Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 24, 2018

SpyGate (Chapter Twenty Six)

This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.
“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill
This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
Chapter Twenty Six
“Investigating the investigators.”
The Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) revealed Tuesday during the House Judiciary and Oversight committee’s hearing regarding the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation that the FBI may have altered or manipulated the witness interviews compiled by investigators during both the Clinton and Russia investigations.

The information, if proven true, could have significant implications in the case brought against against former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, where conflicting testimony and statements made by Former FBI Director James Comey, would call into question whether the agents who interviewed Flynn believed he was either lying or telling the truth.

Meadows was questioning Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying “there is growing evidence that 302s [FBI interview reports] were edited and changed. Those 302s, it is suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling.”

“It is suggested that [the 302s] they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling.”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) believes there is evidence to suggest that some of the Russia/Clinton investigation FBI interview reports (known as 302s) were “changed to either prosecute or not prosecute” certain individuals.

This raises many concerns and questions. Among them, what does this mean for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Former FBI Director James Comey provided conflicting testimony and statements regarding whether or not the FBI agents who conducted the Flynn interview believed he was lying during the questioning.

So, what is an FBI 302 report?

A former senior FBI official familiar with the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was asked what the FBI interview process might have been like, when the Team of tainted and biased agent Strzok interviewed General Flynn and then changed the transcript reports (302s) of that interview.

So, explain the process of putting together a 302 witness report…

“They wanted to get him. All he had to do was misremember one time that he talked to the guy. Then they’ve automatically brought him up on that one charge.”

Typically, FBI procedures say that two agents are supposed to do the interview. The rationale behind it is so that you get two people, so there’s redundancy. For example, if one agent is unable to testify, there’s another person there who witnessed it. An interview of a subject usually comes at the very end of an investigation.

What happens next?

You may perform interviews of victims of crimes, not just the subject. So in the form of a bank robbery, you might have multiple 302s from the people who were there, the teller, somebody who saw the getaway car, or associates of the subject.

When you first go into an interview what is the process?
You identify yourself. I’m “so and so,” a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You state the day, time, and you state the location of where the interview occurs. Once you’ve got that out of the way, then you delve into the actual process of the interview. Now an interview can be wide-ranging and it can go all over the place. You can typically go [to an interview] with an outline of what you want to talk about. You go in there full of knowledge of the investigation and of what has transpired so far. And you typically try and get the person to talk about those things without revealing all of that information that you have, without showing your cards, without tipping your hand…

What are you looking for?

As you’re performing that interview you get the person to talk about what you want them to talk about. Remember, the interview is strictly based on factual observations and statements that are made. There is no room for conjecture. There’s no room for opining and there is really no room for hypotheses to be put in [the 302 form]. It’s strictly observation. You can make personal observations about the person’s demeanor… If I suspected that somebody was drunk or under the influence of a substance during the interview, I could say something to the effect, “upon walking into the room to interview X, the interviewing agent noted that he smelled heavily of alcohol. X was slurring their words and…having trouble making coherent sentences.” I could not say that I believe X was completely drunk because I did not know that for a fact and that’s not something that I was able to verify while there.

What is the other agent doing?

Typically one agent will be doing interviewing, another agent will be taking notes. Sometimes both agents will take notes. You usually only want to have one agent take notes because if it goes to court, both sets of notes could present a problem if they are not in agreement.

Regarding Flynn’s particular interview, what would the process be once it’s completed?

Both agents would physically sign that initial copy. In the case of Flynn…you know both FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka both would digitally sign the 302. You know there’s a system and the FBI agents put in a card that identifies them. There’s a specific pin that is known only to you. You look at the documents. You say that everything looks good, then you click sign and…enter your pin. It’s digitally signed for you. Only they could do that. If somebody had their log-in information, which is highly unlikely, then, of course, they could do that. That’s really what a 302 is. It is a capture of facts and it is a capture of observations. It’s not a total report of an investigation. It’s not a summation of everything that’s happening. It’s just what transpired that snapshot in time for when they interview the person.

So, they didn’t have to show Mike Flynn the transcripts of his conversation with the Russian ambassador or anyone else?

No not at all. There’s no obligation to doing that sometimes because of the sensitivities of what you collected and how you collected the information. Sometimes you show people some of the evidence; it’s basically called the strategic use of evidence. Sometimes you will show people information that you have collected, not only help jog their memory but to maybe guide them into making the right decision. It’s not an obligation but if you’re trying to get them to specifically admit to something that you have, you can do that.

But, now with all the new evidence on [Former Deputy Director] Andrew McCabe and Special Agent Peter Strzok, how does that affect the case? Would the agents have shared their findings with superiors?

As you know, there are all sorts of lies that have been discovered on what has transpired with regard to McCabe…Comey possibly as well here, as well as other people that were involved in that sort of special investigation. McCabe was caught lying, Comey [was caught] lying, and others. For example, with Flynn’s 302s and notes, the agents would take those documents back to headquarters and then share what they observed with people. McCabe and Comey may be two of those people. The agents are going to talk about it and people are going to ask how the interview went. They are going to read that document and then ask for the opinions of the investigators, in this case, Strzok and Pientka. And that is where this idea that you know one agent or possibly both agents said, “look we don’t think that he was lying or maybe he wasn’t forthcoming.”

“It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use.” because as I was told that McCabe was upset after hearing from the agents that they didn’t think Flynn was lying, he went into a raging tirade…

Given what we’ve learned of McCabe so far and given what we know about McCabe’s previous actions of purposely trying to undermine the Trump administration, that’s what happened.

Was there a difference between the way the FBI handled Flynn’s case and the way the bureau handled McCabe’s case?

Flynn was only interviewed once and was never under oath. McCabe was interviewed twice and was under oath during both instances. Further, Flynn was never told that he was being formally interviewed. McCabe was advised of the nature of his interviews on both occasions. Third, Flynn was never told what they suspected him of lying about and given the chance to explain. McCabe was asked, through the OPR process, on two occasions and through a formal document, whether he needed to clarify anything or change any information. He did not, which makes his lying intentional and with his full knowledge of his actions. And finally, Flynn has been charged with 18 USC 1001, making false official statements. McCabe has not.

Is it a conflict of interest now that the congressional committees and the IG have found that Strzok had such anti-Trump bias based on the fact that he was conducting the interview with Flynn and so involved in both investigations?

It would, absolutely. Any judge would pick that apart in a court of law, any judge. He is tainted at that point. And you do have issues of taint in a court law… One of the things that you have issues with is [that] you have all this highly sensitive…top secret, tight reporting that occurs and you don’t want to have people who have been tainted by that material performing that interview. Now, you do it for a lot of reasons. One, you do it because sometimes you can’t give up that information. You want to get what’s called a clean team to do the interviews…people who haven’t had access to any of this highly sensitive information to perform the interview and you give them sort rough guidelines of what you want them to talk about and then hopefully they’ll get the person to admit to it.

That is, you won’t have to divulge where they received this extremely sensitive information. When you get very sensitive information from other governments…things that are within the arsenal of the U.S. government that you don’t want coming out …in the court of law.

What about now?

Now we know that even before the interview with Flynn, Strzok was so vehemently anti-Trump that he had every reason to want to pursue charges against him.

Could Strzok have suggested later down the line that Flynn was lying?

Obviously this information would taint the interview they had with Flynn.

I would say that lawyer should absolutely have a field day with him being able to say that it was a biased interview because of the bias that Strzok had felt towards the Trump administration. I would be interested to see what McCabe’s text messages are that sent him to the next point. But, you know it also looks like they were kind of smart enough to do a lot of in-person meetings in Andy’s office and not put anything into texts. I think McCabe has been pretty shrewd in handling all communications and letting, you know, [Former FBI Attorney Lisa] Page be a conduit for it. Regardless of that, Flynn’s lawyer should absolutely have a field day with saying that…Flynn was a representative of the Trump administration and Strzok and McCabe had set their sights squarely on him as a member of the administration. They interviewed him and then they put this case together against him and presented those facts to the Special Counsel.

So, if they didn’t think he lied, how did they get him to admit guilt and accuse him of lying in the end?

It could be anything during the questioning that doesn’t exactly line up. They would question Flynn on the number of times he had contact with a Russian representative. They could have said, “Mr. Flynn how many times have you spoken with the Russian officials?” In good conscience, he may have said, “to the best of my recollection it was four to five times that I spoke with him.” Or, ” You know X amount of time.” That answer got that captured in the 302 document. The agents can go back and say, “we have technical collection says that he spoke with the Russians six or seven times.” And so, what you have is, you have Flynn saying “I suppose x amount of times” and then the government knowing he spoke this amount time. From a small inaccurate recollection, you have your a 18 USC 1001 charge, providing false information to federal agents. Now, it’s pretty damn flimsy. And I think if it were taken to court… it would have a hard time making it stand upright.

What do we know about the Flynn interview?

Flynn was very forthcoming about the things that they really didn’t even ask him about or about things that…there’s no way he could have suspected that they knew information about. For example, other meetings that he had, or about people with whom he met and was very forthcoming about that. Even though he was very forthcoming about 99 percent of things that happened, if he misremembered, or if he was exhausted because the guy probably had about four hours of sleep a night during that time, it didn’t matter in the end. They wanted to get him. All he had to do was misremember one time that he talked to the guy. Then they could automatically brought him up on that one charge.

Doesn’t this seem like an easy way to entrap someone or get them on a charge that really is weak?

It’s a long tried and true technique that the FBI uses in investigations where they don’t have the very concrete charges to stick to somebody and they want to nail them. He got the charge that is usually filed against friends and families of suspects when you’re trying to break the suspect. And I gotta be honest with you, there have probably been times where the FBI has really overreached and might have overstepped the boundaries in using that 1001 charge. It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use.

So, if Flynn didn’t lie, why did he plead guilty to the charge?

I would really like to know what the implications are for Mueller in this situation.
Strzrok’s bias is clear and obvious at this point. Mueller knew this as of July 2017 or thereabouts when the IG showed him the texts that forced Strzrok’s removal from the team. The indictment happened months later, in November 2017. So, at best, Mueller indicted Flynn with full knowledge that his primary witness was hopelessly biased against the defendant. That alone would have probably sunk the case had Flynn been able to hold out and go to trial, and had Mueller not blackmailed him with threats of indicting his son.
It also raises the question of what Mueller knew and when he knew it. It’s already established from the fact surrounding Strzrok’s removal from the Mueller team that Mueller knew of his bias. Mueller also would have known that Strzrok was involved in generating the 302s used as evidence against Flynn. Knowing of Strzrok’s bias, it would have been extremely negligent of Mueller to not question the veracity of the 302 at that point. So at best, giving Mueller the benefit of the doubt, all you can say is that he didn’t know that the 302 was altered (should the 302 alteration be proven). If the 302 was altered, given what Mueller knew about Strzrok at the time of the indictment, there is no excuse for Mueller to have not known. If he did know that th 302 was altered … that’s even worse.
Certainly by now Mueller has to be aware that Comey and McCabe both testified that the agents who interviewed Flynn didn’t believe he had lied. That’s exculpatory right there, and should have made Mueller re-think the whole indictment and perhaps withdraw it. But Mueller’s reputation is that he is a very inflexible thinker and once he makes up his mind, he does not change it even when new facts emerge.
I really want to see what happens with this case. I think, even without knowing whether the 302s were altered, the judge already has enough to throw out the indictment, with prejudice, based on Strzrok’s well documented bias alone. But if the 302 was altered, the judge has justification for doing a lot more, like holding Mueller in contempt, and possibly even in criminal contempt, as well as referring him to the bar for possible disbarment.
Politically, if Flynn’s indictment is thrown out, especially on the basis of tainted evidence, the whole Russia probe blows up and it becomes an albatross around the necks of those who are pushing the narrative. It may be difficult to understand all of the machinations of the whole Russia-collusion case, but understanding the framing of a guy – and coercing a guilty plea based on tainted evidence and blackmail – is easily understandable, and will absolutely destroy the credibility of the Mueller team and probe.
Either way, it’s time to put the cards on the table and get this adjudicated.

And from what I understand is that the McCabe/Strzok team basically tarnished his name overnight and then they hold out until he’s really he’s at his wit’s end. Flynn’s financially in a hole. He’s already sold his house. He’s completely destitute. The bureau starts going after his family and they say, “Hey Mike Flynn, we’re going to go after your family.” Maybe there’s something they think they can get on his son or anyone close to him. Flynn is a true patriot and stand-up guy. So he takes the 1001 charge to get the Special Counsel off his back. The FBI and Special Counsel clap their hands and pat themselves on the back and then there it is. That’s how it all happens.

I would think there is some legal precedent for something like this; some kind of grounds just based on the fact that Strzok and McCabe appear to be so biased against Trump…

Here’s the legal definition of Giglio information or material: “It refers to material tending to impeach the character or testimony of the prosecution witness in a criminal trial. I’d say there’s something here based on all the evidence that’s already come forward.”

Behind closed doors, in March 2017 Comey told Congress that the agents who interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017 did not believe that Flynn was lying. Comey later appeared to walk back his statement during an interview with Brett Baier on Fox News, suggesting that he didn’t recall making those statements to Congress, as previously reported. However, an unredacted section of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia report specifically stated: “Director Comey testified to the committee that ‘the agents discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

If Flynn’s 302s were altered, or if the information in them was manipulated, that would be significant. For some time, several sources have made that suggestion. They also stated that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was irate and wanted to find some way to prove Flynn lied to them during the interview. Ironically, McCabe was fired this year days before his official retirement and is now facing possible charges for lying under oath based on evidence discovered by Horowitz.

Meadows did not say which interviews may have been tampered with or which agents may have been involved.

Meadows also suggested that the FBI was not forthright with Horowitz, whose office released a scathing 568-page report on the bureau’s handling of the Clinton matter last week. He said the FBI’s reasons for redacting the names of two anonymous FBI employees identified in the report were based on the false premise that they were working in the counterintelligence division of the bureau.

“They don’t work in counterintelligence,” Meadows told Horowitz. “If that’s the reason the FBI is giving, they’re giving you false information, because they work for the [FBI] general counsel.”

Meadows named FBI attorneys, Kevin Clinesmith, and Sally Moyer, during the hearing and asked Horowitz if he could confirm that they were two of the unnamed agents in the report. Horowitz declined to confirm or deny the names out of concern, and at the request of the bureau.

Michael Horowitz is the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, but he s no God…

He testified on June 18th before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his report concerning the Hillary Clinton national security breach investigation. The revelation came to light during questioning by Senator John Kennedy. (@7:36)

Horowitz testified that “most” of the investigative decisions in that investigation were made not by the FBI but by prosecutors within the Department of Justice.

One might be tempted to conclude that much of the criticism of the FBI for its decisions in the aforesaid Clinton investigation would have to be discounted or re-examined. Perhaps. But that is not the most important conclusion.

For whatever reason, it is clear from the report that the structure of the FBI/DOJ’s Clinton investigation was all off: the FBI was reduced to providing a set of runners (perhaps willing and even avid, because of their demonstrated bias, runners, but runners just the same) for DOJ attorneys.

Now, in our system of justice, this is not unlawful. It is “merely” highly unusual.

Skipping over, for a bit, reflections on the incidence of the DOJ calling the shots in investigations, what should be stressed is that if there is a need for an FBI, and not for just a set of runners and errand boys for geekish DOJ clerks, perhaps it might be logical to posit that if so, then the FBI should actually handle its investigations itself.

Now, simply, it is very rare for criminal investigations to be handled directly from FBIHQ. But it may have been unprecedented in the history of the FBI to have run the Hillary Clinton investigation, an intelligence/espionage investigation, out of FBIHQ.

It probably behooves us to pause here in order to remember that the FBI is organized in what to many may appear to be an upside-down fashion. Ordinarily cases are either assigned to or are developed by “case” agents. Case agents work out of offices scattered across the country.

The reader may find this remarkable, but it is the case agents who make investigative decisions, although ostensibly they are on the lowest rung of the organizational chart. For this reason, many agents have fought to stay at the case-agent level. One cannot be “prince of the city” sitting in an office.

Of course, if a particular investigative step is of a sensitive nature, prior to taking it authority is secured from the requisite supervisory level, which is often at the level of FBIHQ. There is nothing wrong with that, in principle. No one – no case agent – wants to embarrass the Bureau. If there is a “conformity bias” in the field office it is to take the case wherever the facts lead, and not in an overzealous fashion.

Thus, in the ordinary course, it is only once an investigation is complete (!) that the work product is given to the DOJ. Decisions as to discretionary investigative steps are taken in the relatively insulated environment of the field office; they are taken by case agents who are not really beholden to anyone, as they have no need or intention to promote themselves.

All of this militates against bias.

The reverse is true concerning the Clinton espionage investigation. There the structure of the investigation militated towards bias. (Indeed, the reins of the investigation were handed over to the DOJ. If there had been real leadership at the Bureau, this would never have happened.)

For this reason, in order to lessen the chance for such shenanigans to take place, the president, or at the least the FBI director, should ensure that no investigations be conducted out of headquarters. Ever. (That would go for Robert Mueller’s “special counsel” probe, which is an FBI/DOJ to itself.)

There is yet another consideration. The FBI is used to conducting intelligence investigations. It has considerable expertise in doing so. An agent doing intelligence work is an intelligence officer; an IO in Bureau parlance. Such people develop not only expertise but also a sense of the importance of the subject matter (after all, “national security” concerns the very security – and existence – of the nation), and yet the same sense does not appear to be manifested, judging from recent events and the IG’s report, in the DOJ, despite the latter’s having a division dedicated to national security.

For instance, it is almost never stated that one of the great blows that our national security was dealt by Mrs. Clinton was that to our reputation for trustworthiness and professionalism. Consider a CIA officer or FBI agent dealing with a potential highly placed foreign intelligence officer. In order to betray their own country, the foreign intelligence officer has to believe that the U.S. government will safeguard their identity. Yet now visions of Mrs. Clinton’s homebrew server (and, because of her, Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer) must flash before that foreign intelligence officer’s eyes as he considers making a leap of faith. Not to mention the psychological blow to our CIA and FBI intelligence officers: they too have to believe in the integrity of the system.

When one takes considerations such as this away from the table, one is left with what appears the case in the IG report: either feigned or no real understanding of the gravity of the offense on the part of the investigators and prosecutors.

But there is more to be said regarding FBI/DOJ bias in the IG’s report. Former judge Jeanine Pirro castigated IG Horowitz on her Fox News show. She said in essence that in a murder case one proves the state of mind of the perpetrator by indirect evidence, and that therefore the IG could not reasonably find, as he did, that no investigative decisions were made because of bias. Especially because the report is full of evidence of a biased state of mind.

Mrs. Pirro forgets that in a murder trial there is a body. It is clear, obviously, that a crime has been committed.

But there is no crime as such committed by the players in the IG report. As the IG concluded, every investigative decision was made upon an arguably reasonable foundation.

This is not at all to say that the investigation was properly handled. But what we are dealing with is prosecutorial and investigative under-zealousness in regard to Mrs. Clinton and rabid jihadic over-zealousness with regard to Mr. Trump. Neither of these are crimes; neither of these are, ordinarily, “prosecutable” ethical violations.

In this regard we should remember that what Andrew McCabe was alleged to have done was pretty darn bad: he leaked information to the press. But that’s not a crime, and the criminal referral made by the IG in McCabe’s case is on the basis of his allegedly lying to the FBI, a violation of 18 USC 1001.

That is why the IG did not pass judgment upon the players in the Clinton espionage investigation. The IG is not the tool for this. We may desperately wish it to be, but in truth, it is the height of asininity to insist that a screwdriver will function the same as a hammer.

Indeed, we cannot expect the system to police itself on using a paradigm of rules-violations in the situation we are dealing with. (It would be much easier were that the case.) That is because often the problem is that discretion is misused, which is not something that can be policed by the system itself.

This should be obvious: after all, the IG said the DOJ/FBI followed the rules, but were biased.

Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 12.39.12 PM

We might do well to recall that this is the general case with the Deep State and has been for some time.

It is no news that the Deep State is biased against Christian Conservatives, that just happen to be in the majority within one of the two main political parties of the United States.

It just proves that they have made an alliance of evil with the other one…


Dr Churchill


The historian Victor Davis Hanson in a recent article describes the same phenomena and goes on to state he believes that “For all the investigations and IG reports, for all the revelations of scandals and wrongdoing, there will probably in the end be little consequence.”

Hanson may be correct.

But he need not be.

We have a unitary executive (at para.13). If the president can act to level the playing field and ensure fairness, then the matter is salvageable. If not, the outlook is grim.

Maybe it’s high time to impeach Robert Mueller and end this travesty of Justice, here and now.

That is a much needed action of impeachment…

Let’s do it.

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 23, 2018

SpyGate (Chapter Twenty Five)


This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.

“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill

This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
Chapter Twenty Five

“Russia Hoax”


SpyGate is a book that describes the blatant corruption, the treasonous nuances and the secret machinations behind the appointment of Special Prosecutor ROBERT MUELLER, as an act of the first stages of a well orchestrated and massively organized Coup D’Etat against our Constitutional Republic, that gets unraveled at the nick of time due to the will of the American people and the Grace of God.

Indeed this exposure of the Coup D’Etat is a moment of Grace and Deliverance that proves how our Republic is protected through the mantle proffered by the prayers of the people, and by the guardianship of the few “warriors” that are fighting the good fight as waged by the Christian Right, against the masses of Totalitarian Darkness of the evil Left.

But let’s not digress, and let’s take things from the beginning, when the last occupant of the oval office chose corruption and chicanery over the demands of honest democracy and free & fair elections.

On April 10, 2016, President Barack Obama publicly stated that: “Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security.”

In hindsight, it stands to reason that this statement was a signal, a “Dog Whistle” to the Clinton campaign, the Media and to FBI Director James Edgar Comey. Here ends the debate, the legal test for Hillary Clinton was no longer to be: “has she broken the law?”

That being those existing US legal statutes that pertain to the treatment of classified information by responsible officeholders, for it was by now clearly evident to just about everyone that she had. No, Obama was shifting, had just shifted the goal posts, his word was now law, to anyone in the Washington establishment that mattered, that meant game over.

Not for the first time Barack Obama was attempting to define his Presidential Legacy by employing his most enduring personal and political quality, an audacious arrogance.

In one statement, he dispensed with all the bother of the Democratic party’s star & presidential candidate Hillary Clinton being at any risk of criminal charges or prosecution, by redefining the legal evidentiary requirements for any successful prosecution. No longer would it matter whether what Hillary Clinton did, or did not do, was legal or not. The Washington Establishment had spoken, Hillary Clinton was “Too Big To Jail.”

Hillary Clinton’s actions may well have been criminal, illegal, and even treasonous, according to statute law, but everyone who mattered in Washington, had now been instructed by POTUS personally, to accept that a new legal paradigm prevails in relation to the Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton when it comes to the question of emails, servers and National Security specifically. One where Barack Obama as President, by decree, has introduced a new legal requirement which for now at least will be assumed to override any existing statutes.

Clearly this “power play” had all been agreed well ahead of time with all the relevant players. And it was also agreed that the establishment media would not make any silly spectacle, because Obama and Co would not abide CNN reporters carrying on about overreach, obstruction of justice, or proper investigative process.

Obama had decreed, that even if Hillary had committed what the law had deemed to be a criminal act, that was in the past, and it was not that important in the broader scheme of things, especially during an election year.

And going further forward, it was in the President’s clear-cut opinion that despite Hillary’s careless disregard for proper security protocol procedure in her handling of classified information as Secretary of State and her sharing those State Secrets with Huma Abedin’s pedophile husband Anthony Weiner — not-so-crooked Hillary did not really intend any harm to the Nation.

End of Story.


Time now to be moving on…

So, what we do know?

We now know that it was President Barack Obama who clearly and publicly evaded the law, and erased a crime as he introduced the “consideration” of Hillary Clinton’s state of mind, about her intent, when committing numerous serious breaches of the law — as the preeminent and defining determinant in deciding Hillary’s guilt or innocence.

Obama did this, despite and regardless of the fact, that consideration of intent, or state of mind was purposefully absent, as it had been specifically omitted from any legal statutes of any relevance to her actions, when violating security protocols in such a senior position.

Here, Obama was deliberately, publicly, and brazenly, setting up a legal “STRAW MAN” for political purposes.

He had decreed that the onus of proof of Hillary’s State of Mind and Intent was required, thus providing a new Burden of Proof, a legal hurdle for any Prosecutor, well knowing, probably already briefed in advance, that it would provide sufficient cover, an easy excuse for the DOJ, and FBI, when their investigation and any case against Clinton fell over because of it.

<img src="; alt="Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 11.43.45 AM" width="1040" height="730" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-55695"

With his statement in April 2016, Obama effectively laid the ground work for how the Obama Administration operatives at the DOJ and FBI would be released from the tedious requirement that they follow the letter of the law in administering justice, now they had a roadmap to lifting the cloud that threatened to derail a Democrat Presidential campaign.

The groundwork had been done, all that was left was for the players to take up their roles, make their preparations, condition the trusted media, minimise expectations and wait for the right moment when Clinton’s exoneration would be most devastating to the GOP Presidential campaign.

And so it is a great wonder why anybody would be surprised when, on July 5th of 2016, then FBI director James Comey publicly stated: "Hillary Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security."

The director went on to seemingly detail Clinton’s guilt, acknowledging that: "Classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved, so under the circumstances it wasn’t an indictable offence."

The Director of the FBI repeated almost word for word Obama’s statement and logic, in a clear abrogation of his legal responsibilities. FBI Director Comey, simply plagiarized Obama’s Presidential Decree, thus exonerating Hillary Clinton without having the President offer her an official pardon, but rather a real "Get Out Of Jail Pass."

It is only now in hindsight that we can see that which was meant to be concealed. As it is now obvious Mr Obama was clearly communicating (Dog Whistling) to those in his administration back in early April 2016, and his message is both clear and simple: "The President has decided, Hillary Clinton is to be cleared of any indictable offences, she will be free to run as the Democrat Party’s Presidential candidate in November 2016 — make it happen."

It is interesting in the light of recent media treatment of Trump as President, to re-examine the Main Stream Media’s tendency to give Obama a free pass in these important situations, and to understand how they abrogated their responsibility to be the fourth estate of a Democracy… by checking up on government.

Where were the concerns about POTUS pressure, frame of mind, ongoing independent FBI investigations, obstruction of justice, etc. Or maybe all that had already been decided and agreed with the media ahead of time? Because Obama’s FBI, DOJ, and DNC instructions, and guidance, are so clear as a "Dog Whistle" to be signalled in public statements, that is illustrative how hapless Trump would be if he were silly enough to invite trouble upon his head, by talking to Robert Mueller one on one.

What it also tells us clearly, is that Trump has been right all along, the fix was on, the FBI’s Hillary Clinton Email Investigation was a total Sham, that the whole Obama Administration was playing the Public, and the Media were in on it.

This game had already been rigged long before Trump was endorsed as the Republican Nominee for November’s Presidential poll.

FBI Director James Comey testified on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 7, 2016, before the House Oversight Committee to explain his agency’s recommendation to not prosecute Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic presidential candidate, over her private email setup during her time as secretary of state.

That Clinton was allowed to run for President in 2016 will go down as the worst political abuse of our systems of Justice in American history.

Hillary Clinton was political DEAD MEAT without James Comey.

The fact that James Edgar Comey was instrumental in it can hardly be called an accident of history, we have all been here before, it is way past time for Comey’s history of being there for Hillary to be thoroughly investigated by a Grand Jury.

This is not the first time James Comey has snatched Hillary Clinton from the jaws of justice, in fact it has happened way too many times for it to be considered fortuitous.

Like a loyal puppy dog James Comey has somehow miraculously over several decades always been in position to save Hillarys’ butt whenever she gets herself in trouble with the law. No other individual, who has done what Clinton has done, would be in any position to stand as a credible candidate for President of the USA.

And so, like many others I sat confused following James Comey’s statement clearing Hillary Clinton.

It was the whole structure and nature of the statement and its presentation, it all seemed to contradict itself, most probably because it did.

Clinton had done wrong, she had in all probably compromised the Security of the USA and its Security Assets, yes under the relevant legal statutes anyone else would be indicted and go to jail.

But we were all apparently supposed to be certain Hillary didn’t mean any harm really, she had no intention to harm the country, after all you have to understand its Hillary, she’s got a big new gig coming up in November and it will all be back on her plate anyway, so in the interests of everyone we think it is best to let her off.

To those of us sensitive to legal niceties it reeked of political expediency seemed blatant and audacious, totalitarian, and fully illegal in its brute arrogance.

My feeling at the time was that maybe Comey was just a good guy in a very bad spot and to some degree he probably was, but I felt if he could not do the job, then the honorable thing to do was to resign.

But then if you, like Obama, the Media, Establishment, Comey, and everyone else who believed Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in to win — maybe you close your nose to protect yourself from the stench, and look the other way, thus saving yourself from much grief, while simultaneously earning yourself a stinking big presidential favor, while you are at it.

So, it is at just about this point that what we now know about James E Comey starts to look a lot less innocent, and perhaps sinister too, because we know this much and it's all criminal: "James Comey was a Deputy Federal Prosecutor overseeing the FBI investigation into Clinton’s involvement in the Whitewater Property Investment Scandal back in the 1990s, when relevant Clinton legal files, key evidence, any contracts and agreements between the Clintons and their co-accused friends and partners in the deal, were found to have been “Thrown Out” by staff at her old Legal practice."

Is this the beginnings of a pattern of behavior, or just a mere coincidence, something that only begins to look so suspicious in hindsight?

Only today we might call it predictable that the critical evidence disappeared, not only that, but the FBI failed to raid the offices and properties of key suspects in a high-profile investigation, where their normal practice & procedure is to raid properties first, without notice, seize all documents, copies and devices, in order to, and for the very purpose of securing the relevant evidence.

Appropriately James Comey found that Hillary Clinton had no case to answer for at the Whitewater investigation.

Let's now mark that down as STRIKE ONE.

"James Comey also oversaw the FBI investigation into the Clinton’s Pardon’s for Cash scandal, wherein Prominent New York Financiers who had previously been found guilty of Fraud, were subsequently pardoned by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office. All of these same New York City Financiers were later instrumental in raising funds for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate Run."

Again, James Comey found Clinton had no case to answer. Mark that down as STRIKE TWO.

"We also now know thanks to a number of Department of Justice staffers who have only recently come forward that James Comey as FBI Director had circulated a number of draft versions of a statement similar to his final public announcement exonerating Clinton and clearing her of any indictable offence in the Benghazi email investigation or Servergate, as early as April/May 2016. This was long before the FBI had conducted any interviews or taken any statements from the 17 key witnesses."

"We know Clinton destroyed or ordered her staff to destroy email records after they had been subpoenaed by Congress, she & her staff destroyed iPhones, Blackberries & Computers, using Bleachbit to wipe her home server clean from containing evidence."

"In the last week a Maryland Judge has order an investigation into three lawyers who reportedly helped Hillary Clinton delete her private emails. But Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, told the FOX Business Network’s Stuart Varney in a recent interview on September 12th that the worst that could happen to them is a public reprimand."

"All key Clinton DOJ staff and potential witnesses were given immunity from prosecution by the FBI, none of them were properly cautioned before questioning."

"If police or the FBI fail to caution suspects or witnesses before questioning, it would usually indicate any information provided is not intended to be used against the person being interviewed in a court of law."

"At no point did Comey or the FBI consider following what would be normal FBI procedure to raid Clinton properties, to seize data & devices, before evidence could be destroyed."

"Comey has suggested he took matters into his own hands following Attorney General Loretta Lynch insisting that the Clinton Investigation be referred to, not as an Investigation, but rather as a simple "Matter" of interest."

Only recently has Comey communicated that he was concerned by what appeared to be a clear attempt by the US Attorney General, his Boss, to interfere in his investigation in an apparent attempt to down play the seriousness of an official FBI investigation, by having it referred to publicly as a mere “Matter”.

House Judicial Committee Hauls Loretta Lynch in for Questioning…

Again, new rules were being applied , there were existing internal procedures Comey should have followed to report such concerns, he did not report any concerns. Under normal circumstances US Attorney General Loretta would have been asked to recuse herself from any further involvement in the Clinton Email investigation.

Selected excerpts from House Judicial Committee hearing July 2016: SECOND SESSION, JULY 12, 2016, Serial No. 114-88, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary, Available via the World Wide Web:

“We must not give in to hate and let emotion replace reason. We must bridge the divide that separates us and embrace one another as Americans. We must have faith that the institutions that have sustained our Republic for the last 240 years will deliver fair, impartial justice to victims of crime and punish the guilty."

"I look forward to your thoughts on this important matter."

"The American people also expect government officials to abide by the law just like everyone else and to be reprimanded when they break the law. That is not the case for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last week, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend criminal charges against Secretary Clinton for her use of a private email server while at the State Department and the mishandling of classified information."

"The timing of and circumstances surrounding this announcement are particularly troubling. On Monday, June 27, Attorney General Lynch, you met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard your plane on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport despite the fact that his wife was the target of an ongoing criminal investigation.

"This encounter is even more troubling if the FBI is also investigating improper donations to the Clinton Foundation, which was founded by former President Clinton, a member of the foundation’s board of directors.

Five days later, the FBI held its first and only interview with Secretary Clinton after a yearlong investigation. Three days later and on the first day back from a holiday weekend. Director Comey publicly announced that he was not recommending charges against Secretary Clinton. And a mere 24 hours later. Attorney General Lynch, you issued a press release announcing that no charges would be brought against Secretary Clinton.

While Director Comey may have refused to criminally indict Hillary Clinton, his public pronouncement and subsequent congressional testimony is nonetheless a public indictment of her conduct and character.

Though Director Comey declined to recommend charges, he laid out sufficient facts to warrant a referral to the Justice Department. That forces one to confront the question of whether someone who was not in Secretary Clinton’s position would have fared as well with the FBI as she did.

Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no classified information was contained within her private email system. This is not true. The FBI found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing classified information at the time they were sent or received.

Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no information in her emails was marked “classified.” This is not true. The FBI found that some of these emails were marked “classified.”

Secretary Clinton said all relevant emails were returned to the State Department. This is not true. The FBI found thousands of work-related emails that were not returned.

But all of this evidence, according to Director Comey, amounted only to, “extreme carelessness” by Secretary Clinton and her staff And although the Director admitted that there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, he went so far as to publicly declare that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

This defies logic and the law. Contrary to Director Comey’s assertions, the law does not require evidence that a person intended to harm the United States in order to be criminally liable for the mis handling of classified information.

To be sure. Congress has set forth a variety of statutes on this subject with different intent requirements and penalties. Were a rank-and-file Federal employee to do what Secretary Clinton did, they would face severe punishment, including termination, revocation of security clearances, or criminal prosecution. Even Director Comey acknowledged this fact at a recent congressional hearing. But Secretary Clinton is not facing prosecution for her actions.”

June 27, 2016: Attorney General Lynch meets with Bill Clinton

Comey now says, he felt he needed to push things along when news broke of a secret 20-minute meeting between Ex US President Bill Clinton, the husband, of the target of an ongoing, high profile FBI investigation, Hillary Clinton and US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, on the 27th of June 2016. Their private planes just happened to taxi and park next to each other on the tarmac at Phoenix airport, a mere 5 days before Comey was scheduled to begin questioning Hillary Clinton.

I and any decent prosecutor would find it very interesting to have James Comey explain exactly why he felt that way, in detail.

Again we find Loretta Lynch has a long and distinguished career built on serving the interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton that dates back to her involvement in the Clinton’s ubiquitous “White Water” property scandal of the 1990s. A career that seems to be in sync with that of FBI Director James Comey, including her subsequent appointments to several Federal District Attorney roles, first by President Bill Clinton and then by President Barack Obama and more recently with her appointment to the position of US Attorney General by President Obama at around the time the Hillary Email scandal broke.

June 27th – July 6th all done, how quickly things can happen when your man is on the switch:
"James Comey interviewed Hillary Clinton without caution on July 2nd, and on July 5th of 2016 James Comey made a public statement explaining that he would not be recommending any criminal charges against her to the Department of Justice."

24 Hours latter US Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a press release confirming no charges would be laid against Hillary Clinton.

We now know Comey lied at least once to a Congressional Judicial committee claiming he did not make any decision on the Clinton email matter until after he had interviewed Hillary Clinton.”

Taking into consideration all of the above, I found myself questioning why nobody in the Media or the GOP has been willing or able to see what is obvious, since they had all this information in their hands, and it happened in front of them. It seems to me that they are paid to pick these things up, and that is their job — but they are failing at it.

Of far more concern today, is this question: Are they even willing or able to look at what is happening, and admit it is wrong, or as some have suggested, are they all bought and paid for? Maybe, or maybe not, but there is another credible and logical explanation, one that everyone or at least 99% of the denizens of the swampy Washington DC would feel very comfortable with… and this appears clearly in a September 12th interview that was mentioned earlier, when Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, told the FOX Business Network’s Stuart Varney, that he sees criminal charges against Clinton as highly unlikely at this point because…:

“The government has chosen not to prosecute. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department, can investigate, indict and prosecute, but they choose not to do so,” he said. Napolitano disagreed with the decision not to prosecute, telling Varney, “I think it’s a terrible decision not to prosecute. They should prosecute Mrs Clinton because there’s ample evidence of her guilt, and they should prosecute anybody that destroyed evidence in a criminal investigation.”

When Varney asked Napolitano if he was disappointed with Sessions so far, Napolitano responded thus: “Yes, even though he’s my friend, I’m going to hear about this, yes, for this and for other reasons.”

According to Napolitano, the culture in government is holding back Sessions from pursuing an investigation against Clinton because as he said: “It’s an institutional culture in government. We don’t want to go after our predecessors because we don’t want our successors to come after us.”

Maybe that best explains what we have been seeing with investigations into the Clintons over several decades, and it would appear to be the most logical explanation, it answers the questions so many people have been asking since the Clinton Circus first rolled into Washington DC, back in 1992.

But, and it is a big "BUTT" — yet while Washington may breathe a sigh of relief at the adoption of such logic, someone needs to remind Washington that Washington is not America.

Washington & the Establishment Elite are on the other side of a vast American Political Divide, and that ain't going to be bridged any time soon…

Because if we accept that there was no Voter Fraud in Washington DC, then we must also accept that the official vote count in the November 2016 Presidential election is a confirmation of political dysfunction, as Donald Trump comfortably won the Electoral College across America 306 to Clintons 232, including 2600 Counties to Clintons meagre 500, all in all a stunning 83% of the Geographic Nation.

The American Federal Electoral College was devised to provide a proper representation of the will of a majority of the people in a majority of the states that agreed to join together in common interest to create a Federal Government which it was eventually agreed would be based in Washington.

Washington on the other hand voted a whopping 94% in favour of Hillary Clinton Presidency in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

More than anything else that has been discussed, this goes to explain the so called divide in American Politics, it explains the “Too big to Jail” attitude that appears to have captured the Washington Bureaucracy, the Government, and all of the Establishment Mass and Main Stream Media, along with Social Media and the likes of it.

I will leave this issue here for now, but I do just want you to think about something over the next few days. In view of what you have just read, would it concern you at all to know that James Comey intentionally leaked details of private meetings with newly elected President Trump to the major news media, feeding the Media frenzy surrounding the Obama’s Russia SpyGate accusations. Then that Comey has admitted he leaked to the press because Trump made him feel nauseous, and he felt he did not trust the new President — is further confirmation of his bias towards Hillary Clinton.

That Comey has admitted in his media leaks, along with his evidence to various Congressional Committees that he was involved in a concerted campaign to imply that Donald Trump had pressured him to drop an FBI inquiry into possible Collusion with Russians by Trump’s Campaign, hoping it would lead Congress to entertain the possibility that Donald Trump might be accused of “Obstructing of Justice” — is another one of the nails in his scaffolding.

James Comey has admitted it was his intention when leaking to reporters, that it might encourage or hasten the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate Donald Trump and his campaign team…

But for now we should all be advised that all is not what it seems at the FBI, because the issue here is, what possessed James Comey to step well outside what he knew to be the limits of his Authority, exceed his paygrade and take it upon himself to sum up the case against Hillary Clinton, and then pass exonerating judgement?

We now know, that for James Comey, his public statement exonerating Hillary Clinton was no rush of blood, spur of the moment thing, this was a calculated, deliberate and planned political move which it had been decided at least as early as April, would be carried out at the Direction of the then President Barak Obama.

Comey’s actions clearly betray his state of mind, he knew what he was doing and he knew very well why he was doing it, he knew his actions amounted to a most audacious obstruction of justice, but he made the call in the comfort and knowledge of expert predictions in all main stream media showing Hillary Clinton as odds on favourite to win the Presidential election, meaning he James Edgar Comey would have two American Presidents so deep in his debt.

Oh, and yes Mr McCabe, Mr Podesta, I wouldn’t want you to feel your roles had been ignored, looking forward to seeing how you both develop as players, adjust to new interpretations of your roles over the next few weeks.

This is an insightful and hard hitting book looking closely at what was behind the appointment of Special Prosecutor ROBERT MUELLER by the Secret Washington DC elites and the Governmental losers.

Yet the 2016 US Presidential Race that led to the Election of DONALD TRUMP and the first 24 months of his Administration, offer a most unique and important turning point in the history of this Republic, mostly because of how unexpected this breath of fresh air was at the time that it arrived.


SECOND SESSION, JULY 12, 2016, Serial No. 114-88, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary, Available via the World Wide Web:

""Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.

We must not give in to hate and let emotion replace reason. We must bridge the divide that separates us and embrace one another as Americans. We must have faith that the institutions that have sustained our Republic for the last 240 years will deliver fair, impartial justice to victims of crime and punish the guilty.

I look forward to your thoughts on this important matter.

The American people also expect government officials to abide by the law just like everyone else and to be reprimanded when they break the law. That is not the case for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last week, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend criminal charges against Secretary
Clinton for her use of a private email server while at the State Department and the mishandling of classified information.

The timing of and circumstances surrounding this announcement are particularly troubling. On Monday, June 27, Attorney General Lynch, you met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard your plane on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport despite the fact that his wife was the target of an ongoing criminal investigation.

This encounter is even more troubling if the FBI is also investigating improper donations to the Clinton Foundation, which was founded by former President Clinton, a member of the foundation’s board of directors.

Five days later, the FBI held its first and only interview with Secretary Clinton after a yearlong investigation. Three days later and on the first day back from a holiday weekend. Director Comey publicly announced that he was not recommending charges against Secretary Clinton. And a mere 24 hours later. Attorney General Lynch, you issued a press release announcing that no charges would be brought against Secretary Clinton.

While Director Comey may have refused to criminally indict Hillary Clinton, his public pronouncement and subsequent congressional testimony is nonetheless a public indictment of her conduct and character.

Though Director Comey declined to recommend charges, he laid out sufficient facts to warrant a referral to the Justice Department. That forces one to confront the question of whether someone who was not in Secretary Clinton’s position would have fared as well
with the FBI as she did.

Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no classified information was contained within her private email system. This is not true. The FBI found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing classified information at the time they were sent or received.

Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no information in her emails was marked “classified.” This is not true. The FBI found that some of these emails were marked “classified.”

Secretary Clinton said all relevant emails were returned to the State Department. This is not true. The FBI found thousands of work-related emails that were not returned.

But all of this evidence, according to Director Comey, amounted only to, “extreme carelessness” by Secretary Clinton and her staff And although the Director admitted that there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, he went so far as to publicly declare that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

This defies logic and the law. Contrary to Director Comey’s assertions, the law does not require evidence that a person intended to harm the United States in order to be criminally liable for the mis handling of classified information.

To be sure. Congress has set forth a variety of statutes on this subject with different intent requirements and penalties. Were a rank-and-file Federal employee to do what Secretary Clinton did, they would face severe punishment, including termination, revocation of security clearances, or criminal prosecution. Even Director Comey acknowledged this fact at a recent congressional hearing. But Secretary Clinton is not facing prosecution for her actions.

This has now become an issue for Congress, in that it appears Secretary Clinton testified falsely when appearing under oath before the Select Committee on Benghazi. Yesterday, I and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Chaffetz asked the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate Secretary Clinton’s testimony before Congress.

Secretary Clinton’s extreme carelessness possibly jeopardized the safety and security of our citizens and Nation. Her extreme carelessness suggests she cannot be trusted with the Nation’s most sen sitive secrets if she is nevertheless elected President.

Frankly, the FBI’s conclusion leaves many more questions than answers, and we hope. Madam Attorney General, to get answers to those questions today.

Thank you.

Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, General Lynch.

We’ll now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions for the witnesses, and I’ll begin by recognizing myself.

Before being confirmed as Attorney General in May of last year, you were first nominated by President Obama to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and you were originally appointed to the U.S. Attorney post in 1999 by former President Bill Clinton.

The existence of Secretary Clinton’s private email server was first brought to light in March of last year, 1 month before your confirmation as Attorney General. A few months after your confirmation, the inspectors general of State and National Intelligence
requested the Department of Justice investigate whether classified information was stored on her private email servers. The FBI then opened an investigation into the matter.

Given that she was a political appointee of your current boss and, more importantly, the wife of your previous boss, why did you not see fit to recuse yourself from the investigation? Wouldn’t recusal or appointment of a special prosecutor have removed anyappearance of impropriety given your service during Bill Clinton’s

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair man.

As I’ve said on several occasions before, when the referral came into the Department of Justice, it was received and referred to experienced, dedicated career agents and prosecutors who handle matters of this type every day with independence, with efficiency, with thoroughness, and the matter was handled like any other

It was reviewed through the chain by those independent career agents and prosecutors. And, in considering the matter, there was no connection, there was no need for recusal or an independent prosecutor.

Mr. Goodlatte. Well

Attorney General Lynch. And, as I indicated before. I’m incredibly proud of the dedicated work that they did over the past year.

Mr. Goodlatte. Let me follow up on that then.

Two weeks ago, roughly a year into the FBI’s investigation and a mere week before Director Comey’s announcement, you met privately with your former boss, former President Bill Clinton, on your plane at the Phoenix airport.

Why was this meeting, particularly in light of your previous appointment by President Clinton, not grounds for recusing yourself?

Attorney General Lynch. With respect to my conversation that I had with former President Clinton in Phoenix, it was a conversation that was held on the airplane on the tarmac. The former President indicated he wanted to say hello, and I agreed to say hello,
and we had a social conversation.

Nothing of any relationship to the email investigation was discussed, nor were any specific cases or matters before the Department of Justice discussed.

Mr. Goodlatte. We’ll have some followup questions to that later, but let me turn your attention to Director Comey’s conclusions on a variety of points.

Secretary Clinton stated that she never sent or received information marked as “classified” on her server. Director Comey stated that was not true. Do you agree with Director Comey?

Attorney General Lynch. You know, Director Comey has chosen to provide great detail into the basis for his recommendations that were ultimately provided to me. He’s chosen to provide detailed statements, and I would refer you to those statements.

I, as Attorney General, am not able to provide any further comment on the facts or the substance of the investigation.

Mr. Goodlatte. Well, General Lynch, I think you would agree that the ultimate responsibility for a prosecutorial decision does not rest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation but with the Department of Justice, which you head.

Have you not taken a close look at the work done by Director Comey, especially given the extreme national interest in this issue, to make a determination, yourself, whether you and those working for you agree or disagree with Director Comey?

Attorney General Lynch. As I’ve indicated, I received the recommendation of the team. And that team was composed of prosecutors and agents. It was a unanimous recommendation as to how to
resolve the investigation.

Mr. Goodlatte. So do you

Attorney General Lynch. And the information that they had received concluded

Mr. Goodlatte. Do you agree with the conclusion?

Attorney General Lynch. And I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it. And, again, I reiterate my pride and faith in their work.

Mr. Goodlatte. Secretary Clinton stated that she did not email any classified material, and Director Comey stated there was classified material emailed. Do you agree with Director Comey’s conclusion about that?

Attorney General Lynch. Again, I would have to refer you to Director Comey’s statements for the basis for his recommendations.

Mr. Goodlatte. Director Comey stated that there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information. Do you agree with Director Comey’s statement?

Attorney General Lynch. Again, I would refer you to Director Comey for any further explanation as to the basis for his recommendations.

The recommendation that I received from the team, including Director Comey

Mr. Goodlatte. But, General Lynch

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Was that the investigation
be resolved without charges.

Mr. Goodlatte. General Lynch, Director Comey made a recommendation, but he made a recommendation to the Department of Justice, which you head, and you would have to come to the final conclusion on whether or not to act.

I would presume that, before you acted, you would look at his conclusion to determine whether you agreed with him or not.

Attorney General Lynch. As I’ve indicated, I received a briefing from the team, which included not just the prosecutors but the agents and Director Comey, their unanimous recommendation was that the matter be resolved in the way in which we’ve announced,
and I accepted that recommendation.

Mr. Goodlatte. Let me ask you one final question that does not regard the specific facts with regard to Secretary Clinton, but Director Comey said that there was not clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the
handling of classified information.

My question for you is, is intent to violate the law a requirement
under 18 U.S.C. section 793(f)?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I think the statutes that were considered here speak for themselves. To answer further would require a discussion of the facts and the analysis of this matter, which, as I’ve indicated. I’m not in a position to pro-
vide at the time. Again, I refer you to Director Comey’s discussion
for that.

As I’ve indicated, the team reviewed this matter, and it was a unanimous team decision.

Mr. Goodlatte. And you made a decision, following their recommendation to you, that you were not going to prosecute and the matter was closed. Is that correct?

Attorney General Lynch. I made the decision some time ago that I would accept the recommendation of that team and was awaiting that recommendation. When I received it, there was no basis not to accept it. And, again, I reiterate my pride and faith in them.

Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you. I appreciate your faith in them. The concern here is in regard to your sworn oath to uphold the United States Constitution and the laws thereunder, including 18 U.S.C. section 793(D and 18 U.S.C. section 1924. And to con-
clude that no prosecution would take place without examining and drawing conclusions regarding the questions that I’ve just asked does not seem to be a responsible way to uphold your constitutionally sworn oath.

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes.

Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. General Lynch, for your testimony today.

I’d ask first that, in that happenstance meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix, was there any discussion that might have implied anything with regard to the investigations of the Clintons, be it the Clinton Foundation or the investigation of the FBI into Hillary
Clinton’s emails?

Attorney General Lynch. No, sir, there was not.

Mr. King. Zero implications.

Attorney General Lynch. There was nothing about any investigations or any specific cases or any of the other matters that you have mentioned in your question. It was purely social

Mr. King. And when did you learn about that meeting?

Attorney General Lynch. As I was getting ready to leave the plane. I had landed, and I was getting ready to disembark from the plane. I learned that the former President wanted to say hello, and I agreed to say hello to him.

Mr. King. Was there any staff in that meeting, or was it the two of you alone?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, my husband was with me during our conversations. I believe there were also two members of the flight crew on board the plane, to whom the former President said hello.

Mr. King. Okay. Thank you.

Are you aware that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied to the public about her emails and her email servers in public forums and, say, campaign speeches and interviews with the press? Are you aware of that?

Attorney General Lynch. I have no comment on a characterization of any candidate and their statements.

Mr. King. I would point out that most of the rest of America is aware of that, and including her political supporters, who will continually say that they will support her even though she lied publicly.

I would also point out, October 9, 2015, Barack Obama stated that Hillary Clinton did not endanger national security. The whole issue was “ginned up by Republicans.” That was October 9, 2015. On October 10, he stated that Hillary Clinton was “careless but
had not been intentionally endangering national security.”

It’s curious to me that that turns out to be the very word that the lack of prosecution hinges upon, is intent, even though the statute doesn’t require intent. And when you see a President publicly make a statement like that, are you concerned that it might influ-
ence the decision on prosecution?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, as — I’ve been asked about that statement. As I’ve clarified before, the Department of Justice had no input into it. And, certainly, my view has always been that the team working on this did their work independently and without any political influence.

Mr. King. From the information that’s been made available to you, do you believe that Hillary Clinton knowingly removed classified information?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t have a comment on or a characterization

Mr. King. I understand that. And, also

Attorney General Lynch. And that was part of

Mr. King [continuing]. Do you believe that she had intent to keep unauthorized information in an unauthorized location? And you have no comment on that?

Attorney General Lynch. No. I’d would refer you to my statement on the

Mr. King. Uh-huh.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Recommendation that I

Mr. King. And I understand that.

Now, the hinge of this thing, according to Mr. Sensenbrenner and I’ll say myself, the definition of the word “gross negligence,” in that Director Comey used the term “extreme carelessness,” and Mr Sensenbrenner asked you to define the difference between that and “gross negligence.”

Do you find it ironic that the last examination of a Clinton in this room, the previous one. Bill Clinton — excuse me, before this Judiciary Committee, not technically in this room — hinged on the meaning of the word “is.” It looks to me like this investigation is
hinging upon the meaning of “extreme carelessness” versus “gross negligence.”

Do you actually see that there’s a difference between those two words?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I always start with the statute with any review that is being done on any matter by the Department of Justice. And we look to the statute, legislative history, caselaw, and we look at the facts as they’re developed by an
investigation and apply them to that statute and to that standard. And that is what the team did in this case, and that was, I believe, the basis for their recommendation.

Mr. King. Director Comey stated in his press conference that they didn’t have evidence that the classified information or the Top Secret information had been hacked by a foreign actor. But neither did he state that they had any evidence that it had not been
hacked, and he stated also it’d be unlikely that we would know if it had been.

Now, under Snowden, we have to operate as if any information he had access to is now in the possession of foreign hostile actors. Would you believe that’s the same thing with any information that Hillary Clinton had on her private server, we have to act as if it
were in the hands of a hostile foreign actor?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t have a comment on a characterization or comparison of Mr. Snowden and Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. King. Well, just answer the part about Hillary Clinton then, please. General Lynch.

Attorney General Lynch. You had asked me

Mr. King. The information that was on her server, that we have to presume now that it’s in the hands of hostile foreign actors. Do we have to handle it as if that’s the case? And, if so, didn’t that endanger our national security?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I think that you’d have to look at the facts of the matter and determine whether or not there had been access. And, as the Director indicated, I believe he’s responded to that, as to whether or not

Mr. King. And it is a very serious matter, and it’s been covered up. General Lynch.

I yield back.

Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you. Madam Attorney General, for coming today.

Madam Attorney General, you mentioned earlier that your first consideration in any case was to start with the statute. And I know there are a lot of questions already that’s addressed this issue, but I want to read you 18 U.S.C. 1924, where it says any Federal offi-
cial who “becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States and knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or material in an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 1
year or both.”

Now, this statute doesn’t require an intent to profit or to harm the United States or otherwise act in a manner disloyal to the United States. It simply requires intent to retain classified docu ments at an unauthorized location, something FBI Director
Comey’s own comments suggest was the case with Hillary Clinton’s

Can you walk us through your reasoning on your nonprosecution
decision in the Clinton case based on this particular statute?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to the reasoning for my recommendation, as I have stated before, I had committed to and did accept the recommendations of the team working on this matter.

And, as I indicated in my opening statement, it would not be appropriate for me, as Attorney General, to go into that level of analysis. I believe the FBI Director has chosen to make his recommendations and analysis public in order to afford more clarity
into that.

But the team did review the relevant laws, the relevant facts that the investigation revealed. They relied solely on that and not on anything else in making that recommendation, which was unanimous, to me.

Mr. Franks. Well, Madam Chair — Madam Attorney General, you know, the FBI doesn’t give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. You do.

But many Members already — I can see where this is going. Far more capable Members of this Committee have summarily failed, as I just did, to get you to answer even the most reasonable and relevant question. Consequently, I’m going to simply capitulate to
your prodigious dissimulation skills and suspend the remainder of my questions.

Instead, I just want to remind all of us that in a republic like America, which is fundamentally predicated on the rule of law and the equality of us all under the rule of law, there are few things that break faith with America and the American people and under mine their trust in their government more than witnessing the highest law enforcement officer in the land blatantly ignoring the crystal-clear meaning and equal protection and equal enforcement of the laws as they are written.

And, Madam Attorney General, I think such an abrogation of your official duties and responsibilities — it’s not just a matter of what will be written writ large in the annals of your own legacy. It’s something, rather, that goes to the very heart of the rule of law
in a republic that so many lying out in Arlington National Cemetery have died to keep. And I hope, going forward, if there are other investigations into the false testimony given to the Confess by Mrs. Clinton, that that will be at least part of your consideration.

Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Lynch, who made the decision that no charges would be brought against Secretary Clinton?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to that decision, I had determined that I would accept the recommendation of the team and made that known

Mr. Jordan. So who ultimately made the decision?

Attorney General Lynch. I made that known, and then when the recommendation was given to me, I did accept that recommendation.

Mr. Jordan. So did you ultimately make that decision, or did Director Comey?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Director Comey was part of the team.

Mr. Jordan. Who ultimately made the decision?

Attorney General Lynch. So the team consisted of prosecutors and agents that did include Director Comey, but there were oth-
ers —

Mr. Jordan. I want to know where the buck stops. Who made the decision?

Attorney General Lynch. As I indicated before, I had previously decided that I would accept their recommendation when they made it to me

Mr. Jordan. So are you saying you

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. And I did accept their recommendation.

Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Made the decision? Are you saying you made the decision?

Attorney General Lynch. I had previously indicated I would accept their recommendation, and I

Mr. Jordan. Okay. So let’s just run through that. On July 1, you said, “I’ll accept the recommendations of the FBI.” Mr. Comey didn’t announce his decision until July 5, and he said that he didn’t talk to you beforehand.

Now, I assume it’s not unusual for the Attorney General to accept the recommendations of the FBI and the career prosecutors and the team, as you’ve so often cited. What is unusual is to make a big, bold, public announcement that you’re going to do it. It’s one
thing to do it. I assume it happens all the time. It’s another thing to announce ahead of time you’re going to do it.

So here’s what I’m having trouble with and my guess is a lot of people are having trouble with. If you commit and announce that you will abide by the FBI’s decision before they even finish their investigation, then how can you also say ultimately it was your de-

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, as I’ve indicated, I accepted their recommendation. I had indicated

Mr. Jordan. So are you

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Before that I would accept —

Mr. Jordan. What I want to know is, was it not your decision or was it your decision? Because it seems to me you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say. I’m the Attorney General and I decide, but yet I’m going to take their recommendations even before they
make their recommendations.

Attorney General Lynch. I had indicated that I would be accepting their recommendation because I wanted to make it clear that any conversation that I might have had with the former President would have no impact on the team or their review

Mr. Jordan. Ever do this before?

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Or the investigation.

Mr. Jordan. Did you ever do this before?

Attorney General Lynch. I have not had occasion to do that be-
fore, but I felt

Mr. Jordan. You’ve never

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. It was important in this

Mr. Jordan. So you’ve never announced before an investigation is done that whatever they come up with — maybe they’re going to screw it up, who knows — you’ve never announced before that what ever they recommend I’m going to follow. It’s never happened before.

Attorney General Lynch. I thought it was important in this case to do so.

Mr. Jordan. So this is the first time you’ve ever done that, announce beforehand, I don’t care what their recommendations are I’m gonna — by golly. I’m gonna follow them.

Attorney General Lynch. I have complete faith in the judgment and the hard work of the team.

Mr. Jordan. I’m not questioning whether you have faith in them. I have — I think probably a lot of people have faith in the FBI in a lot of situations. I don’t know that they agree with them here, but I think they have faith in them a lot of times.

What I’m questioning is why announce ahead of time, when you’ve never done it before, why announce ahead of time. I’m going to follow their recommendations even though I don’t know what they are, and still claim you’re the ultimate decider?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, as I indicated, I felt it was important to express my role in the investigation, to clarify my role, because I was concerned that the conversation I had with the former President would make people think that there could be some influence there.

Mr. Jordan. So that was the trigger.

Attorney General Lynch. That, in my view, was something that needed to be clarified. I felt that people needed to understand my role in

Mr. Jordan. So you’ve never done this before, but when you have a conversation with the former President, the husband of the subject of an ongoing investigation, and you have that conversation before they’ve interviewed the subject and before they’ve reached
their recommendations and finished their investigation, that’s what triggered you to do this thing you’ve never done before, which is announce, I don’t care what they recommend. I’m gonna follow it.

Attorney General Lynch. My concern was that the conversation that I had with President Clinton would be seen by some as having an influence over that. I felt it was important to clarify

Mr. Jordan. Not just some. General Lynch. A lot of people.

Attorney General Lynch. And I felt it was important to clarify
that even before I had landed in Phoenix

Mr. Jordan. Well, here’s what I think.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. I had made that decision. And I felt

Mr. Jordan. Here’s what I see happening here.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. It was important that people hear that from me.

Mr. Jordan. Here’s what I think is — I think your actions made it worse. I really do.

I think a lot of people already think that there are two systems, as many have talked about, one for we, the people, a different one, entirely different one, for the politically connected. If you’re a former Secretary of State, you’re a former Senator, you’re a former
First Lady, you’re a nominee for President, and your husband meets with you 5 days before a decision is announced — different standard for those facts.

And you proved it. You demonstrated that it’s different by your actions, because you said you’ve never done this before. So you not only — you changed your internal practices. You changed the fact that you’ve never announced beforehand that you’re going to follow a recommendation before you even have the recommendations. Your actions contributed to this belief that the system is rigged.

And that — you made a bad situation worse by saying. I’m going to do whatever they recommend, even though I don’t know what the recommendations are. I don’t know anyone who would conduct themselves that way when they’re the ultimate decider. But you said. I’m going to wait — I’m going to do whatever they said, and I’m not even going to wait to see what they’re recommending. I’m gonna follow it.

You showed that this case was different. And the law is supposed to treat every single person the same. And your announcement, by definition, made this thing entirely different. And then, of course, what was ultimately decided made it entirely different, as well.

I yield back.

Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the Chairman.

And, Madam Attorney General, thank you so much for being here.

Attorney General Lynch. Good afternoon.

Mr. Chaffetz. Does an individual need a security clearance to review or have access to classified material?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, that issue would be dependent upon the agency for whom they worked and the nature of the work that they did with respect to

Mr. Chaffetz. Can you give me an example where you don’t need a security clearance to view classified material?

Attorney General Lynch. No, I believe, as I was going to say, they would, but the type of clearance varies with every agency, and the agency would make that decision and determination.

Mr. Chaffetz. Is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, it depends on the facts of every situation. You’d have to determine how that sharing occurred. You’d have to determine the means. You’d have to determine, you know, the reason, the intent. Certainly, depending upon
how you view the statute, it could go any number of ways.

Mr. Chaffetz. So you think there is a scenario in which you could share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have the requisite security clearance.

Attorney General Lynch. No, I would not draw that conclusion. I would say that I’m not able to answer it as a hypothetical but that there are a number of factors that would go into the decision, and one could have any number of results.

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the
Committee, and can also be accessed at:

http: / / docs, / Committee / Calendar / By Event, aspx ?EventID= 105175

Mr. Chaffetz. Is it legal or illegal to provide access to somebody who doesn’t have the requisite security clearance to view classified material?

Attorney General Lynch. To provide access?

Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah.

Attorney General Lynch. Again, you know, I’d need more facts on the hypothetical, but I would look at a number of things, and depending upon how you reviewed it, it could go any number of ways.

Mr. Chaffetz. Is it legal or illegal to store, house, or retain classified information in a nonsecure location?

Attorney General Lynch. Again, I would refer you to the statute. One could, in fact, have liability, again, depending upon the nature and facts and circumstances

Mr. Chaffetz. Do you have any examples of where it’s legally acceptable to retain classified information in a nonsecure location?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t have a hypothetical answer for that.

Mr. Chaffetz. Is it legal or illegal to provide false testimony under oath?

Attorney General Lynch. There are a number of statutes that cover that, both at the Federal and State level. There are a number of ways in which that could be found.

Mr. Chaffetz. There’s a difference between prosecuting something and whether it’s legal or illegal. You know, these questions are pretty simple. And we’ve got millions of people with security clearance. How are they supposed to go through the gyrations that
you’ve laid out in order to make a simple determination?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, if we had a specific fact situation or fact pattern, that could be reviewed.

Mr. Chaffetz. I’m just asking is it legal

Attorney General Lynch. When it comes to a hypothetical situation, it would be unfair to come up with a blanket answer to someone without reviewing all the facts of their situation.

Mr. Chaffetz. I’m asking if it’s legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance.

Attorney General Lynch. Again, I would refer you to the appropriate statutes, and I’d refer you to the facts of every situation. It would be unfair to give a blanket answer to every hypothetical.

Mr. Chaffetz. Why aren’t we telling all the Federal employees and contractors who have access to classified information, those in our military, why aren’t we telling them, “You can’t do this. It’s against the law”? Why can’t you say that?

Attorney General Lynch. We give them guidance. Again, every agency does. We give them examples. We give them information as to

Mr. Chaffetz. Wait, wait, wait.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. How to make those decisions. We show them. And, again, every agency

Mr. Chaffetz. Why is the law not sufficient guidance? You believe — is there a flaw in the law? Is there a suggestion on the law? I mean

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t have a comment on the state of the law. My answer is that in order

Mr. Chaffetz. Somebody asked me to consult an attorney, and you are the Attorney General. And I think you’re sending a terrible message to the world, to those people who are trying to make some simple decisions. The lack of clarity that you give to this body, the lack of clarity on this issue is pretty stunning. These seem like simple issues.

Let me ask you, the team that you talk about in the Secretary Clinton email scandal, outside of the FBI, who is on that team that you refer to that made the recommendation?

Attorney General Lynch. As I indicated before, they would be career prosecutors.

Mr. Chaffetz. Okay, so they’re prosecutors. Anybody else on the team that was a participant in the investigation?

Attorney General Lynch. Not to my knowledge. I’m not sure if you’re referring to anybody else. Can you give me some further context for that?

Mr. Chaffetz. I don’t know — like, if they go back and do security clearances, determine classification, whether it’s secure or nonsecure, I would think that there would be somebody outside of the FBI that would help you make those determinations.

Attorney General Lynch. Well, the Department of Justice team would be Department of Justice employees. With respect to

Mr. Chaffetz. I’m trying to ask specific to which departments within the Department — I mean, the Department of Justice is a large organization, right? FBI is part of that; prosecutors are part of it. Who above and beyond prosecutors and the FBI was involved
in this investigation?

Attorney General Lynch. As I’ve indicated before, the DOJ team was composed of the career lawyers and seasoned agents in there. I’m not sure if you’re asking about something outside of DOJ

Mr. Chaffetz. I didn’t know if there was another unit or other people that were part of it. That was my question.

My time was expired. I wish I had about 20 more minutes.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You are in charge of the Department of Justice. The buck stops with you. And I’m concerned that you keep on saying that you have deferred the authority that by law is yours to Director Comey.

Let me give an example. Mr. Comey has said that Secretary Clinton was extremely careless in her handling of highly classified, very sensitive information. Now, the criminal statute uses the word “gross negligence.” And I can’t for the life of me figure out what the difference between “gross negligence” and “extremely careless”
is unless one really wants to parse some words.

Now, secondly, the misdemeanour statute does not require intent. It’s a strict liability statute, and it relates to the removal and retention of classified information. So it doesn’t matter whether Secretary Clinton had the intent to do that or not; the fact is that the FBI said that she did it.

Now, I think that what Director Comey has said is that Secretary Clinton’s actions essentially meet the definition for prosecution under the statute. Why did you defer to Director Comey when the responsibility is yours?

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.

Let me he clear that my decision was to accept the recommendation of the team of agents and investigators who worked on this. And these are the career attorneys as well as the dedicated investigators, including the FBI Director, who worked on this matter for
over a year.

They’ve reviewed the facts. They followed the facts. They looked at the law. They’ve applied the facts to that law and came up with a unanimous recommendation

Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. A joint recommendation,
in effect

Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, I have

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. That was provided to me.

Mr. Sensenbrenner. I have a limited amount of time.

You know, the fact is that, whether it’s extremely careless or gross negligence and a strict liability of statute, I think that the language of the statute is clear.

Now, I’ve noted that the Justice Department over the last several years has prosecuted several servicemen for doing the exact samething that Secretary Clinton did and, in one case, actually reached a judgment of a court that prohibited that serviceman from ever
having a security classification again.

Now, you have a problem. Madam Attorney General, that people think that there’s a different standard between the servicemen and Secretary Clinton and the fact that the language is almost synonymous, if not synonymous, saying no prosecution of Secretary Clinton and prosecution and conviction of the servicemen.

You have a burden, I think, to convince the American public that you don’t have a double standard. You’re not meeting the burden. And how do you plan to change the argument that you make to the American public so that they can be convinced that the thing was
correct and that you made the right decision, rather than simply deferring to people in the FBI and the prosecutors?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, every case stands on its own separate facts and application of those facts to the law. So you’d have to refer to the specific facts of the other matters that you’re referring to.

With respect to the investigation into the former Secretary’s handling of classified information, her private email system, again, I can tell you and this entire Committee and the American people that all of the relevant facts were considered, investigated thoroughly, and reviewed by the entire team, which, again, is composed of career independent investigators as well as lawyers. And their recommendation, upon a full and thorough analysis, was that the matter be resolved in the way in which it was recommended to me.

As I’ve indicated, I determined to accept that recommendation and did, in fact, accept that recommendation.

Mr. Sensenbrenner. One final question. One of the service people who was prosecuted, basically he sent an email out that his fellow Marines were in danger. And he ended up getting prosecuted for warning his fellow Marines that their lives may be
in danger.

Now, here in the case of Ms. Clinton, the private email arrangement was simply to avoid public scrutiny. So, in terms of the intent of Major Jason Brezler and Secretary Clinton, one. Major Brezler, was doing it to save his colleagues; the other. Secretary Clinton, was to avoid transparency.

Now, in terms of the bottom line, that’s the hoop that you have to jump through in order to retain and regain your credibility with the American public. I hope that you’ll be able to do that.

And I yield back.

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Attorney General, I think the thing that I find so disheartening, so unfortunate, about FBI Director Comey’s decision not to recommend criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week was that, for a lot of Americans,
it looked like we’re seeing a double standard, unequal treatment under the law.

Under the facts of the case as laid out by Director Comey, virtually anybody else, I think most Americans think, including my self, there would have been charges brought for a crime against virtually anybody else in this country. But the politically connected Hillary Clinton, well, we won’t charge her.

I mean, look what Comey laid out. It’s already been laid out to some degree, but I think it warrants doing it again. He found that, despite the fact that Hillary claimed that she’d never sent or received classified information over a private email, she’d actually sent 110 of them, over 100 of them, and 8 of those were determined to have been Top Secret at the time that they were sent.

Now, I assume that, based upon the way you’ve answered some of my colleague’s questions prior to this, you’re not going to acknowledge what I think virtually every other American believes, even her supporters, and that’s to at least acknowledge, as Director Comey did, that she lied. Would you respond?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to the Director’s statements, as I’ve indicated, he’s provided really unprecedented access into his views of the matter, and I would refer you to them.

I understand the issue that you raise, obviously, is one involving perceptions as to whether or not charges would have been brought in some other situation. And, again, I can only refer you back to the Director’s statements, where he chose to outline the fact that no other cases similar to this had, in fact, been brought.

Mr. Chabot. Let me go back to what Mr. Sensenbrenner referred to. I think it’s one of the great mysteries of this case, and that’s why extreme carelessness — apparently not in his mind, and you accepted it, so I guess apparently not in your mind — did not constitute gross negligence.

Now, I’m an attorney. I practiced 16 years before coming here. And I’ve been on this Committee for 20 years now, so even though I’m not actually practicing law right now. I’ve been doing this type of thing for a long time. And I, for the life of me, don’t know what the difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence” is. He said he found one but apparently not the other.

Could you shed some light for me and perhaps anybody else in this room or that may ultimately watch this, what is the difference between the two?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, again. I’m not going to further explain the Director’s comments, as he has, I believe, explained them. But I will say, when people have asked — and I understand your question to be the meaning of “gross negligence” — one always, as you know, refer to the statute itself, relevant cases, and then, of
course, it is a very fact-specific inquiry. And since to go further would go into the facts of this case. I’m not able to go further at this time.

Mr. Chabot. All right. Okay.

Attorney General Lynch. But we always start with the statute. We start with relevant caselaw. We start with legislative history into the

Mr. Chabot. Okay. As

Attorney General Lynch. Determination of what Congress meant.

Mr. Chabot. Also, as Mr. Sensenbrenner mentioned. I’ve got limited time, as well. So since you’re not going to answer that ques tion, let me give you one final question here.

Let me go back to this double-standard thing that I mentioned before. I couldn’t help being reminded when this whole thing — especially over the last week, of something that I was involved in in this very Committee 18 years ago. And, at the time, it was Hillary
Clinton’s husband. Bill Clinton, who was in trouble.

He was accused of sexually harassing a number of women, and then he lied under oath about it, committed perjury. He’d been asked if there were other women. There was a civil lawsuit brought, and oftentimes when you have a lawsuit like that, you go
to other people: Did you sexually — were you aggressive with people who were under your jurisdiction or that you had some power over? Did you ever do that? No, he never did.

Well, then a young intern came forward that was working under him at the White House, and she had physical proof. He denied it, but there was physical proof I won’t go into exactly what that was, but there was proof about that. So he was pretty much caught up in this. He lied, committed perjury.

That’s why articles of impeachment were voted affirmatively out of this Committee and then in the full House. And then he went for trial in the Senate. I know a lot about that because they picked 13 Members to be the prosecutors of that case, the House man-
agers, and I was one of them, under Henry Hyde, who of course has gone on.

My principal focus at that trial was the topic of perjury, the elements of it, its history, what you had to prove. And in my argument with the Senate, my argument about that was that we had hundreds of people all over the currently who were in jail, behind
bars, for perjury, and the President of the United States shouldn’t be above the law.

Well, the ultimate vote was 50 to remove him, 50 to stay, so he remained President.

But I would just conclude by saying that every American, including the President of the United States, including a candidate for the highest office in our land, ought to be treated equally under the law. And I think, in this case, I think it’s a travesty, because I
don’t think Hillary Clinton has been treated like any other American would’ve been treated under the same circumstances.

And I yield back.

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bishop, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. General Lynch, for being here today. I know that the Attorney General’s office is required to — the folks in your office are required to attend ethics training every year. Are you required to, as the Attorney General, to attend those as well?

Attorney General Lynch. I do.

Mr. Bishop. And do they cover. I’m sure, the issue of conflict of interest and doing whatever is possible to avoid the appearance of impropriety?

Attorney General Lynch. Yes.

Mr. Bishop. I say that in the context of the question that was just asked regarding the meeting on the tarmac. And I wondered if — and I know that you’ve indicated since then that you regret the unscheduled meeting and that, moreover, the most important thing
for you as Attorney General is the integrity of the Department of Justice, which I appreciate. And I think most Americans would agree with that statement.

Do you recall when and whom — told you that former President Clinton wanted to speak with you?

Attorney General Lynch. As I indicated, I was getting ready to leave the plane, to disembark with my husband, and I don’t recall who, but I was informed that former President Clinton wanted to say hello. So I agreed that he could say hello.

Mr. Bishop. Okay.

Attorney General Lynch. And he did come on board and speak with my husband and myself and other people.

Mr. Bishop. Right. I remember that part. But full stop, right at that moment, at that very moment I want you to think back. Did you think even for a split second that maybe perhaps that wasn’t the right thing to do; that there might be a conflict of interest or
at the very, very least, an appearance of impropriety to have that meeting with the spouse of a person under investigation and, in fact, a key witness in another investigation, a former President of the United States, just for a second, at that moment, did you think about that?

Attorney General Lynch. I will tell you, Congressman, that at that moment my thought was, as it is in many instances, that I respond to courtesy with courtesy. And I viewed it as a brief social greeting. And it turned into a longer conversation, certainly, than
I had anticipated, and

Mr. Bishop. But at any time during that meeting did you feel — did it ever occur to you — I mean, you say in retrospect you regret it, but during that timeframe did you regret it at all?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, at the time that we had the conversation, as I indicated, I viewed it as a social conversation, similar to when other individuals had asked to say hello, and we speak and move on.

Mr. Bishop. Fair enough. Fair enough. You’ve answered the question. Thank you very much for that answer.

You’ve indicated that the career prosecutors from your office assisted in the investigation, reviewed the evidence with the investigators with the FBI, correct?

Attorney General Lynch. They were the line team, as we call it.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. So you had a team working. So did those career prosecutors have the opportunity to advise FBI investigators as to whether or not this was an actionable offense, whether probable cause existed?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly, they would have provided legal analysis. I’m not able to go into their specific discussions, obviously.

Mr. Bishop. So I get that.

Attorney General Lynch. But they would have had discussions about the facts and about the legal analysis.

Mr. Bishop. So your — ^your team did — your teams was part of the team, that the Department of Justice was part of this FBI investigation?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice also.

Mr. Bishop. Well, okay.

Attorney General Lynch. And I apologize for the confusion. When I refer to the DOJ team, I actually mean the lawyers and the agents. So I apologize for that confusion.

Mr. Bishop. So — but these were lawyers from your office, though, that were part of this team is what I’m getting at, and they were part of — were they part of also the recommendation that was provided by Director Comey? Do they help draft that recommendation?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, my understanding is that Director Comey provided the information and recommendation that he provided. The information that I received was from the team. It included Director Comey. And they

Mr. Bishop. Okay. So what I’m saying is, I don’t want to mince words here and I don’t want to — I don’t want to be elusive in my question, I want to be as direct as possible. Your team was part of this investigative process, so your team was also part of the rec-
ommendation that was put forward by Comey — Director Comey, excuse me.

Attorney General Lynch. Well, the recommendation that came to me included Director Comey’s recommendation. It was a unanimous recommendation

Mr. Bishop. By the team.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Agents and prosecutors, yes.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. So I understand it. So this really was your recommendation that you accepted from your team?

Attorney General Lynch. It was a recommendation of the career agents and prosecutors who had done

Mr. Bishop. In your office.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Who had done the work. They were, as I indicated before, from within the National Security Division

Mr. Bishop. Okay.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Affiliated with main Justice. And they are the ones who made the recommendation to me. And my decision was to accept their recommendation.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. Let me ask you one more thing. I know my time is fleeting here.

Did Secretary Clinton have counsel present for the interview at the FBI?

Attorney General Lynch. I’m not privy to the details of her meet ing.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. So you don’t know whether or not she was questioned under oath or whether recorded or any of those?

Attorney General Lynch. I’m not privy to the details of that.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. You indicated earlier you — my colleague made mention of the fact that there were relevant statutes in a certain case, an investigation that was going on. What are the relevant statutes involved in this Hillary — Secretary Clinton case?

Attorney General Lynch. I believe that they have been discussed in terms of mishandling classified information and

Mr. Bishop. But can you cite those chapter and verse, so that I understand that you reviewed and understand the statutes that are being used?

Attorney General Lynch. Let me

Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has been expired, but the witness will be requested to answer the question.

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you. Let me get you the exact citations of statutes that would have been under consideration, be cause I don’t want to misstate here. But we have discussed them here generally, and the discussions have been of the relevant stat-
utes. They have been discussed here. But let me get you the exact citations.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. CooDLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Ratcliffe. General Lynch, after your meeting with Bill Clin ton, you were asked in an interview about the appearance of impropriety, and said, “No matter how I view it, I understand how peo ple view it. It has now cast a shadow over how this case may be
received.” Do you remember saying that?

Attorney General Lynch. That was a few days afterwards in an interview, yes, sir.

Mr. Ratcliffe. And we know that you made the decision at that point not to recuse yourself from this investigation. Two days after you made that statement about casting a shadow on the integrity of the Department of Justice, The New York Times reported that
“Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say that she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the Nation’s first Black woman to be Attorney General.”

Did the timing of that, right after the Bill Clinton meeting, give rise to any thought in your mind of reconsidering whether or not recusal in the light of appearance of impropriety might be appropriate?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I have no knowledge of the source of that statement, nor have I had any conversations about that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Have you given it any thought?

Attorney General Lynch. My view was that I needed to discuss the conversations I had with the former President to clarify my role in the investigation.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Let me move on. So I don’t want to impugn your integrity by asking you whether the prospect of future employment as Attorney General in a Hillary Clinton administration influenced your decision whether or not to recuse yourself or influenced your final decision regarding prosecution, but now that you have already made that decision and closed the matter, will you consider serving as an Attorney General in the Hillary Clinton administration?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, my focus is on serving as Attorney General in this Administration.

Mr. Ratcliffs. No, I don’t care about your focus. What I want to know is, will you rule it out?

Attorney General Lynch. That is my focus now.

Mr. Ratcliffe. You won’t rule it out?

Attorney General Lynch. It is working on the issues before the Department of Justice.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Will you rule it out?

Attorney General Lynch. That matter is not before me.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I got to tell you, that shadow that you cast on the Department of Justice just got a whole lot bigger. Because if you’re not willing to rule out future employment in a Hillary Clinton administration, what that means is the American people
have every right to wonder whether or not you looked at this through a fair and impartial lens.

Because your answer tells the American people that after the FBI Director told you that Ms. Clinton had been extremely careless with at least 110 emails marked as top secret, secret, or classified, and may have jeopardized the lives of actual Americans, and told
you that she made numerous false public statements about sending, receiving, or turning over classified materials, you might want to apply for a job with her?

Attorney General Lynch. Sir, I have no comment on that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Your answer not ruling employment with her means that as much of the free world is wondering whether or not Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted and possibly sent to prison for being extremely careless, as the FBI director said, with
hundreds of top secret, secret, and classified emails, you’re telling the American people watching today that instead of going to jail, faced with the prospect of possible future employment, you think she should go to the other end of the spectrum and be eligible to
be the person with greater access and greater control over America’s most sensitive and trusted national security information than anyone else on the planet.

I got to tell you, utter shock is an understatement with respect to what I just heard you say. So let me ask you this question. Based upon

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, let me — as I indicated —

Mr. Ratcliffe. No, I want to ask you this question. My time is limited, and the clock is moving.

Based upon your unwillingness to rule out future employment, in light of the fact that you and your husband had a 30-minute conversation with the spouse of a pending Federal investigation, the subject or target of a pending Federal investigation, and with a
person who would be the subject or target of the Federal investigation if there is one into the Clinton Foundation, would you at least agree with me that if there is such an investigation, you’ll have to recuse yourself from that one?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to other matters before this Committee or any other, or before the Department of Justice, they will be reviewed like any other. I will take all of the appropriate action that I would need to take in that instance.

Mr. Ratcliffe. I will take that as a no and let me move on then, because I have got a really important

Attorney General Lynch. And, Congressman, as I’ve indicated to your colleague, just as I will not comment on the statements of candidates or the candidacy of anyone, either side, I would not comment on the candidacy of the other one.

Mr. Ratcliffe. With all due respect. I’m not going to let you run out the clock on the American people that have questions that need to be answered, so let me move on.

On July 5, 1 week after your meeting with Bill Clinton, the FBI Director made an unprecedented, extraordinary public recommendation not to indict. But his statement was just a recommendation. You said: I made the decision. And in his statement
to the press, he said that what that decision would include would be “considerations like the strength of evidence, especially regarding intent.” He said also that a responsible decision would consider the context of a person’s actions.

So my question to you is, as you made the decision, did your final decision weigh the strength of the evidence in the context of Hillary Clinton’s actions?

Attorney General Lynch. I will tell you. Congressman, that that was part of what the team that was presenting to me was focused on. And it was a — it was — certainly encompassed those issues, as well as all of the other issues that I have indicated before that would be in that. It would be contained within their entire rec-
ommendation to me.

Mr. Ratcliffe. And that was reflected in your two-sentence statement about — that starts out: Late this afternoon I met with FBI Director Jim Comey and career prosecutors.

By the way, how long did that meeting last?

Attorney General Lynch. You know, I don’t recall.

Mr. Ratclifee. Hours?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t recall, and I wouldn’t be providing that information.

Mr. Ratclifee. More than hours?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t recall and would not be providing that information.

Mr. Ratcliefe. This was late in the afternoon. I assume it was in 1 day?

Attorney General Lynch. It’s clear from the statement when the meeting occurred.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So it happened the day after, and apparently within a matter of hours, if it happened in 1 day. So you just told us that after a yearlong investigation involving 150 FBI agents working around the clock, involving more than 30,000 emails, tens of thousands of man-hours, that your thoughtful, careful weighing of strength of the evidence took you an afternoon, a cup of coffee with the FBI Director, that your decision in this case for charges relating to a person who, according to the FBI Director, said was extremely careless handling America’s most sensitive national security matters and is seeking to be a candidate in charge of America’s most sensitive national security matters, took the better part of an afternoon. It didn’t last weeks, didn’t last months, didn’t take
days. You weighed that evidence, determined her intent and gross negligence in a matter of hours.

Will you at least tell the American people whether or not you at least reviewed the 110 top secret, secret, and classified emails that we know that she sent and received on an unsecure, unauthorized server? Will you at least answer that?

Attorney General Lynch. As I have indicated

Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired. The witness is permitted to answer the question.

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I’ve indicated, I received a recommendation after a briefing from the team, which included the career lawyers, as well as the FBI Director. I received a full and thorough briefing. We reviewed and discussed the matter and I accepted their recommendation.

And as I’ve indicated earlier, again, just to be clear, the reason I do not go into these internal meetings is because the teams of prosecutors and agents who work on every matter need to be able to provide their full and unfettered advice, counsel, discussion,
without the fear of political overtones, without the fear of that kind of thing.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Since you didn’t answer that question. I’ll give you a preview that I’ll ask Director Comey that when he’s in front of Homeland next week.

And let me just close then, summarize by saying, so less than after a week after you meet privately with the spouse of a target of a Federal investigation, a target with whom you haven’t ruled out applying for a job, you didn’t recuse yourself and instead spent a grand total of a few hours reaching a decision regarding tens of thousands of documents involving our national security, and you can’t seem to understand why the American people. Republicans, Democrats, and independents, are outraged at your action?

If you thought the meeting that you had on the tarmac with Bill Clinton cast a shadow over the integrity of the Department of Justice, what I’ve heard today from you made the size of that shad ow — made the size of that shadow something that I will tell you that as far as casting shadows that the American people pay attention to, Punxsutawny Phil’s got nothing on you.

I yield back.

Mr. Goodlatte. General Lynch, Mr. Ratcliffe had a number of good questions, and he cut you off on some of the answers. If you’d like to give an answer to anything that he just posed, we’d be happy to give you additional time to do that.

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take a great deal of your time.

The only comment that I wanted to make clear for the record was just as with respect to questions about the — any Presidential candidate or candidate for any other office, just as I would not opine on policies or issues raised by one, I would not opine on policies or issues raised by the other. That is something that I want to make it clear. That is not my function as the Attorney General. I’m not attempting to do that in any way here.

So just as I would not opine with respect to the questions raised by Congressman Peters, I did not want to appear to be responding about Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. My responses here have been with respect to the matters before the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice alone.

As I’ve indicated, we have provided unprecedented access into the thinking of the investigative team in this case. We have also — I have provided access into the process by which the Department was resolving this matter, things that we rarely do, but I felt was important to do in order to make it clear to the American people that my role in this matter had been decided before I had a conversation with the former President. That conversation did not have any impact on it. And that in fact, as with every case, the
team of experienced career prosecutors and agents who reviewed this diligently, thoroughly, and at great length had gone to great lengths and came up with a thorough, concise, and exhaustive review and recommendation, which I then accepted.

And while I understand the frustration by people who disagree with that decision, as I’ve indicated before, it is similar to the frustration of people who may have a situation where they are the victim of a crime and we’re not able to bring a case, and we have had
similar discussions with individuals in that category as well.

So I understand that frustration and the desire to see action in a certain matter where feelings are strong and emotions run high. But in this case, as with every other case that the Department handles, we looked at the law, we looked at the facts, they were
applied, and a conclusion was come to that was consistent with the law and those facts. And I accepted that recommendation.

Mr. Goodlatte. Well, General Lynch, this concludes our hearing. I thank you for providing us with more than 4 1/2 hours of your time. However, scores of questions were posed to you that were not answered by you. Some you have offered to get back to us about
in writing afterwards. We will be forwarding to you additional questions related to other matters raised, as well as the investigation and nondecision to prosecute former Secretary of State Clinton, and we would expect that you would answer those questions.

You are the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, and — okay — you are the chief law enforcement office of the United States, and the final decision regarding the prosecution is yours. And the fact that you were not aWe to provide us with answers regarding how that decision was reached is very concerning to Members of this Committee and to the American public.""


Dr Churchill


A high-ranking FBI official confirms a number of the missing 50,000 FBI text messages — as well as other text and email messages among FBI brass — reportedly discussed initiating physical harm to President Donald Trump.

FBI Official:

"FBI Agents Threatened Physical Harm to President Trump In Missing FBI Texts & Other “Frightening” Communications. This is much larger than just texts between two FBI agents.”

The FBI “failed to preserve” five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations, and many of those messages contain threats of physical harm against the President Trump.

And now that more text messages are "missing from more FBI agents" according to the Justice Department, the revelations are bound to come out as the FBI scrambles to cover up this insane case.

That means 50,000 text messages that have threats of Political Assassination against the President.

Fifty Thousand threatening SMS texts from senior FBI agents and of the DoJ and the FBI are "sitting" on them, while playing interference for the scofflaws.

Now AG Jeff Sessions maybe getting into the act, because this is what he had to say in prepared statements this week:

“We will leave no stone unturned to confirm with certainty why these text messages are not now available to be produced and will use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recoverable from another source.”

And as another source of terribly biased Mueller investigation gets uncovered in the Inspector General's report because of their awful SMS texts — we now have discovered who the "unnamed FBI officials" are. Agent 1 & 5, referenced within the IG Report, are the FBI Senior Attorneys Sally Moyer & Kevin Clinesmith, who of course they also happened to be illicit lovers boning each other to fortify themselves in their treasonous and unethical habits within the Justice department building.

The pair of illicit lovebirds had to move from the FBI headquarters building now since it was designated as the "official Love-Shack" for all those horny, unhappy and unhinged dirty cops, from all over the land. Indeed they must be renting rooms by the minute there, because who needs any more time than a few nanoseconds of sex and premature ejaculation, when you have important matters of disrupting National Security that need to be discussed and acted upon, after a brief coitus-interruptus.

But guess, who was the person that "Not-So-Crooked" Hillary Clinton named as the co-chair for her presidential transition team?

Wait for it…

It is a veritable shocker.

FBI senior Attorney & Investigator Kevin Clinesmith's boss. Indeed the very same Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI attorney who was the lead attorney on the Trump-Russia investigation and who vowed to join the "resistance" after Trump won, and who had previously worked for Democratic Gov Jennifer Granholm, whom the not-so-crooked Hillary, named to co-chair her presidential transition team. Those were the halcyon days when crooked Hillary still thought she was going to be the first Madame President and she was so certain of her Victory in the rigged elections that she wanted a transition team for her cabinet and the White House.

Whatever the hell she was smoking — was obviously far too potent for her sanity… and she counted her poker winnings before she even bothered to see the hand of the American people…

And this is Mr Kevin Clinesmith, who by no doubt, by a complete and wholly unrelated "accident" of fate, he happened to also be the lead attorney in the "Get Trump" witch-hunt leftist charade show that is masquerading as a fancy dress ball, called "The Russia collusion investigation" and headed by none other than the irrelevant bishop of the FBI — one Robert Mueller the third.

Drum roll please…

Mr Kevin Clinesmith is everywhere… He is a veritable magician. He also swallows whole goldfish.

This guy is like the Kevin who played in the film: "A Fish Called Wanda."

Surely there is absolutely no bias against President Trump from these upstanding individuals who were hoping to be stars in Madame President's White House corruption team — until this "orange guy" upturned their apple cart.

No. They were not pissed off at all, about it.

Kevin must have been cool as a cucumber.

At least he was a useful cucumber for Ms Sally Moyer, who is one particularly ugly hoe, but who cares?

There is absolutely no need to let a good cucumber go to waste, through silly interruptions.

Coitus is coitus, whether inside the FBI bathrooms or in their rent-a-room-by-the-minute FBI hotel with the red light hanging right above their main doors.

Dr Churchill


Two years before the elections… the monitoring of Russian hackers stoped.

Amazingly, it was also two years ago that the surveillance of the Trump campaign and of anyone who was even remotely associated with Candidate and then President Elect, Donald J Trump started and intensified respectively.

We now now that this witch hunt continues. The Deep State is agitating fr a Coup D'Etat still two years now into the Presidency of Donald Trump.

Wonder why does it look as though Obama's administration targeted to disrupt the US elections, the American system of Free & Fair elections and the Trump campaign, and not the Russians?

Since the media have had almost endless coverage of supposed Russian collusion and Russian meddling in the 2016 election, shouldn't we get wall-to-wall coverage that the Obama chief cyber-official was ordered to stop investigating Russia's attack on the election months before the election?

The Obama White House's chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia's attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a "back burner" after he was ordered to stand down his efforts in the summer of 2016.

They came during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing into how the Obama administration dealt with Russian cyber and information warfare attacks in 2016, an issue that has become one of the more politically sensitive subjects in the panel's ongoing investigation into Russia's interference in the U.S. election and any links to the Trump campaign.

I heard Senator Durbin on the news talking about how dangerous Russian meddling is today and saying the current government is not doing enough to thwart the election interference.

We have been told how tough Obama was on Russia, even though the media know he told Russia's PM on a hot mike, that he would be "flexible" after the elections of his second term, and we also know how the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department, were so concerned about Russian collusion in 2016 that they had to get court orders to spy on people around the Trump campaign, but not on the Russian themselves.

Yet we also now know that the cyber-security investigation of the Russian Hacking, was ordered to be stopped many months before that.

Does that make sense?

The Intelligence Community and Justice Department were so concerned about Russian meddling, that they watched and surveilled only one candidate for Presidency. Even though Hillary had with her at all times a militant Muslim jihadist — Human Abedin and her frisky pedophile Weiner had all the State department emails on his pedo-laptop…

We also know that hapless Bernie Sanders employed Russian and BelloRussian socialists and communists as election and campaign cyber attack specialists in his campaign and the old Soviet communist Uncle-Bernie didn't get even a second look from the FBI…

Does that make any sense?

The Intelligence Community and Justice Department cared so much about Russian meddling and hacking, that they didn't even analyze the DNC's computers and servers after the email breach, but with zero analysis by our own government, they relied on a nickel & dime computer shop operator who took a looksie at the machines, and apparently blamed the Russians.

Does that make any sense to you?

I wonder if the cyber-security chief was ordered to stop two years ago because there was actually no evidence his agency could actually pin on the Russians, but the monitoring of Trump and anyone who associated with Trump continued. It sure looks as though the Obama administration was targeting Trump and not the Russians, doesn't it?

I anxiously await CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, the WaPo, ABC, PBS, and NPR calling Adam Schiff, Durbin, Schumer, Warner, and Pelosi on to explain why the cyber-security chief was ordered to stop the investigation of Russian hacking months before the election, yet the targeting of Trump and unmasking of names of people surrounding Trump and leaks continued.

I kid you not… and even bet they will have a really good answer for all the above.

Maybe they will tell you that President Trump dismembers and eats Mexican babies for breakfast, and they have Stormy Daniels attesting to it.

He eats babies alive with his coffee and hot shot lawyer Avenati will prove it, if given another BJ from Stormy Daniels on the other side of the border in Tijuana where they both belong in a sleazy hotel, run by the South of the border Narcotrafiicantes…

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 23, 2018

On Father’s Day…

“What man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him”
—Matthew 7:9–11

If we claim to be God’s children, we should be reflecting God’s character in our lives. Jesus here shows us something of what our heavenly Father’s love is like.

Jesus asks two rhetorical questions.

The first asks what loving father would ever give his son a stone if he asked for a piece of bread?

Leading up to the second question, Jesus gives an example of a son asking his father for a fish:

The father wouldn’t give his son a snake, would he?

The obvious answer to both is that no father would do that.

No Good Father would do that, because it isn’t natural to ignore the physical or spiritual needs of his son.

In contrast to weak, sinful, human fathers — our divine, loving, merciful, gracious Father has no limit to what he can give from his limitless treasure trove, as he also has got no bounds to the Grace and the Goodness of his Heart.

So we now know that even the Fatherly love amongst humans, cannot even start to compare with God’s love for his children — that are all the humans encompassing his breath of life.

The truth Jesus proclaims here is that, if imperfect and sinful human fathers so willingly and freely give their children the basics of life, God will infinitely outdo them in measure and benefit.

And even if the hugely imperfect human fathers withhold of their love and their goodness towards all of their children — they should not be blamed for theirs is a hard path to learn how to be fathers from their own imperfect fathers of the past.


If we want God to treat us with loving generosity as His children, we should so treat our children and all others, because we are those who bear his likeness, as we all are the children of God.

And when we go out of our way to screw up our own children by imbuing in them our own imperfections — perhaps we should remember that they should not be made as mirror images of ours but rather as mirror images of him who sits up high in heavens…

Something to look forward to…


Elevating children, instead of merely rearing them, or even abandoning them to their own fate.

Surely God will take care of them, but why should we feel that it is OK for us to abdicate our own responsibility towards them?

Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 8.22.24 AM

What a thought eh?


Dr Churchill


As always, our dealings with God are based on relationship — a relationship He has graciously established and continues to maintain.

So you’ve got to ask yourself this:

What is it that threatens your own ability to view the Heavenly Father in this light, rather than primarily relating to Him only in religious terms — that are distant and detached?

And why is it that you choose to deny that which you cannot see, and yet you so readily feel?

Please don’t limit yourself.

Carry on and come up with your own questions if you want to populate the answers here…

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 23, 2018

SpyGate (Chapter Twenty Four)

This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.
“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill
This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
Chapter Twenty Four

Here comes now a revelatory Game-changer, because we finally have come to “know,” to understand, and to really grogg, that it was Barack Obama, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton, who originally conceived and orchestrated the criminal set-up of Candidate Trump, when Obama ordered the corrupt game to be deployed as early as 2015.

And indeed the inventive Ms Susan Rice was the one who made sure that the original Russian hackers, meddlers, and stupid ART 25 college students playing around — were left undisturbed, & unopposed, to continue their playful “schtick” so that their “innocent” hack can be used as a “causus belli,” and a pawn in the “invention” of a Trump-Russia collusion.

Susan Rice and Obama are bullshit artists of the first order, and quite inventive inventive when it comes to myth making, and that is exactly why they have been hired by Netflix, to come up with even more imaginative BS stories for television.

Except that Satesmanship and Governance at the highest level of Government is not amateur Theater hour … but they didn’t know that, and nobody bothered to tell them otherwise. So they stuck with what they knew and kept up their routine…

How convenient then for them, and how disastrous for the rest of us, that they both saw their role as failed comedians working in government, instead of governing, and they sought to play Theater in High Office.

Except when you play that kind of theater inside the White House — it becomes a deadly game that effaces people’s lives, upsets the orderly balance of the Universe, and destroys the whole country.

But I guess, these jokers couldn’t care less…

So now that they somehow in their minds have won their “revenge” and their insurance policy has given the DemoRats, the gift of a Robert mueller investigations, and corrupt investigators, who’ve spent more than two years trying to find evidence that the Donald Trump presidential campaign was working with the Russian government and still have nothing to show for it — might have gotten a big clue in the event that they were reading excerpts, from the relevant testimony offered before the Senate Intelligence Committee, about who amongst the influential government officials and outsiders, knew about the Russian hacking attempts in 2015 against the DNC, and others, and about the Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 election…

They should all read that testimony, because that’s where “the juice” is hiding in plain sight.

Here’s a “Russian collusion” lead, that the corrupt Special Counsel Robert Mueller (holdover from Obama’s theater troupe) might want to follow up on, because those Obama White House theater actors, playing at being investigators, might have gotten a big break, about Obama & Susan Rice, who not only knew but actually directed the management of the story from the beginning. Indeed these two along with Hillary were the bit players in this comedy of errors, that they sought to unleash upon our people and our country.

And we now know that the corrupt game didn’t originate with the circle around the Candidate heading the Republican ticket. But it originated with the President, the ex-Secretary of Sate and Ms Susan Rice.

So now we have to say that it was the Democrats doing all the dirty deeds to themselves and to all others was, all along. It was the Dems committing political suicide as stoners and fragile alcoholics often do. Just look at them and you’ll know it…

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee testimony records, Obama administration “cybersecurity coordinator” Michael Daniel told a committee hearing that then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice had ordered him in August 2016 to “stand down” rather than respond to Russian cyber-attacks during the campaign.

The order to “Stand Down” was first reported in March in the book “Russian Roulette,” by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Washington bureau chief for the liberal magazine Mother Jones…

At the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, which was reviewing the Obama and Trump administrations’ response to Russian cyber activity during the last election period of 2016, Michael Daniel confirmed the book’s account.

Michael Daniel was asked by Idaho Republican Jim Risch: “You were told to stand down, is that correct?”

Michael Daniel replied: “Yes. Those actions were put on the back burner, yes. That was not the focus of our activity during that time period.”

The exchange during Wednesday’s committee meeting sounds awfully dry compared to how the order was presented in the Isikoff-Corn book.

Is this the real “Russia collusion” story the media will ignore?

In the book, one of Daniel’s staff members said he was “incredulous and in disbelief” when he learned about Susan Rice’s command.

“Why the hell are we standing down?” the staffer asked, and then said: “Michael, can you help us understand?”

Could it be because the Obama White House wasn’t terribly interested in reacting to the Russian interference?

It’s important to remember that in August 2016, with the mainstream media acting as a national cheerleading squad for Hillary Clinton, it still looked to the Washington establishment that Barack Obama was going to be succeeded by a Democrat – and if Russian activity helped them along to win, who was to complain?

But on a more sinister note, it’s entirely possible that Susan Rice was installing an “insurance policy” in the event of the unthinkable happening with candidate Trump actually winning the presidency.

The anti-Trump crowd at the Obama administration’s FBI leadership rooms, certainly knew about “insurance policies.” In fact, text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok, and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, used those same exact words about using the insurance policy to stop candidate Trump from becoming President Trump.

It’s never been clearer until this testimony came to light about Susan Rice’s and Obama’s involvement — the extent of comprehensive and well orchestrated Evil that they were unleashing with the aforementioned insurance policy.

Indeed, we’ve come to know that what National Security Advisor Susan Rice was doing by preventing Obama’s own cybersecurity czar from taking action on the Russians, could well have been setting up a trail of breadcrumbs that would lead to the Trump campaign, if the election somehow turned out differently from how Democrats had tried to rig it and saw it up in their favor.

And in that eventuality of a Trump presidency, Obama’s “obfuscation of Russian means & efforts” would make it appear that Russian influence over the US presidential electoral outcome, had boosted the Republican candidate, and this would tarnish Trump’s presidency even before he took the oath of office, and may very well lead to the impeachment of the 45th president as stoner Obama really hoped to do in his wet dreams.

Even without testimony about Susan Rice’s intent — at this point, no one can deny that that’s pretty much how events eventually played out. The breadcrumbs allowed Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller, to bedevil this country with the Russian witch hunt and to allow the Democrats to claim some kind of moral ground they clearly don’t deserve.

This kind of setup for Trump isn’t the “Russian collusion” Mueller and his team of Trump-hunting zealots are expecting, of course. But more than a year into his investigation, which has turned up exactly zero public evidence that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, checking it out might give him something to follow up on…

The eventual Russia-Russia witch-hunt of course was to benefit Hillary Clinton and John Podesta’s campaign and the real collusion around this cunning & evil plan to use the security agencies to sabotage, entrap & defeat Candidate Trump, through unethical means starting in the beginning of 2016 — starts with Obama and Susan Rice masterminding this whole thing in order to help their candidate of choice: The Not-So-Crooked Hillary who knowing all this, she famously said:
“If that bastard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished… and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up. You better fix this shit!”

This is what Hillary Clinton screamed at Donna Brazille on October 17 2016, and today, armed with the knowledge of Susan Rice and Obama’s actions in regards to corrupting National Security for their own purposes — suddenly, it all makes perfect sense.

Because methinks, that we all know what Hillary was referring to, as any good lawyer knows when a defendant has got too emotional and has said too much…

One wonders that even Hillary knew, that she had lost it and had given the game away. Yet to date nobody in law enforcement has found it important to question any of the Clinton crime cartel, about this or any other admission of crimes and treasonous behavior.

Ever wonder why?

In SpyGate you get an eyeful of political corruption and intrigue from the Deep State as we take you behind the curtain, in order to give you a peek at what really happened in America’s 2016 Presidential race.

Remember the date April 10, 2016, it is key, because for Hillary Clinton and John Podesta it meant “Game On” as their planning for rigging the elections was in full swing. Whatever criminal deals and evil unleashing had gone on between Hillary Clinton and Obama, and their respective camps, behind the scenes — it was on April 10, of 2016 when Obama signalled the deal was done and he was good for it.

Once Obama had spoken — Hillary Clinton would be free to stand as the Democratic candidate for US President.

Naturally Hillary would still have to go through a farcically rigged Democratic party Primary process, but for all intents and purposes Obama’s statement exonerated her, and thus redeemed a potential felon, by effectively endorsing her as a President in waiting.

Oh, and maybe we must apologise to uncle Bernie Sanders and all those hopeful fools, who volunteered and donated funds for his campaign, for not telling you earlier that the game was up — but from April 10th onwards, every other candidate, was only intended to be tolerated as necessary political theatre to put to sleep the despicable and deplorable American public, as the elites of Obama and Hillary referred to the American people.

April 10th of 2016, will go down n history as the day that the American Justice system was assassinated by the Democrats, because from that day on, in respect to the Clinton investigation, proper Judicial process was thrown out the door, any honest DOJ staffer or FBI agent expecting to enforce proper procedure would be either kept in the dark, intimidated, sidelined, pushed out the window, or forced out the door, and any request for information from a Congressional committee would be treated with contempt and stonewalled.

Loretta Lynch had been appointed Attorney General earlier in 2015 when it became obvious they the Clinton Machine needed a trusted insider at the DOJ to manage any fallout from the Hillary email server development, senior investigators resigned or moved aside, to make way for trusted Senior Clinton operatives like Andrew McCabe, and Podesta’s mate Peter Kadzik Assistant Attorney General. These corrupt individuals, are systematically embedded, and promoted within the DOJ and FBI structure to tame and control any considerations about opening a real investigation of the rigged elections in favor of the obviously Not-so-crooked Hillary Clinton.

While there are earlier emails, on September 8th from Dan Pfeiffer that suggested “bedwetting” by some other Obama minions like Susan Rice, over Hillary’s handling of her private server & hacked email issues — the most interesting incriminating emails about “The Big Cover-Up” begin to appear around February of 2016.

The notorious Clinton Machine had not been idle, as we can see from the personal emails of John Podesta who had been quite busy through 2015 with Google’s top two executives Eric Schmidt and Sheryl Sandberg along with Mark Zuckerberg, amongst many other top Silicon Valley Tech and Social Media Giants, who were providing funding, research, advice, support and using their powerful reach amongst the people as a done deal and offering best wishes to Madame President never mind that Hillary’s Presidency, still had to go through a candidacy, a nomination, and an election… before it could become reality.

Somehow these premature ejaculation boys and girls, of Obama fame, pulled the “trigger” literally too soon for any enjoyment to arise our of their miserable handling of the situation.

As is shown herewith when on August 7th of 2015 Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg publicly thanked Podesta, regarding his introduction to the leaders of “Centre For American progress” which is a rather notorious & corrupt center of power, amongst George Soros funded Leftist Propaganda cell of subversive totalitarian & national socialist bastards who seek to overthrow the American Democracy through hook & crook.

By April 2016 Hillary Clinton was free of any need for the tedious concerns about Justice or Proper Process, or even about actually campaigning and electioneering.
And while we are yet to find out all of the details of the “dirty deal” between Obama and Hillary, we do know that on April 10th Obama had spoken, and assigned Hillary the mantle of: “Being careless, but she had not intended any harm.”
These words of Obama were seen as his comments being “A Clear Signal” whose meaning is what the LBJ Democrats called a “DOG WHISTLE” to the faithful…

It was a ‘dog whistle” that official Washington, the White house, and the Justice Department — all knew that their nasty “dog” named Hillary, was back in the race, felon, criminal or whatever, and that she was going to be given a “Free Pass” by the Obama Administration, come hell or high water.

In time we would come to be angry, upset, stultified, and some of us would even become enlightened and enlivened to the farce that was the Democratic party Primary, where Bernie Sanders and his millions of volunteers and donors wasted their time, money and effort only to find Team Hillary had already mounted a takeover of the DNC and were in no mood for anything as tedious as a fair contest. The outcome had been bought and paid for, a whole year earlier.

If you don’t believe me — You can simply refer to the relevant court transcripts for evidence.

When politics comes to be downright dirty and treacherous, when a real position of power is on the line, few can match the will to power, and the criminal intent of the “Clinton Machine, to do what it takes, against all that could potentially stand between “The Machine” and “The Presidency.”

And the Clintons stealing the thunder of Bernie Sanders and his people is the simplest description of the corrupt Democratic party whose primary is in marked contrast with the GOP, whose motto is who ever can survive the knock em down, drag em out battle, that was the Republican Primary — will be the Accepted Candidate for President of the Grand Old Party.

Obama, Hillary, and John Podesta obviously had an “advance read” on who they thought that ultimate Republican candidate for President, might be, and they were wasting no time in planning Hillary Clinton’s dirty as hell, “Insurance policy” response to the Republican candidate Donald Trump.

We know at this point that the Clinton Machine had all the Mainstream Media and all of the Social Media, along with the Obama Administration, many Democrat State Administrations, and hundreds of fraudulent charitable groups nationwide and globally lined up to promote their message, and provide abundant resources and funds through super-Pacs, and auxiliary bandwidth of misinformation.

It is about this time that any serious political analyst would have realised that ignoring the obviously biased and hopelessly inaccurate media polling, Jeb Bush was stumbling, Kasinich was falling, and Donald Trump was the only serious contender of the GOP primary contest. And thus in all probability Trump’s superior national profile would overcome the only other serious Republican political outsider and Texas tea partier — Ted Cruz.

As a matter of fact, it is amongst the John Podesta emails that we find the beginnings of where the Clinton Campaign Manager was headed next… having recognized that Trump will be the inevitable Republican candidate for President.

We see can the comments arising from Podesta’s emails admonishing those in the Hillary campaign camp, to stop blindly advocating the “Pied Piper” theory — a strategy that encourages the Media to focus on the Republican outsiders, assuming they can be easily goaded to lead the debate too far to the extreme Right, leaving themselves and the GOP open to accusations of extremism, ultimately making the eventual Republican candidate an easy target in the soon to come Presidential debates with Madame President.

In a typical “dear John” media letter, John Podesta warns members of the Clinton cabal against falling for their own propaganda, because Donald Trump is no chump when it comes to celebrity and marketing. Trump is up there with that progressive icon Steve Jobs. This is what John Podesta suggested, about the Donald in relation to the Apple founder.

Clearly, John Podesta is at this point advising the Clinton campaign to be more constructive in preparing pre-emptive measures to thwart any future Trump Presidential campaign.

In a February 2016 Podesta email, Joel Johnson, and Jennifer Palmieri, advocate an urgent need to “Swift Boat Trump.” In military terms, this refers to using faster smaller boats to mount a hostile attack in order to board and take over control of a much bigger vessel. Or it could mean the very method by which the swift boat veterans sunk the John Kerry presidential elections aspirations, by spreading innuendo, falsities, and fake news against the disgraced Vietnam veteran, who had turned coats, and had become a peace advocate upon return from his tour of duty. As they indeed did with President Trump when they launched their pay-ops campaigns with the “Grab them by the pvssy” campaign of disinformation, and as they still do today with the unleashing of the Stormy Daniels, “tempest in a teacup” story.

And although Stormy’s treasure chest keeps on giving, as she tours the laps of men all around the country in her victory tour aptly named in honor of the viagra consuming DemoRats as “Make America Horny Again” — Stormy is also giving the bird to her Soros financier because that is what she likes to do… when she is saddled with that bastard Avenatti who gets paid in BJs and other services day and night, without any regard to Stormy’s sensitive feelings.

Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 8.53.29 AM

At any rate, and in hindsight it would be interesting to hear Johnson and Palmieri explain exactly, what they meant by their use of the term, “Swift Boat Trump” but perhaps they should do this under oath, and in front of a Senate Intelligence Committee meeting.

It is also interesting today, to note the vast significance of April 2016, because this does not stop with Obama clearing away the legal obstacles, and thus lighting up the runway for Hillary Clinton’s flight towards becoming the next Madame President of the United States of America.

Indeed the month of April 2016 is significant and notable for at least two other events, the timing and significance of which cannot in hindsight be put down to coincidence, because we need to understand that at this point in time, the Obama Administration, Security Services, and Mainstream Media, along with the Social Media, had all been alerted to the existence of ongoing Russian and Chinese Hacking operations. There is nothing new in recent attempts by foreign players attempting to Hack into American Companies, Grid Utilities, or Government and Academic Computer Systems, for any number of knowable and unknowable reasons. We do that too. We hack and surveil our friends and especially our enemies, more than anyone else on earth. As you know and must have seen, many many books have been written, movies made, and television hours wasted, and each time all that changes from plot to plot — are the specific nations, the specific characters, and the hacking or surveilling technology.

Intelligence, espionage and counterintelligence, are as old as gossip, and human conflict are… and we even see plenty of examples of those practices even in the holly book.

And in the present times, the identities that were mentioned recently in Robert Mueller’s so-called indictments were largely known and had been in place since 2014, when Senator David Nunes was on the record at that time, warning the Public and the Government about exactly this sort of thing.

So the question now is, what did the Obama administration, the DOJ, and the FBI did to prevent the sort of thing Comey & Rosenstein tasked Mueller to start investigating two years later, and to keep on investigating for a further two yeas to this day?




Zip nothing.


A CNN report dated April 8, 2015 covered an announcement by two members of Obama’s National Security Council, White House Press Secretary Ben Rhodes and Mark Stroh, a onetime Special Assistant to Hillary Clinton, outlining steps the Obama Administration was taking to safeguard the White House against any future Cyber Attacks following a so called “Phishing Email Hack” detected within the White House in January 2015.

We know Bernie Sanders campaign Staffer Josh Wretsky had been sacked on the 20 of December 2015 following accusations from the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign of a system breach resulting in Bernie’s campaign gaining unauthorised access to DNC data. The DNC subsequently completely cut off the Sanders campaign from any access to DNC data.

We are told that John Podesta received a Phishing Email on March 19, 2016. It seems there was some confusion within the Clinton campaign office as an IT staffer sent out a confused message meant to warn that the email was “legitimate or genuine” when he had in fact meant the opposite.

So we know that well before April 2016 and before there existed any certainty for any Trump Presidential Campaign, there are already ample examples of Podesta being alerted to and well aware of Russia’s long running campaign to interfere with and disrupt US Business and Government entities in general, the 2016 Primaries and Presidential Campaign one would expect to be a target as they had been in the past.

It was in April of 2016, when we see John Podesta first suggesting “we could use the Russia Smear” on Trump — in the event that he should win the Republican Primary and gain endorsement from the GOP as the Republican Presidential Candidate.

This is well-before, Fusion GPS engaged Christopher Steele to produce the so-called Salacious Dossier on President Trump. And it is also, well-before, any reported Hack of the DNC servers. Still i advance of all that, here we have John Podesta suggesting a pre-emptive strike, or a proactive approach that would smear Trump with the Russia-Russia collusion tag, before any of the events we will be offered as so called “evidence” of Russian Collusion had even happened…

Imagine that.

And now, almost two years later, so many investigations and paid professional investigators, all accusing, discussing, talking about Russian Interference, branding the Trump campaign with collusion, and you’ve got to wonder: Has anyone of them thought to stop, just for one moment and ask, what exactly did John Podesta mean, when he actually send this email on April of 2016?

And what does it imply when he says to have “a preparedness to Smear Trump” and “smear his Presidential campaign” with what he described as the “Russia Smear” attack?

Any clue?


But back to April of 2016, a busy month when it comes to the TRUMP RUSSIA SMEAR and its genesis, Dr Evelyn Farkas, a Member of the Soros funded “Think Tanks” namely the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Atlantic Council, was a foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton, and she would become notable a year later for her statement: “If they found out how we knew the Trump stuff…”

Dr Farkas, of course was referring to the Obama administrations’ and Hillary Clinton’s illegal spying on Donald Trump and his campaign.

But in April 2016 Farkas is busy launching the “Smear Campaign” with her column in POLITICO titled “Trump and Putin, two liars separated at birth” wherein much was made of her previous Pentagon position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. She and the article of course, failed to make any mention of her work and her direct links to the Clinton campaign, and to Ms Hillary Clinton herself.

It is obvious to anyone with a mind that is open to the reality of how these things happen — that meetings had been held, deals had been done, decisions had been taken, actors had been hired, and machinations made, as a sinister corrupt strategy solidified, and a certain course of action was set in play. No doubt Podesta was aware that Paul Manafort had promoted himself within the Trump campaign. Podesta having worked with Manafort on the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, the very work that has resulted in charges against Manafort and Gates, Podesta was in a unique position to exploit any weaknesses he was aware of, with an Obama Administration, FBI, NSA, and CIA, ever eager to do the bidding of the Clinton Campaign. Comey, Clapper, and Brennan, are exactly the kind of evil minie-me lap dogs Hillary Clinton had in lieu of the real furry creatures.

So in late April 2016, we are now belatedly told, that the DNC contacted the FBI to report suspicious activity on its computer networks, and subsequently hires CrowdStrike to monitor and secure its network.

Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 8.38.24 PM

Yet, for now we will leave you with 2 more questions, amongst the long litany of puzzling questions relating to the Russia witch hunt…

Having read the desperate and pointless exercise that is the Mueller Indictment of 17 Russians for whatever — please note that Rod Rosenstein mentioned that there was no allegation that any American citizen was wittingly involved and furthermore he states there is no allegation that these Russians and their actions had in any way affected the electoral results.

So now we ask, why did Mueller spend so much time and effort on such worthless and pointless task, when there are really only two questions that need answering?

1) Why hasn’t Mueller, the FBI or anyone else carried out a full forensic analysis of the DNC servers and held a joint independent review of any data, records and documentation held by or produced by CrowdStrike and the DNC. John MacAfee and other industry experts should be consulted as part of any such review. This is the only way we will have any definitive answers on the key question, was the DNC server Hacked, if so by who? Russians? Or was it basically a leak by an insider that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign was so keen to cover-up they co-opted the Security Agencies of the US Government to corroborate their fabricated story.

2) Why hasn’t the US Government been intelligent enough to work out that sitting down to proper talks with Julian Assange would be the quickest and cheapest way to ascertain exactly how he came by the Podesta emails. Again a deal could be struck where Wikileaks and Assange hand over any supporting data and documents for independent expert analysis.

I think the “Swift Boat” reference was specifically directed to the 2004 attacks on John Kerry by other Vietnam veterans… “insiders” or peers who could inflict the most damage. That would for Trump, of course, include women making (true or false) accusations (see Stormy Daniels), a tactic that would draw attention away from the infamous Bill Clinton record of rape and abuse of women of all ages.

In reference to Clinton’s logistical operations thru the DNC, with the “hack” of its server and all the scattered emails and money laundering for opposition research through the Russians, it makes you wonder how much information Seth Rich could have provided by now……

The twice treasonous “SongBird” Senator McCain, was one of those people funding CrowdStrike, and if he funded CrowdStrike who then deceived the security agencies falsely claiming that Russia was the one who had hacked the DNC servers, it is only by reading carefully through this, that we can start putting the pieces together.

This is so huge, so complex, so full of actors and entities… so audacious and so damn EVIL — one has to be wearing a helmet and a flak jacket, just to sit down and read though it. You know, just in order to protect one’s head from falling objects from up high… and one’s torso from flying bullets and assorted projectiles…

This is explosive stuff, because it shows not only the practiced Evil of the Democrats, but also the Global Conspiracy of “how we can continue the globalization and keep power behind the scenes while also managing the outcome of the elections and even insuring that the 0.1% chance of a Trump win will not become a political reality.”

It was never about Free & Fair Elections, but about the “How, in case Trump wins, we can we be sure that he is TAKEN OUT?”

The DemoRats’ plan B was always to simply take out Trump — personally, politically, in business, through his family and acquaintances, and also “TAKE OUT his supporters” just because they have to be warned to never, ever, even think of doing something like this (supporting an outsider) again.”

What I cannot believe is how anyone can possibly have a clue about even a smidgen of the clear evil, ballsy corruption involved, and how anyone who knows even a little bit of this twisted tale can go on supporting the DemoRats.

I’m well-aware of the “uniparty” the two party monopoly, and the supposed trading back-and-forth of power between the supposedly different political parties…

GOP being a bit less corrupt than the Dems, is what allows the Republicans to claim any honor at all.

Now, if not for the Lincoln party, for the Freedom Caucus, and for people like Nunes, the American people would have NO one representing them, except for the President and the American patriots working against these treasonous leftist fascist people, and even against the old stodgy & stupid GOP, that seems to always prefer to shoot itself in the foot, rather than govern.

Pray for America, because these Dems are some really bad, bad people. And the other ones at the GOP are stupid as wood…


Dr Churchill


Now a new report from highly placed FBI official claims that: “Senior FBI Agents Threatened Physical Harm to President Trump, and the proof can be found in the missing FBI texts & other “Frightening” communications.”

“This is much larger than just texts between two FBI agents who are snagging on the job trying to impress each other…”

A high-ranking FBI official confirms a number of the missing 50,000 FBI text messages — as well as other text and email messages among FBI brass — reportedly discussed initiating physical harm to President Donald Trump.

The FBI official urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — which oversees the U.S. Secret Service — to launch an investigation of the Justice Department, the FBI and all text messages missing and otherwise that threatened the President.

“This is dangerous territory and all FBI text messages and personal phones should be examined,” the official said. “It would reveal some frightening conversations.”

Did FBI brass discuss the assassination of President Donald Trump? If not, what was the nature of the threats against the president from inside the alleged premiere law enforcement agency in the United States?

“Director Wray wants a lid on this,” the FBI official said. “Many know there was talk of harming Trump politically but there is a group here (in D.C. HQ) that understands it goes deeper. We need a special counsel or Homeland Security. Somebody has to clean this up outside of DOJ. It is unacceptable.

“This is much larger than just texts between two FBI agents.”

The FBI official called on President Trump to do what is necessary to weed out corruption in the FBI.

“Text messages just don’t disappear,” the FBI official said. “Not here. Someone outside DOJ has to look at all emails and texts. These (FBI bosses) are bad people. You’ve only scratched the surface.”

The high-ranking FBI official called on lawmakers and the Inspector General to focus on the text and email messages of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The official referred to McCabe’s official and personal correspondences “an anti-Trump treasure trove.”

As reported in March 2017 by True Pundit, McCabe openly threatened President Trump and then-National Security Adviser Gen. Mike Flynn, saying first we “Fuck Flynn and then we Fuck Trump” to several high-ranking FBI bosses who cheered his comment.

McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: “Fuck Flynn and then we Fuck Trump” according to direct sources. Most all of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such divisive and treasonous rhetoric. Only a scattered few kept their peace and did not join the cheering and the jostling applause.

This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present.

If you are among the millions of Americans who have pondered in recent months whether the Obama-era “Deep State” intelligence apparatus and the FBI are working daily against Trump, this is the definitive proof that the country’s once-premiere domestic law enforcement agency, has gone fully corrupt as all dirty cops go when uncovered, and now the FBI is fully rogue, as all traitors to their country tend to be…

And indeed the non-elected hierarchy that steers the FBI, are now, running an undeclared war against President Trump, against anyone who supports him, and especially against the cabinet, and the President’s White House administration.

What a bunch of morons.

Make no mistake — this is a knife fight against the current tribune of the people — the modern “Caesar” who is attacked from the Deep State, and it’s legion of swamp creatures.

Flynn has since been indicted and pled guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI from an investigation supervised by McCabe after an FBI interview conducted by Peter Strzok, one of the agents busted when he was found to be sending anti-Trump texts to his girlfriend talking about “Bringing Down Trump” with an Insurance Policy they procured before the elections…

And to think that President Trump remains under investigation by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a figure linked to several conflicts of interest in this case, including his prior deals with McCabe, Rosenstein, and Comey.

And as reported earlier, now these high standing members of the FBI and the Justice Department’s top brass at their Washington D.C.headquarters and other field offices — are now using burner phones to stay under the radar of federal investigators and lawmakers, according to FBI insiders.

The shocking revelations come on the heels of news that the FBI deleted thousands of text messages between anti-Trump FBI agents before investigators could review their content.

While that is disturbing on one level, FBI and DOJ hierarchy employing the telecom habits of drug cartel bosses reaches a new low for the once-heralded federal law enforcement agency and the DOJ. And breaks federal laws as well.

The FBI “failed to preserve” five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.

And now more text messages are missing from more FBI agents, according to the Justice Department.

That means 50,000 text messages.



Got this Sally?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday announced the Justice Department will investigate missing text messages sent between two FBI agents critical of President Trump, joining the chorus of Republican lawmakers who are eager to recover the exchange.

GOP officials have seized on the messages as evidence of FBI bias against Trump in the probes into Russian election meddling and Hillary Clinton‘s use of a private email server as secretary of State.

Recently the hopeless Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement: “We will leave no stone unturned to confirm with certainty why these text messages are not now available to be produced and will use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recoverable from another source.”

Never mind Jeff — we’ve got this.

Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 8.47.54 AM

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 20, 2018


“Right makes Might”

Right makes might means that it is far more important to strive to be “Right” rather than to strive to keep up with our enemies for some kind of parity of terror…

Even when we are winning and we have been fortunate enough to have settled in the pole position or in the driver’s seat… we still need to consult the Lord in order to do what is right.

Because in the end, it is the rightfulness that bends the moral arc of the universe, and not rightfulness.

And as the Universe bends toward justice, you are mightily restored.

Screen Shot 2018-05-15 at 7.20.39 AM

So in that way, you are newly restored, renewed and rectified, and you can go out and fight another day.

Pretty soon you’ll realize that is what this Life is all about.



Dr Churchill


You ought to try it some time.

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 20, 2018

The Poetry of Silence

In the elliptical new era,
now is the real time of sadness

Cause we are all invited in,
the Gestapo of Tears rules,

and the only poetry allowed,
is this line of quietude

The poetry of silence.

–A former person

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 19, 2018

SpyGate (Chapter Twenty Three)


This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.

“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill

This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
Chapter Twenty Three

“Lady Justice”

Here on the Lady Justice chapter of SpyGate, we explain how the Clinton Campaign took a year old computer hack from mid 2015 and turned it into the Trump-Russia hacked our election narrative that has dominated American politics for over two years.

In SpyGate we will take you on a tour of the tortured logic that is the genesis of the Trump Russia -Russia Hacked our election narrative being pushed by the establishment Media on behalf of the Democrats and Hillary Clinton.

But first a comment on something a little more up to date, hasn’t James Comey been just an absolute disgrace to his position and profession in the past week?


Disgraced Former FBI Director James Comey

Listening to James Comey in recent interviews one could be forgiven a certain amount of scepticism when considering anything involving the FBI’s supposed independence from political influence throughout events as they unfolded in 2016. When asked recently when he first became aware that the so-called Trump Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign, Comey joined with John Podesta and Hillary Clinton in feigned ignorance, suggesting he was not aware that it was accepted fact.

The disgraced former FBI director went further, continuing to promote the lie that is the so-called Trump Dossier was in some way originally funded by Republicans and that Hillary’s campaign merely took over work that had already begun.



Well James Comey just take a look at the attached letter from Hillary Clintons lawyers from October 24th, 2017 which clearly states Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie in early March of 2016, funding from any earlier engagement had ceased by early March and evidence tells us Christopher Steel was not engaged until June 2016.

Well Mr Comey…

What were you Saying?

Comey has also expressed scepticism when confronted with the possibility that a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner might contain emails of relevance to the FBI’s Clinton email investigation. What connection could Weiner have to Clinton’s emails? Huma us James, his wife was Hillary Clinton’s closest assistant.

Most telling was Comey’s claim of almost disinterest and to not have held any opinion of Hillary Clinton as a politician and potential President at the time the FBI received a referral from the Inspector General over concerns Clinton may have broken the law by maintaining a private email server during her time as Secretary of State.

This is the same James Comey who had been responsible for investigating this same Hillary Clinton at least twice as part of major high-profile FBI investigations in the previous three decades, one he brushed off as mere closing off on the Vince Foster file, nothing to see here and the other involving the Clinton Presidential Pardons for cash, again apparently nothing to worry about.

So we are led to believe that the head of the premier law enforcement agency in the country had no awareness of any concern about the Character of Hillary Clinton despite her being thrown off the Watergate enquiry for dishonesty, constant findings by courts and enquiries that she had lied or was considered an unreliable witness, the constant disappearance or destruction of evidence and the seeming relentless convenient timeliness of witness suicide or accidental death.

FBI Director James Comey testified on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 7, 2016, before the House Oversight Committee to explain his agency’s recommendation to not prosecute Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic presidential candidate, over her private email setup during her time as secretary of state. Imagine that a whole nation trusted this guy with its political future.

Well first things first, I have to tell you all the bad news, there is every possibility the DNC was Hacked by Russians.

There is also every possibility that after ignoring this known Russian Hack for almost 12 months, the Hillary Clinton campaign made a decision in response to WikiLeaks announcing they intended to release Hillary’s emails, Clinton and her lawyers decided they would leverage this same old Russian Hack into a much more convoluted narrative in order to discredit any WikiLeaks emails and frame Donald Trump as being too close to Vladimir Putin.

Democrats and Main Stream Media are intent on discrediting, undermining and eventually Impeachment of Donald Trump, at the same time they are covering up the most audacious and criminal behaviour by Government Employees acting in the interests of the Clinton Campaign with full support and knowledge of the Obama administration.

They took what they had, an old Russian Hack of the DNC, one that occurred in Mid-2015, a Hack they had been alerted to in September 2015 and ignored.

In SpyGate we track the developing political Narrative within the Clinton Camp, noting how prior to late December 2015 they were briefing media and commenting privately on issues related to Russia and Trump without consciously connecting the two.

We introduce you to Dr Evelyn Farkas a senior Clinton campaign operative and her foreign policy commentaries published by Politico as the key indicator of a change of focus that occurred within the Clinton campaign between January 24th and April 3rd 2016. Trump was to be equated with Putin and Russia from April 3 onward.

The key logic dictates that Clintons Campaign developed the Trump-Putin narrative for political purposes first in April 2016, and subsequently sought to fuse it with a Russian hacking Narrative when faced with the WikiLeaks announcement on June 12, 2016, in a classic counter attack to discredit any emails WikiLeaks might produce.

In late April of 2016 with Trump looking more and more like the ultimate winner of the GOP nomination, the Hillary Campaign along with the DNC, their lawyers Perkins Coie and not so independent Cyber Security firm Crowd Strike. determined to use information they had gleaned from an earlier FBI encounter with APT 29 better known as Cozy Bear to concoct, fabricate and manufacture a new political narrative.

That narrative would include conflating the 2015 hack of the DNC by APT 29 (the real Russian hack) with a brand new, staged hacking event, involving a false construct attributed to what is referred to as the APT 28 or Fancy Bear hacking entity and a fake Social Media entity calling itself Guccifer 2.

This confected Narrative would not only serve to distract establishment media attention from Julian Assange, it would taint or discredit the WikiLeaks emails and would also serve to taint and paint Donald Trump as too close to Russia, branding him and his team as villains in collusion with Vladimir Putin to undermine American democracy.

Lets review some available facts here and now:

FACT: On the 26th of April the Mysterious Professor Mifsud, an individual with conveniently ignored ties to US and UK Secret Services informs a young Trump campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos, that he has spoken to Russian contacts who have told him they hold “Dirt” on Hillary Clinton, which just happens to include thousands of emails. Mifsud never delivers on his top Russian connections and no emails are ever supplied to Papadopoulos, but this contact becomes central to the FBI initiating an investigation into the Trump campaign. Interestingly Mifsud has been allowed to disappear off the radar, nobody seems to know where he is, and neither the FBI, nor Special Council Mueller seem to care…

FACT: FBI’s Trump Campaign Team investigation and the combined National Security Assessment refers to a CrowdStrikes report on a supposed hack of the DNC dated June 14, 2016, implying emails offered to George Papadopoulos and eventually published by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks were sourced from a hack of the DNC documented by Crowdstrike. June 14 was the publishing date for a Washington Post article concocted by Hillary Clinton’s lawyer Sussman (Perkins Coie) and Crowdstrike.

FACT: Last DNC emails included in the initial Wikileak’s email dumps are dated May 25, 2016

FACT: last Hillary Clinton emails included in the later WikiLeaks email dumps are dated September 18, 2016

FACT: The APT 29 or COZY BEAR hacking entity was the subject of an FBI communication to the DNC in September 2015, relating to an intrusion dated Mid-2015 and was well gone by April 29, 2016.

FACT: Crowdstrike report June 14, 2016 claims an intrusion to the DNC systems was detected on April 29, 2016,

We are told: It took the DNC four days to decide to bring in an outside vendor to investigate the breach of its servers. In the end, it was Clinton lawyer Sussman (Perkins Coie) who made the call to Shawn Henry (Ex FBI) at CrowdStrike. The call was made on May 4; by May 5 CrowdStrike had installed its FalconHost software that triggered the Russian attribution.

We are told: Dmitri Alperovitch (Crowdstrike) received a phone call in the early morning hours, — the Democratic National Committee was under attack. “Are we sure it’s Russia?,” Alperovitch asked. The analyst, a former intelligence officer trained in the art of cyber warfare, told Alperovitch that there was no doubt.

We are told: Shawn Henry (ex FBI) and his team used CrowdStrike’s Falcon Overwatch capability to monitor the DNC’s compromised servers for more than 30 days, mapping out the scope of the intrusion and tracking the actions of the attackers.

We are told: Before the Washington Post could go to print, however, CrowdStrike needed to evict ATP 29 Cozy Bear and APT 28 Fancy Bear from the DNC server, and deploy security mechanisms designed to keep them out. Over the course of two days, from June 10–12, CrowdStrike stealthily replaced the DNC’s software, moving carefully to avoid detection. With the DNC server clean and secure, the plan to “name and shame” Russia could go forward.

We are told: When it was ready, the DNC invited in a reporter from the Washington Post named Ellen Nakashima, who was given exclusive access to senior DNC and CrowdStrike personnel for an above-the-fold, front-page article.

FACT: The National Security Assessment suggests a connection between the Social media entity GUCCIFER2 and DNC hack entity APT 28 FANCY BEAR

FACT: A check of relevant dates clearly tells us that whatever emails were being offered to Papadopoulos on April 26, they would have had to have been hacked well before April 29, 2016. So there is no possibility they could have been sourced from the post April 29 activities reported by CrowdStrike.

FACT: WikiLeaks emails would have had to be downloaded (leaked) or exfiltrated (Hacked) at a date after or post May 25, 2016. So it is impossible to make any WikiLeaks connection to any emails mentioned to Mifsud by his mystery Russian contacts.

FACT: It therefore follows that logically any emails offered to Papadopoulos cannot be connected to the reported hack of the DNC reported on April 29, the APT 28, the FANCY BEAR entity or WikiLeaks. It therefore follows that what has been reported as being a trigger or a basis for any FBI Investigation into Trump Campaign ties to Russia and the subsequent National Security Assessment are thus undermined entirely if they in any way rely on a connection between the Papadopoulos/Mifsud meeting and the Crowstrike report.

FACT: The APT 28 FANCY BEAR Hacking Tool Kit, attributed to Russia’s GRU or FSB by Crowdstrike and the later National Security Assessment, had been publicly available to any would be hacker for months prior to April 2016 and many cyber Crime industry professionals attest that it cannot and should not be attributed to any specific hacker or hacking group with any certainty.

FACT: None of the available evidence made available by Crowdstrike, the CIA, NSA or FBI has established convincingly or even indicates that either FANCY BEAR or GUCCIFER2 had any access to or acquired any DNC emails equating to the material made available by WikiLeaks.

Summary: Unless Crowdstrike and the DNC are telling us they sat there and waited for a month “tracking the actions of the attackers” or attacker, then watched as them/him steal all the DNC emails, without recording or keeping any producible record of the event and making no attempting to stop them, then all of the above sounds like one big hoax.

Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 11.41.15 AM

FACT: Someone did gain access to the DNC emails on or around May 25, but chances of it being COZY BEAR are zero, and for all of the circus that was FANCY BEAR and GUCCIFER2 there is more reason to believe they are false constructs, an invention of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign concocted in co-hoots initially with Perkins Coie and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post from June 12 – 14, and eventually involving the FBI and Security Services, all to blunt the political effect of any future WikiLeaks email release.

FACT: Protecting Methods and Sources is often used as an excuse by the CIA and the FBI when they either, do not have any further evidence they have alluded to, or alternatively may have legitimate concerns about releasing data or information. But in this case their Methods and Sources are irrelevant, we know it was a private contractor that examined and reported on the DNC server and we know who the sources were in Papadopoulos, Mifsud and Wikileaks. Unless the government security services have misled us all up to this point there is no reason all evidence should not be made public.

Surely the NSA has access to data that will show any large data file transfers from the DNC email servers between May 25 and June 12, 2016. That would soon clear the air.

But what if the NSA data shows there was no large data transfer from the DNC email servers between May 25 and June 12, 2016, well then someone needs to start asking some tough questions of the CIA, FBI, Crowdstrike, the DNC, the Clinton campaign team and Perkins Coie, because that would mean it was an internal leak, cue Seth Rich.

Russian’s at Moscow University via APT 29 or “Cozy Bear” did hack the DNC in Mid 2015 with the knowledge or blessing of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, or SVR.
This information was relayed by Dutch intelligence services to the NSA which in turn passed it on to the FBI.

The FBI, already intimately familiar with the Moscow University hackers and their tools and techniques, informed the DNC in September 2015 that its computer network was under attack, even going so far as to identify the specific attacker involved—APT 29.
We have no public comment from the DNC to indicate they were concerned enough by this intrusion to take any action at the time.

We know that the White House had been the target of an email Phishing attack in January 2015, as reported by Obama’s Security Council Spokesman via the MSM in April 2015. A CNN report dated April 8, 2015 covered an announcement by two members of Obama’s National Security Council, WH Press Secretary Ben Rhodes and Mark Stroh a onetime Special Assistant to Hillary Clinton, outlining steps the Obama Administration was taking to safeguard the White House against any future Cyber Attacks following a so called “Phishing Email Hack” detected within the White House in January 2015.

Crowd Strike Connections start in mid-2015 because we know the FBI contracted self-described Cyber security experts Crowd strike in what we are assured was an unrelated matter. The possible significance of this contact has been overlooked by most commentators. Crowd Strike in this context is not just any independent Cyber Security contractor, Co-Founder and CTO of CrowdStrike Dmitri Alperovitch is a non-resident senior fellow on the Atlantic Council.

The Atlantic Council is hawkish on Russia, previously publishing reports about topics like how the West can “get tougher” on Russia, how to “fight back Against Russian political warfare,” how to respond “to Russia’s Anti-Western Aggression.” The Atlantic Council is also funded by the “Open Society Initiative for Europe,” a program of leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. The Open Society Initiative for Europe has written that they support, “initiatives that strengthen the protection of migrants and the politics of inclusion, giving the leading role and voice in advocating policies and social change to migrants and refugees, their descendants, and their allies in civil society.”

The Atlantic Council is also funded by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation.
Pinchuk is a Ukrainian billionaire who reportedly gave $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, and was invited to Clinton’s home for a dinner in 2012 while she was secretary of state, despite an earlier denial from a Clinton spokesperson suggesting that this dinner was “never on her schedule” during her time as Secretary.

Further, it’s worth pointing out that CrowdStrike received a capital injection of $100 million in 2015, led by Google Capital (since re-branded as CapitalG) . We’ve already seen  how close Google was to the Clinton campaign with Google’s top two executives Eric Schmidt and Sheryl Sandberg operating on behalf of Hillary (among many other top Silicon Valley Tech and Social Media Giants) and in constant contact with John Podesta providing funding, research, advice, support and best wishes.

In April 2016, two months before the June report that alleged a Russian conspiracy, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike, to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity. CrowdStrike co-founder George Kurtz said at the time, “We wish Steve and the rest of the Commissioners every success in this important effort. Their dedicated and thoughtful leadership on these issues holds great potential for promoting innovation and the benefits of technology, while lowering the very real security risks we are facing today.”

So we are told that the FBI informed the DNC in September of 2015 that it had been the target of a serious computer hack by a known Russian adversary from Mid-2015, this hack we know had been carried out by a group based at Moscow University that were already well known to the FBI thanks to an earlier encounter at the DOJ back in 2014 when they had again been tipped off to by Dutch Intelligence.

Publicly available commentary from the DNC and MSM would lead us to believe that the DNC was unconcerned by this intrusion and subsequently failed to do anything following this credible warning of an attack on their servers until May 2016.
We have reason to believe that Crowd Strike had earlier been engaged by the DNC in December 2015 to investigate an internal dispute involving Bernie Sanders staffers obtaining unauthorised access to DNC data.

We know Bernie Sanders campaign Staffer Josh Wretsky had been sacked on the 20th of December 2015 following accusations from the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign of a system breach resulting in Bernie’s campaign gaining unauthorised access to DNC data. The DNC subsequently completely cut off the Sanders campaign from any access to DNC data. Remember Seth Rich was a young man working with access to the DNC data at this time, Seth who was latter gunned down on July 10, 2016, also happened to be a dedicated Bernie Sanders Supporter.

Crowd Strike a company that spruiks its wares as a premier Computer Data security player had access to the DNC servers from December 2015 and we are told were due to undertake an audit of the DNC network and produce a report on what they had found on April 29th 2016. But something changed!

We will get back to accusations and details of the various supposed Russian computer hacks later, but first it is important we offer some detail on what else was happening within the Presidential Primaries and the Clinton Campaign to add some context to what may have happened to change thinking and priorities along with the political narrative at the DNC

Obama goes All-In on Hillary for President, so sometime over the 2015 Christmas New Year Break leading into 2016 John Podesta and Barak Obama agreed in broad terms on the approach they would take in the looming election year, it went something like this:

1) Obama would at the appropriate time make a public comment on Hillary Clinton’s email fiasco, he would down play the significance of the Matter and trivialise the nature of her illegal actions by brushing them off as Extreme Carelessness while introducing a new and entirely irrelevant legal consideration her “State of Mind” or “Intent” as she systematically breached the State Departments own guidelines for the handling of classified documents for months on end. April 10, 2016 became known as “The Day Justice Died” in America…

2) Obama’s public comments were to be taken as a Green Light, a veritable Starting Gun for the Hillary Clinton campaign proper, for those in the media, the FBI, DOJ and her campaign team alike it amounted to a Presidential Pre-pardon, the Pardon you get when the President has judged you will not be required to face a genuine FBI investigation and subsequently have a guarantee you no longer need to worry about any indictment.

3) The public theatre of a Comey led sham FBI investigation of Clinton “her Midterm Exam” would still continue with the drama of an official exoneration by Comey timed to have maximum political effect closer to her official endorsement as Presidential Candidate at the Democrat Convention.

The Trump Swift Boat Project, who as early as December 21, 2015 we see from Podesta’s emails what he and others in the Clinton campaign were discussing;

“Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. Brent”

In emails exchanged on Feb. 26, 2016 involved Democratic strategist and long-time Clinton confidante Joel Johnson, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, we see the genesis of a Trump Russia narrative.

“I know you can’t look past Bernie and March primaries — but who is in charge of the Trump swift boat project?” Johnson asked,

adding that the plan “needs to be ready, funded, and unleashed when we decide — but not a half-assed scramble.”

Palmieri responded: “Gee. Thanks, Joel. We thought we could half-ass it. Let’s discuss.”
“Sorry. I’ve been behind too many curtains in my day,” Johnson replied.

The emails exchanged on Feb. 26, 2016 involved Democratic strategist and long-time Clinton confidante Joel Johnson, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, according to The New York Post. The emails did not make clear what plans the campaign had.

The term “swift boating” has become slang for unseemly political tactics used in a campaign and refers to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which accused the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, of lying about his actions during his military service in Vietnam in order to win decorations. The New York Times called it “one of the ugliest smears in modern U.S. history.”

From within the DNC we see chatter on some opposition research involving Rand Paul and his foreign policy advisors that sparks this comment;

“We don’t have a ton on Simes, but the pro-Russia stuff ties in pretty well to idea that Trump is too friendly with Putin/weak on Russia.” April 27, 2016.

So by the end of April 2016 two things were becoming clear to those in charge at the DNC, at least to those who were switched on:

1) Trump was looking more and more like a real chance to win the GOP nomination.

2) People at the highest level of the Clinton campaign, saw their job as being to destroy Trump and were beginning to form an opinion that construction of a political narrative centred on smearing Trump as a “Friend of Putin” or “Too Close to Putin” would be the most effective way to end any Trump Presidential run.

Developing the Trump-Putin narrative, was not easy, and therefore I now want to introduce you to DR Evelyn Farkas a Member of Soros “Think Tanks” the Council on Foreign Relations and the Atlantic Council, a Senior foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton and a key indicator of the change of focus that occurred within the Clinton campaign at what we are learning is a pivotal moment, those eight formative weeks of the Campaign between January 24th and April 3rd 2016. Just remember Farkas would become notable a year later for her statement,

“Um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods” when referring to the Obama administration’s illegal spying on Donald Trump and his campaign team.

Evelyn Farkas is a former Obama administration deputy secretary of defence — and now an MSNBC analyst. Appearing on air among her friends at MSNBC, she all but outed herself as a key source for the seminal New York Times story on the Obama administration’s efforts to subvert the incoming Trump administration.

On January 24, 2016 Politico published an article penned by Evelyn Farkas titled “What the Next President Must Do About Putin” it was billed as “An open letter from the Pentagon’s former key Russia expert on how to contain Moscow’s aggressive autocrat”.
What is interesting about this lengthy piece is not only does Politico fail to mention Farkas is working for the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of more significance is the fact it fails to mention anything about Donald Trump. Yet from the same sources only two months later we get a very different focus. The Trump Russia smear narrative has been conceived, and is born.

On April 3, 2016 Farkas launches the Trump Russia Smear campaign with her column in POLITICO titled “Trump and Putin, two liars separated at birth”, in a lengthy and comprehensive attempt to equate Donald Trump to the autocratic and villainous Putin, Farkas out does herself in painting the picture of Donald trump as Putin incarnate, thus the Trump Russian smear is borne.

Farkas resigned from her post as a Defence Department official in September 2015. Her knowledge of the underlying project at issue here may or may not be one person removed or was it first hand, though here I would emphasize Brzezinski’s introduction as well as Farkas’s use of the first personal singular and plural in her comments. According to Pentagon records, Dr. Farkas resigned in September of 2015. So a legitimate question for authorities is, how does this non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and former deputy assistant Secretary of Defence for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, gain knowledge of intelligence regarding members of Trump’s team and their relations with Russia, when she was the senior foreign policy advisor for Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton?

Perkins Coie engages Crowd Strike:


At this point I will hand over to Scott Ritter as he describes in detail the DNC reaction to a reported intrusion to their systems we are led to believe was detected in late April 2016.

On April 29, 2016, when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated, an emergency meeting was held between the Chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC’s Chief Executive, Amy Dacey, the DNC’s Technology Director, Andrew Brown, and Michael Sussman, a lawyer for Perkins Coie, a Washington, DC law firm that represented the DNC. Sussman took control of the meeting, setting out the DNC’s agenda when it came to dealing with the cyber attack on its server. The three most important questions, Sussman declared, were what data was accessed, how was it done, and how can it be stopped?

The one question Sussman, a former federal prosecutor who focused on computer crimes, did not ask was, who did it?

It took the DNC four days to decide to bring in an outside vendor to investigate the breach of its servers. In the end, it was Sussman who made the call to Shawn Henry at CrowdStrike. The call was made on May 4; by May 5 CrowdStrike had installed its FalconHost software that had triggered the Russian attribution.

To hear Dmitri Alperovitch tell it, the moment had all the tension of a Hollywood blockbuster: a phone call in the early morning hours, a quick exchange of words, and a sudden, dramatic realization — the Democratic National Committee was under attack. “Are we sure it’s Russia?,” Alperovitch asked the security analyst on the other end of the line. The analyst, a former intelligence officer trained in the art of cyber warfare, told Alperovitch that there was no doubt.

This wasn’t the first time CrowdStrike had been called in by the DNC. In December 2015 it tapped the company to conduct an audit of the circumstances surrounding a breach of security involving the DNC’s party-administered voter file system — specialized software developed by the company NGP VAN known as VoteBuilder. Over the course of five weeks, CrowdStrike examined administrative logs from the DNC to assess user activity within the VoteBuilder system and conducted a forensic examination of two other systems belonging to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

The results of the CrowdStrike investigation were released on April 29, 2016 — the same day the breach of DNC servers was detected. Shawn Henry and his team used CrowdStrike’s Falcon Overwatch capability to monitor the DNC’s compromised servers for more than 30 days, mapping out the scope of the intrusion and tracking the actions of the attackers.

The scope of the Cozy Bear intrusion was potentially devastating. According to CrowdStrike, Cozy Bear had roamed uncontested throughout the totality of the DNC server, collecting and transmitting email and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) communications. Significant amounts of data had been exfiltrated during this time, CrowdStrike assessed, and the DNC had to assume that anything stored in the server had been compromised.

Fancy Bear appeared to have more limited objectives. Henry’s team detected evidence of a few select files having already been exfiltrated, while others were staged for future exfiltration. An analysis of these files showed that Fancy Bear was focused on opposition research being done by the DNC on the erstwhile Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.
While the CrowdStrike analysts believed they were able to isolate the malware, tools and techniques used by both Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to facilitate the theft of DNC data, they were not able to determine the source of the initial intrusion for either threat actor.

Threat intelligence from previous cyber attacks on other targets (including the German Parliament, a French television channel, TVMonde5, the US State Department and the White House) attributed to both Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, suggested that the vector used to facilitate initial penetration of a targeted server was through a technique known as a “phishing” attack, where the attacker used fake documents and communications to trick the target into clicking on a field infected with malware.

There was, however, no evidence on the DNC server that showed it had been subjected to a “phishing” attack. How the Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear malware came to infect the DNC server remained a mystery to CrowdStrike.

At first the DNC tried to get the FBI to make the attribution call, figuring that it would garner more attention coming from the US government. But when the FBI wanted full access to the DNC server so that it could conduct a full forensic investigation, the DNC balked.

Instead, after meeting with Alperovitch and Henry, the DNC and CrowdStrike devised a strategy to take the case to the public themselves. Alperovitch prepared a formal technical report that singled out the Russians for attribution. When it was ready, the DNC invited in a reporter from the Washington Post named Ellen Nakashima, who was given exclusive access to senior DNC and CrowdStrike personnel for an above-the-fold, front-page article.

Before the Washington Post could go to print, however, CrowdStrike needed to evict Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear from the DNC server, and deploy security mechanisms designed to keep them out. Over the course of two days, from June 10–12, CrowdStrike stealthily replaced the DNC’s software, moving carefully to avoid detection. With the DNC server clean and secure, the plan to “name and shame” Russia could go forward.

The Post article, published on the morning of June 14, 2016, went viral, with nearly every major media outlet, including the New York Times, citing it in their own subsequent investigations. When CrowdStrike published its technical report 30 minutes later, it was received by a media already driven to a frenzy and starving for information.

The report, “Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee,” quickly became headline news, and Dmitri Alperovitch, its author, a household name. The DNC and CrowdStrike, it seemed, had executed the perfect attribution campaign, creating a perfect storm of political intrigue and spy-versus-spy narrative that the media couldn’t ignore.

At some point, the decision was made by the DNC and CrowdStrike to go ahead and regain control of the DNC servers.

But to CrowdStrike, this wasn’t enough.

Sifting through the data collected by Shawn Henry and his Falcon Overwatch team, Dmitri Alperovitch was taken aback by the sheer audacity of what had transpired. Michael Sussman, the DNC legal counsel, agreed. “You have a presidential election underway here and you know that the Russians have hacked into the DNC,” Mr. Sussman told the New York Times. “We need to tell the American public that. And soon.”

On December 29, 2016, the FBI and DHS released a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) that directly attributed the presence of both the Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear actors on the DNC server to “spearfishing” attacks, thereby eliminating from consideration any possibility that Guccifer 2.0 penetrated the DNC server through a “zero day” exploit. This was a curious assessment, given that the only data in existence regarding what had transpired inside the DNC server was the data collected by CrowdStrike — data CrowdStrike maintains did not provide evidence pertaining to how the DNC server was initially breached by either Cozy Bear or Fancy Bear.

The Director of National Intelligence followed up with a National Intelligence Assessment, released on January 6, 2017, that similarly endorsed the findings of CrowdStrike when it came to Russian attribution for the Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear penetration of the DNC, as well as linking Guccifer 2.0 to the GRU, or Russian military intelligence.

It was the strength of this national assessment that closed the book on debate on the matter of Russian attribution. Senators and Congressmen, intelligence officials and media pundits — all seem to be in agreement that Russia was singularly responsible for the cyber attack against the DNC, and the subsequent release of documents acquired from that breach. “Without a doubt,” “undeniable,” “incontrovertible” — this was the verbiage that accompanied any discussion of the case against Russia.

The genesis moment for this collective clarity, however, remains the carefully choreographed release of the CrowdStrike report, “Bears in the Midst,” and the accompanying Washington Post exclusive laying the blame for the DNC cyber attack squarely at the feet of Russia. From this act all else followed, leading to the certainty that accompanied this attribution was enough to overcome the challenge posed by the sudden appearance of Guccifer 2.0, enabling the same sort of shoehorned analysis to occur that turned Guccifer 2.0 into a Russian agent as well.

Much of this discussion turns on the level of credibility given to the analysis used by CrowdStrike to underpin its conclusions. Alperovitch, the author of the “Bears in the Midst” report, does not have a good record in this regard; one need only look at the controversy surrounding the report he wrote on Shady Rat while working for McAfee. A new report released by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike casts further aspersions on Alperovitch’s prowess as a cyber analyst, and CrowdStrike’s overall methodology used to make its Russian attribution.

So there you have it. The Russians did it.

Or did they?

An Alternative Explanation, is that if you just stand back, take a breather and look at what has happened here, the importance of the time line is compelling and inescapable in deciphering the truth.

Of most importance is the fact that prior to the June 14th, 2016 article by a reporter from the Washington Post named Ellen Nakashima, we had heard nothing of any of the above.

That is right, it is a fact that prior to the DNC inviting in a reporter from the Washington Post named Ellen Nakashima, who was given exclusive access to senior DNC and CrowdStrike personnel for an above-the-fold, front-page article, nobody had heard anything about any Russian Computer Hack or hacks. On the other hand what we had heard and seen from late April, was Clinton Campaign attempts to smear Donald Trump as too close to Russia.

The Post article, published on the morning of June 14, 2016, went viral, with nearly every major media outlet, including the New York Times, citing it in their own subsequent investigations. As with the earlier Farkas articles in Politico, the Clinton team carefully chose a trusted media outlet and trusted writer to involve in both the crafting and the promotion of their new and explosive message. But no leaks, not a squeak, for months?

We have previously traced the Clinton campaigns Trump-Putin narrative as it evolved from refences in emails from December 2015 to its full-blown launch with the Farkas article of April 3rd, 2016 in Politico. But it is not until June 14th, 2016 that we hear anything of Russian Hacking, why?

It is instructive to note that it was on June 12th, just two days before the world is first told this fantastic story about Russians Hacking the DNC, Julian Assange had announced Wikileaks had obtained Hillary’s emails and intended to publish them.

Isn’t it convenient, maybe only to those of us who are born analysts, it seems just a bit too convenient, that within two days of Wikileaks announcing they have Hillary’s emails, the DNC and Clinton campaign just happen to have a tailor-made response, a response cleverly constructed to discredit Assange and undermine the credibility of any WikiLeaks emails.

Having just, so we are told, spent the past couple of months working with Hillary Clinton’s lawyers Perkins Coie, the DNC hand in hand with Cyber Security Firm Crowd Strike have managed to thwart a couple of Russians from hacking their systems, most of that time was apparently spent just watching them, yet miraculously they now have the perfect antidote to anything that might be published by Julian Assange and his Wikileaks.

Oh and the bonus is it not only blunts the effect of any future WikiLeaks email dumps but it just happens to fit perfectly with the new Trump-Russia narrative the Hillary Campaign had recently adopted back in late April 2016. WOW how lucky is that?

Note the timeline, alerted to an intrusion on 29th of April, they take 4 days to make a decision and Crowdstrike is in place on the 5th of May. CrowdStrike confirms and attributes the intrusion to Russians within minutes. We then are supposed to believe they sat there watching these Russians go about their business within the DNC server network until June 10, before carefully evicting all intruders from the Network by June 12. Just enough time to concoct a story for the Washington Post by June 14.

So no pressure, we sit there for 7 months following a credible tip off from the FBI that you have APT 29 Cozy Bear in your Systems, you have Crowdstrike in Auditing your Network from December 2015 and due to report by April 29. Then Perkins Coie calls a meeting, now its all about Russians and stolen documents, but we strategically wait two months until the 10th of June before? Before the Washington Post could go to print, however, Crowd Strike needed to evict Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear from the DNC server, and deploy security mechanisms designed to keep them out. Over the course of two days, from June 10–12, Crowd Strike stealthily replaced the DNC’s software, moving carefully to avoid detection. With the DNC server clean and secure, the plan to “name and shame” Russia could go forward.

We are expected to believe there is a dirty great big Russian Data Hacking problem at the DNC and nobody has heard anything about it, started back in Mid-2015 and continued throughout all of the above, a four month Crowdstike audit of the DNC Data Systems to April 29 and then a further two months of Crowdstrike tracking and observation within those same systems, before wait for it, it takes them exactly 2 days working carefully to once they decide to expel their long term tenants, only to have them all out, all gone, nothing to see here on the 12th of June.

See it all happened before we knew Julian Assange and WikiLeaks had any emails!

If you believe this story, then I am sorry, you have been duped big time.

When CrowdStrike published its technical report 30 minutes later, it was received by a media already driven to a frenzy and starving for information.

The DNC and CrowdStrike, not the U.S. government, made the initial decision to publicly call Russia out on the DNC server attack. Likewise, Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff made the decision to attribute WikiLeaks’ publication of emails taken from the DNC server to Russia.

When we say we accept that the DNC was hacked by Russians, we are referring to the APT29 or Cozy Bear intrusion in Mid-2015 specifically, we know now that this hack was affected with the knowledge of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR. Not the GRU, Russian Military Intelligence or FSB as suggested by Crowdstrike and later by the Director of National Intelligence in a National Intelligence Assessment, released on January 6, 2017.

According to CrowdStrike, it was able to detect traces of the presence of APT 29, but not its origin or specific activity. In other words the real Russians were long gone.

What CrowdStrike did claim to detect, however, was the active presence of a second hacking entity, this one allegedly using different tools and techniques known in the cybersecurity business as APT 28, or “Fancy Bear” by CrowdStrike.

Here is the problem, statements by Crowdstrike and the Director of National Intelligence attribute the toolset supposedly used by APT 28 Fancy Bear to Russia’s GRU or Military Intelligence citing an earlier use of the toolset in similar attacks on targets including the German Parliament and others, the problem is none of these attacks have in fact been attributed to the GRU or FSB with any certainty. So this is where the spin really starts.

What is clear however is that the entity known as Guccifer 2.0, who seems to have crashed the computer hack party at around this time, did use a computer on the US East Coast that had previously belonged to Joe Biden’s staff — its Microsoft Office is registered to Warren Flood, who used to be Biden’s technical director.

So the idea that someone from Crowdstrike sat at computer in Joe Biden”s office or at a desk on a computer that had at least once been used by Vice President Joe Biden’s staff, then instigated the whole Guccifer 2 drama, is at least as credible an explanation as any we have been fed by the DNC, the FBI and all US Security services.

Remember the Guccifer 2 circus stole the show at the time with the majority of the MSM focused on “who is Guccifer 2” rather than giving closer scrutiny to claims being made by Crowdstrike and the DNC. We are told that Hillary, Crowdstrike, Perkins Coie and the DNC sat there for 37 days after the installation of its proprietary monitoring software on May 5, 2016, watching as CrowdStrike mapped the activity of APT 28, finally evicting the hackers from the DNC network on June 12, 2016.

Who does that?

While we are told the DNC had approached the FBI about the APT 28 intrusion, the FBI did not request direct access to the DNC’s infected servers. The FBI never inspected the DNC servers.

Nobody has their story straight on contact between the DNC, FBI and Crowdstrike in relation to this time-line. When it was ready, the DNC invited in a reporter from the Washington Post named Ellen Nakashima, who was given exclusive access to senior DNC and CrowdStrike personnel for an above-the-fold, front-page article.

Doesn’t this timeline work oh so neatly, you could say perfectly, almost too perfect, that the story calls for any Threat that might have existed to be disappeared by the 12th of June 2016, conveniently in time to if not pre-date, then one might say simul-date the Assange announcement.

The timing is critical to the success of the whole operation, if Wikileaks threat to publish Hillary’s emails was the real Trigger for concocting a false Russian Hacking Counter Narrative to be published on June 14, it would be imperative to conclude any false narrative before the 12th of June, 2016. No loose ends.

Months later when the FBI initiated its investigation into the Trump campaign, it was because of the FBI’s conflation of the Mifsud email proffer to Papadopoulos with WikiLeaks’ July 2016 publication of DNC emails, even though the two could never have been linked. (Mifsud approached Papadopoulos in mid-April 2016, before any of the emails WikiLeaks published would even have been able to be compiled by the APT 28 malware, let alone exfiltrated from the DNC server.) And, in the end, Congress was energized by misinformation leaked by Russian sources about Carter Page’s visit to Moscow in July 2016 that was given political relevance only because of the publication of the DNC emails by WikiLeaks.

The more thought I’ve given it, it seems most probable that one particular group would have been particularly desperate precisely at that time, for the emergence of a narrative about Russian hackers to discredit proper leaks/justify claims that all leaks are ‘probably doctored’ and they will have very likely known Flood too.

As of June 12th, they were in a position where Julian Assange had just announced WikiLeaks’ upcoming release of Hillary’s emails, she was still under FBI investigation, Trump was attacking Hillary for her use of a private server with his supporters frequently chanting “lock her up!” at rallies.

The campaign was in a desperate position and really needed something similar to a Russian hacker narrative and one where they would be fortunate to have a seemingly clumsy hacker that leaves lots of ‘fingerprints’ tainting files and bringing the reputation of leaks into question… Sure enough, 2-3 days later, Guccifer2.0 – the world’s weirdest hacker – was spawned and started telling lies in an effort to attribute himself to the malware discoveries, etc.

Oh and of course with the benefit if hindsight we can see a pattern here, we have all the same organisers and enablers that surround the other plank of the Trump Russia smear, that being Christopher Steel and his Dirty Dossier on Trump.

Sound familiar? Hillary Campaign pays Perkins Coie, who pay Crowdstrike or Hillary Campaign pays Perkins Coie to pay Christopher Steele, in both cases paid agents of the Clinton Campaign directed by Hillary Clinton’s Lawyers Perkins Coie, manage to produce evidence of a Trump/Russia collusion and Russian interference in the US Presidential Election. Evidence that some how quickly morphs into an FBI investigation of Donald Trump and spying on key people in his campaign.

Facts suggest both the DNC’s April 29 incarnation of APT 28 Fancy Bear along with the Guccifer2 Social Media entity are creations of the Hillary Clinton Campaign team, almost certainly manufactured by someone funded and directed by a Senior partner out of Law Firm Perkins Coie.

For all the gory detail on APT 28 Fancy Bear and Guccifer2, I will defer to a well constructed article by Adam Carter.

Forensic analyses by Adam Carter and Forensicator suggests that Guccifer 2.0 is an evident fraud with ties to the DNC who claimed to be the source of the DNC emails released by Wikileaks. The whore/idiots in our intelligence agencies hand-picked by the psychotic Russophobes Clapper and Brennan ate up his lie and regurgitated it — they claim that Guccifer 2.0 is an agent of the Russian govt who provided the Wikileaks material. Which means, of course, that they are totally full of shit. Which should come as no surprise after they assured us about Saddam’s massive hoard of WMDs.

The argumentation regarding the transfer rate of the Guccifer 2.0 data transfer on July 5th is not of crucial importance to this conclusion. Guccifer 2.0 used a computer on the US East Coast that had previously belonged to Joe Biden’s staff — its Microsoft Office is registered to Warren Flood, who used to be Biden’s technical director.

I contend that a global view of the evidence shows that the “Russia interfered” narrative is a hoax concocted by people affiliated with the DNC, immediately adopted and elaborated by hand-picked Russophobes in our intelligence agencies, and trumpeted ever after by our credulous and sycophantic MSM.
The intent of the hoax was to distract attention from the incriminating contents of the Wikileaks DNC emails by denigrating Assange as a Russian puppet; after Hillary’s ignominious defeat, it morphed into a strategy to rationalize Hillary’s humiliating defeat while defaming Trump as a Russian collaborator.
These issues do not directly address the issue of who provided Wikileaks with its DNC material. Assange promises to provide hard evidence that it was not the Russians — as he has repeatedly stated in the past.

Let’s see what happens in that regard. Guccifer 2 was a “Russian hacker” persona invented and maintained by several members of a US-based organization that technically disguised ‘himself’ as a Russian (and was regarded as a Russian by many duped parties in the cybersecurity industry & USIC) that claimed, in ALL conversations, that he was a Romanian. – Most people that communicated with Guccifer 2 considered him to be Romanian as a result of this.
Ultimately, there was never any intent to ‘collude with Russia’ by any of these people AND there was never any actual collusion (intentional or accidental) with Russia by ANYONE that communicated with Guccifer 2.

When you consider all of these various facts in aggregate and understand that Guccifer2.0 never demonstrated any genuine hacking skills, realize his actions only ever served to undermine leaks, ultimately caused no harm to the reputation of anyone except himself and needlessly and inexplicably gave the mainstream press fodder on which they could write headlines branding leaks as “fake”, “discredited”, “tainted by Russia”, etc., had some non-hacking means of acquiring the DCCC documents and has had his claims of breaching the DNC network debunked by ThreatConnect.
It becomes clear that Guccifer2.0 did more to serve the interests of the DNC than really act maliciously against it.

Anyone critically analysing the nature of Guccifer2.0 can see enough to identify whom he was most likely was or was serving through his activities online. – His lack of credibility and the inevitability of his Clinton Foundation server hack ‘take’ being exposed as nonsense makes it clear that Guccifer2.0 was a fraudulent construct intended to counter the leaks and try to take-down the credibility of Wikileaks as collateral damage in the self-destruction of it’s own reputation.

It seems like there’s a good chance Warren Flood has involvement to some degree but even if that’s true – he personally had nothing to lose due to the emails, so, who would really be behind such a scheme?

The more thought I’ve given it, it seems most probable that one particular group would have been particularly desperate precisely at that time, for the emergence of a narrative about Russian hackers to discredit proper leaks / justify claims that all leaks are ‘probably doctored’ and they will have very likely known Flood too.
That group is the Clinton Campaign.

As of June 12th, they were in a position where Julian Assange had just announced WikiLeaks’ upcoming release of Hillary’s emails, she was still under FBI investigation, Trump was attacking Hillary for her use of a private server with his supporters frequently chanting “lock her up!” at rallies.

The campaign was in a desperate position and really needed something similar to a Russian hacker narrative and one where they would be fortunate to have a seemingly clumsy hacker that leaves lots of ‘fingerprints’ tainting files and bringing the reputation of leaks iinto question… Sure enough, 2-3 days later, Guccifer2.0 – the world’s weirdest hacker – was spawned and started telling lies in an effort to attribute himself to the malware discoveries, etc.

A January 2018 report out of the Netherlands by the newspaper de Volkskrant, based on anonymous sources, claims Dutch intelligence services had hacked into the computer network within the Old Building of Moscow State University, adjacent to Red Square and the Kremlin. Only later did the Dutch realize that they had penetrated a hacking team which was using the university as cover. This hacking team employed malware and techniques associated with what cybersecurity specialists have termed Advanced Persistent Threat 29, or APT 29, also known as “Cozy Bear” (a term applied by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike). The Dutch achieved their breakthrough in mid-2014.
In early October 2014, the Dutch watched as the Russian hackers used a spear-phishing attack against an unsuspecting U.S. State Department official, infecting the unclassified email servers used by the State Department with malware that then moved laterally throughout the system, infecting thousands of computers throughout the United States and abroad, including American embassies. Communications about the crisis in Ukraine were specifically targeted and stolen, along with other information which, while unclassified, would be of interest to foreign intelligence services.

The Dutch notified their American counterparts of the breach, and by mid-November 2014 the FBI was prepared to move against the Russians. The Dutch had opened a direct line with the FBI through the National Security Agency (NSA), allowing for real-time interaction. Over the course of nearly 24 hours, during the weekend of Nov. 15-16, FBI computer specialists moved to cut communications between the Russian hackers’ command and control server and the malware that had infected the State Department computers.

At each step, the Russians were able to re-establish communications using specialized malware that hid inside the infected computers and automatically activated itself. A senior NSA official likened the interaction between the FBI cybersecurity specialists and the Russian hackers as “hand-to-hand combat” that amounted to “a new level of interaction between a cyberattacker and a defender.” The FBI eventually prevailed, but only because the Dutch were able to provide real-time tipoffs regarding every move the Russian hackers were planning.

Of special interest, however, was the fact that the Dutch also had taken control of the security camera that monitored access to the room used by the hackers, enabling them to see in reasonable quality the faces of those who went in and out of the room. While the majority of those involved were, in fact, private citizens—Putin’s so-called “painter-hackers”—the Dutch were able to detect others who visited the university office during the height of the online battle between the FBI and APT 29. After running the images of the faces of these individuals through their database, the Dutch were able to identify known officers of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, or SVR. The “state,” to quote Putin, may not have conducted the actual cyberattack against the State Department, but there was no doubt that Russian intelligence officers knew about it while the attack was taking place (and only the most naive would believe that the SVR did not play a critical role in defining content of interest once APT 29 gained entry and began mapping out the State Department email server).

In mid-2015, the Dutch detected a new effort by the APT 29 hacking team operating out of Moscow University—a spear-phishing attack against several American think tanks and political institutions, including the Democratic National Committee. This information was relayed to the NSA, which, in turn, passed it on to the FBI. The FBI, already intimately familiar with the Moscow University hackers and their tools and techniques, informed the DNC in September 2015 that its computer network was under attack, even going so far as to identify the specific attacker involved—APT 29.

The DNC did nothing until April 29, 2016, when its computer administrators detected suspicious activity and called in an outside computer security vendor—CrowdStrike—to investigate. By this time, the APT 29 hackers were long gone, having fully mapped out the DNC servers and exfiltrated untold amounts of data. The Dutch, NSA and FBI already knew the identity of those who had perpetrated the DNC attack: the Moscow University-based hacking team. Shortly thereafter, the Dutch lost access to the Moscow University computer server and the associated security camera system. APT 29 had gone dark.
According to CrowdStrike, it was able to detect traces of the presence of APT 29, but not its origin or specific activity. What CrowdStrike did claim to detect, however, was the active presence of a second hacking entity, this one allegedly using different tools and techniques known in the cybersecurity business as APT 28, or “Fancy Bear” by CrowdStrike. While the DNC had approached the FBI about the APT 28 intrusion, the FBI did not request direct access to the DNC’s infected servers. Instead, the FBI relied on CrowdStrike’s findings for the early stages of the investigation into the DNC server breach.

The DNC, together with CrowdStrike, opted to monitor the APT 28 intrusion, curiously allowing APT 28 to access and exfiltrate documents that would later prove to be politically damaging to the DNC when released on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in July 2016. For 37 days after the installation of its proprietary monitoring software on May 5, 2016, CrowdStrike mapped the activity of APT 28, finally evicting the hackers from the DNC network on June 12, 2016.

The next steps taken by CrowdStrike and the DNC were even more curious. Rather than turning over the results of its investigation to the FBI and waiting for the official results, the DNC and CrowdStrike opted to go public with allegations that it was Russia behind the cyberattack against the DNC. Neither the DNC nor CrowdStrike was privy to the Dutch intelligence linking the Russian SVR to the APT 29 activity, so the DNC and CrowdStrike attribution of Russian involvement was based upon assessment rather than certainty (for example, CrowdStrike wrongly claimed that APT 29 was controlled by the Russian Federal Security Service, or FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI).
But most peculiar of all was CrowdStrike’s attribution of the APT 28 activity to Russia, specifically Russian military intelligence, or GRU. The APT 28 toolset had, by the time of the DNC intrusion, gone “wild,” meaning that any hacking group could have access to it—not just the Russians.

Moreover, an IP address for the alleged command and control server that had been hardcoded into the malware—which had been active in a previous attack attributed to the APT 28, and thus cited by other computer security companies (using CrowdStrike-provided data) as evidence of current Russian involvement—was, in fact, a false trail. The server pointed to an IP address that had been disabled long before the APT 28 malware was installed on the DNC server, so it was apropos of nothing.

Even though there was no hard evidence cited by CrowdStrike linking Russia to the DNC server attack, both the DNC and CrowdStrike collaborated on a coordinated publicity campaign asserting just that, providing The Washington Post with exclusive access to the CrowdStrike claims for an above-the-fold article that ran on June 14, 2016. The findings subsequently were published in a CrowdStrike technical report, released the next day.
Complicating matters further was that immediately after the CrowdStrike/DNC public relations kickoff, a mysterious person/entity using the name “Guccifer 2.0” emerged. (The original Guccifer was a Romanian hacker who publicly claimed to have hacked the private email of Hillary Clinton and who subsequently was arrested, convicted and imprisoned in the United States for his actions.) Guccifer 2.0 dismissed the CrowdStrike/DNC claims of Russian attribution, stating that he alone was responsible for the DNC server attack.

To prove his claims, on June 15, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 published the first of a series of documents that appeared to have been sourced to the DNC server. Some of these documents were copied using a template that embedded Cyrillic text into the published document’s metadata, including the name of the founder of the KBG, Felix Dzerzhinsky, increasing the confusion surrounding the Guccifer 2.0 persona. The presence of the Cyrillic text, combined with the timing of the response, led many observers to contend that Guccifer 2.0 was nothing more than a poorly executed effort by Russian intelligence to undermine the DNC/CrowdStrike claims of Russian attribution. This proved to be the position of the U.S. intelligence community, which published its findings in a declassified National Intelligence Assessment in early January 2017.

Amid all this noise about both the Russian attribution of, and role, if any, APT 28 played in the theft and subsequent publication of the DNC emails is the proof from Dutch intelligence services, based on Dutch media reports, that Russian actors, with the explicit knowledge of the Russian foreign intelligence service (SVR), penetrated the DNC server for 10 months, spreading laterally throughout that server and any server it was in connection with (including, it seems, the private server of Hillary Clinton), mapping, collecting and exfiltrating a massive amount of information. This attack, carried out using the tools and techniques associated with APT 29 from an office inside Moscow State University, was a Russian act.

The “hand-to-hand” cyber “combat” that took place over the course of Nov. 15-16, 2014, between APT 29 and the FBI confirmed on both sides who was involved. The SVR emerged from that incident fully cognizant of the reality that the hacking activities of APT 29 had been detected, and that foreign actors were present inside the APT 29 server. The quality of the SVR/FSB counterintelligence capabilities in the cyber realm is such that the hacking of the security camera by Dutch intelligence was likewise most probably detected, which means the SVR knew its role in managing the work of APT 29 was no longer a deniable secret.

One must look at the decision to deploy APT 29, using servers that the SVR knew were actively monitored by intelligence services reporting back to the United States, in the cyberattack against the DNC. While the intelligence that APT 29 collected on behalf of the SVR was of undoubted interest in terms of the insights provided into the internal workings of a major American political party, this information was never “weaponized” by Russia, and as such played no role in the 2016 presidential election. Moreover, much of the information that was stolen was never meant to be collected to begin with—the SVR was sending a message that Russia could get inside the American political system, one that should have been received and acted on by the United States early on in the process (indeed, had the DNC acted on the FBI tipoff in September 2015, the APT 29 intrusion would have been curtailed less than three months after it began, instead of continuing unencumbered for more than 10 months).

While APT 29 was able to mask from post-mortem investigators such as CrowdStrike the details of its activities—how the malware was delivered to the DNC server, and what information was exfiltrated—it left enough clues to allow its presence to be detected and attributed. APT 29 was hiding in plain sight. The public was intended to know the DNC server had been attacked, and the U.S. government was intended to know that Russia was behind the attack. This was the goal and objective of Russia—not to actively interfere in American democracy, but rather to create the impression that it could, by hinting at its possibility.

There is no doubt that Russia intended the APT 29 attack on the DNC to be both detected and attributed back to Moscow. A logical inference was that this attribution was intended to generate concern over the inviolability of the American electoral process, creating an internal debate within the American body politic about the legitimacy of American elections that would prove disruptive in the short term, and over the long term help undermine confidence within America and abroad about the legitimacy of whoever emerged as the victor in the 2016 presidential election.
What transpired, however, was beyond anything the Russians could have imagined—or orchestrated. The intrusion by APT 29 into the DNC server, Russia’s actual cyberattack on the DNC, barely registered on the American political radar. The controversy swirling around the APT 28 attack, Guccifer 2.0, and WikiLeaks’ publication of DNC emails overshadowed Russia’s actual cyberattack on the DNC.

The DNC and CrowdStrike, not the U.S. government, made the initial decision to publicly call Russia out on the DNC server attack. Likewise, Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff made the decision to attribute WikiLeaks’ publication of emails taken from the DNC server to Russia. When the FBI initiated its investigation into the Trump campaign, it was because of the FBI’s conflation of the Mifsud email proffer with WikiLeaks’ July 2016 publication of DNC emails, even though the two could never have been linked. (Mifsud approached Papadopoulos in mid-April 2016, before any of the emails WikiLeaks published were even compiled by the APT 28 malware, let alone exfiltrated from the DNC server.) And, in the end, Congress was energized by misinformation leaked by Russian sources about Carter Page’s visit to Moscow in July 2016 that was given political relevance only because of the publication of the DNC emails by WikiLeaks.

The American intelligence community can say, without any doubt, that Russia hacked the DNC servers. This was the action of APT 29, working out of Moscow State University under the direction of the Russian SVR. But APT 29 had nothing to do with the publication of the DNC emails, which were either a product of the APT 28 intrusion, independent action by a disgruntled DNC insider, or a combination of the two.


Dr Churchill


This Coup D’Etat by Mueller and Company is an attempt at out and out treason.

And what’s going on now with the Mueller investigation, when all of this info has being shared in detail. Also, fraudulent use of taxpayer funds, subversion, a criminal President and Sec. of State and actual collusion with the Russians, to destroy a U.S. President and his presidency to fix the destruction Obama inflicted upon the U.S. This is just a quick summary.

If a team of lawyers sat down and took each criminal action point by point in detail and affixed a federal criminal code to each crime, we have charges that leave the only choice being the death penalty!! With this info, any competent defense attorney could get any criminal off short of murder or treason.

This means no prosecution and sentence would stand nor be worth the cost of prosecution any misdemeanor or felony brought against a U.S. citizen!! There’s no choice but to arrest these heinous criminals, prosecute them and carry out the federal death penalty!! Otherwise, our justice system is no longer valid or enforceable!! Obama and Clinton should be given no choice other than hanging!! They attempted to destroy a nation and came within a few votes in a few states of doing so.

This is still an ongoing coup attempt!! Only the supporters of our POTUS and the military will stop it, unless the DOJ steps in and orders mass arrests and a tribunal to expedite the execution of these individuals and imprisonment for many others for long to life without parole sentences!!

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 18, 2018

SpyGate (Chapter Twenty Two)


This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.

“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill

This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
Chapter Twenty Two

“Justice is coming”

Political Lesson 101:

In any lawful country, the laws are effective when authorities enforce them and society submits.

But when the felons are the ones running the country, the government agencies and the Police — then you simply have a criminal enterprise in charge of a Totalitarian Dictatorship, and not a decent government in charge of a lawful country.

That is the difference between Obama and Hillary Clinton’s America, and today’s efforts by the new administration to return America to it’s roots of Laws and Constitutional Rights.


Still in the transition period from the criminal Oligarchy of the Deep State elites, to the original Constitutional Republic,  it’s good to have the people on your side as President Trump has.

But in an era where only the Friends and Family mattered under the Obama administration — it was only possible to advance and be saved having powerful corrupt friends in high places….

This is proven by the fact that Barry Obama’s name was scrubbed from the FBI investigation of the Hillary Clinton email scandal by the Comey FBI during the 2016 elections, and also Obama’s name was scrubbed from the FBI corruption report offered this past week from the Inspector General of the Department of Justice of these United States.


Why is Barry given a free pass again and again?

Hillary and Comey must know something about it.

Just ask Hillary Clinton, why was she let off the hook for her illegal classified email mishandlings?

And why was she let off the hook for her criminal carelessness with Classified information?

Could it be because Barack Hussein Obama was also involved in the same crimes, and in the same communications with her?

Just saying…

Because it was their other friend in a “high place,” James Comey, head of the FBI, who made sure to scrub Obama’s name from his final report so the American people wouldn’t know.

So please do tell me, how is that action, not a “politically motivated” one?

Political Lesson 102:

The Second aspect to this saga is here:

By now, you’ve probably heard about the IG report’s revelation of a previously-undisclosed text exchange between FBI lovebirds Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.  Three months before the 2016 election, Page worriedly texted, “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok replied, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

(This would be a good place to insert: “But there’s no EVIDENCE of any bias!”)

Now, this raises a number of questions, but the most pressing is this:

  1. Why was that text that shows the full naked bias and political attack motivation to stage a Coup D’Etat “previously-undisclosed,” even to Congress?
  2. As part of their Constitutional oversight power, Congressional investigators demanded to see all the relevant FBI texts. Why was this not there?
  3. Yet they never saw this one until we all saw it yesterday.  Why?
  4. I’m curious what top secret classified information would have been revealed by letting Congress see that unredacted?
  5.  Unless letting cats out of bags harms national security, this is a worse cover up that Watergate ever was.

Screen Shot 2018-06-18 at 7.36.46 AM

Thanks to a news dump last September, we knew that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was emailing back-and-forth with President Obama using her private email address routed through her homebrew server.

Anyway, please do not worry and don’t be concerned about national security breaches here, because Obama used a pseudonym that not even Huma Abedin knew, so it must all have been rather “secure” for the hackers to have a belly laugh…

That fact came up again Thursday with the release of the OIG report, but with a new twist. According to the report, crooked secretary Hillary Clinton “used her private email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries” but the fact that she was corresponding with then president Obama, was scrubbed from James Comey’s exoneration IG report.

Instead, oblique references to Obama were changed to “another senior government official” …  and then even that bit was dropped from the final draft.

It would’ve been a shame to have dragged Barack Obama’s name into all of this, since his term in office was apparently “Scandal Free” and he was a “God of Truth” and a “Man of DisHonor” to boot…

This type of crap is why crooked Hillary, was shown straight to the Outhouse in the woods, instead of getting elected to be the Mall cop or the chief of Outhouses (Mixed sex bathrooms), or even a school crossing guard.
Americans would never know about this IG Report if crooked Hillary had gotten elected. Because then, the corrupt deep state would have had substantial amount of time to clean up and cross-out all the details and all the information about FBI’s tragicomic wrongdoings, and about the very bias of policing and the biased prosecuting that the IG report shows (even when heavily white-washed) while Robert Mueller is dragging on the investigation on the witch hunt of the fake news about the Russia/Trump collusion, that now resembles a rogue KGB operation by Lavrentiy Beria who used the same techniques of intimidation that Mueller’s “Chekha” is using as Gestapo style investigation with a guaranteed target to be shot at dawn.
Still the current FBI chief, Mr Christopher Wray is doing the same things and toeing the line of Comey and Mueller, his best friends, and methinks that now He and all the Trump haters in the Bureau, need to be fired and replaced with new ones.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz may have declined to confirm the cause-and-effect relationship between stunning anti-Trump bias at the FBI and the outcome of Hillary’s email case, but all the evidence of vicious partisanship is there in his report.  He’s included what we already knew or suspected, but there’s much more.  The FBI in 2016 was infected with bias.  We can connect the incredibly obvious dots ourselves and come to our own conclusions about the motivation behind the FBI’s investigation of Trump and even the special counsel probe..

Of course, most major media will focus on the report’s mystifying conclusion without delving much deeper into its 568 pages.  That’s because the deeper one goes, the more horrifyingly biased the culture of the FBI is shown to be.

If you thought the Strzok-Page texts provided evidence of bias, wait until you see the texts between another pair of FBI agents who were romantically involved (they’re now married).  They’re identified in the report only as “Agent 1” and “Agent 5,” but we know they were directly involved in the Hillary investigation.  Anyone looking at their texts and not concluding that “the fix was in” for Hillary is just refusing to accept the obvious.

“Agent 1” was one of just four agents assigned to the Hillary email case, and he, for one, did not want to interview her at all, thinking it was a “continued waste of resources and time and focus..”  “I’m actually starting to have embarrassment sprinkled on my disappointment,” he instant-messaged to “Agent 5.”  “Ever been forced to do something you adamantly opposed.”

Like Lisa Page, “Agent 1” believed that Hillary’s election was a foregone conclusion.  After completing the interview with Clinton, “Agent 1” messaged “Agent 5” that he was “done interviewing the President.”

He also made it clear to “Agent 5” that he was “with her.”  As in, “I’m With Her.”

When “Agent 5” complained to “Agent 1” about the “MYE” (Mid-Year Exam, the Hillary case) work she was having to do, “Agent 1” wrote back in a way that confirms what the political environment was like at the FBI.  He referred to the Hillary investigation as “a case that doesn’t matter and is predestined.”  He went on to say, “The DOJ comes in every once in a while and takes a wishy-washy, political, cowardice stance. “ “This is the environment love,” he tells her.  “Can’t sugar coat it.”  He advised her to just do the best she could.

When asked later by investigators about the case being “predestined,” he said he had no information about that. “Agent 1” also interviewed Hillary’s personal IT assistant.  You’ll want to read the whole exchange, but when another FBI employee asked him how the interview went, “Agent 1” said, “Awesome.  Lied his a– off.”  The employee replied that “it would be funny if he was the only guy charged in this deal.” And in a testament to the way anti-Trumpers view Trump supporters, “Agent 5” texted “Agent 1” to say the ones in Ohio were “retarded.”  She also wrote to him that if Hillary should lose, “I’m gonna be walking around with both of my guns…and likely quitting on the spot.”

In his report, Michael Horowitz admonished the FBI employees who had shown bias, saying that their conduct “had cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation.  The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.

In other words, where do they go to get their reputation back?  But the damage goes far beyond the FBI’s reputation.  We know that the Hillary investigation was deliberately botched.  This goes to the nature of the whole American system of justice –- the old-fashioned idea that Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold, not an “I’m With Her” button.

The whole FBI needs to be changed, because they are all tainted with hate towards the current president Trump, and against the rule of Law. And we all know that there is no integrity from all those appearing on the scrubbed & biased IG white-wash report.
Still all those that abused their position and went on a mission to destroy the President — must be quickly and summarily fired. Unethical behavior, obstruction, dishonor, illegal acts, leaks left and right, no morality except for moral hazard, and plenty of felonies to fill a big penitentiary block of buildings with free food and bunk beds.
Because these are the same crooks who called all the Heartland American voters, and all the Mainland Christian conservative President Trump supporters all kinds of names. The FBI and Hillary Clinton and the DemoRats called us all names that we now carry as badges of honor.
Please, don’t you ever forget that they call us Deplorables, despicables, stupids, poor middle class, uneducated, retarded, lazy, pos, etc.
This characterization of Americans as unfit for justice — at least — in the eyes of the FBI brass obviously means that the rank & file FBI personnel, also think the same way, and call Americans stupid because they believed that Trump would magically grant poor people jobs for doing nothing, because they probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm. The POS are on the bias IG reports. To add insult to injury they put in their FBI texts the words “Viva le resistance” fvcking up even the basic French language that a three year old with a French Au-Pair obviously knows better.
That’s the extent of the intelligence of the funny and “French language” educated personnel of the FBI.
They don’t understand Francophonie — but they gorge Cacophonie.
Fvck them and fire their asses. All of them. The whole of the FBI has got to go the way of the Gestapo and the KGB. Replace them and then replace the name of the internal security apparatus, so that we don’t have to remember those insane initials ever again.
From now on FBI to me means FvckedUp Body Inspectors, judging by the amount of sex these perverts get during the job… both homoerotic and heater, as well as weird bondage, role-play, and power plays.
These swamp monsters, created by former president and crooked Hillary and her wet cigar hubby have got to go.
The creditably of the entire FBI is solidly stained in ways the are worse than the Chehka that KGB succeeded. The level of corruption is too deep and people in the FBI/DOJ are complicit, because they are covering up the Elite crimes, and not matter what they won’t do their jobs. So, nothing is going to happen, no one is going to jail, and so we need to fire them all.
But lets’ start from the top by firing Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray who are not doing their jobs, but instead are protecting the swamp of the deep state and the Oligarchy 24/7/365….
And they let stupid asshat McCabe to being made the fall guy in all of this criminality, so they can claim that they threw one to the lions but the rest of them are Good Christians and need to be saved.
It is a funny play that the American people have seen through it and now think that the higher up criminals of the FBI/Gestapo will all be off the hook.
This is the way the system has been operating from the beginning and the Horowitz report is just another Horror Show to fool the People into submission.
How can one criminal exonerate another criminal, and nothing is done about it?
Crooked Hillary has to be charged with the same crimes as so many other have been in the past or there is absolutely no justice left in this banana republic. This is the sentiment of the American people asking: “What happened to the 66 thousands of “missing emails”?”
Any clue?
It’s high treason.
They were most likely plotting to kill us all.
Just look at their policies: free abortions, death panels for free, free marijuana and free transgenderism promoted everywhere, drugs pouring in the country and sold inside our schools for the price of candy, and then we wonder why we have mass shootings at schools.
And we keep on having uncontrolled mass migrations that bring in more drugs as mules can come in with children and play parent for the duration of the coyote trip.
Maybe time to start a New Revolution…
What do we have the Second Ammendment for?
Let’s start using it, before we’re screwed up completely.
Or at least before we are screwed even more than we already have been.
We can’t let President Trump face this tsunami of hate, political corruption, and DemoRat criminality on his own.
It’s time for the States to Divorce from the criminal, corrupted Swamp Kingdom of Washington DC.
Integrity and honesty has been abandoned at the FBI, IRS,and the Justice Dept. If this is going to be swept under the carpet just like the rest of all the corrupt “Obummer” officials and scandals have been — we are screwed and there will not be any charges laid or jail time for whatever these perpetrators like Hillary and Barry have always done.
Trump could expose it all… yet, I dont understand why he is not exposing them all… What is he waiting for?
Now it has become so ridiculous that even senile Democratic octogenarian Senator Feinstein of California, says that the FBI texts between the lovebirds FBI leading Investigator in the Hillary Clinton email scandal, Strzrok and his office and broom closet sex toy Ms Page, the FBI attorney who interviewed Clinton saying in her texts “I’m with her” and also writing texts with “F Trump” and other texts promising Trump’s election would be stopped, etc are surely not evidence of any implicit institutional FBI bias against Trump or in favor of Ms Hillary Clinton.
Now please tell me how much money do you want for that small bridge in Brooklyn?
This is the point now that even the carefully construed “animations” cannot help hide the stinking “CORRUPTION INSIDE THE FBI” and inside the Department of Justice story.
Here it appears that the Inspector General put together this FBI leak chart based upon his finding that the rules of engagement with and journalists and others were “widely ignored” by boy-scout Comey and all of his cronies and comrades inside the FBI.

The Department of Justice inspector general report released today includes two elaborate charts mapping the volume of communications identified between FBI employees and members of the media in April, May, and October 2016…

But there is no chart explaining the use of the open email server by Obama as well as by Hillary Clinton since the two of them engaged in this open air conversation via email that was protected by the toilet, the shits, the pee, and the flush pan…

The Inspector General Put Together An Insane FBI Leak Chart Upon Finding Rules ‘Widely Ignored’

“We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review,” the report states.

Here’s “Attachment H” in the IG report.

The issue of FBI employees improperly disclosing non-public information, a.k.a. leaking tips to reporters, “raised considerable concerns,” according to investigators. They  discovered a number of social interactions with reporters deemed inconsistent with FBI policy and department ethics rules.

“FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events,” the report states.

Despite being able to track the number of times agents communicated with reporters, the IG cites two reasons for being unable to identify individual leakers.

First, we frequently find that the universe of Department and FBI employees who had access to sensitive information that has been leaked is substantial, often involving dozens, and in some instances, more than 100 people. We recognize that this is a challenging issue, because keeping information too closely held can harm an investigation and the supervision of it. Nevertheless, we think the Department and the FBI need to consider whether there is a better way to appropriately control the dissemination of sensitive information.

Then there’s this:

Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks.

The IG’s stated takeaway from the discovered leaks is a needed change in the FBI’s apparent cultural attitude. They recommended that the FBI “evaluate whether (a) it is sufficiently educating its employees about both its media contact policy and the Department’s ethics rules, and (b) its disciplinary penalties are sufficient to deter such improper conduct.”

Atlas Shrugged in real life is the recent example of the GOJ releasing its white-washing IG report that is an immodest if not impudent attempt at clearing the sins of the FBI and DOJ by airing the most “innocent” and yet glaring examples of malfeasance, and thus hiding the biggest crimes of those at the top.

Barry is behind al of this when he tried to construct a street gang, like the Cripps and Bloods, or MS13, in order to keep governing for another term (a third) and this is just another example of the globalist leftist deep state conspiring with the Democratic party’s governing elite, while shrugging in the face of indisputable evidence of its own wrongdoing, and giving the American people the middle finger up high for all to see.

Sure — there are some bombshells inside the IG report that could be justifiably be called “nuclear bombs” but let’s remember that the Senate Intelligence Memo had the same weight and so had the Comey conference back in July 2016, and all the revelations that you’ve been seeing in this book, SpyGate, where the evidence gets exposed drip by painful drip…

Here at the offices of the book SpyGate the evidence the Coup D’Etat against our country is sorted in piles and then it’s actually identified as nuclear or as conventional. Certainly all of it is incendiary bomb material, but some bombs are far worse than others. We even have a category titled ICBM, and a neutron bomb. And this is the case with the BoyScout-nut job Comey’s presser when he back in 2016, when he laid out an utterly devastating case against the Madame Hill who was running the Obama bordello from inside the White House.

Even silly comedy boy Comey, had correctly identified and highlighted in damning detail some of the most notorious Crooked Hillary litany of crimes, that seemed to go unseen, undiagnosed and unserved, by Lady Justice.

Any single one of Hillary’s multitude of crimes would have consigned you, me, or anyone else, who is not part of the Democratic party’s elite, or of the Deep State swamp, to a lifelong free stay with breakfast and TV in the Federal hostel for the troubled souls…

And yet, that boy-scout from Hell, little errant boy Comey — concluded his lengthy summation with, “But never mind” the crimes, the empty pantsuit is just an old alcoholic hag, and we must give her a break…

This is how the FBI has managed to transform its image now, and the Inspector General’s report was the bureaucratic self-policing equivalent of Lavrentiy Beria’s indictment of Commissar Lavrentiy Beria, head of the KGB, when he censured himself to spending a day without his whores. This was the daylight hours only and he resumed his whore-mongering during that same night. He was obviously a religious man seeing as he respects that a “Hail Mary” goes a long way… to expunge his sins of sending millions to their unwarranted deaths, and many more to their Siberian exile.

Screen Shot 2018-06-18 at 9.47.25 AM

During the recent spin cycle news conference, current FBI boss Christopher Wray spent a surprising amount of time boasting about the quality of his FBI honors interns. Great. Put one of them in charge. He, she, or knowing the current liberal culture of the FBI, xe, can’t do any worse than Comey and his posse of broken fragile snowflakes and buttercups.

Wray’s FBI, a ruined agency at best, conspired to undo the results of an election to ensure that the liberal politician who wouldn’t derail their gravy train would take office.

Now, these bureaucratic superstars are claiming that they will fix their agency because they will be finally getting some training to “learn” that trying to use their power as federal law enforcement agents to swing an election to their preferred political party is wrong.

Apparently, that message was previously unclear… to these lawfully abiding agents of the federal bureaucracy.

The 568-page report by U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz entitled “A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election” is seen shortly after its release in Washington, U.S. June 14, 2018.

Congress isn’t done with the Hillary Clinton email investigation of 2016, despite an independent watchdog report that found no political bias by the FBI or Department of Justice in how the case was handled.

Even before the 568-page report was released on Thursday, the Senate and House judiciary committees had scheduled hearings to question the report’s author – Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz – about his findings. FBI Director Christopher Wray also is set to testify before the Senate panel, because despite the widespread bipartisan praise for Horowitz from Congress, some House Republicans have challenged his conclusions.

“The Inspector General report confirms that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received special treatment from the Obama Justice Department during its investigation of her use of a private email server,” House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said. “The Justice Department and FBI didn’t treat her like any other criminal suspect and didn’t follow standard investigative procedures.”

But Horowitz’s report did not find any bias in favor of Clinton. The report concluded that former FBI Director James Comey broke FBI and Justice Department protocol in his handling of the 2016 investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state for President Barack Obama.

But it also said that Comey was not motivated by political bias when he cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing.

Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 11.03.06 AM

Instead, the report blasted Comey for being “insubordinate” by holding a news conference to discuss the Clinton case publicly without telling his bosses in the Justice Department what he was going to do. The report also said that it is not normal practice for an FBI director to go into detail about a case when no charges are being filed.

“While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice,” Horowitz wrote in the report that House Republicans are using the report to renew their push for a second special counsel to investigate how the FBI and DOJ handled the Clinton email inquiry, the same subject Horowitz looked into for 18 months. There already is a special counsel, Robert Mueller, leading a separate investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

“The (FBI) agents on the ground and all Americans throughout our exceptional country deserve a Justice Department that upholds the rule of law and not an agency run amuck by senior staff who engage in widespread and highly problematic misconduct, including partisan, political biases overcoming the need for sound objectivity and good judgment,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., lead sponsor of a resolution to appoint a special counsel to investigate “gross misconduct” at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ.

Some GOP leaders also are seizing on Horowitz’s revelations about anti-Trump text messages between two FBI officials to call for more congressional investigations. While Horowitz didn’t find political bias by Comey, he did uncover more Trump-bashing texts from a pair of FBI officials who were involved in an extramarital affair.

The report says  bureau lawyer Lisa Page wrote to counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok in a text message: “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right?” In response, Strzok, who helped oversee the Clinton email investigation, wrote: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

Goodlatte announced on Thursday that he intends to subpoena Strzok to compel his testimony before the House judiciary and oversight committees. Page left the FBI last month, but Strzok still works for the bureau.

“One of the lead investigators texted he would ‘stop’ Trump from becoming President,” Goodlatte said, referring to Strzok. “These actions have tarnished the reputations of our nation’s top law enforcement agencies and have undermined Americans’ confidence in their justice system.”

Horowitz first acknowledged in December that his inquiry into the Clinton case had unearthed the messages between Strzok and Page. Horowitz notified Mueller about the texts because Strzok was on Mueller’s team for the separate Russia investigation. Mueller promptly removed Strzok from his staff. Page had already left Mueller’s office by the time the texts became public.The report characterized the politically charged text messages as “antithetical to the core values of the FBI.” Still, investigators “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.”Goodlatte and House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., also are using the texts as the basis to hold a hearing during the week of June 25 to question Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about why they didn’t notify Congress about the newly revealed messages as soon as they learned about them.”In reviewing this report it is clear the FBI and DOJ withheld relevant text communications between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok,” Goodlatte and Gowdy wrote in a June 14 letter to Rosenstein and Wray. “The Deputy Attorney General learned of these texts days before the IG report was made public, while others at the DOJ or FBI learned of these texts in May of 2018. The failure to disclose and produce these messages to Congress continues a pattern of non-cooperation and interference with the pendency of our joint investigation.”

Democrats say Republicans want to keep the controversy alive in large part to try to undermine Mueller’s Russia investigation and protect Trump.

“There are two facts incontrovertible and not subject to spin,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. “One, Donald Trump won that election, so the complaints about the FBI and Jim Comey and all the rest don’t lead anywhere. At the end of the day, the actions reviewed in this report helped Donald Trump win the election, not the other way around.”

Schumer was referring to the fact that Comey told Congress he was reopening the Clinton email investigation just days before the election. Clinton and many Democrats believe Comey’s action may have cost Clinton the presidency, even though it didn’t result in any charges against her.

“Two,” Schumer said, “this report contains no evidence to make any reasonable person conclude that the special counsel investigation is anything other than independent, impartial and just as important today as it was before this report was issued.”

The same with the IG report. Yeah, the report demonstrated intense and pervasive political bias. Yeah, at every turn the FBI/DOJ hacks gave unprecedented deference and breaks to Hillary. Yeah, from the get-go they talked about how no one was ever going to be prosecuted. Nah, nothing to see.

It’s like a prosecutor laying out a crushing case to a jury, then saying, “And in conclusion, I’d like you to find the defendant not guilty.”

“No evidence,” concludes the IG report. It’s 500+ pages of evidence.

Let’s try a hypothetical. You are on a jury. My client is a black man claiming racial discrimination by his company. I present you with texts from key leaders in the company – who are still employed in high positions at the company – discussing how they hate black people. I demonstrate that at every single opportunity, the company made choices that hurt my client, just like at every opportunity the FBI and DOJ made choices to help Hillary the Harpy. Then, I show the company fired my client with no evidence of his wrongdoing, just like the FBI exonerated Stumbles O’Drunky with tons of evidence of her wrongdoing. Do you think I presented “no evidence?”

You, as a juror, have a choice – was my client discriminated against?

I, as a lawyer, also have a choice – Ferrari or Lamborghini?

The IG report sidestepped the most critical point, the one that is resulting in the American people losing their last remaining fragments of faith in our system, the fact that there are demonstrably two sets of rules, that there are two brands of justice in America.

There is one for you, me, and everyone else not in the elite – the infuriated, angry Normals. And there is another one for the elite.

I bet if you, me, or anyone else not in the elite were being prosecuted by the feds, the feds would be totally neutral regarding our politics, they would show us deference and give us breaks, and they would resolve from the beginning that we were going to walk. Let’s ask Scooter Libby or Dinesh De Souza or Conrad Black or Mike Flynn about that.

President Trump, you’ve already fixed the injustices suffered by Scooter and Dinesh. Pardon the other two guys. Pardon Conrad Black and General Mike Flynn. Show that this unAmerican, tyrannical garbage is unacceptable by refusing to accept it.

Hell, pardon everyone Robert Mueller and his team of Democrat operatives have ever even talked to. The report’s incoherent conclusion notwithstanding, it shows that this whole process is irredeemably tainted with political bias. Shut it down and let the voters decide if they want to validate injustice or not.

Our country cannot go on like this.

The rule of law matters, and the rule of law does not have exceptions that exempt preferred people and groups. We have tolerated this abomination long enough – it has to stop. Either the elite rediscovers its sense of duty and service and stops it, or we will stop it.

Donald Trump is our latest attempt to do that. If he is unable to do so, the elite is really going to hate what we try next.

Armed Revolution is coming and the elites will not enjoy it even a little bit. Just wait and see.

Surely you don’t expect the American people to allow them to get away with it all and to think that they scored another win?

Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 11.06.05 AM

Some have taken to calling our political/cultural response to this abandonment of the rule of law “tribalism.” And it is, because tribalism is the only alternative to the rule of law. Some like Jonah Goldberg rightly warn against the tribalist trend, and it is bad, but it sure beats the hell out of being the liberals’ serfs. Others are fussily upset that we choose uniting to protect ourselves over surrender – to them I say, if you Fredocons don’t like tribalism, then help us fix the freakin’ problem instead of trying to shut us up and pretending everything is groovy.


Dr Churchill


Once again, here are the two, and only two, options for a Democracy and especially for a Constitutional Republic that is a Democracy:

1) Rule of law: My tribe – the Normals – wins2) The dominant elites are above the law: Our nation loses.Notice how there is no option for “The elite tribe exercises unchallenged dominion over us.So, choose wisely.

Screen Shot 2018-06-18 at 3.11.13 PM

The IG report, simultaneously a devastating indictment of elite misconduct and a total whitewash, is a symptom of the moral leprosy infecting our elite. It is rotting away our institutions, and the foundations of the United States as we knew it. But the elite can’t, or won’t, even admit to itself what we all see.

And this means the elite can’t, or won’t, do what is necessary to repair the damage the elite itself has caused our country.

No wonder the normal people are getting militant – and if the elites do not wake up to the danger, this country will be torn apart, or even worse.

The funky FBI guy Comey’s breakdance antics were almost funny, but that nut job has got to behave before he enters the place where the shop is on a rope to avoid being dropped in the floor of the shower, lest someone has to bend over to grab it…

If this is like a comedy of sorts – let me tell you that it’s not.

It’s a serious judgement against our Republic and the criminal incompetence of the weed smoking President Barry Loser Stoner Baked Obama.

Between that, and Comey’s incompetence along with the IG’s devastating whitewash report, we are … in a time of a terrifying blackballing of our Democracy.


Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 16, 2018

SpyGate (Chapter Twenty One)


This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.

“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill

This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
Chapter Twenty One

“Justice is coming”

The fairly corrupt FBI has now been known to give a pass to all of Hillary Clinton’s associates, friends and colleagues, and did not examine any of their many communications devices.

Apparently the FBI decided to leave them all “unexamined” because the dirty Cops claim that they feared that if they were to search those mobile phones, blackberries, and laptops — far too many crimes would be found…

And obviously, the Deep State couldn’t afford to have that much crime coming out from Hillary and from the DemoRats who have just now come back up to the surface for air…

Now the DOJ report of IG Horrowitz confirms that ex-FBI boss James Comey was committing the same type of email violations as Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the much anticipated report from the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General Horrowitz about the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation was publicly released on Thursday and has given rise to all kinds of justifiable anger against the FBI and it’s top brass trying to topple a popularly elected President.

Thursday’s report on the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz was, “All killer, and no filler.”

There were so many jaw-dropping moments in there of, “No, wait — FBI employees can’t do that, can they?” that it transformed an actual government report into a veritable page-turner.

Within all of that, some small moments of irony and significance were bound to get lost in the shuffle. It’s perfectly easy to overlook minor gems in the report when you’ve got a new text message from Peter Strzok promising to “stop” Donald Trump and another FBI agent passing on information to Clinton campaign head John Podesta at the same time he was trying to get his son a job with the Clinton campaign.

One of those minor gems, however, comes when you find out why the FBI didn’t investigate the mobiles, the blackberries, the iPhones, the iPads, the laptops and all the other communication & email devices of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle of adjuncts and advisors, and well compensated “friends.”

The FBI didn’t want to investigate any further because apparently they reasoned that there was nothing in either “not crooked” Hillary Clinton’s history or the emails the FBI had already investigated that led them to believe they should search anyone else’s phones or emails.

In other words, the FBI deemed “crooked” Hillary Clinton “clean as a whistle.”

Not a chance.

It’s not that the FBI didn’t have a criminal and were searching for a crime: They knew they had a crime and a criminal, and they even had all the evidence they needed. to put her away for good.

Yet, what was truly needed to do justice, was a non-biased investigative agency with people who were willing to put all the pieces of the puzzle together so the whole picture could be seen in total.

This was not about fear of doing the right thing and uncovering more crimes than what the American people can handle…

It’s about lack of will.

Wherever’s there’s a will, there’s always a way.

The FBI agents never even got Hillary’s computers or hard drives. She had the company that set up her server give the FBI a report that said what she wanted. She then bleach bit and smashed all hard drives and blackberries, and communication devises and cellphones — that she could get her hands on.

Sadly it appears that the IG report is also a white wash of everything. While our government thinks we are really dumb, same as Hillary thinks everyone is a deplorable and despicable person — the rotten to the core FBI knew if they said what really went on in the Clinton-Obama White House and Department of State — a few of us might catch on.

So for the IG, it was much easier to give us a few texts that scream of bias rather than expose Hillary Clinton’s crimes and treasonous affairs at State. Indeed this hag did everything to give the Russians and the Chinese and the North Koreans all of our secrets and then she also flipped us off, for good measure, and now Robert “F-turd” Mueller is putting Manafort in jail for financial crimes committed a dozen years ago when he “shaded” a little, the IRS returns of his business.

Apparently, there are two sets of laws in America.

Yes, sherrie-bob.

Hillary walks off into the forest like Alice in wonderland, with her cronies, while dirty cop Mueller is talking and threatening anyone and everyone that has even been in the same room as President Trump in the past decade looking for a crime, any crime that would put the President in jeopardy.

It is a shame that there is people out there who don’t care that the democrats did all these illegal things that put our nation in jeopardy.

Sheeple and people of leftist corrupt ideology, are so crooked — they feel like the ends justify the means regardless of what the truth and justice might be. There are people who love Obama and hate Trump so much, that they are willing to live under sharia law or are willing to give up jobs and money to punish the honest truthful Americans who support the President.

I’m not sure why is that, but I see it everywhere.

What is that causes people to be blind as to what is good and bad, is what Jesus said that folks he wants to “lose” will call good evil, and evil good, and we are seeing that with our own eyes now. We need to pray that we put patriots into congress and Senate, and thus get rid of these evil doers and the demorats and rinos in November lest they destroy this Republic.

The desire for power, the lust for wealth, the hate of self and country, turns the head & heart of many leftist Democratic people. But what I find hard to understand is when the evidence points to the guilt of the parties involved, there is enough hate towards the President that they would rather support the corrupt side than to stand up for the truth.

Hence seeing evil as good & good as evil.

Finally, this IG report proves that the FBI has become an organization that is ignoring/breaking the law rather than enforcing it. The FBI needs to be dismantled and replaced. They cannot seriously be charged any longer with upholding the law – they have broken it themselves. They swallowed the Obama Koolaid and the Clinton come, and they are all now wearing the blue dress like Monica Lewinski.

Methinks we should replace everyone at the FBI above the rank of janitor, because these agents and managers there and their lawyers are all fragile in the head snowflakes that believe there is a special set of laws, called a “Permanent Free Pass” for Hillary Clinton, and the DemoRats, and another harsh and unwieldy for everybody else.

Sad eh…

It’s so sad methinks I’ll have a decent cry to wet my liberal eyes. Not. I’d rather grab my patriot weapons ands start organizing militias to fight against totalitarian rule of the Deep State and the Secret Security agencies.

But why are you crying?

It’s the to rally and revolt…

Of course you’re right to be sad, but this is not the time for defeatism, and I bid you not to be disappointed by this IG report – or even by Comey’s, or Hillary’s comments, and don’t you dare think they will get away with all that in the end, because there’s something called the law of nature, and nature’s laws are strictly enforced: “Everything depends on everything else.”

That’s where the saying “What goes around comes around” comes from.

While we should not wish anyone any ugliness, there is punishment for any crime. People do to themselves what they don’t want anyone else to do them. Clinton, for example, is out peddling books today, drunk and angry, and is a totally irrelevant old hag signing copies inside Costco next to the meat locker…

Serves her right.

And there’s more to come for her.

She will enter the meat locker called Federal penitentiary.

Comey has been deemed “incompetent.”

Just imagine what that word means to a man: Useless, untrustworthy, disloyal and so on.

I know what you’re thinking…

Who is the Russian Agent now?

Who is the person that exposed all of our National Security secrets to the KGB, to the NKVD, or to the FSB, or to any number of the other signals intelligence agencies our enemies have deployed against us?

he answer is simple: Hillary.

That is who the Russian agent is…

Hillary the songbird with the open server in the bathroom.


Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 11.00.41 AM

She gave it all away by sheer stupidity, and elementary school criminality.

That’s the alcoholic mind at work.

Apparently she still uses Blackberries, because she still thinks that they are secure and because the government was amongst the last users of this superannuated mobile platform, but given Clinton’s tendency toward antiquated technology, I’m surprised her office computer wasn’t a Commodore, or a Sinclair.

One can only imagine Hillary screaming through her door: “Huma! Can you help me for a sec? My 2400 baud modem isn’t connecting to State Department system.”

Also the FBI didn’t check the email devices of Clinton’s inner circle, and none of the mobile phones of all the other people around her…

Why on earth wouldn’t they do that, especially since her circle of supporters were most likely interacting with Hillary , her mobile devices and with her server, with great frequency — if, in fact, their email accounts weren’t placed on the bathroom Russian server in the first place.

The rationale the IG report gave — or one particular part of it, at least for the FBI’s omission to examine other devices — is pure gold as seen here: “We found that the FBI team and the prosecutors decided together to generally limit the devices they sought to those that either belonged to Clinton or were used to back-up or cull Clinton’s emails.”

This is what the IG report states on page 153: “The team provided, among others, the following reasons for placing this limitation on the scope of the investigation: (1) the culture of mishandling classified information at the State Department which made the quantity of potential sources of evidence particularly vast; (2) the belief that Clinton’s own devices and the laptops used to cull her emails were the most likely places to find the complete collection of her emails from her tenure as Secretary of State; and (3) the belief that the State Department was the better entity to conduct a ‘spill investigation.’”

Now, leaving behind the part about “belief that the State Department was the better entity to conduct a ‘spill investigation’” let’s move on. Nothing to see here…

But why is it that when it comes to the Obama administration and its tendrils, everyone assumes that there’s absolutely no conflict of interest in letting an entity investigate itself?

Isn’t that why the Carter administration signed the legislation establishing the office of the inspector general in the first place?

The point that is highlighted here, should tell you everything you need to know about the Obama-Clinton era White House & State Department — and, in particular, the crooked political officials that hung around Hillary Clinton.

Put another way, the FBI agents thought that they might find so much classified information on unauthorized devices, servers and systems, that they would become lost in the maze.

Horowitz, in what can only be described as a generous admonition, counters by noting ‘that this excuse fails to acknowledge that the team was not required to take an all-or-nothing approach. For example, a middle ground existed where those devices belonging to Clinton’s three top aides — which the team determined accounted for approximately 68 percent of Clinton’s email exchanges — would have been reviewed, but devices belonging to other State Department employees would not.’”

A very generous admonition, this. Methinks that you’ll agree, that is the case…

A culture of laxity at the State Department is hardly a surprise. I mean, what do you think started this whole mess? But the tacit admission that the FBI’s search of Classified materials, would simply find too many crimes committed by Team Clinton on other devices, ought to be a wake-up call of dramatic proportions.

In other words, it wasn’t just Hillary Clinton being a doddering old lady, a drunk hag, a lush semi-functioning alcoholic, claiming that she didn’t know what a (C) in parentheses meant.

It means “Classified” in case you were wondering.

It was a whole army of people around her who were almost certainly breaking the law by mishandling classified information. The IG report admits as such, even as it notes that those tasked with conducting an independent investigation didn’t out of fear of finding people around Clinton guilty.

This fact alone ought to be reason to fire every person involved with the investigation, up to and including James Comey. I think Trump may have gotten there already…

However, there’s a more important thing to take away from this abdication of responsibility, and it goes to media narrative that stinks to high heaven…

The general media take-away from the IG report is that that it didn’t make either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump look bad. This is in spite of the fact that nearly everything we’ve seen from this has been irregularities involving Clinton and/or her campaign. Yet they don’t even report that the IG report notes the FBI refused to look into Hillary Clinton’s friends’ devices because they thought they’d find worse crimes in there.

On the other hand, it does raise the question: If the FBI won’t touch it out of fear it’s too much for them to handle, how bad could the violations of the Hillary Clinton circle be?

Now we know that the Democratic Party, helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, but their willingness to break the rules and flout the law is legendary.

It is not sheer stupidity on their part but perceived bravado, since she was held up by many on the left as the savior Madame President.

Yet this was the same party that steadfastly refused to address the social inequality that led to the selection of herself at the Democratic convention and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders, who saw the primaries being totally rigged and stolen by his alcoholic hag opponent.

The Hillary camp of remoaners, is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country, and the flyover Heartland.

It will not fight to pay workers a living wage.

It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all.

It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars.

It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process.

It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population.

It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics.

In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege.

This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power.

They know this, quite well, but they would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity.

Indeed, the Democratic party is the very guarantor of despotism.

Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them.

He may be a bit of a narcissist, but he loves the simple American people and the folks all around the country love him too. And of course they like him even more when he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His taunts directed at government agencies, the deep state, the crooked Hillary and the nut job Comey, along with the corrupt FBI establishment, and the established Globalist elites — fully resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces.

And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s invective are at least cathartic.

The Democrats choose their allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to Hillary Clinton. And promptly, she will sell anyone out. She is corrupt, amassing money for herself as she made $25 Billion from her Washington, D.C. gig as Secretary of State alone.

She dismantled government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. She is an enemy of the open & democratic society. This makes her dangerous. Her turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate bankster totalitarianism.

But the warnings from the architects of our democracy against creeping fascism, are risible. People like MAdelein Albright and other academic pundits, show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist of the ordinary American people.

Because today, none of these elites have any credibility left. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made their election rigging against Bernie and against Trump, and the witch hunt by the dirty cabal of the FBI against the President possible…

And the more they now attack President Trump and he counterattacks them with his dementing tweets that cause DTS to all leftists and DemoRats, he takes these elites to the toilet and makes them drink “brown rain water” straight from the hopper-pooper bowl. And the more the elites cry out like Cassandras, Russia-Russia-Russia, the more Trump savages their disastrous kleptocracy pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrated under the Obama-Clinton rule.

Today, the country refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by governmental & corporate power — a corrupt practice which has destroyed our democracy and economy, and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth in American history.

The press is one of the principal pillars of Hillary’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 17th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America.

The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline.

All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage.

Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.”

An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt.

However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign.

And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done?

We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation.

Banks will close.

Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address.

The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality and be just plain old fake news all the time 24/7/365.

The media outlets all sound as fatuous as the Clinton Global Initiative press releases, and soon enough will develop a Double Speak worthy of Orwell’s 1984.

And, meanwhile the little children will die in the streets of Haiti as they are now not able to be exported as fresh meat for pedophiles all around the DC sick DemoRat world of Podesta, Weiner, Billy the Goat, Epstein, and all the other pizza gate or no pizza gate, pesos out there who thought the federal government was a giant piñata filled up with glorious sex, treasure cash, and pirate loot, for their pleasure to swing at it and get their fill…


Dr Churchill


It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion.

Yet, all the harbingers of a coming collapse were visible during the Obama-Clinton imperial presidency and nobody batted an eyelid about it.

Because the DemoRats had pedophilia on their mind and not governing.

Only now President Trump attends to our terrible problems bedeviling our society, such as the crumbling infrastructure; the chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions.

Yet, we thank God that Trump is our President now, because we have already suffered all the indignities and the usual pathologies of impending death — and yet we are now coming up alive the other end…

Oh Lord, thank you for the bullet we dodged by sending Hillary to the outhouse instead of the White House.

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 14, 2018

SpyGate (Chapter Twenty)


This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.

“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill

This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
Chapter Twenty

“Iustitiae Dei”

President Trump was Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize by Norwegian Lawmakers yesterday…

U.S. President Donald Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in reaching an agreement to work toward de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

The U.S. leader was nominated by two members of Norway’s governing Progress Party, according to state broadcaster NRK. The deadline for this year’s prize passed in January, so this nomination would make him eligible for next year.

Nominations for the world’s most coveted prize are open to lawmakers, academics and researchers from around the world. The Nobel Committee in Oslo typically receives hundreds of nominations each year, and past candidates have also included Russian President Vladimir Putin and Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro. A record 330 people were nominated this year.

While the Norwegian Nobel committee is appointed by parliament, it’s decisions are independent. Trump was nominated by two right-wing members of Norway’s Progress Party, which advocates for limited immigration and for lower taxes.

Progress Party member Per-Willy Amundsen said this:
“What’s going on now is historic. A process is underway to ensure world peace in the future. It’s a fragile process, but we must of course do what we can to help this process bring good results.”

Now wanting to get the Nobel Peace prize to Trump for that summit in Singapore is over and done with — we must turn to President Donald Trump who is on his way back home to the White House…

Right about now, one can cue the start of another round of mass media talking-heads chattering loudly about the state of his preparedness. Indeed since this was one of the media’s favorite subjects going into the Tuesday Summit in Singapore — one must ask this:

Did Donald Trump do his homework?

Was he really prepared?

Asking this might seem somewhat silly, as if President Trump was supposed to be reading a huge binder marked “North Korea” under a desk lamp in the wee hours of the morning like it was a SAT study guide, cramming for his meeting with Kim Jong Un.

In reality this study’s vast majority was outsourced to aides and foreign policy experts, of the State Department and of the office of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in the same way that it’s always been under any other administration of the past, as well.

Rest assured, however, that Donald Trump has actually been preparing for this summit for decades — and he had intensified his boning up ever since North Korea’s nuclear ambitions became apparent. In fact that statement is borne out also by a video that’s been popping up on social media these past few days, seemingly as a rejoinder to the preparedness issue.

Take a look, for instance, at this “Meet the Press” appearance from 1999, in which Trump outlined his thoughts on Pyongyang’s nuclear plans:

Speaking about North Korea, Trump said that “these people in three or four years, they’re going to have nuclear weapons, they’re going to have those weapons pointed all over world and specifically at the United States.”

“The biggest problem this world has is nuclear proliferation,” he continued. “We have a country out there in North Korea which is sort of wacko, which is not a bunch of dummies. They are going out and developing nuclear weapons. And they’re not doing it because they’re having fun doing it.

And wouldn’t it be good to sit down and really negotiate something — and ideally negotiate? Now, if that negotiation doesn’t work, you’d better solve the problem now than solve it later.”

Trump also criticized former President Jimmy Carter’s efforts in North Korea at the time, and shot back at then – “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert’s contention that the fallout from using military force against the North would engulf Southeast Asia in fallout, contending that a strike would be better than a nuclear North Korea.

However, first and foremost, he said that he would negotiate the hell out of it…

Also in 1999, Trump sat down for an interview with Wolf Blitzer on a wide range of issues. This is dedicated to those of you who weren’t around then, or who may have forgotten — was when he was considering a presidential run with Ross Perot’s Reform Party before it slipped into squabbling and terminal doom.

They also discussed North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, with Trump saying that “We’d better do something rather quickly with them, and, hopefully, through negotiations.”

Blitzer asked what would happen “if the North Koreans don’t play ball, develop a nuclear capability, go forward with their missile development — does the United States act unilaterally?”

“If spoken to correctly — correctly — they will play ball,” Trump predicted.

This interview, mind you, was less than a year before then President Bill Clinton decided that trying to broker a peace deal with the North Koreans should take a backseat to Middle East peace negotiations. That was a gambit that proved to be fruitless in the end and didn’t provide Clinton with the signature peace plan he wanted.

“I had a chance at the end of my presidency — I kind of regret this now, but I would do the same thing again if faced with it — to end their missile program, but I would have had to go to North Korea,” Clinton said in a recent “Today” interview.

“But I couldn’t do that and finish the Middle East peace,” Billy the Kid told interviewer Craig Melvin. “And Arafat begged me not to go and then backed out on his promise.”

Melvin didn’t ask a follow-up question about Clinton’s preparedness, for whatever reason. And nobody seems to have asked the same questions about Kim Jong Un, as “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams noted: “After all, Kim may have read “The Art of the Deal,” but he certainly didn’t write it.”

Perhaps, we ought to look at the other side of the table in this equation to find the facts, because as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, the US will give no sanctions relief until North Korea completely denuclearises, contradicting Pyongyang’s North Korean state media which had claimed (for reasons of purely local consumption) that President Donald Trump offered to lift the sanctions ahead of the total denuclearization.

Indeed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha attended the joint news conference at the Foreign Ministry in Seoul, South Korea and said the exact opposite…

Secretary of state Mike Pompeo said North Korea will not see any sanctions relief until the country denuclearises, undercutting Pyongyang’s suggestion that Donald Trump had agreed to ease economic restrictions.

The top US diplomat clarified America’s position as he conferred with South Korean and Japanese officials after Mr Trump’s high-stakes met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in a high-stakes effort to convince Mr Kim to scrap his country’s nuclear programme.

After that meeting, North Korean state media said Mr Trump had agreed to lift economic sanctions. But Mr Pompeo shot down that claim, signaling that America would continue to hew to its “maximum pressure” campaign of choking sanctions until Pyongyang had verifiably dismantled its arsenal.

“We are going to get denuclearisation”, Mr Pompeo said, adding that “only then will there be relief from the sanctions.”

A joint statement released by Mr Trump and Mr Kim after their meeting pledged that North Korea would “work toward complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula”. Mr Pompeo said he expected North Korea to take steps towards denuclearisation over the remainder of Mr Trump’s current four-year term.

Administration officials credit a concerted international effort to isolate North Korea and stifle its economy as a key factor in bringing Pyongyang to the negotiating table.

While the Trump administration has rejected the notion of imminently lifting sanctions, Mr Trump offered a key concession in saying America would suspend joint military exercises that the North has long denounced as a prelude to an invasion.

South Korean officials who met with Mr Pompeo hailed the summit for bringing the world back from the brink of potential armed conflict. President Moon Jae-in said the meeting helped shift “from the era of hostility towards the era of dialogue, of peace and prosperity”.

Donald Trump says North Korea will ‘dismantle missile test site’ as America and its allies insist that any nuclear deal must entail complete and verifiable destruction of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons. In the months leading up to the summit, North Korea threatened the world with a series of bellicose statements as well as tests of ballistic missiles and a powerful hydrogen bomb.

Now we all must admit that the President Donald Trump is killing it… as he keeps negotiating well past the deal signing, as he should.

Of course now, if you even listen to the mass media stories for a minute, you would have to ask yourself the question: Whom is he killing? The snowflakes and buttercups whose heads explode to the mere mention of Trump’s name.

Is Trump Derangement Syndrome a real thing, or what the mass media haters and exploding leftist socialist heads are telling you that Donald Trump and the GOP are filled with white supremacists bent on destroying our country?

Or the alternative reality that “The Donald” is a Russian agent planted here in Brooklyn New York, that hotbed of Russian dissenters, many decades ago as a “sleeper” who has now been awakened — is real?

Or maybe the reality is the best Russia-Russia witch hunt theory of them all — the special one that both Rachel Maddow fans, and Star Wars fans, find equally appealing, and that is the theory that has not been debunked yet, that President Trump is really a Vulcan with green blood coursing through his alien being veins.

This last theory is causing Star Wars fans heads to explode in unison with the leftist socialist Rachel and her fans heads, so it must be the correct theory about President Trump’s origins.

And for the rest of the sad sacks that say that Trump is killing America — we’ve got another thing coming, because methinks that the Democrats are the ones killing America by turning it into a massive nanny state modeled on the Southern plantation system — and right about now, all they are trying to do is to keep people tied-up and hemmed-in the bondage of mental slavery.

Indeed the true history of the Democratic Party and it’s illiberal totalitarian DNA, goes back to its foundation within the hugely racist and separatist antebellum South. Even before the modern-day Democratic Party was founded around 1828 by supporters of Andrew Jackson, making it the world’s oldest political party — the Southern Slaveholding Plantation masters were calling themselves Democrats as a rebuke of levity against the very Democracy they despised.

Suffice to say that the Democrat Planters of the US espoused the Black American people’s right to vote only as three fifths of a man all the way up to the 1950s…

And this harkens back to the “Three-Fifths Compromise” which was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787, had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal was debated on July 11th and initially, the concept of counting by a 3/5ths ratio was voted down by the members present at the Convention. A few southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population. Seeing that the states could not remain united without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of 3/5ths was brought back to the table and agreed to.

After a contentious debate, the compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position. An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Thus we can clearly see how the three-fifths ratio originated with the 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth.

Whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state’s total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count 3 out of every 5 slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally, thus allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.

Back in the 16th and 17th century and certainly all the way up to and 1860s the slaveholding elite of the Democratic party had devised the plantation system as a means of organizing labor and political support. It was a mini welfare state, a cradle to grave system that bred dependency and punished any urge to independence. This model impressed northern Democrats, inspiring the political machines that traded government handouts for votes from ethnic immigrant blocs.

Today’s Democrats have expanded to a multiracial plantation of ghettos for blacks, barrios for Latinos, and reservations for Native Americans. That is the full byproduct of the Jacksonian Democratic purges of the Indian natives marched into reservations, and all others hemmed in to similarly sequestered ghettos. Add to that all the black males that are penned inside the barbed wire concentration camps that are the modern jails, and those are also the maximum sentencing incarcerated populations that are coerced by the Democrats in order to “bring them to heel” and thus place all the black males inside the prison system, and thus increase the dependency of the black families to the government for their daily bread — since the family’s breadwinner is already incarcerated.

Today in America is is only the Whites, the Mulattos, and the Whitties, along with the recent immigrants from AngloSaxon Western Civilization countries who are the only “holdouts” resisting full dependency on the government’s dole, and so they are blamed for the bigotry and for the racial exploitation that is actually perpetrated by the Leftist Socialist Democrats of todays’ planter class.


Dr Churchill


The shocking story of the Democratic Party’s dark past and slave plantation origins, explains the roles of Democratic idolized figures like Andrew Jackson, Van Buren, FDR and LBJ, and exposes the hidden truth that pure Racism comes not from the conservative Right, but rather from the traditional Democrats and from their socialist democratic left (so called progressives), of today’s Democratic party…

To my beloved Democrat friends I have this to ask:

Do you accept the fact that your party is still seeking slaves?

How long will it take you to wake up to that fact?

After knowing all this now, how can you live like a Slave any longer?

That’s all.

Screen Shot 2018-06-13 at 4.23.11 PM

Older Posts »


%d bloggers like this: