12 AUG 20 (FORTY-FOURTH article in a series)
The case against Lt. General Michael Flynn was dropped and dismissed on 07 May and yet here we find ourselves covering an en banc review (a hearing of the case in front of the full U.S. appellate court for the DC Circuit) some three months later and after absurd extra-constitutional and unconstitutional measures by corrupt and compromised Judge Emmet Sullivan. Sullivan’s historically anomalous stance here has been to bend the rule of law to its breaking point thus allowing him to usurp the the federal government’s (DOJ/Executive) sole prosecutorial authority; and to intentionally delay, obfuscate and extend this matter past the election.
The Mason Jar
</> Sidney Powell and Jeffrey Wall argue the Flynn case in front of the full DC Circuit appellate court (en banc review)
</> Court introduces hypothetical ‘bribery’ scenario
</> AG William Barr has additional evidence relative to the decision to pursue a rule 48(a) dismissal that he has not shared with the court
With this series of articles now at forty and growing, I have to leave it to new readers to catch-up mostly on their own. The subject matter here is just too deep, entangled and encompassing to recapitulate it with each new article.
If you are new please consider seeing HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS at the bottom: hypothesis, team update, disclaimers, graphics and timeline. NEW: UNDERLYING POSITIONS (important contextual backdrop for full understanding)
*The graphics are very helpful in consuming large quantities of information succinctly.
In this article, we’ll focus primarily on the arguments and rebuttal of Lt. General Michael Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell. Please note that the although Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall and Sullivan’s counselor Beth Sullivan also appear and give weight and worth, it’s mostly left for your independent consumption save a few important highlights (it’s a nearly 4-hour hearing and it’s linked in full below.)
In her opening statement, Lt. General Michael Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell argued that “General Flynn is a defendant without a prosecutor in litigation now without any controversy between the actual parties to the case,” drawing back on the basic premise that the Flynn case represents the sole account in U.S. history whereby a judge at any level and in any case has refused to grant a rule 48(a) dismissal. The matter is further exacerbated and aggravated by Sullivan’s insistence to create baseless extra-judicial process: denial of two defense motions, amicus curiae appointment, forced writ of mandamus, etc. Moreover, Powell argues that the court “raised the sword of perjury and contempt charges over Flynn’s head.” How rich the irony.
Powell delineated four rulings required to conclude the case: 1) Judge Sullivan’s petition for rehearing must be flatly denied, 2) Sullivan must be disqualified for glaring and obvious personal bias, 3) mandamus issue to vacate Judge Gleeson’s intrusive amicus appointment and 4) mandamus issue to compel the court to order the rule 48(a) dismissal as a matter of law.
After Powell’s brief opening statement, the court immediately circled back to important aspects of the previous panel’s ruling as noted below by TechnoFog. Specifically, it’s this line, “The parties should be prepared to address whether there are “no other adequate means to attain the relief” desired.” This particular aspect was noteworthy at the time and was immediately front and center at the opening of the hearing.
The court opened-up with Obama-appointed Judge Sri Srinivasan queuing-up Powell about other adequate means for relief by placing aside the other three stated remedies and asking the following question but only as it relates to the rule 48(a) dismissal, which the previous panel of judges had ruled on. “You agree that you’re entitled to mandamus as to that form of relief only if there’s no other adequate means to attain the relief?”, he asked.
This question is critical as remarked on in previous articles and given that the writ of mandamus is considered to be an extreme measure and clearly one forced upon Powell and Flynn in light of the circumstance relative to viable options – there were none. Why? Easy – so it can be later questioned and ridiculed due to its extremity. Or, force people to do extreme things so you can attack them for doing extreme things. This represents a common constructive element for the Left.
An analog to this constructive scenario is what our hijacked federal government does all of the time: problem, reaction, solution. In other words, Sullivan creates the problem (refusal to grant the rule 48(a) dismissal), then he creates the reaction (only leaving Powell the extreme step of mandamus) and then he creates the solution (here we are on 11 Aug for an en banc hearing when the case was dismissed 07 May.) Problem, reaction, solution. It’s not difficult to grasp logically or pragmatically; just constitutionally.
Sidebar – if you want another contemporaneous example of this type of construct, see COVID-19 as a directly interrelated component to the same broader coup d’etat effort that encompasses the Trump administration and envelops Flynn. Problem (fake pandemic), reaction (extreme draconian measures to impact the voting base and force mail-in voting) and solution (steal the 2020 election sans any chance of winning it authentically.) For another example, see 9/11. I digress and back to it.
Powell agreed, “Yes, your honor, and there is no other adequate means to attain the relief because of the usurpation of power and the intrusion into the Article II branch by the processes he’s (Sullivan) adjusted…” Form this, we can ascertain that it appears as if the court is straying and perhaps even leading Powell into controversy in light of the constructive aspects delineated above and in other articles. This position is rooted in the court’s question as to whether Powell was aware of any legal precedent whereby a court was compelled to issue a rule 48(a) dismissal via mandamus before the court itself had ruled on the case. This speaks exactly to what’s outlined above – the measure being extreme yet it being the only one available to the defense ergo, it’s being dictated to the defense for the purpose of drawing it into question. Therein lies the constructive elements discussed. Why do you think the judge is asking for legal precedent here?
Moreover, it’s an invalid question because no such legal precedent exists and the court knows this. It’s invalid because corrupt and compromised Judge Emmet Sullivan represents the only case in U.S. history where a defendant has been forced into this situation. Powell rebutted this accordingly and authoritatively. How utterly swampy.
As the court continued to move in this direction, it completely ignored the bastardized, extra-constitutional and unconstitutional processes that were literally created out of thin air by Sullivan. Powell noted that the “process” is the problem whereby it violates Articles II (executive branch separation of powers) and III (judicial branch separation of powers) drawing the two into conflict and whereby Sullivan has had ample time to effectively execute his constitutional duty to rule on the matter. Importantly, Powell again reminded the court that Sullivan’s amicus appointment was outside the rules of the district court (or in other words, not permitted by rule) and therefore, simply issuing the mandamus for dismissal fails to remedy the flawed process that still snags the defense in other capacities; hence Powell’s initial establishment of the four requisite rulings to close this matter. The bottom line and as Powell again reminded the court, Sullivan never possessed a constitutional basis to refuse the rule 48(a) dismissal. Sullivan has no legal standing (as a judge! – unprecedented), period.
Powell stated that the genesis for the amicus appointment began when she was copied on an email sent to chambers by the Robbins Russell firm on behalf of “self-described Watergate prosecutors.” As Powell explained this, Judge Millet was quick to over-speak and truncate Powell’s reply citing her own exiting familiarity with it. Millet would circle back to these points in her second round of questioning. Ironically, it seems the court is contradicting itself to discount interference by an entity with no legal standing in the matter but whereby it is informing the court outside of the proper channel to inform it – the very amicus appointment in contention here. Astonishing. Nonetheless, this component to the Flynn case is troubling and may likely bear fruit to demonstrate conspiracy against Flynn.
It’s notable that when questioning got to the aforementioned Obama-appointed Judge Patricia Millet (Chicago), the very familiar Democratic House committee chairman approach of not permitting the witness to fully respond to questions and in this case counselor Powell (and Wall and Wilkinson), whose answers were truncated or talked-over. The level of due respect and reciprocal courtesy fell far short of what you’d expect from an appellate judge and her petulant attitude was palpable.
Given that the case is being reheard in front of the full appellate court, the lion’s share of angles and arguments are familiar as previously reported. Astonishingly, Obama-appointed Judge Robert Wilkins resumed his familiar grandstanding (he also heard the prior arguments on the 3-judge panel) by devolving into a ridiculous hypothetical rule 48(a) dismissal case involving Brady material (exculpatory evidence), a Catholic University law professor, an amicus appointment, nuns, bishops, a brief case full of cash, a bribe, a dirty prosecutor and a deal brokering defendant. That really happened.
When Powell attempted to steer the arguments back to the actual Flynn case to address relevant and cogent points, of course Wilkins forced her back into his absurd hypothetical. I’ll just say it – is Wilkins implicitly suggesting that Sullivan’s pursuance of Flynn relative to the amicus appointment is justified because Flynn bribed the federal government to drop his case? It sure as hell seems like it. Otherwise, it’s a highly irresponsible and inappropriate hypothetical construct to introduce and debate in the Flynn case; it being one of such monumental importance. He didn’t proffer that particular hypothetical by accident – that’s not how any of this works. So then, what was the reason? Deferring to Occam’s, I don’t think there is a better explanation than the one given. Who wants to put chips whether Wilkins (and Millett and others [?]) is compromised and corrupt?
When questioning got to Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao, also seated on the 3-judge panel in the previous hearing, she recapitulated questions from the preceding judges to bring clarity to an apparent galvanized position – the role of the judge and the scope of his authority relative to rule 48(a). Appropriately, Powell replied citing the constitutionally limited scope wherein and as stated ad nauseam, sole prosecutorial authority is possessed by the Executive.
In a lighter and noteworthy moment, when GHW Bush-appointed Judge Karen Henderson, the third judge seated on the panel in the previous hearing, asked her question, she opted for an anecdotal and rhetorical one quipping and soliciting a good chuckle from Powell, “Are you familiar with… Ezra Pound (American poet, expatriate and fascist sympathizer) who said, ‘Some circumstantial evidence is so strong as when you find a fish in the milk’, do you think that applies in this case?” Laughing ensued making for a light moment wherein Powell obviously agreed with Judge Henderson. Henderson would later correct her citation to Henry David Thoreau during the Wall portion of the hearing.
GHW Bush-appointed Judge Thomas Griffith used his time to introduce an alternative purpose for rule 48(a) by first confirming Powell’s position that its “primary purpose is the protection of defendants against vexatious prosecutions” and then parlaying that into an historical record of the creation of rule 48(a). Therein, he cited the U.S. Supreme Court and the ulterior purpose of 48(a); ergo 48(a) has no sole purpose. He did this by stating it was “created by the Supreme Court” to “examine cases of favoritism for politically powerful defendants and that seems to be within the wheelhouse of what’s going on here. Is that not one of the purposes of 48(a)?”
Powell corrected the record stating, “Not according to the Supreme Court, it certainly never addressed that.” Griffith pushed back against it asserting that protecting defendants from prosecutorial harassment is not the sole purpose; suggesting that other purposes have merit. Powell immediately corrected the record again stating that according to the law, that is the sole purpose. Insistent that the history of the creation of 48(a) bears relevance independent from any legal precedent supporting the position that there is a purpose beyond the sole one, Griffith stated, “I thought that one of the purposes was to allow a district court judge to examine favoritism with politically powerful defendants.” Powell acknowledged the body of history as it were but reminded Griffith that the courts have not interpreted 48(a) in this way given and that it’s never actually been addressed by the court. Why? Powell reminds us by citing the critical historical anomaly of a rule 48(a) – that a dismissal has NEVER been denied in all of U.S. history.
Interestingly, as Millet engaged in her second round of questions and reverting back to the Watergate prosecutors component as already described; and maintaining her petulant and rude disposition, she curiously took Powell back to Wilkins’ absurd hypothetical case. Why is that important? It gives the appearance of an activist court attempting to construct a narrative for political reasons. Why the bribery hypothetical from Wilkins? Why did Millet revisit that hypothetical bribery? Why did Obama-appointed Judge Cornelia Pillard use her second round to visit the bribery hypothetical? It all suggests that it won’t be long before we see a leaked story depicting a scenario where Flynn bribed the federal government to drop his case.
Where do you think Judge Wilkins went for his second round of questioning? That’s right – immediately back to his bribery hypothetical. Why? Therein, Wilkins used this obscene example to as described but also to create room for Sullivan’s extra-constitutional maneuvering. Powell slammed the door on it, though, by stating that the case must referred back to the DOJ for prosecution in such a matter; not extended by the presiding judge.
During Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall’s time, he touched on one monumentally important and very weighty component and it may explain the court’s decision to inject a bribery angle into the record. It’s the fact that Attorney General William Barr has material evidence germane to the decision to pursue a rule 48(a) dismissal in re: Flynn, but that he COULD NOT SHARE that evidence with the court. What do we have here? What evidence does he have? Is the constructive bribery narrative intended to offset this likely known development? Is the nature of Barr’s evidence such that he has communications? Would those communications include potentially corrupt judges? Perhaps some of these judges? Others? These dynamics have shifted the entire Flynn landscape.
Astonishingly, Millet then directly asked Mr. Wall his REAL intention for dropping the Flynn case when she quipped, “Was it a bribe or was it Brady?” Understand what has happened here. This is an activist court. This court just inserted itself akin to what Sullivan has done. Is there an attorney anywhere in the country who can document a case where a court has used a hypothetical example of a defendant bribing the government to dismiss his case and done so sans even a single grain of evidence?
Look at what the court has done in this proceeding alone: Judge Wilkins introduces an absurd bribery hypothetical that is followed-up on multiple times and by multiple judges so as to sow it as some form of legitimate discourse. Millet engages in that discourse and converts the hypothetical into an actual assertion in the form of a question – “Was it a bribe or was it Brady?” THIS IS ABUSIVE COURT ACTIVISM THAT IS PROFOUNDLY CORRUPT AND EMBLEMATIC OF EVERYTHING THE PRESIDENT HAS FACED SINCE BEFORE HE EVEN ANNOUNCED. Where’s the evidence Flynn bribed anyone; much less his own prosecutor? Do you understand the implications here? Again this is profoundly corrupt, criminal and treasonous given the full fact set at hand (see Flynn, Russia, Mueller, Ukraine, impeachment, COVID-19 and a newly manufactured race war – all components on the same political continuum.)
Frustratingly, a bulk of the judges continue to pursue the preservation of the integrity of the court by calling for Wall (and Powell) to cite legal precedent relevant to rule 48(a) and fully ignoring that there IS NO LEGAL PRECEDENT BECAUSE THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN U.S. HISTORY. EVER. It’s another example of forcing the defense into the extreme and then criticizing them for extreme elements (like no legal precedent knowing it doesn’t exist.) Distilled down – these adversarial judges are either patently moronic and stupid or corrupt and compromised – it can’t be had both ways. There’s no other explanation. A first year law student could rule on this case. Absurd.
Wilkins again dragged Wall into his hypothetical with comments not intelligent enough to recapitulate here aside from telling you that he inserted the Attorney General into his hypothetical to be his most recent bribe recipient. It all begs the question, where in the hell did President Obama source his appointees? Patently moronic and stupid or corrupt and compromised – it can’t be had both ways.
Before Wall’s time expired, insufferable and petulant Millet returned to the hypothetical AGAIN to derail the actual Flynn hearing and wallow in bribery accusations where no evidence for such exists. Who is Millet’s principal? Is it the U.S. Constiution she’s sworn to uphold or the corrupt president that appointed her? Her actions reflect that latter.
Peculiarly, when Wilkins resurfaced again to question Sullivan’s counselor, he asked attorney Beth Wilkinson, “What is your position as to the range of public interest factors that a district judge can properly consider in whether to grant or deny a motion under rule 48(a)?” The peculiarity lies with Wilkinson’s reply; not necessarily Wilkins’ question. It should be obvious to you – “Of course the court cannot second-guess a prosecutorial decision made by the government,” curiously aligning with Powell and Flynn and seemingly counter to her client’s (Sullivan) own interests. It was for a reason. She then followed it up almost as if by design and by giving two examples of “misconduct by the government” that represent hypothetical but actual exceptions in the form of “failure to appear at the hearing” and (wait for it….) “BRIBERY.” Of course she rooted it all in preserving the integrity of the courts and the judicial system. Insert vomit here.
Powell and Wall concluded with succinct summary rebuttals; both asking the court for relief for Flynn. The hearing adjourned with the case under the court’s consideration.
Stay tuned. I have a feeling fireworks are in store and it just might be AG William Barr holding the match. Exactly what does he have?
The full hearing:
Contents: Underlying Positions, Hypothesis, Team Update, Disclaimer, QAnon disclaimer, Timeline, Graphics
*Please find related graphics and images and the timeline at the bottom.
*If you are brand new, there are two recommendations as to where to begin catching-up and they are posted at the very bottom – one shorter than the other.
AN IMPORTANT NOTE ROOTED IN APPRECIATED READER FEEDBACK: Please consider that the Making the Case for Treason sub-series is deliberately much more granular and comprehensive and therefore more burdensome to consume. It is NOT presented for fast uptake like a Twitter thread. That would be grossly irresponsible and entirely inappropriate and inadequate given the implications, consequences and ramifications of what we are asserting herein. That said and for full understanding, these articles are recommended to be consumed old-school style: sitting down, uninterrupted, start to finish and repeated until understood.
By design, this isn’t causal reading. My prior experience as an investigator and history teacher drive the approach and it is one rooted in preparing summary findings reports detailing investigations used to prosecute, arbitrate, settle, dispute, litigate, etc. The work is comprehensive and the details are granular and that’s exactly how it should be – we’re MAKING the case, which rests between talking about it and prosecuting it. Generally, it’s a demonstration of why it should be prosecuted.
All said, if you care to understand HOW and WHY the entire nation was sold-out in the worst way, those details must be fully examined to be fully understood.
- The ENTIRETY of the COVID-19 pandemic functions on a broader timetable dating back years and converges contemporaneously with Flynn, Russia, Mueller, Ukraine and impeachment, whereby all of the latter are sub-components serving the former, which it itself is a sub-component to a broader plan by decades.
- The criminality and corruption we’re seeing isn’t new – it’s decades-old planning that’s coming to manifest now and extends from the same power bases as the 9/11 false flag political construct and other events.
- Obama’s criminality dates back to the beginning of his first term when he entered office assigned with an agenda to map his counterinsurgency doctrine over the US to infiltrate all three levels of government: local, state and federal.
- Obama has been and continues to run point for a broader Globalist operation deeply entangled with the Clintons, Soros, Gates and a host of others.
- Everything unfolding from the President’s administration is the execution of a contingency plan that is calibrated to the 2020 election cycle. That election cycle becomes the immediate primary timeline over which all others are laid. We establish this because everything before and after it rests on the crux of 03 Nov 20 – election day. The other drivers here are the timeline underpinning Obama’s exit from office and its deserved severe scrutiny specific the events occurring late Dec to mid-Jan 2017.
- Everything we are seeing play-out as responsive from the Trump administration to COVID-19 is not a reaction by any means. Rather it’s reflective of steps within a pre-constructed contingency plan that was based and devised from intelligence indicating that this unavoidable (POTUS has little control over what bad actors do within the borders of it chief military, economic and diplomatic rival in China) false flag political construct was imminent. With adaptations for real world and real time considerations, President Trump is currently executing that plan, not responding to a fake pandemic. Understand that these two things exist in different universes.
- Observe the messaging and social programming (a very real thing!) – who wears masks and when do they wear them? Fauci and Birx, the true usurpers of the President’s emergency powers, wear them while the President’s people do not. Pay attention to other subtle cues – the messaging is evident. Observes the sights and sounds emanating from TV. Notice how the formula is all the same – pulling on emotional heart strings to elicit a dopamine drop to trigger brain chemistry and set to the same jingly, emotion-invoking music that parallels the sights and sounds of casino brain science. The same brain science that is being leveraged against the American people to literally brainwash them into believing that the only way to stay safe is to hunker down at home; out of fear and unable to humanely connect with other humans. In other words, it’s social programming to accept your digitally (and legally) enforced slavery. Wake-up and resist.
- President Trump wagging Fauci in front of the cameras weeks ago to force him to correct the record and own that every time he and Birx asked for anything, the President gave it to them the first time every time. HARDLY ANYONE TALKS ABOUT THIS. He’s making them own their usurpation of emergency powers on live TV. Now you know why Fauci and Birx often appear so uncomfortable and agitate when exposed to the right information. There will come a day people point specifically to that moment in time and for good cause.
- FLYNN FIRST! as covered comprehensively in the previous articles and manifesting currently with the constructive Lawfare Group/Judge Sullivan amicus curiae brief maneuver. Importantly, we content per work at CTH that was not unmasked but rather the subject of a FISA warrant before his attachment to the Trump administration. Flynn was the first prioritized target and as of this article, he remains not only that, but he’s locked, loaded and ready to fully reengage. The amicus stunt is the coup d’etat Hail Mary with likely other contingencies waiting when this fails as it ultimately will. Flynn’s deep and broad knowledge of the vast criminality at hand remains the most critical aspect and division point between the past and current administrations and Flynn as a man represents the entirety of their own undoing. FLYNN FIRST!
Hypothesis (developed over time with emerging research):
Our hypothesis asserts that this political construct was inserted into President Trump’s administration during compulsory Obama/Trump transition meetings on 13 Jan 17. That’s the same day the MSM decided to release the cooked-up Flynn/Russia story preemptively and with Flynn taking part in those meetings. Unsurprisingly, the immediate talking points from Obama administration officials and others in-the-know were about the disrupted, off-kilter, reluctant and awkward nature of the meeting. How convenient for them to build their future MSM talking points into the meeting by designing and timing those dynamics. Since the insertion point, a mountain of correlated and interconnected evidence further propels this hypothesis as represented in this growing catalog of article.
28 Mar 20 Update/Team: What used to be a looser conversational group has grown and, over the course of this pandemic, has become a small team of folks working together most of the day every day. Much of what I’m writing recently is a product of that collective work and/or my own opinion as influenced by that group. This team receives quite a bit of valuable information from the folks who read our articles and accordingly, we (I) give a special heartfelt hat tip to @Shazlandia, whom keeps me on my toes at all times; often inconveniencing herself to do it.
Disclaimer – This has now grown into a sizable series of articles on the COVID-19 coronavirus. Understand that all of this began simply with some curiosity about whom may stand to gain or benefit with the discovery of a promising treatment identified as Remesdivir – no more and no less; it’s that simple.
QAnon Disclaimer: I give much time to QAnon and for this simple reason – no matter if you believe QAnon to be absolutely real or absolutely fake, QAnon has consistently remained in front of the news cycle; with great accuracy, over time and while the MSM and other “news” outlets have consistently gotten it wrong for that same time. Yes, you have to dig to get the information but the doormats are conveniently placed in front of you if you care to enter. I care to enter.
A Word on Intent: There was never an intent to write a single article; much less a series of them. The rabbit hole into which I placed myself diverged many times over transitioning into a mess of global entanglements that converted this work from an exploratory exercise to one hunting for evidence to scaffold an hypothesis. The content, therefore, is affected and takes a different tone and direction. For deeper understanding, here is the CATALOG of all articles in this series.
Where to Start Catching-up: I have two shortcuts for new readers looking to catch-up and avoid reading from article one. The ninth article – IS COVID-19 A GLOBAL 9/11? EVIDENCE CAN BE ARRANGED TO SUGGEST A FALSE FLAG CONSTRUCT AND HERE’S HOW – served as a recapitulation as of 14 Mar 20. Alternatively, you could take a bigger shortcut and pick-up with CAUSE OF DEATH FOR SALE posted 12 Apr 20.
IS COVID-19 A GLOBAL 9/11? EVIDENCE CAN BE ARRANGED TO SUGGEST A FALSE FLAG CONSTRUCT AND HERE’S HOW
13 JAN 17 PANDEMIC CONSTRUCT INSERTION
Figures 21-26: Leaked slides from the pandemic scenario insertion on 13 Jan 17 during compulsory Obama/Trump transition meetings:
The Flynn Timeline Insert
*Embedded images sourced from Conservative Treehouse, NBC News, Fox News and QAnon and open federal sources.
Conservative Tree House presents 5 distinct phases for context to the broader construct and they bear significant relevance here:
1. 12/2015 – 4/2016: “The first phase leading into ‘Spygate’ is the period of time where opposition research of the republican candidate field was taking place. It is in this period where Fusion-GPS hired CIA Open Source researcher Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ-NSD official Bruce Ohr, to do research.”
2. 4/18/2016 – 7/31/2016: “At the same time as NSA Director Mike Rogers discovered a significant and unauthorized uptick in FISA-702(16)(17) database queries, and subsequently blocked access (April 18th, 2016), candidate Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee for the presidential race.”
3. 8/1/2016 – 10/21/2016: “With the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation in full swing, the Obama intelligence community, the CIA, was conducting facilitating operations throughout. In August 2016 CIA Director John Brennan brought the covert intelligence congressional oversight team known as the Gang-of-Eight into the picture.”
4. 10/21/2016 – 1/20/2017: “The FBI received their FISC surveillance authority two weeks before the November 8th presidential election.”
5. 1/20/2017 – present: this portion is too extensive to summarize fully and include – please click the original link. In general, “Here’s where the current background of multiple issues and questions begins to make sense.” Congress is unaware of “what is taking place within the ongoing counterintelligence operation against President Trump and all those around him. Crossfire Hurricane, aka ‘Spygate’, is mostly invisible in the background. The need to put factual teeth behind a fraudulently created investigative predicate means the FBI needs to start getting serious about the investigative targets. “
Important: Pay attention for commentary in the image captions and elsewhere to give meaning as you progress.
Nov ’14: Mifsud’s first association with London Centre of International Law and Practice Limited (LCILP)
-Obama makes an apparent exception to existing policy by allowing Fauci to fund at $3.7m coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab expected of leaking the virus (SOURCE.)
October/November 2015 – Mifsud joins LCILP
22 May: Obama signs into law the new (JCPOA) Iran deal
Dec ’15: Flynn visits Russia participating in a diplomatic-styled event in Moscow celebrating the 10th anniversary of RT.
Feb ’16: Papadopoulos’ Linked-In account states he joined LCILP
Mar ’16: Papadopoulos joins LCILP (conflicts with previous entry above) as head of the Centre for International Energy and Natural Resources Law & Security; create nexus between him and Mifsud; Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign offer to arrange a meeting – “Meeting with Russian Leadership – Including Putin”
06 Mar: Senior Trump campaign official advises Papadopoulos that improving Russian relations will be a priority
14 Mar: Papadopoulos-Mifsud meet for first time
18 Mar: Obama enacted Executive Order/Public Law 113-146 changing Kennedy-era law so as to augment the process and include pandemic preparedness into transitional meetings.
21 Mar: Via the Washington Post, Papadopoulos introduced publicly by Trump campaign as one of 5 foreign advisersMarch 24, 2016 – Papadopoulos meets female Russian national for first time (‘Putin’s niece’) via Mifsud
31 Mar: Papadopoulos attends national security meeting in DC with Trump and other advisors resulting in an effort to broker a meeting with Putin and the Russians
Apr ’16: Papadopoulos emails multiple progress reports regarding Russian meeting efforts
10-11 Apr: Papadapoulos and female Russian national email to arrange foreign policy trip
11 Apr: Mifsud emails confirming the arrangement in the previous entry
18 Apr: Via email, Mifsud introduces Papadopoulos to Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs contact
22 Apr: Russian MFA emails Papadopoulos; thanks him for extensive talks and proposes London meeting
25 Apr: Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign advising of open invitation for Trump to meet with Russians in London
26 Apr: Mifsud meets Papadopoulos in London hotel and claims to have damaging information on Clinton
27 Apr: Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign about “interesting messages” and a meeting where Russia would host Trump
30 Apr: Papadopoulos thanks Mifsud for his “critical help”
May ’16: Papadopoulos-Alexander Downer (AUS) meet to discuss damaging information on Clinton
04 May: Russian MFA emails Papadopoulos about open cooperation Trump meeting
05 May: Papadopoulos has phone call with Trump campaign and forwards Russian MFA email
13 May: Mifsud emails Papadopoulos about continuing to liaise between the Russians and Trump to schedule high-level meeting
21 May: Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign about Russians being eager to meet
01 Jun: Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign; referred to Campaign Supervisor about high-level Russian meeting
09 Jun: Trump Tower Meeting with Russians
Jul ’16: Bruce Ohr advises FBI/DOJ of potentially fraudulent nature of Steele dossier; Downer provides a tip about “Trump” to Australian intelligence (Five Eyes accord); Australia (Five Eyes accord) provides Downer “Trump” tip to US intelligence
18 Jul and before: Trump under surveillance
19 Jul: Papadopoulos, after ongoing communications with the Russian MFA contact, emails Trump campaign about surrogates attending the meeting if Trump is unable; Trump wins Republican nomination
Aug ’16: Bruce Ohr advises FBI/DOJ of potentially fraudulent nature of Steele dossier
15 Aug: Trump campaign advises Papadopoulos to make the Russian meeting trip if feasible (meeting did not take place)
September 2016 – Stefan Halper pressures George Papadopoulos on Russia in accusatory form
Oct ’16: FISA warrant application on Carter Page filedOct ’16: Mary McCord becomes AAG/DOJ/NSD replacing John Carlin
Dec ’16: Kushner facilitates meeting with Russians and Flynn, Sally Yates learns of Flynn investigation
Notable: Relative to the above – be prepared to hear revelations that Jared Kushner is somehow compromised. That is the emerging evidence and it suggests how the President’s enemies could have put the both him and Flynn at ease regarding interfacing with the Russians. Perhaps the President knew Kushner was compromised and played him, who knows? No matter he was assigned the Russia reset project by Trump. It seems that Kushner may have to answer some difficult questions soon. We’ll stay tuned to see if the dog will hunt.
31 Dec: Kislyak calls Flynn, conversation held
Notable: The previous Kushner meeting now takes on new meaning given that it facilitates a phone call between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Flynn. We call that a set-up or pretext.
Move forward with tremendous and careful discernment as we encroach on the most important period of US history.
Jan. ’17: Obama increases funding by $171m to the WHO as funded and controlled by Bill Gates and China (soured in housekeeping.)
Jan ’17: Obama sought funding cuts at the CDC, which would effectively interfere with pandemic preparedness and response (SOURCE): fiscal year 2015, $414 million cut year-over-year; fiscal year 2017 budget, looked to eliminate $251 million in CDC funding.
Jan ’17: The period of time Christopher Steele states that he deleted all of his Russian dossier files and contents
03 Jan: Trump and Flynn meet and discuss Russian matters, Mary McCord’s first knowledge of the case against Flynn, Loretta Lynch signs Obama’s new regulations for signals intelligence dissemination (SOURCE)
04 Jan: FBI doc 189-1 indicates that CROSSFIRE RAZOR surveillance (on Trump meeting with Flynn) resulted in no subject interview and closed the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE investigation.
05: Barack Obama, Susan Rice & Joe Biden extend a meeting privately to discuss doing investigations “by the book,” Susan Rice issued self-memorialized document meeting, Sally Yates first receives notice of the Flynn case.
Notable: The day-by-day is remarkable here. To begin, Flynn and Trump meet on the 3rd and obviously the meeting was under surveillance because Flynn got to school sick and the 04 Jan report verifies it. Now, he’s sitting in class with Trump and ‘incidental collection’ is in play: A> B> C = A-C. It seems Barry and the boys were in on this conversation since Flynn’s warrant was active upon arrival; heard nothing but still moved forward. Consider where this went.
Two days following the meeting and the day after the dead-end report and Crossfire Hurricane closing, Obama, Biden and Rice extend a meeting privately. Immediately thereafter, Susan Rice issues a self-memorialization email to specifically frame “Russia” contextually relevant to Flynn, Trump and everything else. They did this AFTER knowing Flynn, Trump and Russia was a dead end. Again, see definition for treason.
Most critical to all things, this very moment in time is when Barack Hussein Obama galvanizes his foreknowledge to the entire false flag political construct into the permanent historical record. Thank you Susan.
At this point the ball game is on and everything else that follows is toward the eventual COVID-19 destination.
10 Jan: Buzzfeed publishes fraudulent Steel dossier tying back to John Brennan and his decision to launder the phone intelligence report by including it in the President’s Daily Brief, thus giving the suspected fraudulent dossier false instant credibility in the MSM.
11 Jan: Dr. Fauci publicly stated, “During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak.” (SOURCE)
12 Jan: The Carter Page FISA warrant was set to expire and required renewal
12 Jan: FBI verified via its sub-source that Steele dossier was fraudulent and was comprised of Russian disinformation (SOURCE), thus eliminating their primary predication for initial impeachment and any warrants to which the dossier may have been attached.
13 Jan: Earlier: MSM coordinated the leak of fraudulent Flynn/Russia so as to preempt the presidential transition meetings in which Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was a participant
13 Jan: Later: Insertion point for the false flag viral pandemic political construct as occurring during compulsory and legally augmented Obama/Trump presidential transition meetings; thrust Fauci, Birx & WHO into roles.
15 Jan: Phase I China deal signed
24 Jan: FBI/Flynn interview, 302 drafted
January 27, 2017 – FBI interviews Papadapoulos for first time
31 Jan: (08 Nov – 31 Jan Flynn “unmasking requests” and parties making inquiries.
14 Feb: McCabe approves Flynn 302, Page and Strzok texts cite “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” and “Launch on f 302.”
Significantly Notable: TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE 302 WAS WITTINGLY ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY MCCABE WITH THE WORD ‘DRAFT’ ATTACHED TO IT. This is deliberate for it creates a legal portal to file revised 302s later, meaning it also creates an avenue to literally change the story after the fact. Also significantly notable is the record of unmasking requests referenced against the varied list of requesting parties. Again, the timeline reveals the meaning – the purpose of the unmasking around the late Dec to mid-Jan timeline is to support the fraudulent case for Flynn being compromised by the Russians. This would be accomplished by leaking the findings publicly as a panicked Obama prepared to leave office with more loose ends than an splayed and frayed anchor rope.
15 Feb: Flynn 302 accepted, indicating Flynn’s invitation to the Russian GRU in 2013, which would have been authorized by Obama’s administration (set-up.)
Notable: Here we have the notorious Page and Strzok texts in support of the questionable 302; remembering that Strzok was the lead interviewing agent on the Flynn interview. Take note of the ‘draft’ marker below.
16 Feb: FBI-Papadapoulos interview #2
17 Feb: Papadopoulos deactivates his Facebook account circa 2005
February 23, 2017 – Papadopoulos ceases using his cell number and establishes a new one
May ’17: Zainab Ahmad attends Global Center on Cooperative Security event
08 May: Strzok and Page texts stating “F*CK! Clapper and Yates…playing into the ‘there should be an unmasking request/record’ for incidental collection, incorrect narrative.”
Significantly Notable: Here Strzok and Page discuss specifically CTH’s contention regarding Flynn as a subject relative to incidental collection. They identify incidental collection as the incorrect narrative meaning that Flynn was an subject for an active FISA warrant.
17 May: Robert Mueller named Special Counsel, Zainab Ahmad member of initial legal team
Notable: “Zainab Ahmad, a member of Mueller’s legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn, Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security event in 2017. In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter: “Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC Mueller? She was at a GCCS event in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George Papadopoulos] and [Simona Mangiante]. She’s a GCCS consultant.”
“Blackburn told this author: “Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May 2017, she attended a counter-terrorism conference in New York with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian spy, had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.”
31 May: Flynn 302 re-entered at FBI
Notable: The reentered Flynn 302 on 31 May (as noted in the image above) removed the ‘draft’ marker thus allowing for a retro-fitted change to the fact set. It was a deliberate maneuver or a set-up.
27 Jul: Papadopoulos is arrested
30 Oct: Papadopoulos pleads guilty
30 Nov: Flynn signs guilty plea as accepted by Judge Ruy Contreras
Notable: This juncture is important. Notice how Flynn’s signed confession occurs AFTER the ‘DRAFT’ 302 was accepted accepted and then refiled thus establishing a revised fact set. Further down, you’ll note were two revised 302s were inserted again after the fact. The word ‘draft’ was never ‘inadvertently’ anything rather deliberate the entire way. Nefarious and tedious!
Look where it goes. Look whom happened to sit on the FISA court, oversee the Flynn case and then recuse unexpectedly and without explanation. This is entirely reflective of two things: the jig was up and Contreras was in on defrauding of the FISA court upon which he sat. They removed him quietly so as not to rock the boat. Never interfere with an enemy in the midst of self-destruction. Rudy in hot water with the rest of them.
07 Dec: Judge Contreras recuses without explanation to be replaced by as corrupt Judge Emmet Sullivan.
12 Dec: New Flynn Judge Emmet Sullivan orders Mueller to surrender exculpatory (to Flynn’s benefit) to Flynn’s defense team
31 Jan: Mueller orders delay in Flynn sentencing
14 Feb: Mueller requests that Flynn exculpatory evidence (of benefit to Flynn) to be sealed
Notable: Here Mueller is taking a deliberate step with Flynn’s due process by seeking to seal away known exculpatory evidence. That’s how traitors work.
08 May: President Trump abandons Obama’s (JCPOA) Iran deal
26 May: Chinese national with bio-materials and a centrifuge at airport in Detroit (DTW)
17 Jul: Mary McCord/James Comey meet re: 11/15/17 302 (?)
Notable: Come enters the picture with McCord and despite research, we’re unable to identify the subject for 15 Nov 17 302.
28 Nov: U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at Detroit Metro Airport (DTW) stopped a Chinese biologist with three vials labeled “Antibodies” in his luggage
17 Dec: Judge Sullivan receives 2 filed redacted versions of Flynn’s original 302, as ordered and received from the undersigned Mueller and Brandon L. Van Grack.)
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14189784/dan-coats-trump-director-of-national-intelligence-dni-russia VOX/ODNI highlight yellow quote
-End/Flynn Timeline Insert-
11 Sep: Chinese national with 8 vials at airport in Detroit (DTW)
13 Nov: DOJ/FBI Tactical Intelligence Report> China<>WMDD<>US (*ancillary intelligence report marked ‘FISA’)
15 Nov: Opening of ‘Public Health Advisor/Quarantine Program’ position post (closes 15 May 20)
17 Nov: Revised (backwards) 1st COVID-19 case: Wuhan, China
05 Dec: Pelosi authorizes drafting of Articles of Impeachment
09 Dec: 21 vials stolen> Boston/Logan Intl. bio-hazard
10 Dec: Boston/Logan Intl. bio-hazard/China arrest, Nadler> AOIs
13 Dec: Nadler’s Judiciary Committee votes to impeach
18 Dec: Full House vote to impeach Trump
27 Dec: Initial (original) 1st COVID-19 case: Wuhan, China> 17 Nov
15 Jan: House: AOIs>Senate, impeachment managers announced, engrossment ceremony, Trump/Xi sign Phase 1 trade deal
16 Jan: Senate formally receives AOIs
20 Jan: 1st COVID-19 case: US, Senate receives AOIs
21 Jan: Senate votes on trial rules, FAUCI> COVID NOT MAJOR THREAT
22 Jan: Senate trial> prosecution opening arguments
23 Jan: Senate trial> prosecution opening arguments
24 Jan: Senate trial> pros. ends opening arg., Loeffler begins dumping stock
25 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
26 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
27 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
28 Jan: Senate trial> defense ends opening arguments
31 Jan: Bolton witness debate, Feinstein begins dumping stock, TRUMP RESTRICTS CHINA AIR TRAVEL
05 Feb: Senate acquits Trump
13 Feb: Burr dumps stock
11 Mar: Pandemic/emergency declaration, (DONE IN 30) > to 12 Apr.
12 Mar: Trump orders and takes-out Iranian commander
15 Mar: Saudi Arabia> mass arrests (SA –> US –> Asia –> EU), Fed rate cut, FAUCI> ABC> 21 million coronavirus hospitalizations, up to 1.7 million dead
19 Mar: Lock-downs begin
24 Mar: DHS essential personnel moved to NORAD
25 Mar: HHS OIG announces it will investigate Trump over COVID-19
27 Mar: National Guard called-up, Trump nationalizes GM, stimulus passed
28 Mar: Projected beginning date for virus peak
29 Mar: FAUCI> REVISION> 100s of 1000s dead, millions infected, Pelosi/attack>DJT
30 Mar: Projected that banks would close> did not happen
31 Mar: Trump tweets “30 Days to Slow the Spread” > 4/30 > 5/1
01 Apr: Schiff> 9/11 style COVID-19 commission, Military> cartels
02 Apr: Pelosi> oversight investigation> Trump ongoing pandemic response, FAUCI> CALLS FOR NATIONWIDE LOCK-DOWN
03 Apr: Projected that markets would close through 13 Apr
10 Apr: Projected worst day 1
11 Apr: Projected worst day 2
12 Apr: Easter Sunday – POTUS’ initial objective end date
13 Apr: INITIAL PROJECTED END-DATE (now revised farther ahead)
30 Apr: Extended ended date for federal guidelines – 30 to slow/done in 30
01 May: Projected end date for virus peak
23 May: Lock-downs begin to relax
06 Jun: Lock-downs end
11 Jun: Identified date / significance unknown
Drink your Moonshine…
It’s good for the TRUTH.