set up behind her in the form of a large poster board showing documentation that she had received a “misinformation” strike from Twitter and her account had been given an “aggressive visibility filter.”

“You silenced members of Congress from communicating with their constituents,” Boebert argued. “You silenced me from communicating with the American people over a freaking joke.”

“Now who the hell do you think that you are?” the lawmaker angrily asked.

Boebert charged that election interference was taking place in 2020 and Twitter was the culprit.

“I am angry for the millions of Americans who were silenced because of your decisions, because of your actions, because of your collusion with the federal government,” she concluded.

Should the former Twitter executives be prosecuted for election interference?
99% (315 Votes)
1% (2 Votes)

On Thursday, Boebert introduced the ELON Act — an acronym for “Exposing Lewd Outlays for social Networking companies” that also happens to be the first name of Twitter’s new CEO, Elon Musk.

The legislation would require the federal government to reveal how much in payments it has made to big tech companies. It also would impose a one-year moratorium on any payments going from the FBI to Big Tech companies.

“The millions of dollars sent to Twitter that we know of during an election cycle, when they were at the same time censoring the Hunter Biden laptop from hell, is incredibly concerning,” Boebert said in a statement.

Fox News reported in December that the FBI confirmed it paid nearly $3.5 million to Twitter for “reimbursement” for the “reasonable costs and expenses associated with their response to a legal process … For complying with legal requests, and a standard procedure.”

Journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote about it in a “Twitter Files” release that month.

Musk tweeted in response, “Government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor info from the public.”

Boebert did a masterful job holding the former Twitter executives’ feet to the fire.

Free speech is essential to the American experiment in liberty.

Monday, February 13, 2023

How General Flynn and Sidney Powell Used the Brady Rule to Expose Obama and His Coup d’État Co-Conspirators as Traitors


Jerome Corsi: How General Flynn and Sidney Powell Used the Brady Rule to Expose Obama and His Coup d’État Co-Conspirators as Traitors

How General Flynn and Sidney Powell Used the Brady Rule to Expose Obama and His Coup d’État Co-Conspirators as Traitors

Part 1: Strzok’s “Papadopoulos Entrapment” Scheme Explained

Guest post by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.

On September 11, 2019, attorney Sidney Powell filed with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., a motion to compel the production of Brady material [Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)], i.e., exculpatory evidence the prosecution has not shared with the defendant, General Michael Flynn.  The list of exculpatory evidence Sidney Powell demanded reveals that Flynn knew documents existed that would prove that President Obama and his administration co-conspirators, aided by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had engaged in treasonous activity.  It was also apparent how desperately the Obama administration had worked to keep the requested documents from the American public.  Had the federal government complied with Powell’s requests for Brady material, Flynn could have established that Obama’s treasonous activity began by spying on Flynn before April 30, 2014, when Obama forced Flynn to resign as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

The Obama administration’s treasonous activity reached a new level of intensity in a secret Oval Office meeting on January 5, 2017.  In that meeting, Obama approved FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s illegal plan to ensnarl General Flynn in a “perjury trap.” The secret Oval Office meeting occurred one day after the Department of Justice (DOJ) had exonerated Flynn regarding telephone calls Flynn made as President-elect Trump’s incoming national security advisor with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016.

Powell’s motion, filed September 11, 2019, clarifies that if Flynn had taken office, he would have proven that U.S. intelligence agencies, with the full cooperation of the U.S. Department of Justice, collaborated in 2017 with British intelligence in the Obama-approved coup d’état plan to remove Trump from the White House.  He also could have exposed that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011 had supplied arms to the al-Qaeda splinter group that became ISIS in another covert plan that involved U.S. and British intelligence working together.

Paragraph 4 of Powell’s September 11, 2019, motion for Brady materials asks explicitly for “all payments, notes, memos, correspondence, and instructions” between, on the U.S. side, the DOJ, CIA, and Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.K. side, with several British intelligence agents going back to 2014 regarding General Flynn.  Powell mentions Stefan Halper, a Cambridge University professor who seconded as an intelligence officer.  As we covered in Part 1 of this series, Halper accused General Flynn of colluding with Russia during a Cambridge University Intelligence Seminar in the U.K. in February 2014 that Svetlana Lokhova attended.  Lokhova was a Russian-born British scholar who was taking courses at that time at Cambridge University.  Halper fabricated charges that Lokhova was a Russian spy with whom Flynn had an affair.  Powell also asked for documents related to Sir Richard Dearlove of British intelligence (MI6) and Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University (connected with MI5).  Dearlove had a forty-year career with MI6, where he rose to serve as its head from 1999 to 2004.  After graduating from Cambridge, MI6 recruited Christopher Steele (author of the infamous “Steele report”).  At MI6, Dearlove was Steele’s mentor.  Dearlove assisted Halper in running the Cambridge University seminar Flynn attended in 2014.  Andrew was an emeritus history professor at Cambridge and an associate of Dearlove and Halper.

On the U.S. side, Powell asked for communications and correspondence involving various DIA, CIA, DOJ, and DOD.  Had the government been honest, Sidney Powell would have succeeded in obtaining for Flynn’s defense documentary evidence of crimes the Obama administration committed using the intelligence and justice agencies of the U.S. government for criminal purposes.  Under the Supreme Court standard of Brady v. Maryland, General Flynn had a right to demand that the federal prosecutors had to disclose exculpatory material to the defenseFlynn knew that the government had to keep the requested documents secret, or Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and a score of other Obama administration officials faced severe criminal charges, including treason.  The list of Obama’s coup d’état co-conspirators that Flynn could quickly identify was extremely long.  Flynn’s list would undoubtedly have included John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page.

Powell’s motion also asked for any information regarding Joseph Mifsud.  Joseph Mifsud was a Maltese-born academic associated with Link Campus University, a school established in 1999 as the Rome branch of the University of Malta. Mifsud played a central role in the setup of George Papadopoulos.  The Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have asserted that the Russians, in their approach to Papadopoulos, “used common tradecraft and employed a cutout—a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud.” But the evidence is otherwise.  Mifsud is an academic by training and profession, but he also has close ties with British, Italian, and U.S. intelligence. Real Clear Investigations reporter Lee Smith tagged Mifsud as the “Maltese Phantom of Russiagate,” noting that although Mifsud has traveled many times to Russia and has contacts with Russian academics.  Misfud’s closest ties are to Western governments, politicians, and institutions, including the CIA.

Experts who have studied the coup d’état against Donald Trump launched by British and U.S. intelligence have realized, “all roads in Russia-gate lead to London.”  On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened Operation Crossfire Hurricane.  Text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page document, on August 3, 2016, only three days after the opening of Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Strzok was in London.  A declassified memo from the majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) to the majority members made clear that Strzok ran the FBI counterintelligence investigation.  The memo stated: “The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.”

Strzok met with Claire Smith, a U.K. Joint Intelligence Committee member in London.  Strzok knew Smith had worked with Mifsud at three different institutions—the London Academy of Diplomacy, the University of Stirling in Scotland, and Link University Campus in Rome. Smith was also a U.K. security vetting panel member and could brief Strzok on Mifsud, given that she had followed him from the London Academy of Diplomacy to Stirling University and Link University Campus in Rome. Smith and Mifsud were photographed together in October 2012 in Rome at Link University Campus, where they were involved in training Italian law enforcement on intelligence operations.  According to reports published in Italy, Link Campus University officially terminated Mifsud’s contract when Mifsud’s role with Papadopoulos became known. Then, in November 2018, Mifsud went missing; U.S. authorities presumed he was dead. Seven months later, however, Mifsud resurfaced. It turns out he never left Rome! Italian newspapers reported that when Mifsud was missing and presumed dead, he lived comfortably in an apartment near the U.S. embassy in Rome. A Greek diplomat owned the apartment, and Link Campus University paid the rent.  Strzok’s trip to London in August 2016 appears arranged to ensure the details of his Papadopoulos entrapment scheme remained hidden.

Let’s review the details Strzok engineered in a scheme designed to make it appear Papadopoulos knew in April 2016 that Russia had stolen Democratic party emails that contained information damaging to Hillary Clinton.  Remember, this was the predicate Strzok needed to open Operation Crossfire Hurricane at the end of July 2016.  In his book, Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump,[1] Papadopoulos explained step-by-step how he fell into Strzok’s trap.  George Papadopoulos describes Link Campus University in Rome as “Spook University” (pp. 37-38).  On April 26, 2016, after Mifsud returned from a trip to Russia, Papadopoulos met him for breakfast in London at the Andaz Hotel, near the Liverpool Street station. This breakfast meeting was the critical meeting in this Strzok’s entrapment scheme.  At the breakfast meeting at the Andaz Hotel, Mifsud surprised Papadopoulos. Mifsud leaned across the table conspiratorially and whispered to Papadopoulos, “the Russians have ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton—emails of Clinton. They have thousands of them” (p. 60).  In his book, Papadopoulos says he was shocked to hear this but didn’t know what to do with the information. “My mission is to make a meeting [between Trump and Putin] happen.  End of story.  Hacking, security breaches, potential blackmail—that is illegal and treasonous.  I want no part in it.” (p. 61).  Papadopoulos insists he did not want to pursue the subject but instead returned to the proposed Putin-Trump meeting. “But when we said goodbye, I have a feeling he’s still just spinning me” (p. 60).

After the meeting in which Mifsud “dropped the bomb” (p. 59) on Papadopoulos, intelligence-connected operatives intervened to set up Papadopoulos to meet with Alexander Downer, a leftist Australian politician who served as Australian high commissioner to the U.K. from 2014 to 2018.  Papadopoulos explained in his book that Christopher Cantor, his acquaintance at the Israeli embassy in London, called him to introduce him to his girlfriend, Erika Thompson. (p. 63).  Ericka Thompson, whom Papadopoulos first described as “an Australian woman in her mid-thirties,” introduced Papadopoulos to Downer (p. 64). Papadopoulos subsequently described Erika as “the Australian ‘diplomat’ who is ‘dating’ the Israeli ‘political officer’ Christopher Cantor.  Papadopoulos explains: “Yes, those quotation marks are there for a reason.  A high-profile reporter based in Washington recently told me that Christopher and Erika were both intelligence officers for their respective countries, something Erika has repeatedly denied” (p. 71).

On the rainy London evening of May 10, 2016, Papadopoulos met with Downer and Erika for drinks at the Kensington Wine Rooms.  Now, Papadopoulos describes Erika and Downer as follows: “It’s a wet, ugly London evening on May 10, 2016, when I go meet Erika Thompson and her boss, Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer” (p. 73).  The point is that Papadopoulos is catching on that the people who approach him seemingly innocently while he is in London are all intelligence officers connected to the country of their nationality. This swanky joint boasts of having some 150 different wines by the glass.  A day or two after the meeting at the wine bar, Downer reported by cable to his diplomatic superiors in Canberra that Papadopoulos knew the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.  Downer, who also appears to be an informant to the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (the equivalent of the CIA), claims to have reported by cable to his diplomatic superiors in Canberra about his conversation with Papadopoulos at the wine bar.

This information appeared buried within the Australian government until July 22, 2016, when over two days, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks began making public some forty thousand stolen DNC emails that forced Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair.  Papadopoulos suggests that Downer shared the information with Chargé d’Affaires Elizabeth Dibble.  She was the U.S. deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in London. Dibble, a career diplomat, was the Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d’Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Rome from 2008-2010.  Papadopoulos comments in his book that Dibble was in close touch with Gregory Baker and Terrence Dudley, two presumed CIA agents posing as military attachés to the U.S. embassy in London (p. 76).  Baker and Dudley were monitoring Papadopoulos in London, possibly from the first moment he arrived in March 2016.  Papadopoulos explained: “The most widely reported sequence of events is that within forty-eight hours of our meeting, Downer sends a cable to Australian intelligence reporting my alleged remark” (p. 76).  Once Downer’s information reached the State Department, it was conveyed to the FBI by Jonathan Winer, the former deputy assistant secretary of state who communicated with Christopher Steele during the summer of 2016.

Reporter Kimberley A. Strassel at the Wall Street Journal correctly noted that the information from Downer about Mifsud’s conversation with Papadopoulos originated with Downer and reached the FBI outside normal channels.  Strassel reports the chain of communication as follows:

When Downer ended his service in the U.K. this April [2018], he sat for an interview with the Australian, a national newspaper, and “spoke for the first time” about the Papadopoulos event.  Mr. Downer said he officially reported the Papadopoulos meeting back to Australia “the following day or a day or two after,” as it “seemed quite interesting.”  The story nonchalantly notes that “after a period of time, Australia’s ambassador to the U.S., Joe Hockey, passed the information on to Washington.

But Strassel insists that her reporting “indicates otherwise.”  She explained:

A diplomatic source tells me Mr. Hockey neither transmitted any information to the FBI nor was approached by the U.S. about the trip.  Rather, it was Mr. Downer who at some point decided to convey his information—to the U.S. Embassy in London.

Why is this important?  The United States is part of the “Five Eyes,” an intelligence network that includes the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. “Five Eyes” originated in 1946 as an alliance between the U.S. (National Security Agency, NSA), the U.K. (Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ), Australia (Australian Signals Directorate, ASD), Canada (Communications Security Establishment Canada, CSEC), and New Zealand (Government Communications Security Bureau, GCSB).  Each of the Five Eyes nations conducts its own interception, collection, acquisition, analysis, and decryption activities, sharing all the intelligence each obtains with the others by default.

Strassel stressed that Downer’s job was to report his meeting back to Canberra and leave it to Australian intelligence.  “We also know that it wasn’t Australian intelligence that alerted the FBI,” she wrote.  “The document that launched the FBI probe [Operation Crossfire Hurricane] contains no foreign intelligence whatsoever.  So if Australian intelligence did receive the Downer info, it didn’t feel compelled to act on it.”  Strassel’s point is that the Obama State Department was the agency that acted on Downer’s information.  “The Downer details landed with the embassy’s then-chargé d’affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.”

Strassel put the puzzle together as follows:

When did all this happen, and what came next?  Did the info go straight to U.S. intelligence? Or did it instead filter to the wider State Department team, who we already know were helping foment Russia-Trump conspiracy theories?  Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, has publicly admitted to communicating in the summer of 2016 with his friend Christopher Steele, author of the infamous dossier.

But Strassel picked up on a disconnect between the Mifsud communication of what Papadopoulos supposedly said and Downer’s version.

Meanwhile, something doesn’t gel between Mr. Downer’s account of the conversation and the FBI’s.  In his Australian interview, Mr. Downer said Mr. Papadopoulos didn’t give specifics.  “He didn’t say dirt, he said material that could be damaging to her,” said Downer.  “He didn’t say what it was.”  Also: “Nothing he said in that conversation indicated Trump himself had been conspiring with the Russians to collect information on Hillary Clinton.

Her research into the Papadopoulos affair led Strassel to begin doubting the veracity of the FBI’s decision to use Papadopoulos’s remarks to Mifsud as the pretext for opening a counterintelligence investigation into Trump.  She concluded:

For months we’ve been told the FBI acted because it was alarmed that Mr. Papadopoulos knew about those hacked Democratic emails in May [2016], before they became public in June [2016].  But according to the tipster himself, Mr. Papadopoulos said nothing about emails.  The FBI received a report that a far-removed campaign adviser, over drinks, said the Russians had something that might be “damaging” to Hillary.  Did this vague statement justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?  Unlikely.  Which leads us back to what did inspire the FBI to act, and when.  The Papadopoulos pretext is getting thinner.

The truth is that Papadopoulos knew nothing about who stole the DNC emails.  Papadopoulos’s goal in London was to see if he could elevate himself in Trump’s eyes by arranging for Trump a meeting with Putin.  Mifsud was the operative Strzok used Papadopoulos to plant on him the “Russia stole the DNC emails to get dirt on Hillary” origin.

In London, just days after the FBI opened Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Strzok met with Downer.  McCarthy noted the extraordinary nature of this Strzok meeting with Downer. “Breaking with diplomatic protocol after tense negotiations, the American and Australian governments had agreed that Strzok and another agent would be permitted to interview High Commissioner Alexander Downer, Canberra’s top emissary to London,” McCarthy wrote. “Downer had informed the American embassy that he believed Trump-campaign advisor George Papadopoulos had tipped him off to a Russian scheme to swing the presidency to Trump—mainly by hacking and releasing information that could damage Clinton, such as the tens of thousands of Democratic party emails now in circulation.” So now, the FBI was involved in international diplomatic affairs, working with British intelligence GCHQ, mixing responsibilities with the State Department and the CIA, by meeting Downer in London with obvious consent of GCHQ and the Australian government.

First, Strzok needed GCHQ to pin the Russian collusion narrative on Papadopoulos.  Next, Strzok needed Australian intelligence to pass the message to the U.S. State Department in London.  Strzok could not let anyone know pinning the Russian collusion on Papadopoulos was a convoluted Five Eyes intelligence operation. None of the Five Eyes countries want their intelligence agencies spying on their own citizens, and Strzok knew that if the FBI learned about the Papadopoulos escapade through GCHQ, his cover would be blown.  When the State Department in London passed the information to the State Department in Washington, and the State Department in Washington passed the information to the CIA, Strzok sanitized the information to be FBI actionable.  Strzok realized that the information from the Papadopoulos setup together with the Steele dossier was a sufficient predicate to open a counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign officials.  But the scheme would only work if the FBI got the Papadopoulos information through normal diplomatic channels, not Five Eyes.

Strzok’s scheme was complicated, but it worked.  Strzok used Mifsud to plant the “Russia stole Hillary’s email” comment on Papadopoulos.  Then Downer met with Papadopoulos and passed the word on to Australian intelligence.  Having informed Australia, Downer shared the statement with the State Department in London.  The State Department in London told the State Department in Washington.  The State Department in Washington passed the information to the FBI.  The FBI opened Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

Flynn must have figured out that Strzok had invented the Papadopoulos entrapment scheme just as Strzok invented the Flynn perjury trap over Flynn’s calls with Kislyak.  Powell filed the motion to get delivered to Flynn’s defense team the documentary evidence Flynn needed to expose Strzok’s ingenious circular methodology.  The FBI needed a tie between the Trump campaign and Russia to claim Trump colluded with Russia to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.  Strzok estimated that Papadopoulos was an easy mark.  Papadopoulos was young and inexperienced in international affairs, but Papadopoulos was also ambitious and connected to the Trump campaign.  What Strzok also knew was that what he did was both criminal and treasonous.  Strzok also knew that if Powell got the documents she requested in her motion to the court on September 11, 2019, Flynn would make public evidence exposing Strzok as the operational mastermind of the Obama-directed coup d’état against Trump.  The threat of having to release Brady exculpatory material was most likely the last straw convincing the Obama administration to drop all charges against General Flynn.

Strzok morphed the coup d’état scheme first to prevent Trump from winning in 2016, then to remove Trump from the White House after he won the election.  After the FBI decided Flynn had done nothing wrong in his telephone conversations with Kislyak, Strzok shifted to running a perjury trap on Flynn over whether or not Flynn discussed with Kislyak the sanctions Obama had placed on Russian intelligence.  Strzok schemed to open the FBI’s Operation Crossfire Hurricane hoping to deflect attention from the content of the DNC emails Assange was releasing.  Strzok’s original goal was to elect Hillary Clinton president.  When Trump won the 2016 election, Strzok’s plan shifted to removing Trump from office for having colluded with Russia to intervene in the presidential election for his benefit.  On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel.  Strzok trusted that Andrew Weissman on Mueller’s team would establish enough evidence that Trump’s campaign had colluded with Russia and Julian Assange at WikiLeaks to make the DNC emails public so as to inflict maximum damage on Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions.

So, what is the answer to why Obama was so determined to destroy Trump?  Obama knew that Flynn had the goods on him.  If Flynn had been allowed to be Trump’s national security advisor, Obama’s treason would be exposed.  Now, as the end game to get Flynn released from his plea deal, Powell decided to use the Brady rule to get Flynn’s defense team possession of the documents that would prove the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, President Obama, and top members of Obama’s administration were all in a treasonous coup d’état criminal scheme.  Powell succeeded in that the DOJ dropped all charges against Flynn.  Powell also succeeded in communicating through her court filings the reality of how Strzok criminally politicized U.S. intelligence to implement Obama’s treasonous coup d’état.  The time for a new Church Committee investigation is long overdue.

In 2020, Jerome Corsi published Coup d’État: Exposing Deep State Treason, from which much of this article was drawn.  In 2019, he published Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s “Witch Hunt,” explaining how the Mueller prosecutors confronted Dr. Corsi for over two months for hours at a time in a closed conference room with no windows.  Dr. Corsi effectively ended the Mueller “Russian Collusion” investigation when he refused to take the Mueller prosecutors’ plea deal, alleging he had lied to the FBI.  The FBI never indicted Dr. Corsi—further proof the Mueller prosecutors were the ones telling the lies.

[1] George Papadopoulos, Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump (New York: Diversion Books, 2019).  Page numbers are inserted into the text to identify quotations used here from the book.



Jerome Corsi: Part II on How General Flynn and Sidney Powell Used the Brady Rule to Expose Obama and His Coup d’État Co-Conspirators as Traitors

How General Flynn and Sidney Powell Used the Brady Rule to Expose Obama and His Coup d’État Co-Conspirators as Traitors

Part 2: Strzok’s Five Eyes Intel Scheme to Destroy Trump Explained

Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson is a member of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).  Johnson is confident the Obama co-conspirators utilized the “Five Eyes club” for intelligence sharing “without attracting undue attention.”  Papadopoulos sent emails in 2015 to Corey Lewandowski after Lewandowski was appointed Trump’s first campaign director. Johnson documents his reasons for being confident that Britain’s GCHQ and the NSA intercepted Papadopoulos’s emails to Lewandowski. He wrote: “It is now clear, with the benefit of hindsight, that these emails [that Papadopoulos wrote to Lewandowski] were transmitted as SIGINT [Signals Intelligence] reports.”  On April 24, 2019, in an interview on the One America News Network (OANN), Johnson explained Britain’s reasons for spying on Trump:

The British did this [use GCHQ to spy on Trump] in part, I am given to understand by people familiar with what was up, because they were concerned about Trump’s policies on NATO and Syria, and they wanted to make sure they could start understanding what he’s up to.

Johnson is further certain that Papadopoulos’s emails were “unmasked.”  Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA Act) surveillance is a loophole that allows the FBI to conduct warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens with practically no checks or accountability on the process. Obtaining a FISA Court warrant to authorize surveillance against U.S. citizens is supposed to be difficult under FISA law.  To get a warrant to authorize surveillance, DOJ attorneys, working with FBI agents, need to convince the FISA Court that probable cause exists to believe a U.S. citizen is an agent of a foreign power.  Section 702 of the FISA legislation allows the FBI—and other entities within the federal government, including the White House—to query the NSA to obtain any information it may have on a U.S. citizen being monitored by the NSA.  But the query is only legitimate if the government can establish credible (i.e., not fabricated) evidence to be suspicious a particular citizen is engaged in suspicious activity with foreign agents acting against the national security interests of the United States.

To be clear, under Section 702, the White House or the FBI, in practice, can merely use a foreign intelligence concern to ask the NSA about any information it may have obtained on U.S. citizens believed to be involved in foreign espionage activities.  Many Russian intelligence operatives and government officials were already under NSA electronic surveillance. So, FBI counterintelligence agents and various Obama administration officials could merely have asked the NSA under Section 702 for any information that the NSA may have collected on Flynn, or other Trump associates, regarding suspected “Russian collusion.”  Thus, Section 702 under Operation Crossfire Hurricane functioned as an FBI backdoor to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens.  The FBI could simply utilize Section 702, thus avoiding the requirement to gather legitimate probable cause evidence to get a warrant from a FISA Court authorizing electronic surveillance of the same U.S. citizens the FBI is targeting.  In Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the Obama administration co-conspirators illegally disregarded the rules.  They used Section 702 to query the NSA about political opponents.  They also fabricated evidence (i.e., the Steele dossier) to falsify probable cause evidence to obtain from a FISA court a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on political opponents.

Another severe violation of Fourth Amendment rights occurs when U.S. citizens who the NSA surveils without a warrant are “masked.” Federal law requires the names of U.S. citizens under NSA surveillance to remain secret unless there is a genuine and overwhelming national security interest justifying that the person is named—or, in intelligence terms, “unmasked.”  Several Obama administration officials, including former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, and former CIA Chief John Brennan were subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee investigating illegal unmasking in the Russian collusion hoax for political rather than legitimate national security reasons.  When the Obama administration decided to leak to David Ignatius at the Washington Post the information about Flynn’s phone calls with Kislyak, James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, urged Ignatius to “take the kill shot.” Predictably, however, in the Russian collusion hoax, the DOJ has issued no indictments for unlawful unmasking of names, even when the names were illegally leaked to the press by senior Obama administration officials.

If the CIA, FBI, or DOJ, in their hate-Trump zeal, circumvented U.S. law to receive intelligence from unauthorized sources, the entire “Russia collusion” investigation—including all applications to the FISA Court—may have been illegal.  If Flynn had been allowed to take office as Trump’s national security advisor, he most certainly would have ended Operation Crossfire Hurricane, and Robert Mueller would never have been appointed Special Counsel.  Strzok understood that the only way he could perpetuate Operation Crossfire Hurricane after Trump took office was to ensure Flynn never took office.

General Flynn and Sidney Powell understood that Strzok’s entrapment scheme against Papadopoulos was needed to make Crossfire Hurricane an FBI counterintelligence operation.  In 2016, Strzok realized the only way he could access NSA surveillance information on Trump and his associates was to implicate Trump and his associates as spies.  Since this was not true, Strzok had to fabricate the evidence.  That’s why Strzok hit upon using Mifsud to make it appear that Papadopoulos, a Trump associate (even if peripheral to Trump’s campaign), knew in April 2016 that the Russians had stolen the DNC emails.   Strzok knew the NSA had the Trump campaign under surveillance, and he wanted to access that mother lode of secret information.  He also knew that the NSA was the pivotal U.S. intelligence agency in the Five Eyes scheme.  Powell, in her motion to the court dated September 11, 2018, paragraph 7 requests the following: “All documents, reports, correspondence, and memorandum, including any National Security letter or FISA application, concerning any earlier investigation of Mr. Flynn and the basis for it.”  Powell referenced this request by citing the Mueller Report, Volume II, pages 24 and 26.  Pages 24 and 26 involved Flynn’s telephone calls with Kislyak.  Flynn must have explained to Powell that the Obama administration had accessed the NSA for surveillance information the NSA had collected on Flynn.

In January 2016, John Brennan organized a secret “Donald Trump Task Force” in the CIA, with the blessing of James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence.  Brennan organized the Donald Trump Task Force on the premise that Trump was a spy, an asset of Putin running for president in the United States. The Task Force members, including officials from the FBI and NSA, were handpicked, with no posting of jobs. As a counterintelligence operation, Brennan’s Task Force could recruit foreign intelligence agencies, including MI-6 in the U.K., as well as Italian [i.e., Mifsud’s involvement with Link University in Rome] and Australian [i.e., Downer] intelligence operatives.  The Task Force spent CIA money to fund travel overseas and to pay cooperating assets to set up entrapment schemes of Trump campaign officials, including Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

In July 2016, CIA Director John Brennan wrote a two-page E.C., or “electronic communication,” to FBI Director James Comey. In the E.C., Brennan communicated to Comey details of the meeting between Papadopoulos and Mifsud, as reported by Downer. According to GOP Representative Devin Nunes, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Brennan’s E.C. was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence communities, nor was Brennan using information gained through official partnerships with the Five Eyes.  Instead, the CIA appears to have enlisted the assistance of foreign intelligence assets to run operations against the Trump campaign, perhaps starting as early as late 2015.  Two of the foreign intelligence assets the CIA recruited were Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud, both with extensive ties to the CIA. Brennan’s E.C. to Comey and the information Mifsud shared with Papadopoulos at their famous breakfast meeting at the Andaz hotel in London on April 26, 2016, were the final pieces needed to trigger the FBI into opening Operation Crossfire Hurricane as a counterintelligence investigation.

Remember, the FBI opened Operation Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, as a counterintelligence investigation rather than a criminal investigation.  By so doing, the Obama administration avoided the rigorous probable cause standard of proof demanded in a criminal investigation to bring a criminal indictment. The administration knew that a counterintelligence investigation would operate under less stringent standards of evidence, from demanding probable cause to merely requiring that the conduct being investigated must have a legitimate national security concern.  An FBI counterintelligence investigation is aimed at finding and convicting foreign spies operating in the United States, as well as prosecuting U.S. citizens collaborating with foreign spies.

The Obama administration knew that a counterintelligence investigation was a national security case that would require only reasonable suspicion to reach across to involve foreign intelligence services. The question was no longer limited to whether Donald Trump had committed a crime under federal election laws but now included whether he was a spy—specifically, whether he was acting as a Russian agent. Under the less rigorous standards of proof under which a counterintelligence investigation operates, the FBI’s mission was merely to investigate whether or not Trump had colluded with Russia to defeat Clinton.  The FBI no longer had to meet the requirement of criminal law that to indict Donald Trump the FBI would have to establish probable cause evidence that Donald Trump personally or his campaign officials had violated the law.

But through the backdoor of a counterintelligence investigation, the Obama DOJ and FBI were also allowed to conduct a criminal investigation should any crimes be found in the espionage activity being investigated. In his closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, James A. Baker, the general counsel for the FBI on October 18, 2018 [Part Two], explained how counterintelligence investigations could also become criminal investigations. “The FBI always has all of its authorities in dealing with a counterintelligence matter,” Baker testified. “And so, to my mind, the FBI walks in with all of its options on the table. And it can pursue things in a strictly, you know, foreign intelligence channel, interacting with other intelligence agencies and things like that and never have anything to do with, you know, a grand jury subpoena or putting anybody in a courtroom or anything like that, or an indictment.” Yet, Baker acknowledged when a counterintelligence investigation transforms into a criminal investigation, the standard of proof becomes the more rigorous standard of probable cause. “But at the same time, if the facts and circumstances warrant going—using criminal tools, including up to and including prosecution, then the FBI can do that. And so I think it’s just misleading to think of a counterintelligence investigation as not also being, in part, at least potentially a criminal investigation.”

This point disturbed former U.S. assistant attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, who has accused the DOJ and FBI of running a criminal investigation against Donald Trump under the pretext of a counterintelligence investigation. In his 2019 book, Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency,[1] McCarthy writes: “In the absence of a solid factual predicate for a criminal investigation, foreign-counterintelligence powers were used as a pretext to dig for criminal evidence that would support a hoped-for prosecution” (p. 227).   McCarthy considered the FBI’s use of foreign intelligence sources in Operation Crossfire Hurricane a major and abusive flaw of the Trump-Russia investigation.

McCarthy also comments the Obama administration “bent over backward not to make a criminal case on Hillary Clinton—the candidate Obama heartily endorsed—despite a mountain of incriminating evidence” (p. 178, italics in original).  In sharp contrast, he noted the Obama administration “exploited every tool in its arsenal (surveillance, informants, foreign-intelligence agencies, moribund and constitutionally untenable criminal statutes) to try to make a criminal case on Trump—the candidate Obama deeply opposed—despite the absence of incriminating evidence” (p. 178).   McCarthy also explained this by noting that the Obama administration “notoriously political in its intelligence assessments and law-enforcement actions, used Trump contacts with Russia as a rationalization for a counterintelligence investigation because it saw Trump as a Neanderthal degenerate” (pp. 177-178).  At the same time, the Obama administration “ignored Clinton contacts with Russia, or assumed they simply must have been good-faith contacts, because it saw the Clintons as bien pensant transnational-progressives” (p. 178).

Proof President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Schemed to Send Weapons to ISIS

In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton persuaded President Obama to arm the Free Syria Army rebels in Syria.  Her goal was to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad.  This complemented a strategy Clinton and Obama had already begun in Libya to switch sides by supporting Al-Qaida-affiliated militia to topple Gadhafi.  On November 4, 2016, the Sun in London published a report that Julian Assange claimed that Wikileaks had emails in the Hillary Clinton email archive that established ISIS “was created largely with money from people who were giving money to the Clinton Foundation.  This claim derived further support from a recording leaked to the New York Times.  On the recording, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted the Obama administration not only hoped ISIS would depose the regime of Assad al-Bashar in Syria but also gave arms to the jihadist army and its allies to carry out the task.

As early as June 20, 2011, longtime Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal sent a confidential email to Clinton at the State Department.  The email included an article published by David W. Lesch, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Trinity University in San Antonio.  In the article, Lesch argued that a regime change strategy would work in Syria if the U.S. could find opposition groups in Syria capable of establishing “a Benghazi-like refuge from which to launch a rebellion and to which aid can be sent.”

In a subsequent confidential email dated July 24, 2012, Blumenthal further advised Clinton that the “growing success of the rebel forces of the Free Syria Army, FSA,” inspired him to believe the Assad regime was increasingly vulnerable to being overthrown.  In an email dated February 24, 2012, Blumenthal characterized the Free Syrian Army (FSA) as “loosely organized and uncoordinated,” noting it was “for the most part, local militias, many of them civilian-based, that are simply calling themselves the FSA to appear to be part of a whole.”  Blumenthal added in that email to comment the armed resistance to Assad “is not well funded or well-armed.”

Then, on September 18, 2012, one week after the disastrous Benghazi 9/11 terror attack, Blumenthal sent a confidential memo to Clinton.  In the email, Blumenthal alerted her to the possibility of an FSA military victory taking over Damascus, which would cause Assad’s wife and close relatives to urge Assad to flee Syria.  Blumenthal reasoned that Assad would want to avoid “the fate of Assad’s former ally Muammar al Qaddafi of Libya, who was captured and killed by rebel forces while attempting to flee his home territory in Sirte.”

Former U.S. attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in National Review on August 2, 2016, reported Ambassador Stevens had moved an enormous shipment of weapons from Benghazi to the Syrian ‘rebels’ in Turkey.  McCarthy pointed to a New York Times article in 2012, written three months before the Benghazi massacre.  The article reported CIA operatives were secretly in Turkey, helping the Obama administration to decide which Syrian opposition fighters would receive arms clandestinely from the United States to fight the Syrian government.  The New York Times article further reported that the weapons included automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition, and some antitank weapons. These weapons were being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries, including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

According to Seymour M. Hersh, writing in the London Review of Books in 2014, a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations, the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for transporting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria to support the FSA.  Hersh commented: “The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s.  The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation.”


By pointing out the numerous crimes the government had committed, Sidney Powell showed great diligence and skill in defending General Flynn.  We know why the Obama administration pursued General Flynn with a determination to destroy him.  General Flynn knew too much.  Still today, the Biden administration hides the evidence that General Flynn knows exists.  Judging from Sidney Powell’s motion to the court on September 11, 2019, Flynn knew he could prove the Obama administration and CIA, with the willing cooperation of British intelligence, committed treason.  Once Flynn could establish the extent to which the Obama administration used U.S. intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes, he could explain how Obama clandestinely used U.S. intelligence agencies to arm ISIS.  Obama knew he could never permit unredacted copies of the documents Powell demanded under the Brady rule to be shown the American people.

On September 12, 2019, Margot Cleveland, the Federalist’s chief legal correspondent, published an article entitled “Sidney Powell’s Latest Motion in Michael Flynn’s Case Is a Russiagate Bombshell.”  In that article, Cleveland correctly noted that “the spying on Trump likely began with spying on Flynn and involved not just the FBI, CIA, and Department of Defense, but their British counterparts, and dated back to Flynn’s time as President Obama’s Defense Intelligence director.”

FDR famously declared that all we have to fear is fear itself.  What General Flynn’s case proves is that FDR was wrong.  Today, we must fear the U.S. government, a government our Founding Fathers would not recognize.  Understanding what Lieutenant General Michael Flynn suffered after being forced to face imprisonment by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their lying, treasonous associates serves only to display the exemplar courage of this brave patriot.

In 2020, Jerome Corsi published Coup d’État: Exposing Deep State Treason, from which much of this article was drawn.  In 2019, he published Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s “Witch Hunt,” explaining how the Mueller prosecutors confronted Dr. Corsi for over two months for hours at a time in a closed conference room with no windows.  Dr. Corsi effectively ended the Mueller “Russian Collusion” investigation when he refused to take the Mueller prosecutors’ plea deal, alleging he had lied to the FBI.  The FBI never indicted Dr. Corsi—further proof the Mueller prosecutors were the ones telling the lies.

[1] Andrew C. McCarthy, Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency (New York: Encounter Books, 2019).