Vigilant News

Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty.

News

FBI Kept Office at DNC Law firm Perkins Coie

By ,

Ryan DeLarme,
June 1st, 2022

Yesterday we reported that Hillary Clinton’s lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted in what appears to be the first in a series of trials regarding the Durham Probe. Last night, hours after the verdict, it was discovered that the FBI maintains an office at Sussmanss firm, Perkins Coie.

Further Reading: Michael Sussmann Found “Not Guilty”

The acquittal came despite text evidence, evidence that the jury was barred from considering. The texts show where Sussmann claimed that he was not representing the Clinton campaign when he presented false evidence to the FBI linking Trump to the Russian Alfa bank.  The FBI employee he met with also testified that he said he was not representing a client.

The acquittal may clear Sussmann in the minds of some, but to many of those who have been following the case for the last couple of years, there are a lot of red flags to consider. Potentially compromised Judge and Jury aside, certain political operative’s cozy relationship with the FBI still remains an issue.

Further Reading: Was the Trial Rigged from the Start? Sussmann Jury, Judge Accused of Having Conflicts of Interest

These fears were further stoked last night after Perkins Coie, the DNC law firm where Sussmann was employed, admitted that the FBI maintains an office at their workplace.

The admission comes after the law office responded to a letter sent by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.)

This is important for several reasons; first, it highlights why the Durham probe was even necessary in the first place, due to the cozy relationship between Democratic political operatives and the FBI that investigated President Trump for collusion with Russia. 

Secondly, it shows that Democrat lawyers and political operatives possibly had access to FBI databases where they could perform search queries on American citizens.

The revelation is in line with past complaints about abuses by the FBI and other intelligence agencies of the FISA database.  FISA judge Rosemary Collyer discussed these abuses going back to 2012, saying that a shocking 85% of FISA searches by the FBI are unlawful.

Though Durham’s first trial did not secure a conviction, it has succeeded in further proving why this type of investigation is necessary. Information gleaned from this trial will be useful in future trials when painting the roadmap of criminal conspiracy.

House to Vote on Gun Control Measures Thursday

By ,

Ryan DeLarme,
May 31st, 2022

This Thursday the House Judiciary Committee is planning to vote on a new wide-ranging package of gun control measures in the wake of multiple mass shooting events across the nation.

Punchbowl News first reported on the package of bills is known as the “Protecting our Kids” Act.

The package seeks to amend the legal age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle from 18 to 21 years of age. The measures would also establish new federal offenses for gun trafficking and for selling large-capacity magazines. The measures would also allow local governments to compensate individuals who surrender high-capacity magazines through a buyback program.

On top of that, these measures would establish a new tax credit for the sale of safe storage devices. They will also establish new criminal penalties for breaking the proposed requirements on the storage of firearms in residential properties.

The package will likely pass the Democratic-controlled House but is unlikely to overcome a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate.

Congressman Ted Deutch of Florid introduced one of the bills in the package previously alongside Senator Robert Menendez on the Senate side.

The full list of bills included in the “Protecting Our Kids” package was provided by Punch Bowl News and includes:

  • The Raise the Age Act (H.R. 3015, Rep. Anthony Brown of Maryland)
  • Prevent Gun Trafficking Act (H.R. 2280, Rep. Robin Kelly of Illinois)
  • The Untraceable Firearms Act (H.R. 3088, Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island)
  • Ethan’s Law (H.R. 748, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut)
  • The Safe Guns, Safe Kids Act (H.R. 6370, Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan)
  • The Kimberly Vaughan Firearm Safe Storage Act (H.R. 130, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas)
  • Closing the Bump Stock Loophole Act (H.R. 5427, Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada)

The Keep Americans Safe Act (H.R. 2510, Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida)

World Economic Forum Unveils “Green” Social-Credit System

By ,

Ryan Delarme,
May 29th, 2022

Last week the world’s most philanthropic globalists met in Davos to discuss a wide variety of issues including climate change, inflation, and the war in Ukraine. One particular topic that has caught people’s attention is an app that can track the carbon footprint of an individual.

Alibaba Holdings President and former Goldman Sachs vice-chairman  J. Michael Evans lays it out for the audience of the “Strategic Outlook: Responsible Consumption” panel:

“We’re developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint. What does that mean? That’s where are they travelling, how are they travelling, what are they eating, what are they consuming on our platform. So: An individual carbon footprint tracker.”

To clarify, Evans is only talking about Alibaba’s own platform, but the platform is significantly large. The Chinese company is the second-largest e-commerce company in the world after Amazon, with revenues in excess of 715 billion Yuan in 2021 (that’s over 110 billion USD).

On top of that, Alibaba is not just an E-commerce platform. Through their financial and technological service companies, Alibaba runs the largest domain name market, email provider, and cloud storage services in China, not to mention the largest payment platform in the world.

To put it in understandable terms, Alibaba is the Chinese equivalent of a merger between Amazon, Google, and PayPal.

Since Alibaba bought AutoNavi in 2014, they own the biggest e-map navigation company in China. Through Alihealth they supply online pharmacy services, as well as providing computer technology to hospitals and clinics too.

Basically, if you live in China and want to pay for something on the internet, you probably use Alibaba. If you want to order something online from a small business, you probably use Alibaba. If you want to sell your stuff second-hand, you probably use Alibaba.

Alibaba’s also a market leader in AI services, becoming the first-ever payment platform to start using facial recognition technology to confirm payments in 2017. Other projects you may recognize include “CityBrain”, an AI designed to scan cities and provide “streamlined” traffic services. Warning of potential accidents as well as making public transport more efficient, a clear move toward “Smart Cities”.

This won’t be the company’s first “individual carbon footprint” app either. In 2017 their payment platform subsidiary Ant Financial Services was named 6th in Fortune’s “Change the World” list for its Ant Forest app.

And while we’ve been focusing on the individual carbon footprint tracker, something else Evans says later in the panel is just as interesting:

“The third thing, we call it “Green Travel”. So, we have within our business something called AMAP – a mapping, think Google Maps or Ways – plus travel destination business. So what we’re going to allow people to do is, first of all, calculate the best and most efficient route and also the most efficient form of transportation. And then, if they take advantage of those recommendations, we’ll give them bonus points which they can redeem elsewhere on our platform. So, they are incentivised to do the right thing, even while they are provided the opportunity to do the wrong thing.”

 Let’s put these three facts together. It seems Alibaba currently has apps, either being used or in development, that:

  1. Monitor travel routes and methods and “reward” users for making the “correct choice” even when they are allowed to make “the wrong choice”
  2. Can track an individual’s “carbon footprint”, including what they eat and where.
  3. Have users “earn points” for “earth-friendly habits”.

Individually these functions are worrying enough, but when combined with what we already know, it starts to paint a troubling picture. Add that with what we already know of the company’s reach through its subsidiaries: Smart Cities, banking, healthcare records, emails, internet activity, and more.

How long before Alibaba decides to “reward” other “correct choices” that have nothing to do with the environment? Like vaccination, for example.

How long after that do they start punishing what the ruling class deems to be incorrect choices?

FBI Knew Sussmann Worked for Hillary Clinton, Moved Forward with Alfa Bank Investigation Anyway

By ,

Ryan DeLarme,
May 26th, 2022

The Sussman trial shifted to the defense team on Wednesday after the prosecution finished presenting their evidence against the former federal prosecutor and partner at Perkins Coie, one of the Clinton Cabal’s go-to firms.

It is now a matter of public fact that Michael Sussmann met with the FBI as a client representative of the Hillary Clinton Campaign weeks before his one-on-one meeting with the bureau’s top lawyer before the election in 2016.

The Courthouse News Service reported on yesterday’s activities in the Sussmann trial.

After prosecutors rested their case in the Michael Sussmann trial on Wednesday, a federal jury learned for the first time that he met with the FBI as the client representative for Hillary Clinton’s campaign just weeks before his infamous one-on-one meeting with the bureau’s top lawyer in 2016.

The government has repeatedly insisted that the bureau did not know that Sussmann was legal counsel for the campaign — in litigation related to Russian hacking groups’ accessing Democratic National Committee servers — when he met with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in 2016 and gave him data files allegedly containing evidence of secret communications between then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

The government claims that if the FBI knew during the September 2016 meeting that Sussmann was representing the campaign in other matters, the bureau might have taken different steps in its investigation of the Trump-Alfa Bank information he brought, which he said was “not on behalf of a client.”

 

In short, the evidence seems to suggest that they (the Clinton team, FBI, etc) were all in on it. That the bureau and Clinton’s legal team worked together on a 2016 October Surprise that went south and is now coming back to bite them 6 years later.

Durham’s case now rests on the argument that Michael Sussmann came into James Baker’s office and provided Baker bogus intel on a Trump-Alfa Bank connection and that Baker was unaware that Sussmann worked for Hillary. The problem is that Baker was Comey’s top lawyer at the FBI at the time.  It is highly unlikely that no one in this situation knew who was working for who.

Sussmann’s evidence indicates that the FBI knew the information coming from Sussmann was unverified but they ran with it anyway.  The FBI knew the information was coming from Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  

Now the defense must convince the jury that they weren’t all in on it.

 

Techno Fog Coverage of The Sussmann Trial: Fingers Pointed at FBI Leadership

By ,

Excerpt from Techno Fog’s SubStack report from Monday evening:

It was a long day of travel but we’re back at it on the Sussmann trial.

This morning started with testimony from Bill Priestap, who in September 2016 was the FBI’s Assistant Director of Counterintelligence. His testimony was expected, even before the witness lists were put out. Back in January, we observed that Priestap had testified before a grand jury. In fact, Priestap himself stated today that he testified before the grand jury in June 2021.

A little bit of background on Priestap before we begin. Priestap approved the opening of Crossfire Hurricane and decided against defensive briefings being provided to the Trump Campaign. He was Peter Strzok’s supervisor and also approved the use of all the confidential human sources used against the Trump campaign (Stefan Halper, et al.).

Last week, former FBI general counsel James Baker testified that he spoke with Priestap about his meeting with Sussmann and “repeated to Mr. Priestap that Michael had said that he was not there on behalf of a particular client, that he was there as a citizen, as a – essentially as a human source of information, confidential source.”

At trial today, Priestap was presented with notes he took after that meeting with Baker. Those notes reflected that conversation with Baker, stating Sussmann “said not doing this for any client.” Priestap also said that the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization investigation ultimately fell under his control. Getting to the issue of materiality, Priestap was then asked about why the motivations of sources matter to the FBI:

Q: Based on your experience, if Mr. Sussmann had brought these allegations to the FBI on behalf of the Hillary Clinton Campaign, would that have mattered to the FBI?

Priestap: Again, the – somebody – anybody bringing information to the FBI, we’re interested – the FBI is interested in knowing the motivation of the person providing the information.

On cross examination, Priestap admitted he couldn’t recall the meeting with Baker or why he wrote in his notes that Sussmann wasn’t there on behalf of a client. After approximately 6 years, his memory was fuzzy:

Q: Do you remember anything more about why you wrote that down?

Priestap: I do not.

Q: You don’t remember anything about the context in which that was said to you?

Priestap: I do not.

To summarize the defense theory of this case, it’s that Sussmann was there to help the FBI and that he supposedly acted against his clients’ interest by stopping a New York Times article on the Alfa Bank allegations from being published. On that topic, Priestap discussed how the FBI might ask a newspaper to not run a story:

Q: As a general matter, if the FBI knew that a newspaper story was coming out about a threat from a nation state, are there ever occasions in which you would, at the FBI, want to ask a newspaper to hold off on running that story?

Priestap: Yes.

Q: Okay. And that’s because there are situations in which the FBI would want to have the chance to investigate before a story came out, right?

Priestap: Yes. If the FBI thought, let’s just say, that publicly revealing a certain matter could potentially negatively impact not just things the FBI was doing but potentially negatively impact the country, we’d want to have a conversation about it.

Then there’s this blockbuster of a comment. Counsel for Sussmann presented Priestap with messages from the FBI’s internal messaging system, in which Priestap discussed how the FBI’s leadership – Comey, McCabe, et al. – were excited about pursuing the Alfa Bank/Trump allegations:

The influence that FBI leadership (Comey and McCabe) had on the investigations related to the Trump/Russia accusations is notable – but not an exception. This is the first time we heard that the Alfa Bank hoax was pushed by FBI leadership. However, this fits their broader pattern. Recall the statement of FBI agent William Barnett. He was part of the FBI’s investigation of General Flynn and decided it should be closed down. The FBI’s senior officials, who ran the investigation from the “top down,” called the shots.

Testimony from FBI Agent Ryan Gaynor

Back in 2016, Agent Gaynor was the FBI’s counterintelligence division’s unit chief in Washington, DC. He learned of the Alfa Bank allegations on September 23, 2016 during a briefing led by the FBI’s Chicago field office. Agent Gaynor reported to Supervisor Special Agent Joe Pientka (who, along with Strzok, interviewed General Flynn) and volunteered to help work on the case.

This is how he described some of the steps the FBI took in its Alfa Bank investigation:

As to the accuracy of the information and accusations provided by Sussmann? One investigating agent found it to be BS:

In fact, the Chicago Office itself was curious about the source of Sussmann’s data. Agent Curtis Heide e-mailed:

Their supervisor in Chicago agreed:

Whether or not the Chicago team would have access to the source of the Alfa Bank data was discussed – but not approved by – FBI headquarters.

Then there’s the issue of another confidential human source (CHS). The Chicago Field Office was informed that the Alfa Bank allegations had been provided to various media outlets. This source “was not Mr. Sussmann.”

End excerpt.

Click here to read Techno Fog’s full report on the Sussmann trial.