NOTE:
This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may contain
grammatical and spelling errors incurred during transcription. Please refer to
the referenced media to confirm.
It’s appropriate that weather more typical of Greenland will be assaulting
much of the continental United States as the nation is called to address a new
front in Communist China’s unrestricted warfare against us – namely, the Arctic
north.
Xi Jinping’s regime has absurdly, but ominously, asserted that China is a
“near-Arctic nation.” It has been: sending nuclear submarines to execise under
the polar icecap; using its large and growing fleet of icebreakers to
facilitate PRC shipping via the so-called “Polar Silk Road”; and evincing
growing interest in exploiting the region’s abundant natural resources.
And the Chinese Communist regime has just secured a “strategic partnership”
with Canada that may result in the presence of People’s Liberation Army forces
in North America.
This CPDC webinar explores the implications of such developments undertaken
at the direction of the Chinese Communist Party and alongside parallel efforts
of its vassal state, Russia. Specifically, we assess the necessity of securing
Greenland and our northern front and what it will take to do so.
Moderator
Frank Gaffney, President,
Institute for the American Future; Vice Chairman, Committee on the Present
Danger: China; Member, Victory Coalition; host, “Securing America”
Panelists:
J.R. Nyquist,
Internationally recognized strategic analyst; blogger at JRNyquist.blog;
author, The
Origins of the Fourth World War
Capt. James Fanell, U.S.
Navy, (Ret.), Former Chief of Intelligence and Information Operations,
U.S. Pacific Fleet; Senior Fellow, Geneva Center or Security Policy;
co-author, Embracing
Communist China: America’s Greatest Strategic Failure
Col. Grant Newsham, U.S.
Marine Corps (Ret.), Former Foreign Service Officer; longtime businessman
in East Asia; author, When
China Attacks: A Warning to America; Senior Fellow, Center for
Security Policy
Charles “Sam” Faddis, Esq.,
Former career CIA undercover operative; Army veteran; editor,
AndMagazine.substack.com; author, Beyond
Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA
Rod Martin, Esq., Former
Policy Advisor to then-Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee; former founding
counsel for Paypal; entrepreneur; pundit, commentator and essayist at
RodMartin.org; editor, The
Rod Martin Report.
Brian T. Kennedy,
Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger: China; former President, the
Claremont Institute; President, American Strategy Group; author of Communist China’s War Inside America.
Kenneth Abramowitz, Founder,
SavetheWest.com; Chairman, Citizens for National Security; author, The Multifront War; top health
care financial analyst and venture capitalist
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and five other plaintiffs today accused the
American Academy of Pediatrics of running a decades-long racketeering scheme to
defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.
CHD filed the RICO suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
In a lawsuit filed today in federal court, Children’s Health
Defense (CHD) and five other plaintiffs accused the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of running
a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the
safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.
The suit alleges that the AAP violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by making “false and
fraudulent” claims about the safety of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s (CDC) childhood
immunization schedule — while receiving funding from vaccine
manufacturers and providing financial incentives to pediatricians who achieve
high vaccination rates.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(D))
CONCLUSION
183. For over twenty-five years, the AAP has told parents, physicians, and policymakers that the childhood vaccine schedule is safe, even though no one had ever studied whether vaccines created a net benefit or harm to children. The AAP’s sleight-of-hand was to pass-off the apparatus of data collection as proof of safety. The fraud is that it looked like science: VAERS sounds like surveillance, but is a passive, woefully under-reporting system that was never designed to establish causation. The VSD sounds like a safety monitoring system, but it is just a giant digital filing cabinet.
184. When the IOM twice told the CDC to analyze the files in the filing cabinet, AAP's deflection sounded like ethics, claiming prospective studies with an unvaccinated control group would be unethical, even though the IOM specifically rejected such studies in favor of analysis of existing records. And AAP dismissed as methodologically flawed every study that found unvaccinated children healthier. The strategy was to mischaracterize unanalyzed safety systems as proof of the safety of the vaccine schedule, to sell more vaccines.
185. The AAP's January 2026 conduct strips away any remaining pretense. AAP calls reducing the CDC schedule down to eleven vaccines "dangerous" — one more than California and Massachusetts require. The inconsistency is dispositive. AAP's position is about control and revenue, not childhood safety.
186. AAP claims that recent federal changes to vaccine schedule policy endanger children. The real threat is to member revenue. AAP is presenting these concerns to a Massachusetts federal court, where they should be recognized for what they are: the latest predicate acts in a quarter-century racketeering enterprise. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that upon trial of this action, the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant, and grant the following relief: Declaratory Relief: A declaration that no studies have established the safety of the entire childhood immunization schedule; that the specific representations and omissions detailed in Section I of this Complaint are materially false and misleading; and that Defendant's broader claims (including that the schedule is “fully tested and proven safe,” vaccines are categorically “safe and effective,” questioning physicians spread “misinformation,” and pediatricians “lose money on vaccines”) are predicate acts under RICO.
Injunctive Relief: An injunction requiring Defendant to publish corrective statements in vaccine-related publications (e.g., the Red Book and HealthyChildren.org) disclosing the lack of comprehensive safety testing and insurer incentive programs, and prohibiting further unqualified safety claims without such disclosures.
Damages: Treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) for economic injuries to business or property suffered by Plaintiffs Shaw, Nelson, Doe, Thomas, and Stoller.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Many of you may remember back in
2024 I strongly urged President Trump to consider appointing Harriet Hageman as
CIA Director for very specific reasons and intents. Watch this video below and
you will see why she was my preferred choice.
Representative Hageman has just
found an important trail to discover the missing documents, recordings and
transcripts that were destroyed by the January 6 Committee. WATCH:
WATCH: Rep. Hageman questions Jack Smith on Trump
investigations
Keep in mind that former AAG Mary McCord was working for the J6 Committee
at the time period being discussed. When the J6 Committee closed, McCord went
to work directly with Jack Smith.
McCord was inside the J6 Committee feeding information to the DOJ and Jack
Smith. McCord then went to work for Jack Smith.
Always scheming, organizing and planning in the background of Washington DC,
Mary McCord was conducting surveillance of an Oathkeeper chat room and sending
information to the FBI following the November 2020 election, and in the runup
to the January 6, 2021, protest.
This is interesting on a variety of levels, because we have documented Mary
McCord working on the Trump-Russia fabrication [FISA warrant], the CIA
[Ukraine] impeachment fabrication [as key staff], the January 6th Committee
fabrication [again staff], and the Jack Smith fabrication. Now we see
Mary McCord actively setting up the “insurrection narrative” ahead of the J6
protests.
It appears Mrs. McCord then forwarded the email to someone [REDACTED],
likely within the J6 Committee or Jack Smith investigation on Sept 24, 2021.
There’s a reason why the J6 Committee deleted the records of their activity,
an angle missed by most. When you understand what they hid, and why they
did it, you then understand why current Speaker of The House Mike Johnson will
not go near the subject.
The J6 targets were identified through a collaboration between the
legislative research group and the FBI. [That’s unlawful by the way – but
that’s another matter]. The FBI contracted Palantir to identify the targets
using facial recognition software and private sector databases.
Once identified, the targets were then searched in the NSA database for a
fulsome context of identity. All subsequent electronic metadata of the targets
was retrieved and utilized in prosecution; however, no one ever discovered this
was the collaborative method. That has not come out yet.
Ultimately, the J6 Committee hiding and deleting their files and operational
techniques was due to several issues. They really didn’t have a choice, given
the unknowns of an incoming Republican majority.
First, the collaboration with the FBI is unconstitutional. Legislative
officers are not law enforcement officers. There is a separation of powers
issue.
Second, ultimately – and most consequentially – all of the participants did
not want the American public aware of the mass surveillance techniques that
were carried out as part of the ’round up.’ That’s where FBI operation
Arctic Frost appears in the conversation.
The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report, [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE], highlighting just
how political the J6 Committee was. The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi
structured the J6 Committee for political intents, and the longer report
showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.
WASHINGTON– Committee on House
Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11)
released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well
as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select
Committee. (more)
The last bullet point has a name. The “Select Committee staff”, who
met with Fani Willis, was likely Mary McCord.
If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt
endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.
More than any other Lawfare operative, within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits
at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald
Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon
Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief
Justice John Roberts.
When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI
and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security
Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have
enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the
Steele Dossier ultimately became important. It was the Steele Dossier
that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the
application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J.
Trump.
When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court,
the head of the DOJ-NSD was
John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September
2016, just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016).
John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary
McCord.
♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates
and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the
application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as
President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White
House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn
interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was
presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application
Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.
♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary
McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael
Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the
DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications
submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal
compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly
assembled and documented.
♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President
Trump, for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the
Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for
the complaint to allow an anonymous submission.
Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on
the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was
the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael
Atkinson.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for
Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to
the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary
McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her
old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
KEY: Michael Atkinson was forced to
testify to the joint House impeachment committee about the CIA whistleblower
rule change and the process he authorized and participated in as the
Intelligence Community Inspector General. Adam Schiffsealed that deposition, and no one has ever
discussed what Atkinson said when questioned.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (Legislative Branch) can unseal and release that
testimony to the CIA or ODNI (Executive Branch), and Tulsi Gabbard who is in
charge of the ICIG can declassify Michael Atkinson’s deposition. However,
Speaker Mike Johnson has to transfer it from the legislative to the executive,
and unfortunately it does not appear that Speaker Johnson wants to open that
can-of-worms – at least, not willingly.
Moving on…
♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page
application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an
intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to
the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence
division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith.
Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed
wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence
in the FISA submission.
When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.
♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA
court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that
was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith.
In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC
judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge
of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.
As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI,
in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding
FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who
would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.
Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary
McCord.
♦
SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA
application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary
McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked
with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint
against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to
assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and
Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside
the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the
aforementioned corrupt activity.
You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone
was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or
DOJ-NSD.
What happened next….
November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select
Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security
Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald
Trump’s White House records. (read more)
Yes, that is correct. After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare
attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then
President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6
Committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.
But wait…. remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald
Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Well, Mary McCord was a
member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued
as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team
That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.
First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court? ANSWER:
When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the
fraudulent FISA application. In essence, the FISA Court appointed the
person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from
the fraudulent filing. See how that works?
Now, let’s go deeper….
When Mary McCord went to the White House, with Sally Yates, to talk to White
House Counsel Don McGhan, about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak,
and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any
wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was
the Logan Act.
The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally
Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.
Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between
what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with
Kislyak?
This is where a big mental reset is needed.
Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say
anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified
details of any national security issue. In December of 2016, if Michael
Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration
disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do
so. There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of
content.
So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in
confrontation with the White House?
Why did the DOJ-NSD even care? This is the part that people overlooked
when the media narrative was driving the news cycle. People got too stuck
in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.
Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was
monitoring Flynn’s calls. They transcribed a copy of the call between
Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts”, as described
within internal documents and later statements.
After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked
ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked. Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17
and asked FBI Director James Comey. Comey gave Clapper a copy of the
Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.
Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked
directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was
monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor. Obama’s plausible
deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the
written transcript.
That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama
to emphasize “by the book” three times.
It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now
existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability
of knowledge. The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate
this issue.
Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and
knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against
Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that
transcript before they went to the White House. [Again, this is the
entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their
manufactured concerns.]
So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to
the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I
would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.
But wait, there’s more….
Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.
Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts. The counsel to
the Chief Justice has one job – to review the legal implications of issues
before the court and advise Justice John Roberts. The counsel to the
Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court, and is the sounding
board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.
In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice,
Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.
At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito
opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the
states. Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would
have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel. By
extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon
Snook.
After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation
into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting
happened. Sheldon Snook left his position. If you look at the
timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the
circumstantial evidence looms large.
Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with
the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice
likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the
institutional credibility. In essence, it would be Robert’s office who
leaked the opinion to the media.
If you were Chief Justice John Roberts, and desperately needed to protect
the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was
never identified would be paramount. Under the auspices of motive,
Sheldon Snook would exit quietly. Which is exactly what happened.
The timeline holds the key.
BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about
whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary
McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.
I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14
when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should
recuse.” WATCH:
JUST IN: Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Second
Hearing To Consider Pam Bondi's Nomination To Be AG
Mary McCord says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative
outcome related to the first impeachment effort.
Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry
Nadler on the first impeachment effort?
Mary McCord.
Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael
Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous
complaint?
Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.
In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the
first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating
the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first
impeachment effort.
If all that seems overwhelming, here’s a short recap:
♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.
♦ McCord helped create the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and
then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.
♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler
on Impeachment Committee.
♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community
Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using
the evidence she helped create.
♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz
newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.
♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles
they deployed.
♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.
♦ McCord was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.
♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in
term #2
♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from
investigating McCord.
Now, if you’re wondering why I spend so much time and attention on the Mary
McCord issue, the information today about her sending the FBI information about
the Oathkeepers chat group might clarify things.
When I look at that activity by Mary McCord, and I consider the duplicity of
the FBI in conducting the Arctic Frost investigation, I also consider that I
was personally targeted by the J6 team of McCord and the FBI.
It all tracks, and Mary McCord is in the very center of all of it.
