A fascinating hour-long interview with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner as they outline the backstory to the Israel-Hamas peace agreement in Gaza.
During a segment (prompted below) Witkoff and Kushner are outlining the step-by-step process as they engaged the leaders of Qatar, Turkey and Egypt. Witkoff reveals how the CIA was briefing them both, multiple times a day, and the briefing itself was exactly the opposite of what Emir of Qatar and Presidents of Turkey and Egypt were telling them. The CIA intelligence was the exact opposite of reality.WATCH:
What they are describing is EXACTLY why we outlined how ‘outside govt’ emissaries were/are vitally necessary to work around the control agenda of the U.S. Intelligence Community. This small example is stunning in magnitude when considered around the importance of the moment.
On a positive note, with Witkoff making this stunning public statement, we can now add a major datapoint to President Trump’s reference of NOT TRUSTING the CIA. Combined with the previous assertions of Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard on essentially the same level of outlook, this example of the CIA getting it wrong (misleading the administration) has long-range ramifications beyond the Hamas example.
With this backdrop for reference, surely now we can have an optimistic sense that President Trump doesn’t trust the CIA intelligence on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
On Friday, we noted that President Trump had described a peace deal to end the Russo-Ukrainian War, in which both sides would simply lay down their arms, walk away from the lines as they exist, and accept that as the new status quo.
On Sunday, the UK Telegraph revealed that President Trump's top negotiator, Steve Witkoff, has been pushing Ukraine to give up the Donetsk area in return for peace, a major part of what President Trump would have Ukraine surrender in his earlier statement.
Donald Trump’s lead negotiator has been pushing Volodymyr Zelensky to hand over the entire Donetsk region to Russia in order to end the war in Ukraine, it has emerged.
Steve Witkoff, who has met with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, five times this year, told the Ukrainian delegation visiting the White House last Friday to surrender the territory its forces control.
It is one of the key demands made by Putin, who made clear in a phone call with Mr Trump last week that he still wants Ukraine to give up the stretch of land as a precondition for peace, The Washington Post reported.
However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.
This doesn't seem like a deal Ukraine would be anxious to accept.
At present, Russia controls a large swath of eastern Ukraine, including the Donbas region, the cities of Luhansk, Horlivka, Donetsk, Melitopol, and the port city of Berdiansk. Russia has also seized some key infrastructure, such as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. This is about 20 percent of Ukraine's territory, including between 3 and 3.5 million Ukrainians. And these are just the post-2022 invasion territories taken by Russia, which doesn't include Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014.
That's a bad deal for Ukraine by any measure, and one they are reportedly unlikely to consider.
Mr Trump, who has called on both sides to “stop the killing” and “make a deal”, has agreed to meet Putin in Hungary within a fortnight.
But the Russian president’s continued insistence on the surrender of Donetsk suggests that a fundamental obstacle towards a ceasefire deal remains.
In the call with Mr Trump, Putin said Russia could cede parts of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces currently occupied by his forces.
However, a senior European diplomat told The Washington Post that Ukraine would never agree to such a trade.
It's unlikely Ukraine will consider a trade of what is rightfully Ukrainian territory in exchange for what is rightfully Ukrainian territory; Putin is, in this, just offering to give Ukraine a little bit back of what they have taken. It's unlikely Ukraine will accept the current lines as they are, either.
The eastern parts of Ukraine, including the Donetsk area, are home to a large number of Russian-speaking people, and that's a big part of the problem; Vladimir Putin no doubt wants those people to be a part of Russia. The fact that there is a fair amount of mineral wealth in eastern Ukraine is another factor.
President Trump will be meeting with President Putin in Hungary, in large part to discuss this ongoing war. Whether that meeting will yield any deal to end the war remains to be seen.
U.S. — Millions of Americans took to the streets today in order to express to the world their total and absolute ignorance about the political system they live in.
Several major cities including Boston, New York City and Chicago saw over one hundred thousand residents show up to proclaim their abject incomprehension of governance.
"The world needs to understand how incredibly little we know," said local man Roger McMahon, who had joined the march. "I really do not think the greater population appreciates how completely uneducated and illiterate we are when it comes to our own political system. That's why I'm here marching. We're going to join our voices together and let the message ring loud and clear that we are uneducated rubes in desperate need of a middle-school social studies class."
Rallygoers marched throughout the day on Saturday, chanting various slogans such as "Where do I live?" and "How does government work?"
"It's incredibly inspiring, seeing so many people walking arm in arm saying 'Hey, I don't know anything,'" said local woman Barbara Samson. "It feels incredible to be part of this movement of telling people that I'm a real dullard."
At publishing time, the rest of the world had politely told the rallygoers that the message had been received.
Palm Beach International Airport is used by Air Force One when President Trump travels home to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. According to FBI Director Kash Patel, a hunting stand was discovered in the woods near the airport with a direct line of sight to where President Trump disembarks.
Many well-known leftists and Democrats have been ramping up the political rhetoric in support of violence. The possibility of the stand being located in the area for another assassination attempt cannot be dismissed. Thankfully the Secret Service discovered this issue during a proactive proximity sweep of the area.
VIA FOX NEWS – The U.S. Secret Service uncovered a suspicious hunting stand with a direct line of sight to where President Donald Trump exits Air Force One at the Palm Beach International Airport, officials told Fox News Digital.
Agents found the stand on Thursday, and the FBI is now leading an investigation into the discovery. FBI Director Kash Patel said the hunting stand has not yet been connected to any individual.
“Prior to the President’s return to West Palm Beach, USSS discovered what appeared to be an elevated hunting stand within sight line of the Air Force One landing zone,” Patel told Fox News Digital. “No individuals were located at the scene. The FBI has since taken the investigatory lead, flying in resources to collect all evidence from the scene, and deploying our cell phone analytics capabilities.”
USSS chief of communications Anthony Guglielmi also confirmed that the organization is “working closely” with the FBI as well as law enforcement in Palm Beach County. (more)
Underpinning the contracting EU economy are two major forces. First, the instability of their financial markets, thanks in majority to their catastrophic Build Back Better energy agenda. Secondly, China exploiting the economic vulnerability and dumping massive amounts of cheap goods onto their consumer market. Both forces are working against the EU economy.
To backstop the collapse, the EU is counting on expanded militaristic spending to get them out of their dead-end path. Again, in majority, the economics of the thing is why they want expanded war with Russia – regardless of the detrimental outcome. Without war they have to give up their Build Back Better green energy program.
In this interview, EU Central Bank President Christine Lagarde obfuscates both issues and points a finger at President Trump’s geopolitical economic and trade reset. The only thing she accurately presents is the scale of the issue, the “trillions at stake” part. WATCH (Transcript Below):
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde. The ECB sets interest rates for many countries in the European Union, which is America’s largest trading partner. Good to have you here.
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: Lovely to be back, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: From where you sit, how would you describe the state of the global economy?
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: In transformation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Transformation.
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: Transformation, I think caused by a couple of things. One is the tariffs, which have changed the map of trade around the world and reconstituted new alliances and reformed the way in which we trade with each other. I think the second major transformation is the impact of artificial intelligence on everything we do from data management to dating and everything in between.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Absolutely, and it’s changing how we even receive the data itself —
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: — Yep. —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — to indicate what’s happening, but the stock market has been up and down. I want to talk to you on the other side of this commercial break about some of the specifics with these trade wars and what else you’re seeing in Europe, but we’re going to take a quick break here. And we have more questions, but we have to come back in just one moment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face The Nation. We return to our conversation with European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde. You said the economy is in transformation. S&P Global forecasts Trump’s tariffs are going to cost global businesses upwards of $1.2 trillion this year, with a lot of those costs passed along to consumers themselves. You’ve said that many economists overestimated the impact of Trump’s tariffs. Does that mean you think we’ve moved past the point of risk or are we yet to feel the pain?
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: I think we’re yet to feel the pain. What we observe, I’ll give you some numbers. From Europe to the United States, our goods to the U.S. consumers had a tariff of 1.5. With the tariff that was decided by the U.S. administration, it’s gone up to 13%. So the question is, where does this additional 11-ish percentage point go? At the moment, it’s one-third on the exporter, so the European company, one-third of the U.S. importer and one-third of the consumer. What will happen, though, is that these two-thirds borne by two corporates, essentially, the exporter and the importer, is based on a squeeze of their margins. How long are they going to put up with a squeeze of the margin, to be seen. And when they don’t, because it’s becoming too tight, then it will be on the consumer. So it’s a question of time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How much they can stomach the hit —
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: — Yep. —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — to their own profits before passing that along. Well, there are talks happening, we understand, between the world’s two largest economies. The Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on social media he’s going to meet with China’s Vice Premier in the coming days. This was after he called the negotiator unhinged recently, and President Trump said that starting November 1st there will be new tariffs as retaliation for Chinese restrictions on rare earth exports. These are the largest economies in the world. Where does this go? How damaging does this get?
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: First of all, I would discount a little bit of the positioning at the moment because this is typical of negotiating tactics on both sides. Typical. You show your muscles and you say that you’re ready to kill. I’m exaggerating, of course. But people will have to come to the table because it’s the interest of both economies, despite the hostility that there is between the two. But China is using an advantage that it has built over the course of time by accumulating rare earth and the ways to refine rare earth and then to sell it to the rest of the world. They have a very, very strong trading position on that front and they’re going to use it, which is why I think that on the other side the consumers, that is the United States, Europe and a few other countries around the world, we should, you know, join forces and be a purchasing force on the other side of the table of a selling force.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, exactly to that point, there has been frustration on the American side of it that Europe hasn’t been standing lock step with the United States when it comes to China. That China has leverage over Europe here.
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: Well, China currently has leverage against most countries that consume rare earth. And I think on the front of rare earth, the Europeans and the Americans are in the same boat and they are rowing in the same direction.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But it’s other items that you see —
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: — Well, I think, you know, it’s not for me to say I’m just a central banker, but the European authorities and the U.S. administration see it slightly differently. I think it’s the U.S. would see a blanket force. I think the Europeans are more interested in targeting specific industries or specific sectors where they think that it will make a difference. So it’s a question of tactics that they will be discussing, I’m sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you have also said recently that you think investors have begun to question whether the dollar would still warrant its status as the ultimate safe haven currency. I mean, the American dollar is one of the strongest weapons, frankly, that the administration has to use. Do you think that it is the rise of cryptocurrency that is most threatening to that or why are you worried?
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: I see signs that the attraction of the dollar is slightly eroded, and future will tell whether there is more erosion of that. But when you look at the rise of cryptos, number one, when you look at the price of gold. Gold is typically, in any situation, the ultimate destination for safe haven. Price of gold has increased by more than 50% since the beginning of the year. —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — So people are worried. —
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: — That’s a clear sign that the trust in the reserve currency that the dollar has been, is and will continue to be, is eroding a bit. In addition to that, we’ve seen capital flows outside of the U.S. towards other destinations, including Europe. So, you know, for a currency to be really trusted you need a few things. You need geopolitical credibility. You need the rule of law and strong institutions. And you need, I would call it, a military force that is strong enough. I think on at least one and possibly two accounts, the U.S. is still in a very dominant position, but it needs to be very careful because those positions erode over the course of time. We’ve seen it with the Sterling Pound, you know, way back after, after the war. But it happens gently, gently, you don’t notice it and then it happens suddenly. And we are seeing intriguing signs of it, which is why I think that having a strong institution with the Fed, for instance, is important. Having a credible environment within which to trade is important. So volatility, uncertainty, to the extent it is fueled by the administration, is not helpful to the dollar.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Quickly on Ukraine, President Zelenskyy said he spoke to you recently about using frozen Russian assets. What is fair use in your view?
CHRISTINE LAGARDE: I think fair use would consist of an operational loan that would be using cash balances as collaterals. And I think that the strength of the system should be based on everyone holding Russian assets to do the same thing. So if all those countries holding assets, that have cash balances available as collaterals, go in the same direction of lending the money to Ukraine to be repaid by Russian financing of the reconstruction of Ukraine because Russia is the aggressor, then I think that that would go a long way in convincing Russia that it has to come to the table to negotiate.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Christine Lagarde, always great to hear your insights. We’ll be right back.
Obviously, readers here are well aware of our research files on former DOJ-NSD head, Mary McCord, and her various tentacles of operations against Donald Trump before and after the 2016 election.
To enhance this ongoing effort, Twitter user “pepesgrandma” shares an email exchange from Mary McCord to the FBI in December of 2020 following the election.
Apparently, Mary McCord was conducting surveillance of an Oathkeeper chat room and sending information to the FBI following the November 2020 election, and in the runup to the January 6, 2021, protest.
This is interesting on a variety of levels because we have documented Mary McCord working on the Trump-Russia fabrication [FISA warrant], the CIA [Ukraine] impeachment fabrication [as key staff], the January 6th Committee fabrication [again staff], and the Jack Smith fabrication. Now we see Mary McCord actively setting up the “insurrection narrative” ahead of the J6 protests.
It appears Mrs McCord then forwarded the email to someone [REDACTED], likely within the J6 Committee or Jack Smith investigation on Sept 24, 2021.
There’s a reason why the J6 Committee deleted the records of their activity, an angle missed by most. When you understand what they hid and why they did it, you then understand why current Speaker of The House Mike Johnson will not go near the subject.
The J6 targets were identified through a collaboration between the legislative research group and the FBI. [That’s unlawful by the way – but that’s another matter]. The FBI contracted Palantir to identify the targets using facial recognition software and private sector databases.
Once identified, the targets were then searched in the NSA database for a fulsome context of identity. All subsequent electronic metadata of the targets was retrieved and utilized in prosecution; however, no one ever discovered this was the collaborative method. That has not come out yet.
Ultimately, the J6 Committee hiding and deleting their files and operational techniques was due to several issues. They really didn’t have a choice given the unknowns of an incoming republican majority.
First, the collaboration with the FBI is unconstitutional. Legislative officers are not law enforcement officers. There is a separation of powers issue.
Second, ultimately – and most consequentially – all of the participants did not want the American public aware of the mass surveillance techniques that were carried out as part of the ’round up.’ That’s where FBI operation Arctic Frost appears in the conversation.
The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE] highlighting just how political the J6 committee was. The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.
WASHINGTON– Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)
The last bullet point has a name. The “Select Committee staff” who met with Fani Willis was likely Mary McCord.
If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.
More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.
When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important. It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.
When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016). John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.
♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.
♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.
♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
KEY: Michael Atkinson was forced to testify to the joint House impeachment committee about the CIA whistleblower rule change and the process he authorized and participated in as the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Adam Schiffsealed that deposition, and no one has ever discussed what Atkinson said when questioned.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (Legislative Branch) can unseal and release that testimony to the CIA or ODNI (Executive Branch), and Tulsi Gabbard who is in charge of the ICIG can declassify Michael Atkinson’s deposition. However, Speaker Mike Johnson has to transfer it from the legislative to the executive, and unfortunately it does not appear that Speaker Johnson wants to open that can-of-worms; at least, not willingly.
Moving on…
♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.
When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.
♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith. In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.
As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.
Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary McCord.
♦ SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.
You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.
What happened next….
November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)
Yes, that is correct. After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6 committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.
But wait,…. Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team
That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.
First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court? ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application. In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing. See how that works?
Now, let’s go deeper….
When Mary McCord went to the White House with Sally Yates to talk to white house counsel Don McGhan about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.
The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.
Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?
This is where a big mental reset is needed.
Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue. In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so. There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.
So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?
Why did the DOJ-NSD even care? This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle. People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.
Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls. They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts” as described within internal documents, and later statements.
After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked. Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey. Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.
Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor. Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.
That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “buy the book” three times.
It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge. The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.
Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House. [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]
So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.
But wait, there’s more….
Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.
Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job, to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.
In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.
At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states. Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel. By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.
After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened. Sheldon Snook left his position. If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.
Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility. In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.
If you were Chief Justice John Roberts and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount. Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly. Which is exactly what happened.
The timeline holds the key.
BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.
I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:
Mary McCord says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort.
Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort?
Mary McCord.
Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint?
Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.
In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.
If all that seems overwhelming, here’s a short recap:
♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.
♦ McCord helped create the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.
♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on Impeachment Committee.
♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.
♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.
♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.
♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.
♦ McCord was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.
♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in term #2
♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating McCord.
Now, if you’re wondering why I spend so much time and attention on the Mary McCord issue, the information today about her sending the FBI information about the Oathkeepers chat group might clarify things.
When I look at that activity by Mary McCord, and I consider the duplicity of the FBI in conducting the Arctic Frost investigation, I also consider that I was personally targeted by the J6 team of McCord and the FBI.
It all tracks, and Mary McCord is in the very center of all of it.
♦ SUMMARY:
