Category Archives: Investigative Journalism

Durham Hints at a Conspiracy Involving Agents of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign to Harm Trump with Russia Collusion Hoax

Cristina Laila
April 5, 2022 

A new filing by special prosecutor John Durham hints at a conspiracy involving agents of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in order to harm Trump’s campaign and presidency with the Russia collusion hoax.

A newly unearthed text message from Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to former FBI counsel James Baker shows he deceived the FBI when he said he was not working for an official client when he delivered bogus ‘evidence’ that Trump Tower was communicating with Russian Alfa Bank.

By Techno Fog:

There was a flurry of filings in the Michael Sussmann case late yesterday. Here’s the latest.

On September 19, 2016, DNC/Clinton Campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel James Baker, where Baker was provided with data and “white paper” purporting to show covert communications (since proven to be bogus) between Russian Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.

Special Counsel John Durham has just provided evidence that the night before – on September 18, 2016 – Sussmann sent Baker this text:

As it turns out, Sussmann was billing the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Alfa Bank hoax. This text from Sussmann to Baker is damning for Sussmann’s case, proving Sussmann’s efforts at deceiving a top official at the FBI about his clients, and demonstrating how Sussmann tried to convince Baker he was there to supposedly do the right thing.

Notes (produced by Durham) taken by Assistant FBI Director Bill Priestap and former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson – taken in their conversation with Baker after his Sussmann meeting – help corroborate Baker’s recollection of Sussmann’s lies:

In this filing, Sussmann seeks to preclude the use of these notes, arguing they hearsay not subject to an exception. (It also confirms that Priestap has testified before a grand jury – something we posited back in January.) Durham disagrees and argues they are admissible, and Durham likely wins this dispute.

Sussmann also asks the Court to order the Special Counsel to give Rodney Joffe immunity for his testimony – or have the case dismissed.

Of course, Joffe (Tech Executive-1 in the Sussmann indictment) is the Sussmann client who helped lead the effort to manufacture the Alfa Bank/Trump hoax. Sussmann maintains that Joffe would “offer critical exculpatory testimony on behalf of Mr. Sussmann” – but cannot because Durham is “manufacturing incredible claims of continuing criminal liability for Mr. Joffe that are forcing Mr. Joffe to assert his Fifth Amendment right.”

That’s a long way of saying that Joffe faces real (and perhaps imminent) criminal exposure. Let’s talk about that for a moment. The bad news for Joffe is good reading for us.

The April 1, 2022 letter from Joffe’s attorney to Sussmann’s attorney. In this letter (available here – with my highlights), Joffe’s counsel confirmed that Joffe “remains a subject” of the Special Counsel’s investigation. According to Andrew DeFilippis (from the Office of the Special Counsel), Joffe’s “status in the investigation was sufficient to establish a good faith basis to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination.”

To this statement, Joffe’s attorney responded that the statute of limitations had run since the events described in the Sussmann indictment. The Special Counsel disagreed, stating that “certain fraud statutes have longer than a five-year limitations period,” and the Russian Yota phone-related allegations (given to the CIA in February 2017) “percolated through various branches of the government and around the private sector after that date, in various forms.”

Read Techno Fog’s full SubStack post here.

Speaker Robin Vos ADMITS Widespread Fraud Occurred In Wisconsin But Says Legislature Cannot Decertify [VIDEO]

Patty McMurray 
March 16th, 2022

On March 3, only two days after former WI Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman and Thomas More Lawyer Erick Kaardal testified before the WI Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections, they appeared on a podcast with 100 Percent Fed Up’s Patty McMurray and the Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft where they discussed the findings of Justice Gableman’s final report on potential voter fraud in the 2020 election.

The 100 Percent Fed Up – Gateway Pundit podcast with Justice Gableman and Erick Kaardal can be seen here:

Justice Gableman was hired by WI State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) to investigate the November 2020 election. Biden got nearly 21,000 more votes in Wisconsin, a state that Donald Trump won in 2016.

As part of his testimony, Special Counsel Michael Gableman dropped a bombshell when he explained how, in Chapter 1 of their report, the CTCL’s (Center for Tech and Civic Life) “$8.8 million Zuckerberg planned grant” to Wisconsin’s top five Democratic stronghold cities (Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Madison, and Green Bay) used in the November 2020 election “facially violates the Wisconsin law prohibiting election bribery.”

Thomas More Lawyer Erick Kaardal interviewed nursing home patients and members of their families who voted in the November 2020 election to show how the election was stolen in several ways in Wisconsin.

Here is a sampling of Mr. Kaardal’s interviews:

Now, almost two weeks after Justice Gableman and Erick Kaardal testified in front of the WI Election Assembly, Republican (RINO) Speaker Robin Vos admits that widespread voter fraud took place in Wisconsin. Vos made the statement to the press after attending a closed-door meeting with a group of concerned WI residents advocating for decertification of the November election, including a GOP candidate for governor and State Rep. Timothy Ramthun (R) this afternoon.

Even though Justice Gableman explained during his testimony that the WI legislature HAS the power to decertify the November 2020 election, Speaker Vos claims the legislature does NOT have the power to take this action.

Phil Kline of Thomas More’s Amistad Project interviewed Wisconsin clerk Linda Sinkula on September 27, 2021, where she describes learning from an election worker that Democrat operatives were registering voters in nursing homes, including those who don’t normally vote. Under Wisconsin law, bipartisan teams of Special Voting Deputies are required to register and assist nursing home residents with absentee ballots.

This article originally appeared on 100% Fed Up

Project Veritas: Pulitzer Prize-Winning NY Times Journalist Admits Jan. 6 Was “No Big Deal”

JD Rucker
March 8, 2022

Project Veritas has done it again. Corporate media in general and the NY Times, in particular, made the mostly peaceful protests of January 6, 2021, “overblown” for the sake of promoting a narrative, a Pulitzer Prize-winning NY Times journalist admitted on undercover video.

Watch NYT National Security Correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, spill the beans over drinks:

This is Part 1 of at least two parts of this Project Veritas series. While it may not be at the bombshell level that they’ve hit in recent exposés, it reinforces what most of us already suspected: Corporate media knows they’re playing up the January 6 “insurrection” narrative so they can paint Donald Trump and his supporters as bad people.

One strong revelation from the report has always been known, but further reiterated by Rosenberg. The Deep State was present among the “insurrectionists” and helped to encourage entry into the Capitol Building.

According to Project Veritas:

  • NYT National Security Correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, contradicts his own January 6 reporting: “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”
  • Rosenberg: “It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [January 6] outside and we were just having fun!”
  • Rosenberg: “I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building and are like ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’  I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’”
  • Rosenberg: “I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’”
  • Rosenberg: “These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.”
  • Rosenberg: “They were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”
  • Rosenberg RESPONDS: “Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely.”

We will eagerly await Part II and will post it here.

Documents Reveal Hundreds of Media Companies, Including Conservative Media, were Paid by Federal Government to Promote the COVID-19 Vaccines

Jim Hoft
March 7th, 2022

New documents obtained by The Blaze Media through FOIA request revealed that HHS paid major media organizations including cable TV news stations, publications, digital media companies, and many more to promote the Covid-19 vaccine narrative as part of a “comprehensive media campaign.

HHS did not disclose how much money the agency had spent on each media platform to push their narrative and spin positive stories about the experimental vaccines.

According to Emerald Robinson, this is the largest and most comprehensive breach of journalistic ethics in history.

“That is the largest and most comprehensive breach of journalistic ethics that has ever occurred. Almost everybody took the money. Almost everybody lied about the vaccines (knowingly or unknowingly). Almost everybody refused to report anything negative about the vaccines — because they were paid to close their eyes. Almost everybody is implicated,” Robinson wrote.

Blaze Media reported:

HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

Hundreds of news organizations were paid by the federal government to advertise for the vaccines as part of a “comprehensive media campaign,” according to documents TheBlaze obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines. The government also relied on earned media featuring “influencers” from “communities hit hard by COVID-19” and “experts” like White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and promote vaccination in the news.

The Biden administration engaged in a massive campaign to educate the public and promote vaccination as the best way to prevent serious illness or death from COVID-19.

Congress appropriated $1 billion in fiscal year 2021 for the secretary of health to spend on activities to “strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States.” Federal law authorizes HHS to act through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies to award contracts to public and private entities to “carry out a national, evidence-based campaign to increase awareness and knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for the prevention and control of diseases, combat misinformation about vaccines, and disseminate scientific and evidence-based vaccine-related information, with the goal of increasing rates of vaccination across all ages … to reduce and eliminate vaccine-preventable diseases.”

Read more here.

Ottawa Police Staff Sargent Resigns From Position Over Freedom Convoy Mishandling

An Ottawa Police Staff Sargent is resigning effectively immediately, likely over political leadership’s mishandling of the Freedom Convoy protests.

“The National Telegraph has just gotten word from a source inside the Ottawa Police that one of their staff sergeants has resigned from his position today, likely over a disagreement with the city’s policing philosophy towards the Freedom Convoy,” the National Telegraph reported.

“This is a major development for the Ottawa police as senior NCOs are the core of any police force and enforcing anything without their leadership is extremely difficult,” the report added.

“The source also said that there are unusually high rates of uniformed officers taking stress leave, vacation days, and sick days,” the report noted.

“This is another indicator that people inside the police force are not happy with the directions they are receiving from their political leaders,” the National Telegraph added.

Justin Trudeau’s failed leadership is collapsing as even Liberal MPs are defecting to the anti-mandate side.

Canadian provinces are beginning to revolt and ending their vaccine and mask mandates. Justin Trudeau’s coalition in the Canadian parliament is even showing signs of crumbling, as a Liberal MP is announcing his defection from the pro-mandate side.

“Liberal MP for Louis-Hébert (a suburb of Quebec City) Joël Lightbound came out today and held a press conference about what he called the ‘politicization of the pandemic’,” the National Telegraph reported.

“At this press event, Lightbound explained that he would not engage in ‘these easy and absurd labels’ to smear protesters and believes the truckers and their supporters have legitimate concerns,” he added.

Lightbound explained at his press conference that over half of Canadians want the vaccine mandates and passports lifted.

Another Member of Parliament, a conservative in the House of Commons from Manitoba named Raquel Dancho, laid into Trudeau in an impassioned speech for being so far behind other advanced countries in concluding that authoritarian Covid policies don’t work. Watch:

“There are millions of Canadians, millions of them that have been deeply ostracized from society,” Dancho said. “And when you don’t listen to those people, they mobilize. And we’ve seen protests across this country for over a century and rightfully so, we have the right to peacefully protest. And I would ask the protesters outside that they do their best and stay vigilant, to stay peaceful.”

“But we are seeing other governments around the world step up with lower vaccination rates and say, ‘Look, we hear you, you’ve been traumatized. We’re moving forward. Here’s the deadline, this is the plan. No more mandates, no more masks, no more distancing. You can travel, you can live your life, you can hug each other again. Here’s the date. This is the plan. Here’s the thresholds,” she added.

“None of that in Canada. Absolutely none of that from the Prime Minister,” she went on.

“People have been traumatized and they’re mobilizing because they need some hope, they need somebody in this house of privilege to come down from our ivory towers and say, ‘Okay, little people, we hear you. So sorry we’ve traumatized you for two years. We’re gonna step up and we’re gonna give you some hope. Here’s a deadline.’ The member opposite is laughing,” she noted.

“The people in this house are incredibly privileged,” Dancho added. “You’ve kept — pardon me, that member has kept his job. Thousands of Canadians have lost their job. And he’s laughing about his privilege, his own privilege. What has he done to serve members that are marginalized during this pandemic in his community, Mr. Speaker, but laugh at them in this House of Commons? Shame on that member.”

“I would ask this government to do everything they can, I asked them this two years ago in the House, go to other countries, see what they’re doing, what are the best practices,” she went on. “How is it that other highly advanced, developed nations like the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, how — the United States, how is it that they have all the same tools we have, they have all the economic resources we have, they’ve done — their citizens have done all the work and made all the sacrifices. Why is it that those citizens get a plan for hope of when we get back to normal, when we get our lives back, when the people outside — you think they want to be here, Mr. Speaker?”

“Those people don’t want to be here,” she said. “They want to be working. But that right was taken away from them. When is there going to be a plan from this prime minister? When is there going to be compassionate leadership to say, ‘This is it. You’ve done the work. Here’s the tools. We’re moving forward.’ Our public health doctors have told us as well, it’s time to move forward, it’s time to revisit these harsh mandates and divisive policies.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will just end on this and — I’m very passionate about this, I think we all are from our different perspectives, but I will say, I will continue to be a bridge builder to reach out, to try to understand where others are coming from, and I would — I would — it would just be incredible if we could see members of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, do the same,” she concluded. “Time to build a bridge, Mr. Speaker.”

Far from being a bridge builder, Justin Trudeau had made incendiary statements and threatened the Freedom Convoy with state force if they did not end their peaceful protests.

“Individuals are trying to blockade our economy, our democracy, and our fellow citizens’ daily lives,” Trudeau said. “It has to stop.”

Trudeau also shows no willingness to lift the vaccine mandates, signaling ominously that they are preventing more coercive measures.

“I can understand frustrations with mandates, but mandates are the way to avoid further restrictions,” he stated.

Trudeau is only just beginning to understand people’s frustrations as both police and politicians defect around him.

Vigilant News 2.07.22: Rumble Makes Rogan Offer, Sleepy Putin at Olympics, Victory w/ Freedom Convoy, COVID Pandemic ENDING

Our Latest Videos:

Journey To Truth Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1DJ0VhYf4

OFFICIAL TELEGRAM CHANNEL

https://t.me/vigilantnews

SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL:

+ Become a member for as little as 3$ per month • https://www.subscribestar.com/stillness-in-the-storm •

+ Onetime Donation (Credit/Debit)(Crypto)(Paypal)(Cashapp) • https://stillnessinthestorm.com/donate/ •

Check out our BRAND NEW Store https://stillnessinthestore.com/

Rumble

https://rumble.com/user/StillnessintheStorm

Bitchute

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/DARtlKxgDs2E/

Gab.tv

https://tv.gab.com/channel/stillnessinthestorm

Brighteon

https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stillnessinthestorm

Amid Violent Crime Wave, Permissive, Soros-funded Prosecutors under Fire Nationwide

Aaron Kliegman
January 26, 2022

Across the country, left-wing district attorneys funded by progressive megadonor George Soros are facing severe backlash, including efforts to oust them from office, for pushing soft-on-crime policies during a nationwide surge in violent crime and, in some cases, allegedly engaging in prosecutorial misconduct.

Soros, 91, has spent the last several years injecting tens of millions of dollars into local district attorney races throughout the country, backing progressive candidates who support policies such as abolishing bail, defunding the police, and decriminalizing or deprioritizing certain offenses.

From 2015 to 2019, for example, Soros spent more than $17 million on local DA races, according to the Capital Research Center. That figure has likely risen in the past couple years, experts say.

In 2020, the Foundation to Promote Open Society, a grantmaking foundation in Soros’s network, gave $3 million to the Community Resource Hub for Safety and Accountability, which provides resources to activists and organizations “working to address the harm of policing in the U.S.”

Soros has provided much of the cash through his network of nonprofits to political action committees controlled by attorney Whitney Tymas, the New York Post reported.

Tymas has suggested local prosecutors shouldn’t just enforce the law but also work to revolutionize the criminal justice system.

“If we are to reach a place of true progress, it will take the sustained efforts of local elected prosecutors across the country to rectify and reimagine their role in the criminal legal system — not just as gatekeepers, but as active catalysts for change,” she wrote in a 2020 op-ed.

Soros’s money has helped elect several such “catalysts for change” across the country. However, many of these progressive DAs now find themselves in political — and, in some cases, legal — trouble after implementing controversial policies which, critics say, have contributed to the current violent crime wave devastating U.S. cities.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner is one of the first prosecutors who Soros bankrolled in 2016 — and again for her reelection in 2020.

Next month, Gardner is set to appear before a disciplinary hearing, where she will face charges of ethics violations stemming from her office’s 2018 prosecution of former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens.

Last year, Missouri’s chief legal disciplinary officer accused Gardner of rampant misconduct in the prosecution, saying she lied to judges in court filings and testimony, withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, misled her own prosecution team, and violated the constitutional right to a fair trial.

Gardner has denied all wrongdoing, saying she complied with state law. She could have her law license revoked if the charges against her are upheld.

During Gardner’s tenure, crime has skyrocketed in St. Louis, with the city experiencing near-record murder rates. Even last year was among one of the city’s deadliest in decades, despite murders being down from 2020.

Amid high homicide figures, Gardner has declined more cases and issued fewer arrest warrants, charging fewer felonies and prosecuting thousands of fewer cases overall than her predecessor as a result. She has also deferred prison sentences for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies as part of her reform initiatives.

Gardner says this is part of her “platform to reduce the number of cases unnecessarily charged in order to focus on the more difficult cases for trial.”

Her campaign website boasts that she’s “made jail and prison a last resort, reserved for those who pose a true public safety risk,” while limiting “the arrest and detention of people accused of misdemeanors and low-level felonies.”

Last year, Gardner came under fire after three murder cases under her purview were dismissed in one week due to prosecutors in her office not showing up for hearings or being unprepared.

Gardner is one of several big-name DAs backed by Soros who have struggled with high turnover in their offices. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the effect of the turnover in Gardner’s office has been “a state of dysfunction, low morale, and dearth of legal wisdom necessary to safeguard the public from potentially dangerous criminals.”

Beyond Gardner, Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner is another Soros-funded prosecutor currently under intense scrutiny.

Soros spent almost $1.7 million through the Philadelphia Justice and Public Safety PAC to help Krasner in 2017, pouring more than five times as much money into the race as Krasner himself.

Now, Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman is urging state leaders to consider impeachment proceedings against Krasner, who’s been in office since 2018.

Corman blames Krasner for the recent spike in violent crime across Philadelphia, arguing the DA’s policies have allowed criminals to thrive.

Krasner didn’t address the substance of Corman’s accusations in his response, instead criticizing the senator for playing politics.

Philadelphia ended 2021 with an all-time record of 559 homicides, far surpassing the total of any prior year since city leaders began tracking killings in 1960. So far this year, murders are outpacing last year’s figures.

During his tenure, Krasner has cut the future years of incarceration by half and slashed the length of parole in probation supervision by nearly two-thirds compared to the previous DA. He has also made a priority of not prosecuting people who are illegally in possession of guns unless they hurt or kill people.

Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw was previously quoted as saying Philadelphia’s criminal justice system has become a “revolving door” for repeat gun offenders since Krasner became DA. Outlaw said last year that she and Krasner “don’t agree” on which crimes to prioritize and prosecute.

Last March, the Democratic City Committee voted not to endorse Krasner for the upcoming primary election, but Krasner won anyway.

Moving to the West Coast, Soros spent more than $2 million to elect Los Angeles County DA George Gascon in 2020.

Since then, multiple recall efforts have been launched to oust Gascon from office due to rising crime rates. The most recent one was launched last month.

As of September, at least 31 cities in Los Angeles County issued a vote of no confidence in Gascon, condemning his controversial policies.

A recent wave of package thefts from freight trains passing through downtown Los Angeles has put the spotlight on Gascon, whom railroad giant Union Pacific blames for the thefts. Los Angeles has also faced a surge in robberies, while homicides soared last year to their highest level in over a decade.

A growing number of bipartisan voices are pointing the finger at Gascon, who has eliminated cash bail in most cases and sought to put more convicted criminals in rehabilitation rather than prison.

Gascon isn’t the only Soros-backed DA in California facing backlash. San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin, whose parents were members of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist group, won his election with the help of Soros’s financial network.

This week, a 69-year-old Asian-American man who was violently attacked in 2019 said he’s suing Boudin, accusing the prosecutor of mishandling the case against his alleged assailants. The announcement of the lawsuit came one day after the San Francisco Police Department revealed there was a 527% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes in the city in 2021 compared with the previous year.

Boudin has said he wants to abolish cash bail and end “mass incarceration.” During his time in office, San Francisco has experienced a wave of robberies, looting, and burglaries similar to Los Angeles. According to one study, San Francisco is more dangerous than 98% of U.S. cities, according to Lee Ohanian of the Hoover Institution. By comparison, Compton, Calif., which is notorious for gang violence, is more dangerous than 90% of cites and considered safer in terms of crime rate.

The situation has caused progressive Mayor London Breed to intervene and call for police to be more aggressive, saying the crime wave “has destroyed” San Francisco.

“It’s time the reign of criminals who are destroying our city, it is time for it to come to an end,” she said. “And it comes to an end when we take the steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement. More aggressive with the changes in our policies and less tolerant of all the bulls**t that has destroyed our city.”

In the Midwest, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx was elected in 2016 with the help of Soros’s funding and reelected in 2020 with $2 million more from the billionaire.

Foxx has come under intense scrutiny for her office’s dismissal of all charges in the original indictment against actor Jussie Smollett in 2019, three weeks after a grand jury had issued it. Smollett was convicted last month of staging a hate crime.

According to a recent investigation, Foxx lied to the public about cutting off communications with Smollett’s sister when she was told the actor had become a suspect. Foxx is now being investigated for potential ethics violations in her handling of the case.

Chicago, a city infamous for shootings, has experienced a surge in violent crime since Foxx became state’s attorney of Cook County. In 2021, there were more murders than in any year since 1994. 

During her first three years in office, Foxx dropped all charges against 29.9% of felony defendants, a major increase from her predecessor, who only dropped 19.4%, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Staying in the Midwest, another Soros-backed prosecutor who’s come under the gun is Milwaukee DA John Chisholm.

Chisholm conceded in November that he had set an “inappropriately low” bail amount earlier that month when Darrell Edward Brooks Jr., whom police arrested for attacking a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisc., was arrested for domestic abuse and eluding police.

Chisholm has received widespread blowback for his handling of the Brooks case. His office recommended $1,000 bail for Brooks following his prior arrest on Nov. 5 on charges that he punched his girlfriend in the face and hit her with his vehicle. Brooks was also charged with evading police officers when they tried to take him into custody.

Brooks posted bail on Nov. 11 and, days later, allegedly drove his vehicle into the Christmas parade, killing six people and injuring dozens of others.

Chisholm, who was elected in 2007, supports deferrals for some misdemeanors and “low-level” felonies in order to decrease incarcerations. He claims he inspired the current wave of progressive prosecutors who are pursuing similar policies.

Wuhan Collaborators ‘EcoHealth’ Just Received One Their Largest EVER Grants, From Joe Biden’s Government.

EcoHealth Alliance – an American nonprofit that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on manipulating bat coronaviruses resembling COVID-19 – has received one of its largest-ever grants from Joe Biden’s White House.

Led by the disgraced Peter Daszak – a long-time Anthony Fauci ally – EcoHealth’s new Biden-era grant began on October 26th, 2021. It came less than one week after the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) admitted the group engaged in gain-of-function research alongside the Wuhan lab, failing to report its findings “as was required by the terms of the grant.”

Gain-of-function research entails increasing the lethality, virulence, and transmissibility of a pathogen, which deleted webpages from the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s website reveal the lab was engaged in alongside EcoHealth Alliance.

As Dr. Richard Ebright, Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, explained the October 20th letter:

NIH corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

The Biden grant will furnish Daszak with a new $4.7m of U.S. taxpayer cash until 2026.

“USAID CWA is to conserve threatened and endangered species by strengthening protected areas and helping communities be less reliant on protected resources for their livelihoods,” notes the grant’s description.

The cash represents the largest sum EcoHealth Alliance has ever received from USAID, with the next largest totaling less than $2 million. The Biden-backed $4.7 million grant is also the third-largest grant the group has ever received from a federal agency.

In addition to EcoHealth Alliance’s lies about its involvement in gain-of-function research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the group’s president Peter Daszak has spearheaded efforts to quash the narrative that COVID-19 had lab origins, in lock-step with the Chinese Communist Party and its propaganda mouthpieces.

Following National Pulse exposés revealing Daszak’s extensive conflicts of interests, he was recused from the Lancet medical journal’s COVID-19 origins commission.

Durham vs. Horowitz: Tension Over Truth and Consequences Grips the FBI’s Trump-Russia Reckoning

As he documents the role of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in generating false allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, Special Counsel John Durham has also previewed a challenge to the FBI’s claims about how and why its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began.

At stake is the completeness of the official reckoning within the U.S. government over the Russiagate scandal – and whether there will be an accounting commensurate with the offense: the abuse of the nation’s highest law enforcement and intelligence powers to damage an opposition presidential candidate turned president, at the behest of his opponent from the governing party he defeated.

The drama is playing out against the clashing approaches of the two Justice Department officials tasked with scrutinizing the Russia probe’s origins and unearthing any misconduct: Durham, the Sphinx-like prosecutor with a reputation for toughness whose work continues; and Michael Horowitz, the Department of Justice inspector general, whose December 2019 report faulted the FBI’s handling of the Russia probe but nonetheless concluded that it was launched in good faith.

The bureau’s defenders point to Horowitz’s report to argue that the FBI’s Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, is untainted despite its extensive use of the discredited Clinton-funded Steele dossier. Though highly critical of the bureau’s use of Christopher Steele’s reports, Horowitz concluded that they “played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening,” which he said had met the department’s “low threshold” for opening an investigation.

But Durham has made plain his dissent. In response to Horowitz’s report, the special counsel announced that his office had “advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” Durham stressed that, unlike Horowitz, his “investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department” and has instead obtained “information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.”

Durham’s office has not described the specific basis for its disagreement. But the Crossfire Hurricane advocates’ defense has a big problem: copious countervailing evidence in the public record – including in Horowitz’s own report. A considerable paper trail points to Steele’s political opposition research playing a greater role in the probe than the FBI has acknowledged:

  • Numerous officials received Steele’s allegations – some meeting with the ex-British intelligence officer himself – and discussed sending them up the FBI chain weeks before July 31, 2016, the Horowitz-endorsed date when the bureau claims it opened the Russia-Trump “collusion” investigation. These encounters call into question the FBI’s claim that Steele played no role in triggering Crossfire Hurricane and that its team only received the dossier weeks after their colleagues, on Sept. 19.
  • The FBI’s own records belie its claims that it decided to launch the Russia probe not because of the dossier, but instead on a vague tip recounting a London barroom conversation with a low-level Trump campaign volunteer, George Papadopoulos. Australian diplomat Alexander Downer’s tip, recorded in bureau records, was that Papadopoulos had merely “suggested” that Russia had made an unspecified “suggestion” of Russian help – a thin basis upon which to investigate an entire presidential campaign.
  • Upon officially opening Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, FBI officials immediately took investigative steps that mirrored the claims in the Steele dossier even though they were supposedly unaware of it. In August, the FBI team opened probes of Trump campaign figures Carter Page, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort – all of whom are mentioned in the dossier – based on predicates that are just as flimsy as the Downer-Papadopoulos pretext.
  • The FBI’s claim that Steele played no role in sparking the Trump-Russia probe is further called into question by top bureau officials’ previous false claims about the investigation, including Steele’s role. They not only lied to the public and Congress, but to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

‘Definitely of Interest to the Counterintelligence Folks’

Durham’s November indictment of Igor Danchenko, Steele’s main source, was the final nail in the coffin for the Clinton-funded dossier. But to sympathetic media amplifiers of the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, its origins were unscathed.

Horowitz’s report, wrote Mother Jones reporter (and early Steele media contact) David Corn, “concluded that the FBI investigation of Trump-Russia contacts had been legitimately launched” thereby proving that “there was no hoax.”

In an article attempting to demonstrate “Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation,” Charlie Savage of the New York Times said Horowitz’s report “established” that Steele’s allegations did not reach the Crossfire Hurricane team until Sept. 19, 2016, meaning that “they did not yet know about the dossier” when they launched the probe on July 31.

But if the Crossfire Hurricane team really did not learn of Steele until Sept. 19, then those leading the Russiagate probe were among the few high-ranking officials in Washington intelligence circles unaware of the dossier.

The first known Steele-FBI contact about the dossier came on July 5, more than three weeks before the Trump-Russia probe officially launched. Days before, Steele – working for the Clinton campaign via the Washington-based opposition research firm Fusion GPS – contacted Michael Gaeta, the senior FBI agent he had worked with on other matters. Gaeta was then serving in Rome as a legal attaché.

Steele, Gaeta recalled in congressional testimony, informed him that “I have some really interesting information you need to see … immediately.” Gaeta jumped at the chance: “I said, all right, I will be up there tomorrow,” and immediately caught a flight to London. At Steele’s office on that early-summer day, the former British spy briefed his eager FBI handler on the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories he had generated and handed over a copy of his first “intelligence report.”

Steele’s allegations did not stay in London, as Gaeta quickly shared them with FBI colleagues. “I couldn’t just sweep it under the rug, couldn’t discount it just on its face,” he told Congress, adding that Steele “was an established source.” On July 12, Gaeta told a colleague in the FBI’s New York field office, the then-assistant special agent in charge, about Steele’s allegations. According to Horowitz — the IG who concluded that Steele “played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening” – this agent then informed his superior about the Steele allegations “the same day.” The Steele material, Horowitz’s team was told, was seen by these FBI officials as “something that needs to be handled immediately” and “definitely of interest to the Counterintelligence folks.”

On July 28, at his FBI colleague’s request, Michael Gaeta passed along copies of the two reports he had received from Steele. As Horowitz later found, the first one (dated June 20, 2016) provided by Steele to Gaeta, would later become “one of four of Steele’s reports that the FBI relied upon to support” its surveillance applications for Carter Page.

Steele’s conspiracy theories quickly made their way up the FBI chain. According to the inspector general’s report, Gaeta heard from a colleague that high-level officials were already “aware of the reports’ existence,” including at the “Executive Assistant Director (EAD) level” at FBI headquarters in Washington. This occurred, Gaeta told Congress, “on maybe the 1st of August, right around then,” or “either the 31st of July.”

“I was told by the [assistant special agent in charge] at a very high level, he goes at the EAD level at headquarters they have the reports,” Gaeta said. According to the IG report, Gaeta emailed an FBI supervisor on July 28 to report that Steele had told him that contents of two of his reports “may already be circulating at a ‘high level’ in Washington, D.C.”

Gaeta also discussed the Steele dossier claims with the legal attaché overseeing his work at the U.S. Embassy in Rome. The unidentified government lawyer told the inspector general that he signed off on Gaeta’s discussions with the New York field office, and also recalled having the “expectation” that “Steele’s reporting” would be provided “to the Counterintelligence Division (CD) at FBI Headquarters within a matter of days.”

Before making the trip to see Steele in London, Gaeta also received the approval of Victoria Nuland, a senior Obama administration State Department official who now serves under President Biden. By her own telling, Nuland’s office then received information directly from Steele “in the middle of July.” Steele, Nuland recalled in a 2018 interview, “passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI.”

Yet another senior U.S. government official also shared Steele’s information with the FBI. It helped that he had a personal connection: Then-senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie worked alongside Steele at Fusion GPS, first made contact with Steele right before the former British spy’s meeting with Gaeta on July 5, and then shortly after. This led to a July 30 breakfast between the Ohrs and Steele at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. – one day before Crossfire Hurricane began. At this sit-down, Ohr recalled to Congress, Steele claimed that he had evidence that Russian intelligence “had Donald Trump over a barrel.”

According to Ohr, “I wanted to provide the information he [Steele] had given me to the FBI.” He immediately reached out to Andrew McCabe, the then-deputy director of the FBI. “I went to his office to provide the information, and Lisa Page was there,” Ohr recalled, referring to the FBI attorney who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with Strzok while both worked on the Trump-Russia probe. “So I provided the information to them.”

When exactly this pivotal meeting occurred has never been resolved, and all involved have a fuzzy recollection. The transcript of Ohr’s August 2018 House testimony shows him responding “Yes” to a question placing his meeting with McCabe and Page on July 30 – the same day he met Steele, and one day before the Trump-Russia probe officially began. Yet earlier in the deposition, Ohr guessed that he in fact met with McCabe and Page “in August.” When he spoke to the DOJ inspector general, Ohr “did not recall exactly when he contacted McCabe.”

Despite that testimony, Horowitz instead relied on an entry in Ohr’s calendar to determine the meeting did not take place until Oct. 18. McCabe, who was forced to resign from the department for lying about his contacts with the media, said he believes the meeting occurred in “fall 2016” and “did not remember Ohr calling him to set up the meeting or how it came to be scheduled.”

‘Suggested … Some Kind of Suggestion’

According to the official narrative, while top-ranking FBI officials shared and discussed the Steele dossier with everyone but Crossfire Hurricane team members, the counterintelligence division decided to investigate the Trump’s campaign’s potential ties to Russia on July 31 based on an unrelated tip from Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat. At a London bar in May, campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos reportedly told Downer that Russia had offered to help the Trump campaign by anonymously releasing information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Although there was no evidence that the Trump campaign had pursued, received, or used this undefined material, FBI officials deemed this rumor sufficient grounds to investigate the campaign for potential involvement in Russia’s alleged theft of DNC emails published by Wikileaks.

“In other words,” Peter Strzok, the senior FBI counterintelligence agent who opened the Trump-Russia probe, wrote in his memoir, “Papadopoulos had somehow learned about the hacking operation before the public did and had advance knowledge of the Russian plan to use that information to hurt Clinton’s campaign. Even the FBI hadn’t known about it at that time.”

But when the Australian tip that reached the FBI in July 2016 was finally disclosed to the public in December 2019, Papadopoulos’ supposed “advance knowledge” about Russia’s alleged “hacking operation” turned out to be non-existent. The FBI’s tip from Downer contained no mention of the DNC hacking, a Russian interference campaign, or even the stolen emails handed to WikiLeaks. Nor did they even have any trace to suggest that a Russian intermediary had made an overture.

Instead, according to the FBI Electronic Communication (EC) that opened the Trump-Russia probe, the FBI only heard that Papadopoulos, in his conversation with Downer, “suggested” that “the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia” (emphasis added) that it could “assist” the Trump campaign “with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama).”

The FBI document acknowledged that the nature of the “suggestion” was “unclear” and that the possible Russian help could entail “material acquired publicly” – in other words, not emails hacked from the DNC, which, as Horowitz noted, were “not mentioned in the EC.” The FBI also acknowledged that it had no evidence concerning the Trump camp’s receptivity to the “suggested… suggestion”: It was “unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer,” the EC stated, and that Russia could act “with or without Mr. Trump’s cooperation.” Although Papadopoulos’ October 2017 guilty plea with the Mueller team suggested that he had told Downer about “thousands of emails” obtained by Russia, Downer later stated that the Trump campaign volunteer had made no mention of any stolen emails, and fact “didn’t say what it was” that Russia had on offer.

In other words, what Strzok wrote in his own book was untrue.

Because Downer’s tip was so thin, the FBI’s predicate was not only vague or even exculpatory, but also contained no indication that the “some kind of suggestion” actually came from the Russian government, or a Russian national, or anyone for that matter. When it opened the probe, the FBI did not even know that that the purported “suggestion” to Papadopoulos came from his conversation with Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic. For his part, Mifsud has denied making any “suggestion” of Russian help to Papadopoulos at all.

To accept that the FBI’s decision to open the Trump-Russia investigation was well-founded, one has to stipulate that the nation’s premier law enforcement agency decided to investigate a presidential campaign, and then a president, based on a low-level volunteer having “suggested”, during a barroom chat, “some kind of suggestion from Russia” that contained no mention of the alleged Russian hacking or stolen emails that the Trump campaign was supposedly conspiring over. One would also have to accept that the bureau was not influenced by the far more detailed claims of direct Trump-Russia connections – an alleged conspiracy that would form the heart of the investigation – advanced in the widely-circulating Steele dossier.

‘An Insufficient Basis’ for the Probe’s Supposed Predicate

Adding to the questions surrounding the FBI’s basis for opening a Trump-Russia counterintelligence probe is that, upon doing so, the Crossfire Hurricane team didn’t bother to contact the campaign volunteer whose vague “suggestion” supposedly triggered it. Instead, the FBI expanded the probe to multiple other figures in the Trump orbit. Although no intelligence connected them to Downer’s vague tip, all three shared the distinction of being named as Russia conspirators or assets in the Steele dossier.

Rather than just focusing on Papadopoulos – who was never wiretapped and not even interviewed until January of 2017 – the FBI quickly opened parallel probes of campaign volunteer Carter Page, campaign adviser Gen. Michael Flynn, and then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. According to Horowitz, Strzok described “the initial investigative objective of Crossfire Hurricane” as an effort “to determine which individuals associated with the Trump campaign may have been in a position to have received the alleged offer of assistance from Russia” (emphasis added) that Papadopoulos had “suggested.”

The FBI identified Page, Flynn, and Manafort as additional investigative targets, the IG found, not based on any new intelligence but because they had “ties to Russia or a history of travel to Russia.” They relied on a rarely used law – the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires Americans representing foreign governments to disclose these relationships – as the basis for their inquiries.

“Lacking any evidence — and admitting such in their own opening document — the team, nevertheless, proceeded to simply speculate who ‘may have’ accepted the Russian offer and subsequently opened up full investigations on four Americans,” Kevin Brock, the former FBI assistant director for intelligence and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), opined in Congressional testimony in 2020. “This is unconscionable and a direct abuse of FBI authorities.”

When it comes to Papadopoulos, the FBI “initially considered seeking FISA surveillance of Papadopoulos” but quickly determined that it had “an insufficient basis” to do so, Horowitz found. But if the FBI felt that it had “an insufficient basis” to spy on Papadopoulos, how could the FBI deem him to be a sufficient basis for investigating and spying on members of the campaign that he worked for?

On Steele, a Pattern of FBI ‘Factual Misstatements and Omissions’

Although Horowitz took the FBI at its word that Steele played no role in triggering Crossfire Hurricane, he did so after documenting multiple instances of FBI lies – including about Steele’s role in the probe.

When the FBI used the Steele dossier to seek surveillance warrants on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, the bureau made 17 “factual misstatements and omissions” to the FISA court, Inspector General Horowitz found in his December 2019 report.

These abuses included embellishing Steele’s established reliability as an FBI source; omitting information that undermined the credibility of Steele’s main source, Igor Danchenko, and the fanciful claims he told Steele about prostitutes and billion dollar bribes; concealing that Steele was a source for a Yahoo News article that the FBI also cited as source material; omitting that both Page and Papadopoulos had made exonerating statements to FBI informants; and, most notably, omitting that the Clinton campaign was paying for Steele’s services. The FISA court concurred with Horowitz, invalidating two of the four Page surveillance warrants on the basis of the FBI’s “material misstatements.”

When the FBI briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee on its use of the Steele dossier in 2018, it told similar falsehoods while presenting the Clinton contractor as credible. According to the FBI’s prepared talking points, the Senate was erroneously told that Steele’s main source Danchenko “did not cite any significant concerns with the way his reporting was characterized in the dossier.” Danchenko, the FBI additionally claimed, also “maintains trusted relationships with individuals who are capable of reporting on the material he collected for Steele.” The FBI also said that its discussions with Danchenko “confirm that the dossier was not fabricated by Steele.”

But the FBI concealed – just as it did with the FISA court – that Danchenko had in fact told its agents that corroboration for the dossier’s claim was “zero”; that he “has no idea” where claims sourced to him came from; and that the Russia-Trump rumors he passed along to Steele came from “word of mouth and hearsay” and “conversation that [he] had with friends over beers” that should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

When the FBI’s deceptive reliance on Steele was brought to light in a memo from then-House intelligence chairman Rep. Devin Nunes in early 2018, the FBI fought to prevent its release. Moreover, the FBI resorted to more deception: In an explosive Jan. 31 statement aimed at thwarting the Nunes memo’s release, the FBI claimed that it had “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

The FBI’s tactic failed, and the memo was released two days later. When the first of the FBI’s Carter Page warrants was declassified in July 2018, it showed that the only material omissions of fact were made by the FBI. The FBI told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it “believes that [Russia’s] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with” the Trump campaign. Its source for this belief was Steele, whom it described as “Source #1” and “credible” – all while omitting that the Clinton campaign was footing the bill.

In addition, unidentified intelligence and law enforcement officials went out of their way to bolster Steele’s image via anonymous leaks to credulous news outlets. “U.S. investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier,” a CNN headline proclaimed in February 2017, weeks after the dossier’s publication. The FBI is “continuing to chase down stuff from the dossier, and, at its core, a lot of it is bearing out,” an unidentified “intelligence official” told The New Yorker later that month.

The FBI’s faith in Steele extended to sharing classified information with him. According to Horowitz, at an October 2016 meeting in Rome, FBI agents gave Steele a “general overview” of Crossfire Hurricane, including its then-secret probes of Manafort, Page, Flynn, and Papadopoulos. The FBI was so eager to enlist Steele that it offered to pay him $15,000 “just for attending” the Rome meeting and a “significantly” greater amount if he could collect more information.

This early FBI enthusiasm for Steele – and lengthy record of lying about it — is hard to square with the bureau’s subsequent claims that he only played a minor role.

Durham’s Dissent Could Become a Political Flashpoint

Despite uncovering FBI deceptions, Horowitz acknowledged that he was relying largely on the word of the officials he was investigating. “We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs [Electronic Communications], emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the [Friendly Foreign Government] information” – Australia’s tip from Downer — “was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” his report states.

As his dissenting statement made clear, Durham is not limited to one department nor to its employees’ voluntary testimony.

Durham’s grand juries have already yielded indictments of two Clinton campaign-tied operatives for deceptive attempts to influence the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe. That Horowitz has already uncovered so many inconsistencies in the FBI’s account – and that Durham has gone out of his way to question the FBI predication that Horowitz accepted – suggests that the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank “secret hotline” story are far from the only fraudulent Trump-Russia activity in Durham’s sights.

If Durham does unearth additional evidence that the FBI did not launch the Trump-Russia probe in the way that it claims, then that would be yet another devastating revelation for a bureau that has already been caught relying on Clinton-funded disinformation and lying about it. Given how hard the FBI and Democratic Party allies have fought to shield this conduct from scrutiny, Durham’s probe could become a major political flashpoint as his probe reaches its final months and hones in on its final targets.

This RealClearInvestigations article was republished by The Gateway Pundit with permission and then subsequently appropriated by the Underground Newswire without permission.

The Soros Dozen: Big City Prosecutors Backed by George Soros

JOEL B. POLLAK
January 20th, 2022

Left-wing billionaire and Democrat donor George Soros has turned his attention in recent years to local races for prosecutor, using his money to elect “progressives” who push “criminal justice reform” and support the Black Lives Matter movement.

The rise of these Soros-backed prosecutors has coincided with a massive surge in murder and crime in many Democrat-run cities, including many where these prosecutors have implemented radical policies toward policing and incarceration.

Most recently, for example, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón has faced criticism for his radical reforms in the year since he took office, while murders soared. “The city last year experienced 397 murders, up 11.8 percent from the 355 the previous year, and a 53.9 percent increase from the 258 in the pre-pandemic year of 2019,” Los Angeles magazine noted.

These murders included the shooting death of Jacqueline Avant, a black philanthropist and the wife of legendary music producer Clarence Avant, who was killed during a robbery in her home. Gascón blamed the “system” for her death.

More recently, a young woman, Brianna Kupfer, was stabbed to death in broad daylight in the furniture store where she worked. Her alleged killer was out on bail for a 2020 arrest in Los Angeles and a 2019 arrest in South Carolina. Her father blamed politicians who had let criminals roam free — a growing sentiment in cities where Soros-backed prosecutors rule.

Many of the candidates Soros has backed have received support, directly or indirectly, from a network of groups with names like “Justice & Public Safety PAC.” The Influence Watch website describes Soros’s organizations as the “‘Safety and Justice’ network, a project of left-leaning billionaire George Soros that used a network of similarly named state-level PACs to finance the campaigns of progressive Democratic candidates for district attorney in more than a dozen of America’s cities.”

Soros-backed prosecutors include:

Supported by Soros through spending by political action committees (PACs) and super PACs:

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón – Elected in 2020, he ousted incumbent D.A. Jackie Lacey, the first black woman to hold the job, and has prided himself on reducing prison sentences, even as violent crime has soared in L.A.

(Chicago) Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx – Foxx became notorious for her intervention in the Jussie Smollett case, dropping charges against the actor for a hate crime hoax. (Smollett was later convicted.) Chicago hit 800 homicides in 2021.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner – Soros supported Krasner with nearly $1.7 million in spending in 2017, more than five times as much as Kranser spent himself. Philadelphia set a new record for homicides in 2021, with 562 in total.

(Houston) Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg – Ogg is considered one of the more moderate of Soros’s prosecutors, and had to overcome opposition from even more left-wing prosecutors in 2020. Houston’s homicide rate rose 71% in 2021.

Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot – Cruezot dropped prosecutions for thefts of “personal items” valued at less than $750, among other radical reforms, and was reduced to reminding residents that theft was still against the law.

(San Antonio) Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales – Gonzales has been described as “one of Soros’s favorite DAs,” presiding over a stunning 52% increase in homicides in San Antonio since 2019, though violent crime was down overall.

(Phoenix) Maricopa County District Attorney Paul Penzone – Soros spent millions to defeat Joe Arpaio and support Penzone, who gained national attention in 2020 when he resisted efforts by Republicans to audit the ballots in the 2020 election.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner – Gardner has faced ethical complaints over the prosecution of former Governor Eric Greitens, as well as that of Mark and Patricia McCloskey. She was kicked off the latter prosecution after using it to fundraise.

(East San Francisco Bay Area) Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton – Becton famously charged a couple with a “hate crime” for painting over a “Black Lives Matter” mural that was painted on a public road in Martinez, California.

Supported by Soros indirectly:

(New York) Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg – Bragg was elected with help from the Color of Change PAC, to which Soros donated $1 million. He has banned pre-trial incarceration and prison for all but homicide and a few other cases.

Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby – Mosby, one of the original “Black Lives Matter” prosecutors, reportedly took a trip abroad sponsored by a Soros-backed group. She was recently indicted on federal charges of mortgage fraud and perjury.

(Orlando) Ninth Judicial Circuit State Attorney Monque Worrell – Worrell succeeded Soros-backed Aramis Ayala, whom Gov. Ron DeSantis kicked off a murder case for declining to seek charges in a murder because she opposed the death penalty.

A further list of Soros-backed prosecutors, current through 2019, is available through Influence Watch. These include prosecutors such as Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney Buta Biberaj – Biberaj came under scrutiny after a parent was arrested for speaking out at a school board meeting against district policies after his daughter was sexually assaulted. Another list is available through the Capital Research Center, including descriptions of Soros-backed prosecutors’ records.

Not every left-wing prosecutor is directly backed by Soros. San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin was not backed by Soros — but he received $100,000 from a PAC controlled by Soros-backed George Gascón to fight a recall election effort.

In 2018, the Los Angeles Times reported that Soros had funded at least 21 local prosecutorial campaigns, though it noted that the full extent of his influence on such races was unknown, because some of his contributions flowed to non-profit organizations and “dark money” groups rather than directly to campaigns. He has continued and expanded his role since.