President Trump Addresses the Nation on the Death of George Floyd and National Outcry

There are a lot of people asking for President Trump to give remarks to the nation about the ongoing violence and riots in the aftermath of George Floyd’s horrific murder.

Apparently many people did not listen to President Trump’s address on Saturday afternoon about this exact issue. Or perhaps the media’s need to ignore the content of his speech has led to some confusion. 

Relevant part begins at minute 11:18

[Transcript of Remarks] – “I want to say a few words about the situation in Minnesota. The death of George Floyd on the streets of Minneapolis was a grave tragedy. It should never have happened. It has filled Americans all over the country with horror, anger, and grief.

Yesterday, I spoke to George’s family and expressed the sorrow of our entire nation for their loss. I stand before you as a friend and ally to every American seeking justice and peace. And I stand before you in firm opposition to anyone exploiting this tragedy to loot, rob, attack, and menace. Healing, not hatred; justice, not chaos are the mission at hand.

The police officers involved in this incident have been fired from their jobs. One officer has already been arrested and charged with murder. State and federal authorities are carrying out an investigation to see what further charges may be warranted, including against, sadly, the other three.

In addition, my administration has opened a civil rights investigation, and I have asked the Attorney General and the Justice Department to expedite it.

I understand the pain that people are feeling. We support the right of peaceful protesters, and we hear their pleas. But what we are now seeing on the streets of our cities has nothing to do with justice or with peace.

The memory of George Floyd is being dishonored by rioters, looters, and anarchists. The violence and vandalism is being led by Antifa and other radical left-wing groups who are terrorizing the innocent, destroying jobs, hurting businesses, and burning down buildings.

The main victims of this horrible, horrible situations are the citizens who live in these once lovely communities. The mobs are devastating the life’s work of good people and destroying their dreams. Right now, America needs creation, not destruction; cooperation, not contempt; security, not anarchy. And there will be no anarchy. Civilization must be cherished, defended, and protected. The voices of law-abiding citizens must be heard, and heard very loudly.

We cannot and must not allow a small group of criminals and vandals to wreck our cities and lay waste to our communities. We must defend the rights of every citizen to live without violence, prejudice, or fear.

We support the overwhelming majority of police officers who are incredible in every way and devoted public servants. They keep our cities safe, protect our communities from gangs and drugs, and risk their own lives for us every day.

No one is more upset than fellow law enforcement officers by the small handful who fail to abide by their oath to serve and protect. My administration will stop mob violence and will stop it cold.

It does not serve the interests of justice or any citizen of any race, color, or creed for the government to give into anarchy, abandon police precincts, or allow communities to be burned to the ground. It won’t happen.

Those making excuses or justifications for violence are not helping the downtrodden, but delivering new anguish and new pain.

From day one of my administration, we have made it a top priority to build up distressed communities and revitalize our crumbling inner cities.

We fought hard with Senator Tim Scott and many others to create Opportunity Zones, helping to draw a surge of new investment to the places in our country that need it most. We must all work together as a society to expand opportunity and to create a future of greater dignity and promise for all of our people. We must forge a partnership with community leaders, local law enforcement, and the faith community to restore hope.

Radical-left criminals, thugs, and others all throughout our country and throughout the world will not be allowed to set communities ablaze. We won’t let it happen. It harms those who have the least. And we will be protecting those who have the least.

The leadership of the National Guard and the Department of Justice are now in close communication with state and city officials in Minnesota. And we’re coordinating our efforts with local law enforcement all across our nation.

In America, justice is never achieved at the hands of an angry mob. I will not allow angry mobs to dominate. It won’t happen. It is essential that we protect the crown jewel of American democracy: the rule of law and our independent system of justice. Every citizen in every community has the right to be safe in their workplace, safe in their homes, and safe in our city streets.

This is the sacred right of all Americans that I am totally determined to defend and will defend. My administration will always stand against violence, mayhem, and disorder.

We will stand with the family of George Floyd with the peaceful protesters and with every law-abiding citizen who wants decency, civility, safety, and security.

We are working toward a more just society, but that means building up, not tearing down; joining hands, not hurling fists; standing in solidarity, not surrendering to hostility.

Moments ago, as we witnessed the launch of two great American astronauts into space, we were filled with the sense of pride and unity that brings us together as Americans. That same spirit which powered our astronauts to the Moon has also helped lift our country to ever greater heights of justice and opportunity throughout our history.

So today, as we mark a renewed commitment to America’s future in space, a tremendous commitment it is. Let us also commit to a brighter future for all of our citizens right here on Earth.

When Americans are united, there is nothing we cannot do. From day one of my administration, we put America first.” (link)  [Video Available Here]

U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr meets with leadership from the DOJ and FBI on Saturday afternoon following his own media address and conversations with President Trump.

If Antifa is Designated A Terrorist Group, There Are A Lot Of Possible Charges Coming

Article written by Sarah Lee in "RedState":

Watching Chrissy Teigen and Justin Timberlake suggest people give money to help bail “protesters” out of jail if they found themselves arrested over the last several days of rioting has been something of a study in just how far removed celebrities are from how this country and her legal system work.

Once Trump declared his intent Saturday to name antifa a terrorist organization Saturday — thought by many observers on the ground to be one of the main groups responsible for inciting the looting and rioting — celebrity calls to provide material support through bail donations began to look a lot different since providing material support to a named terrorist group violates the federal law such as the PATRIOT Act. Basically, if someone wanted to make that case, it’s not outside the realm of possibility they could be charged.

Oops.

The terrorist designation also makes prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) much easier, something Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz has been pushing since last July when he wrote a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr asking the DOJ to name antifa a terrorist group.

Barr and the Trump administration took Cruz up on his suggestion Saturday.

KerriKupecDOJ ✔ @KerriKupecDOJ

Attorney General Barr’s statement on rioting, the role of the Department of Justice, and Antifa.

“The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”

 
Under RICO, as Washington Examiner investigative journalist Kerry Picket notes, any group associated with antifa can be charged.

Kerry Picket ✔ @KerryPicket

If ANTIFA is designated as a terrorist org, anyone associated with the grp, could be prosecuted under the RICO statute.

 In fact, RICO allows individuals who support these groups to be charged right alongside members of the group who actually commit crimes on the ground (so to speak). And RICO does something else:  it can go after the property and money of those connected to these groups.

Alongside criminal actions, RICO permits private plaintiffs and the government to seek redress in a civil action. Indeed, perhaps the most controversial aspect of RICO is that the government can seize and confiscate what it deems to be the proceeds of crime through the civil courts. RICO allows the government or a private citizen to file a civil suit requesting the court to order the forfeiture of assets, to impose sanctions, or to provide injunctive relief against an individual or organization involved in a “pattern of racketeering.” The civil action provisions of RICO can: force a defendant to forfeit any interest in property, restrict a defendant from engaging in certain future activities or investments, or dissolve or reorganize an enterprise. These penalties were intended to address the economic roots and organizational infrastructure of ongoing criminal conspiracies.
With respect to asset forfeiture, the state can seize property without notice upon an ex parte application of probable cause that the property is associated with criminal activity. In this case, criminal charges need not be provided against a defendant. In contrast to criminal prosecutions, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, only the lesser standard of proof—a balance of probabilities—is required under the civil provisions of RICO. The attraction of this approach is that the onus of proof is shifted to the defendant, who must prove that the assets were acquired through legitimate means. Civil RICO injunctions can prohibit individuals from owning or becoming involved in certain legitimate or illegitimate businesses or activities. Moreover, if successful, the victim may be able to recoup treble damages (that is, the defendant must pay to the plaintiff three times the amount of damages, as well as legal expenses, that have been determined by the court).

This could get very interesting if an overtly direct link is ever discovered between billionaire lefty money men like George Soros (it’s become legend that he finances antifa, but the association is loose, probably intentionally) and one or more of the many groups antifa co-opts and organizes/pays to riot and loot in the name of anarchy.

Some journalists, like this gentleman with the New York Times, would have Americans look away from this extraordinary news that will likely lead to success quelling the attacks from within the nation is currently facing.

Charlie Savage ✔ @charlie_savage

Waste no brain cells on this. Antifa is a vaguely defined movement of people who like direct-action protest tactics, not an actual organization. Even if it were a real group, the law that lets the government deem entities as terrorists only applies to foreign orgs. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1267129644228247552 …

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

·

4h

The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.

 

 Poor Charlie still operates under the belief that Trump is very, very under-informed by less than capable advisors. He would do well to change that belief. The ACLU has acknowledged on its website that the PATRIOT Act has expanded its definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism.

And then there’s this.

Jeff Carlson @themarketswork

Seems important to note that President Trump did not use the word "Domestic"

Antifa, by their own declaration, have said they are international.https://antifainternational.tumblr.com/  https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1267130662248763394 …

Bradley P. Moss

@BradMossEsq

· 4h

That will be kind of difficult since there is no legal mechanism for designating a group as a domestic terrorist organization. twitter.com/realdonaldtrum…

 

 Will naming antifa a terrorist outfit immediately stop the rioting?  Maybe not totally. But it should scare those flying in and taking money from the hammer and sickle crew enough to quiet the chaos until law and order is returned to city streets.

And, best of all, it seems to have shut Chrissy Teigen’s foolish mouth, at least for the time being.

https://www.redstate.com/slee/2020/05/31/if-antifa-is-designated-a-terrorist-group-there-are-a-lot-of-people-who-could-possibly-be-charged-under-the-rico-statute/ 

French Forum - pour les francophones .

Thank you W3P to welcome our French posters.

Twitter And Social Media Are A Cancer On Our Civic Life

The debate about whether social media companies should have protection from liability misses a larger question about their role in American society.

John Daniel Davidson writing for The Federalist

There’s nothing like a row between Twitter and President Trump to turn everyone into an expert on 47 U.S. Code § 230, a heretofore obscure section of federal law that deals with liability protections for companies like Twitter.

Go on social media right now and you’re bound to find friends, neighbors, and colleagues opining on federal statutes and citing old Supreme Court cases to bolster their arguments that we have to do this or that right now to save the internet or protect free speech.

So let me just say up front, I am not an expert on Section 230 or on federal liability law generally. I don’t have a strong opinion on exactly how the law should be reformed or what the mechanisms of a successful reform might be, nor do I think there aren’t real trade-offs to consider here.

But I don’t need to be an expert in liability law to know this: social media are corrosive to our civic life, and social media companies like Twitter are largely unaccountable for their actions in that regard. Without question, Twitter and Facebook and YouTube have harmed democratic life in America, eroded our civic values, and exacerbated divisions and distrust between citizens. If they all disappeared tomorrow, the country would be better off.

Consider for a moment the disconnect between what social media promised us and what we actually got. The big idea was that making everyone more connected virtually would bring us closer together in reality, that a digital commons would increase empathy and build real community.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg made this sentiment a kind of mantra. When he took his company public in 2012, he was clear about the social mission behind the enterprise. “We are extending people’s capacity to build and maintain relationships,” he wrote, adding that, “Facebook exists to make the world more open and connected, and not just to build a company.”

It hasn’t worked out that way, or at least not quite in the way Zuckerberg meant. The world is undoubtedly more open and connected thanks to Facebook and Twitter, but it is not more sanguine or tolerant or kind. Connectedness through social media has not made us more empathetic or willing to change our minds, and it has not brought us closer together.

Just the opposite, in fact. Even setting aside the online ugliness of the 2016 election, is there any conflict or tension in American society that isn’t made worse by social media? Sure, there are rare exceptions—sometimes people do nice things for each other, sometimes people use these platforms to reunite with long lost family members or friends. But the dominant emotion of social media is anger, the default tone is caustic, and the overall effect is division.

Delete The Comment Section

Obviously, not everyone shares this view. Many people think the advent of the internet and the inventions of mass platforms like Facebook and Twitter meant we had to make concessions in federal law to enable these companies to host third-party content without the fear of defamation lawsuits over what their users might post. (For some background on how we got Section 230, check out Eugene Volokh’s helpful primer at Reason.)

Rolling back or reforming these liability protections isn’t so easy, were told. And besides, such drastic reform might not even be necessary. After all, companies like Twitter have no obligation under federal law to be neutral in how they police content posted on their platforms.

My friend David Harsanyi makes this point at NRO, rightly noting that newspapers and magazines with online comment sections enjoy the same liability protections under Section 230 that Twitter does. An outlet like the New York Times is liable for what it publishes or commissions but not for what online commenters write.

“In the same way,” writes Harsanyi, “if Twitter ‘factchecks’ a user, its opinion should be considered published material that is no longer protected from liability. By offering one opinion, Twitter isn’t suddenly liable for the billions of other tweets that exist on its site, or for the opinion held in the tweet to which it is responding.”

It’s a fair point, but it misses a larger problem. Why should Twitter or Facebook or YouTube be given liability protections at all? Why should it be the case that these companies can host all manner of content, make a fortune, and not be expected to bear responsibility for any of it?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996, back when Congress was grappling with new technology and trying to make the internet as open as possible. Harsanyi and others worry that if liability protections are taken away, there would be a flood of lawsuits. Media companies might abandon open platforms altogether. Social media as we know it might cease to exist.

Let’s hope so. It wouldn’t be the end of the world—or even of free speech—if we went back to an Internet without comment sections, without Twitter mobs, and without aggressively politicized social media companies.

And anyway, in all likelihood we wouldn’t go backward but forward. New kinds of platforms and new methods of communications would emerge, maybe a more diverse array of companies, too. Somewhere along the way, someone might even devise a social media platform that doesn’t incessantly turn us against one another and stoke division and civic unrest.

The future is uncertain, but the present state of affairs is not. Let’s admit what we all know: Twitter and the other tech giants are a cancer on our body politick. We owe them nothing, certainly not special protection from liability. Let them figure out how to operate like the traditional publishers they have decided to be—and if they can’t, let them die.

Obama-linked activists have a ‘training manual’ for protesting Trump

Paul Sperry reporting for NYPost

An Obama-tied activist group training tens of thousands of agitators to protest President Trump’s policies plans to hit Republican lawmakers supporting those policies even harder this week, when they return home for the congressional recess and hold town hall meetings and other functions.

Organizing for Action, a group founded by former President Barack Obama and featured prominently on his new post-presidency website, is distributing a training manual to anti-Trump activists that advises them to bully GOP lawmakers into backing off support for repealing ObamaCare, curbing immigration from high-risk Islamic nations and building a border wall.

In a new Facebook post, OFA calls on activists to mobilize against Republicans from now until Feb. 26, when “representatives are going to be in their home districts.”

The protesters disrupted town halls earlier this month, including one held in Utah by House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who was confronted by hundreds of angry demonstrators claiming to be his constituents.

The manual, published with OFA partner “Indivisible,” advises protesters to go into halls quietly so as not to raise alarms, and “grab seats at the front of the room but do not all sit together.” Rather, spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposes the Republican host’s positions. “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urges them to ask “hostile” questions — while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” — and loudly boo the GOP politician if he isn’t “giving you real answers.”

“Express your concern [to the event’s hosts] they are giving a platform to pro-Trump authoritarianism, racism, and corruption,” it says.

The goal is to make Republicans, even from safe districts, second-guess their support for the Trump agenda, and to prime “the ground for the 2018 midterms when Democrats retake power.”

The goal is to make Republicans, even from safe districts, second-guess their support for the Trump agenda.

“Even the safest [Republican] will be deeply alarmed by signs of organized opposition,” the document states, “because these actions create the impression that they’re not connected to their district and not listening to their constituents.”

After the event, protesters are advised to feed video footage to local and national media.

“Unfavorable exchanges caught on video can be devastating” for Republican lawmakers, it says, when “shared through social media and picked up by local and national media.” After protesters gave MSNBC, CNN and the networks footage of their dust-up with Chaffetz, for example, the outlets ran them continuously, forcing Chaffetz to issue statements defending himself.

The manual also advises protesters to flood “Trump-friendly” lawmakers’ Hill offices with angry phone calls and emails demanding the resignation of top White House adviser Steve Bannon.

A script advises callers to complain: “I’m honestly scared that a known racist and anti-Semite will be working just feet from the Oval Office … It is everyone’s business if a man who promoted white supremacy is serving as an adviser to the president.”

The document provides no evidence to support such accusations.

Protesters, who may or may not be affiliated with OFA, are also storming district offices. Last week, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher blamed a “mob” of anti-Trump activists for knocking unconscious a 71-year-old female staffer at his Southern California office. A video of the incident, showing a small crowd around an opening door, was less conclusive.

Separately, OFA, which is run by ex-Obama officials and staffers, plans to stage 400 rallies across 42 states this year to attack Trump and Republicans over ObamaCare’s repeal.

“This is a fight we can win,” OFA recently told its foot soldiers. “They’re starting to waver.”

On Thursday, Trump insisted he’s moving ahead with plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which has ballooned health insurance premiums and deductibles. “ObamaCare is a disaster, folks,” he said, adding that activists protesting its repeal are hijacking GOP town halls and other events.

“They fill up our rallies with people that you wonder how they get there,” the president said. “But they’re not the Republican people that our representatives are representing.”

As The Post reported, OFA boasts more than 250 offices nationwide and more than 32,000 organizers, with another 25,000 actively under training. Since November, it’s beefed up staff and fundraising, though as a “social welfare” nonprofit, it does not have to reveal its donors.

These aren’t typical Black Lives Matter or Occupy Wall Street marchers, but rather professionally trained organizers who go through a six-week training program similar to the training — steeped in Alinsky agitation tactics — Obama received in Chicago when he was a community organizer.

Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky, known by the left as “the father of community organizing,” taught radicals to “rub raw the sores of discontent” and create the conditions for a “revolution.” He dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals,” to “Lucifer.” Michelle Obama quoted from the book when she helped launch OFA in 2013.

Obama appears to be behind the anti-Trump protests. He praised recent demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban. And last year, after Trump’s upset victory, he personally rallied OFA troops to “protect” his legacy in a conference call. “Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope” over the election results.

He promised OFA activists he would soon join them in the fray.

“Understand that I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen, but that’s not so far off,” he said. “You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

Added the ex-president: “I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting, and we’re going to be busy. I’ve got all kinds of thoughts and ideas about it, but this isn’t the best time to share them.

“Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go, and I hope that all of you are, as well.”

President Trump delays 'outdated' G7 leaders' summit

US President Donald Trump has said he will postpone this year's G7 summit and invite leaders of other countries to participate in the talks.

"I don't feel that... it properly represents what's going on in the world. It's a very outdated group of countries," Mr Trump said on Saturday.
The G7 group, which the US hosts this year, includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK.
The president said Russia, South Korea, Australia and India should be invited.
Speaking to reporters on board the presidential plane Air Force One, Mr Trump said that he was delaying the summit - which was scheduled to take place later in June - until September.

Last week, Mr Trump said it might be possible to hold a gathering at the White House and potentially parts of Camp David, the US presidential country retreat, despite concerns over the coronavirus pandemic.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel later rejected the president's invitation to attend a summit in person because of the outbreak.
Her spokesman thanked Mr Trump, but said the German leader "cannot agree to her personal participation, to a journey to Washington".
On Friday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson "agreed on the importance of convening the G7 in person in the near future" following a conversation with the US president, the White House said in a statement.
The G7 - or Group of Seven - leaders were scheduled to meet by videoconference in June in response to Covid-19.
The group is made up of the seven of the world's largest economies.
It regards itself as "a community of values", with freedom and human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and prosperity and sustainable development as its key principles.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52865201?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada&link_location=live-reporting-story

Sunday

Graffiti is seen in the Froidmont quarry, a refuge for thousands of German, American and French soldiers during the First World War in Braye-en-Laonnois

U.S. Corporal Earle Madeley of Plainville, Connecticut, is one of the few who wrote his age, 20, in the Froidmont quarry, a 20 kilometers (12 miles) complex network of tunnels which became a refuge for thousands of German, American and French soldiers during the First World War in Braye-en-Laonnois, France. Madeley was killed few days afterwards, on July 21, 1918.
 

Inscriptions left by American soldiers of the 26th Division are seen among 1,000 inscriptions discovered in the Froidmont quarry a 20 kilometers (12 miles) complex network of tunnels, a refuge for thousands of soldiers during WW1 in Braye-en-Laonnois 

  soldat Swetmon de Boston

 

 

BOOM – Dana Boente Removed! – FBI Chief Legal Counsel Forced to Resign

credit: sundance at cth

Finally, the DOJ has moved to remove one of the biggest background corrupt officials within the FBI. According to multiple media sources FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente was forced to resign on Friday.  Finally, sunlight has removed a very corrupt player.

In prior positions as U.S. Attorney for Virginia; and while leading the DOJ National Security Division; and then later shifting to the FBI as chief legal counsel under Chris Wray; Dana Boente was at the epicenter of corrupt intent and malign activity toward the Trump administration. First, the report from NBC:

WASHINGTON DC – After a 38-year career with the Justice Department, the FBI’s top lawyer Dana Boente was asked to resign on Friday. Two sources familiar with the decision to dismiss Boente said it came from high levels of the Justice Department rather than directly from FBI Director Christopher Wray.

His departure comes on the heels of recent criticism by Fox News [Lou Dobbs] for his role in the investigation of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. A spokesman for the FBI confirmed to NBC News that Boente did in fact resign on Friday.

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs said on April 27 that, “Shocking new reports suggest F.B.I. General Counsel Dana Boente day was acting in coordination with F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray to block the release of that evidence that would have cleared General Flynn.”

Wray formally asked for Boente’s resignation, but the decision to end his tenure at the FBI came from Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department, which oversees the FBI, according to two sources.

A spokesman for the FBI said Boente announced on Friday his decision to retire, which will take effect June 30. (read more)

To understand the background, specifically as it pertains to why AG Barr had to make this move now, is complex.   A sequence of previous articles that CTH presented in/around the Dana Boente issue(s) have merged within this decision.

It is easiest to capture the full background content in this sequence:

♦June 2019 – Devin Nunes threatens criminal referrals for Dana Boente and Chris Wray – This background highlights Boente as a very bad actor [SEE HERE].

♦April 24, 2020 – Boente and Wray try to block release of Flynn documents.  AG Bill Bar intervenes.  This is the Flynn firetruck story, that ties to the release of the July 2018 letter from the DOJ-NSD and FBI to the FISA court. [SEE HERE]

♦April 26, 2020 – CTH Open Letter to Bill Barr – Outlines the corruption of Boente and Wray in the long-view and how it all comes together. [SEE HERE]

My educated hunch is the July 12, 2018, letter from the DOJ/FBI that was fraught with false information and purposeful lies to the FISA court, is really the issue that DOJ Bill Barr could not avoid.  The lies within the letter are just too brutally obvious, and contrast heavily against revelations coming from the outside USAO’s that Barr has brought in to review all of the prior DOJ and FBI activity.

Why do I think that’s the final straw?  Because if you take that moment in time and start working backward what you find is demonstrable and provable evidence that Dana Boente was one of the original Trump-era officials who participated in protecting “spygate” and using his support of the Mueller investigation as an internal weapon.   Remember, all the corrupt FBI players on Mueller’s team reported to Boente, including David Archey.

Dana Boente is enmeshed in all of it: the Wolfe case and cover-up, the Assange case and cover-up, and the hiding of documents in the Flynn case and cover-up.  Boente’s role as a manipulative fixer to protect the ongoing corrupt action of the Mueller probe was exactly why FBI Director Chris Wray hired him.

Taking out Boente now exposes the complicit nature of FBI Director Chris Wray; who, it appears, AG Bill Barr is being forced -by new discoveries- to leave Wray naked to his enemies.

In a June 2019 interview Nunes said “someone at the FBI” appears to have been “determined to hide” then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s notes from both the FISA court and Congress.  Our research identified that “someone” as Dana Boente a year before the Nunes remarks. [I even said ‘bookmark this and prove me wrong]

If you followed closely, and accept that Rosenstein was part of the problem, then you see how FBI Director Christopher Wray came into office; and, more importantly how/why Wray selected former DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente to shift from main justice to be legal counsel for the FBI.

Boente took over for former chief legal counsel James Baker, after the discoveries around Baker and McCabe could no longer be hidden. After being removed from responsibility eventually Baker resigned and went to work with the Lawfare group.  Boente’s job at FBI was/is to bury information, block congressional inquiry, and protect the crew.

Throughout 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and through today, across both administrations, the corrupt group within the FBI in DC were/are protecting themselves. The FBI redacted the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The FBI removed Page and Strzok texts and emails. The FBI hid texts and emails from Lisa Page to Andrew McCabe. The FBI kept documents from congress. The FBI has leaked false information to media to cover their tracks; and yes, the Trump-era FBI and GOPe politicians have participated writ large, many still do.

The corrupt FBI under Comey, McCabe and Baker is being protected and facilitated by the corrupt FBI under Christopher Wray, David Bowditch (San Bernadino infamy) and Dana Boente. It’s one long continuum of exactly the same behavior. Remember, 50 FBI ‘agents’ on Mueller’s team? Etc…. This DC network is ideologically aligned, operating on their own self-interests, and facilitated by a compliant media.

In 2015 the DOJ-OIG (office of inspector general) requested oversight of the DOJ National Security Division. It was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the DOJ-NSD.

The DOJ-NSD is where FISA warrants come from. The weaponized and highly politicized officials within the DOJ-NSD were using the auspices of FARA violations (foreign agent registration act) to gain FISA court authorized surveillance on politicians all over Washington DC. Combined with the NSA database extractions, by federal contractors authorized by the FBI, it’s a massive web of political surveillance.

When John Carlin resigned as Asst. Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division in October 2016 he was replaced by Principal Deputy Asst. Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Mary McCord. After President Trump took office on January 20th, 2017, Sally Yates was Acting AG and Mary McCord was in charge of the DOJ-NSD.

Yates and McCord were the two Main Justice officials who then engaged withWhite House Counsel Don McGahn on January 26th, 2017, regarding the General Flynn FBI interview conducted on January 24th. The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was the headline.

On January 30th, 2017, Sally Yates was fired for refusing to defend the Trump travel ban from extremist countries. Yates was replaced on January 31st by the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Dana Boente.

With his shift to Main Justice Dana Boente was Acting Attorney General, and Mary McCord was Asst. AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD. Boente was in the Acting AG position from Jan 31st, 2017, until Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8th, 2017.

When Jeff Sessions became AG, Dana Boente became Acting Deputy AG, a role he would retain until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25th, 2017. [Mary McCord remained head of the DOJ-National Security Division]

On March 2nd, 2017, Dana Boente was one of the small group who participated in a conversation that led to the recusal of Jeff Sessions from anything related to the 2016 election. This recusal included the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, which was later picked up by Robert Mueller.

The other attendees for the recusal decision-making meeting (see above schedule) included Sessions’ chief of staff Jody Hunt; Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Jim Crowell; Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division Tash Gauhar (FISA lawyer); and Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools. [Note: Tash Gauhar was lawyer for FBI Clinton case; and Scott Schools was part of drafting Clinton exoneration letter.]

The Main Justice group influenced Jeff Sessions to recuse.

With AG Jeff Sessions recused on March 2, 2017, FBI Director James Comey now reported to Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente. [Technically, Boente is still EDVA U.S. Attorney and is only ‘acting’ as Deputy AG] Additionally, on March 31st, 2017, President Trump signs executive order 13787 making the U.S. EDVA Attorney the 3rd in line for DOJ succession.

Question: If Dana Boente was appointed “Acting Attorney General” on January 31st, 2017 (he was), then why did Don McGahn need to draw up XO 13787 on March 31st, 2017… especially after confirmed AG Jeff Sessions was already in place Feb 9th?

The answer likely has to do with a sign-off needed for FISA.

See the issue?

How does somebody (unknown) advise White House Counsel Don McGahn to draw up an executive order so that Boente can sign a FISA…. without telling Don McGahn the reason why AG Sessions can’t sign off on the FISA? See the issue now?

In the period between March 2nd and April 25th – With AG Sessions recused, and without a Deputy AG confirmed, Dana Boente is simultaneously:

• U.S. Attorney for EDVA
• Acting Deputy AG.
• Acting AG for all issues related to Sessions recusal.

It is James Comey and Dana Boente who sign the April 2017 FISA renewal for Carter Page.

(Page #271 – Carter Page FISA Application)

This dynamic would later become important as notes Boente took from conversations with James Comey became evidence for Mueller’s expanded obstruction investigation. [3/2/17 Mary McCord is still head of DOJ-NSD]

Somehow Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente’s personal and handwritten notes were mysteriously leaked to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

[Backstory Here]

On April 20th, 2017, Mary McCord announces her intent to resign from the DOJ National Security Division effective with the confirmation of Deputy AG nominee Rod Rosenstein.

On April 25th, 2017, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is confirmed. Rosenstein now takes over the responsibilities held by Acting DAG Dana Boente; this includes the FBI counterintelligence probe.

On May 9th, 2017, FBI Director James Comey is fired.

On May 10th, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe opens a criminal ‘obstruction of justice investigation’ of President Trump to parallel/compliment the ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and administration.

On/Around May 11th, 2017, Mary McCord departs. Dana Boente now becomesthe Asst. Attorney General and head of the DOJ National Security Divison. Simultaneously retaining role as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of VA.

On May 16th, 2017, Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to meet President Trump. On May 17th, Rosenstein appoints the Robert Mueller special counsel probe. On May 18th, 2017, Scott Schools authorizes Robert Mueller:

And we’re off to the Trump-Russia-Collusion-Obstruction races…

With hindsight it is now clear the various players inside Main Justice and the FBI had a vested interest in maintaining the assault against Trump. By now everyone can see the bigger goal was against the office of POTUS. [“obstruction” etc.] All of the personnel moves should be reviewed with hindsight of the larger anti-Trump objective in mind.

Against the known fraud that was the Trump-Russia Collusion-Conspiracy narrative, there are no visible people who didn’t participate in one form or another.

Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire. However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced.

There’s no indication of when he actually left the DOJ-NSD or the EDVA role.

On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announces Boente has shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker). As Mueller is using 19 lawyers, and 40 FBI investigators, Boente now becomes a legal adviser to Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe is ongoing.

As we discovered, Mueller’s lead FBI agent for the corrupt Russia collusion-conspiracy investigation, was David W. Archey. Agent Archey was selected by Robert Mueller when FBI Agent Peter Strzok was removed. The Mueller probe took over the counterintelligence investigation in May 2017, a few months later Special Agent Peter Strzok was removed (July) and David W. Archey was brought in:

As David Archey arrives in August 2017, Mueller is getting the new scope memo from Rod Rosenstein. There’s little doubt the entire FBI group would have known the Trump-Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative was false. So Archey status as lead agent has to be considered *corrupt/sketchy*; FBI activity was likely focused on the obstruction angle.

Interestingly at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation Archey was promoted by Christopher Wray to head of the Richmond, Virginia FBI field office (March 4, 2019). This field office overlaps with another FBI/DOJ filing from the EDVA.

The April 11, 2019, released Julian Assange indictment stems from the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

However, on Tuesday April 15, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The investigation took place prior to December 2017, it is coming from the EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.

Why the delay? Here’s where it gets interesting….

This FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

It would appear the FBI took keen interest after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017. Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).

To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report (needed for Obama in December ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looks like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report is dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story:

(Bloomberg) Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report describes Russian cybercrimesduring the 2016 election.

The report, which is expected to be released soon, will clear up questions about the Russian campaign to interfere in the election President Donald Trump won, Rosenstein said in a speech given to a private group at the Metropolitan Club of Washington, according to three people in attendance. (more)

The Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview. There’s the FBI motive to shut Assange down.

The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike. Almost all independent research into this DNC hack claim also challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers.

Dana Boente was part of the group who advised Sessions to recuse. Boente later authorized the second renewal of the Title-one surveillance warrant and worked with James Comey. Boente then leaked his Comey notes to the media, essentially to support Comey’s narrative about Trump; and participated from within the FBI as legal counsel to Chris Wray who told everyone in July 2018 there was no political bias in the FBI… but hey, everyone is going to bias training….. and pay no attention to the 40 FBI agents who were investigating an invisible Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy for two years.

Seriously?

There are no “good guys” in this. There are no “white hats” here. Certainly not Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Bowditch or Boente. Instead, this is a matrix of broad interests positioned only to benefit and sustain the status quo of the administrative state; and protect the larger corrupt DC community from the Trump disruption.

In the end it all comes back to the same series of questions. Who was recommending to President Trump that he retain and promote DOJ and FBI officials who were part of the anti-Trump Russia collusion-conspiracy program?

People who knew the DC system and were vulnerable to DC peer influence. People who would take counsel and advice on who was needed and where. People in positions of influence with President Trump. People who could intentionally, or unwittingly, steer these placements from a position of advisement close to the President.

Appointing Rod Rosenstein as DAG was one of those key placements.

Appointing DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu was another.

From Rosenstein we got: Mueller, Chris Wray, David Bowditch and Dana Boente.

Meanwhile Jessie Liu quashed cases against: Awan bros, James Wolfe, Greg Craig and Andrew McCabe.

The Russia Conspiracy Collusion is built on a foundation of purposeful lies. The DC network within the FBI and DOJ are at risk if those lies are exposed.

One of the cornerstone lies is that the Russians hacked the DNC servers…. that entirely false claim was manufactured in the heart of the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. The central claim is based on a secret evaluation by political operatives, and pushed by an intelligence apparatus that needs the Russian Conspiracy to hide their schemes.

Underneath all that FUBAR is where U.S. Attorney John Durham is looking.

And let’s not forget this little gem from July 2018, long, long after Chris Wray knew that he was leading an institution that was part of a corrupt take-down of a U.S. President. 

This is the document that starts the trail that has led to Boente’s removal:

There was nothing within that 2018 letter to the FISA court that was either “factual” or “accurate”; instead it was a complete fraud…. A fraud that was so structurally brazen in its intent to falsify information to the court, that the court literally banned any participants  from the FBI from providing any further material to the court.

Further, the FISC ordered the FBI to go back through: (1) the entire evidence file gained from the Carter Page FISA application and begin sequestration effort; and (2) later demanding the names of dozens of targets from other FBI attestations to similarly fraudulent FISA applications identified by the inspector general.

At the heart of the matter, in the real activity that took place, there was a multi-branch seditious effort to remove President Donald J Trump.  Within that effort was a necessary group of embeds specifically assigned to conceal the activity.  Dana Boente was one of those embeds.

Dana Boente has now been removed.

Last point – this would not be happening right now if Durham was not coming toward the end of his investigation.  Generally speaking, DC provides identified corruptocrats with an opportunity for a graceful exit before the evidence against them surfaces publicly.