Peloni: The weaponization of the FISA Court in coordination with the assault upon first Candidate Trump and then President-Elect Trump and then President Trump was a necessary cog in the deployment of Lawfare as standard operating procedures of the Deep State’s war on the American people. By doing so, the loss of legitimacy of every aspect of the sense of legality was then used to legitimize an obviously unlawful election, and then to imprison and harass those citizens whose contrary political views made them guilty of nothing more than Wrongthink. The American people must regain control of their govt, restore equality before the law, and exercise accountability before the law for those such as Mary McCord who dismantled legal norms as they exploited their authority in support of a desired outcome rather than in the pursuit of justice.
Sundance | October 4, 2024
A recent soundbite shared on the Twitter platform aligns with so many aspects about how the IC targets their enemies, and how the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) then weaponizes the opportunities provided by the U.S intelligence apparatus.
Notice in this short video how Mary McCord positions the power structure of the DOJ-NSD silo in deference to the Intelligence Community (IC). This is a critical path within the next step to American’s “great awakening.” In the past we have outlined how the DOJ-NSD weaponizes their Lawfare by using “National Security Information,” or what the insiders call “NSI.”
As an outcome of the way our checks and balances have been modified against our interests, the judicial branch has repeatedly deferred to the DOJ around the issue of “national security.” In fact, if the DOJ labels any Lawfare approach as a national security matter the subsequent evidence therein, the NSI (even when not seen) is accepted by the judicial branch without question. The judicial branch defers to the executive on all matters defined by the executive as “national security.”
This is the area of exploit being discussed by Mary McCord in this segment. However, notice there is one apparatus that can supercede the DOJ-NSD’s ability to weaponize Nat Sec Information, that’s the power of the intelligence apparatus. WATCH VIDEO AT LINK ABOVE
McCord notes how she and Andrew Weissmann navigate through the process of using NSI as they move toward their target; the most common reference is their political opposition, Donald J Trump.
If there is one Lawfare operative who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord. More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts when the Dobbs decision was leaked.
When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important. It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.
When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016). John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.
? When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.
? At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.
? When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.
When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to? Mary McCord.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
? During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.
When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.
? In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith. In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.
As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.
Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary McCord.
? SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.
You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.
What happened next….
@Adam
Sundance is Anonymous. His identity is purposefully withheld by him. This is something which I respect, and I would not post commentary about presumptions of his identity specifically because of this fact. So Sundance has not requested me to keep his identity secret. I do so out of respect for his privacy, and there is no more obligation for me to do so than this, but it is enough of an obligation for me to act accordingly.
Nonesense. I have no problem with Christians holding a strong perspective to their Christian beliefs, none whatsoever. Israel has no greater friend than John Hagee, for instance, and I would be remiss in not sharing a commentary by him because it was originally posted on a religious Christian site.
The articles which are not written by Sundance on theconservativetreehouse.com are very very few and very very far between. Scrolling thru the past 4 pages of some 40 articles for instance, each of the articles is authored by Sundance with the exception of one, and one out of 40 is pretty low. What is more, Sundance publishes very religious essays, but they don’t interest me. Sundance’s religious inclinations are his own to make on his site, and I don’t challenge him nor reproach him nor dislike him for doing so.
Some of our authors request a link back and some do not, and if you look at any given page of articles you will see the distinction is made per author. So I wasn’t trying to hide the religious commentary on Sundance’s site, nor was I trying to hide the source of his commentary.
While I could not disagree with the first portion of this statement, I could not possibly agree with the latter portion, because nearly every post in theconservativetreehouse.com is authored by Sundance himself, as I noted above.
I hope this clarifies these issues for you.
I respect that you were obligated to keep Suindance’s identity secret if he requested you to do so. I still find it odd that he would make such a request. Most conservative authors are willing to identify themselves by name. I also find it troubling that when you publish Sundance’s columns, you never identify the publication in which his columns appear and never provide links to it. That is contrary to your practice with respect to most other republished articles in Israpundit. You nearly always provide a link to the original online source. When I specifically asked you, you once provided me with a link to the conservative treehouse site. But I had to make a specific request. Almost as if you regarded Sundance as sort of secret source to which only you and Ted should have access before you republished one of Sundance;s columns.
Pt has occurred to me that perhaps you felt uncomfortable about linking Israpundit readers to a publication with such a heavy Christian emphasis. Nearly every article in Treehouse except Sundance;s columns talk about Jesus and God. There are often sermons on the site. Is that the reason why you are uncomfortable about linking Israpundit’s leaders to Sundance.
In any event , it is necessary to know where an author’s work is published in order to evaluate how reliable and credible the source is. For example, I find it hard to believe an article that is published in a leftist site. There have been occasions when I believed something I read in a leftist publication that I later learned was fake news Even when an author writes for a conservative publication, I feel that I must read and make an asessment of the
credibility of the publication as a whole before I can feel entirely comfortable about trusting one particular regular contributor.
Sundance’s columns do seem credible to me. Treehouse as a whole, somewhat less so.
Adam
I would not offer you the true identity of any anonymous character on the web against their will, and you should not expect that I would do so. Shipwreckedcrew is another anonymous character on the web, but he has exposed his own identity, so I have no difficulty in discussing him by name. This however, to my knowledge of course, is not the case with Sundance.
To be honest, I have only ever been interested in Sundance’s writings, not the particulars of his background, whatever that might include, and that remains true to this day.
@Peloni. I was just told by John Galt IV that “Sundance”‘s real name is John Bradman. It would have saved me a lot of time trouble and confusion if you had told me that before. In my attempts to track down “Sundance” I found an article, actual more than one article, about a man who also used the name “Sundance” as his internet name. To the best of my recollection, he was not Bradman. The site where I found a reference to him described him as a lifelong Second Amendment activist who had left his nonprofit organization and his website to be run joiintly by one of his sons, and his longtimr partner in second Amendment activism. I don’t remember his name, but it wasn’t Bradman. To the best of my recollection, I did find some sort of reference to him, at least an indirect reference, when I googled the name of Chris Vermeulen,whose name apperas on the title page of Treehouse.
Again, it would have saved me a lot of confusion and prevented me from misidentifying Sundance is you had mentioned Bradman to me in the first place.
I think that Sundance has been very perceptive about political campaigns that are fake, astroturf campaigns. Once you realize that a campaign is astroturf, you know it has no chance of succeeding despite a great deal of money that goes into making the campaign appear to be grass roots derived.
Sundance was able to show that a group of people (RINOS and billionaire donors to the R party) were trying to create a “Donald Trump Lite” campaign with DeSantis at the head. The idea was to elect a RINO candidate who would do their globalist bidding in secret, but appear to the public to have the same platform, i.e. MAGA, as Donald Trump.
Sundance showed how few people were showing up for DeSantis rallies, and he showed how cagey DeSantis was, e.g. being unavailable when the raid on Mar A Lago occurred.
Once you see the fake nature of an astroturf campaign, you can’t unsee it.
The campaign for Kamala is likewise an astroturf campaign, made to appear as if there is groundswell support for her across the country, when in fact she is only supported by billionaire elites.
The billionaire donor class of Republicans (such as the Koch family) want to try to split the Republican ticket and thus cause a democrat to win. This has been a longstanding effort through many election cycles.
DeSantis was put in place years ago by them for this purpose for 2024.
@John Galt IV
The truth is that the Republican primary of 2024 was little different from the Republican primary of 2016. The Elitists brought and/or bought the candidates and included in this bunch was regretfully Ron Desantis, for whom I had previously held great hopes. Mind you, the problem with Desantis is not that he was not Trump, but that he was willing to change his policies to suit his globalist funders on topics as important as whether the Ukraine war was a border dispute, a position which Desantis walked back over the period of about a week. If he did not have the stamina to stand up to his backers even as a candidate, how do you think he would have done as president? Well, fortunately, this is a question which we will not need to consider further, at least not now.
The truth is that there are probably few men who have the means and mental command to stand up to the ruling Elites and tell them to jump in the lake when they are issuing ultimatums, but Trump did exactly this in his first term.
What is more is that Desantis has a record which was never brought up, regarding his support for fast tracking Obama’s globalist TPP program, as well has having signed a bill in Florida which decreased the transparency of election fraud, while ignoring complaints of systemic 2020 election fraud in his own state and instead created a new agency which looked for voters who voted twice. I have addressed these topics in the past without any of Desantis’ supporter explaining why these facts might not be meaningful, but it is of course irrelevant at this point.
In any event, for my own two cents, while I don’t agree with Sundance on everything, I likely agree with him on more topics than you, but I definitely agree with him about Desantis being an unsuitable replacement for Trump.
It is unfortunate that there was not an earnest primary last year. While it would not have likely ended any differently, it might have promoted some figures to the forefront which were more worthy of such promotion than the likes of those whose political clout did rise during that process. Ramaswampy and the Silicon Valley Hillbilly both come to mind.
But like you said, this is just my own two cents.
@Adam
I am also unaware of any report detailing Sundance’s death. Where did hear that he died? I don’t believe that report is accurate.
Adam D,
“Sundance” is Mark Bradman. I had not heard that he died.
His website: “The Last Refuge”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/
I was kicked off of there in the past for criticizing Donald Trump’s selection of subordinates and appointments in the comment section. You can’t do that there.
According to “Sundance” Donald Trump is perfect and all other Republicans are RINO’s including Governor DeSantis. That is nuts, but that is their belief system.
Sundance is good at analyzing The Deep State and the corruption in Washington DC so I like his website for the most part.
Anyway, my two cents.
“If the Iranians get the bomb, you can’t bomb it any more.” said the second speaker, an ex-IDF major, I believe.
That is utter nonsense. Why?
Let’s assume Israel knows Iran has one bomb. Iran needs to either arm a missile with it or deliver it by plane or ship. Israel will know which delivery vehicle it is. At least they say say they will know and let’s assume that is also correct.
When that happens you get rid of the delivery vehicle with the nuke. You then have to prove to the world what Iran’s intention was. At that point you have a biblical war on your hands and Israel will hold NOTHING back.
So the question is: How far does Iran want to go with this and what are they willing to suffer as a consequence.
“Sundance” (whoever he, she, or they is) outlines and outrageous conspiracy to corrupt the department of justice, the FBI and even the Supreme Court in a politically motivated, orchestrated campaign to discredit President Trump and drive him from office. Also , to manufacture Trump up charges (pun not intended) against General Flynn, an innocent man,
I would still like to know who “Sundance” is. The original :Sundance was a Second Amendment activist who campaigned for several decades against “gun control” laws. But he passed awat this past April. There are several individuals who could have taken on the :Sundance: identity today, such as one of his sons, or his former partner in Second Amendment activism and co-director of his non-profit ,,pro- Second Amendment corporation. But all this is speculation, because I have no idea who today’s “Sundance” is, Please inform us.