During a Tuesday night segment on NBC Nightly News, justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian had an exclusive sitdown interview with the former federal prosecutor and chief investigator of the January 6 Committee, Tim Heaphy who told Dilanian that the federal government could’ve prevented the January 6 riot at the Capitol if they took the intelligence they received seriously and acted on the threats that were received about the rioters’ intentions that day.
What was just as out of the ordinary for NBC was the admission that among the more than 800 pages in the January 6 Committee’s report, none of it included their findings on the failure of law enforcement to prevent the riots. Anchor Lester Holt made as much clear in the opening moments of the segment before tossing to Dilanian:
“The January 6 Committee’s final report was more than 800 pages, but some material did not make the cut, including much of its findings on the failures of federal law enforcement leading up to the attack,” Holt admitted.
“The images of the attack on the capitol stunned America and the world. And tonight, in an exclusive interview, the chief investigator of the January 6 Committee says the government could have prevented it,” Dilanian reported before turning to Heaphy to ask “had law enforcement agencies acted on the available intelligence, do you believe the attack on the capitol could have been could have been successfully repelled?”
Heaphy responded: “I think it would have been a lot different had law enforcement taken a more assertive protective posture. The Intel in advance was pretty specific, and it was enough in our view for law enforcement to have done a better job operationalizing a secure perimeter.”
“Law enforcement had a very direct role in contributing to surely the failures—the security failures that led to the violence,” Heaphy added.
Dilanian revealed how “people familiar with the committee’s work tell NBC News members downplayed that finding because they wanted to keep the focus on former President Trump. Committee members dispute that.”
That admission was followed by Dilanian reporting how “Heaphy says the committee found the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies did not act on the intelligence they had, including this online threat forwarded to capitol police January 5, calling for thousands to go to Washington and help storm the capitol.”
Yet, according to Dilanian, “the FBI said it sent all the intelligence it had to the capitol police. DHS and capitol police say they’ve taken steps to make sure threat intelligence is better analyzed and shared.”
Now they tell us that law enforcement didn’t take the intelligence seriously or failed to act on it. Well over a month after the January 6 Committee report was released, these key findings were conveniently left out of the over 800-page report. Instead, the hyper-partisan committee was more focused on what former President Donald Trump says was a political witch hunt against him.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
Former FBI chief Chris Swecker has admitted that the bureau has been infiltrated by goons working for the World Economic Forum (WEF) who are working to destroy America.
Ex-FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker on Tuesday said he supports creating an independent commission modelled after the U.S. Senate’s 1970s Church Committee to investigate the WEF coup d’etat of the FBI and impose reforms on the tarnished law enforcement agency.
Justthenews.com reports: Swecker, a lawyer himself, said one of the many tell-tale signs that the FBI has lost its independence is the bureau’s relationship with Big Tech firms, as exposed by recent internal file releases by Twitter and a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri.
The original partnerships, he said, were designed to legitimately counter foreign influence operations on U.S. social media but have since evolved into spying and censorship operations impacting Americans.
“The FBI has an industry outreach program to help exchange information with industry, helping in the counterintelligence efforts of the FBI. This has gone well beyond that,” he said. “This is nothing but domestic spying, and this is nothing but suppression of First Amendment rights and ideas.”
He said the bureau’s role in pressuring Twitter and other social media and search sites to censor Americans “needs to be the first line of inquiry” in a new Congress.
A growing number of prominent figures — including House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, incoming House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and retired FBI intelligence chief Kevin Brock — have embraced the idea that Congress should create a blue-ribbon panel modeled after the 1970s Church Committee to probe where the FBI has gone astray and to craft meaningful reforms.
Swecker said he believes that is a good approach, noting that while he remains friends with Christopher Wray, the current FBI director has allowed his agency to lose significant public trust.
“The Church Committee was a full inquiry into what were perceived to be some very serious abuses by the FBI in the domestic surveillance area, in terms of watching U.S. citizens doing things involving U.S. citizens that were considered to be abuses of their power,” he said. “And I think we’ve come full circle here.”
Swecker said the FBI’s involvement in labeling school parents “domestic terrorists,” and its “bare-knuckles” pursuit of Donald Trump contrasted with its “kid gloves cases” against Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe and Hunter Biden have not only shaken public trust but also the internal confidence of the FBI.
“I’m telling you the retired agent community and many agents inside the FBI on active duty are saying this needs to be looked at,” he said. “I’m not big fan of congressional inquiries, but they need to shine some light on this.”
Swecker, who retired as the assistant director for criminal investigations after 24 years inside the FBI, said the bureau’s problems have been long in the making, beginning near the end of Director Robert Mueller’s term and accelerating under his successors, James Comey and Christopher Wray.
“I think there’s a cultural shift that started late in Mueller’s term and then we got into sort of full stride in Comey’s term, and is now being sort of perpetuated under Chris Way’s term, and that is that DOJ has basically taken over the FBI,” he said. “They were supposed to have some independence despite being a Bureau under the Department of Justice.”
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
New detail in Danchenko trial exhibits suggests that FBI intentionally targeted Trump on false Russia collusion charges.
An FBI email previously not known to the public has revealed that the bureau planned to make Igor Danchenko—the primary source for British former spy Christopher Steele’s Trump dossier—a confidential human source (CHS) before it had even interviewed him.
The revelation, which was discovered as a result of special counsel John Durham’s case against Danchenko, indicates that the FBI deliberately targeted 2016 presidential candidate and later President Donald Trump with claims it already knew at the time to be false.
The email—of which only the subject line has been made public—was first uncovered by an internet sleuth who goes by the moniker “Walkafyre” and was included in hundreds of unused exhibits from Danchenko’s trial.
The FBI used Danchenko—who was acquitted last week on all charges of lying to the FBI—in its investigation of Trump, despite knowing that Danchenko had helped fabricate the dossier.
With the benefit of this new information, a renewed examination of the timeline between the Nov. 8, 2016, presidential election and the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller on May 17, 2017, reveals that the FBI—with the help of the Obama administration and Washington establishment figures—executed a concerted campaign to oust a sitting president.
Email Reveals FBI’s Plan for Danchenko
The newly discovered email was sent by FBI agent Kevin Helson to unknown recipients on Jan. 12, 2017. The email’s heading reads “Plan to Convert Danchenko into CHS.”
This email is critical for several reasons. It shows that the FBI intended to hide Steele’s main source behind CHS status after they had previously discovered Steele couldn’t back up the claims in his dossier despite their offer of $1 million to him for any corroboration. As a CHS, Danchenko also would be shielded from any external investigations—including those of Congress.
Of equal importance, Helson’s email also proves that the FBI planned to convert Danchenko into a CHS before the FBI had even interviewed Danchenko. Had they thought the dossier was real, there would have been no reason to hide Danchenko. Instead, the FBI would’ve been touting the existence of a crucial source.
The FBI proceeded to make him a CHS despite interviewing him several weeks later, in late January 2017, when Danchenko disavowed the claims in the dossier, saying during his interview that it was based on rumors and bar talk made in jest.
It had previously been assumed that the FBI only decided to make Danchenko a CHS after he had been interviewed.
This move by the FBI also directly coincided with President Barack Obama’s wishes expressed during a Jan. 5 White House intelligence briefing on the dossier that he wanted to withhold information from the incoming Trump administration.
Russian analyst Igor Danchenko is pursued by journalists as he departs the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse after being arraigned, in Alexandria, Va., on Nov. 10, 2021. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
That the efforts to effectively hide Danchenko started even before Danchenko had disavowed the dossier is critical evidence of the early commencement of the FBI’s efforts against Trump. Had the FBI not done everything it could to conceal Danchenko’s existence by bestowing him with CHS status, the truth about the dossier would have likely been revealed and the effort to oust Trump would have collapsed.
Lastly, the plan to grant CHS status to Danchenko coincides with a remarkable sequence of events that took place on the same day Helson’s email was sent.
Establishing Trump–Russia Collusion Narrative
To fully understand the significance of the FBI granting CHS status to a person the agency hadn’t yet spoken to, we need to go back to Election Day.
The unexpected election of Trump on Nov. 8, 2016, prompted an unprecedented response from the intelligence community and Washington establishment. The effort to undermine Trump and his administration began almost immediately after his victory.
On Nov. 9, 2016, FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page exchanged textsthat referred to a “secret society” the day after Trump’s victory. Page texted Strzoksaying, “Maybe this should be the first meeting of the Secret Society.”
Strzok responded to Page saying, “Too hard to explain here. Election related.” The next day, Strzok texted Page saying, “Bill [Priestap, head of FBI Counterintelligence] just sent a two hour invite to talk strategy.”
In early December 2016, the CIA told congressional leaders that “Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency,” a claim that was a crucial convergence point between the FBI’s and CIA’s narratives. Although then-CIA Director John Brennan had been working behind the scenes by pushing information to the FBI, up to that point, it had been primarily the FBI driving the collusion narrative—for instance, by spying on Trump campaign aide Carter Page through a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant.
The CIA’s congressional briefings prompted Obama to direct the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency (NSA) to draft an intelligence community assessment (ICA) on Russian interference in the election. While the reported date of Obama’s order was Dec. 9, 2016, the actual order may have been given much earlier, as both the CIA and FBI had been in the process of preparing reports on Russian interference.
Former Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan testifies before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 23, 2017. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The FBI quickly jumped on board with Obama’s ICA plan. Priestap and special agent Jonathan Moffa were assigned to the ICA project on behalf of the FBI. However, the FBI didn’t appear to be interested in presenting an analytical work product. Their real goal appeared to be the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the ICA, which would give the dossier much-needed credibility. Up to that point, no media organization had published the dossier or any of its lurid allegations. If Trump was to be unseated, the dossier’s breathless claims needed to be made public.
Notably, as Durham revealed during Danchenko’s trial, by that time, the FBI already knew that the dossier was completely uncorroborated. On Oct. 3, 2016, the FBI offered dossier author Christopher Steele up to $1 million to provide any evidence that would substantiate his allegations against Trump. Steele wasn’t able to do so.
However, instead of ending its investigation, the FBI escalated efforts to tie Trump to the Russia collusion narrative. The FBI’s offer of $1 million to Steele for corroboration would later be hidden from Congress, congressional inquiries, Trump officials, and the courts.
According to a 2019 Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General report on the FBI’s abuses in the Carter Page FISA warrant case, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe personally pushed his agents on Dec. 16 to include the dossier in the ICA. McCabe’s demand preceded the identification of Steele’s primary sub-source. As Durham reported last week, that sub-source, Danchenko, who, by his own account, was responsible for at least 80 percent of the dossier, was identified by the FBI a few days later on Dec. 20.
When FBI agent Moffa asked McCabe whether to limit what was included to “information concerning Russian election interference or to also include allegations against candidate Trump,” McCabe told him to include the allegations, “due to concerns over possible Russian attempts to blackmail Trump.”
That was an early indication that, contrary to what FBI Director James Comeywould later repeatedly claim, the FBI was already targeting Trump personally in December 2016.
On Dec. 19, lead counterespionage agent Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page, who was McCabe’s personal legal counsel, that he needed to talk to someone “about using his [expletive]” in the ICA. The name of the person that Strzok wanted to talk to is redacted and remains unknown.
After Danchenko was identified on Dec. 20, the FBI for the first time told the CIA that it wanted to include the dossier in the ICA.
On Dec. 28, according to records published by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey personally made a push with both the CIA and the NSA for the dossier to be included in the ICA. Comey vouched that Steele was a “credible person with a source and sub-source network in position to report on such things.”
Comey didn’t mention that Steele had failed to back up his information, even after being offered $1 million.
With Comey’s push, the other two agencies tasked with producing the ICA—the CIA and NSA—agreed to include a two-page summary of the dossier at the back of the official report from the three agencies. This had the effect that Comey and McCabe had sought—to legitimize the dossier.
On Jan. 5, 2017, top intelligence officials, including Comey, Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and NSA Director Michael Rogers briefed Obama on the ICA report.
Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington on Dec. 11, 2019. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)
Following the official meeting, Comey stayed behind to brief Obama on the dossier. It was at this meeting that Obama stated that he wanted his team to be “mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia” with the incoming Trump administration.
The next day, Comey and other officials including Clapper briefed President-elect Trump and his national security team on the ICA. During this portion of the meeting, the Steele dossier was mentioned in passing.
A member of Trump’s team—reported to have been Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn—asked whether the FBI had dug into Steele’s sub-sources. If the questions were indeed posed by Flynn, it may have precipitated his subsequent demise at the hands of Comey. Once again, Comey would stay behind to brief Trump more fully on the dossier.
Comey would later tell CNN’s Jake Tapper that he only briefed Trump on the “salacious” parts of the dossier because “that was the part that the leaders of the intelligence community agreed he needed to be told about.” News of the intelligence briefing to Trump was leaked hours later to the media.
Efforts Begin in Earnest After January 2017 Briefings
On Jan. 3, 2017, Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 into effect. This unprecedented new order significantly relaxed longstanding limits on dissemination of information gathered by the NSA’s powerful surveillance operations, granting broad latitude to the Intelligence Community with regard to interagency sharing of information.
On Jan. 10, 2017, following his Jan. 5 briefing to Obama and his abbreviated briefing to Trump on Jan. 6, Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. During the hearing, Comey was asked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) if the FBI was investigating relationships between associates of Trump and the Russian government. Comey stated that he could neither confirm nor deny an active investigation, thereby setting the media frenzy of Trump–Russia collusion into motion. The Steele dossier would be released by BuzzFeed on the same day.
The day after Comey’s testimony, the Senate Intelligence Committee opened an investigation into Russian interference and the Trump campaign. Its report proved to be politically driven and much of it has been discredited.
Concerned over increasing leaks to the media, Trump had actually conducted a sting of sorts during his briefing from top intelligence officials on the ICA and the Steele dossier on Jan. 6, 2017. In order to identify the people leaking classified information to the press, Trump did not tell his staff that IC officials, including Clapper and Comey, were about to brief him.
As noted earlier, after the briefing, information from the meeting was leaked almost immediately to the press—leading Trump to conclude the leaks were coming directly from officials within the Intelligence Community. Trump disclosed this sequence of events during a Jan. 11, 2017, press conference. After receiving a call from Trump regarding the leaks, Clapper was forced to issue a statement condemning intelligence community leaks following Trump’s unexpected press conference.
Former President Donald Trump enters the stage at a “Save America Rally” to support Republican candidates running for state and federal offices in the state of Ohio at the Covelli Centre in Youngstown, Ohio, on Sept. 17, 2022. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
Despite Clapper’s official condemnation of leaks, according to a March 22, 2018, House intelligence report, Clapper later admitted “that he confirmed the existence of the dossier to the media,” acknowledged discussing the “dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,” and conceded that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic. Crucially, the report noted that “Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017,” following the briefing by leaders of the Intelligence Community to Obama and Trump on the Steele dossier.
Leaks from the Intelligence Community would remain prevalent throughout Trump’s term.
Events on Day Danchenko Was to Be Made CHS
On Jan. 12, 2017, the same day that Helson sent his email regarding Danchenko, and just a day after Trump’s surprise press conference, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced his initiation of a review of actions taken by the FBI in the leadup to the 2016 presidential election.
It isn’t known whether Horowitz was ever briefed about Danchenko’s CHS status or the million-dollar bounty. His report mentions neither. By design or by accident, Horowitz’s investigation effectively tied up any outside probes into the FBI’s actions for two years.
It was on the same day, Jan. 12, that Flynn’s Dec. 29, 2016, call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak was leaked to David Ignatius at The Washington Post. The leaker was never found, possibly because the leak came from within the FBI itself. Ignatius’s article, which further pushed the Trump–Russia collusion narrative, portrayed Flynn as undermining Obama’s fresh Russian sanctions during his call with Kislyak.
The article also raised the possibility that Flynn had violated the Logan Act, an obscure, 200-year-old law. Interestingly, it was Vice President Joe Biden who first suggested using the Logan Act against Flynn at the Jan. 5 White House meeting with Comey.
Flynn, who is believed to have been the person who asked Comey probing questions about the dossier’s sources, appears to have been the Intelligence Community’s first target in its effort to oust Trump. On Jan. 19, 2017, the day before Trump’s inauguration, Obama’s top intelligence and law-enforcement deputies met to talk about Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak. Flynn would be sworn in as Trump’s national security adviser on Jan. 22, 2017, and was subjected to an ambush interview by Strzok at the behest of Comey two days later.
Comey later bragged about the Flynn ambush having been his brainchild.
Retired Lt. Gen.Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, departs the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse following a pre-sentencing hearing, in Washington, on July 10, 2018. (Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates increased the pressure on the Trump administration regarding Flynn through a series of conversations with White House counsel Don McGahn. Yates told McGahn that she believed that “Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians.”
Flynn resigned on Feb. 13, 2017, the same day that Yates’s claim was published by The Washington Post. In 2020, declassified transcripts of Flynn’s call with Kislyak revealed that Flynn never once talked about sanctions. Just like the dossier, the charges against Flynn had been fabricated.
One other event transpired on Jan. 12, the first renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant, which had been based on the fabricated Steele dossier and claimed that Steele’s source was Russia-based when, in reality, he was a former Brookings Institution employee living in Washington.
FBI Escalates Probe Despite Dossier Disavowal
During a three-day period at the end of January 2017, Danchenko was eventually interviewed by the FBI. Danchenko said there were major inconsistencies between what he told Steele and what was in the dossier. Danchenko told the FBI that he had passed on bar talk and rumors to Steele and never intended for completely unverified information to be used in a dossier. He also admitted that he had never met the dossier’s key source who was alleged to be responsible for every major allegation against Trump, including the “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Trump and the Kremlin, that Russia passed hacked DNC emails to Wikileaks, and the infamous pee tape story.
Because Danchenko was given CHS status by the FBI, proof that the Steele dossier was fabricated was completely shielded from congressional and other investigations. We know with certainty that Danchenko formally received official CHS status no later than March 2017, but we now also know from the newly discovered unused trial exhibit that the FBI had planned to extend CHS status to Danchenko well before he was even interviewed by the FBI.
(L–R) FBI Director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and CIA Director John Brennan prepare to testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Feb. 25, 2016. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Efforts to ensnare Trump in a Russia collusion narrative received a major boost on Feb. 27, when former President George W. Bush proclaimed “we all need answers” on the Russia collusion allegations. Bush added that he trusted Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to decide whether a special counsel should be appointed.
Then, on March 2, Trump-appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia inquiry, dealing Trump a huge blow. Sessions inexplicably failed to assess, or even ask for evidence indicating whether the inquiry was legitimate. Sessions recused himself without ever finding out about Danchenko, that he had disavowed the dossier, or that Steele had failed to provide any evidence despite being offered $1 million for doing so.
Trump hit back on March 4, when he famously wrote on Twitter that he knew that the Obama administration had spied on his campaign. Not knowing how much Trump knew, FBI leadership panicked. In direct response to the tweet, on March 6, the FBI sent three of its most senior officials—McCabe, Priestap, and Strzok—to brief the DOJ on the FBI’s Trump investigation.
Notes of the briefing, which included incoming Trump administration officials, were disclosed by Durham earlier this year revealing that the FBI failed to mention Danchenko, Danchenko’s disavowal of the dossier, or the million-dollar reward to their DOJ counterparts. Instead, they made it appear as if the dossier, which they referred to as “Crown reporting,” had checked out and that the Russia collusion investigation was therefore going full steam ahead.
Additional briefing notes from March 8, which were also exposed by Durham, show that Comey himself subsequently lied to the so-called Gang of Eight congressional leaders. Similar to the DOJ briefing, Congress wasn’t told that Steele couldn’t back up his dossier despite the huge reward offer, and also wasn’t told about Danchenko.
The FBI’s efforts culminated in Comey’s March 20 public announcement that the Trump campaign was being investigated for Russia collusion. It was that announcement that opened the door to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. As with his previous, non-public announcements, Comey concealed that the dossier—and with it the predicate for his investigation—had collapsed.
Case Against Trump Based on Fabrications
While it’s been claimed by some media outlets that the dossier wasn’t central to the allegations against Trump, the Intelligence Community’s efforts to ensnare Trump, the Carter Page FISA application, as well as the March 6 and 8 briefing notes, all rely almost entirely on the dossier. Additionally, we know that Comey insisted that a summary of the dossier be attached to the ICA that was presented to Obama. These actions prove beyond any doubt that the case against Trump was based on a fabricated document.
The day after Comey’s testimony, on March 21, then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) met with a source. Following this meeting, Nunes informed Trump that he believed Trump and his staff were illegally surveilled and “unmasked,” a process of revealing redacted names of U.S. citizens that are incidentally collected during surveillance or intelligence gathering on foreigners. Nunes demanded that the CIA, FBI, and NSA disclose the nature of the unlawful surveillance he had uncovered.
For his efforts, an ethics investigation of Nunes was opened and he was forced to recuse himself from the Russia collusion investigation on April 6. The next day, the Carter Page FISA warrant was secretly renewed, proving that Nunes’s claim was correct. During his entire tenure as House Intelligence Committee chairman, Nunes was never told about Danchenko, his CHS status, or the million-dollar bounty.
Former UK intelligence officer Christopher Steele in London on July 24, 2020. Steele refused an offer of $1 million from the FBI to corroborate the allegations in the 2016 dossier he produced with funding by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. (Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images)
On May 9, 2017, Trump fired Comey from his position as FBI director and McCabe became acting director. Following Comey’s firing, DOJ official Bruce Ohr had a phone call with Steele, during which Steele expressed concern that “they will be exposed” because of Comey’s firing. Steele was undoubtedly worried that without Comey covering for him, his dossier lies would be exposed. It isn’t known whether Steele was aware that the FBI had already successfully concealed Steele’s collaborator, Danchenko, from any scrutiny or investigation.
Several days later, on May 12, Ohr and Steele began a series of exchanges via text message, with Ohr conveying a request from McCabe that Steele be reengaged by the FBI.
On May 16, Comey leaked memos about Trump to The New York Times through his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman. Comey would later acknowledge that he did so to spur the appointment of a special counsel.
The next day, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller, a former FBI director, as special counsel. As we can now see with hindsight, the FBI covered up Danchenko in early 2017. In doing so they ensured that they could continue using the fabricated Steele dossier to justify their investigation of Trump and his associates while also ensuring that no one would find out about Danchenko. In turn, the appointment of Mueller ensured that the FBI’s misdeeds were covered up.
Significantly, the many efforts to ensnare Trump, from the framing of Flynn to the media’s relentless airing of dossier smears and the Washington establishment’s push for a special counsel, couldn’t have happened unless Danchenko was kept hidden by the FBI. It was perhaps the most critical part of the effort and, as we have now learned, it happened much earlier than had been known.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
If you have ever heard talk or been to a seminar about “sovereignty”, then very likely those conversations were influenced by the foundational research of the author and educator.
His research and educational journey reaching millions of people worldwide began in 1992 and culminated in 2022 with the 3-Volume book release – his final word on the subject.
At the turn of the millennium his books and audio courses facilitated in part – a sovereignty and tax-honesty movement that involved millions of Americans.
This 3 Volume series comprises the life’s work of Johnny Liberty filled with comprehensive insights into the last few hundred years of history, law, economics, money, citizenship and governance.
These books show how it is supposed to be done in a constitutional Republic.
How did We the People get to where we are today?
What can we do to reclaim our inherent sovereignty and natural rights?
Many of the answers may be found within these revolutionary pages. Available as a paperback, E-Book (PDF) or an Amazon Kindle format. Thank you for supporting the author.
Sincerely,
With Freedom For All, ~ Johnny Liberty
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition)
A three-volume, 750 page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook.
Still after all these years, it is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written.
Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course.
The 3 Volume Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty is textbook material for everyone including educators/teachers, homeschoolers, historians, activists, leaders/politicians, attorneys/judges/law schools, police officers, and state Citizens/Nationals.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
Former Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Donald Trump, Kash Patel, laid bare the FBI’s invasive and unnecessary raid of the former president at Mar-a-Lago on August 8. Kash Patel appeared on “Life, Liberty & Levin” on Sunday night and exposed the “fake news mafia” for its fictional narrative.
“People say, look, he issued orders, a lot of orders, declassifying information before he left office. Do you know anything about this?” Levin asked.
“As a former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, I know how this system works,” Patel responded. “The president is the sole and universal arbiter and classification authority in the United States of America. If he says a document is declassified, or a set of them, that is it, there is no written material required. That is a fiction being created by the fake news and the radical left.”
“In October of 2020, President Trump put out for the world to see a sweeping declassification order and he did it via social media,” Patel points out. “Every single Russiagate doc, every single Hillarygate doc, every one, those are his words. That is the precedent that the president of the United States is allowed to operate under. And then in December and January, on the way out, I witnessed him declassify whole sets of documents. So it is not incumbent upon President Trump and his lawyers and he as a target of this investigation to show that he did, in fact, declassify them. It’s up to the government who has the burden of proof, who are trying to deprive a man of his liberty, to show that no such order was, in fact, given.”
“They know they can’t. So what happens?” he continued. “The fake news mafia comes in and says, ‘Oh, but there was no protocols followed.’ Mark, you know, when they’re arguing protocols and procedure, it is because they lost the factual argument and the truth. And now they are trying to hide behind this magistrate judge who is going to supposedly play this game of redactions. We saw it in Russiagate. When I was the Deputy DNI, we lifted all those redactions from the Russiagate docs and what did we see, Mark? Corruption, FBI and DoJ corruption and breaking of the law. That is the same game they are going to play here and the fake news media is going to attempt to applaud them for their farce in terms of their transparency. We cannot allow them to do that. The President declassified documents, the government has failed to show that that did not occur, protocol do not apply to the president of United States when he is declassifying documents.”
“And let me underscore that point,” Levin added. “The Constitution of the United States, the first sentence, Article Two, Section One, the President is the executive branch. That’s why everybody agrees he can declassify and classify as much as he wants, and he can do it right out the door. The Espionage Act in this sense simply does not apply to a former president. It does not apply to the president of the United States. It was passed in originally in 1917, it was pushed by Woodrow Wilson to use against his enemies, people who opposed World War I, it was never ever intended to apply to a president. Let me ask you this, Kash Patel. Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton — Bill Clinton, Vice President Gore, Vice President Biden, Vice President Cheney, do we know if any of them secreted any documents, took any documents with them to their homes, classified or otherwise? Do we know?”
“I know for a fact that President Biden has classified access at one of his homes, so those such documents exist there, and they should as for former president the of the United States and that law and that rule should apply equally, but the Government Services Administration is responsible for packaging and parceling those documents,” Patel said. “And you bring up a great point. They were the ones who moved the documents to Mar-a-Lago. They’re the ones who now admitted they mistakenly moved boxes. It’s not like President Trump — even if they get past the declassification part, or a ruse, I should say, it’s not like President Trump put them in a backpack and moved them down there and said, ‘Nothing to see here, I want to illegally distribute these documents.’ The law should be applied, there should not be a two-tiered system of justice. Clinton, Obama, Bush and Trump as former presidents must be treated equally when it comes to classified information.”
“I think it’s very interesting that not a single former president or vice president have opened their mouths, because I suspect they have taken documents with them, whatever it’s in violation, quote/unquote, of one law or another,” Levin noted. “This entire event was completely unnecessary and it’s just more of an effort to try to trap and drag down Donald Trump.”
On Aug. 8, 2022, the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) took the unprecedented step of raiding the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump. The raid prompted a litany of questions. What was the justification for the raid? Were there secondary or unofficial motives? Who ordered and approved the raid? Was the justification compelling enough to take such a dramatic step?
While many of these questions remain unanswered to varying degrees, there are enough facts on the table already to establish a timeline of events before, during, and after the raid.
“The Real Story of January 6,” a documentary by The Epoch Times, reveals the truth that has been hidden from the American people. While a narrative has been set that what took place that day was an insurrection, key events and witnesses have been ignored until now. The documentary takes an unvarnished look at police use of force and the deaths that resulted in some measure from it. The film asks tough questions about who was responsible for the chaos that day. With compelling interviews and exclusive video footage, the documentary tells the real story of January 6. The film is narrated by Joshua Philipp, host of “Crossroads” on EpochTV and a senior investigative reporter at The Epoch Times.
Jasper Fakkert, editor-in-chief of The Epoch Times, said: “There has been a narrative perpetuated about January 6 that omits many of the facts about what happened that day.
“With in-depth interviews and exclusive video footage, we take an objective look at the issues, the people, and the impacts of the events.”
The film takes a close look at the shooting of 35-year-old Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt and the deaths of three other supporters of former President Donald J. Trump. It analyzes the police response to the massive crowds and use of force around the U.S. Capitol.
It examines the human impacts of Jan. 6, including the suicide of one defendant and the long pretrial imprisonment of dozens of others. It also investigates claims that some attacks on the Capitol and police were carried out by unindicted suspicious actors.
While there is growing speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 protests and recording responses for the purposes of entrapment, evidence now proves that “plainclothes” members of a special Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) were embedded among the protesters for the purposes of conducting video surveillance. Evidence also points to a day of security deficiencies and police provocation for the purpose of entrapment.
According to a report—First Amendment Demonstrations, issued Jan. 3, 2021, by Chief of Police Robert Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Homeland Security Bureau, Special Operations Division, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times—the MPD began to activate Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) platoons on Jan. 4, 2021. Full activation of 28 platoons was scheduled to occur on the following two days.
According to the Department of Justice website, “A CDU is composed of law enforcement officers who are trained to respond to protests, demonstrations, and civil disturbances for the purpose of preventing violence, destruction of property, and unlawful interference with persons exercising their rights under law.”
The objective of MPD was “to assist with the safe execution of any First Amendment demonstration and ensure the safety of the participants, public, and the officers.” CDU personnel and Special Operations Division (SOD) members were to “monitor for any demonstration and/or violent activity and respond accordingly,” according to the report.
There has been speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the protests for the purposes of entrapment. As Red State reported in October 2021, “multiple surveillance videos show masked men opening up the doors to the U.S. Capitol Building to allow protesters to enter. In fact, one video shows them entering while Capitol Police officers simply stand around. Yet, we have no idea who those men are.”
The ‘Covert Cadre’ of ‘Provocateurs’
On a Dec. 7, 2021, episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the attorney for several Jan. 6 prisoners, Joseph McBride, identified a man tagged on the internet by so-called “Sedition Hunters” as “Red-Faced 45.” The man, dressed in red from head to toe—with even his face painted red—appears in a video engaging in continuous dialogue with uniformed personnel and others whom McBride insists are agents embedded in the crowd. McBride said the man is “clearly a law enforcement officer.”
“He passes out weapons, sledgehammers, poles, mace. Some of those things come in contact with some of the other protesters who have subsequently been charged with possessing dangerous weapons and are using dangerous weapons at the Capitol. That is clearly entrapment.
That is clearly the government creating conditions of dangerousness and entrapping members of the crowd to possess weapons and possibly use them for reasons that we cannot comprehend.”
On Jan. 13, 2021, J. Michael Waller, senior analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy, published a first-hand account of his observations. Waller is also President of Georgetown Research, a political risk and private intelligence company in Washington, D.C.; and was founding editorial board member of NATO’s peer-reviewed Defence Strategic Communicationsjournal (2015–2018), and a senior analyst with Wikistrat. He is convinced people were embedded in the crowd to execute “an organized operation planned well in advance of the January 6 joint session of Congress.”
The Epoch Times reported on Jan. 1 that senior federal law enforcement officials refused to answer questions about an Arizona man named Ray Epps, captured on video the day before the rally wearing a Trump hat repeatedly encouraging protesters to “go into the Capitol” the next day. Many were suspicious of him. Chants of “fed, fed, fed” drown him out. On Jan. 6, he is seen telling the crowd “we are going to the Capitol, where all of our problems are.”
Bobby Powell host of “The Truth is Viral” podcast, has several videos exposing two men, clad all in black, whom he believes are FBI informants. They are seen breaking windows, attacking the Capitol building, and even pushing people inside.
McBride finds it strange that these “provocateurs,” as he calls them, have yet to be charged, despite their having a much more active role in the Capitol incident than some who were charged, including some individuals who never even set foot on Capitol grounds.
The Proof
Unknown to the public until now, the First Amendment Demonstrations report also reveals that an undisclosed number of “plainclothes” MPD ESU “members” were embedded into the crowd to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.”
It is unclear who the MPD ESU “members” were. However, they are never referred to as “officers” or “police.” Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the MPD, an ESU is not among them. In order for other security personnel to recognize embedded ESU members among the protesters, they wore a specific “bracelet on their left wrist identifying them as MPD personnel,” the report stated.
“While it is admittedly an important type of unit to have in the nation’s capital, electronic surveillance requires warrants,” Waller told The Epoch Times. “The word surveillance itself implies intrusive rather than passive monitoring of people, in which case it would be required for the police to get warrants to conduct electronic surveillance on people. What kind of warrants were asked for and under which jurisdiction? Were they issued? If not, why? Are such warrants necessary for the type of surveillance this unit was doing and how does it work? This raises a huge amount of questions about an entirely new kind of surveillance unit by the police chief of the nation’s capital.”
Waller also said the reference to “members” of the unit, as opposed to “officers” or “agents,” is also very disturbing. While he said “the rest of the memorandum sounds very disciplined in it’s language and specific,” that it doesn’t identify “officers” as members of the Electronic Surveillance Unit “is very troubling.”
“Are they using private contractors? Are they using political volunteers?” Waller posed. “Are using paid agents of different types? We don’t know. This is something the public has a right to know and we need to get to the bottom of it. If the D.C Police is running electronic surveillance on American citizens without warrants, this could be a very serious breach of our civil liberties.”
An Oct. 29, 2021 report by Politico exposed that a 17-page strategy report called “The Civil Disturbance Unit Operational Plan,” showed that police made plans for plainclothes “officers” to monitor protesters and carry out five objectives:
To provide an environment in which lawful First Amendment activity can be safely demonstrated.
To prevent any adverse impact to the legislative process associated with unlawful demonstration activity.
To effectively mitigate actions associated with civil disorder; safely respond to crimes of violence and destruction/defacing of property.
To safeguard and prevent any property damage directed at the US Capitol, West Front Inaugural Platform, and all Congressional buildings.
Establish and maintain a fixed march route while excluding access to counter-protestors to minimize potential for violent interactions.”
However, because the CDU was understaffed and unprepared, it failed in all its objectives.
According to a 140-page report issued by then-Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton—”Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol”—Capitol Police’s CDU was ordered by supervisors not to use the department’s most powerful tools, like stun guns. Bolton’s report, which has not yet been widely released to the public, also contends “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership.”
The CDU was given riot shields, many locked in a bus some distance away, that “shattered upon impact.” They had expired weapons that didn’t work and inadequate training.
Bolton’s report also noted that officials were warned in an intelligence assessment three days before the protest that “Stop the Steal’s propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike” and that “Congress itself is the target.”
However, reports surfaced that then acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett sent a memo to lawmakers informing them that security officials found that “there does not exist a known, credible threat against Congress or the Capitol Complex that warrants the temporary security fencing.”
Some Capitol Police officers were reportedly told to go home amid staffing shortages, reported Business Insider.
According to the “UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR JANUARY 6, 2021 ATTACK,” also obtained by The Epoch Times, “USCP Deputy Chief Gallagher replies” to the Department of Defense (DOD) “via text” on Jan. 3, 2021, “that a request for National Guard support is not forthcoming at this time after consultation” with Chief of Police (COP) Steven Sund.
On Jan. 4, 2021, “COP Sund asked Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefings with law enforcement partners and revised intelligence assessment.”
• COP Sund’s request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tells COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard’s ability to support a request if needed. • COP Sund notifies General Walker of DC National Guard, indicating that the USCP may need DC National Guard support for Jan. 6, 2021, but does not have the authority to request at this time. • General Walker advises COP Sund that in the event of an authorized request, DC National Guard could quickly repurpose 125 troops helping to provide DC with COVID-related assistance. Troops would need to be sworn in as USCP.
However, the timeline shows it took over three hours and five frantic requests before the National Guard was deployed.
During his opening remarks before two Senate committees on March 3, 2021, Walker told members of Congress he received a “frantic call” from Sund in the early afternoon advising that the security perimeter of the Capitol was being breached. However, military leaders informed him that deploying troops would not be “good optics.”
During testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Piatt and Flynn denied making such comments.
At the hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene informed the committee three people were involved in turning down repeated requests for the deployment of the National Guard: “Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Nancy Pelosi in the House, and Mayor Muriel Bowser. Also involved, are the SSAA Stenger, who answers directly to Schumer, and HSAA Irving, who answers directly to Pelosi.”
In stark contradiction to then acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett’s assessment that no “credible threat against Congress or the Capitol Complex” existed to warrant “temporary security fencing,” there are multiple admonishments in the First Amendment Demonstrations report of the importance “for the members to monitor the fence line” and orders that “all members” were to “monitor 16th Street and the surrounding area for any potential issues or demonstrations.”
“Members assigned to the bicycle rack” were ordered to “restrict pedestrian and vehicle movement upon making the closure of the police lines.”
“The bicycle rack, in conjunction with police cars and blocking vehicles will create a barrier in which no person or vehicle will be allowed to pass,” the report said.
However, video evidence shows police waving protesters past bike racks and even removing them to open a path into the restricted areas to encourage people to move toward the Capitol Building.
A March 2, 2021, USCP Report of Investigation regarding the incident, also obtained by The Epoch Times, confirms that on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, “an Unknown Officer violated USCP Directive 2053.013, Rules of Conduct, when they allegedly waived unauthorized persons into a restricted area secured by bike racks toward the US Capitol during an insurrection.” Evidence in the case included the “video posted to twitter, dated 01/06/21 ” and “CCTV of the East Front of the US Capitol, dated 01/06/21.”
On Monday, Feb. 1, 2021, then Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Commander of the United States Capitol Police, Inspector Michael Shaffer, sent an email with the Twitter video of the unidentified officer (UO) to Inspectors Amy Hyman (Senate Division), Thomas Loyd (Capitol Division), Kimberley Bolinger (House Division) and Acting Inspector Jessica Baboulis (Library Division) requesting assistance in identifying the UO. All parties responded to Shaffer that they were unable to identify the UO.
The recommendation was that the report “be APPROVED and the case CLOSED.”
On Feb. 4, 2021, this case was put on hold pending a review by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Public Corruption. No further information is available.
Provocation and Entrapment
In a June 10 interview with EpochTV’s “Facts Matter,” Julie Kelly—a political consultant in Illinois and senior contributor for American Greatness—described Jan. 6, 2021, as “an inside job” and “something Democrats and some Republicans and federal agencies put together to entice” and “entrap” people who went to hear President Donald Trump’s speech. She noted that the FBI used agents to try to infiltrate the so-called militia groups.
Jeremy Brown exposed a video of FBI Terrorist Task Force agents attempting to recruit him to spy on fellow Oath Keepers.
The Department of Justice still won’t answer questions about Ray Epps, an Arizona resident captured on video encouraging protesters to breach the Capitol Building.
Video footage found at Gateway Pundit shows flash grenades being launched by Capitol Police into a group of protesters, consisting of women, children, and elderly people, who were standing peacefully behind barriers. According to American Greatness, Capitol Police were also firing on the crowd with rubber bullets. The approximate time of the confrontation was around 1:36 p.m. However, the USCP Timeline does not mention the deployment of these flash grenades.
Another video, which still exists on TeaParty.org, was filmed by Kash Kelly from ground level where the flash grenades went off. Kelly, who is now himself in prison regarding pretrial release violations regarding a previous charge and the subsequent charges related to his presence in Washington, is shown ensuring the evacuation of women in the area where the flash grenades exploded.
“The police started shooting at people,” Kelly says. “There were kids in the crowd.”
More extensive video footage, analyzed by Ray Dietrich of Red Voice Media, shows “the beginning of violence on January 6.”
An unidentified USCP officer is seen repeatedly yelling down to the crowd, assembled peacefully below his position, advising that if they “want to get a good picture” they should “go up into the bleachers.”
“The video shows the moment either stun grenades or tear gas canisters were deployed into the crowd of protestors,” Dietrich says as the video plays out. “The question I have, after a 20-year career in law enforcement, is why were these munitions deployed? I have picked this video apart and many more, and cannot see why the USCP used this force against the crowd. There is no fighting and no violence, so why did they target these people with less-lethal weapons?”
“What happened next?” Dietrich asks rhetorically. “Chaos. Violence. The crowd fought back. The Capitol was breached.”
As the stunned crowd scurries in the attack, police can be seen spraying people in the face with pepper spray. In another segment, three police officers are beating a protester who is being held on the ground. In a measure that further escalates the tension, police begin deploying tear gas into the already frantic crowd. In a course of 20 minutes, a once peaceful scene descends into total chaos.
In June 2021, reports surfaced that the Justice Department had begun to release its own video footage, including footage from body-worn cameras that allegedly show assaults against police officers defending the U.S. Capitol.
A summary of findings shows that:
Evidence shows that until the deployment of munitions, the crowds were peaceful.
MPD Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) members were embedded into the crowd to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.”
Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the Metropolitan Police Department, an ESU is not among them.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”.
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI.
Reuters reports: The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. “Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections. Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
US National Guard troops patrol the vicinity of the US Capitol hours before the Inauguration of US President-Elect Joe Biden in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2021. (Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP) (Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images)
By Lee Smith
On Saturday, Peoples’ Republic of China planes flew into Taiwan’s airspace. Incursions are a normal occurrence but the most recent one represented an escalation. Typically one or two planes will probe Taiwan’s air defenses but in this case it was reportedly eight bombers and four fighter jets. It appears Beijing is eager to test Joe Biden early. It’s likely China won’t be the only one. The more than 20,000 National Guard troops in Washington to last week protect the new president’s nearly unattended inauguration is evidence that the United States is broken.
Observers widely misunderstood the National Guard deployment as a show of force asserting the Biden team’s legitimacy as the elected government of the United States. But the most salient fact of the troop presence is that some who were found to have supported Donald Trump were sent home. And thus the reason for the deployment, which may now continue into March, is that the Biden White House is keen to use the sporadically violent but mostly peaceful Jan. 6 march on the Capitol building as a political pretext to further target Trump supporters.
From the perspective of the administration and its media surrogates, Trump supporters were already deplorable, but now that they have attempted an insurrection, the gloves will come off. The nearly 75 million people who voted for Biden’s opponent deserve whatever is coming to them next—further impoverishment, further collective punishment in the guise of public health (i.e., coronavirus) measures, designation as domestic terrorists, imprisonment, and even death.
Let’s try to imagine how foreigners see our circumstances: Neither traditional U.S. allies nor adversaries can share the new administration’s assessment that the United States government faced an insurrection Jan. 6. In comparison to their own domestic challenges, those protests were plainly mild.
In France, for instance, the Yellow Vests movement has been engaged in protests for more than two years that have frequently devolved into street violence, leaving 11 dead and more than 4000 wounded. From the perspective of the nation that produced the French Revolution, Jan. 6 was nothing like an insurrection. Same for Israel, which has been fighting terrorist attacks plotted by some of the state’s Arab citizens since the country’s founding.
Consider how authoritarian states must see it. Does the Islamic Republic of Iran, periodically engaged in low-level violent conflict with its growing opposition movement, believe that Jan. 6 was an attack on America’s domestic peace? What about Russia, where over the weekend authorities arrested more than 2000 who marched nationwide to demand the release of Vladimir Putin critic Alexander Navalny? Does the Chinese Communist Party, which uses mass detentions and forced sterilizations to eradicate the Muslim minority Uyghur population, believe that American families and seniors marching in the winter cold amounted to an existential threat to the American regime? No, they all see through it—the American political, corporate, cultural, and media elite is waging war on the Americans it despises.
What can foreign powers be thinking when journalists, think-tank experts, and current and former law enforcement officials recommend that the Biden administration deploy the same counterterrorism tactics against Americans that U.S. forces have used to kill Islamic extremists around the globe since the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Or how can they interpret the heavily guarded inauguration attended by faded pop-stars celebrating a man in a black mask who prophesied a “dark winter,” who for months had been hidden underground by his handlers, and who is unlikely to finish his four-year term under his own power except as a drum circle of celebrity necromancers? If our allies and adversaries see us at all clearly, they are thinking America’s leaders have lost their minds.
It can hardly surprise anyone to see the country gone mad since Biden’s inauguration represented the culmination of the U.S. elite’s four-year-long insurrection against reality.
It began in December 2016 when Barack Obama instructed his director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan to delegitimize his successor by assessing he was helped to the presidency by a foreign power, Russia. Subsequently, with the robust support of prestige media organizations and the rest of the elite’s ideological apparatus—the academy, think tanks, Hollywood, and so on—half the country invested its political convictions and mental health in a conspiracy theory.
It does not require much imagination to see America the way outsiders have for the last several years. The U.S. agency singly responsible for discovering and stopping the efforts of foreign agents to sabotage the American political system, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was focused instead on sabotaging the American president. Because top officials were not held accountable for their illegal political operation, others were emboldened to join the effort. An official from the Pentagon and another from the CIA led a government-wide campaign that included senior American diplomats to impeach Trump.
With the arrival of COVID-19, the U.S. elite’s increasing use of the phrase “the new normal” to rationalize unconstitutional edicts targeting the businesses, homes, and liberties of Trump supporters was evidence that the country was split not between political parties but between those who saw the light slipping away and those who had willfully migrated to a dark dreamworld.
We will be fortunate if adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party choose to simply stand aside and watch while America’s leadership class consumes itself in madness. But we shouldn’t count on it.
Liberty International News 