Marc Elias – The Democrat Who Singlehandedly Destroyed American Democracy

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Marc Elias’s partisan legal career may appear to glitter like gold but even a cursory examination reveals his legal ethics are, at best, dubious.

In fact, Elias likely has done irreparable harm to the United States of America.

Who is this guy?

In short, he was the paymaster behind the “Steele dossier” and the architect of the “Vote by Mail” ploy that seemingly has stolen reelection from President Donald Trump.

Elias’s Public Face

Elias is a partner in the Seattle-based law firm of Perkins Coie and serves as the chair of its Political Law Group. As described on the firm’s website:

          “Marc represents dozens of U.S. senators, governors, representatives and their campaigns as well as the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Priorities USA, Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC. Marc served as general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 and John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004.”

In his various capacities, Elias, who is situated in Washington, D.C., is heavily involved in fighting lawsuits challenging the results of the presidential elections in key battleground states.

He poses as the virtuous protector of the voting rights of the downtrodden masses who have succumbed to COVID-19 fear mongering and lack the courage to appear in person to vote.

However, Elias’s true character can be judged by a typical ploy he embraces – accuse a political opponent of the same reprehensible conduct that he, in turn, resorts to. For example, here is an Elias quote that appeared on September 21 in The New Republic:

           “Donald Trump has shown a willingness to violate every norm that one associates with the president of the United States, and even the law, in order to advance his political interests, and I expect that between now and the election we will continue to see him do everything he can to win reelection,” Elias told {the reporter]. “And that will include things ranging from using [his] bully pulpit to bad-mouth voting by mail to worse.”

Grilling By House Intelligence Panel

On December 13, 2017, Elias appeared before an executive session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to answer questions about his knowledge of and involvement with the Steele dossier.

The Steele dossier was a central element in the contrived Russian collusion hoax ostensibly linking Donald Trump and people in his presidential campaign to Russia. It resulted in the naming of Robert Mueller as special counsel to conduct a far-reaching probe with a hefty price tag.

Under intense questioning by then-Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Elias’s lawyer provided him substantial protective cover behind the legal shield of attorney-client privilege and work-product exemption.

However, Elias’s true character shone through at the tail end of the interview while he was being queried by an unidentified questioner.

It was revealed that sometime in late September or early October in 2016, Elias met in his office with Fusion GPS representatives and Christopher Steele. Perkins Coie was paid somewhere between $5 million and $6 million by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for the law firm’s services. Neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign knew about the meeting, Elias stated.  

According to Elias, “a relatively small part [of that money] would involve” Fusion GPS. “Probably about a million dollars,” he added. Elias acknowledged he would have to sign off on those transactions.

In response to a question, Elias stated he “did not direct” Steele to the specific media outlets he was sent to but he “was aware of it.”

The exchanges that followed speak for themselves:

            Q. You could have also told them not to do it?

            MR. ELIAS: Hypothetically, yes.

                Q. Why did you not stop Mr. Steele from speaking to media in the fall of 2016 after he was in your Washington, D.C., law offices?

            MR. ELIAS: I thought that the information that – I thought that the information that he or they wished to convey was accurate and important.

          Q. So the information that Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele wished to portray to the media in the fall of 2016 at that time, you thought, was accurate and important?

MR. ELIAS: As I understand it.

Q. As you understood it. Sitting here today, do you still consider that information that was relayed to the media in the fall of 2016 after the meeting in your law offices to be accurate and important?


Q. Have you had the opportunity to verify it independently?

 MR. ELIAS:  No.

Q.  So how do you know it’s still accurate and important?

MR. ELIAS: You asked me my opinion.

          Q. Was there any information that was accurately portrayed in that dossier that was relayed by Christopher Steele to the media in the fall of 2016?

            MR: ELIAS: There were — there was information in it that I was familiar with. There was information in it that I was not familiar with. Some of the information that was in it I think has actually proved true. So, you know, my opinion that it was accurate and important, I think l was right.

            Q. Would agree that there’s parts of that dossier that remain unverified to this day?

MY. ELIAS: I assume there are.

A Phony Do-Gooder

On March 18, 2020, in an article penned by Elias titled “Four Pillars To Safeguard Voting Rights With Vote By Mail,” he said:

          Increasingly, we are seeing calls for states to adopt no-excuse absentee and vote by mail. This is a very important step in ensuring the right to vote, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

So, it is apparent that from the get-go, Elias saw the COVID-19 situation as his vehicle of choice for achieving the goal of voting by mail, at least in what are considered swing states.  

The article appeared in an impressive sounding report called “Safeguarding Our Democracy With Vote By Mail” which appears on a website called Democracy Docket that was created by none other than Elias.

Here is what prominently appears on the website:

          Democracy Docket focuses on detecting, highlighting, and combating suppressive voting laws and practices that will have the greatest impact on the outcome of the 2020 elections and which are not otherwise being addressed. Put simply, we spotlight those laws and practices that restrict the right to vote but may not be the most newsworthy.

And what are the so-called “Four Pillars” that Elias considers sacrosanct:

  1. Postage for mail-in ballots must be free or prepaid by the government.
  2. Ballots postmarked on or before Election Day must be counted.
  3. Signature matching laws need to be reformed to protect voters.
  4. Community organizations should be permitted to help collect and deliver voted, sealed ballots.

It all sounds kosher until one remembers that the devil is in the details.

POSTAGE: This is simply a means to boost voting by individuals who would otherwise not think it was worth the money for a stamp just to vote or even worthwhile to exercise their right to vote by going to a polling place.

POSTMARKS: Place the blame for late delivery on the U.S. Postal Service. “This is simply wrong and unfair to voters who have done everything right but have their ballots thrown out because of delays with the postal service,” Elias wrote. In fact, Democrats made a big stink about this issue while complaining about proposed reforms to postal delivery that were announced several months prior to Election Day. In reality, people who want to vote have ample time to mail their ballots to ensure they will arrive on time.

SIGNATURE MATCHING: Elias would handle this problem as follows: “Absentee ballots with questionable signatures should be reviewed by three election officials. Only if all three find beyond a reasonable doubt that a signature does not match should it be set aside.” Presumably, at least one of the three election officials would be a Democrat and, consequently, this requirement makes the whole matching issue meaningless.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS: In plain words, ballot harvesting is an honorable practice and not subject to any abuse such as helping voters complete their ballot. Republicans oppose this as a way to suppress the vote, says Elias, adding that “voters without easy access to secure and reliable outgoing mail, or who need extra help to get their ballots delivered, rely on this practice.”

A Rigged Election?

No doubt that political partisans will view the entire election debacle through red or blue lenses.

It would seem that the growing mountain of vote-related irregularities, if not outright illegalities, warrant prompt, efficient and unbiased investigation by federal law enforcement agencies.

How can anyone forget the photos from the Detroit vote counting center where workers were busy blocking the windows of the rooms where tabulations were being done?

How can anyone ignore affidavits, sworn to under penalty of perjury, of election and postal workers who reported such things as backdating receipt of ballots and instructions not to question a voter’s signature or ask for identification?

How can anyone sweep under the rug that many thousands of people who came to vote were told their mail-in ballot was already recorded and the people stated they had never even received a ballot by mail?

These are just a very brief sampling of serious allegations arising from the 2020 presidential election.

Marc Elias, who has proven to be a master at pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people, said this:

          “Vote by mail is always good policy, but right now it is a critical part of democracy.”

Yes, a democracy that Marc Elias has transformed for the worse for evermore.


Trump, A Democratic Criminal Enterprise, RICO And The Truth

By: Jeffrey Winograd

The United States is on the brink of political Armageddon – a decisive conflict with virtually anonymous federal and states jurists siding with a corrupt Democratic criminal enterprise in total disregard for finding the truth.

That is essentially what has been happening while President Donald Trump has been seeking recourse in the halls of justice to establish whether the 2020 presidential election process was illegally undermined.

Judges in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania have demonstrated they lack the wisdom and courage to discover the truth.

For example, a judge in Michigan rejected the admissibility of the sworn, under penalty of perjury, affidavit of Jessy Jacob, a Detroit city employee, who made various allegations regarding the coaching of voters and offering of specific illegal voting instructions.

Why the rejection? Because she didn’t name parties and provide dates, as if this problem could not have been easily cured by questioning before the bench.

Now, a federal district court judge in Pennsylvania has tossed out a key lawsuit brought in behalf of Trump and individual voters.

In the words of Judge Matthew Brann, an Obama appointee who sits in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: “Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend [the lawsuit] are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.”

How is that for an objective legal opinion!

No Time for Pussyfooting

The time is now for President Donald Trump to play his trump card – his decisive ultimate resource – against the combined forces that have been arrayed against him since he first announced his candidacy for the presidency.

His game-changing weapon is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, popularly known as RICO.

This is a strongly recommended course of action that is separate and apart from Trump’s current legal challenges to the still unofficial election results.

To explain why there is no time to lose, just a bit of background.

Biased News Media

President Trump’s legal team, during a November 19 press conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters on Capitol Hill, laid out in sufficient detail the legal causes of action the president and others believe are legally sufficient to overturn the election results in Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia, with similar possibilities in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada.

Unfortunately, the news media has been content to disparage the performance and physical appearance of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s top lawyer, and the allegations, albeit without a full explanation, of Sidney Powell, a key member of the team.

Full and accurate reporting has fallen by the wayside, and the general public is not only misinformed but outright deceived by the Fourth Estate which is in bed with the Democratic cabal supposedly under the incorruptible (just forget about the lucrative business dealings of his son, Hunter, in Ukraine and China) leadership of Joe Biden.

One reporter wrote that Giuliani “urged reporters to look into [the] affidavit” of the aforementioned Jessy Jacob, but inaccurately concluded that “the president’s legal team offered no evidence to support their claims, yet berated the media for not covering them.”

Well, here is a bit of legalese that should cause Dylan Stableford a bit of embarrassment had he heeded the advice of Giuliani to read the publicly available affidavits.

According to LegalNature:

“An affidavit is admissible evidence, although some courts may require you to testify to the affidavit or they may consider it hearsay. Since hearsay is not admissible as evidence, your affidavit may not be used for evidence if someone objects to it unless you testify.”    

To sum up, the public is being fed shoddy, faulty and outright biased reporting – a condition which allows judges to act with impunity and anti-Trump animus.

And it is not outside the realm of reality that the Supreme Court of the United States will do everything possible to avoid getting involved.

Giuliani’s List of Allegations

Here is a sampling of allegations made by Giuliani, which he must prove in court, during the press conference;

  • With Biden ahead in Pennsylvania by 69,140 votes, there are some 682,000 mail-in ballots which underwent no inspection.
  • The secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania permitted ballots to be cured (mistakes corrected) in Philadelphia and Pittsburg, but not in other locations.
  • In Pittsburg, there were some 17,000 provisional ballots completed. Of these, 15,000 were from people who came to vote in person and were told they had already voted.
  • In Detroit, the aforementioned Jessy Jacobs, in an affidavit, stated she was told to change the date of receipt on absentee ballots, not to ask for valid identification, not to invalidate any ballots, not to look for any deficiencies and not to look for signatures.
  • In Detroit, at approximately 4:30 a.m., on November 4, trucks came to the rear entrance of the ballot processing facility and allegedly delivered ballots stuffed in garbage cans, paper bags and cardboard boxes. The estimated number of said ballots was between 50,000 to 100,000. 
  • With Biden ahead in Wisconsin by 20,554 votes, there were some 60,000 absentee ballots received in Milwaukee and some 40,000 absentee ballots received in Madison with no applications on file requesting an absentee ballot.
  • In numerous Wisconsin precincts, there were overvotes as high as 150%, 200% and 300%. This means more votes were supposedly cast than the number of actual registered voters.

Giuliani repeatedly asked reporters to read the court filings and the affidavits that were publicly available. He also said he could not publicly release any of the affidavits without permission of the individuals submitting the affidavits. In addition, there is a reasonable likelihood that those who submitted affidavits would encounter threats to themselves and family members, Giuliani said.

A previous article on this site include a must-see list of allegations of wrong-doing in several battleground states.

Applicability of RICO

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS seemingly lays out the way for Trump to fight back with a series of civil lawsuits in a number of United States District Courts.

What constitutes “racketeering activity?” A glance at 18 U.S. Code §1961 offers relevant title 18 possibilities:

§1028 (fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents); §1029 (fraud and related activity in connection with access devices); §1341 (mail fraud); §1343 (wire fraud); §1503 (obstruction of justice); § 1512 (tampering with a witness, victim or informant) and §1513 (retaliating against a witness, victim or informant).

What are “prohibited activities?” A look at 18 U.S. Code §1962 offers these explanations:

 (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity … to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity…. (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (b) or (c) of this section.

Are there “civil remedies/” A review of 18 U.S. Code §1964 states:

(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee….

Naming the Conspirators

It is impossible to overstate the damage Democrats have inflicted on the Constitution and the U.S. body politic from 2015 until this point in the 2020 presidential electoral process.

And now, amid reports that the Durham probe into the origins of allegations of Trump collusion with the Russians is in its death throes without any likely indictment of wrong doers, why not start with naming  Hillary Clinton (bankroller of the so-called Steele dossier) and the Democratic National Committee (another bankroller) as the first two defendants.

Then continue by adding to the roster of defendants James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Miles Taylor (Mr. Anonymous), Kathy Boockvar (secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), and many others, working the list to include election officials in Detroit, Wisconsin, and other jurisdictions, as well as U.S. Postal Service employees and even local precinct workers.

Force these folks to appear in U.S district courts and testify under oath.   

It would seem to a mere journalist that with some skillful and innovative lawyering, this is not “to dream the impossible dream.”

It is called Queens-style payback.


RICO – Trump Vs. The Democratic Criminal Enterprise

By: Jeffrey Winograd

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, (popularly known as RICO), has been around since 1970 and its intent was to give the government a stronger hand in combatting organized crime.

Over the years, the scope of permissible legal actions undertaken pursuant to the statute has expanded and among the beneficiaries of this expansion is the average citizen.

Conduct targeted by RICO plaintiffs in civil actions have ranged from a battle by former minority owners of the Montreal Expos against Major League Baseball to a suit by clients of an accounting firm alleging the firm involved them in a tax avoidance scheme related to conservation easements.

It is now time to use RICO against what smells like a criminal enterprise (for example, a conspiracy) involving the Democratic Party, Democratic elected state officials, Democratic political operatives, and even news media outlets and social media companies.

Not A Joke

Of course, there must be an underlying crime to bring a RICO lawsuit.

How about political corruption, falsification of documents, identity theft, voter suppression, and mail/wire/telephone/Internet fraud for starters. The possible involvement of illegal immigrants might also be involved.

As the Justice Department website states: “If the predicate acts involve a distinct threat of long-term racketeering activity, either implicit or explicit, a RICO pattern is established.”

Three key facts must be established in a RICO suit: a defendant agreed to commit the substantive racketeering offense through agreeing to participate in two racketeering acts; the defendant knew the general status of the conspiracy; and the defendant knew the conspiracy extended beyond his individual role.

They even used the COVID-19 pandemic to justify their actions.

This is described in a New York Post article that is a must read.

In fact, the events described therein likely described the legal predicate for a RICO lawsuit.

List Of Activities Bolstering A RICO Lawsuit

Various lawsuits have already been filed in various states in behalf of the Trump campaign and by individuals who voted for Trump but have reasonable suspicion their votes were canceled or otherwise uncounted.

Here is a list of acts which, with legally sufficient explanation, can probably bolster a RICO lawsuit or even several lawsuits in different jurisdictions (a suit must be filed in a U.S. District Court with a request for expedited action) with carefully selected plaintiffs who have legal standing to sue.

  • No voter identification required.
  • No comparing of signatures on voter registration forms and ballots submitted by mail.
  • Alleged voting by deceased individuals.
  • No checking for proper use of envelopes with mail-in ballots.
  • Mailing of ballots to all registered voters without adequate preparation and funding to ensure a fair and timely counting with observers present.
  • Illegal voting due to place of residence.
  • Ballot harvesting whether permissible or not.
  • Illegally providing information about rejected mail-in ballots to Democratic Party operatives.
  • In Philadelphia, the delivery of 23,277 votes in one tranche with all going for Joe Biden.
  • The removal of the Green Party candidate from the Wisconsin ballot over a technicality regarding address of the candidate (the three Democrats on the six member Wisconsin Election Commission voted for the removal).
  • Incorrect cancelation of ballots.
  • Total votes counted by election software not matching printed tabulation tapes.
  • Denial of Republican access to observe vote counting in Michigan.
  • Lack of access, as required by statute, to video surveillance of remote ballot drop boxes.
  • Voter suppression due to the publication of polls sponsored by news media which overwhelmingly inflate the expected vote for Joe Biden and thereby discouraging potential Trump voters from going to the polls and adversely impacted late fundraising efforts.
  • The almost blanket lack of news coverage of events unfavorable to Biden (for example, the New York Post articles about Hunter Biden and a statement given under oath to the FBI by a former business associate of Hunter Biden who state he met twice with Joe Biden).
  • Social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, blocking message sent by the Trump campaign and those supporting Trump.
  • The supposedly nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates unilaterally canceled the second Trump-Biden debate, an obvious benefit for Biden as he was hiding from the press.

Roadmap To Victory

Savvy lawyers on Team Trump can piece together such details and surely allege several predicate crimes.

Remember political corruption, falsification of documents, identity theft, voter suppression, and mail/wire/telephone/Internet fraud,

The message for them and the president is “Go RICO.”

I Accuse Democrats Of Malfeasance

By: Jeffrey Winograd

We have seen in recent days business owners in major cities across the nation boarding up their storefront windows in fear of possible rioting by opponents of President Donald Trump should he be victorious on this Election Day,

If progressives and various unsavory elements don’t gain their preferred outcome in the election, violence in our streets will become the accepted norm.

This is a very sad commentary on the state of American politics.

As a former adherent to the party of FDR, HST JFK and WJC, as well as the publisher of the now defunct “Yellow Dog Democrat” newsletter, I place the blame for such political discord squarely at the feet of the Democratic Party and Democratic politicians.

How could the 21st century United States of America have reached this point?

Simple. It’s due to what elected Democrats and their professional cadres have and have not done.

Along the pathway of life, my views have evolved. Evidently, 16 years as a journalist in D.C. can make one both cynical and well informed.

THEREFORE, with a heavy heart but as a proud American, I ACCUSE the progressive Democratic party and its Capitol Hill minions of the following acts of political and personal destruction.

  • They are uncaring about the average Joe or Josephine, regardless of whether those folks are poor, blue collar or middle-class, and whatever the color of their skin.
  • They tolerate, and some even espouse, anti-Semitism. For example, one of the unsavory members of the so-called Squad spouted anti-Semitic remarks and Democrats in the House of Representatives didn’t have the guts and decency to condemn her remarks. Instead, they passed a meaningless resolution denouncing all sorts of conduct but with no emphasis on anti-Semitism.
  • They prostrate themselves before the powerful teachers’ unions while loudly proclaiming they want the very best for public school students. However, expanding funding and opportunities for school choice and charter schools are a no-no.
  • They rejoice over no-holds-barred abortion rights – for example, in the nineth month – while spitting in the face of those who do approve of the right to an abortion but within reasonable limits.
  • They proselytized the identity politics that has torn our nation asunder.
  • They turned a blind eye towards outright criminality among their tribe by anointing Hillary Rodham Clinton – who illegally used a private email server to send and receive classified information, and sanctioned the destruction of more than 30,000 emails that were under congressional subpoena – as an elector in the State of New York.   
  • They paid homage to a former president who was aware of and allowed FBI and CIA spying on a Republican presidential campaign as well as a president-elect, while he was hiding behind the veil of so-called plausible deniability.  
  • They sanctioned the murder of thousands of elderly patients in New York State and possibly elsewhere by allowing those infected with the Wuhan virus, a.k.a. COVID-19, to enter or re-enter nursing homes. All of this without any outright public criticism of the governor of New York since he is one of their anointed princes.
  • They politicized the Wuhan virus pandemic instead of reaching out to the president and asking what they could do to help, all while they literally begged for his assistance in providing personal protective equipment, ventilators and even massive U.S. Navy hospital ships.
  • They rejoiced in the savage treatment of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who had a distinguished military career but who dared to cross swords with Obama and his henchmen over Iran and other national security matters.
  • They effectively allowed Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, with the complicity and duplicity of the power-hungry House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to politicize a vital congressional committee for rank partisan political purposes – namely impeachment of Trump.
  • They obstructed President Trump by all possible means, regardless of whether those means were ethical or even legal, from the outset of his administration and even before he officially entered the White House.
  • They condoned the actions of their 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee itself, in paying for and participating in the dissemination of the unsavory and totally debunked Steele dossier which was the incubator of the Russian conspiracy hoax.
  • They circumvented the Constitution by cutting a multi-multi-billion-dollar deal with Iran by not bringing it before the Senate, where it properly belonged as a proposed treaty requiring the consent of 67 senators.
  • They squandered a unique opportunity during both Obama administrations to provide real tangible and lasting help to black citizens residing in our inner cities.
  • They rallied behind the impeachment bandwagon with phony charges of presidential misbehavior during a perfectly acceptable telephone call with a foreign leader and not one Democratic elected official on the national stage stood up to say this is idiocy and an insult to the Constitution.  
  • They joyously anointed over-the-hill Joe Biden as their preferred candidate for president and kept him hidden in a Delaware basement until the final days of the election campaign.

There is much more that I could say but this should be enough to make my point.

And all this took place with the connivance of the Fourth Estate and the creatures of the Swamp.

Harbinger of Election Chaos – Butler County, Pennsylvania

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Butler County, Pennsylvania, is nestled some 28 miles north of Pittsburgh.  

It also marks the coordinates of Donald Trump’s largest haul of votes, percentage wise, in the entire Keystone State, formally known as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Come the night of Nov. 3, after the close of voting in the state, it is destined to become the focal point of the battle for the presidency of the United States of America.

Why? Well potential rigging of the election in favor of the woeful Joe Biden could be the likely answer.

You see, in 2016, Trump carried the county with 66.7% (or 61,388 votes) compared to the forlorn Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 29.2% (or 26,834 votes). Trump’s margin of victory was 48.8% (or 2,912,941 votes) versus Clinton’s 47.6% (or 2,844,706 votes).

Judging from the turnout at President Trump’s raucous rally on the evening of October 31, enthusiasm for Trump in Butler County is over the top.

The problem is the news, as captured in a screaming headline in the October 29 online edition of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, that “Potentially thousands of requested mail ballots lost in Butler County, official says.”

According to the article, “nearly 40,000 registered voters in the county requested mail ballots [and] so far, only 24% of them have been returned to the county, by far the lowest rate among the state’s 67 counties.” The county with the next-lowest rate of return has received 50% of requested ballots, it added.

Democrats are eager to place the blame of the post office. ““I actually just traded voicemails with somebody in the United States Postal Service up at the higher levels to make sure that they’re … paying attention to this and finding out what’s going on,” Kathy Boockvar, Pennsylvania’s secretary of state, said during an election preparedness news conference in Harrisburg.

The post office has been quick to respond. “Regarding mail sorting and delivery in Butler County, the Postal Service is unaware of any significant delays or issues and is in regular contact with the Board of Election as we work to locate and deliver ballots as they are presented to us,” said David Partenheimer, a Postal Service spokesman.

While election officials have been trying to mitigate the effects of the problem, should the final state-wide vote tally be close, a controversy – the likes of which has not been seen since Florida’s “hanging chad” controversy at the tail end of the 2000 election – will ensue.  

Election results should not have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and yet it may come to that.

Is it possible that this is the ultimate rigging of the presidential election process by the Deep State, the so-called Intelligence Community, never-Trumpers and the once-honorable Democratic Party?


Democratic National Committee, CrowdStrike and FBI: A Humdinger of Collusion

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Secret congressional testimony recently unlocked at the prodding of the acting Director of National Intelligence has exposed a disgraceful tale of collaboration between the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike and the FBI.

Under grilling by two Republican members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Shawn Henry, president of CrowdStrike and former key FBI official, testified under oath that his firm was never able to prove the Russian among Democrats and the mainstream press.

Even more revealing, Henry inadvertently gave away a significant secret that was carefully kept under wraps by the DNC and its operatives.   

Henry’s testimony, which took place on Dec. 5, 2017, shines the spotlight on four key points:

  1. CrowdStrike and the Intelligence Community (IC) lied about the certainty that the Russian government hacked the DNC computers.
  2. The DNC used the legal barrier of attorney-client privilege to protect itself from embarrassing revelations about its ties to the notorious Fusion GPS, the firm behind the totally discredited Steele dossier.
  3. Perkins Coie, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm hired by the DNC, is now exposed as a nest bed of unethical operators who misled FBI investigators to prevent the Feds from learning it had hired Fusion GPS to generate dirt on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
  4. The date of April 12, 2016, was the day that made DNC-CrowdStrike-FBI collusion essential to protect the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.   


On June 15, 2016, CrowdStrike posted on its website a statement that “it stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016.” Despite assertions of a related Russian disinformation campaign, “these claims do nothing to lessen our findings related to the Russian government’s involvement, portions of which we have documented for the public and the greater security community,” it added.

Almost seven months later, on January 6, 2017, the IC released a report titled “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 Presidential Elections.” According to this report, “in July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to DNC networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.”

Then came this assertion: “We assess that the General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) cyber operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC. [emphasis added]

However, the IC report coyly included a rather stunning disclaimer: Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. [emphasis added]

The Facts

According to Shawn Henry, on April 30, 2016, CrowdStrike was retained to investigate the details of an alleged hacking of DNC computer servers.

“CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee, the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach,” a June 15, 2016, a company blog update said.  

However, this statement was clearly misleading and false.

In fact, CrowdStrike was retained by Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the DNC, a key point, the importance of which became clearer in the closed-door testimony of Henry.

Under questioning by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), Henry revealed that the threat of a hack was first brought to the attention of the DNC by a company that was overseeing its computer network. This company submitted a report or reports to that effect.

It emerged that the contractor was first contacted by the FBI, months prior to April 30, and warned about possible hacking.  

“l don’t know what [the FBI] had access to in the environment,” Henry said. “l can tell you that the intelligence that we shared with them, including forensic information, indicators of compromise, which are pieces of malware, et cetera, we provided all of that to the FBI. Starting in June of 2016, we provided them the data that would have been of value to them.”

Added Henry: “They were conducting an investigation. Whether they were feeding back information to the DNC or not, I don’t know. And when we sat with them in June, we provided them with a lot of the indicators, the malware, and other pieces of code that we took off of the computer network.’

Rep. Stewart wanted to know if the FBI could conduct their own investigation in a thorough fashion without access to the actual hardware. “Maybe,” replied Henry, “it depends on what else they had access to.” (NOTE: the FBI never had access to any DNC computer hardware)

The wily Stewart then signaled his belief that that something didn’t compute if the goal was to have the FBI conduct a better investigation. “So, the question is, would there be reasons for not making [equipment or hardware] available that override the benefit of having a more conclusive investigation? If someone wasn’t going to make that available, they would have to have reasons for not doing that because they would likely have a less thorough investigation by not making it available?”

“You’re asking me to speculate. I don’t know the answer,” Henry said.

What is DNC hiding?

As Rep. Stewart continued with his questions, two attorneys retained by the DNC jumped in and warned they would invoke attorney-client privilege if they did not like the direction Stewart’s questions were taking.

“Just for the record, some of the comments we were just discussing, as Mr. Henry indicated, certain of the work that was performed was performed at the behest of counsel, Perkins Coie, Mr. Sussmann,s law firm,” said David Lashway, of the law firm Baker and McKenzie, representing CrowdStrike. “Therefore, certain of that information, the DNC, as the client of Perkins Coie, has asserted privilege and some confidences over certain of that information, sir. And so we would turn to Perkins Coie, as counsel to the DNC, to ensure that Mr. Henry can actually answer some of these questions relating – some of that information that would otherwise be considered protected by the DNC, as the client.”

Another attorney then stepped in. “On behalf of the DNC, the DNC takes the work of this committee and this investigation incredibly seriously …  and wants to cooperate in every way that we can in order to provide this committee all the information it needs,” said Graham Wilson, of the Perkins Coie Political Law Group. CrowdStrike was actually working for Perkins Coie and was “performing work in order to help Perkins Coie advise the DNC on this matter,” he added.

Stewart probed further and Wilson revealed that “we had a contract between Perkins Coie and CrowdStrike, with a scope of work for the DNC – specific work.”

At this point, under prodding by Rep. Stewart, Henry acknowledged that CrowdStrike never had a contract with the DNC. “I mentioned it was with Michael Sussmann from Perkins Coie,” said Henry. (NOTE: Sussmann was the attorney who, on behalf of the DNC, retained Fusion GPS to get the goods on Trump)

And then came this revelation. “So, the one thing I would want to say is I think we are not waiving any of the attorney-client privilege over the work product here today,” Wilson said. “Again, l’m not waiving any privilege, We’re happy to have him continue to go’ With the request for a specific document and the contents, you know, like that was a DNC document, if you want to put that question to the DNC,  I’d be happy to discuss that with him and we can come back to it.”

Equivocation Is CrowdStrike Tactic

Rep. Stewart raised the claim that the hack on the DNC was not perpetrated by the Russian government and it was clear from Henry’s responses that there was no definitive proof of Russian hacking.

Here are some of Henry’s inconclusive responses (with emphasis added):

          – “We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian government.

          – “There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we’d seen associated with the Russian state.”

          – “Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated’

– “There is evidence of exfiltration, not conclusive, but indicators of exfiltration off the DNC.”

          – “There’s not evidence that they [emails] were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence.”

          – “So, I said that we didn’t have direct evidence.  But we made a conclusion that the data left the network.”

A Whiff Of Collusion

During the questioning of Henry, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) asked when CrowdStrike sent data, in whatever form, to the FBI, “did you filter anything out of that that the DNC would not have wanted the FBI to look at?”

“No, sir. I don’t think so,” replied Henry. “No. And I say that because I know that part of our report is redacted, but I have no – my understanding is everything we gave to the FBI was as we collected it.”

Rep. Stewart followed this up by asking Henry if he or CrowdStrike is required to report any illegal activity that you find on a client’s computer? “l won’t speculate on what my legal obligations are,” responded Henry.

Conaway then wanted to know if the DNC restricted anything that CrowdStrike shared with the FBI or that the FBI asked for. “Did they tell you ‘no’ at any point?” asked the congressman.

“No, I have no recollection. Again, I know that there are redacted reports and there was some restriction on the reports. That’s the only thing I can recall,” was Henry’s retort. This statement appears to be evasive since Henry acknowledged he received directions from Perkins Coie, which retained CrowdStrike, and not the DNC. 

The direction and tone of the questions shifted when Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) had his turn. Queried Swalwell: “And, in your experience, comparing this case to other clients that you’ve had or in your work at the FBI, you believe that the images were sufficient for the FBI to understand what had occurred?

“I believe that the FBI got everything that they asked for that related to the DNC from us. Everything that we had access to related to images and servers, when they asked for it, they got it,” said Henry.

Swalwell also wanted to know who received the findings of the CrowdStrike investigation. “I believe it was to Perkins Coie, to the law firm, because they were the client, essentially, right? We were contracted through the law firm,” answered Henry.

April 12, 2016 – Hiding Origins Of Trump-Russia Collusion Witch Hunt

Rep. Stewart then pinned down Henry on a key point when he asked; “You said, I believe, talking about the DNC computer, you had indications that data was prepared to be exfiltrated, but no evidence it actually left. Did I write that down correctly?

“Yes,” replied Henry.

Continued Stewart: “And, in this case, the data I am assuming you’re talking about is the email as well as everything else they may have been trying to take.”

Henry’s response was quite revealing but Stewart did not follow it up. “There were files related to opposition research that had been conducted but no evidence it was actually exfiltrated.”

So, here are a few questions that deserve answers:

  • How did Shawn Henry know there were files related to opposition research sitting in the DNC servers?
  • Had Henry been instructed by Perkins Coie to do whatever necessary to protect the content of those opposition research files?
  • What specific requests were made by the FBI to the DNC and CrowdStrike, and were those requests fulfilled? 

Why the importance of April 12, 2016? According to “Witch Hunt” by Gregg Jarrett, that was the day “Fusion GPS was hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and DNC to do opposition research on Donald Trump,” an action that gave birth, among other things, to the totally discredited Steele dossier and FBI abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What would have happened if this had all seen the light of day before the incoming Trump administration was wrapped in a virtual straightjacket?


Pelosi Thumbs Her Nose at Congressional Budget Office Warnings

IMPORTANCE of article – Prior to the passage of Obamacare, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously told an audience: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.” To this former Capitol Hill reporter, voting in favor of Pelosi’s $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act in bullet-train speed, without understanding the contents and implications of the legislative package, is a fundamental abdication of responsibility by members of the House of Representatives.  

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Older folks will remember Willie Sutton, the much-beloved (in some quarters) and crème de la crème of American bank robbers, who, when asked why he robbed banks, supposedly retorted “Because that’s where the money is.”

“Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I’d be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that’s all.”

Now along comes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who wants to emulate Sutton to the tune of $3 trillion, a sum far beyond the wildest imagination of the bank robber.

On May 12, Pelosi unveiled what she has dubbed the HEROS Act, which carries the $3 trillion price tag and is being promoted as “a bold response to the coronavirus pandemic and the economic collapse.”

All of this in a matter of less than four full days with a floor vote scheduled for May 15 and not even one committee of jurisdiction, excluding the House Rules Committee, conducting a hearing on germane provisions.

Congressional Budget Office Warns of Fiscal Earthquake

In an April 16 letter to Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO offered a preliminary estimate that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) will increase federal deficits by about $1.8 trillion over the 2020-2030 period.  

CBO noted that the estimated budgetary effects of the CARES Act are uncertain for several reasons, including:

– “The effects of the novel coronavirus pandemic on economic output and the labor markets are difficult to predict, and those effects drive CBO’s estimate of the act’s changes to unemployment compensation benefits.”

– “The duration of the emergency declarations related to the coronavirus pandemic and the number of hospitalizations for COVID-19 could differ significantly from what CBO has projected, and the budgetary effects of some provisions, such as those affecting Medicare, will depend on those factors.”

On May 8, CBO, in its Monthly Budget Review for April 2020, said that the federal government incurred an estimated deficit of $737 billion in April compared with a surplus of $160 billion in April 2019.

“The federal budget deficit was $1.48 trillion in the first seven months of FY 2020, CBO estimates, $949 billion more than the deficit recorded during the same period last year,” the budget review said.

“Overall, if laws currently in place governing spending and revenues generally remained unchanged and not significant additional emergency funding was provided, the federal deficit would be roughly $3.7 trillion in fiscal year 2020 (which ends on September 30) and $2.1 trillion next year,” CBO said.    

This is the financial state of the U.S.A. as Pelosi and House Democrats self-righteously promote a $3 trillion Pandora’s box of woes upon the nation.

An In-Depth Look At One Murky Provision

One provision allows Economic Impact Payments to be made to an individual who provides a Taxpayer Identification Number [TIN], rather than a Social Security number (SSN).

According to the IRS website: “The TIN is generally a Social Security number. However, in some cases, individuals who become U.S. resident aliens for federal tax purposes are not eligible to obtain an SSN. These individuals must apply for an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) which is a tax processing number issued by IRS. It does not authorize work in the U.S., provide eligibility for Social Security benefits, or qualify a dependent for earned income tax credit purposes.”

A person in one of the following categories requires an ITIN:

  • Nonresident alien who is required to file a U.S. tax return
  • U.S. resident alien who is (based on days present in the United States) filing a U.S. tax return
  • Dependent or spouse of a U.S. citizen/resident alien
  • Dependent or spouse of a nonresident alien visa holder
  • Nonresident alien claiming a tax treaty benefit
  • Nonresident alien student, professor or researcher filing a U.S. tax return or claiming an exception

Can Nancy Pelosi tell us if this means an illegal immigrant or some other foreigner with an ITIN can receive $1,200 payments from the government?

A Quick Look at Some Other Provisions of the Bill

What follows is just a sampling of provisions that stuck out during a cursory review of a summary of the bill.

My purpose is to demonstrate the complexity of what is being voted on and to suggest that those who vote in favor of passage of the bill are clueless about what they are actually supporting in a coronavirus-related bill.

  • Second Chance Act grants – $250 million for grants to help facilitate the reintegration of ex-prisoners back into society and to prevent recidivism.
  • Elections – $3.6 billion for grants to states for contingency planning, preparation, and resilience of elections for federal office.
  • Postal Service – $25 billion for revenue forgone due to the coronavirus pandemic, plus language providing additional protections to postal workers.
  • Environmental Protection Agency – $50 million for environmental justice grants, including investigating links between pollution exposure and the transmission and health outcomes of coronavirus in environmental justice communities.
  • Department of Labor – $925 million to assist states in processing unemployment insurance claims.
  • Department of Education – $100.15 billion to support the educational needs of states, school districts, and institutions of higher education in response to coronavirus.
  • House of Representatives – $5 million, in part to provide funding for the newly formed Select Committee that will provide oversight of the funds provided for coronavirus and economic aid. {Author’s Note: this new committee will, in practice, usurp the jurisdiction of standing committee’s and would likely be used by Democrats as a purely partisan attack dog against the Trump administration.)
  • Refundable tax credit – Temporary special rule for determining earned income for purposes of earned income tax credit (EITC). Allows taxpayers in 2020, for purposes of computing the EITC, to substitute their 2019 earned income for their 2020 earned income if their 2020 earned income is less than their 2019 earned income. (Author’s Note: IRS estimates 25.3% (or $17.4 billion) of the total EITC payments of $68.7 billion made in FY 2019 were improper.)
  • Authorizes payments for private education loan borrowers as a result of the COVID–19 national emergency and provides up to $10,000 in debt relief to be applied to a private student loan. The Treasury Department will make monthly payments on behalf of the borrower up to $10,000 until September 2021.
  • Early voting and voting by mail – This provision requires at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections. Prohibits states from requiring notarization or witness signatures to obtain or cast an absentee ballot.   

THE BOTTOM LINE = House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic stooges are willing to plunder the Treasury (or wherever the money will originate), at a cost of $3 trillion, to the detriment of the current and future generations. Will President Trump let them get away with it?

Powerful House Democrat Extols President Trump’s Trade Policy

By: Jeffrey Winograd

A seemingly wily congressman from western Massachusetts got carried away with his own verboseness when he lavished praise on the Trump administration’s announcement that the United States plans to enter the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) into force on July 1.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on April 24 sang the praises of the new trade pact which replaces the controversial North American Free Trade Act, better known as NAFTA.

The Irish-American pol spouted more than the typical touch of the blarney one encounters when celebrating Saint Paddy’s Day as he, in effect, placed himself in the leading American role during the negotiation and passage of USMCA.

Neal’s remarks suggested that House Democrats twisted the arm of U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer in order to secure a deal that “now includes the most robust enforcement mechanisms ever incorporated in a U.S. trade agreement.”

Then came the now obligatory Democratic injection of the “COVID-19 crisis” into the picture. The new trade agreement “includes a balanced set of intellectual property obligations that promote innovation, including the research and development of new medical therapies,” Neal said.

The chairman of the House tax-writing committee was a Democratic back-bencher in 1993 when, to his credit, he voted against passage of NAFTA.

However, that was long ago and far away.

In 2016, Neal, a man of great convictions, was an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton for president despite her cast-in-stone position regarding NAFTA.

She Said, He Said, About NAFTA

Clinton was quoted in a May 25, 2011, Huffington Post article as follows:

“I believe in the general principles [NAFTA] represented. But what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have.”

Candidate Donald Trump, on June 28, 2016, while campaigning in Pennsylvania, made abundantly clear his intentions regarding NAFTA.

“I’m going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don’t mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better.”

Should they not agree to negotiate, Trump added, he would notify Mexico and Canada pursuant to the terms of the treaty “that America intends to withdraw from the deal.”

With an eye on the July 1 kickoff of the USMCA trade pact, Neal said “it is critical that the United States holds our trading partners accountable for their obligations from day one.”

He also vowed to be the American watchdog to ensure proper implementation and enforcement going forward.

And here is Neal’s finale, lauding the trade-deal achievement of President Trump …

I take comfort knowing that there is a new generation of rising House Democratic trade leaders who share my investment in the USMCA’s success and my belief that the deal is the standard upon which future U.S. trade agreements should be built.”

Yes, Congressman Neal, the USMCA is a success, a President Donald Trump success!


Rand Paul Question Ensnares Chief Justice In Likely Deep State- Adam Schiff Whistleblower Coverup

By: Jeffrey Winograd

At the outset of the Senate’s second day of impeachment-related questions and answers, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) submitted the first question from the Republican side and it related to the whistleblower who complained about President Trump’s phone call with Ukraine President Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019.

After perusing the question, Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the impeachment trial, stated he “declines to ask the question as submitted.”

Roberts reportedly has signaled he will not allow the naming of the alleged whistleblower or any question seeking details that might lead to the whistleblower’s identity.

Here are the contents of two tweets Sen. Paul transmitted in the immediate aftermath of Chief Justice Roberts’ refusal.

          “My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.”

          “My exact question is: Are you aware that House intelligence staffer [redacted] had a close relationship with [redacted] while at the National Security Council together?”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the lead House impeachment manager, on Jan. 29 refused to answer a probing question regarding the entire whistleblower affair. It was a blanket refusal cloaked in a lecture on the importance of protecting everything and everyone related to intelligence.

Disturbing facts about whistleblower affair

  1. The alleged whistleblower was not entitled to file a claim because he did not have first-hand knowledge about the July 25 Trump-Zelenskyy phone call. Why did the Intelligence Community inspector general permit the submission of the complaint?
  2. The Intelligence Community inspector general reportedly changed the form which allowed the whistleblower to submit a complaint and first-hand knowledge was no longer required. Why did the inspector general take such an action?
  3.  Rep. Schiff allegedly lied about his knowledge of the whistleblower’s identity and/or interaction with Schiff’s committee staff. Is Schiff believable?
  4. The alleged whistleblower has personal and professional relationships with a specific Schiff staffer. Is this not a sensitive matter requiring a public explanation?
  5. The Intelligence Community inspector general was deposed by the House Intelligence Community and Schiff slapped a “secret” classification on the transcript. What is Schiff afraid of?

It would seem that since the Senate is sitting as a court and Roberts is the presiding judge, he could have called a sidebar to instruct Sen. Paul on how to rephrase his question.

Why didn’t you, Chief Justice Roberts?

Impeachment Surprise – Journalist’s Lawsuit Paves Way To Call CrowdStrike Executive As Witness

By: Jeffrey Winograd

A lawsuit filed in a Maryland federal court on January 10 offers Republican senators, should they decide to call witnesses during the impeachment trial, a politically acceptable pathway to debunk one of the impeachment charges against President Trump.

The lawsuit names a former FBI official, an expert in cybersecurity and one of the top people at CrowdStrike, as a defendant in an action alleging illegal government surveillance and hacking of a prominent journalist’s personal electronic equipment.

In 2016, CrowdStrike was hired to investigate the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer servers and Trump dropped the company’s name during his July 25, 2019, phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This conversation lies at the heart of the impeachment.   

Although CrowdStrike said that it “immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network,” both “Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries,” the FBI says it never conducted its own examination of the computer servers,

It remains unknown whether there were any other nation-state hackers identified by CrowdStrike, it is unfathomable why the FBI and the Justice Department did not use the investigative tools available (such as a grand jury subpoena or search warrant) to gain access to the computer hardware, and it is unclear why the DNC withheld FBI access to its servers.

One individual named in the lawsuit, who was a key FBI cybersecurity expert and knows the ins-and-outs of the agency’s methodology in dealing with hacking investigations, was likely CrowdStrike’s point man in the DNC probe.

Shawn Henty’s answers would surely provide the details President Trump wanted when he sought Zelenskyy’s help and he should be called as an impeachment witness.    

Given the glare of the public spotlight that will shine on him due to the lawsuit, Henry will hardly be in the position to turn his back on a Senate subpoena.


The relevant portion of the transcript of the July 25 phone conversation is this:

Trump: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people.”

CrowdStrike was the company hired by the DNC to investigate the hacking of its servers.

One provision of the articles of impeachment indirectly refers to the president’s desire to know exactly what, if anything, this U.S. company did regarding the hacking allegation but does not name the company:

“(1) President Trump – acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government – corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into: … (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine – rather than Russia – interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.”

Democrats Toss A Red Herring

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the spearhead of Democratic efforts to impeach the president, saw a way to distract attention away from the real issue – did the Russians actually hack the DNC servers and, if so, was it only the Russians?

Democrats and their cohorts in the media and Deep State promoted the claim that Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, was peddling conspiracy nonsense. This alleged theory suggested that the DNC server or servers somehow wound up in Ukraine, a founder of CrowdStrike has Ukrainian roots (when, in fact, his family came from Russia), and Ukraine was responsible for the hacking.   

So, according to the Democrats, Trump bought into this somewhat bizarre scenario and wanted the Ukraine president to publicly announce an investigation into the matter.

Intelligence Community Labels Russia As Hacker, Maybe

On Jan. 6, 2017, as the Obama administration was reaching its expiry date, the intelligence community (IC) released a report titled “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 Presidential Elections.”

The report stated that “in July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to DNC networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.”

It continued: “We assess that the General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) cyber operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”

However, the report contained this rather stunning disclaimer: “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

Why, given the combined resources of the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency, was there no out-and-out proof of Russian hacking?

Was it a botched FBI/Justice Department (DOJ) investigation? Or, was the James Comey-led FBI attempting to protect unsavory DNC activities documented on its servers, such as its role in the Steele Dossier affair?

The Sharyl Attkisson Lawsuit

During the time span involved in the suit, Sharyl Attkisson was an investigative reporter for CBS and was in the spotlight for her coverage of Operation Fast and Furious as well as the Benghazi (Libya) debacle, both of which were bringing unwanted negative publicity for the Obama administration. 

Attkisson alleges that the named defendants, acting in their capacity as federal employees, conducted “unauthorized and illegal surveillance of the plaintiff’s’ laptop computer from 2011 to 2014.” Such activity constituted a violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, she claims.

The first named defendant is Rod Rosenstein, who at the time was U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Of course, Rosenstein is best known for his tenure as deputy attorney general of the United States and as the guy who named Robert Mueller as special prosecutor to probe President Trump for alleged links to Russia.

However, it is the second named defendant, Shawn Henry, who can be the vehicle for Senate Republicans to totally discredit one impeachment allegation – that Trump’s interest in a CrowdStrike probe was part of a “scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.”

Who Is Shawn Henry?

On Sept. 15, 2010, Henry was named the executive assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch.

During his agency career, Henry served as chief of the Computer Investigations Unit in the National Infrastructure Protection Center; field supervisor of the Computer Crimes Squad for the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office; deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Cyber Division, with program management responsibility for all FBI computer investigations worldwide; and assistant director of the Cyber Division, where, in the words of an FBI press release, “he played a central role in restructuring the FBI’s cyber strategy and investigative programs.”

According to the CrowdStrike website, Henry joined CrowdStrike in 2012 after retiring from the FBI, where he oversaw half of the FBI’s investigative operations, including all FBI criminal and cyber investigations worldwide,

The bottom line is that Shawn Henry is a heavyweight in the field of cybersecurity and probably remains extremely influential in FBI circles.

In the wake of being named in the Attkisson lawsuit, Henry likely is not in a favorable position to rebuff any impeachment-related Senate subpoena to answer detailed questions about CrowdStrike’s work in the DNC computer server hacking investigation, as well as the conduct of the FBI in the matter.

CrowdStrike And The DNC Servers

Exactly why the DNC selected CrowdStrike to investigate possible hacking is open to question.

Andrew C. McCarthy, in “Ball of Collusion,” says that while “CrowdStrike has a good reputation,” it was a “private DNC contractor that had deep ties to the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration.”

According to a CrowdStrike blog dated June 15, 2016, and updated on Sept. 25, 2019, “at the DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April.” Both of the intruders are related to Russian intelligence agencies.

CrowdStrike stated that it has never taken physical possession of any DNC servers. Rather, they capture evidence of hacking using a process call imaging. “The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence,” the firm said.

“We’ve provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI related to the DNC investigation as requested,” CrowdStrike said. “We have never declined any request for information from the FBI related to this investigation, and there are no pending requests for information by the FBI,” it added.


There are at least three key issues that remain to be addressed.

#1 CrowdStrike has never publicly stated that it offered everything it had on the hacking to the FBI. Why not?

#2 The FBI has never revealed everything they have requested from CrowdStrike. Why not?

#3 The IC report only cited hacking by the GRU. However, as CrowdStrike reported in its discussion of COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR: “Both adversaries engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services [emphasis added].” Why the disparity?   

CrowdStrike has not responded to an email request for an interview.

President Trump and the country deserve to know if everything involving government agencies, CrowdStrike and the DNC probe was kosher.

Smart money says Shawn Henry can fill in the blanks.