President Donald Trump reacted to a report that found there had allegedly been 274 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents in the crowd during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. He wants “to know who each and every one” of the agents in the crowd were and “What they were up to.”
In a post on Truth Social, Trump noted that the reports findings were “different from what” former FBI Director Christopher Wray had “stated, over and over again!” Trump’s post came after a report by the Blaze found that the “FBI has acknowledged it had 274 plainclothes agents” in the crowd that day, after the agent had refused to “disclose the level of its presence at the Capitol.”
“It was just revealed that the FBI had secretly placed, against all Rules, Regulations, Protocols, and Standards, 274 FBI Agents into the Crowd just prior to, and during, the January 6th Hoax,” Trump said. “This is different from what Director Christopher Wray stated, over and over again! That’s right, as it now turns out, FBI Agents were at, and in, the January 6th Protest, probably acting as Agitators and Insurrectionists, but certainly not as ‘Law Enforcement Officials.’”
“I want to know who each and every one of these so-called ‘Agents’ are, and what they were up to on that now ‘Historic’ Day,” Trump added. “Many Great American Patriots were made to pay a very big price only for the love of their Country. I owe this investigation of ‘Dirty Cops and Crooked Politicians’ to them!”
Trump continued to say that Wray “has some major explaining to do.”
“That’s two in a row, Comey and Wray, who got caught LYING, with our Great Country at stake,” Trump added. “WE CAN NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN TO AMERICA AGAIN!”
Per the Blaze, a “senior congressional source said the number is not necessarily a surprise, since the FBI often embeds countersurveillance personnel at large events.”
Within hours of her 2016 presidential campaign loss, a devastated Hillary Clinton attributed her defeat not to the American voters who rejected her, but to Russia, echoing a campaign theme she had been developing for months. “Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss” and “kept pointing her finger” at Russia, according to Shattered, a 2017 book about her campaign—“Her team coalesced around the idea that Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign.”
The corporate media were also devastated, as they had spent the entire campaign mocking the idea that Trump and his anti-establishment positions on foreign policy, trade, and wokeness could appeal to voters. To the extent possible, they would help promote Clinton’s blame game.
In early January 2017, the Clinton campaign’s “Steele dossier”—a secretly funded collection of made-up stories and gossip alleging that Russia had dirt on Trump and that Trump was colluding with Russia against the United States—was published. Washington would be consumed by the Russia collusion hoax for the next two-and-a-half years. The investigations it spurred would bankrupt Trump associates, destroy lives, and hamstring Trump’s ability to govern. It led to draconian censorship campaigns against conservatives. It hurt Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 general election. But no evidence was found that a single American, much less Trump himself, conspired with Russia.
Fast forward to today. Six months into Trump’s second term, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have declassified and released long-suppressed documents detailing how President Obama and his spy chiefs laundered the Steele dossier and other falsehoods in an attempt to destroy Trump’s first presidency. The response from Democrats, the media, and many establishment Republicans has been to say that these suppressed documents contain nothing new or significant. Not true.
The Russia collusion hoax was anchored to two central claims: first, that Trump was a compromised agent of Russia, and second, that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. The first claim was completely debunked after years of investigation. It is on the second and far more plausible claim—which was just as key to the hoax—that the newly released documents shed new light. And the revelations are shocking.
The documents show that in early December 2016, the intelligence community planned to publish a top secret presidential daily brief holding that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.” Once published, this brief would have been read by Obama and his top officials, as well as President-Elect Trump and his designated National Security Advisor, Lt. General Michael Flynn. But the day before publication, the FBI—which had co-authored the brief—announced that it was pulling its support for the brief and would be drafting a dissent. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced that the brief would be held for the following week.
In the end, the brief was never published. Instead, Obama ordered his top spy chiefs to put together an Intelligence Community Assessment—known as an ICA—on “Russia election meddling.” The chiefs were directed to look at how Moscow sought to influence the 2016 election—including with hacking, leaks, cyber activity against voting systems, and “fake news”—and to answer the questions, “Why did Moscow direct these activities?” and “What have the Russians hoped to accomplish?”
FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino revealed that he was “shocked” to his “core” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) discoveries regarding matters relating to corruption and political weaponization, adding that he would “never be the same.”
In a post on X, Bongino expressed that things were happening at the FBI “that might not be immediately visible.” Bongino added that he and FBI Director Kash Patel were “committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations.”
“The Director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations,” Bongino wrote. “It is a priority for us. But what I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters, has shocked me down to my core.”
“We cannot run a Republic like this,” Bongino added. “I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned.”
Bongino added the FBI would be conducting “righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law,” and there would be “an honest and dignified effort at truth.”
“We are going to conduct these righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law,”
“The transformation of the FBI back into a J. Edgar Hoover-style domestic spy service with sweeping political ambition has been a long-developing story, obscured by a political anomaly.”
“I have no idea if Kash Patel will do a good job or if he’ll even make it to office, but answering the question of why he was chosen as FBI Director isn’t hard: ironically, it’s the FBI that now needs to be disrupted, urgently, and he’s at least shown a willingness to do it. I doubt they’ll go quietly.”
President-elect Trump nominated Kash Patel, author of the aptly titled book “Government Gangsters,” to head the FBI. Matt Taibbi wrote an interesting article explaining the unconstitutional overreach of the FBI from the 1960s to present as a force to disrupt domestic political dissent to a spy surveillance agency and its dubious attempts at redemption by portraying itself as a serial killer chaser in the 1980s-90s:
When I heard Kash Patel had been tabbed by Donald Trump to run the FBI, I could already imagine the pushback and moved immediately to start the just-published article “The Bell Finally Tolls for the FBI” piece. The thought was that the role Patel played in preparing the “Nunes memo” was both the clearest example of media corruption from Trump’s first term and also the most easily demonstrated episode of FBI malfeasance. Since I had to spend an unnatural amount of time on the topic over the years (it even intersected with the Twitter Files and Hamilton 68) I quickly found myself in the weeds of the “memo” tale, when there’s a larger argument about why the FBI needs a major reorganization that someone needs to make amid what’s already an ugly fight about Patel’s nomination:
The transformation of the FBI back into a J. Edgar Hoover-style domestic spy service with sweeping political ambition has been a long-developing story, obscured by a political anomaly. In the first phase of this nightmare, between 2001 and 2016, the post-9/11 Bureau used the pretext of an enhanced counterintelligence mandate to throw off some mild restraints that had been placed on it the last time it had to be slapped down, i.e. after the Church Committee hearings in the 1970s. The second phase of its transformation took place after the election of Donald Trump, when the Bureau remade itself on the fly as a kind of government-in-exile, empowered by an outpouring of public and media support to view itself as a counterweight to the Trump government.
This dichotomy has probably helped prevent a full portrait of the FBI’s makeover from appearing. The more troubling aspects to phase one were mostly found in reports by a then-adversarialACLU or in testimonials of agents and investigators who spoke out in places like Democracy Now! or the Southern Poverty Law Center, with examples being people like Colleen Rowley and Mike German. The post-Trump exposes of FBI excess meanwhile often appeared in places like Mollie Hemingway’sThe Federalistor broadcasts by the likes of Tucker Carlson or even sites like The Conservative Treehouse, and the signature FBI whistleblowers of this period were agents like Steve Friend, Garrett O’Boyle and Marcus Allen, testifying in front of Republican elected officials like Jim Jordan.
“This version of Trump knows what buttons to press, he knows where the bodies are buried, he’s absorbed their worst and now he is about to throw it right back at them.” — Jeff Childers
You understand, of course, that the federal bureaucracy is a perverse reincarnation of the old 19th century “Spoils System,” an entrenched, self-replicating matrix of parasites. Both parties have nourished it, but the Democrats have made it their extra-special pet since Mr. Obama was in charge of things. He and his AG Eric Holder arranged for the DOJ to target their political enemies and for the to FBI mutate into a US-KGB,
You have every reason to believe that this arrogant, malicious, leviathan government, and the vicious intel / lawfare blob at its vanguard, is about to be turned upside-down, inside-out, and sideways. Every appointment by Mr. Trump is a dose of chemotherapy to this malignant beast, aimed at all its diseased organs. The rogue cells within are going to die hard, struggle against their extinction, shriek and thrash as the treatment proceeds. That is, if it is allowed to proceed.
And so: rumors arise of a coup to prevent it from happening. The benchmark version goes like this: “Joe Biden” keeps up his stupid provocation of Russia with those medium-range ATACMS missiles until Mr. Putin is forced to respond with a strike against a NATO member, say, a military base in Poland used to stage and target the ATACMS. Under NATO’s Article Five — an attack against one is an attack against all — Europe and the US must go to war against Russia. This becomes the pretext for “Joe Biden” to declare an extraordinary emergency (or Kamala Harris, if “JB” can be shoved out under the 25th Amendment). The inauguration of the newly-elected government must needs be postponed. . . .
Such a move would surely provoke a domestic insurrection against the leviathan and Civil War Two would be on. Or else you might expect a swift counter-coup out of the US military not playing along. Mr. Putin, too, could demur from playing the game, that is, just not go for the bait, refrain from striking any NATO territory. After all, his beef is officially with Mr. Zelensky’s Kiev government. Russia could just pound Kiev until that government ceases to exist. So far Mr. Putin has carefully refrained from destroying the historic city center, mainly hitting power plants to turn off the heat and light to make life extremely uncomfortable in the Ukraine capital with winter coming on. But he could level the city.
The choice is Mr. Zelensky’s, and has been for months as his forces, armaments, and prospects dwindle. He could suspend hostilities, go to talks, even raise a white flag and put an end to the needless suffering. Under no circumstances will he get the Donbas or Crimea back. I doubt that Russia wants to take over the rest of Ukraine, considering the cost of having to support it indefinitely. Better that it should remain a sovereign state and look after itself — but neutral, demilitarized, and, if you like, de-Nazified. You understand that these will be Russia’s final terms? And that there is nothing unreasonable about them?
The FBI, CIA, and Pentagon began surveilling, abusing, smearing, blackmailing, infiltrating, and destroying people and organizations who were suspected of promoting communism, socialism, leftism, liberalism, or progressivism.
The CIA also began specializing in the art of assassination —
When the Constitution was ratified, it brought into existence a limited-government republic. That meant a government whose powers were very limited — limited, that is, to those powers enumerated in the Constitution itself.
After World War II, that all changed. U.S. officials told the American people that while the Allied powers had been victorious against Nazi Germany, that did not mean, unfortunately, that Americans could rest. The United States, they said, now faced an enemy that was arguably an even bigger threat than Nazi Germany. This new enemy, they said, was America’s World War II partner and ally, the Soviet Union, which was ruled by a communist regime.
They said that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world, including the United States. That conspiracy, they said, was based in Moscow, Russia. U.S. officials convinced Americans that, to use the title of a movie that came in 1966, “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming.” Most everyone became convinced that the United States was in grave danger of going Red, with commies ending up running the IRS and the rest of the federal government.
In addition to this supposed threat from communist Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union, Americans were told, was the threat from communism itself, which was a philosophy that entailed having government take care of people, as compared to a society in which people take care of themselves. U.S. national-security state officials viewed communism as a political and economic narcotic that, once imbibed by people, would inevitably seduce them into wanting more.
To combine this twin treat of communists and communism, U.S. officials said, it was necessary to convert the federal government from the limited-government republic on which the country was founded to what is called a national-security state, which is a type of governmental structure that characterizes totalitarian regimes. The big difference between the two governmental structures is that in a republic the government’s powers are limited while in a national-security state they are not.
The national-security state consists of a massive, permanent, and ever-growing military establishment (i.e., the Pentagon and what President Eisenhower called the military industrial complex), a secretive agency with the power to assassinate, kidnap, detain, and disappear people (i.e., the CIA), and a surveillance agency with the power to secretly monitor people’s activities (i.e., the NSA).
Bizarrely, the court denied standing even after conceding that it “may be true” that social-media platforms “continue to suppress [plaintiffs] speech according to policies initially adopted under Government pressure.”
But so why is this not a problem? Did the court decide to hold the government innocent unless there were signed confessions from White House and FBI officials, or what?
On the eve of the first presidential candidate debate, the Supreme Court gave a huge boost to Joe Biden to help him “fix” the 2024 election with maybe its worst decision of the year. It remains to be seen whether the court’s refusal to stop federal censorship will be a wooden stake in the credibility of American democracy.The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to hamstring would-be federal tyrants. [Click to Tweet]
The court ruled in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, a lawsuit brought by individuals censored on social media thanks to federal threats and machinations. Court decisions last year vividly chronicled a byzantine litany of anti–free speech interventions by multiple federal agencies and the White House. On July 4, 2023, federal judge Terry Doughty condemned the Biden administration for potentially “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” A federal appeals court imposed injunctions on federal officials to prohibit them from acting “to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce … posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”
State censorship
The decisions documented how the FBI, Biden White House, U.S. Surgeon General, and other federal agencies have sabotaged Americans’ freedom of speech. If you tried to complain about COVID lockdowns, or school shutdowns, or even about whether mail-in ballots caused fraud — your online comments could have been suppressed thanks to threats and string-pulling by the feds or by federal contractors. Conservatives were far more likely to be censored than liberals and leftists.
But the Supreme Court in late June decided to overlook all those abuses. There will be no injunction to stop the White House or federal agencies or federal contractors from suppressing criticism of Biden or his policies before the 2024 election. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court gave the benefit of the doubt to federal browbeating, arm-twisting, and jawboning, regardless of how many Americans are wrongfully muzzled.
The Biden censorship industrial complex triumphed because most Supreme Court justices could not be bothered to honestly examine the massive evidence of its abuses. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whined that “the record spans over 26,000 pages” and, quoting an earlier court decision, scoffed that “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.”
Will that line catch on with school kids? When asked whether they did their homework, they can quote Justice Barrett and tell their teachers that they are “not like pigs hunting for truffles buried in the record” of all their class assignments.
“Lack of standing” a total cop-out
Rather than swine groveling in the muck, the Supreme Court instead disposed of this landmark case on a quibble, putting their legal pinkies up in the air like a white-wine drinker at a cocktail reception. The court ruled that the plaintiffs — including two state governments and eminent scientists banned from social media — did not have “standing” because they had not proven to negligent justices (how many pages in the files did they actually read?) that federal intervention and string-pulling injured them.
Bizarrely, the court denied standing even after conceding that it “may be true” that social-media platforms “continue to suppress [plaintiffs] speech according to policies initially adopted under Government pressure.”
But so why is this not a problem? Did the court decide to hold the government innocent unless there were signed confessions from White House and FBI officials, or what?
Lack of standing was the same legal ploy the Supreme Court used in early 2013 to tacitly absolve the National Security Agency’s vast illegal surveillance regime. After the Supreme Court accepted a case on warrantless wiretaps in 2012, the Obama administration urged the Justices to dismiss the case, claiming it dealt with “state secrets.” A New York Times editorial labeled the administration’s position “a cynical Catch 22: Because the wiretaps are secret and no one can say for certain that their calls have been or will be monitored, no one has standing to bring suit over the surveillance.”
Cynical arguments sufficed for five of the justices. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, declared that the Court was averse to granting standing to challenge the government based on “theories that require guesswork” and “no specific facts” and fears of “hypothetical future harm.” The Supreme Court insisted that the government already offered plenty of safeguards — such as the FISA Court — to protect Americans’ rights. “Lack of standing” didn’t prevent former NSA employee Edward Snowden from blowing the roof off the NSA.
They are, simply put, the regime’s secret police, devoted to building the regime’s power.
Unfortunately, many Americans are still enthralled to these organizations thanks to relentless state propaganda that tells us this American version of the KGB exists for our own good. Abolition will clearly take time. Now is a good time to start.
Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson sat down for a three-hour-plus discussion on the Joe Rogan Show last week, covering everything from UFOs, to religion and artificial intelligence. But perhaps the most important topic they covered was the insidious and dangerous role played by the US regime’s intelligence agencies in America.
Specifically, Carlson suggested the CIA continues to lobby for keeping the JFK files secret, possibly because the CIA had a role in the assassination. Tucker also brought up how the FBI’s second-in-command was responsible for taking down Richard Nixon. Carlson described how intelligence agencies hold immense power within Congress because members of Congress—who are generally disreputable people with many secrets—are terrified of being blackmailed. After all, in a post-Patriot Act world of nearly unrestrained spying by the US regime, there is no privacy in America.
I’ll let you, dear readers, listen to the full interview and make up your mind for yourselves as to the details of the discussion.
What I want to highlight here, however, is how remarkable it is that two major media figures—Rogan and Carlson—are announcing to their millions of listeners and readers that organizations like the CIA and the FBI are despicable agencies committed to undermining the legal and constitutional institutions of the United States.
This is long overdue.
Deep-state agencies like the CIA and the FBI have for far too long been considered reputable organizations just trying to “keep us safe” or somehow defend the United States from alleged foreign threats. Conservatives have long been among the worst offenders. Libertarians know this well, and have observed for decades the breed of “small-government” conservatives who one minute claim “the government can’t do anything right” and then the next minute simp for “heroic” CIA and FBI agents. People such as these have long checked their critical thinking skills at the door as soon as the discussion turns to the regime’s spy agencies—or the Pentagon, for that matter. This is not to say that Leftists are guiltless on this. While historically it was the Left that actually made some efforts to expose intelligence agencies and their crimes in the 1970s, that is now ancient history. The Left in 2024 has rarely met a regime spook it didn’t like. This was made explicit last month when Adam Westbrook and Lindsey Crouse declared in The New York Times that “the Deep State is actually kind of awesome.”
The job of opposing these contemptible enemies of freedom at America’s intelligence agencies—especially the FBI and CIA and NSA—falls to the minority of Americans who actually care about law and human rights enough to seek true restraints on regime power. Those of us in this minority must never miss an opportunity to disparage, doubt, question, and generally express loathing for these organizations and for every single agent and employee at these agencies who collects a taxpayer-funded salary.
A Danger for Many Decades
Since at least the early 1960s, many have understood that the post-war intelligence agencies have posed an especially dangerous threat to the people of the United States. For example, exactly one month after Kennedy’s assassination—surely, just a coincidence!—former president Harry Truman expressed alarm about the CIA’s meddling in domestic affairs. He wrote in The Washington Post: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. …I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”
Then as now, however, The Washington Post was an arm of the deep state and the editor buried Truman’s op-ed on Page A11. The CIA was outraged enough by the column, however, that CIA director Allen Dulles lied and claimed that Truman had been “quite astounded“ when he saw his own article and that the whole thing was really the work of a Truman aide.
This bizarre attempt by CIA operative to “retract” Truman’s article was nonetheless contradicted by Truman himself who reiterated in a 1964 letter that Truman had only intended the CIA to be an informational service for the president, and that “[I]t was not intended to operate as an international agency engaged in strange activities.” Truman would later tell an interviewer that “[I]f I’d known what was going to happen, I never would have [created the CIA.]”1
Of course, Truman may have known about many of the CIA’s “strange activities” by the late 1950s, such as MKULTRA, and related “mind control” experiments with LSD and other drugs. The CIA was known to drug the agency’s victims against their will, such as seven black inmates in Kentucky who were were fed “’double, triple and quadruple’ doses of LSD for 77 straight days.” One might also mention the very suspicious case of Frank Olson, a bioweapons expert who was given LSD by CIA agents without his knowledge. Olson later “fell” to his death from a hotel window in 1953. The agency lied about drugging Olson for 22 years.
This Thursday, the Libertarian Party received a letter from the FBI, alleging “foreign threat actors” had recently accessed our Facebook account.The FBI has a long history as one of the most nefarious enforcement and intimidation arms of the state. Their history is littered with examples of surveillance and harassment of political dissidents and groups critical of the government.We will never stop speaking the uncompromised truth about the evils and injustices of our government. Stand with us with your best donation today >>>The bill to ban TikTok is riddled with poison pills that will give the executive branch unilateral authority to shut down websites and social media accounts they believe to be compromised by foreign actors.By alleging supposed “foreign threat actors” influence in our operations, they are setting the table to shut us down and silence the last dissenting voice in national party politics.
MCViewPoint 