Quietly and behind the scenes, it’s getting dicy for Bill and Hillary. Take a listen to get a storyline, timeline, and facts documenting Clinton scandals. Thanks for joining in!
How did the search warrant process develop and get implemented that was used for the “legal” early morning raid of President Trump’s personal attorney’s office, home, and hotel room? Rather than continue wondering and speculating as the Mainstream Media continue, let’s detail facts:
There are a lot of procedural hurdles that must be overcome to obtain approval to search any lawyer’s office, never mind the political minefield involved in raiding the office of the sitting President’s lawyer. It’s worth noting that the FBI does not normally raid the offices of lawyers. The files and emails held by a lawyer are mostly protected by the attorney-client privilege and seizing them creates all sorts of issues for the FBI.
There are two DOJ relevant policies here–one governs if Mr. Cohen IS the subject of the investigation and one governs if Mr. Cohen is NOT the subject of the investigation. Let’s take a quick look at each of them.
If Mr. Cohen Is a Subject of the Investigation
The U.S. Attorney’s Manual (USAM) has a section (9-13.420) about “Searches of Premises of Subject Attorneys.”
Here are the basics:
First, this particular policy applies only to “subjects” of investigations, which is defined as someone who is a “suspect, subject or target,” or an attorney who is related by blood or marriage to a suspect, or who is believed to be in possession of contraband or the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime.
Second, § 9-13.420 says that “prosecutors are expected to take the least intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective law enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney actively engaged in the practice of law.” It advises that prosecutors should consider using subpoenas rather than a warrant unless such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective.
Third, the Acting Attorney General (AAG) for the Criminal Division (right now Acting AAG John Cronan) or the U.S. Attorney (Southern District of New York – SDNY – U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman) must give prior approval of the warrant. So, this is not just an SDNY line attorney acting alone. Most likely, it was Mr. Berman who approved it since he oversees the office that sought the warrant.
Fourth, the prosecutor must document the process that will be used to protect the privilege, likely through a “taint team” or “privilege team.”
All in all, the procedures for obtaining a search warrant to search Mr. Cohen’s office are set forth in much more detail than in most types of searches. SDNY did not decide on a whim to obtain this warrant and execute it. Most interesting, the prosecutor would also have had to justify to the magistrate judge why a subpoena would not work. That’s usually done by explaining that documents could be destroyed without the element of surprise inherent in a search warrant. That’s a heady accusation against the lawyer for the sitting President. I’m guessing the reasons were very well supported by evidence. (I have no inside baseball on the reasons given by the prosecutors; I’m just speculating here based on experience.)
If Mr. Cohen Is Not a Subject of the Investigation
There is also a section of the USAM that covers the way prosecutors can obtain a warrant for a lawyer’s office even if Mr. Cohen is not a subject of the investigation. That is in USAM § 9-19.221.
That section provides:
Where the materials sought are in the possession of a disinterested third party physician, lawyer, or clergyman, application for a warrant must be approved by the appropriate Deputy Assistant Attorney General as described in 9-19.220. The request for authorization from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General should be made in writing and include a copy of the warrant application as well as a brief description of the facts and circumstances that form the basis for the recommendation of the authorization. In addition, the request must include a statement that it is authorized by the United States Attorney or the supervising Department of Justice attorney. If the request for authorization is made orally, or if, in an emergency situation, the application is authorized by the United States Attorney or the supervising Department of Justice attorney, a written record, as described above, must be sent to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General within seven days. 28 C.F.R. § 59.4(b)(3).
The approval process is roughly the same–it had to be approved by someone other than the SDNY prosecutor. This process allows for a slightly lower level of approval, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (there are several of them in DOJ, since each oversees a particular subject area or areas).
This is an extremely interesting development. It will no doubt take some time to have the documents reviewed by the taint team, but I’m guessing the prosecutors are looking for something very specific here. DOJ officials and a magistrate would not have approved this search warrant if it was a fishing expedition.
None of the research we have given is factual information about such a warrant and raid are specific to that which resulted in Cohen’s specific raid. I do feel strongly that sometime during the next few days we will be able to obtain and provide to our readers the actual warrant that was used to execute this raid. The above information is simply the “text book” methods from the law that determine basic fundamental guidelines for U.S. Attorneys to take such actions and for a judge to sign a warrant.
It is interesting to note, however, that speculation, leaks to the Mainstream Media, and “he said, she said” rumors are rampant. With fired FBI Director James Comey’s new book release, the marketplace of American information is already awash with a dump-truck full of information, most of which is purposefully damning to President Trump. Take heart, however, for much of this information is simply more of the same: fake news.
You know what is most discouraging to the majority of Americans? The hogwash spewed daily by Leftists is accepted as fact by far too many Americans. Is it not scary to know that millions of our fellow Americans so quickly swallow gossip as facts without any consideration of the veracity of those who provide such “news” or their sources?
Stay tuned for more facts here.
(If you prefer to listen to this rather than read it, scroll to the bottom and click on the Podcast Audio Link)
It’s hard to even say “Intelligence Corruption.” American Intelligence agencies have for decades been the most effective, most successful, most scandal-free of World Intelligence Agencies and have on the most part kept America safe. But in the last few years Americans are to their horror discovering that American Intelligence may not be so successful, may not be so effective, and certainly are NOT the most scandal-free of Intelligence Agencies across the Globe. For Americans, that is an unsettling thought — just one more thing about our government for which to be concerned.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Let’s start with the George H.W. Bush C.I.A. at a time when foreign intelligence information was purposely hidden from Americans — and not just the general public. Even members of Congress knew nothing or very little about operations in the Bush C.I.A. Bush (before he was “Bush 41”) ran an apparent corrupt C.I.A., rife with graft and corruption that included the funding of foreign militias and insurgents in countries around the world that smiled on drug smuggling, torture and murder used by these thugs to prop up their “worthy” causes, and even the overthrow of governments. How did you think the Bush family members obtained such close relationships with members of the Saudi Royal Family that are still in place even to this day? Bush protection and promotion of oil markets for the Saudi royals and, of course, “quid pro quo.”
Under Reagan it was the Iran Contra scandal that resulted in very public Congressional hearings, Reagan being caught in a “little white lie,” and Lt. Colonel Oliver North being convicted in the Contra Rebel scandal with guns from Iran.
Bill Clinton’s C.I.A. gave the President the opportunity to “do away” with Osama Bin Laden immediately following the first World Trade Center bombing. But Clinton passed on Bin Laden’s elimination. But the C.I.A. under Clinton experienced a horrendous scandal because of the exposure of a double agent. Aldrich Hazen Ames is a former C.I.A. officer turned KGB mole, who was convicted of espionage in 1994. He is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole in the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Ames was formerly a 31-year C.I.A. counterintelligence analyst who committed espionage against the U.S. by spying for the Soviet Union and Russia. At the time of his arrest, Ames had compromised more C.I.A. assets than any other mole in history.
It started getting worse at the C.I.A. in the George W. Bush (Bush “43”) White House. For four years, according to C.I.A. records, no one from the agency ever came to the Oval Office to give President Bush a full briefing on what was happening in the dark dungeons of Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. For four years, interrogators stripped, slammed and soaked their prisoners without the president’s being told exactly what was going on. By the time the C.I.A. director came in April 2006 to give Mr. Bush the agency’s first briefing about the interrogation techniques it had been using since 2002, more than three dozen prisoners had already been subjected to them. And when told about one detainee being chained to the ceiling of his cell, clothed in a diaper and forced to urinate and defecate on himself, even a president known for his dead-or-alive swagger “expressed discomfort,” according to a report released later.
“The C.I.A. repeatedly provided incomplete and inaccurate information to the White House,” a Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded. Not only did the agency overstate the effectiveness of the interrogations in obtaining meaningful intelligence that could not be gained elsewhere, but specific questions posed by White House officials “were not answered truthfully or fully.” Even to the extent that the President and his advisers understood the program, they kept other top administration figures out of the loop, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. An internal C.I.A. email from July 2003 said that the White House was “extremely concerned Powell would blow his stack if he were to be briefed on what’s been going on.”
In the Obama years, the big foreign intelligence occurrence was the “dismissal” by C.I.A. operatives of Osama Bin Laden. A handful of documents — some of which came from Bin Laden’s house — where released to the public by the Obama White House. That partial release was not a scandal at all, because those documents contained just a small trove of information. The real scandal was how Obama and his C.I.A. heads Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, John Brennan, and acting head Mike Morell released only what upheld and affirmed Obama’s theories about Iran. Had the U.S. public known about the Iranian leadership’s outreach and association with al Qaeda, even Democratic Congressmen might have been far less willing to tolerate the trust which Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry placed in their Iranian counterparts. After all, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, the coordinating body for Iran’s security and defense policy, at a time when Iran was developing its al Qaeda outreach. Mike Pompeo when named C.I.A .Director released the additional documents previously kept hidden by Obama that revealed the damaging information about Obama and his minions. Let’s not forget the Edward Snowden scandal. Snowden today lives in exile in Russia after providing thousands of classified documents to Julian Asange who published for all the world to see.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Where to begin: J. Edgar Hoover’s reported extreme racist activities with his FBI’s intense surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or his hatred for the Kennedy brothers — JFK and Robert — that began just because of their Catholic faith? For sake of time and space, let’s fast forward a bit.
Richard Nixon The FBI scandal during Nixon’s presidency was not one of the Bureau itself, but was uncovered by the number 2 man at the FBI — W. Mark Felt. He smelled a rat in the Nixon campaign and found a young reporter at the Washington Post to pass that information along to: Bob Woodward. Watergate was birthed and railroaded the Nixon presidency.
Ronald Reagan William Sessions, a former federal judge who took the FBI Director job under President Ronald Reagan in 1987 focused on white-collar crimes. Mr Sessions, however, violated bureau procedures and federal law by using FBI resources for personal trips and home improvements. After an in-depth internal ethics investigation, he sternly resisted six months of White House demands for his resignation. Sessions was retained until President Bill Clinton personally telephoned Sessions and fired him in July 1993.
George W. Bush Bush “43” appointed Robert Mueller as FBI Director in July of 2001 after his being Deputy Attorney General under Bush. Mueller received unanimous confirmation from the U.S. Senate. His service at FBI was remarkably without any serious scandals, although after the Boston Marathon bombing he admitted the FBI had received information about potential threats of terrorist violence from the older of the two brothers who activated the bombs.
Barack Obama retained Mueller’s services at the FBI. Amazingly, there were no reported real FBI scandals during those years. Mueller when he resigned as FBI Director gave Obama the strongest of recommendations to hire James Comey as his replacement. Obama did so. Comey served through the 2nd Obama term and into the first year of the Trump Administration. Then the “Scandal Bomb” at the FBI exploded.
- James Comey On July 5, 2016, FBI Director Comey announced the bureau’s recommendation that the United States Department of Justice file no criminal charges relating to the Hillary Clinton email controversy. During an unusual 15 minute press conference in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, Comey called Secretary Clinton’s and her top aides’ behavior “extremely careless,” but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” On October 28, 2016, less than two weeks before the presidential election, Director Comey, a long-time Republican, announced in a letter to Congress that additional emails potentially related to the Clinton email controversy had been found and that the FBI will investigate “to determine whether they contain classified information as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” At the time Comey sent his letter to Congress, the FBI had still not obtained a warrant to review any of the e-mails in question and was not aware of the content of any of the e-mails in question. After Comey’s letter to Congress, commentator Paul Callan of CNN and Niall O’Dowd of Irish Central compared Comey to J. Edgar Hoover in attempting to influence and manipulate elections. On November 6, 2016, in the face of constant pressure from both Republicans and Democrats, Comey conceded in a second letter to Congress that through the FBI’s review of the new e-mails, there was no wrongdoing by Clinton. On November 12, 2016, unsuccessful presidential candidate Hillary Clinton directly attributed her election loss to FBI Director James Comey.[To quote many historians, political pundits, and many current and former intelligence officials, “we have just scratched the surface of FBI corruption under Obama.”
- On February 2, 2018, a four-page confidential memo by Republican House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, was released after being signed by President Trump. According to the memo, a dossier by Christopher Steele and opposition research firm Fusion GPS, was utilized by DOJ and FBI officials for FISA warrants to surveil Trump’s campaign member Carter Page. Additionally, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who resigned before the release of the memo, stated that the FISA warrant wouldn’t have been obtained without the information in the Steele dossier. It has been revealed that the Democrat National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Campaign paid through a D.C. law firm for the Steele dossier. And in NONE of the 4 FISA applications was the Clinton relationship with the production of the dossier revealed. All four FISA applications were signed by McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and former FBI Director James Comey.
Let’s summarize this latest FBI corruption with a summary list of James Comey lies:
- Comey stated under oath he did not make the exoneration decision for Hillary’s transmission of classified information on that server until after she was questioned. Later it was proven he wrote the exoneration speech long before her interview;
- Comey released some of his memos to a professor friend for that friend to release them to the Media. Comey stated none of the memos content was classified. That was later confirmed to be untrue;
- There’s the claim Comey made when he issued his statement exonerating Clinton that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” That, too, was not true. As we noted in earlier writings here, “career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged;”
- Comey testified that he briefed Trump about the salacious “dossier” before Trump was inaugurated because he’d learned that the media were about to report on it. But it was later proven that Comey briefed Trump for the express purpose of getting its embarrassing content out into the public. Since, as soon as that meeting was over, it leaked to the press;
- In his Senate hearing, Comey was asked two questions by Senator Grassley: “Did you leak any FBI information to anyone in the press,” and “Did you authorize anyone to give information to the press.” To each Comey replied “No.” He lied under oath…..twice here. He gave his memos to his professor friend to leak to the Press. And Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe stated after he was fired that he (McCabe) was authorized to give information to the media and the he had done so. He further stated that Comey knew about his doing so and had approved — another lie.
For the sake of time, I will not detail any additional FBI corruption. But we all are aware of many more instances than these. But I am certain you get the message: the C.I.A. and the FBI have histories of corruption. Who pays the price for it all? The American people AND the Nation! For purely political purposes, leadership at both agencies have put themselves and that political purpose ahead of doing the right thing — which they committed to do in all circumstances while in office — which is to strictly serve the American people and keep bad people from hurting Americans and the Nation.
Both of these agencies are literally “in the tank.” I am not certain they can survive what we have seen in the last 2 years and what is certainly ahead as these current instances of corruption are dealt with. And apparently many more remain hidden still! No doubt there is more to come.
Regarding “more to come,” tomorrow we will look closely at a few other agency “players” and corruption there: the NSA, the DNI, the DOJ, Susan Rice, former Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, and even former Obama UN Ambassador Samantha Powers.
Stay tuned….there’s a lot more to come in the coming days. And remember this: Candidate Donald Trump promised if elected, his job #1 was to “Drain the Swamp.”
It’s a big swamp with a bunch of bad creatures. His work is cut out for him.
If you’d like to take advantage of the audio version of this story, scroll to the bottom of the page. There’s a link that when clicked will begin the podcast of this article. Going forward every time there is a new story that goes live here it will have an attached podcast. Enjoy!
NOTE: If nothing else positive occurred during the first part of the Trump Presidency, the almost daily revelations of corruption throughout the Washington D.C. political landscape have been positive for the American People. How so? Many have for years felt there is an “underground” government that has allowed and often facilitated power and unscrupulous and sometimes illegal financial activities among those who serve in every capacity in the federal government. What else could possibly explain how over and over again, elected politicians go to D.C. as average middle class Americans but years later leave office worth tens of millions of dollars?
With the public investigations of Hillary Clinton’s illegal private email server use during the 2016 campaign, other Clinton irregularities in operations of the Clinton Foundation, probable quid pro quo foreign contributions to it, the substance of all the elements of the Mueller investigation regarding Russian election collusion with the Trump campaign, evidence verifying these “irregularities” throughout Washington keep piling up while confirming suspicions of this “underground” or “parallel” system of government operations. Americans can only speculate as to who is running this system. But its existence is no longer in doubt. What remains to discover is exactly how powerful it is and how far into America it reaches. It’s called the “Deep State.”
Chief in this Deep State operations scenario is the morphing of the institution that for 200 years has set the U.S. apart from other countries: the Justice System. It has long been known that the system of Justice established at the Nation’s founding has enabled the country to remain the World leader because of its fairness, independence, and impartiality: “Freedom and Justice for all.” That fundamental of American democracy is now being challenged daily by those from the Deep State.
During the next few days we at dnewman.org will break-down the American Justice System and examine how each segment of the DOJ and Intelligence agencies has been and still is under attack. These attacks have led to corruption at the highest levels of government. This corruption machine has apparently been in operation for a decade or longer, but has remained purposely hidden by Deep State purveyors. Donald Trump who entered his presidency as the most independent elected official in recent memory has in his brash and no-nonsense manner shown us just the tip of the Deep State and its danger to our Democracy.
In this chapter we will discuss the federal Court System and how the Deep State has corrupted many of those in it to purposely impact political operations for the benefit of those in the Deep State. Next we we will look at the American Intelligence Community and later the federal political system and how their interactions with each other has already dramatically changed our nation.
Today, “The Federal Court System.”
I hate the term “weaponization.” Events of the past 6 months or so have illustrated that suspicions of the political use of the DOJ and Intelligence agencies are NOT suspicions. It has happened.
The Birth of Weaponization
Intelligence/DOJ weaponization did not begin at the FBI or CIA. It began when the former Constitutional Law Professor took his first oath of office. On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States of America. After nearly eight years as president, he has delivered on one front: he immediately began appointing liberal judges to federal courts to quickly and quietly begin reshaping the federal judiciary.
Weaponization of the Judiciary
The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade. That 329 lifetime federal judge appointments represents 40% of the total number of judges serving.
In terms of Article I courts, Obama made 8 appointments to the United States Tax Court, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Federal Claims, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 2 appointments to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and 2 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He also elevated two chief judges of the Court of Federal Claims.
On the Article IV territorial courts, he made two appointments and elevated one judge to the position of chief judge.
- Article III courts (also called Article III tribunals) are the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts of the United States established by the Congress, which currently are the 13 United States courts of appeals, the 91 United States district courts (including the districts of D.C. and Puerto Rico, but excluding three other territorial district courts), and the U.S. Court of International Trade.
- Article I tribunals include Article I courts (also called legislative courts) set up by Congress to review agency decisions, military courts-martial appeal courts, ancillary courts with judges appointed by Article III appeals court judges, or administrative agencies and administrative law judges (ALJs).
When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities took control of nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent. Outside of legal circles the transformation of the influential federal appeals courts went largely unnoticed, though.
“The Supreme Court grabs the spotlight, but it hears fewer than 100 cases a year,” Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett said, “while the 13 federal courts of appeals handle about 35,000.” More than one-third of the 179 judges on federal appeals courts owe their seat to Obama, Willett told The Daily Signal. “That’s a legacy with a capital L.”
Obama also left his mark on the U.S. District Courts, which are the lower federal courts, successfully appointing 268 judges—seven more than President George W. Bush.
Obama didn’t push federal courts to the left by himself, though, since the Senate must confirm a president’s judicial appointments. And some conservatives complained that Senate Republicans handed over the keys to the judiciary without a fight. “These nominees can’t be characterized as anything but radical liberals, and the senators knew that when they were voting,” said Ken Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia who is now president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee. While there’s “no singular explanation” for how the majority of federal appeals judges flipped, Cuccinelli told The Daily Signal, Senate Republicans adopted a strategy of “knee-jerk surrender” on nominees.
Republican leadership balked at that characterization, arguing that they spent most of their time engaging in guerilla-style campaigns against an entrenched, determined Democrat majority. “A Democrat president was in office for eight years, most of that with a Democrat Senate, including several years of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority,” a spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told The Daily Signal.
But there is no doubt that President Trump inherited a decisively liberal federal judiciary. That fact was driven home with the court fights over the new President’s temporary bans on immigration from certain countries implemented by executive order. Appeals of those executive orders flooded appeals courts stacked with Obama appointed judges — primarily the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. Their actions exhibit exactly what a liberal weaponized judiciary can do — and DID do. Though numerous Constitutional scholars declare that Presidential executive orders regarding immigration are Constitutionally authorized for use by a President for the safety of the Country as these were, liberal judges circumvented their Constitutional authority in issuing stays. (Decisions made by the 9th Circuit that find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court are overturned almost all the time) The former President knew this would happen under any conservative President, thus he stacked federal courts as a liberal cause “safety stop.”
How can This Judiciary “Stacking” be Changed?
Quite honestly, there is no wholesale possible cure. 329 Obama appointed judges received lifetime appointments. Short of a Congressional impeachment process, their death or retirement, they are on the bench for quite a while. The only way to make significant change to move the federal courts back to the middle (where our forefathers felt they would consistently be) is for Presidential appointments as seats in various courts become available.
It is important to note that just because a judge holds liberal or conservative views does not necessarily make them a bad judge. The significant problem with any judge whether conservative or liberal is if/when they begin to from the bench become legislators instead of judges. “Activist judges” are those who feel their judicial obligation is to not necessarily devise laws as various legislation entities are charged to do, but in the frequent absence of clear explanations for specifics within those laws make legislative interpretations of laws themselves rather than interpreting federal laws as they pertain to the U.S. Constitution. That is what liberal judges who now sit in these courts around the nation when hearing cases are prone to do. Examples of this practice are very visible today as we have seen liberal judges usurp previous SCOTUS determinations of the power of a President through executive order determine policies that are not already in law.
Judge Neil Gorsuch in 2017 during his SCOTUS confirmation hearing when asked a specific question about a specific law by a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee chided that Senator by stating that legislators would better serve the voters in America by making laws that include specific terms, conditions, and policies that are clearly understandable. Doing so would stop much of the angst that results when cases from those vague laws end up in appeals courts.
It is doubtful that many felt like a Trump presidency was going to be easy going. And it has not been easy going so far. One thing regarding judicial appointments by this President is clear: he has so far and is expected to continue during his presidency to appoint justices to various courts based on a rigid interpretation of the Constitution WITHOUT referencing their own personal ideas or ideals in rendering decisions. “Originalists” is the term used to describe such judges. The federal judiciary has certainly begun a slow swing back to the Center politically, but it may be a generation before the Obama major shift to the Left can be righted.
Pundits will say that the U.S. is more liberal than conservative. There is NO absolute way to make such a determination. But what we saw in the 2016 should be a fair comparison in determining how Americans feel politically: both east and west coast are comprised primarily of liberals while the balance of the nation is decisively conservative.
Knowing that the nation is close to evenly split in political thinking, wouldn’t it make sense to work to keep federal courts headed by judges similarly split?
It is absolutely un-American for a President to try to use the courts to push a political agenda. That’s done in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and in other totalitarian nations — NOT in the United States.
NOTE: Our next chapter will analyze the current failures and corruption in the top Intelligence Agencies. You will not want to miss it. Again a reminder: if you’d like to receive email notification of the posting of any new article at dnewman.org, you can scroll to the bottom right of the site home page, enter your name and email address, and you will immediately begin receiving such notifications with a link to each story. We NEVER give anyone your email address. We NEVER run ads on our site. We NEVER sell anything on our site either. Your email and personal information always remains safe.
NOTE #2: A new feature is coming with the next story. We will begin to post along with each story a audio podcast of the story as well with a link those of you who would rather listen than read — especially if you’re driving — will be able to easily access for each story. The audio podcast links will appear directly adjacent to the written version of each story.
Thanks for looking in!