CIA Director John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Falsify Trump-Russia Connections

To be clear, Falsifying the Trump-Russia Connection is not the same thing as Denying Trump-Russia Connections.  This is to say, there are likely connections, but are not what they appear to be.  The CIA uses weaponize narratives all the time.  Lying to cover up lies, that were never true to start.  Fabrications upon fabrications to different actors to get the to do certain things, change their priorities, and act in ways beneficial toward the CIA.

What is the Trump Russia Connection?  When it becomes clear, I’ll post more.

REPORT: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Falsify Trump-Russia Connections

In a damning report originally stemming from the Guardian,  and then picked up by the American Spectator, it has been confirmed that former CIA director John Brennan colluded with British and Estonian spies who sought to both to manufacture Trump-Russia ties and bring down Trump’s candidacy as a whole. Via The American Spectator:

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.
John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan “passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.” To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the “Gang of Eight” about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.


Were the media not so completely in the tank for Obama and Hillary, all of this political mischief would make for a compelling 2016 version of All the President’s Men. Instead, the public gets a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda about the sudden propriety of political espionage. The headline writers at Pravda couldn’t improve on this week’s official lie, tweeted out by the Maggie Habermans: “Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dem and Republican House Aides.”

NSA Whistleblower Says NSA Spied On Congress, The Supreme Court And Trump

NSA Whistleblower Says NSA Spied On Congress, The Supreme Court And Trump

Chris Menahan
Mar. 25, 2017

NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on “all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House.”
Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.

“They’re taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind,” Binney said.

“That’s the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens,” he said. “Everything we’re doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it.”

“Inside NSA there are a set of people who are — and we got this from another NSA whistleblower who witnessed some of this — they’re inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House,” Binney said.

“And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they’re looking at it. The idea is to see what people in power over you are going to — what they think, what they think you should be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it actually happens,” he said.

“I mean, that’s just East German,” Tucker responded.

Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult.

“This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can’t stop them so people get killed as a result,” he said. “Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That’s what’s been going on. I mean they’ve consistently failed. When Alexander said they’d stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count.”

Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter and Facebook.

UK Seizes All Computers, Phones, and Networks by Legalization; Self-Legalizations Retains Private Property Rights

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via,

 Britain has passed what everyone calls the “snooper’s charter” otherwise known as the Investigatory Powers Bill.
This new legislation establishes the legal framework authorizing the government to hack into devices, networks and services in bulk and to create vast databases of personal information on all UK citizens. This is a preliminary step for a movement to impose worldwide taxation on Brits.
This is really to hunt money, not terrorism.
The “snooper’s charter” requires internet, phone and communication app companies to store records for 12 months and allow authorities to access them whenever they demand. That data will include anything you look at or search on the internet as well as all your telephone calls and text messages. Meanwhile, security agencies will be able to force companies to decrypt data avoiding the Apple confrontation in the USA. They are also imposing limitations on the use of end-to-end encryption.
They want EVERYTHING you do. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with terrorism.
This is the hunt for taxes coming to a head in 2017.

Here’s a reminder, via’s Matt Burgess, of what the legislation includes:

Hacking power

For the first time, security services will be able to hack into computers, networks, mobile devices, servers and more under the proposed plans. The practice is known as equipment interference and is set out in part 5, chapter 2, of the IP Bill.

This could include downloading data from a mobile phone that is stolen or left unattended, or software that tracks every keyboard letter pressed being installed on a laptop.

“More complex equipment interference operations may involve exploiting existing vulnerabilities in software in order to gain control of devices or networks to remotely extract material or monitor the user of the device,” a draft code of conduct says.

The power will be available to police forces and intelligence services. Warrants must be issued for the hacking to take place.

Bulk hacking

For those not living in the UK, but who have come to the attention of the security agencies, the potential to be hacked increases. Bulk equipment interference (chapter 3 of the IP Bill) allows for large scale hacks in “large operations”.

Data can be gathered from “a large number of devices in the specified location”. A draft code of practice says a foreign region (although it does not give a size) where terrorism is suspected could be targeted, for instance. As a result, it is likely the data of innocent people would be gathered.

Security and intelligence agencies must apply for a warrant from the Secretary of State and these groups are the only people who can complete bulk hacks.


To help oversee the new powers, the Home Office is introducing new roles to approve warrants and handle issues that arise from the new powers. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) and judicial commissioners (part 8, chapter 1 of the IP Bill) will be appointed by Theresa May, or whoever the serving prime minister is at the time.

The IPC will be a senior judge and be supported by other high court judges. “The IPC will audit compliance and undertake investigations,” the government says.

“The Commissioner will report publicly and make recommendations on what he finds in the course of his work,” guidance on the original bill says (page 6). “He will also publish guidance when it is required on the proper use of investigatory powers.”

Web records

Under the IP Bill, security services and police forces will be able to access communications data when it is needed to help their investigations. This means internet history data (Internet Connection Records, in official speak) will have to be stored for 12 months.

Communications service providers, which include everything from internet companies and messenger services to postal services, will have to store meta data about the communications made through their services.

The who, what, when, and where will have to be stored. This will mean your internet service provider stores that you visited to read this article, on this day, at this time and where from (i.e. a mobile device). This will be done for every website visited for a year.

Web records and communications data is detailed under chapter 3, part 3 of the law and warrants are required for the data to be accessed. A draft code of practice details more information on communications data.

Bulk data sets

As well as communications data being stored, intelligence agencies will also be able to obtain and use “bulk personal datasets”. These mass data sets mostly include a “majority of individuals” that aren’t suspected in any wrongdoing but have been swept-up in the data collection.

These (detailed under part 7 of the IP Bill and in a code of practice), as well as warrants for their creation and retention must be obtained.

“Typically these datasets are very large, and of a size which means they cannot be processed manually,” the draft code of practice describes the data sets as. These types of databases can be created from a variety of sources.

The only method by which the UK CROWN CORPORATION is allowed to HACK computers, phones, tablets, computer networks, etc is if they legally own the property.  This is to say they are allowed to hack personal property because they own the CORPORATION that re-presents you (as a human) in their system and which owns the property.

They are trying to convert all private property into PERSON-AL property of the artificial person, owned by them.  Any corporation and PERSON that is incorporated WITHIN their Governmental Services Corporation is OWNED by them and must abide by their rules.

Put another way, the UK Crown Corporation is creating a legal COPY/representation of all actual material Computer Hardware in the UK.  These legal copies are what judges use to hack/access the devices.  When permission is given to hack the legal copy, the hardware can then be hacked physically.  The LEGAL COPY of the Computer Hardware is also physical OWNERSHIP.  So it is not enough to actually physically possess something.  One must have a negotiable instrument to represent it in order to retain RIGHTS.  If there is no method to DECLARE the Computer property not legalizable due to prior legalization and/or as private property and/or any number of reasons, the code is inactionable as there is no loophole to keep computer property OUT of their fictional legalese system.

Just like MOTOR VEHICLES the LEGAL “CERTIFICATE OF TITLE” of the Computer Hardware is an insurance franchise.  To be able to legalize the computer hardware, there MUST be a chunk of DEBT-MONEY somewhere that represents the physical hardware.  Liens can be placed upon the debt, and the computer confiscated as surety for the debt-that-represents-the-hardware.  The UK confiscated computer hardware all the time as parts of corporate policy enforcement before this legislation, this new legislation legalizes computer hardware as a matter of definitive and outright presumption.

Also keep in mind that the UK just unilaterally declared all computer hardware property of the UK.  Would it be illegal to defend a UK network against a Courtesy Access®™ [my term] by the UK?  Would it be illegal to defend a NON-UK network against a Courtesy Access®™?

The Solution is to move into INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION.  In essence, become your own governmental services corporation and copy what they do.  Luckily, there are already international organizations doing exactly this, such as World Citizen at the World Government of World Citizens.

By creating a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT that represents your material objects, you can claim superior pre-emptive title to that of the Governmental Services Corporation.

How would that look in action?  Let’s use the instance of cannabis which is  lawful and non-legal in all instances,  illegal in some US STATE CORPORATIONS, requires a license with conditions in other US STATE CORPORATIONS, and is legal in other US STATE CORPORATIONS.

How could someone transfer cannabis from one legal state to another legal state through an illegal state?  By creating a World Citizen (or other non-US-resident) Negotiable Instrument that represents the matter in totality, the matter is now in that “legal” jurisdiction.  The matter cannot be legalized by a STATE by presumption because it has already been legalized.  In order for the STATE to be able to confiscate the cannabis, they would have to exchange the negotiable instrument that represents the cannabis for value.  The best solution is to affix the negotiable instrument to the actual cannabis containers as labels.  Thus if the cannabis is “confiscated” then they only have 3 business days to honor the NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.  If any policy enforcement agency goes into dishonor, they cannot use the cannabis in any charges or proceedings as they never abided by their oath to the Constitution, Amendment 5 requiring just compensation for public use of private property.

By labeling everything “important” you own with a negotiable instrument, this provides another layer of protection for private property rights such that the governmental services corporation won’t be able to steal it without first committing securities (negotiable instrument, bank note) violations.

ACLU Exposes “1984-Style” Police Surveillance On Twitter, Facebook

Note: Facebook has a requirement that the account user MUST use their (full) LEGAL NAME to participate.  This has the effect of LEGALIZING all material on Facebook.   Everything one Facebook being legalized means that the Government Services Corporation: UNITED STATES, INC is the owner of all FACEBOOK content.  The human only “owns” FACEBOOK content by REPRESENTATION through their LEGAL PRESENCE ARTIFICIAL PERSON that the STATE owns.  The State owns the Legal “Person”-trade name, and the Legal “PERSON”-Trade Name owns your Facebook content.

If one does not have a “legal name” it is recommended to NOT BE ON FACEBOOK due to the criminal conversion of the human being and content into a LEGAL ENTITY without explicit terms and conditions by the Service nor the “government”al services corporation.

ACLU Exposes “1984-Style” Police Surveillance On Twitter, Facebook

Just when you thought it was safe to selfie you latest WalMart-looting or molotov-cocktail-throwing night out, think again. According to the ACLUlaw enforcement officials implemented a far-reaching surveillance program to track protesters in both Ferguson and Baltimore during their recent uprisings and relied on special feeds of user data provided by three top social media companies: Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

The ACLU of California has obtained records showing that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram provided user data access to Geofeedia, a developer of a social media monitoring product that we have seen marketed to law enforcement as a tool to monitor activists and protesters.

We are pleased that after we reported our findings to the companies, Instagram cut off Geofeedia’s access to public user posts, and Facebook has cut its access to a topic-based feed of public user posts. Twitter has also taken some recent steps to rein in Geofeedia though it has not ended the data relationship.

Further steps are required if these companies are to live up to their principles and policies by protecting users of all backgrounds engaging in political and social discourse.

We now know the following about these agreements:

  • Instagram had provided Geofeedia access to the Instagram API, a stream of public Instagram user posts. This data feed included any location data associated with the posts by users. Instagram terminated this access on September 19, 2016.
  • Facebook had provided Geofeedia with access to a data feed called the Topic Feed API, which is supposed to be a tool for media companies and brand purposes, and which allowed Geofeedia to obtain a ranked feed of public posts from Facebook that mention a specific topic, including hashtags, events, or specific places. Facebook terminated this access on September 19, 2016.
  • Twitter did not provide access to its “Firehose,” but has an agreement, via a subsidiary, to provide Geofeedia with searchable access to its database of public tweets. In February, Twitter added additional contract terms to try to further safeguard against surveillance. But our records show that as recently as July 11th, Geofeedia was still touting its product as a tool to monitor protests. After learning of this, Twitter sent Geofeedia a cease and desist letter.

Because Geofeedia obtained this access to Twitter, Facebook and Instagram as a developer, it could access a flow of data that would otherwise require an individual to “scrape” user data off of the services in an automated fashion that is prohibited by the terms of service (here and here). With this special access, Geofeedia could quickly access public user content and make it available to the 500 law enforcement and public safety clients claimed by the company.

As Engadget summarizes, law enforcement’s ability to monitor the online activities of protesters could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights, the post asserts.

“These platforms need to be doing more to protect the free speech rights of activists of color and stop facilitating their surveillance by police,” Nicole Ozer, technology and civil liberties policy director for the ACLU of California, told the Washington Post.

“The ACLU shouldn’t have to tell Facebook or Twitter what their own developers are doing. The companies need to enact strong public policies and robust auditing procedures to ensure their platforms aren’t being used for discriminatory surveillance.”

“1984 called, it wants its state surveillance scheme back.”