Testimony of Trisha Anderson

The media outlet Epoch Times has received, exclusively, testimony from Page, Ohr, and other key players in what had been deemed as “Spygate”. The articles are long and detailed, often including direct testimony. Most people don’t have time to read to completion. I thought it might be nice to include a summary, here, on Trisha Anderson, as she is mostly unknown to us, but apparently, a key player. If you are interested in NEW and substantive, meat and potatoes, info on “Spygate”, it’s here.

Link to full article from Epoch Times

Each notation of “====” is my shorthand for lifted script from the article. Do not wish to plagiarize from Epoch Times, instead want to quote as specifically as possible. Anything in parenthesis () is my added script or summary.

==== Trisha Anderson was the No. 2 lawyer at the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. (She worked under Baker)
==== involved in virtually all of the significant events of the investigation.
==== one of only about 10 people who had known about the Trump–Russia investigation prior to its official opening.
==== read all of the FBI’s FD302 forms detailing information that the author of the Steele dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele, had provided to high-ranking Department of Justice (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr. (but only after the Permanent Select Comm focused on the 302’s – reasoning is unclear)
==== personally signed off on the original application for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page without having read it. (Yates and Comey already signed it – unusual procedure)
==== part of a small group of FBI personnel who got to read then-FBI Director James Comey’s memos about conversations he had with President Donald Trump.
==== also was involved in the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton for sending classified information using a private server.
==== she received the original referral from the inspectors general for both the State Department and Intelligence Community on Clinton after hundreds of classified emails had been found on her server.
==== Anderson Reviewed the Ohr 302s (again, only after the 302’s became a focus of investigation by Perm Sel Comm)
==== During her testimony, Anderson highlighted the unusual nature of the Page FISA application process and the curious roles of McCabe and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who provided approvals of the Page FISA before normal FBI and DOJ approvals had been obtained
==== “We understood, because of who Carter Page was, that people would second-guess the appropriateness of submitting the FISA application, and so we were taking extra care with the application itself.”
Yet, at the same time, Anderson admitted that not only had she not read the original Page FISA application, but she was also unable to recall if she had read any of the Page FISA renewals.

==== Anderson Defines ‘Spy’…., referring back to the FBI’s use of Halper. (which she didn’t really consider a ‘spy’ in the Trump campaign, nor people like Halper).
==== involvement in matters relating to both the Clinton and Trump–Russia investigations exceeded what had been publicly known and appears to have been at a level comparable to that of her former boss, FBI General Counsel James Baker.
==== was briefed by FBI attorney Sally Moyer regarding the existence of potential evidence on the laptop of former Rep. Weiner
==== Oct. 27, 2016, (again on the Weiner laptop), “Mid-Year Exam,” briefed Comey for the first time of the existence of Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop.

(Conflict in testimony between Comey, Baker, and Anderson as to whether Anderson raised the issue of ‘how’ to craft a statement to the public on the contents of the Weiner laptop, in late October 2016. Comey and Baker claim Anderson raised the issue it might help elect Donald Trump. Anderson claims she was worried about revealing anything publicly about a person who may not eventually be charged – Hillary – and whether it would sway the election. Anderson insists she never mentioned Donald Trump. Comey’s book/Baker’s testimony, conflict with Anderson.)

(Testimony on the Comey memos is interesting. FBI would not allow Anderson to testify about the memos, but did allow Page and Strvok to testify a month earlier.)

(Trisha Anderson was the first person notified by memo about Hillary’s email leak on June 29, 2015, and she was notified by the IG at State (under Kennedy) and the IG for IC. Trisha Anderson knew THEN, there were hundreds of classified emails on Hillary’s server. Formal referral from IC came on July 6, 2015, pursuant (possible violation of) to Intelligence Authorization Act.)

(Another name: Jeannette McMillan, counsel for the Intelligence Community IG’s office, was who Anderson talked with concerning the referral from IC.)

==== Anderson immediately “looped in” Sally Moyer, also known as FBI Attorney 1 in the DOJ inspector general’s June 2018 report. Ultimately, the IG referral was sent to Randy Coleman, then-head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division. (investigation opened by FBI July 10, 2015)

==== (On Hillary’s use of private server) “So we all recognized from the outset that from a commonsense perspective from somebody who has worked—from the perspective of somebody who has worked in the government that it seemed like a pretty dumb thing to do.” (but they all agreed she should not be charged under gross negligence because of lack of intent)

(Interesting discussion on ‘conflict of interest’ at the DOJ and whether or not a Special Counsel should have been appointed for Hillary investigation. Anderson was questioned about an email chain she initiated. The ‘question’ about conflict of interest was researched by an intern, and Anderson could not remember details. Yet the IG report shows Anderson’s testimony conflicts with IG interview from ‘Lawyer #1, which was Sally Moyer. IMAGINE if a special counsel had been appointed for Hillary. Whoa.)

Loretta Lynch: Many questions about Loretta Lynch. Highly suggest anyone read the Epoch Times paragraphs on Loretta Lynch and Conflict of Interest near the end of the article. I’ll do my best to summarize here.

(Remember the classified index at the end of the OIG report? Remember the rumors of Loretta Lynch promising “to not allow the Clinton investigation to go too far”? Remember an alleged email about Loretta Lynch, but the media claimed it was a hoax, fake email, and was summarily dismissed? Well, Comey testified he thought the email was genuine but could not prove it AND the email is included in the classified appendix of the OIG Report to Congress – below is a summary of detail.)

In March of 2016, the issue of ‘conflict of interest’, about Loretta Lynch and all of DOJ, came up again, because the FBI received a RUSSIAN document in early 2016, according to Strzok’s testimony. The Russian doc referenced an email from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair, to Leonard Benardo, an official with the George Soros-funded group Open Society Foundations.

==== In the email, Wasserman Schultz reportedly claimed that former Attorney General Lynch had assured Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria that she wouldn’t allow the FBI investigation of Clinton to “go too far.” Comey later testified that he believed the document to be genuine but was unable to corroborate the information it contained.

From Sally Moyer, Attorney#1, we get an email, “All these ‘secret meetings’ that Trish and Jim are having regarding, MYE and [redacted] include George Toscas….” and “….  But why is George included and not our own people, especially when, if the reporting is true, there is a real conflict of interest?” (Meaning, if the Russian doc is legit, we have a conflict of interest for Lynch and possibly the whole of DOJ. Anderson confirmed the existence of the doc in the classified appendix as referring to the Lynch ‘matter’.)

==== Anderson described two meetings…, at the DOJ. The first…, occurred prior to the drafting of Comey’s exoneration letter of Clinton, included DOJ officials George Toscas and Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis. Attending from the FBI were McCabe; the assistant director for the cyber division, Jim Trainor; Comey’s chief of staff, James Rybicki; and Anderson. …..second meeting included Toscas, Yates, Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, and DOJ official Matt Axelrod, along with Anderson, McCabe, and Rybicki. Anderson testified that Trainor, who left the FBI in late October 2016, was gone (thus occurred after Oct/16).

(Anderson told Congress the Lynch info remains unverified – kind of like the dossier on President Trump.)

==== (The small group) Anderson said that she, Strzok, Lisa Page, McCabe, Comey, and Baker were all aware of the investigation prior to the 2016 election. Add to that list Bill Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, Moyer, Pientka, Ohr, and Rybicki and you have a list of 12 individuals, which fits fairly well with Anderson’s testimony.

==== Anderson disclosed that, technically, Page reported directly to her, but “the supervision was less clear. She reported directly to Andy McCabe as a result of the detail arrangement that we had entered into.” And …. she actually served in a detail capacity to support him when he was Executive Assistant Director overseeing the National Security Branch. (The title of Special Counsel was created for Lisa Page, apparently to get around Anderson, to get to McCabe, Strzok, and Baker.)

(Anderson was questioned by Congressman Baker if she knew of any animosity towards Lisa Page by Giacalone or Steinbach, who would have been leapfrogged in chain of command by Lisa Page. Anderson said neither came to her, specifically, but she was aware of their concerns.)

Trisha Anderson, Giacalone, Steinbach, Moyer, are mentioned, along with others, in “Q” post #2692, 2697, 2698. Q advises us, in post 2697, to track and follow Klinesmith, Gohar, Sally Moyer, Herring. Since Herring is the name of the AG in Virginia, I checked. Mark Herring is the Virginia AG and James Herring is the DOJ employee. Thus far, I cannot find a connection.


In line with Aubergine’s fabulous reporting on Covington and Burling, LLP, it is interesting to note Trishia Anderson left DOJ and returned to work with Eric Holder…….. at Covington and Burling, LLP.

Guess what her specialty is now? I kid you not……. CFIUS clearances.

Background for Trisha Anderson: She clerked for Sutton, Court of Appeals in the 6th, and then clerked for Kagan at SCOTUS. There’s a weird 7 year absence not explained from the time she went from Sutton to Kagan. She graduated Harvard/Yale.

Trisha Anderson


72 thoughts on “Testimony of Trisha Anderson

  1. Thanks Daughn.

    Another great article by epoch.

    And your linkage has me SMH.

    As these schmucks job hop, seemingly always linked…”In line with Aubergine’s fabulous reporting on Covington and Burling, LLP, it is interesting to note Trishia Anderson left DOJ and returned to work with Eric Holder…….. at Covington and Burling, LLP.”

    Liked by 12 people

    1. I’m thinking, they job hopped until the era of Clinton Foundation. Weird that the Clinton Foundation was a ‘placeholder’ for so many.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. “…There’s a weird 7 year absence not explained ….”
      Working for the ‘Clowns’???

      If you have some spare cash it might be nice to toss it at Epoch Times. they are doing great work as REAL journalists.

      Liked by 6 people

  2. wow thanks Daughn! with articles like these, I get lost in all the titles, etc but you made it very easy to follow!
    again the epoch times gets an exclusive…
    seems like everyone was lying in testimony in some parts–each trying to push blame on the other–but there haven’t been any no knock raids on these people yet.

    Liked by 7 people

      1. 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 😁

        What is nice is you can hand these articles to your liberal friends who probably never heard of Epoch Times. Nice they are an IMMIGRANT paper and therfore get a 👍 from liberals RIGHT? 😁

        Liked by 3 people

  3. Daughn, thank you so much for summarizing this for us!! I am amazed you were able to give so much information as concisely as you did!! Thank you!!! Great post again.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. Thanks, Daughn. I love that Trisha decided she did not need to read the FISA application prior to signing because her two higher-ups had already signed off.

    That would NEVER fly in my career. Not only did I feel responsible to understand EVERYTHING I reviewed or approved, but one of my main responsibilities was also looking out for my bosses (who would rightly assume that I delve deeper into details than they do). Just b/c her superiors signed off, is her participation in this fraud relieved?

    If her position was that unimportant during the review/approval process, why are taxpayers continuing to fund that position. (NO, I do not give her a pass for claiming ‘unusual’ to have superiors do that. If the process was ‘unusual’, that is ALL THE MORE REASON FOR HER TO FULFILL HER RESPONSIBILITY.)

    Liked by 13 people

    1. Alison — At this level of the federal government, the culture is very hierarchical. Thus, the fact that her bosses signed off on the FISA meant she would too. But as you say, subordinates are expected to protect their bosses and this means that they are supposed to inform them when they are making mistakes. So, in order to believe that TA did not read the FISA application, you would have to believe:

      — she was willing to let down her supervisors in her responsibility of protecting them;
      — she was willing to accept responsibility for being a signatory to a document which enabled the US government to spy on an opposition candidate’s campaign, without undertaking even a modest level of due diligence;
      — she was perfectly willing to appear to be incompetent in the event anything negative arose from her signature on the FISA application; and most importantly:
      — she was not at all curious about the facts that supported the notion that a US presidential candidate might be a Russian spy, which if true would be monumentally important.

      I ain’t buying it.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. 👍
        Nice and logical.

        The only excuse would be if she KNEW Hillary would WIN.
        Because she KNEW the ELECTION WAS RIGGED.

        As Victor Davis Hanson
        “… prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end….”

        Before the election demonizing Trump as coluding with Russia would be an excuse for the UNLIKELY win of Hillary, a woman who could not fill an auditorium when she had a captive audience of Black Baptists and she was Keynote Speaker.

        They had to make it APPEAR that President Trump was even more unpopular.

        I think this problem of ‘APPEARANCE’ is one of the reasons President Trump has continued to do rallies. It counters the ‘prepping of the battlefield’

        Liked by 10 people

    1. This was the first one I read when the dog got up, which led me to TRISH.
      Shaffer, here, talks about when IG for the IC came to STRZOK, and reported all email, save 7, from Hillary’s server, was going to an address in Manassas, VA, owned by China!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Liked by 8 people

        1. During which time we also lost the CIA assets in China……AND, by law, when a serious reach like Hillary’s email occurs, DNI Clapper was legally obligated to perform a threat assessment.
          Clapper said he didn’t want to.

          Liked by 9 people

          1. CAN YOU SAY TREASON!

            Remember Billy Boy sold out the USA to China in return for $$$ contributions. And the sellout was not just the World Trade Organization membership. It included the secrets to our nuclear weapons and missle guidance systems!!! link

            Why would we think that his wife did not do the same?

            NOTE: [Hillary] Clinton Left Classified Documents in China Hotel Room

            Given all the evidence, it is the CLINTONS who should have been under surveilance and investigation and not President Trump.

            Liked by 8 people

  5. This is great stuff, Dawn! I have only read the first few lines (up to where you refer to Aubergine’s stuff) and I’m – like – BOOM! – hair blown back like I’m in a wind-tunnel!

    I was very suspicious about this gal early on, with her Holder connections and her mysterious presence in the Hillary email exoneration.

    I am NOT going to accept her testimony as “complete” while I read it. When I go into this (soon, after I take care of site logistics), I’m going to assume that the “Holderites” are creating a FIREWALL at the “written word” to keep the flames in FBI and lower levels of DOJ – to only admit what is provable – and that there was much SCHEMING “off-paper”. The juiciest stuff was never committed to paper, IMO – THIS is communist methodology. The question in my mind is whether this gal was part of the stuff on the other side of the firewall – the RED DIAPER side – or merely a TOOL of those people – a manipulable fellow traveler.

    Interesting times…..

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Three things.
      1. Very clear, if Lisa Page had followed normal reporting protocol, I doubt Russia Hoax would have happened.
      2. Very clear, July of 2015, and March of 2016, Hillary investigation required special counsel.
      3 Very clear, in Shaffer’s interview, he discusses the over lawyering of the FBI, being akin to allowing analysts oversee a military field op. The lawyers/analysts have no field experience as would a cop/FBI Agent or military operator.
      Schaffer points to Page texts released three days ago where Page was trying to bargain with State Dept, for more overseas attache positions if FBI would lower classification on Hillary emails. Shaffer claims an agent would have NEVER bargained and would not have given a damn about overseas positions.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. This is part of SWAMP TAKEOVER. Insertion of lawyers. This is part of a much larger takeover strategy, IMO. Legal paralysis. They used this stuff in “shallow state”, and are STILL USING IT. Lawyer embeds are critical to the takeover. Look at Holder. DOJ. Max resistance.

        YUP. That pattern is everywhere. Rip out the embed lawyers, replace with patriots looking for old abuse, and the walls of DS will crash everywhere across the nation.

        Liked by 7 people

        1. Yes!
          Makes perfect sense. HEYyyyyy, remember when we thought it was weird that the DC field office was not in charge of investigating Hillary? WHYYYYYYyyyyyy did it go immediately to McCabe and friends?

          Liked by 2 people

  6. I agree with Miss Elizabeth above: this is complicated. The more that comes out, it looks like very few people, if any, knew the entire situation, where all the documents were coming from, exactly what crimes were involved, etc. Whether than was by design or happy accident is a question without an answer at this point. Their main concern was protecting Hillary Clinton, though.

    The conflicting testimony, of course, is troublesome. At this point, it’s impossible to know who is telling the truth.

    By the time this all unravels, who knows, we might be switching out players that we didn’t know were involved. There’s several names here that are forgotten on a regular basis.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. OMG, Marica, the very best brain-storming includes EVERY option. Beanz, via you, bring another option to the table which is WOOWWWWWWW.
      We KNOW Fusion GPS has been reluctant to release their bank statements.
      We THOUGHT it was because they were paying journalists to spin their planted stories.
      What if the gov’t DID pay Fusion GPS to develop the Dossier?
      What if the counter-intel was out-sourced to a ‘contractor’.
      That would explain why Fusion GPS had the ability to access 702 search inquiries AND explain why the entire Hillary and Trump/Russia investigations NEVER followed the chain of command and were tightly held (12 people approx).
      Holy shitake mushrooms.
      If true, that means, the gov’t was paying Fusion GPS to ‘spy’ on Trump and run a PR campaign against him, with planted stories, and also feeding the info into the Hillary campaign.

      Liked by 9 people

    2. Yes, I am fairly sure that the Horowitz – Huber team have been working like mad to assemble a WHOLE bunch of indictments.

      The fact that SD INTENTIONALLY played sleight of hand on this is ‘interesting’ He leads people to believe Huber is doing ZIP!



      NOTE: The DOJ is not ALLOWED to give out ANY information on what or who they are investigating. This is to protect innocent people that may come under scrutiny from having their privacy invaded and lives messed up. A lack of information is NOT evidence of a lack of activity. SD sources probably no nothing of what is happening. After all that is why Huber, way out in Utah was picked. To keep a lid on leaks.

      Also the Clinton Foundation was under a DIFFERENT DOJ person and NOT HUBER.

      Liked by 7 people

    3. I caught Tracy’s thread earlier, and read through the Court testimony – where FusionGPS was trying to get a delay/restraining order on to keep their bank from giving up the two year records requested by House Judicial committee (Nunes) – Tracy notes that she found where it’s revealed that journalists might be in those bank transaction records. I’ve queried her on that – because I cannot find the exact statement in the Court transcript. It’s worth a read, always fun to see how Judges interact with lawyers in the Court.

      I don’t know how the Judge ruled in the hearing either. Anyone know that?

      Liked by 6 people

      1. It’s House Oversight committee. So many of them, hard to keep track. But it was Nunes’ and during the period when he was recused. FTR, Fusion’s lawyer, Taylor, comes across as a sleazebag and makes untrue statements.

        I guess that’s what they do when they want their way…

        Liked by 3 people

      2. I believe the court ruled against preventing the disclosure of FusionGPS’s bank records, which is how the House learned about funding from Perkins Coe and the DNC and the Hildabeast.

        I continue to believe that when Adm Rogers shut down “contractor” access to NSA databases because of unusual Section 702 queries involving US persons, he was talking about Nellie Ohr. If I am right, this story about FusionGPS being paid by the IC will lead to the revelation that they were a government contractor, and hence to the discovery about Nellie’s treasonous activities.

        Liked by 8 people

        1. Thanks. So much info, I can’t keep track of all the stories and details. I see how this is leading to Nellie Ohr, (and hubby Bruce is likely in trouble as well) – maybe we’ll have a good old spy story after all.

          Liked by 5 people

  7. Daughn,
    What do the lawyers you know think about the lawsuits against the Border wall/State of Emergency. Do they actually have ‘Standing’ to sue?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You’re right, someone with standing has to sue.
      Without looking at what various AG’s are filing, the ONLY way they can sue is if he misuses the military money. He has to spend it first. Makes no sense to punish me if I’m thinking about stealing money from a bank. Catch me in the act.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Hang on – getting more from husband – he is shaking his head at me.
        Here we go.
        1. They allege the act of declaring act of emergency is unconstitutional, they have standing because it is a constitutional claim but they have to show appreciable harm to their state.
        He does not see how they can show injury unless they are a border state. Beyond that, there is no question the actions of POTUS are constitutional because Congress gave him authority in 1976 ACT, which has been used over 50 times, never been challenged since, and including 31 currently pending.

        2. NOR can they challenge whether or not there is, in fact, a national emergency, which is a separate claim. First, since Trump has the authority already given by Congress, it is uniquely his authority to make such a determination, and the exec branch will not allow the legislative branch to interfere.

        3. Is his appropriation or use of funds subject to challenge? While each re-allocation could be a separate claim, as a series of acts, none can be challenged without showing DIRECT harm to the state making the challenge. Therefore, would require a specific lawsuit in a specific jurisdiction, as opposed to a blanket lawsuit, thrown down in the 9th circuit, because Orangeman is Bad.
        Example: State of Florida could claim, Trump use of funds takes away funds from their Homestead Air Force Base by X number of dollars, and would have to show cause and effect.

        Liked by 5 people

        1. For what it is worth on 3. and the example: If funds were already obligated and contracts made perhaps. If not it would be at DOD’s discretion to put funds elsewhere IMO. Meantime I believe I saw that Maine is trying to do just this but again I don’t see where they said the funds were obligated. Meanwhile still I’m sure we’ve seen many bases have funds already obligated, then pulled back from them in many of these Base Realignments in the past using BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure). BRAC is a Congressional authorized process done in concert with DOD. That said if there are funds obligated and being taken away I don’t see where BRAC can’t work backwards to mollify any concerns and it certainly does not seem to raise to the level of constitutional concern as BRAC is just a fluffy process to show everyone their concerns were taken into consideration before any base realignments took place.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Thanks,

        I noticed the ACLU is using 3 land owners to sue. Wouldn’t the land owners have to have been approached with an offer to buy an easement, refused to sell, and now be in court fighting a ‘taking’ by the government to have ‘standing’?

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Daughn quote and analysis:

    ==== “We understood, because of who Carter Page was, that people would second-guess the appropriateness of submitting the FISA application, and so we were taking extra care with the application itself.”

    Yet, at the same time, Anderson admitted that not only had she not read the original Page FISA application, but she was also unable to recall if she had read any of the Page FISA renewals.

    My comments:

    Great point. She’s “coloring her testimony”, IMO – stating the “party line” – STRAIGHT FROM OBOZO.

    She has the “story straight”.

    This speaks to why they put her on these things. PREDICTABLE OUTCOMES.

    This is pure SWAMP.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Good. All the ignorant basement-boys money and all the Commie billions won’t put Bernie or Hillary in the White House again.

      Let them Drain their own coffers to the max.

      I always felt like we CTHers were behind the 8-ball in tracking FEC reporting and uncovering questionable transfers among PACs etc. I rue that my aging eyes cannot take the hours of computer time to track this shit from the get-go.

      If you here of any White Hats co-ordinating an effort to identify the most egregious PACs/candidates, hiw to best research it, and how to divvy up the work, I’d be happy to participate as a worker bee. I (sadly) no longer have the physical stamina to organize it.

      Sorry – just realized this s/b on Open Thread, but I will leave it here (ducks Wolfie’s admonishment 🥰)

      Liked by 7 people

  9. AG Herring here in Virginia is known as the worst of the three, Northam, Fairfax and Herring. Herring is an outright communist and the more dangerous for our state.

    On another note, we subscribed to “Epoch Times’ print version in December. I think $50.00 per six months, published weekly. Mail delivery on time without a problem.

    We absolutely love it. Great articles covering a wide range of topics, not all politics by any means. It makes up for all the other lousy MSM news’ sources out there.

    Liked by 9 people

      1. Oh, and the great thing about the print version of Epoch – all the articles being posted online are in the paper, so there’s more opportunity to read and digest the content.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. This makes us sick, only a few votes, and likely illegal ones gave the victory to Herring:

        Virginia Attorney General Election, 2013
        Party Candidate Votes %
        Democratic Mark Herring 1,103,777 49.89
        Republican Mark Obenshain 1,103,612 49.89
        Write-ins Write-ins 4,892 0.22

        Liked by 4 people

        1. Yes, Chuck Kitchen lost to the DemonRat here in NC because they ran a Libertarian who soaked up enough votes for him to lose.

          Allegra Collins (D) 48.5 … 1,750,400

          Chuck Kitchen (R) 46.9 … 1,695,265

          Michael Monaco (L) 4.6 … 165,388

          L=R = 1,860,653 So Chuck would have won with votes to spare.

          They had to do it that way because he was aware of the NC voter fraud in the 2016 election and would have sued. (Also note they ran a woman (D))

          Liked by 5 people

          1. Yes, the Dems did the same here. Ran a ringer libertarian, who got at least 6.5% (Sarvis) in the governor’s race. Unheard of in Virginia. Stole enough votes from the GOP, to give it to McAuliffe.

            Rumor had it some Dem donor got Sarvis off the ground – signatures to get on the ballot.

            Liked by 3 people

              1. He’s our man here in Indiana. Me and my cane literally pounded the pavement here in our subdivision for him. DH talked to anyone who would listen about voting for him. And DH is a soft spoken deep voiced alpha male. 🙂 DH and I got to speak with him at a huge barn rally a few days before the election.

                Liked by 1 person

          1. I think Evan McMullin running in 2016 was also an effort to siphon votes off from the GOP ticket – deliberately supporters by the NeverTrumpers. McMuffin couldn’t gain adequate traction to make a difference in the Red states, and the Dems underestimated the fraudulent votes they needed in the rust belt blue states.

            Liked by 5 people

            1. I think the underestimation is exactly right. At 2:30 – 3 am the morning after that election, the lot of us got up to check the Electoral College score, and right then I said the monster vote was so big it overcame the cheating.

              Liked by 5 people

  10. I noticed the name Matt Axelrod in the list of those mentioned in the second meeting. I remembered that David Axelrod was a Pol Consultant for bummer and tied to the klintons also. He is a red diaper baby.




    Am wondering if Matt’s diaper is related.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s