Tuesday, May 16, 2023

Trump-Kennedy: The Only Solution to Voter Fraud

Republicans and Democrats have run their course. 
Throw the bums out. All of them.


I said before the 2022 midterms that our choice of candidates doesn’t matter—and the elections won’t matter—unless we address voter fraud. That remains the case today, as we look forward to the next presidential election. 

Democrats have known for a long time that voters by and large do not want them running the country. Voters don’t want to live in a feudal oligarchy where they work their entire lives to subsidize a jet-setting elite who tell them they can’t own gas stoves or prevent drag queens from visiting their children in school. And while it was enough, for a time, simply to lie about what they intended to do, Democrats discovered that it was more effective in the end to disconnect voters from the process of choosing who runs the government.

Election reform is difficult in part because the mechanism of fraud varies from state to state. 

In Arizona, where it is legal for a single voter to deliver up to 10 ballots as long as he promises they’re from family members, all one has to do is wait more than 75 feet away from a polling place and pay people to take in stacks of pre-filled ballots. In Georgia, where voting multiple ballots isn’t legal, they had to spend millions on dropboxes to achieve the same effect. 

The technical details are different from state to state, but the fundamental principle is the same everywhere: Voter fraud works by creating physical separation between the voter and his ballot. When states permit votes to be mailed in, permit voting over the course of weeks and months, permit votes to be cast without confirming the identity of the voter, they disenfranchise not just minorities or the poor, but the entire country. All Americans, whether they voted for the current administration or not, and whether they know it or not, are equally helpless and equally abused. (At last, equity!)

But the main reason reform is difficult is that no politician is going to reform the system that put him in power. Voter fraud is mostly organized by and for the benefit of Democrats. But it turned out in 2020 they had at least the tacit support of many Republicans, even those serving in Congress. Republicans who claimed to be eager to expose voter fraud suddenly, when it came down to the wire, melted into the background, never to be heard from again. This boat was not to be rocked. 

Aside from a vanishingly small number of national-level Republicans, such as the redoubtable Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), there is no interest whatsoever in taking any action that might threaten the power of those already in power. Which is why so many members of Greene’s own caucus were eager to strip her of committee assignments and otherwise punish her on the basis of ridiculous accusations of racism and antisemitism that not even the accusers believed. Any honest politician is a threat to all of politics.

My own conversations with those high up in the Republican power structure indicate that nothing has changed since 2022 or 2020. No action is being taken. Voter fraud, they seem to hope, will disappear as an issue if it can be ignored for long enough. And, for the large number of higher-ups who can’t admit to themselves that this is what corruption looks like, the enabling philosophy is their secret belief that ordinary people really shouldn’t be in power anyway, because ordinary people are stupid. Politics on both sides is a club—the same club—managed for the benefit of its members and with snide contempt for the poor dumb peons who pay the bills.

What I would like for reform is a constitutional amendment requiring all ballots to be cast in-person, on Election Day, with proof of identity. According to politicians, this proposal makes me a racist (which I think is just their codeword for “someone who’s on to us.”) And I know this amendment is not going to happen because, again, you can’t expect people to reform the system that put them in power. It’s precisely this catch-22 that has led people, historically, to seek a complete overhaul, or overthrow, of the existing system as the only solution.

Fortunately, a real alternative exists: Trump-Kennedy 2024. A unity ticket. Not unity between the Republican and Democratic Parties, but unity among American voters. The similarities between these two men are striking. They are hated and feared by professional politicians, even and especially by the members of their own parties. The media (and even their own Wikipedia pages) bash them relentlessly as conspiracy theorists who suggest crazy ideas—for example that COVID vaccines might not actually work—and accuse them of putting thousands or millions of lives at risk by their wreckless invective. One simply can’t go around suggesting that the powers that be might not be 100 percent trustworthy. Where might that lead?

Just as Trump attracted a great deal of support from unlikely places on the Left, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has the unlikely attention of voters on the Right. As a lifelong Republican myself (until recently) I would rather have Kennedy as president than any Republican contender excepting Trump—and that includes Ron DeSantis. Kennedy is a courageous, original thinker who has focused relentlessly on the corruption of our government as by far the greatest threat to America. 

Kennedy, like Trump, understands the problem from which all our other problems issue: Why are our taxes so high? Why is our economy so poor? Why are we flooding our borders with non-Americans? Why are we paying for a proxy-war against Russia? 

Trump and Kennedy would likely answer all these questions in the same way. And the average American voter would likely agree.

Kennedy has said publicly that he won’t run with Trump.  I can understand that, but I want him to consider it—and I want Trump to consider it, too—because these two men could rescue America by joining forces.

Despite the intense election fraud which has been emboldened by two consecutive cycles of success, the excitement for a Trump-Kennedy ticket would be unparalleled pandemonium. So thoroughly would it galvanize and excite the American voter-base, so deeply would it derange the entrenched political class, that fraud would not be able to keep up. Republicans and Democrats have run their course. Throw the bums out. All of them. I’m ready for an American presidential ticket.



X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- May 16

 




Yes, this not only will be the last time LA will be featured in TV Line's ask column before it ends, but this was my last attempt to try and squeeze something out of the site to work in my favor. And, I think I've gotten what I was looking for. I'm already thinking of emotional surprises that can happen during the reception, and 1 of them, just happens to be Hetty surprising everyone and having an emotional reunion with Callen!

I mean, that would be the absolute perfect opportunity to really tug on everyone's heart strings! She just shows up after being gone for so long, everyone is shocked and then happy, and then she walks up to Callen, and they have an emotional moment that leaves everyone watching feeling so, so touched!! 😭 (I sometimes get a bit emotional when I'm thinking about emotional surprises that this show deserves to squeeze in the last 10 to 15 minutes).

'Christmas Waltz' follow up is coming to GAF! 🌲

 



Source: https://itsawonderfulmovie.blogspot.com/2023/05/paris-christmas-waltz-is-coming-to.html

Early this morning, while practicing her dance steps for her upcoming Christmas movie for Great American Family, which requires learning the Viennese waltz, actress Jen Lilley, who is a busy mother to four young children with her husband, Jason, shared some exciting Christmas movie news while responding to followers comments.

screen grab via - @jen_lilley



Between dance breaks, Jen revealed that she would be traveling to Paris to film her new Christmas movie with producers/director Janeen and Michael Damian next month. Even though Jen has never learned this particular waltz or Cha-cha, which are both required for the film, she said she told the Damians that she is a very hard worker and dedicated to learning, even if it means she has to get up very early in the morning to do so.

Last month, an official announcement was made revealing filmmakers Janeen and Michael Damian inked 3 movie deals with Brad Krevoy’s Motion Picture Corporation of America. One of those films is Paris Christmas Waltz, which is being described as a follow-up to Lacey Chabert and Will Kemp's popular Christmas movie, The Christmas Waltz. Since both Lacey and Will have contracts with Hallmark, it's apparent they won't be seen in this follow-up film, which will be airing on Great American Family this upcoming Christmas season. No word, yet, on who Jen Lilley's dancing partner will be!

Here is the video of Jen Lilley practicing and sharing this wonderful news on Instagram with her followers...

(may take a few seconds or minute to load depending on your connection speed)




My Quick Take:

I am thrilled to share this Christmas movie news with you all today!

From the moment I first watched the movie, A Princess for Christmas in 2011 and learned that Michael and Janeen Damian were the ones behind the creation of this spectacular, heartwarming Christmas film, I knew they were something extra special! Since then, many of the movies they have made over the years have been mine and overall fan-favorites, including Christmas Waltz, A Royal Christmas, A Hot Cocoa Christmas, etc...

And I have a feeling Jen Lilley is going to waltz her way into our hearts this Christmas on Great American Family!

-------------------------------

My comments: Christmas Waltz was the last great movie Lacey made for Hallmark. And I accepted long ago that there wasn't going to be a sequel because both stars are clearly not into it (they're doing a really dumb sounding dancing mystery movie).

I'm glad though that this great network will be doing a follow up though. And these producers are awesome! I've seen every Christmas movie they've made for Hallmark and GAF and loved all of them!

Hang All the Members of the Liars’ Club? ~ VDH

In the great scheme of lying things, George Santos is a prevaricating minnow who was snagged to great acclaim because the lying sharks swim and circle with impunity.


Federal prosecutors last week announced the indictment of U.S. Representative George Santos (R-N.Y.) on a host of charges, including misuse of federal campaign funds and wire fraud, almost all of them resulting from his pathological lies.  

Certainly, Santos deserved the attention of prosecutors for lying on federal documents and affidavits that may have helped him win a congressional seat as well as personal lucre. 

But if that’s the case, why haven’t federal prosecutors also gone after Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? She clearly lied her way into a Harvard Law School professorship and an erstwhile presidential candidacy by claiming, in part, quite falsely she was a Native American, supposedly Harvard’s first indigenous law professor. 

Her Senate colleague, Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), flatly lied (he said “misspoke”) about being a Vietnam War veteran. He never confessed to “misspeaking” about his résumé until caught. Both senators, apparently like Santos, gained political traction in their various campaigns from such lies, but the two apparently never put them in writing, or at least not as blatantly as did Santos. 

New Federal Standards? 

Are federal and states prosecutors now setting a new moral and legal standard by criminalizing Santos’ lies? If true, congratulationsit is long overdue. 

Now can we please extend the long arm of the law to reach far beyond a bit player like Santos? 

Why not reboot with the really big liars? Their lies far more undermined the integrity of our key agencies and indeed our national security. 

So let us start with John Brennan, the former CIA director. He lied on two separate occasions, in one case while under oath before the U.S. Senate. His untruths were not mere campaign finance fabrications. They involved falsely swearing that the CIA did not spy on the computers of Senate staffers (“Let me assure you the CIA was in no way spying on [the committee] or the Senate.”). He also lied that U.S. drone missions in prior years had not killed innocent bystanders (“There hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.”).  

Brennan, only when caught, admitted to both lies. But he faced zero consequences and, in fact, was soon rewarded with an on-air analyst job at MSNBC.  

Then we come to James Clapper, the former director of the Office of National Intelligence. Like Santos, he lied. But unlike Santos, Clapper was under oath to Congress. And further unlike Santos, Clapper was not a small fish, but a whale in charge of coordinating the nation’s intelligence bureaus.  

Clapper’s lies mattered a great deal, especially when he swore to Congress that the National Security Agency did not spy on Americans. (No, sir. Not wittingly.”) When caught, Clapper confessed that he gave “the least untruthful answer.” (“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying ‘no.’”). He faced zero consequences for his perjury. And like Brennan, he marketed his anti-Trump phobias into a comfortable cable news gig. 

Note well that both Clapper and Brennan likely lied again when they signed the infamous Hunter Biden laptop letter, with a wink and nod suggesting it was a hallmark example of “Russian disinformation.” 

Then we come to the former interim FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He is also currently working as a cable news commentator. McCabe admitted to lying—according to the inspector general, “done knowingly and intentionally”—four separate times to federal investigators, three times under oath. McCabe misled the country in matters that concerned a national election, more specifically lying that he had not leaked to the media to massage media narratives about the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation.   

Then there is James Comey, another former FBI head, who confirmed McCabe had lied. He simply claimed on 245 occasions to House investigators and members that he either had no memory or had no knowledge, when asked under oath to explain some of the wrongdoing of the FBI during his directorship. Remember, Comey and the FBI signed off on the authenticity of Steele document material to obtain a FISA warrant, when they knew it was unreliable and Steele was not credible. Comey also likely leaked to the media a confidential memo officially memorializing a private conversation with the president of the United States. 

Should we include yet another former FBI director? Robert Mueller swore under oath to Congress that he knew little about Fusion GPS (“I’m not familiar with that”) and more or less had ignored the Steele dossier. (“It’s not my purview.”) Mueller’s claims cannot be true because revelations about both were the very catalysts that prompted his own special counsel appointment.  

Will the Santos prosecutors go after Anthony Fauci, the recently retired head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases?  

Fauci seemingly lied under oath to the Senate when he preposterously claimed the money he channeled through a third party to the Wuhan virology lab did not entail support for gain-of-function virology research(“The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”) Many virologists were aghast at Fauci’s claims, since they knew gain-of-function research conducted in China—the point being to skirt U.S. laws—was precisely what the U.S.-subsidized researchers in China were doing.  

The Bidens 

Prosecutors are currently looking at the various shenanigans of Hunter Biden, whose lies may even be a match for those of George Santos. Joe Biden’s son apparently lied on his firearms background check affidavit when applying for a handgun purchase—so far, with impunity.  

When asked point blank on national television whether his lost laptop was his own—he had signed a receipt for it at the repair shop—Biden refused to give a yes or no answer.  

Hunter Biden has apparently de facto lied for years when he purportedly did not report either his entire income or his real business expenses accurately, or that he was the father of a child he conceived with an ex-stripper in Arkansas.  

If Hunter’s lies do not match the number of Santos’ prevarications, his were at least far more significant. His lie that the laptop was not his prompted current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, a former top Biden 2020 campaign aide, to call up Mike Morell, former interim CIA director. Morell’s mission was to round up as many intelligence authorities as he could to lie on the eve of a presidential election that the laptop had “all the hallmarks” of “Russian disinformation.” He found 51, including himself. Apparently, some active members of the CIA pitched in as well to lend the letter additional authenticity. 

Note that Morell swears Blinken called him to solicit signers of the bogus letter, while Blinken claims he did not. So either the current secretary of state or the former interim director of the CIA is lying—or they both are. Again, among the first to sign the fraudulent intelligence letter were Brennan and Clapper. They apparently had earned a reputation as team players, given that both men had been willing to lie under oath to Congress. Misleading the nation again about the laptop to aid Joe Biden’s campaign was small potatoes. 

Biden, on spec, promulgated the lie when he said in his second debate with Trump, “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it, except his good friend Rudy Giuliani.” 

A subsequent poll suggested the Bidens’ concocted laptop lies may have influenced voters to side with Biden in the election. If true, that was a lie that should be of far more interest to current federal prosecutors than Santos’ crazy fairy tales. 

The Lies of the “Big Guy” 

So we come to the greatest prevaricator of all.  

Joe Biden flat-out lied on numerous occasions, such as when he claimed that he never discussed the family shake-down business with Hunter Biden.  

Joe Biden, in fact, turns up on the laptop as someone deeply connected to Hunter Biden’s quid pro quo companies (“10 [percent] for the Big Guy”). Tony Bobulinksi, a former business associate of Hunter’s, has sworn that Joe and his brother Jim Biden were deeply involved in their foreign leveraging efforts.  

A photo shows Joe Biden with Hunter’s “business” associates. Will the current Santos prosecutors turn their attention to the Oval Office occupant’s financial records to determine whether his lavish private homes and lifestyle were viable under his reported stated income? 

Biden lied to Americans dozens of times to get elected. The tragic death of his wife in a car accident was not due to the drunkenness and fault of a truck driver. That was a horrific smear designed to shift blame onto an innocent man and gain sympathy for himself.  

He lied that his son, Beau, died while serving in Iraq.  

Biden dropped out of the 1988 presidential race after he was caught lying about his college records and plagiarizing a speech from a British politician.  

So we know that in the past, Joe Biden’s lies have left a mark on history in a fashion that Santos’ never will. 

When Biden prefaces his whoppers with “No joke!” or “This is the God’s honest truth!” and especially when he swears, “My word as a Biden!” then it is a fair bet that he is lying. 

When Biden entered office, he lied about the number of Americans previously vaccinated under the Trump Administration and preposterously claimed there had been no COVID vaccine available.  

He lied that his loan forgiveness amnesty passed Congress by two votes. In fact, Biden simply declared amnesty by fiat and never submitted the request to Congress at all.  

He repeatedly lies that billionaires pay only three percent of their income in taxes on average. He lies about minor details, from giving his Uncle Frank a purple heart to matters of national concern, such as the price of gas when he entered office. It was most certainly not $5 a gallon!  

Biden constantly lies about his résumé. He was never a long-haul truck driver. Nor was he a star athlete almost headed for the Naval Academy on a sports scholarship if only Dallas Cowboys legend Roger Staubach had not beat him out. “I was appointed to the academy in 1965 by a senator who I was running against in 1972. I didn’t come to the academy because I wanted to be a football star. And you had a guy named Staubach and Bellino here. So I went to Delaware.”

His house was never almost destroyed by a fire. He was never raised “politically” as a Puerto Rican. Biden never pinned the Silver Star on a Navy Afghanistan war hero for bringing back the body of a fellow soldier from a deep ravine. He was never arrested, either in South Africa or in Atlanta, for demonstrating on behalf of civil rights. 

No foreign leader can believe Biden. He never traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He lied about his own Amtrack travel. He lied about his record on inflation and economic growth. He lied about upping Social Security payments. (It was a larger-than-usual automatic cost-of-living increase spurred by his inflationary policies.) He lied about the nature of the Trump tax cuts.  

Biden keeps lying that the southern border is “secure” even as nearly 2 million people have crossed illegally on his watch and tens of thousands more are massed to enter the country as Title 42 restrictions are lifted.  

He insists that five police officers died at the hands of protestors on January 6, 2021. In truth, the one person we know for certain who died violently that day was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed protester who was shot and killed by a Capitol Police lieutenant with a checkered record, whose identity was suppressed for months while Babbitt’s past was sullied by the press. 

Biden’s defenders hint that either he is cognitively compromised and thus not responsible—as if he has told the truth the last 40 years when he was hale!—or his lies are mere “exaggerations” unlike the “lies” of Trump—as if lying about the death of one’s spouse or son or school record or resume or major legislation or his presidency is a mere “exaggeration.” 

As a general rule, since 2015, if any federal bureaucrat or elected official lied in service of opposing Donald Trump, he was exempted from consequences. If not, he was properly held responsible for his lying. So the more that the fake Steele dossier, the Russian collusion hoax, and the Russian disinformation laptop lie warped the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, the more the promulgators of those falsehoods never faced any consequences for their untruths. 

So, yes, let federal prosecutors go after the lying George Santos to set a precedent that the lying of government officials has consequences.  

But in the great scheme of lying things, Santos is a prevaricating minnow who was snagged to great acclaim because the lying sharks swim and circle with impunity.



John Durham Releases 316 Page Report About FBI, DOJ, Intelligence Community and U.S. Govt Targeting Donald Trump


Special Counsel John Durham has released a highly anticipated 316-page report outlining corrupt U.S. activity during the targeting of presidential candidate, president elect, and subsequent President, Donald J Trump.

[FULL REPORT pdf HERE]

I have completed my first review of the report, and suffice to say the details within it are not new.  The majority of the reaction so far has been centered around how Special Counsel Durham is not prosecuting anyone for their corrupt conduct outlined within the report.  However, for the sake of this first review, I will draw attention to a few aspects you will likely not see discussed anywhere else.

Please note this detail found at the bottom of page 3 and top two lines of page #4:

[…] “The Office exercised its judgment regarding what to investigate but did not investigate every public report of an alleged violation of law in connection with the intelligence and law enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns.”

As perhaps the only person who tracked down and subsequently interviewed the investigators on the Durham team, and as a person who subsequently came away with a full understanding of how the silo operation inside this investigation was going to play out, I can reasonably assure you that notation and reference by team Durham is entirely directed to us.

That statement above tells us why none of the DC politicians who engaged in specific violations of law were criminally charged. This is part of the silo effect within government, which I will explain later.  As a good friend said, “Yeah great, but we don’t have badges.”  So, we went to the badges with the evidence, but the badges did not want to act upon the evidence, because it would have been, in their estimation, too damaging to the framework of our government.

First a positive note about the report.  Unlike all other reports of similar internal investigation, I will give the Durham team credit for not using the ‘executive summary’ of the report to cloud, positively shape or disguise the corruption outlined within the body of the report.  This is the first such report where the executive summary actually summarizes the scale of the corruption within the details.

Perhaps the parting message was considered, “If you are going to whitewash this s**t [ie entire govt operation], at least be intellectually honest with the American people, and not whitewash the investigation in the ‘executive summary’ of it.”  I’m pretty sure that was the exact parting phrase.  It was after that conversation [Aug 2020] when CTH then said, do not anticipate anything from Durham.  Bill Barr was the bondo, John Durham is the spray paint.

The “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns” is a full uncovering of just how politically corrupt the DOJ, FBI and larger Intelligence Community were/are as it relates to the 2016 election.

Team Durham, while not indicting anyone for ancillary crimes – of which there are many – does lay naked the motives and intentions of the people at the top of the FBI, DOJ, CIA and ODNI. The full weight of government was weaponized against Donald Trump and the Durham report lays out all the details.

It is the background of this report that stands as the current motive for those same institutions to remove Donald Trump in 2023. Quite simply, they fear retaliation.

[…] “If this report and the outcome of the Special Counsel’s investigation leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred. It is, rather, because not every injustice or transgression amounts to a criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are tasked exclusively with investigating and prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws. And even where prosecutors believe a crime occurred based on all of the facts and information they have gathered, it is their duty only to bring criminal charges when the evidence that the government reasonably believes is admissible in court proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Page #6]

Durham walks through the missing predicate that initiated the Trump-Russia investigation.  Essentially, as the Durham team noted, there was nothing ever to trigger the authority of the FBI to investigate Donald Trump or his campaign in the first place.

The Obama FBI and DOJ justified full physical and electronic surveillance of their political opposition, through false justifications manufactured by the FBI.  As Durham notes, “Our findings and conclusions regarding these and related questions are sobering.” Really, “sobering”?  Nice choice of understatement.

Everything was predicated on The Big Lie:

[…] As set forth in greater detail in Section IV.A.3 .b, before the initial receipt by FBI Headquarters of information from Australia on July 28, 2016 concerning comments reportedly made in a tavern on May 6, 2016 by George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, the government possessed no verified intelligence reflecting that Trump or the Trump campaign was involved in a conspiracy or collaborative relationship with officials of the Russian government. 

Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

[…] As set forth in greater detail in Section IV, the record in this matter reflects that upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In particular, at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened Crossfire Hurricane immediately. Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information.

Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence.

Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject.

In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.

The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign. [Page 10]

I’ll have more on the substance of the report, as well as share the details of others following their review.  However, in the interim, it is important to understand how the investigative silos, created by DC administrators, impact the investigative outcomes as displayed in this report.

Former FBI Director James Comey is a criminal.  Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is a criminal. Former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok is a criminal.  Current Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Senator Mark Warner, is a criminal.

Any criminal conduct that is discovered by a person who is not the direct victim of the criminal conduct does not penetrate the DC system.  Meaning, just because you can show criminal activity in Washington DC, that doesn’t mean anyone has a responsibility to investigate it.

If the criminal conduct is not identified by the investigators inside the DC system, the criminal conduct essentially does not exist – unless the evidence of criminal conduct in DC, is provided by a specific victim of the crime being reported.

There is a silo effect in place within the DC system that permits the investigative authorities to dismiss claims of institutional or administrative criminal conduct from outside entities, including ‘whistleblowers.’  The DOJ/FBI arbiters of what constitutes crime are the same DOJ/FBI arbiters in charge of protecting the institutional system.

If the DC system is threatened by the conduct of an outside entity, a crime may have been committed.  However, if an agent, operator, official or politician representing the DC system is the one threatening, there is no crime.  The justice system in DC is designed to protect itself.

Holding DC officials accountable for criminal conduct first requires the deconstruction of the silos that protect them.  Deconstructing those silos requires strategy and legislative willpower….