Get Rid Of Wray Immediately

When a new President comes into office, there is quite properly a changing of the guard. The people have voted for new policies. The norm is that all the Cabinet Secretaries, and all other Cabinet-level officials (like the heads of EPA, NSA and NASA, and the UN Ambassador) leave office, to be replaced by appointees of the new guy.

But there are exceptions. The two most notable are the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Director of the FBI. (See also, the Commissioners of the so-called “independent” agencies, like the FTC, SEC, CFTC, etc., etc., a more complex situation that I will not cover in this post.). In the case of the Fed Chair and the FBI Director, they have fixed terms that are not in sync with the terms of Presidents; and the norm, if you want to call it that, has been that Presidents don’t fire them. The Fed Chair’s fixed term is only four years, expiring two years into a President’s term. Thus, although the Fed Chair does not normally leave office when a new President comes in, a President can always replace him or her a couple of years later.

And then there is the FBI Director. The FBI Director’s fixed term is 10 years. That implies an expectation that an FBI Director will serve through the terms of at least two, and potentially three, Presidents. The underlying idea — not unreasonable at first blush — is to avoid having the FBI in a position to be used as the political tool of the current President to go after political enemies.

But, as with everything else important in life, there are trade-offs. How about when the FBI arrogates to itself a mission to support one political party, here the Democrats, and persecute the other, here the Republicans?

The Constitution does not recognize such a thing as executive agencies “independent” from the President. Article II, Section 1 provides that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” There is no grant of executive power to any other person, office or agency. Under the Constitution, the protection against abuse of power by a President, such as by using law enforcement to go after political adversaries, lies at the ballot box, not in having one or more law enforcement agencies answerable only to themselves and unaccountable to anyone.

Indeed the “independence” of the FBI has a history much more notable for abuse of power by the FBI itself than for any high-minded incorruptibility. J. Edgar Hoover was first appointed head of the then Bureau of Investigations in 1924 by President Calvin Coolidge, and subsequently became the first Director of the FBI when that agency was created under President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935. Hoover then served in that role all the way until his death in 1972, five Presidents later. According to a Wikipedia biography here, both Presidents Truman and Kennedy considered firing Hoover, but feared political blow-back. Hoover notoriously collected files of potentially compromising information on Presidents and other high-ranking politicians in order to protect his own power. In 1991 the New York Times conducted a review of President Nixon’s White House tapes, and found Nixon expressing the view that he could not fire Hoover because of fear of information that Hoover might release. (“Tape Shows Nixon Feared Hoover,” New York Times, June 5, 1991.)

But nothing can top the corruption of the FBI by the end of the Obama administration under Director James Comey. During the 2016 campaign, and then after Trump was elected that year, the FBI went all in to try to prevent Trump’s election, and then, after he was elected, to undermine his presidency. Readers will undoubtedly vividly remember the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” hysteria, substantially ginned up by the FBI, that gripped the country from about September/October 2016 all the way through 2018. As just one data point, consider this New York Times piece from March 20, 2017, reporting on Comey testimony to Congress at that time early in Trump’s first term, headline “F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms.” They were investigating the sitting President for what they had to know by that time was a hoax initially promulgated by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Meanwhile, Trump was foolishly following the “norm” of keeping the sitting FBI Director in place. And then, when he finally fired Comey in May 2017, the press was filled with articles insinuating that firing an FBI Director should be viewed as “obstruction of justice.” From the New York Times, May 11, 2017:

Some critics of President Trump have accused him of obstruction of justice in his firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, amid the bureau’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. . . . Several federal statutes criminalize actions that impede official investigations.

And how about Christopher Wray? Yes, he was initially appointed by Trump. But under his leadership the FBI has continued its practices of being a partisan tool of the Democrats. To list just a few examples: (1) the SWAT raid on Roger Stone in January 2019 (conveniently leaked to CNN so that it could be filmed); (2) the raid by some 30 FBI agents on Mar-a-Lago in August 2022; and (3) the hundreds of investigations of J6 participants.

If Wray has not already resigned, Trump should fire him promptly on January 20. His right to do so is not a close constitutional question.

Truth Tellers -vs- Truth Managers: POTUS Declassification Examples

December 2, 2024 | Sundance

Laying the groundwork for uncomfortable discussions is never easy. However, sometimes the best approach is to cite examples and then expand. Here’s two factual examples.

♦ EXAMPLE FACT #1 – In December 2017, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes asked the White House, specifically President Trump, to declassify the “Nunes Memo.” President Trump did not declassify the memo because President Trump was told by the concentric lawyers within the office that he should not. So, he didn’t.
[We eventually did see the memo, albeit with negotiated redactions, because Nunes (and Kash Patel) played by the Silo rules and entered a period of negotiations with the Intelligence Community. Nunes leveraged reauthorization of FISA-702 authority, predicated on declassifying his memo. We The People subsequently saw the memo, but we were screwed by the FISA reauthorization.]
♦ EXAMPLE FACT #2 – In January 2020, as he exited the White House, President Trump, using his office, played by the Silo rules and asked for the Russiagate documents to be made public. They never were.

This is such a great example of “Truth Management.”

Y’all are probably familiar with this declassification letter written by Mark Meadows. But what you didn’t see before is how it was designed to fail.

This approach is following the DC rules of the Intelligence Community (IC) Silos.

Mark Meadows, a Truth Manager, intentionally – with purpose and intent – followed this approach because he knew it would fail.

Meadows didn’t make a mistake; he was not mistaken in his approach; he didn’t make an error. This is purposeful.

In January 2020, breathing a sigh of relief, the people around President Donald Trump, were managing his exit and defending the system as they exited power.

They requested the IC Silos to release information, knowing full well the information would never be released.

The only way this information would be guaranteed to be released to the public, is if President Trump took those file boxes personally into the Brady Room, and using his full plenary power and authority, gave them to the media and said, “I hereby designate under my official act power, that this information is of priority to the American people.”…. and literally handed it to the media.

Giving the information to the Silo operators and saying please release this; a process that follows the rules of the IC system that is designed to protect itself; only ensures it will never reach sunlight.

Meadows and everyone else around this moment, knew this to be true. They knew this would fail.

Understanding these two examples is the first step in understanding how the DC Silo system works.

♦ In research projects about detailed granular events attached to corruption in Washington DC, eventually you reach a point where you have identified the specific people involved.

That’s when things get sketchy.

When doing these research projects, you discover that certain DC “insiders,” media people and current/former silo staff, names most of you know very well, are also aware of the information you are discovering.

The “insiders” are generally positioned in such a manner as most of the information-aware public consider them “Truth Tellers.”

Alternative media now gives the Truth Tellers a larger influence voice. This is where it gets interesting.

When you have nailed down the story with direct, irrefutable evidence against the bad actors, you start to notice a pattern emerge about how the Truth Teller media types consistently stay away from certain names.

If you do this long enough, and find the same outcome frequently enough, you realize most of these “Truth Tellers” are not that at all; they are, instead, Truth Managers.

The DC Truth Managers are willfully blind to the activity of certain people they have identified as what can only be reasonably assumed to be CIA operators.

Having spent thousands of hours on this subject, no other reasonable explanation make sense. There are bad actors in DC that I can only believe are “CIA operators.” Why? Because earnestly after years of doing this, I cannot think of any other reason why they would be protected.

Why is CIA operative Nellie Ohr openly discussed, yet the stronger and more important name, Mary McCord, purposefully avoided. I have reached the conclusion that Mary McCord is factually a CIA operator. Nothing else makes sense.

♦ Be careful about assigning the label “Truth Teller” toward any alternative media DC insider who is a “reformed journalist” or “former staff member” of the machine.

There are well known voices from inside the system, that exit the corporate media world, and enter the alternative media world, only to carry on the same purpose.

I see the information managers frequently now and identify them easily by who they *do not* talk about.

Truth Tellers have no vested financial interest in the information, or control thereof; Truth Managers always do.

When a current or former information manager comes across a story of corruption that involves a “CIA designated bad actor,” they never discuss that person in their information reveal. They continue the protection.

A good rule of thumb is never to think of anyone from inside the DC information system, regardless of their disposition, as a Truth Teller.

Every Information Manager was matriculated, and are compromised, by the system around them that is entirely based on corrupt activity.

Hang around a one-legged tribe long enough, and inherently you begin limping.

• Truth Teller Examples: Patel Durov, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden and Matt Taibbi. Pavel Durov (arrested in France) now lives in Dubai. Glenn Greenwald now lives in Brazil. Edward Snowden now lives in Russia.

• Truth Manager Examples: John Solomon, Sean Hannity, Sara Carter, Catherine Herridge, Steve Bannon, Kash Patel, Glenn Beck, Jack Posobiec, Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin and the entire Fox News lineup. There are many more, but the financial aspect runs consistent.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had to agree to stop being a Truth Teller and become a Truth Manager in order to be released from prison. As he readily admits, part of the agreement was to give the Western Intelligence Community first right of review for any information WikiLeaks would release. This shifts Julian Assange from Truth telling to Truth managing. In this unique case, I don’t fault him a bit.

♦ In our larger discussion of information, how does Information Management surface:

Let me give you a great example using this video shared yesterday.

Listen carefully to what Kash Patel says at the 01:23 moment about the “Russiagate report” that was written, and how the “ICA” (Intelligence Community Assessment) was constructed with fraudulent information from the CIA.

As Patel notes, “Gina buried it.” That’s Gina Haspel, the Trump CIA Director who replaced Mike Pompeo.

Do you guys even understand how amazing this Kash appointment is?!

Let me remind you pic.twitter.com/nLo4aIFuDF
— Defender of the Republic 🇺🇸 (@realdefender45) December 1, 2024

Now, you might think that Patel is a Truth Teller in this segment but stand back and think about it with fresh eyes, non-pretending eyes.

Patel knows, because he (with others) created a report that highlights a fraudulent CIA operation. A report that was absorbed by the CIA and buried.

Put another way, Patel is talking about a body that he knows is buried. Ergo, people might say, “Patel knows where the body is buried,” right?

But ask yourself, with the known stakes to the nation as an outcome of horrific fraud, why didn’t this self-identified “#2 in the Intelligence Community” bring this information forward regardless of outcome?

Is Patel a “Truth Teller,” or is he a “Truth Manager,” obeying the Silo rules out of self-interest?

New Eyes – Use them.

What is the difference between Edward Snowden and Kash Patel?

One is a Truth Teller the other is a “buy my books” Truth Manager.

Of course, Kash Patel defenders will justify by saying he was just waiting to release the information he alluded to, until he was in a better position.

So, his plan to reveal the truth was to:

(1) hope Trump won the election,
(2) hope he would be appointed to an administration position, and then
(3) hope to be able to reach into the CIA silo and somehow retrieve his work product.

Please. Just stop.

As a “confirmed”, not “acting” FBI Director, Kash Patel *could* declassify information or documents that is the exclusive equity of the FBI Silo, but only the FBI Silo.

If there was a joint silo operation, he cannot.
If the information was from a source outside the FBI silo, he cannot.
If the information is not 100% exclusive to the FBI silo, he cannot.

Modify your outlook accordingly.

♦ The “continuing central power” that Patel talks about already exists.

This is part of the problem with people who come from inside the system; and it is a problem for those who cannot spend thousands of hours understanding it.

The IC Silo rules, are followed by people who matriculate surrounded by the IC Silo rules.

The “central power” needed to fracture the system is the physical person of the President of the United States.

The President is, well, Snowden-proof. The President, not the office, the actual physical person, is the power of the system. The epicenter of the system where the atom splits, is the physical President.

Acting in his “official duty,” the President of the United States can take a document (any document) and walk into the Brady Room, hand it to a journalist and that document is automatically declassified.

He doesn’t need a stamp on it. He doesn’t need anyone else’s approval or permission. He, the physical person, the President, can simply say, “I view this in my official capacity as President of the United States to be a vital interest to the American public,” and hand it to anyone he chooses. That’s the central power.

Knowing this, knowing the factual reality of it, is exactly why the concentric circles around the President, intentionally and forcefully stop him from doing it. The silo system self-protects.

If it can be done this way, then why wasn’t it done this way?

Kash Patel, Devin Nunes, Ric Grenell, John Ratcliffe etcetera. all know this to be true. So why wasn’t it done?

Go ask Edward Snowden.

♦ Impeachment is the political backstop that protects the IC Silo business model.

Impeachment origins are amorphous by definition.

Declassify something the IC Silo operators don’t like, and it’s a national security breach worthy of impeachment.

These are the warnings to President Trump built into the Silo rules.
This is why the White House Counsel is so important.
This is why the Nunes Memo was never declassified.
This is why President Trump relied on Mark Meadows, which ultimately culminated in an FBI retrieval operation in Mar-a-Lago.

See the political backstop?

Wait, are you saying there’s no point in declassifying then?

No. Exactly the opposite.

Strike now. The House is still in GOP hands.

Force the Legislative Branch to impeach President Trump in the first year as the only way to stop him.

Draw out the enemy. However, don’t YOU be so naïve that you do not take the time to understand exactly, in granular detail, what will be needed to do the actual declassifying.

If the Legislative Branch prioritizes retention of the system and takes down Trump via impeachment, JD Vance has to be willing to continue it… And so on, and so on…

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.