[Just The News] Doesn't democracy die in darkness anymore? Nothing about the substance of the meeting was recorded in the notes even though the U.S. Attorney's Manual requires agents in important cases to confer about notetaking ahead of time, memorialize that discussion and then take substantive notes of contacts with witnesses. Smith's team did neither.
When-Special Counsel Jack Smith's team secretly met at the CIA in late 2023 with former Director John Brennan to discuss "expert testimony" in the classified documents prosecution of President Donald Trump, and the FBI agents who attended the interview left blank their notes of what transpired, according to bombshell memos released Monday.
The autumn 2023 interaction with Smith's team occurred just months after Brennan testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the now-discredited Russia collusion case. Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, alleged in an October 2025 criminal referral to the Justice Department that Brennan's testimony was false.
"On 3 November 2023, FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) and Special Counsel personnel met with former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John BRENNAN at CIA Headquarters in McLean, Virginia," a typed FBI summary of the meeting states.
"The purpose of the meeting was to discuss expert testimony to National Defense Information in the forthcoming captioned investigation," the summary written five days after the Brennan interaction added. "No documents were shown in this meeting. The original Agent notes will be maintained in the attached IA."
Two agents' notes are attached to the memo, but they are entirely blank except for the date of the meeting, the location, Brennan's name and the government attendees.
The memos were released Monday by the White House Government Transparency Task Force. You can read them here.
#2
In the world of smart phones, TikTok and Instagram postings, and police body cams, why are FBI agents not videoing all interviews? To ask the question is to answer it.
#3
why are FBI agents not videoing all interviews?
Not all FBI agents are actually....FBI agents. The Deep State has infiltrated nearly all aspects of the government structure. Both detailed assignments and long-term recruitments like Fauci.
Unable to legally collect on US Citizens, The DS utilizes "incidental collection" as a convenient work-around.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Ilya Maximovn
[Regnum] Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced the early dissolution of the Cortes Generales (the country's parliament) after his housing decree—an emergency package of measures designed to quell public outrage over unaffordable housing—failed in Congress.
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving Socialist. Here’s hoping the conservative and populist parties wipe the floor with them.
Elections previously scheduled for the summer of 2027 will now be held at the end of next month, on November 29.
"I have decided to convene an extraordinary meeting of the Council of Ministers this morning to dissolve the Cortes Generales and call general elections, which will take place on Sunday, November 29, in accordance with the deadlines established by law," the head of the Spanish government said.
The protests that preceded the vote on the bill were sparked by the eviction of 87-year-old Maricarmen Abascal, who was carried on a stretcher from the Madrid apartment where she had lived for nearly 70 years. After a change of ownership, the rent, which had remained unchanged for many years, was raised several times, leaving the pensioner unable to continue paying her rent.
Thousands of people took to the streets in dozens of cities across the country, and a tent camp was set up in central Madrid, rapidly expanding. The reason, of course, isn't just the eviction of the elderly Spanish woman, but also the country's shortage of hundreds of thousands of homes. Due to the housing shortage, rents have nearly doubled over the past 10 years, while incomes have not.
In response to the protests, the Sánchez government introduced two decrees, including rent caps, automatic multi-year lease extensions, and other measures intended to protect tenants by limiting landlord rights. Even before the parliamentary vote, rumors circulated that the date of future elections would depend on its outcome.
Housing Minister Isabel Rodríguez effectively waged an election campaign during the debate, calling on parliamentarians to decide who they were on – “with the vultures who carry out evictions, or with the people who are suffering?”
"Today you will be judged by the results of the vote; today politics and Spanish democracy will be on trial," she said.
Sánchez himself threatened the deputies: "Do the right thing, because I believe that if you don't, history will judge you sooner than you think and more harshly than you imagine." Judging by subsequent events, by history's punishing hand he meant himself.
However, on October 2, Congress rejected both initiatives: the first by 178 votes to 172, the second by 184 votes to 166. The People's Party, Voice, and Together for Catalonia, whose seven mandates were critical for the government, voted against.
The right-wing parties, which hold the majority, rightly concluded that the proposed proposals violate the fundamental principles of the concept of private property and threaten to further reduce the rental market and frighten potential investors.
Faced with the most severe political crisis of his eight years in power, Sánchez decided to go all-in. After his proposals failed, he predictably declared that the problem wasn't the bill—which, incidentally, wasn't simply rejected, but rather proposed to be rewritten—but the existence of the opposition in parliament itself.
According to him, the cabinet is faced with "the worst opposition in history, which is blocking policies that are beneficial for the country."
"The truth is that to achieve more, we need the support of the people; we need to ensure that Parliament gives us a much broader progressive majority," he said.
On the one hand, this situation is nothing new for Sánchez himself. He's accustomed to exploiting crises, including those provoked by his own government, to maintain his position through shaky political alliances.
Sánchez first came to power in 2018 and never completed his term, calling snap elections twice.
Apparently, under the current pressure, he understands that he will definitely not be able to hold on to power after the scheduled 2027 vote, so he has decided to take advantage of the escalating housing crisis to launch a final attack on the right and center-right forces in the hopes of turning the tide and finally gaining a majority in Congress that will ensure his continued power.
He's operating within his usual logic, and he's likely right about this last chance. However, a daring attempt to seize the initiative risks turning into an even more resounding failure for Sánchez than a hypothetical defeat next summer.
Sánchez called the elections at a time when both his entourage and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) were at the center of numerous legal scandals.
Begoña Gómez, the prime minister's wife, is accused of using her position to advance her career at the Complutense University of Madrid.
The Prime Minister's brother, David Sánchez, was sentenced to nine years' disqualification for misconduct in accepting a position in the Badajoz provincial council.
Former PSOE cabinet chief José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is on trial, accused of influence peddling. And former prosecutor Álvaro García Ortiz, appointed by the Sánchez government, has been disqualified from holding public office for two years and fined for disclosing confidential information and classified data in a case.
Against this backdrop, opposition forces greeted the news of snap elections with enthusiasm. According to the leader of the People's Party, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, "Spain will finally have a say" and be able to choose between "a project dictated by personal ambition and a project for the good of the country."
"The general election is not about the victory of the People's Party over the Spanish Socialist Party, but about the victory of Spain over Sánchez," he said, adding that the country had lived in the "trap of a great lie" for too long.
So far, polls have left the Socialists with little room for optimism. According to a Sigma Dos survey, the PSOE is gaining 25.6% and 103 seats—an 18-seat deficit compared to 2023. Even the hundreds of thousands of migrants hastily legalized in the spring of 2026 haven't helped.
Together, the right could secure 203 seats, with a majority threshold of 176. The left bloc—PSOE, Sumar, Podemos, and regional parties—has barely managed 114 seats, and that's without taking into account the earlier split, which means it can no longer be called united.
Therefore, there's no certainty that the 2023 maneuver, when the prime minister mobilized the left-wing electorate with fear of the far right, will be repeated. This change in sentiment is unsurprising, given that the government's overall performance can only be described as a failure.
The country's economy is officially growing, but this hasn't translated into improved living standards. While GDP is growing, household income has yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels, and quality of life indicators are now below the levels seen in 2018, when Sánchez took power. Meanwhile, the tax burden on workers is at its highest in 30 years.
The country has been without a new budget for over a thousand days, formally extending the old one from 2023. Large-scale projects, including the state housing plan for 2026–2030, are not included in the basic financial law and must be implemented through separate royal decrees, which only delays the process.
The irony is that Sánchez himself, as opposition leader, criticized Mariano Rajoy's cabinet in 2018 : "A government without a budget is a government that governs nothing." Now he finds himself in the same situation.
In addition to this, the country is being shaken by various crises one after another.
The summer of 2026 was marked by catastrophic wildfires: 60% of Spaniards rated the government's response to them negatively. Firefighters lacked the manpower to fight the blazes, resulting in massive damage to the country.
The situation in Ceuta, where around 80,000 migrants crossed the exclave's border in 48 hours at the end of July, remains unresolved.
Thousands of illegal immigrants are occupying the city, forcing local residents to stay home or form self-defense units to patrol their neighborhoods, while police are only able to herd the newcomers in droves from one overcrowded detention center to the next, with no results.
Now, on top of all this, protests related to the housing crisis are being unleashed, which is what led to the dissolution of parliament. The argument goes that if parliamentarians aren't responding to the public aspirations expressed in the government's bill, then they must be somehow flawed and need to be replaced.
A consistent pattern emerges throughout this story: no matter what happens, Sánchez always finds someone else to blame. In Ceuta, Europe failed to help (and Russia somehow "harmed" it); the housing crisis is blamed on vulture property owners; the budget paralysis, on the right.
So now the time has come for the fiery Spanish socialist's main weapon: populism. The housing crisis has given him a new pretext for attacking the right, whom he dubbed "elites, tyrants, techno-oligarchs, and speculators" who "must be broken."
At the same time, although the government's position is quite shaky, the opposition is calling for a premature victory. "There's no need to fight over something before it's too late. Polls said the same thing in 2023, and yet Sánchez and all his allies still managed to form a majority," said Voice party leader Santiago Abascal.
And the right does have reason to be afraid – among the protesters, there are many who swallowed the bait thrown by Sánchez and believed that his housing problems could be solved at the cost of restricting the rights of other Spaniards.
And even if they fail to win the elections legally, the left, judging by their rhetoric about the "confrontation between the people and the vultures," is already preparing a time bomb, dehumanizing property owners and thereby preparing a section of society for a rebellion that they can exploit.
[Epoch Times] The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 declined to take up an appeal from a former judge in Pennsylvania who was suspended after praising Democrats and criticizing Republicans on social media.
While a judge, he posted positive Facebook posts about various Democrats, including former President Joe Biden, and criticism of Republicans and conservative organizations. He was reported by a fellow judge, and the Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania held a trial. The board said the judge violated judicial rules, including by undermining public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and the Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania backed that determination. He was suspended without pay.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in January sided with the judicial board. "Under the balancing test we adopt today, if a sitting judge speaks outside of his or her official duties on a matter of public concern, then courts must balance the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting the efficiency of the administration of justice, including the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, against the judge’s interest in making the statement," the court’s opinion said.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/06/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[67 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At least pretend you're not biased.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
10/06/2026 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
[FoxNews] Families say deceased relatives got notices encouraging them to re-register through Virginia's online voter registration
Deceased Virginians with felony convictions are reportedly among those receiving voting-rights restoration letters under Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who announced in July that she had restored voting rights to 66,000 people with felony convictions.
The notices come as Virginia separately implements a federal court ruling that sharply narrowed which felony convictions can trigger disenfranchisement, while voters this fall will decide whether to amend the state constitution to automatically restore voting rights upon release from incarceration.
"I've been a lawyer for 27 years and in every minute of my career, when you were convicted of a felony, you lose your voting rights. The way you get those back is you have to petition the governor and then the governor can review your case and determine whether the civil rights of a convicted felon should be restored," Virginia Beach attorney Tim Anderson told Fox News Digital on Monday.
Anderson, who shared posts showing letters from Spanberger and her administration sent to families of deceased recipients, said the situation is "one or the other" — either Richmond is not vetting who receives the restoration notifications or its vetting is not thorough enough to catch deceased recipients.
"The order specifically says that they've reviewed [each] case individually, right?"
He noted that Virginia has online voter registration and questioned whether an unscrupulous relative who received one of the notifications might try to register their dead relative to vote.
"These dead people clearly aren't petitioning the governor to get their civil liberties back... they're restoring every single felon's civil disabilities without anybody even asking. And that's concerning, especially when they're dead."
Virginia resident Howard "Skip" Lambert posted a July 1 restoration notice signed by Spanberger and an Aug. 31 notification from her administration addressed to a redacted relative, informing the recipient that their voting rights had been restored.
The July letter said that after the relative had been convicted and sentenced, Spanberger’s office "completed review of the particulars of the individual’s case."
Anderson pointed to that line as evidence of vetting.
Lambert’s letter went on to say the relative would have their civil rights — except for the ability to transport or possess firearms — restored effective July 1.
In the ensuing letter from Secretary of the Commonwealth Candi Mundon-King, the relative was notified that Spanberger had restored their right to vote and serve on a jury and was encouraged to re-register to vote at the online "Citizen’s Portal" via a QR code.
Lambert wrote that he was upset by the mailings, saying the recipient was his daughter, who died in 2024. He also confirmed that she had a felony conviction.
"Interesting this letter arrives as early-voting begins... yet the provided official order is dated July 1," he said on Sept. 24. "Just because cash doesn't change hands doesn't mean the governor isn't trying to buy votes.
Reached by phone Monday, the Fredericksburg-area resident confirmed to Fox News Digital that the documents were authentic and that the recipient was his daughter.
"I do have a question of timing in the letter I believe my daughter voted in the previous election where it was Hillary and Donald Trump — because she had had her rights restored then," he said.
Around the time of that election, former Democratic Gov. Terence McAuliffe attempted a mass restoration but was rebuked by the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled that he did not have the authority to take such an action affecting an estimated 206,000 Virginians, according to NPR.
Another woman, Peggie Young, posted a similar set of documents addressed to her "dear BFF, Peter Breton."
"I have his ashes. Is this perhaps how voter fraud begins. I'm so confused," she said, adding that she also received the letter only on Sept. 29.
Young could not immediately be reached.
Virginia House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, told Fox News Digital that Spanberger's purported vetting process appears to be inadequate:
"If the process is so thorough that they can't even tell who's alive and who's dead, how thorough is it?" Kilgore told Fox News Digital.
The federal case began in 2023 as King v. Youngkin, when disenfranchised Virginians sued then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin and other state officials, arguing that Virginia’s blanket felony ban conflicted with the federal Virginia Readmission Act of 1870.
[RedState] One of the things I find amusing about Michigan Democrat Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is that he seems to both suffer from "short-man syndrome" and, at the same time, seems to have an overinflated opinion of himself.
He made comments during the primary that indicated he saw himself as a leader in the progressive movement to influence the 2028 presidential election. He hasn't even gotten past these elections, and he barely squeaked by his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens (MI-11), in the primary.
El-Sayed just did an interview on Fox with Martha MacCallum. Now, given what we've seen of him, he likely thought he could buffalo the Fox audience.
MacCallum didn't appear to be tough, but she might have just rope-a-doped him with a congenial interview, which got him to say more than he should have.
They opened by talking about the rise of the socialists and about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's claim that socialism is about providing you with what you "need" for a "dignified life." While El-Sayed claims to be a capitalist, he then goes on to sound a lot like Mamdani, as he outlined the basic things he claimed the government should be providing to the public, including schools, healthcare, and childcare.
He keeps talking about schools, but the federal government doesn't fund public schools. Nor should it, so what is he even talking about? How is he going to fund that as a senator? Then he also appears to play this game that socialists do about roads and garbage, as though that's somehow socialism. None of that sounds like a "capitalist."
#5
He is a fraud, his message is clean well versed, a lie, but very well presented. He will win. FOX will be seen by the left as haters and unless we get the full conservative party in that state to vote, he will win.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/06/2026 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Martha MacCallum has proven herself a complete tool.
[Federalist] The Jack Smith Operation Shows Lawfare Will Only Get Worse: Conservatives have yet to build the institutions, infrastructure, and legal capacity needed to counter lawfare before it destroys more lives.
Lawfare grows more dangerous with every operation. This week’s disclosures about Jack Smith’s operation show how far that machinery reached.
We already knew about Smith’s sweeping indictments of President Trump on flimsy charges and many of the operation’s other abuses, including the secret seizure of phone records from Republican lawmakers, the review of text messages involving 44 members of Congress, and subpoenas seeking records on at least 430 Republican individuals and entities. This week, we also found out that Smith’s team of lawfare operators spied on nearly 50 journalists, including Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist.
They seized copies of 4,782 checks written by Americans who donated to Trump and Republican groups, exposing donors’ names, home addresses, bank and routing numbers, and signatures. These were ordinary Americans dragged into the lawfare simply because they wrote a check to support a political candidate. Smith also swept up records of people who had run pro-Trump ads. The sheer extent of the intrusions and abuses is incredible.
We can get furious about each round of revelations, with every new disclosure producing another round of outrage. But the real lesson, and the far more frightening reality we have to grapple with, is that lawfare keeps getting more sophisticated and more vicious.
In many ways, this progression began in crude form in 2004, when 60 Minutes aired a false story about President George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. The broadcast relied on documents claiming Bush had received favorable treatment and failed to meet his obligations. Lawyer Harry MacDougald, a through-line in fighting lawfare over the years, exposed those documents as forgeries. Dan Rather, who ran the story, was ultimately forced to resign.
Perhaps not coincidentally, MacDougald now represents Jeff Clark, the former Trump administration assistant attorney general who became a prominent victim of the far more developed lawfare system that followed. Clark was targeted by the Jack Smith operation and by the ongoing campaign to strip him of his law license. And MacDougald himself has been pulled into the same machinery, with an ethics complaint targeting him over his legal work in election-related cases.
The 2004 operation was a political hoax, but it was not quite lawfare. It had some of lawfare’s common elements: fabricated evidence, a hoax laundered through a major media outlet that actively carried the attack, and the political objective of defeating its target (Bush). But the operation was crude, and its defining weapon was missing. The state’s investigative and prosecutorial power had not been turned against Bush or his associates to surveil them, prosecute them, bankrupt them, or imprison them.
By 2016, the method had become far more sophisticated. Russiagate became the origin of what we now know as lawfare. It began with a fabricated narrative, then built an entire operational ecosystem around it. Instead of simply laundering a false story through one 60 Minutes broadcast, the story was laundered through Christopher Steele, who received it from a firm hired by the Clinton campaign and repackaged it as a quasi-British intelligence product. Additionally, a made-up story about Trump communicating with Russia through Russia’s Alfa Bank was laundered through a team of purported computer scientists to give it a veneer of credibility. Those false narratives were then released through a whole network of media lawfare collaborators.
Most importantly, for the first time, the operation brought the legal and law enforcement machinery to bear. With the help of FBI Director James Comey and CIA Director John Brennan, the fabricated narrative became a federal operation, using investigations, surveillance warrants, leaks, and a special counsel to try first to defeat candidate Trump and, when that failed, to remove him from office. The operation targeted not just Trump, but the people around him. Campaign figures, advisers, associates, and people with only loose connections to Trump were dragged into the investigation. They faced legal bills, public smears, professional ruin, bankruptcy, and, in some cases, prison. The purpose was to isolate Trump, cripple his ability to govern, and make anyone who stood with him pay a price. It largely succeeded.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Epoch Times] The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 declined to take up an appeal from a former judge in Pennsylvania who was suspended after praising Democrats and criticizing Republicans on social media.
BREAKING: Israel says pilot tried to hijack flydubai flight to Tel Aviv that diverted, landed in Saudi Arabia
