Tag: fbi

Posted on

When the Warning Signs Are Ignored: What the FBI Director’s Email Hack Really Reveals

A recent segment on The Briefing with Jen Psaki has drawn renewed attention to a troubling report: a hacking group linked to the Iranian government allegedly compromised the personal Gmail account of Kash Patel, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While officials have stated that no classified or sensitive government information was exposed, the implications of the breach go far beyond what may—or may not—have been accessed.

As Jen Psaki pointed out, the real concern is not the content of the hacked account but the broader vulnerability it exposes. Iran has spent years developing sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities, frequently targeting U.S. institutions, private companies, and government officials. These threats have been well documented by intelligence agencies and cybersecurity experts alike, making incidents like this less surprising and more indicative of systemic shortcomings.

The breach raises pressing questions about preparedness at the highest levels of government. Cybersecurity is no longer a secondary concern—it is a frontline issue in modern geopolitical conflict. When the personal communications of a senior official like the FBI Director can be compromised, it suggests potential lapses not just in individual security practices, but in the broader strategic posture of the administration. Effective cyber defense requires constant vigilance, proactive planning, and an assumption that adversaries are always probing for weaknesses.

Adding to the concern are reports that the administration reduced staffing at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the nation’s primary civilian cybersecurity defense body. If true, such reductions could have undermined efforts to anticipate and mitigate precisely this type of threat. Cybersecurity resilience depends on sustained investment and expertise, not reactive measures taken only after vulnerabilities are exposed.

This incident should not be viewed in isolation. Iran has a documented history of launching cyber operations against U.S. targets, including critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, finance, and transportation. Against that backdrop, the reported hack serves as a stark reminder that cyber warfare is an ongoing and evolving threat. The question is not whether attacks will occur, but whether the United States is adequately prepared to defend against them.

From an SEO and audience standpoint, this story taps into several high-interest areas: national security, cybersecurity threats, geopolitical tensions, and government accountability. Readers searching for terms like “Iran cyber attack,” “FBI hack,” or “U.S. cybersecurity weaknesses” are likely to find this issue both timely and consequential. Structuring the narrative around these themes not only improves visibility but also ensures the content resonates with a broad audience concerned about digital security and national defense.

Ultimately, the reported breach should be seen as a warning shot. If adversaries can access the personal communications of top officials, it raises serious concerns about the security of more critical systems, including the power grid and financial networks. Incidents like this demand more than reassurance—they require a reassessment of priorities, renewed investment in cybersecurity infrastructure, and a recognition that in the digital age, preparedness is the first line of defense.

Posted on

Did FBI Director Patel Lie Under Oath?

In a striking segment on MSNOW’s Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, host Lawrence O’Donnell raised a provocative and consequential question: did FBI Director Kash Patel mislead Congress under oath during his exchange with Congressman Eric Swalwell about Donald Trump’s presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files? During that hearing, Swalwell pressed Patel directly on whether Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein material and sought clarity about the extent and significance of those references. Patel did not provide a numerical estimate, nor did he use the phrase “very few,” but his answer was widely interpreted as downplaying the frequency and importance of Trump’s appearance in those records. He framed his response in a way that suggested there was nothing substantial or alarming tied to Trump in the context of the FBI’s investigative findings.

Since that testimony, claims have circulated asserting that Trump’s name appears in the Epstein files far more extensively than Patel’s response implied. Some reports and political commentators have cited extraordinarily large raw reference counts, arguing that Trump’s name appears hundreds of thousands or even more than a million times across various forms of Epstein-related material, including emails, contact directories, flight records, investigative notes, and digital indexing systems. Even accounting for duplication, automated references, and database artifacts, such figures—if accurate—would appear difficult to reconcile with the general impression Patel conveyed during his testimony. The core issue is not whether Patel gave a precise number, because he did not, but whether his answer created a misleading impression that minimized the scale of Trump’s documented presence.

Whether that impression rises to the level of criminal conduct is a much more complex question. Federal law makes it a crime to knowingly provide false or materially misleading testimony to Congress, but the key word is “knowingly.” Prosecutors would have to prove that Patel was aware, at the time he testified, that his characterization was materially inconsistent with the actual scope of the records. That is a high bar. The Epstein files are massive, technically complex, and include raw, unfiltered material alongside analyzed investigative conclusions. It is entirely possible that Patel relied on summaries prepared by subordinates or focused specifically on references deemed relevant to criminal conduct rather than raw textual mentions. Under that interpretation, his testimony could be defended as reflecting his understanding of investigative significance rather than literal database frequency.

At the same time, Patel’s role as FBI Director weakens any argument that he lacked access to critical information. As head of the bureau, he has the authority to receive detailed briefings on major investigative matters, especially one as high-profile and politically sensitive as Epstein’s network and its associated records. Critics argue that it strains credibility to believe that the FBI Director would be unaware of the general magnitude of references to a former president in such a consequential investigative archive. If evidence were to surface showing that Patel had been briefed specifically about the scope or frequency of Trump-related references before his testimony, it could support the argument that his answer was not merely cautious or incomplete, but intentionally misleading.

On the other hand, defenders of Patel would likely emphasize the distinction between raw data mentions and meaningful investigative findings. Large digital archives often contain inflated reference counts due to repetitive indexing, duplicate communications, or incidental references that carry no investigative weight. A person’s name might appear thousands of times without indicating wrongdoing or even direct interaction. From that perspective, Patel could argue that his testimony reflected the FBI’s substantive investigative conclusions, not superficial database metrics. Courts have historically been reluctant to criminalize testimony that can reasonably be interpreted as technically accurate or dependent on interpretation, particularly when the witness avoids making precise factual claims.

The political implications of this controversy are significant and could shape how the matter unfolds. If a future Democratic administration were to take office, there would likely be pressure from some quarters to investigate whether Patel’s testimony crossed the legal line. Such an inquiry could take the form of a congressional referral, a Justice Department investigation, or the appointment of a special counsel. Any decision to prosecute would ultimately depend on whether investigators could uncover clear evidence of intent—such as internal communications, briefing documents, or witness testimony showing that Patel knowingly conveyed a misleading impression. Without that level of proof, the matter would likely remain in the realm of political controversy rather than criminal prosecution.

At the same time, the broader political climate has changed dramatically in recent years. Actions that were once considered unthinkable—such as investigating or prosecuting senior federal law enforcement officials—are now part of the modern political landscape. That reality cuts both ways. Any future administration pursuing such a case would face accusations of political retaliation, while declining to act could fuel claims of unequal accountability. Ultimately, the question of whether Patel misled Congress may hinge less on public debate over document counts and more on what evidence exists about his state of mind when he testified. Without clear proof that he knowingly created a false impression, the controversy may never evolve into a criminal case—but it will remain a potent flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over truth, accountability, and political power at the highest levels of government.

Posted on

MSNBC’s Lawrence Blasts President Trump Over His “Enemies List”

On the October 9, 2025 edition of The Last Word, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell launched a blistering critique of President Trump’s growing pattern of targeting perceived political foes. O’Donnell accused the president of using the Justice Department as a weapon against his “enemies list,” a tactic he compared directly to the disgraced legacy of former President Richard Nixon. Drawing a chilling parallel, O’Donnell reminded viewers that Nixon’s presidency “didn’t end well,” warning that Trump could face a similar collapse if his administration continues to blur the lines between justice and political vengeance.

The controversy intensified after the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, brought high-profile indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — two officials long vilified by Trump in public remarks and social media tirades. Halligan’s actions have fueled speculation that she’s become Trump’s de facto enforcer, using the machinery of federal prosecution to settle old political scores.

Critics argue that Halligan’s pattern of cases mirrors the tone of Trump’s personal grievances, targeting figures who embarrassed or challenged him during his presidency. Observers have noted that while Trump portrays these prosecutions as “justice being served,” the timing and selection of defendants make the process look less like impartial law enforcement and more like a coordinated campaign of retribution.

Legal analysts on MSNBC suggested that Halligan’s aggressive posture — and her proximity to Trump’s political orbit — could backfire. By appearing to criminalize dissent, the administration risks creating a perception of authoritarian overreach, echoing the very abuses of power that ended Nixon’s career. As O’Donnell put it, this “enemies list revival” may serve as both a warning and a reminder: presidents who weaponize justice to punish critics rarely escape the consequences.

Posted on

President-Elect Trump Promises Massive Crackdown On The Deep State

Support via CashApp👇

In one of his post election posts on X, President-Elect Donald Trump promised to “dismantle the Deep State.” This as you know, was a central theme of his presidential campaign so it should come as no surprise to anyone. The question now is whether he will actually deliver on this seemingly tall order that may play well on the campaign trail, but prove very difficult in terms of actually pulling it off.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1854765949582299508?t=PsN08HAds0I2dmwxljVlmg&s=19

Different people have different notions as to what the Deep State actually means, or whether it even exists, but the general consensus is that they are powerful but unelected bureaucrats, who control the levers of power behind the scenes, and span different administrations (both Democrat and Republican)–essentially a permanent unelected ruling class, who ruthlessly protect their power from “outsiders”–ambitious people they don’t approve of/like. They use the instruments of government(the ABC agencies we shall not name) to crush their perceived enemies.

Trump has cast himself as one of those outsiders, and he points to his endless criminal prosecutions as proof of the Deep State coming after him. He has repeatedly singled out the FBI as one of the key instruments of the Deep State that he wants hollowed out.

Whether or not the FBI has become an instrument of the Deep State as Trump alleges, is a question Yours Truly chooses to sidestep for now–way above my pay grade. What Yours Truly finds very encouraging about Trump’s proclamation however, is that during his 4 years, maybe, just maybe, we may achieve something I have begged and prayed for for quite a long time now, and that is, a Church-type Committee to look into the abuses of our intelligence agencies.

The last time we did an audit of our intelligence agencies was way back in the 1960s so reasonable people will agree that a fresh audit is way past due. A lot of “dirt” was uncovered in the previous audit (cointelpro being the main one) so smart money is that 70 years after that, there are bound to be some let’s just say, “interesting” new programs to be “unearthed”. I for one, would keep my eyes open for the notorious Targeted Individual program, which our intelligence agencies have categorically dismissed as a conspiracy theory. A Church-type committee would be the perfect venue to get to the bottom of this supposed “conspiracy theory”.

Yours Truly has long advocated for the enactment of a new Church-type commission to investigate the abuses of power by our intelligence agencies. Though President-Elect Trump doesn’t outrightly call for the creation of such a commission, reasonable people will agree that his recent post on X is the most serious attempt yet by a modern American president to rein in our out of control intel agencies, and for that, he deserves a lot of praise. Whether he will keep his promise is a different matter altogether.

President-Elect Trump is known to desire things/issues that cast him aside from other American presidents in terms of greatness. Well, 70 years later, historians are still talking about the historic Church Committee hearings, and the administration that was in charge then. If Trump pushes for a new Church-type committee during his four years, historians will also be talking favorably about his administration 100 years from now, especially if a lot of illegal government activity is uncovered.

President-Elect Trump should also know that a much overdue audit of our intelligence agencies is an issue that enjoys tremendous bipartisan support despite the media’s depiction of it as a partisan MAGA issue.

Posted on

Rep Troy Nehl’s Shocking Hypocrisy Re J6 Caught On Camera

$upport via Cash App

Rep Troy Nehls (R-TX) in a verbal altercation with insurrectionists on 01/06/2021

Rep Troy Nehls (R-TX) has created a reputation for himself as one of former President Donald Trump’s loudest advocates in Congress, right up there with Trump’s most trusted lieutenants Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and others.

A major part of being one of former President Trump’s trusted lieutenants is of course, one’s willingness to go out in public and declare the 2020 election “rigged/stolen”, and also playing down the violent January 6th insurrection as some kind of “peaceful protest gone wrong”. Rep Troy Nehls has of course, done his part to satisfy the prerequisites for appeasing former President Trump—election denialism and playing down January 6th.

Well, a new video has been released, which exposes Rep Troy Nehl’s shocking hypocrisy regarding the events that happened on January 6th 2021. In the video, Rep Nehls can be seen and heard arguing with some of the January 6th insurrectionists—who are apparently trying to violently break into Congress—and swearing that in his 30 years as a law enforcement officer in Texas, he had never witnessed what he was witnessing that day. Reasonable people will agree that this doesn’t jive with the “peaceful protest” narrative Rep Nehls and other Trump lieutenants have diligently dished out since 01/06/21.

Rep Nehls(0:53): “I’ve been in law enforcement for 30 years, and I’ve never had people like this.” One of the insurrectionists interjected, asking Rep Nehls to speak louder so he/they can hear what he’s trying to say.

Rep Nehls repeated: “I’ve been in law enforcement in Texas for 30 years, and I’ve never seen people act like this…I’m ashamed…” One of the insurrectionists even tells Rep Nehls that if this insurrection doesn’t happen today, there’s going to be a bigger civil war down the road. That clearly doesn’t jive with the “peaceful protest” narrative Rep Nehls, et al, have helped Trump push since 01/06/21.

Bottom line folks, it’s about time the media, and especially the Texas media, start demanding that Rep Nehls come clean and clarify his record regarding the January 6th insurrection. Simply put, he needs to apologize to the public for all the misleading statements he has made, trying to play down the violent January 6th insurrection. Simply put, the good folks of Fort Bend County (TX-22) deserve better.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

Is Sen Mike Lee Angling For A SCOTUS Appointment With Trump Endorsement?

$upport via Cash App

Interesting segment on MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Tonight show (01/19/24) delved into the conspiracy theories currently being spewed out there by right wing activists about the yet unsolved mystery surrounding the January 6th pipe bomb. Apparently, even sitting U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is now pertaking in this conspiracy theory, per his recent social media post which Wagner cited.

Host Alex Wagner then dropped a bombshell on “constitutional conservative” Senator Lee’s strange fawning over former President Trump, including his latest endorsement of the former president for the upcoming 2024 election, saying it may all be about Senator Lee’s ambitions for the United States Supreme Court. Yeah, you read that right. Senator Lee may be angling for a Supreme Court seat.

You’ll remember that Senator Lee was also intricately involved in efforts by then outgoing President Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 election using the fake elector scheme.

Host Alex Wagner(2:49): “Senator Lee joins 25 of his Republican colleagues in the Senate, who have endorsed Donald Trump as of this evening, but his special distinction is that he was twice on Trump’s short list to be a Supreme Court justice. In 2018 Senator Lee interviewed for the seat that eventually went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and with Justice Clarence Thomas approaching 80, and Justice Samuel Alito hitting 74 this year, who knows, if Donald Trump is re-elected in November, the man who believes January 6th was an inside job could just get another crack at a seat on the highest court in the land.”

Bottom line folks, as much as I have been critical of “constitutional conservative” Senator Lee over his strange support of Trump despite his authoritarian tendencies, I readily admit that this Supreme Court ambition theory makes me ease up on him a little bit. I’m not saying I condone his strange support for authoritarian Trump, but that at least, it makes me understand why he’s doing it.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

Targeted Individuals Hold Rally At Historic Houston Courthouse Steps

$upport via Cash App

Attorney Ana Toledo Addresses A Targeted Individuals Rally From The Steps Of The Historic Houston Courthouse On 301 Fannin Street (01/12/2024)

On Friday 01/12/24, in commemoration of the one year anniversary of the filing of TJ v Garland lawsuit, Attorney Ana Toledo led a targeted individuals rally at the steps of the historic Houston courthouse on 301 Fannin Street. The lawsuit seeks to have 18 plaintiffs, who Ana alleges have been placed there by the FBI under an unconstitutional “secret criteria”, removed from the terrorism watchlist.

Ana Toledo(0:02): “The FBI has abused the watchlist, what’s known as the terrorism watchlist for a long time…and 400,000 targeted individuals in the United States, and indeed around the world, have been put on this list. Today marks one year anniversary since we filed TJ v Garland, an extraordinary lawsuit that seeks to remove the names of innocent listed individuals from the terrorist screening database (TSDB) in two secret categories that are not known to the public, and not even to the people that are in them, because the FBI has admitted, they don’t represent a terrorist threat and they are not screened as such. Therefore these innocent Americans, and innocent civilians around the world, don’t encounter problems when traveling...[the list] of all those innocent people that are labeled as suspected terrorists…is distributed through the national crime information center (NCIC), to 18,000 law enforcement agencies, which translates to over 100,000 agents, to over 532 private corporations such as Air BnB, Western Union and many others that retaliate against people that don’t even know are on the list, and 1440 organizations such as universities that could very well deny entrance to somebody to a university of higher education just because unbeknownst to them, they are on this nefarious watchlist.”

Speaking specifically about the TJ v Garland lawsuit, Ana said(2:21): “We urge you to look at the appeal pending before the 5th Circuit[Court of Appeal], TJ v Garland case. It’s case #23-23402. It’s fully briefed and we’re ready for oral argumentation…The single remedy we seek, is the removal of the 18 plaintiffs from the TSDB categories 3 & 4, that are secret categories that the FBI has admitted, they put people on that list under secret criteria. That is not the America we were born into. That is not what the constitution provides. Please be aware, the watchlist in not the entire list. Pursuant to DOJ, the watchlist–the known and suspected terrorist list–comprises 0.5% of the entire list, so if that list is at two million, we don’t want to know how many innocent civilians have been placed secretly under codes 3 & 4, which represents 97% of the terrorist screening database pursuant to DOJ, not pursuant to Targeted Justice.”

Apparently, per Ana, an investigation by the DOJ Inspector-General recently found that the FBI doesn’t even follow its own regulations regarding watchlisting. Ana specifically said: “One of the most nefarious conclusions of an audit report by DOJ Inspector-General, report 08-16, is that the FBI field offices nominate and place people on the terrorist screening database without complying with agency regulations, now let that sink in. Innocent Americans that have never been arrested, tried, or convicted of any terrorist offense, and that by FBI’s own admission, do not meet the reasonable suspicion criteria, are secretly placed on this list. The labeling of innocent Americans, and people around the world, as suspected terrorists, deprives them of basic rights, constitutional and human rights. This has got to stop.”

Ana also took issue with the mainstream media’s strange silence regarding this issue, saying(6:34): “The evidence that the U.S. government is suppressing any dialogue about this, [targeted individuals], any discussion about it, is that despite the distribution of the press release on social media and through email, the press did not come here today. They are not interested in the freedom that second class citizens, targeted individuals, have a right to.”

It’s important to note that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has recently expressed similar watchlisting concerns, and is asking President Biden and the DOJ to address these problems.

No reasonable person looking at the people standing behind Attorney Ana Toledo at the downtown Houston courthouse steps, would conclude that these were the kind of people the terrorist screening database was originally meant to weed out. Sadly, however, it’s normal people like these–your mother, sister, uncle, cousin, who maybe said the wrong/inflammatory thing on social media or elsewhere, or complained about some corruption in high places–who end up getting ensnared by these watchlists/targeting lists, and are then punished in ways regular Americans will never comprehend, up to and including using military assets. Its a total travesty that needs to be fixed and those responsible held to account. In other words, the grave injustice here is not just the malicious watchlisting, but also, the unconstitutional torture that goes with it–organized stalking, financial sabotage, assaults/experiments using DEWs, remote neuromonitoring…the quintessential weaponization of government, which in many cases, constitute violations of the Geneva Conventions against Torture(CAT)

Bottom line folks, this rally at the steps of the historic Houston courthouse marks a watershed moment for the struggle to free targeted individuals in that it officially takes the fight from the dark corners of social media, where often severely shadowbanned TIs anonymously scream from X(formerly Twitter), Facebook, Reddit, Tik Tok and other social media platforms, to real life activism. Put another way, it is very different, much more effective when real, normal people show up and cogently make their grievances known in public. It becomes very hard for the abusers to use their tried and true defense–“Oh, TIs are just a bunch of loons on social media.”

Hopefully we get to see more of these rallies and importantly, a meaningful response from authorities regarding the serious allegations Attorney Ana Toledo and her Targeted Justice are making. Oh and the mainstream media, both nationally and locally(Houston), it’s about time you started doing your jobs. The public deserves to get answers to these serious questions regarding the abuse of the watchlisting system.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

Dem Rep Jayapal Questions FBI Director Wray Over Warrantless Searches

$upport via Cash App

Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) appeared on CNN’s The Source show (07/12/23) where she discussed among other things, her questioning of FBI Director Christopher Wray about warrantless searches at a recent House hearing. Specifically, Rep Jayapal wanted to know why the FBI and other federal agencies are buying vast quantities of personal data from data brokers, and how the agencies use this warrantless search data.

Rep Jayapal dropped a bombshell during her interview, telling host Kaitlan Collins that if the FBI doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer to this important question, she will have no other choice but to vote against reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) when it expires later this year–a very big deal.

What makes this a very big deal, you ask? Well, Rep Jayapal heads the House Progressive Caucus. If she decides to vote against reauthorizing FISA, you can rest assured that nearly all House Progressives will vote with her, killing FISA.

Asked by host Kaitlan Collins whether she was satisfied by the answers she got from FBI Director Wray, Rep Jayapal said she wasn’t, adding( 1:29), “We do have significant concerns, It’s not just I. The Office of Director of National Intelligence(ODNI) is where the report came from, that said that the FBI is purchasing large amounts of data from these data brokers, and that information contains everything, from your location information, your medical information, it could contain information about all kinds of private things that American people understandably don’t want the FBI to have…These are warrantless searches…they are backdoor searches. The information is used in ways we don’t know…”

Bottom line folks, Rep Jayapal is absolutely correct that warrantless surveillance by the FBI and other federal agencies is out of control, and in serious need of a fix. We’ve become accustomed to hearing members of Congress threatening to block FISA reauthorization over the same surveillance abuses, only to have them cave at the end due to pressure from the national security establishment. Something however tells me (not exactly sure what that is), that 2023 may be the year members of Congress finally drop the hammer on FISA, or as legal eagle Jonathan Turley puts it, the year they decide against being “chumps”.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

How Many Americans Are Wrongfully Caught Up In The Counterterrorism Dragnet? Congress Must Act!!

$upport via Cash App

A segment on Fox and Friends Show(04/11/23) delved into a bombshell new report that the FBI launched a domestic terrorism investigation into Catholic Churches in Virginia, with an aim to root out “radical traditionalist Catholic ideology”. As expected, this, as was the case with the counterterrorism investigation into conservative parents protesting at their local school boards, has led to valid questions as to who else gets wrongfully caught up in these counterterrorism dragnets?

Fox and Friends host Ainsley Earhardt put it best when she posed this question(1:24): “How many other memos are out there? How many other investigations that we don’t know about?”

The question Ainsley raises is one that has been raised since the Patriot Act’s passage(2001), and reasonable people will agree that after more than two decades of unanswered questions, the national security establishment needs to be compelled to shed some light on this issue. Simply put, there is no longer any excuse for Congress looking the other way, when there is overwhelming evidence that there are indeed a lot of Americans caught up in the counterterrorism dragnet, even though they have nothing to do with terrorism. Abusing counterterrorism resources is in itself, a national security problem–leads to loss of confidence from the public.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

The Best Definition Of A Targeted Individual aka TI

$upport via Cash App

In the growing national debate about Havana Syndrome/directed energy weapons(DEW), you are increasingly hearing complaints of similar attacks from regular civilians (not govt employees)—the so-called targeted individuals(TIs)

The problem is that there are so many batshit stories on the internet re targeted individuals, most of them purposefully posted by the perpetrators, to make the average observer dismiss genuine TIs as fringe conspiracy theorists. It is therefore quite important that Yours Truly, a gentleman and a scholar, set the record straight as to what I am referring to when I talk about TIs.

The best definition yet, of a targeted individual(imho), is this one by Thomas Marshall, delivered more than a decade ago. It captures all the essential elements—Intel agencies, counterinsurgency/counterterrorism, and the crucial fact that the targets are almost always innocent dissidents, persecuted for their speech/activism—political, whistleblower, etc. Basically, people the government sets out to destroy/kill because they engage in speech/activism the government doesn’t want/like.

Below is an excerpt from Thomas Marshall’s presentation titled “The Theory of Electronic Harassment and Organized Gang Stalking”: “The U.S. intelligence agencies, in conjunction with DARPA, Stanford Research Institute Los Alamos National Laboratory, and companies like Raytheon and Lockheed, have set up a counterinsurgency war that is taking place on a worldwide basis, aimed at potential enemies such as political activists and whistleblowers. These targets are generally people with a very high IQ, who are capable of influencing the people around them, as well as having a history of political activism.” 

“This counterinsurgency war that is being waged against these individuals, is portrayed as a type of a stalking game, the most dangerous game, perhaps called “watch him run”, or some such game that is taking place on the internet, so that people can observe the targets using DARPA-created tracking technology, GPS technology and RFID, that follows the target everywhere they go, in their home, their car, their place of work, or even in cross-continental travel, anywhere on the surface of the earth. There is nowhere that targets can escape this game–the stalking game.” 

“These people who are being tormented, have been portrayed as criminals, however the opposite is the case. The targets of torture and intimidation and destruction, are the good guys. This tracking game relies on attacks using microwave weapons, as well as organized stalking, to make the life of the target a living hell, to where they eventually succumb physically and die from the effects of non-ionizing radiation, or due to the extensive, and never-ending torture, they are forced to commit suicide.” 

“The target experiences physical attacks on their body. Microwave weapons are placed in close proximity to where they live and where they work, and are even placed in their cars, if necessary. These miniaturized electronic devices, in essence, antennas, are capable of tracking and attacking the target with microwave frequency that can deliver shocks, stabs, or sub-dermal burns to their physical bodies in a continuous manner, or perhaps every few minutes. Their body experiences internal heating and burns, sleep disruption, sleep deprivation, as a primary tactic to slowly break them down. These types of physical attacks are complimented with attacks on the mind of the subject. Dr Jose Delgado perfected the use of a brain-to-computer-to-brain feedback loop, so that he was able to give a continuous stimulus and response time signal to his patients. This is exactly what is used to attack the target…”

For the record, any time you hear Yours Truly refer to targeted individuals, always know that I am referring to the Thomas Marshall theory. And folks, it is as real as a heart attack.

Bottom line folks, crimes against humanity like these, have zero place in “free”, “civilized” societies. Zero!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Proudly powered by WordPress