Saturday, August 23, 2025

The masculine stampede from the Democrats


The Democrat Party gets weirder every day. There was a time when most of the Democrats I knew were tradesmen, roughnecks, farmers, and union guys. They were tough dudes, often veterans, and told some of the bawdiest jokes I’ve ever heard. Now Democrats can’t define what a dude is; they want to wokify the military into some gaudy pageant for drag queens who fear guns; and they’ve replaced “politically incorrect” humor with stern lectures. No wonder American men are fleeing the Democrat Party like it’s a sexually transmitted disease.

Speaking of STDs, one of the Democrat lectures that Americans are forced to endure is that young people shouldn’t “discriminate” against potential partners who have HIV. Democrats have even gone out of their way to decriminalize the intentional act of infecting someone with the virus. This is the same political party that calls men “homophobic” and “transphobic” if they refuse to date “trans women” (psychologically disturbed men wearing push-up bras). So Democrats are telling young people that they are “haters” and “right-wing bigots” if they choose to avoid potential suitors with sexually transmitted diseases or male plumbing hidden behind specially-designed skirts.

Perhaps that’s why the “right-wing” pejorative has lost most of its sting since Obama “fundamentally transformed” America into an oasis for femboys and pansexual furries. Can you imagine how many teenage boys have asked, “So the ‘Nazis’ get to date pretty girls who wear Sydney Sweeney’s jeans?” Once they realize that Democrats merely graffitied the Republican Party’s front door with lies and slurs and that the average Republican voter just wants to live well and be free, the choice of future political affiliation is easy. Democrats live in fantasy; Republicans prefer reality.

That’s probably why so many of those older Democrat roughnecks have transitioned to the Republican Party. As one wrote to me, “This is the only transition I’m up for.” There was a pretty funny joke after that, but I’ll save it for a more casual venue. We Republicans may be politically incorrect, but we do have common decency and good manners!

This leftist madness is by no means restricted to the Democrat Party in the United States. All over the West, leftists are demanding open borders, loads of free stuff, and a ban on all forms of reliable energy. They want their already-bankrupt governments to pay them an income for merely existing and to jack up the mandatory minimum wage until fast-food workers earn as much as surgeons. They think legalizing drugs and abortion up to the moment of a baby’s birth will somehow make them “happy.”

They want an end to unwinnable wars, except they’re pretty sure we should get into a nuclear grudge match with Russia over Russian-speaking lands whose residents don’t want to be part of Ukraine. Oh, and they really want Israel to stop fighting back against sicko-terrorists who decapitate babies in front of their mothers. But they have absolutely nothing against Jews. They just want to kick them out of the nation they’ve built and hand everything they’ve created over to illiterate warlords who marry nine-year-old girls and scream, “Death to America!”

Speaking of the “religion of peace,” did you catch this story out of Evil Stepmother England? The locals in a pastoral, very beautiful part of the country are unhappy that a mega-mosque is being built in an area where the Muslim population is less than half of one percent. Most expect it to be the first step in a larger plan to settle a huge number of Islamic immigrants into the tight-knit community. A young father protested this unwanted invasion by singing, “We love bacon,” outside of the construction site. He was subsequently arrested for “racial abuse.” Free speech in the U.K. is dead.

As one social media commenter notes, “In the UK today, you can be arrested for liking bacon… or telling someone to speak English. However, if you’re in a Muslim rape gang, the government will cover it up. You can also be arrested for exposing the cover-up.” Podcaster Tim Pool says that Christian England “is conquered.” Another commenter observes: “Fun facts about bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a  9 year old!” Many other American pundits urge the U.S. military to airdrop guns and bacon into the U.K before Keir Starmer “transitions” St. Paul’s Cathedral into a mosque and hands the keys to Buckingham Palace over to a London imam.

You put all this leftist-engineered self-destruction together, and it becomes obvious that the West will not exist if Democrats and their Antifa friends get their way. That’s probably why young people -- especially men -- are bolting the Democrat Party. Nobody with a brain votes for his own subjugation.

In response, Democrats have pushed childish morons -- such as Harry Sisson and this crazy girl with a nose ring -- into the spotlight to win young men back. To young men who don’t hate themselves, that’s like offering carnivores the vegetarian plate. Ah, there’s the Democrats’ next campaign slogan: We love fake meat.


Podcast thread for August 23

 



Negotiating About Ukraine...and Nukes


It was an eerie spectacle. A B2 and four F35s, like a giant, foreboding, deltoid bat surrounded by a small flock of protective minions, flew over as Trump and Putin walked to the vehicle that took them to last Friday’s summit.

Aside from its intent to instill awe in the US’s military might, it also served as a stark reminder of the risks the Ukrainian crisis continues to pose.  A B2 was used to deliver the ordnance directed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, but a B2 can also carry nukes.

Now is the time to consider when and how to negotiate with Russia about nuclear weapons.

The Russians have not helped matters with their repeated nuclear threats. Trump, in turn, replied to this saber-rattling by repositioning two submarines.  There were some journalistic quibbles about whether they were nuclear powered, versus armed with nuclear weapons. And, whether repositioning is not already a standard part of the game.  But in the context of modern warfare, such distinctions are semantic. The point was made.

In the immediate lead-up to Friday’s summit, Putin expressed interest in negotiating about nuclear weapons. In a post-summit interview of Rubio, Maria Bartoromo of Fox asked whether Putin broached  a "potential nuclear deal with the United States as part of this [negotiation].” Rubio responded that "no, no the talks were almost exclusively and I would say 99 percent were just about the war and about how to bring it to an end in the Russian perspective."

This response is unsurprising. After all, negotiating about stopping the Ukraine war is already insanely complex without adding into the mix such a huge issue.

Putin’s posing of this question was nonetheless worth noting. The UK Independent published an article about this comment with the sub-header: “The move might dissuade Trump from imposing new sanctions on Russia.”   According to the article, “progress on a new arms control treaty at the summit could allow Mr. Putin to present himself as actively engaged in broader peace efforts.”

No one knows if Putin merely regards nuclear weaponry as a convenient diplomatic ploy to invoke as needed. Surely he knows that Trump wants a Nobel Prize for his ongoing interventions in a variety of conflicts. He also knows about Trump's desire to broker a deal with Russia and China to drastically reduce expenditures on nuclear weapons.

The question at this juncture is when and how Trump and his negotiators should approach the nuclear issue with Russia. It needs broaching, and very soon. The New START treaty, which limits the number of nuclear weapons on each side, expires February 4. Trump’s repeated interest in cutting a deal with China and Russia to reduce nuclear expenditures is undoubtedly sincere and in line with his efforts to end conflicts in a variety of global venues.   

It is not too early for public discussion about how to proceed. Two scenarios could unfold.

If the Ukrainian negotiations are successful, Trump’s negotiators should immediately pivot to negotiating with Russia about nuclear weapons. Success on the Ukraine front will undoubtedly energize discussions with Russia on the latter.

If negotiations are not successful, this will pose a significant hurdle to achieving Trump’s nuclear goal. But nuclear negotiations should immediately proceed, anyhow. This will involve a disciplined sequestering the nuclear issue from the Ukrainian situation, which in turn will require considerable diplomatic finesse.

We are entering a complex and dangerous geopolitical phase, which pundits are calling the "Third Nuclear Age." China is moving apace on its development of a nuclear arsenal.   As argued earlier, use of tariffs can be part of the incentive structure to negotiate about nuclear weapons. With respect to China, this could include a rollback on tariffs.

Denuclearizing is a non-partisan issue that is in every country's interest, not just the US’s. It deserves attention from both parties. Democrats will need to suspend their reflexive dislike of initiatives that emanate from the current administration. Neither party has done anything truly substantive on the arms control or disarmament front since 1945.

Shifting from reliance on nuclear weapons to one that relies on a strong conventional defense that observes traditional just war doctrine—grounded, like the pro-life position, in the natural law—is the moral thing. That is, provided it can proceed soberly and stepwise with reciprocal verification.

Nuclear deterrence involves holding civilian populations hostage to all the risks that something can go wrong, in a way no one anticipated, despite the claimed safeguards.

Once a nuclear war starts, it will proceed quickly and mercilessly. No country, including the US, is ready to handle the consequences. What Patton described in his 1945 LA speech about what he saw flying over Europe, and what my father saw in Europe as a combat engineer in his army, will seem like a walk in the park.

Deterrence involves a de facto countercity posture, not a counterforce one. It turns on grotesquely disproportionate effects on civilians, and not just in countries that use the weapons. It is quite a stretch to claim that these effects are “unintended.”

In sum, success in resolving the Ukrainian war is crucial to achieve the larger aim of drawing down nuclear weapons and developing non-nuclear means of defense. A tall order, but a morally regulative ideal that imposes an obligation to strive to reach an extremely difficult moral imperative.



To deploy or not to deploy


President Trump is correct. No U.S. troops on the ground but we will provide logistics and aerial support. It's up to the Europeans to put up the troops to protect Ukraine, a country in their neighborhood. This is not an isolationist position but, rather a reality that the Europeans, individually rather through NATO, need to be involved.

So what countries are sending troops? Let's check this out from Thomas Latschan:

Following talks about Ukraine in Washington early this week, Western states are working to fine tune the details of the much-discussed "security guarantees" for Ukraine.

One important question is how a possible ceasefire could be secured along the more than 1,000-kilometer-long (621 miles) front line in eastern Ukraine. Another is which countries would be prepared to send soldiers to Ukraine? And how many, and with what sort of mandate?

The article points out that the UK is ready to lead. Germany and France want to do something but it's not clear what. Back to the article:

Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and the Baltic states have also signaled their willingness to participate in a possible peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

However other European states are more cautious. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk rejects the deployment of Polish soldiers, which he says, would be extremely unpopular with the Polish population. Polls say that 85% of Poles reject the deployment of their own soldiers, even for a peacekeeping mission.

Hungary and Slovakia are also opposed to the deployment of European troops. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has even described the possible deployment of Western troops as "warmongering."

Austria and Italy are also cautious. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is particularly skeptical about the deployment of NATO troops and would prefer a UN-led mission. Meloni has so far avoided making any clear commitments.

So the meeting in the White House made some great photos. I don't know if the foreign leaders went there thinking that the U.S. would lead the mission with troops. Frankly, you can't blame them because that's what we've doing for 60 years.

The moment for European leadership is here. Again, this is not an isolationist position but rather a reality that the U.S. taxpayer has been carrying the load for too long. Ukraine is in their neighborhood and they should show Russia that they are willing to fight to defend their neighbor.

How many European troops? To deploy or not deploy, that is the question.



The Crown Sees Rebellion

 

On August 23, 1775, King George III made it clear he was done with illusions about his American colonies. In his Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition, he stated that “many of Our Subjects in divers Parts of Our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill-designing Men … have at length proceeded to an open and avowed Rebellion.” 

The King no longer saw the colonists as wayward children but as traitors, even forbidding all commerce with the American colonies. To underscore the gravity of his proclamation, George had it read aloud at Westminster, Temple Bar, and the Royal Exchange. Historian Rick Atkinson documents in The British Are Coming that the reception in London was not uniformly loyal. When it was read to Parliament, “hisses” were heard, a telling sign that not all were eager to see their country plunge into a transatlantic war. But standing in the way of the King was not likely to bode well. He ordered his subjects across the empire to act accordingly: “We do… strictly charge and command all Our Officers as well Civil as Military, and all other Our obedient and loyal Subjects, to use their utmost Endeavours to withstand and suppress such Rebellion” and expose all treason to bring “condign Punishment” to those responsible.

His words were blunt, and unlike the divided Congress in the colonies, he wasn’t mincing words. To Parliament and his subjects in Britain, supporting the American cause was treason. To the colonists, the message was also clear: they were rebels, and the Crown would crush their rebellion.

[RELATED: We’ve Reached the Summer of 1775]

Congress, meanwhile, was not and had not been so direct. On July 5, 1775, it approved the Olive Branch Petition, a nearly 1,400-word document signed by 48 delegates, including John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. As Peter Wood describes it, the petition was full of protocol and almost comic deference, calling the King “His most excellent Majesty” and “Most gracious sovereign.”—no one in Congress truly believed this flattery. The text praised Britain’s “mild and just government,” thanked the Crown for protection from “ancient and warlike enemies,” and expressed an “ardent desire” to restore harmony. But beneath the polite words was a warning: the King’s ministers had pushed things to the edge of bloodshed, and he needed to step in.

This was diplomacy as high-stakes performance—part plea, part veiled threat, part posturing for both the King and the colonists, balancing caution with resolve. The very next day, Congress revealed its hand. The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms justified the resort to force, addressing not just the colonists but the world. Perhaps for outside observers, these documents expose Congress’s masterful doublespeak: pledging loyalty while sharpening swords, appealing for peace while preparing for war—leaders, then as now, shape their words to keep options open, save face, and protect themselves as events unfold. From the King’s perspective, his proclamation made perfect sense.

For the colonists, however, the refusal to even read the Olive Branch Petition—which reached London on September 1—closed the last door to peace. The two sides weren’t just talking past each other; they were already fighting, and George III made clear the colonies would face the full force of the Crown.

By late 1775, the lines were drawn, not just in ink but in gunfire. Reconciliation was impossible, and revolution was now inevitable.

Follow Jared Gould on X, and for more articles on the American Revolution, see our series here

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Democrats Can’t Take A Joke, So They’re Trying To Outlaw Free Speech


Sen. Amy Klobuchar wants you to know it was not her saying such ‘vulgar and absurd’ things. And she wants to punish the people who do.



Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., wants to make one thing perfectly clear: She has never said Sydney Sweeney has “perfect [breasts].” Nor has she accused her fellow Democrats of being “too fat to wear jeans or too ugly to go outside.”

The Minnesota leftist attempted to clear the air earlier this week in a New York Times opinion piece headlined, “Amy Klobuchar: What I Didn’t Say About Sydney Sweeney.” 

Klobuchar wrote that she is the victim of a hoax, a “realistic deepfake.” Some trickster apparently put together and pushed out an AI-generated video in which Klobuchar appears to make (hilariously) outrageous comments about Sweeney’s American Eagle jeans ad — after liberals charged that the commercial is racist and an endorsement of eugenics. 


‘Party of Ugly People’

The doctored Klobuchar appears to be speaking at a Senate committee hearing, She demands Democrats receive “representation.” Of course, the satirical video has gone viral. 

“If Republicans are going to have beautiful girls with perfect ti**ies” in their ads, we want ads for Democrats, too, you know?” the fake Klobuchar asserts in the vid. “We want ugly, fat bitches wearing pink wigs and long-ass fake nails being loud and twerking on top of a cop car at a Waffle House ‘cause they didn’t get extra ketchup.”

“Just because we’re the party of ugly people doesn’t mean we can’t be featured in ads, okay?” the AI Amy implores. “And I know most of us are too fat to wear jeans or too ugly to go outside, but we want representation.” 

She appears — and sounds — so sincere.  But Klobuchar wants you to know it certainly was not her saying such “vulgar and absurd” things. That’s why she’s urging Congress to pass laws to ban such AI videos, which would be as absurd as social justice warriors calling American Eagle white supremacists for paying a blue jeans-clad, beautiful actress to say she has great jeans

Any such law would certainly and rightly be challenged in court. 

‘Joke Police’

Last year, the Democrat-controlled Hawaii legislature passed a bill banning the kind of AI-generated content that’s put a bee in Klobuchar’s bonnet. The law imposes criminal and civil penalties for posting digitally modified content that “risks harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in an election.” 

“Now think about that for a minute, isn’t the whole point of a campaign to harm the electoral prospects of a candidate or to change the voting behavior of voters in an election? It’s outlawing politics, basically,” Ryan Bangert, senior vice president for strategic initiatives at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said on a recent episode of The Federalist Radio Hour. 

The Christian litigation and advocacy organization is representing The Babylon Bee and Hawaii voter Dawn O’Brien in a lawsuit against what ADF calls a “draconian law.” Hawaii’s assault on parody is similar to a California law signed by far-left Gov. Gavin Newsom following the release of an AI-generated video of the Democratic Party’s stand-in presidential nominee, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, satirically announcing her campaign. 

“We’re used to getting pulled over by the joke police,” said Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon in a press release.  

Last October, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of the law, citing Supreme Court precedent that “illuminates that while a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape may be justified, this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment.”

Earlier this month, ADF attorneys made their arguments for protecting the time-honored practice of parody in particular and free speech in general. Bangert said a ruling is expected soon. He’s confident of victory. 

‘Incompatible with Free Speech’

Big Brother California and Hawaii seem to be taking a page from European Union, which last year put in effect the benign-sounding Digital Services Act. As The Federalist’s Elle Purnell reported earlier this year, the law ensures speech that the powers-that-be deem “hateful” can be punished across the continent. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has blasted the law as “incompatible” with the “free speech tradition.” 

Bangert said the Digital Services Act imposes myriad mandates requiring social media platforms to take down whatever deputized content checkers or flaggers — many of them members of left-wing NGOs — deem inappropriate. Larger online platforms must either comply or face a fine of up to 6 percent of their global annual revenue. 

“What we’ve seen from the Digital Services Act is there aren’t reliable protections in terms of protecting freedom of speech, free discussion, free discourse,” Bangert said. 

More sinister, the European Commission is mulling a mass surveillance proposal that would give government authorities the power to scan every chat message before being sent. As Reclaim the Net reported: 

“Italy, Spain and Hungary have been in favour of mandatory chat scanning from the start. France could tip the balance since blocking the plan requires four countries representing at least 35% of the EU’s population. Paris has moved from tentative support to saying it could ‘basically support the proposal…’”

‘Worth the Cost’

Free speech has taken a beating in the United Kingdom, where 51-year-old army veteran Adam Smith-Connor, was convicted for the thoughtcrime of praying silently near an abortion clinic. He was praying for his unborn son, a victim of abortion 25 years ago. Last October, a UK court sentenced the veteran to a conditional discharge, and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000. ADF International is supporting Smith-Connor, who is appealing his conviction. 

“Free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” Vice President J.D. Vance warned in an address in February to world leaders in Munich. He pointed to the Smith-Connor case, asserting that “basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular,” are in the crosshairs. 

Liberals like Klobuchar and Newsom, too, are targeting free speech in the United States with legislation they insist is meant to protect Americans from what they see as the great scourge of political parody. Bangert said their arguments are dishonest at best. What the politicians fear, he said, is criticism “and they want to stamp it out whenever they can.”

The First Amendment advocate added that their ostensible protections  are putting time-honored individual liberties in peril. 

“There will always be those who believe freedom of speech isn’t worth the cost,” the First Amendment advocate said. “Nothing good comes without a cost.”



Antifa Tried to Incite Violence Between Black and Jewish Neighbors – Watch How Their Plan Backfired



We can file this one under “We Love to See It.”

Antifa thugs showed up in a Brooklyn neighborhood to incite Black residents to attack Jewish residents on Wednesday, but the plot did not go as planned.

The incident occurred in Crown Heights just after a tragic mass shooting that killed three people. The shooting coincided with an annual vigil commemorating the 1991 death of Gavin Catto, a seven-year-old Black child who was killed in a car accident that involved a Hasidic Jewish driver.

Antifa sought to take advantage of the commemoration to spark violence in the neighborhood. They shouted anti-Jewish rhetoric in the hopes of pushing Black residents to physically assault their Jewish neighbors. It appears they were trying to use historical racial and ethnic tensions between Black and Hasidic Jewish communities to incite another riot.

However, video footage shows the Black residents standing between Antifa and the Jewish residents as both groups told the leftist agitators to leave. They can be heard shouting “scram!” and “f*ck Antifa!” and “skedaddle!”

The accident that sparked the Crown Heights riots occurred when a Jewish driver in the motorcade of Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson lost control of his vehicle after he ran a red light. He swerved to avoid colliding with another vehicle and struck two young Black children. Cato was pinned under the car and later died. The other child was seriously injured, but he survived.

Tension rose when a private Jewish ambulance arrived and transported unharmed Jewish passengers and the driver from the scene. City emergency services were delayed in rendering aid to the victims, which fueled rumors that the Jewish residents had received preferential treatment.

The situation devolved into three days of riots. High-profile individuals like Rev. Al Sharpton threw gas on the fire, leading marches and inciting division. The riots left one Jewish person dead and 150 people injured.

This is what Antifa was hoping to recreate by showing up just after a mass shooting that coincided with the commemoration of the riot. They wanted to reignite ethnic tensions and push the Black residents into assaulting their Jewish neighbors. Antifa did the same during the George Floyd riots. At the time, several videos went viral on social media showing Black residents telling the mostly white agitators to leave their neighborhoods and stop engaging in violence.

As always, these incidents expose how the hard left actually views ethnic minorities. To them, we are nothing more than tools to be used to further their agenda. Meanwhile, it is Black people and other minorities who have to experience the consequences. Fortunately, in this case, Antifa did not get what they wanted.



The Great Leak Hunt of Term #1 – FBI Director Kash Patel Gives Another Mostly Declassified Release to John Solomon


You may remember the year 2017, the first year of President Trump’s first term in office when the entire Main Justice, FBI and Intelligence Community apparatus was leaking manufactured, sometimes classified information, to the media.

Against President Trump’s furious demands, the Dept of Justice, Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein and Dana Boente announced a widespread ‘whole of govt’ effort to find the leakers in an effort to stop the outflow.

The leakers were later identified, albeit never prosecuted, as top DOJ, FBI and Intelligence Community (DNI, CIA) officials.  However, the insufferable hunt for them was also shown to be mostly nonsense, because the apparatus of DC just didn’t care.

With orange Hitler in the White House, the Washington DC Uniparty didn’t care how he was taken out – they just wanted him gone.  We all remember it well.

In the latest release of information, from FBI Director Kash Patel to John Solomon, part of the leak hunting files has been made public. [SEE HERE].  I would note, the FBI file constructs are intentionally obtuse, because: (a) they come from multiple silos by design; and (b) they don’t outline a useful timeline to tell the story.  This is done on purpose.

Now, before the Q-adherents and alt-media clickbait crowd start to generate false-hope soundbites and column inches from the data, let me be crystal clear:

Absolutely nothing will come of this release, AND that cannot be emphasized enough; because in the final analysis, evidence released to John Solomon – is, by its nature – never going to be used in court proceedings.

If the DOJ and FBI planned to use the evidence in court, they would not be giving it to their clickbait friends in media.

That said, here’s some first review perspectives on the release anyway.

The file release surrounds the investigation known as “Tropic Vortex,” another stupid name given by the stupid FBI to one of their information control operations, under the auspices of an “investigation.”

Tropic Vortex was triggered in January 2019 and made official in February 2019. It was the outcome of the U.S Attorney in Washington DC, Jessie Liu, sending an investigative leak file to the FBI for review and action.

Within the release, we find that Connecticut Attorney John Durham was used in March 2017. That’s new.

That’s a full two years before his name surfaced publicly via Bill Barr.  Thus, the origin of the Durham spray paint operation surfaces sooner than previously understood. Interesting.

Durham was assigned by Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente on 3/22/17, based on a criminal referral from [XXXXX] redacted? [That redaction is likely 28/29 characters] “House Intelligence Committee”? Possible fit.

[SOURCE]

March 22, 2017, was two days after James Comey’s first testimony to the HPSCI on March 20, where he admitted publicly for the first time President Donald Trump was the target of an FBI counterintelligence investigation.

[Comey’s 3/20/17 testimony was three days after SSCI Vice Chair Mark Warner and SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaked the FISA to media. The intent was momentum for a special counsel. After the 3/17/17 FISA leak, it made no sense for Comey to keep denying Trump was a target. Hence the admission on 3/20/17.]

• Sessions recused March 2nd

• Nunes Presser March 16th

• Wolfe/Warner leak March 17th

• Comey Testimony March 20th

Nine months later, USAO John Durham completes his investigation, December 2017, and determines no criminal charge into the leaks is warranted.

However, things get interesting.  We know from the Wolfe indictment, at almost the exact same time as Durham says there’s no ‘there’ there – move along, move along, the FBI is getting a December 2017 admission from SSCI Security Director James Wolfe that he leaked classified information to the media.

Following the December admission, the Mark Warner/James Wolfe leaking issues (evidence), indictment and plea deal take place throughout 2018.  U.S. Attorney for DC Jessie Liu is in charge of the prosecution and plea agreement.

Then suddenly, in January 2019 [check the second paragraph above], Liu sends a memo highlighting what appears to be the Wolfe investigative file that “may contain information relevant to other FBI investigations of public disclosures.”

FBI Investigation “Tropic Vortex” is an outcome. The “unauthorized public disclosures of U.S. govt classified information.”

Jan/Feb 2019 “Tropic Vortex” is now a combination of several prior leak and classified document releases. Official notification of full investigation 02/04/2019.

As you can see, the CURRENT DOJ/FBI doesn’t want us to know the details of why USAO Jessie Liu was sending information to the FBI following the sentencing of James Wolfe.    My message to the current AG/FBI Director is above.

[In the background, Jeff Sessions was fired November 2018. President Trump nominated Bill Barr December 07, 2018. Bill Barr was confirmed Feb 14, 2019.  The Mueller probe is winding down.]

Tropic Vortex starts shortly before Bill Barr is confirmed as Attorney General, and originates as an outcome of USAO Jessie Liu sending something to the FBI which caused them to re-open the 2017 Durham investigation and generate an overlapping larger investigation with a new name.

The information from Liu, almost certainly about leaks to media, “may contain information relevant to other FBI investigations of public disclosures.”  So, the FBI triggers a larger investigation to throw a bigger bag over all of it.

So, what was “Tropic Vortex” about?

Well, it’s a combination of several leak investigations, and would have been what was ultimately briefed to incoming AG Bill Barr and helped formulate his initial perspectives.

This part of the case AG Bill Barr was eventually handed back to John Durham for review in 2019.  A considerable irony given that we now know Durham already looked into these matters beginning in March 2017 and stopped in December 2017.

Tropic Vortex existed as an FBI investigation from February 2019, until January 30, 2020.  That’s when USAO Jessie Liu ended the investigation by deciding she was not going to prosecute any of the leakers.

USAO Jessie Liu resigned the following day, January 31, 2020.

Think about it against the fulsome context of what we know.

♦ James Comey leaked to media, admitted it and was not prosecuted (Durham ’17).  ♦ Andrew McCabe leaked to media, lied about it three times, and yet he too was not prosecuted (Durham ’17).  ♦ James Wolfe leaked to media, lied about it, then admitted he lied, and was given a plea deal that didn’t involve any prosecution for leaking.

How could USAO-DC Jessie Liu prosecute anyone for leaking anything given the context of these examples?

Hey, at least Kash is giving Solomon stuff to show how corrupt it is.

Just like John Durham, Kash Patel and Pam Bondi are not going to do anything about it; but hey, we know the details now – so there’s that!