This guy is a weird bird. But if he contributes to the cause, then I support his work.
The problem is, he has been making claims of his research into the Arizona election fraud, but has not produced anything to show for it.
Last night, Professor David Clements called him out.
Today, Jovan reveals some of his info.
But he does it in a way that is not explained. Sure, it looks like he has some good info that shows election fraud, but just posting screen shots of numbers is not a good enough explanation for 99% of the population.
He also writes like a 10-year old, and is acting like one when it comes to the people calling him out.
I can look past all that if he would post his info and explain what he found -- which, after all, is his job.
But he only posts a few screen shots. Then, he says he will "scrub" this info within 24 hours, because the only "safe" place to post it is on his personal website -- which he wants people to subscribe to for some reason ($$$?).
Like I said, he's a weird bird. But if it helps the cause, I would take a listen to what Big Bird has to say, if need be.
Posting here for people to see before he "scrubs" it for no apparent reason:
Those here who say this is not worth paying any attention to are in for a rude awakening.
Both Lin Wood and David Clements have just shown a text message from Flynn on Nov 3 (does not say if 2020 or 2021) where Flynn says he has always thought that Q was to make followers look like kooks (same word used by Patrick Byrne, btw, when describing Lin Wood).
Take it for what it's worth.
https://t.me/theprofessorsrecord/3723
If this is a TRUTH movement, and not a cult of personality movement, then we must be willing to look at multiple sides of any issue, and THEN arrive at conclusions.
Maybe all of these people are good. But maybe not. If they are secretly saying things in private that directly contradict what they are saying in public, then we should know about it.
The Ron Paul movement was derailed by Deep State operatives. The Tea Party movement was also derailed by Deep State infiltrators.
There is no reason to believe that the MAGA/Election Fraud Exposure movement would not also be infiltrated.
Keep your head on a swivel, and pursue TRUTH, not dogma.
I went back and watched 2 clips of 2 different interviews of Kyle Rittenhouse -- one by Tucker Carlson and the other by a woman reporter.
I also watched an interview of Lin Wood, where he responded to accusations in the Carlson interview, and things he was told would be said in the other interview (it had not yet been released).
Based on that, I conclude:
- Lin Wood spoke to Kyle Rittenhouse exactly ONE time, prior to the trial, and the conversation lasted about 5 minutes.
- It is highly unlikely that Lin went off about Q or election fraud or anything else during that single 5-minute conversation.
- Therefore, there is ZERO chance that Kyle decided he did not like Lin Wood based on anything that Lin said directly to him. The decision to not like him must have come from other sources -- his mother, David Hancock, things he read or heard about from other sources.
- Lin says that he was never Kyle's defense lawyer (which would explain why he only had a single, 5-minute conversation with him). John Pierce was Kyle's original defense lawyer.
- Kyle lived in Illinois. He was arrested in Illinois, and held in juvenille detention, because he was 17 years old. Wisconsin had a warrant for his arrest for murder, and that the means that the issue of extradition from one state to the other comes into play. Extradition has to play out in the courts.
- Lin says he consulted with John Pierce, Kyle's lawyer, and they both agreed that Kyle was probably safer in Illinois juvenile detention than he would be at his home. Like or dislike that opinion, there was a "hit" put on Kyle by BLM at the time. They said they would find him and murder him. It is not totally unreasonable that he might be safer in juvie.
- Kyle says that he wanted to waive extradition to Wisconsin, and it sounds like he thinks that meant that he could be out of jail sooner. I don't know if that is correct. Kyle thinks that he was in jail for 87 days because his lawyer (who he thinks was Lin Wood) wanted him to stay there, and wanted it so Lin could make money somehow.
- It seems to me that Kyle doesn't really understand the legal process, does not know what he is talking about, and is likley influenced by others in arriving at his conclusions.
- Lin says that Pierce's legal strategy was to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus. If successful, this would result in the immediate release of Kyle. That's what Habeas Corups is for. If this happened, there would have been no bail at all, because there would have been no legal basis to hold him in jail.
- Lin says the Illinois judge ruled against the Habeas Corpus, and before Pierce could file an appeal, Kyle was transferred to Wisconsin, where he was put into the general prison population.
- At that point, it became concerning that the BLM threat could be carried out, and Kyle was in imminent danger.
- That's when there was a final push to get the $2,000,000 bail, which was raised and Kyle was out shortly thereafter.
- Then, Kyle had the famous bar photo with Proud Boys, and shit went sideways.
- Kyle eventually fired John Pierce and hired Mark Richards.
In the end, Kyle was out of jail and he was not attacked, much less killed. Were the threats real? Were they credible? Mark Richards said he received numerous threats aimed at him and Kyle. Probably easier to pull something off inside a jail (just ask Jeff Epstein).
My only conclusion out of this fog of war is that Kyle definitely does not know what he is talking about. He is building a story of what he wanted and what should have been done after the fact. But is that really what he was thinking at the time? Sure, he would rather be out of jail. Did he understand that a successful Habeas Corpus would do that, without bail (that had not yet been raised, as far as I can tell, but not sure on the timing)? Did he understand the death threats, at the time?
Some people wonder if Kyle was part of a FF from the beginning. Why would he bring an AR15 to a BLM protest/riot? If he knew it was a riot, it might make sense. I dunno, but something seems a bit off there.
Then again, if it was a true FF, you would think he would be set up to shoot at black people at a BLM thing, rather than jews. Then again again, why were jews there at all?
The whole thing is weird. Lin could be making things up after the fact, too, though the story seems to make sense, from his perspective.
General Flynn.
If Joe Flynn wanted Rick Schroder's phone and computer to be "swept" prior to talking with Lin Wood, that is flat out suspect. That is Lin's claim. The "best of luck" thing seems to have been said to Clements, but he was not the one getting on Wood's plane, which had weird mechanical problems. That is not conclusive to me.
Flynn's weird Satantic prayer is weird. Not proof by itself, but weird. Flynn's pedo shirt is weird. Not proof by itself, but weird. Flynn's photo with the Illuminati pyramid and eye behind him is weird. Not proof by itself, but weird.
But then again ... when was the last time that YOU wore a pedo shirt by mistake, accidentally stood in front of an illuminati pyramid to have your picture taken, and mistakenly said a Satanic prayer in front of an audience, on camera?
Lin Wood.
What has Lin Wood ACCOMPLISHED in getting the 2020 election fraud corrected? What have ANY of these people ACCOMPLISHED in:
- Getting the 2020 election fraud corrected?
- Getting the SpyGate criminals prosecuted?
- Getting the Covid psyop revealed?
For that matter, what has Trump done on any of these fronts? He has talked about it. He has pushed lawsuits, that went nowhere because judges refused to do their job of having real trials. He appointed AG Bill Barr, who appointed SP John Durham, who is making some ripples, but no waves, yet.
Beyond that, here we are a year later and running in circles.
If some of these people are helpful in getting things done, great. If not, fuck 'em all.
FOCUS.
Election fraud, corruption in government, and Covid psyop.
Take over the local school boards and local precinct/county GOP/DNC groups, and work your way up from there. That's where the power is. Work at your local and state levels, and put the federal level on the back burner. They do not have the power in the American system of government.
TALK with real people -- those you know and those you do NOT know. You will be amazed at how many of them have some idea of what is going on, and are generally on our side, but they need some encouragement to stand strong.
Elections. Corruption. Psyops. And what we do about them.
That is what matters.
I usually don't bother with this sort of drama, but in trying to sort out who is who in the Kyle Rittenhouse bashing of Lin Wood, it looks like I stumbled onto something that could be something ... or some people are just plain crazy.
Lin Wood continues to reveal more, from his side of the story.
He is saying that David Hancock, a "family friend" and "family spokesman" for Kyle Rittenhouse and his mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, (a) is banging Kyle's mother (or at least is getting inside, somehow), (b) is acting like a dad to Kyle, (c) hacked into Lin Wood's foundation's computer and stole the donor list, which was then used by Hancock to solicit funds to help Kyle (the FreeKyleUSA Fund and the Milo Fund), which Lin is implying has been used for things beyond paying legal bills. Oh, and Lin implies that Hancock is CIA. Whew!
Lin then refers us to Gordon Rose, who set up his own Telegram channel supposedly to dox who Hancock really is. (Hell, for all I know "Gordon Rose" could just be a pseudonym for Lin Wood, but it might be a real person.)
In addition, Lin calls out Dan Bongino for being Deep State Mockingbird, for not investigating Lin Wood's side of the Rittenhouse story, and Lin threatens a defamation suit against Bongino.
This shit is getting entertaining. If true (and I am taking a "wait and see" approach), it is quite an amazing view into how deep state assets could infiltrate so easily into major stories that are pushed by the media.
Lin Wood:
https://t.me/s/linwoodspeakstruth
Gordon Rose posting about David Hancock:
That Rose telegram has some pretty interesting claims, including saying that David Hancock set up Kyle Rittenhouse in that bar, and had him do the "OK" sign, for the purpose of tarnishing Kyle's public image.
Bizarro World here.
Why would Hancock (or anyone) want to do that? I dunno, but infiltrating into the family would be a great way to make it happen, if he wanted to. Maybe somebody wanted Kyle to be locked up for life to be used as a symbol of "white supremacy," but the jury did not go along with the plan.
Kinda seems that way, at least according to Lin Wood and Gordon Rose.
Proud Boys have been accused of being FBI/CIA undercover FF assholes. If so, it would be so easy to coordinate with another FBI/CIA undercover asshole who is banging the kid's mother.
I don't know if everybody in this thing is fucking crazy, or if there is some deep state shit piled up here. The Rose guy seems a little off the wall in the way he writes, which is a bit of a red flag. OTOH, it kinda makes sense -- and the Kyle/Proud Boys picture did happen and was leaked to the media, and they did run with it.
And now that Lin Wood has accused David Hancock of a crime (hacking his computer and stealing his donor list), Lin is opening himself up to a defamation lawsuit himself, unless his claims are true.
Either way, it's better intrigue that anything at the movies these days.
Bottom Line: I have no idea who is telling the truth. But if Lin Wood and this "Gordon Rose" character are telling the truth, then there are two possibilities:
(1) Kyle's actions at BLM were legit, but then Deep State infiltrated to take advantage and tried to use it to make it into the next gun control/gun confiscation narrative, with a little race card angle thrown in for good measure ... or
(2) Kyle was also part of the setup from the beginning, making it some sort of FF op.
And ... what do you know? Within days of the not guilty verdict, we have the next race card play out with the black guy running down White people, letting us all see how much the (((fake news))) hates White people.
Another interesting point about the "87 days in jail," is that this Gordon Rose says that it could have been avoided if Kyle's lawyer had recommended not fighting extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin. I didn't follow that part of things, and don't know how that plays out, but it's an interesting side note, since Kyle is claiming that he spent extra time in jail due to Lin Wood saying he should stay there. Maybe Wood had nothing to do with it and Kyle was misinformed, or knows that it is not true.
Yet another bizarre twist: David Hancock's business partner (or former business partner -- not sure which) is on the run from the law on charges of trying to scam the government of Puerto Rico out of $38,000,000 for ... fradulent Covid test kits.
Whaaaa? LOL.
This whole thing looks basically like junior high school drama on steroids.
WTF?
For those interested in this drama scene, he shows documents to back up his claims about Rittenhouse, and he has also been not-so-subtly calling out Sidney Powell as a scammer.
I think Kyle Rittenhouse has been misinformed on this issue. Lin Wood posted a series of messages on Telegram. It's possible he is lying, but his story seems to make sense.
First, Mike Lindell did not donate $2,000,000 to bail out Rittenhouse. That did not happen. Lindell donated $50,000 to Lin Wood's foundation, and it was for the purpose of helping with the election fraud of 2020, not anything to do with Kyle Rittenhouse. Here is Mike Lindell himself saying this:
https://t.me/linwoodspeakstruth/7432
Jack Prosebec got it wrong, as he seems to do quite often, whether it was laziness or intentional (unless, of course, both Lin Wood and Mike Lindell are lying for some reason, which I do not believe to be the case here).
The $50,000 donation to help with uncovering election fraud was added to Lin Wood's foundation funds, which brought their total to $600,000 in the general fund.
At the same time, the foundation was raising money to help with Kyle Rittenhouse's defense fund. That amount was at $1,250,000, and was a separate fund from the general fund. Because the total between these two funds was $1,850,000 at this point, and Kyle Rittenhouse's bail was $2,000,000, the idea was proposed to use all the funds for bail money.
This became an issue when Kyle was transferred to the general jail population at a time when his life was threatened by BLM. They said they were going to find him and kill him. So, his attorney wanted to get him out of jail.
Actor Rick Schroder made an offer to the foundation to loan (not donate) $150,000 to the fund, to bring the total up to $2,000,000 so that the bail could be made.
At that point, Lin Wood's foundation made a deal with Kyle's defense attorney to use that money for bail. The foundation wired the money to the attorney, the attorney used it to make bail, and Rittenhouse was released right away.
Because Kyle's attorney, John Pierce, had the bail money go through his law firm (rather than being posted directly by Lin Wood's foundation), Pierce instructed the clerk of court to return the bail money to Pierce's law firm (not to the foundation). This is how it is supposed to be done, btw -- the person/entity posting the bail is the one who gets it back.
Lin Wood is now also alleging that John Pierce attempted to use the bail money as collateral for personal loans. I don't know if that's even possible, since no bank or lender could know for sure if the bail would ever be returned. But the allegation has been made.
Lin Wood expects that Pierce's law firm will be returning the $2,000,000 back to Lin Wood's foundation (and presumably, the foundation will pay off the $150,000 loan to Schroeder, and the $600,000 general fund will be reinstated, with the $1,250,000 in limbo (help Kyle or use for the foundation's other purposes, such as election fraud issues?).
It's all in his messages from 11/22:
https://t.me/s/linwoodspeakstruth
On a bigger picture view, I will say this: Lin Wood has directly accused Vernon Jones of certain things. From what I have seen, Jones deflects and obfuscates when accused. He does not directly answer. Lin Wood, OTOH, has directly answered the Rittenhouse accusations.
None of us are in a position to know who is telling the truth, so we have to take what is known and make our best guess, subject to changing our view if new information becomes available.
"Circulation" which is the #1 mainstream journal for cardiologists has just published in its November 2021 edition a study that says the Covid vaxx is causing blood clots and is harmful to the heart:
Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results.
We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
THIS is a "mainstream" published paper that shows that the Covid "vaccines" are DANGEROUS.
Anyone in the medical field, any employer, and any government bureaucrat should be willing to look at this and say, "Umm ... wait a sec ... that's not good."
For those interested.
COVID: Cal Football Game Against USC Postponed To December 4 After Outbreak Of 44 Cases
More than 99% of the team is vaccinated but dozens tested positive for COVID.
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/11/09/covid-cal-usc-football-game-postponed-multiple-cases/
Had a conversation with a nurse last night (not in a hospital). Got her onto the subject of face masks. She hates them. She agreed that they do nothing.
I asked her how many doctors and nurses in her hospital does she think really know that the face masks do nothing at all.
She said, "They all know. They're just lying about it."
Yep.
I ran across a video interview of a lawyer who explains a legal issue with the vaxx, which people can use against "mandates."
The interesting thing is, he is saying the exact same thing I did several months ago, but he added information about a law that I was unaware of. This makes it a much stronger argument.
The TLDR version is this:
- Pfizer stated that its vaxx trial showed that it was "95% effective" at preventing Covid
- That statement was a lie
- The true difference in the vaxx group and the placebo group was actually less than 1%, which means the "effectiveness" is actually less than 1%
- What they did was to manipulate the statistics, by taking a ratio of a ratio, rather than to simply compare the two groups
- This is the difference between "relative risk" (the 95% number) and "absolute risk" (the less than 1% real number)
- This lawyer points out that there is a law that says that when a drug maker uses a relative risk number in adverstising, it must also use the absolute risk number, which Pfizer has never done
- When a drug make fails to include the absolute risk number, they are engaged in a violation of law, called "misbranding"
- When a drug is misbranded, it is REQUIRED that the drug be REMOVED FROM THE MARKET Therefore, there is no Pfizer drug (even the EUA one) that can be available on the market, because it has been misbranded
- This is likely also the case with the others, although he does not discuss the others
[*NOTE: Even the 1% difference (absolute risk) is a lie because they used fraudulent numbers to get that, as well. They actually had more people report being sick who took the drug than those who got the placebo. There are numerous reasons why the Pfizer study had nothing at all to do with science, but this issue is the best one to use for the mandate]
So, one could ask an employer if the Pfizer drug is "acceptable" as one of the vaxx they can take. The employer is likely to say yes. Once they do that, then the response is that the Pfizer drug was misbranded due to failing to show that the absolute risk was actually less than 1%, and therefore is required to be removed from the market. The point of stating this to an employer is to put on the table the fact that this is all based on fraud and misrepresentation, which is what you want when you are fighting a legal battle.
Interview of attorney:
https://odysee.com/@sgtreport:7/Mitch-copy:f
My posts related to this issue:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJPv3MkS/
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jcvZXRBO/more-info-on-the-actual-pfizer-v/c/
From Wiki -- looks like he got connected to the cabal via being a Rhodes scholar and going to Yale.
... an American political advisor who serves as the United States National Security Advisor to President Joe Biden. He was previously a senior policy advisor to Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential election campaign and her deputy chief of staff at the Department of State when she was Secretary of State. Sullivan was also a senior advisor to the U.S. government for the Iran nuclear negotiations
Getting closer to the real targets.
Was this discussed already?
The Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario have rescinded their COVID vaccine mandates, citing the system’s inability to cope with losing unvaccinated employees en masse.
I wrote this last night because it is important to understand the truth about the OSHA "mandate" --
Haha. NBA says everybody needs more Covid vaxx juice.
Round #3 required (with #4, #5, #6 to follow, no doubt).
Will the dumb dumbs wake up?
Also, Fiona Hill linked to Steele dossier, along with Ciarella (remember him?).
He thinks Fiona Hill will be the next target (Durham?).
"The criminal fiasco leads to the arrest of cankles herself, She should be locked up!"
Interesting interview.
Talking about 2020 election, Trump, upcoming case at the Supreme Court on the 23rd.
For those interested:
Will the attorneys of this country figure out the LAW ... and argue it correctly in court?
The federal government has LIMITED jurisdiction to do things, as defined in the US Constitution.
Let's look at the recent OSHA document, called "COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard."
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-23643.pdf
Right up front, on the first page, it cites the Department of Labor, OSHA's authority to issue this report. It's the 3rd line on Page 1. That authority is in the Code of Federal Regulations, and specifically at:
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928
"29 CFR" means Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, which are regulations for "29 USC," which is Title 29, United States Code.
What are these "Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928?"
Here is the Table of Contents:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII
Part 1910 - This is ONLY a directive to the Secretary of Labor to create regulations. It has no other authority.
... the Secretary shall ... by rule promulgate
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-A/section-1910.1
Part 1915 - This applies ONLY to ship repairing, shipbuilding, and shipbreaking.
... the provisions of this part shall apply to all ship repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking employments and related employments.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1915
Part 1917 - This applies ONLY to marine terminals.
The regulations of this part apply to employment within a marine terminal ...
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1917
Part 1918 - This part applies ONLY to longshoring.
The regulations of this part apply to longshoring operations and related employments aboard vessels.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1918
Part 1926 - This one is a little tricky to follow, but we start with 1926.1, "Purpose and Scope" --
This part sets forth the safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. The standards are published in subpart C of this part and following subparts.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1926
Subpart C is found in 1926.20, "General Safety and Health Provisions" --
Section 107 of the Act requires that it shall be a condition of each contract which is entered into under legislation subject to Reorganization Plan Number 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267), as defined in § 1926.12, and is for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating ...
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1926/subpart-C
Then, we look at Section 1926.12, "Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950" --
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 relates to the prescribing by the Secretary of Labor of “appropriate standards, regulations, and procedures” with respect to the enforcement of labor standards under Federal and federally assisted contracts which are subject to various statutes subject to the Plan.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1926
So, 1926 ONLY applies to "construction, alteration, and/or repair including painting and decorating ... for GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.
Part 1928 - This part applies ONLY to agricultural operations.
This part contains occupational safety and health standards applicable to agricultural operations.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1928
In summary --
1910 - Directive to the Secretary of Labor to create regulations (which he did).
1915 - Only applies to shipbuilding and repairing (i.e. government employees and/or contractors)
1917 - Only applies to marine terminals (i.e. government employees and/or contractors)
1918 - Only applies to longshoring (i.e. government employees and/or contractors)
1926 - Only applies to hazardous occupations involving painting and decorating (for government contractors)
1928 - Only applies to agricultural operations -- and even that only applies where the federal government has some interest, such as logging federal property (i.e. government contracts).
The ENTIRE "vaccine mandates" are directed ONLY to government employees and/or contractors. Is this constitutional? Well, injecting drugs for a fraudulent reason is not, but otherwise these provisions are within the fed's authority (OSHA, overall) -- PROVIDED they ONLY apply to federal operations.
Notice that three of them apply to ships, longshoring, and ship terminals. Why? Because the Constitution delegates to the feds the ability to have what are known as "federal enclaves" -- not a term used in the Constitution, but a term used by Congress to distinguish specific federal property listed in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
The "forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings" are the federal enclaves where the feds have jurisdiction (if agreed to by the State that surrounds these locations).
It is the dockyards where the ships are built and repaired, and where hazardous chemicals are used that the feds have authority to protect the workers.
In addition, Part 1928 includes similar rules for areas that the feds have control over, such as federal lands where logging and other hazardous activities take place.
That is ALL that the federal government has authority to regulate when it comes to health hazards.
They do NOT have constitutional authority to regulate Mom and Pop businesses across the 50 States of the Union.
Will the attorneys in the USA ... WAKE THE FUCK UP ... and learn what the REAL law actually is?
Check this out --
-
Durham filed criminal charges against Kevin Clinesmith, who falsified a CIA document to cover up the fact that Carter Page was a CIA and FBI informant. The false claim that Page was not already an intel asset was used in the FISA spy warrant on him. Had the FISA court known that Page was an intel asset, there would have been no FISA warrant on him, which means there would have been no "two-hops" to spy on Trump.
-
Durham filed criminal charges against Michael Sussmann, who lied about the fact that he was paid by Hillary Clinton to dig up dirt on Trump, which came in the form of false allegations about Trump colluding with a Russian bank. This story was then leaked to the press, and that story was also used as justification to obtain FISA spy warrants to spy on Trump. ("The media reported on it, so it MUST be true!" was the justification, never mind that the media plants who reported on it were fed the fake story by the Clinton people.)
-
Durham filed criminal charges against Igor Danchenko, who fabricated stories that were used by Christopher Steele to create a false "dossier" about Trump colluding with and being compromised by Russia. These stories were also used to obtain FISA spy warrants to spy on Trump.
-
The information given to the FISA court was provided by the FBI and DOJ. The documents were originally compiled by John Carlin (DOJ-NID), but he quit in September 2016. The job of providing these documents to the FISA court then went to Mary McCord, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (under DAG Sally Yates, and AG Loretta Lynch).
- It was Mary McCord who ultimately provided these false documents to the FISA court. Mary McCord is married to Sheldon Snook.
https://celebhook.com/mary-mccord-age-wikipedia/
- Sheldon Snook worked directly for, and was an assistant of, SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, while these fake documents were being approved by the FISA court for warrants to spy on Trump.
- The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the person who has oversight authority over the FISA court.
-
So, Mary McCord at DOJ was funneling phony documents to the FISA court, which was under the authority of John Roberts, whose assistant was McCord's husband. These documents were falsely used to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump.
-
Now that McCord is out of the DOJ, she is working for multiple organizations, one of which is Georgetown University. Georgetown has close links to the FISA court, as it routinely offers legal "advice" to that court via amicas curiae ("friend of the court") briefs. The person appointed for that role currently is ... Mary McCord.
In a nutshell, 3 people were in a position to push through fake documents and phony evidence to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump:
- Mary McCord -- DOJ attorney who was in charge of submitting the "evidence"
- Sheldon Snook -- Mary's husband, who was assisting CJ Roberts in his oversight role
- John Roberts -- oversight authority, and in a position to decide anything he wanted to in the FISA court
This is a theme we should be pushing. There WAS real Russia collusion, and it was by crooked Hillary and the crooked Dems.
Red pills for the blue hairs.
Mr. Durr has stunned the political establishment with a genuine grassroots campaign that has likely defeated the second most powerful office holder in New Jersey.
MAGA !!!
Something not discussed nearly enough, even around here, is that the federal government does NOT have authority to "do whatever it wants." It has LIMITED authority, per the Constitution.
The federal government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over (a) Washington, DC, (b) the federal territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), and (c) the federal enclaves (areas such as military bases, where the State granted to the federal government exclusive jurisdiction or such jurisdiction was reserved by the federal government upon statehood).
In every other area within the States, the federal government ONLY has jurisdiction in those specific areas that the Constitution enumerates such powers (bankruptcy courts, immigration law, post offices, etc.).
In 1956, a report was published discussing federal jurisdiction:
https://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/DSJurisdictionReport1957.pdf
As the federal government attempts to encroach on areas that are not within its powers, it becomes more and more important to be reminded of the constitutional limitations.
The trick used today is the feds claim they have a "contract" with a person or business and that allows them to violate their jurisdictional limits.
It does not. The feds cannot obtain by private contract what it cannot have the authority to do via the Constitution.