Spread the love

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2022

(Feb. 22, 2022) — Given the recent revelations  – finally – contained in filings by Special Counsel John Durham regarding his investigation into the thoroughly debunked – but mainstream media mal-reported – “Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax” discussed here and here, the time may have come to consider the next step: let us call it a “whistleblower revolution.”  After all, we are only discussing the protection and preservation of the Republic against attempts to destroy it from within…, aren’t we?

If true – always a prudent caveat until irrefutable evidence is adduced and validated in court – the allegations of the Durham investigation seem clearly to support the conclusion that a concerted effort was made to surreptitiously monitor and report on the Internet and other communications activities of President Donald Trump… after his inauguration as President and after he became Commander-in-Chief.

And who were the alleged perpetrators and facilitators? Apparently the 2016 Clinton for President Campaign, “Tech Executive-1” as the head of “Internet Company-1,” and the Democrat mouthpiece law firm of Perkins Coie, along with various related individuals beholden to them.

And given the careful wording of Durham’s “conflict of interest” motions filed in the Danchenko and Sussmann cases, there may be a lot more factual evidence yet to come to light, but already moving through the Durham indictment pipeline.

Enter the whistleblowers. 

The Durham revelations may present something akin to the first crack in a dam holding back a gigantic flood.  If the dam is cemented together with the mortar of anti-Trump conspiracy and deceit, maybe, just maybe, a few strategically detonated whistleblowers could destroy the dam.

Just how much corruption is there in Washington, DC?

The anti-Trump Deep State is populated by many individuals, entities and interest groups, most with ulterior motives not conducive to the health of the Republic.  Aside from their hatred of Trump, many of them also hate the United States of America and the principles for which it stands.  Oh, sure, they cloak their anger in faux outrage over the “threat to democracy” posed by Trump…, while simultaneously undermining the very democratic policies and principles they purport to be defending.  

While the vast majority of those individuals, entities and interest groups do not have the best interests of the Republic at heart, it is highly unlikely that 100.00% of them are so indoctrinated.  Stated otherwise, there are undoubtedly one or more – perhaps even a “few” – who deep down retain the vestiges of patriotism once taught in public schools and even in some colleges and universities…, back in the day.  They can still identify and differentiate between “good” and “evil” insofar as the perpetuation of the Republic is concerned.

Specifically, there are probably dozens, if not scores of individuals in the web of law and lobbying firms, “research organizations” and computer tech entities – both in D.C. and elsewhere – possessed of information which, if revealed and acted upon, could finally expose the depth of mendacity and deceit which pervades the dark leviathan that is the Deep State vendetta against Donald Trump.  He threatened its existence, so he must be crushed, even now as a private citizen.

Those individuals – and they…, know…, who…, they…, are… – may hold the key to finally exposing and bringing to ground those who would destroy the Republic by trying to destroy Trump.  They need to step forward, and sooner rather than later, because November 2022 may be too late.

Not satisfied with two unsuccessful and completely baseless impeachment trials or the fact that Donald Trump is no longer – for the moment – sitting in the Oval Office, the Democrats, the Left and a host of leftist media apparatchiks persist in marginalizing and dismissing Durham’s investigation as an “old-news-nothing-to-see-here-move-along” waste of time and taxpayer dollars.  Not this time.

Recalling the time-worn adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, even the most mendacious entity must have within its ranks individuals who still harbor vestigial patriotic sentiments and do not wish to see the nation devolve into a smoldering, borderless “region” of North America stripped of the name “The United States of America.”  A revolution of whistleblowers could help prevent that, and it would appear that revelations yet to come from Durham’s investigation would be an excellent place for such an effort to start.

Let us speculate: what if a whistleblower came forward with information that Hillary (“BleachBit, What BleachBit?”) Clinton herself met with Tech Executive-1 at, say, the Mayflower Hotel in D.C., in a “private dining suite” in December 2016 to discuss the plan to monitor President-elect Trump’s Oval Office communications?  What if another tech-sector whistleblower could confirm that a series of texts and emails existed confirming cooperation in the monitoring plan between and among the Democratic [sic] National Committee, Perkins Coie and…, say…, the SUC, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.?

President Donald Trump at White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing, April 20, 2020

Repeat: the two foregoing examples are speculative hypotheticals, with no immediate proof of existence.  But that is what a speculative hypothetical is: a “what if” question posed in search of a potential answer.  Given the already patent disdain and outright hatred of Trump on display by his detractors, would it come as a surprise to anyone if either of those hypotheticals ultimately proved true?  Really?

Most people do not want to be fired from their jobs, punished, censored or “canceled” in the event that they reveal or “blow the whistle” on misdeeds, fraud, corruption and crimes of which they may become aware.  They try to keep their heads down, hoping things will improve on their own without their intervention or that “someone else” will do the right thing…, which is why the beast has become as colossal and menacing as it is today. 

However, recall that there remains a federal criminal statute regarding the crime of “misprision of a felony,” 18 U.S.C. § 4, stating: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Interesting…, no?  Potential whistleblowers – and they…, know…, who…, they…, are – might well ask themselves: would they rather be fired and “cancelled,”… or indicted?

It is also why a whistleblower revolution – or perhaps just a whistleblower “insurrection” aimed at righting the ship of state – may be “just what the doctor ordered.”  And by that, your humble servant most assuredly does not mean Dr. Fauci.  C’mon, man…

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. This from the article:
    “The anti-Trump Deep State is populated by many individuals, entities and interest groups, most with ulterior motives not conducive to the health of the Republic. Aside from their hatred of Trump, many of them also hate the United States of America and the principles for which it stands.”

    In my opinion the anti-Trump Deep State fears Trump more they hate him. Trump is feared by both political parties who did and said nothing to prevent the race protected, Soros funded and CIA created Barack Hussein Obama from being sworn-in as America’s putative president in 2009. Trump was the only presidential candidate who had openly shown, repeatedly, that he did not believe Obama was eligible and also likely using a fraudulent identity. Millions of American citizens agreed with Donald Trump. What would happen if Hillary, the planned and promised in 2008 after Obama cover president lost to Obama’s biggest nemesis Donald Trump, even after a promise to Hillary she would win the after Obama presidency as part of her reward for dropping out of the 2008 Democrat primary, to insure Obama became America’s putative president in 2009?

    To answer that question just look at what has in fact happened since Trump defeated Hillary. The answer is clear, but avoided because it involves admitting both political parties are complicit in effectively giving America’s government and her military her enemies when John Roberts swore-in the ineligible, identity fraud Barack Hussein Obama in 2009. The answer will not be touched because Obama is still both race and ineligibility protected. America’s government and her military were effectively given to her enemies in 2009. Crimes don’t get any bigger than that and neither does the required cover-up. The many people complicit in The Obama Fraud are fighting release of, and actions on, the truth about Barry as if their lives depend on it……………………..A crime so far too big to prosecute was committed when Obama was sworn-in and is being covered-up, forever, to protect the many complicit in both political parties.
    America’s future is in deep trouble…Pray the whistleblower revolution is happening Now!

    1. “President Obama was born in the United States. Period.” Who said that?

      There’s no evidence that Obama was “created by the CIA” (whatever that means). Not is there any evidence Obama ever used a fraudulent identity.

      1. Response from the author:
        “Who said that?” The fact that Donald Trump said that Obama “was born in the United States. Period…” means nothing with respect to the separate question: is he a “natural born Citizen” as contemplated by the Founders? Probably not….

        1. Exactly, and IMO the reason Trump said that was to get the Obama media to shut-up so he could cover what he wanted, and become President Trump…..it worked.

        2. It means the imagined motivations of this imagined “Deep State” cannot be correct.

          Regardless, every court that has considered the issue on the merits concluded birth in the United States is sufficient for being a natural-born citizen.

          None of which is relevant to duly authorized analysis of internet traffic.

  2. A bit of trivia:
    Misprision of a Felon is derived from the English Common Law.

    Blackstone described it this way “MISPRISION of felony is also the concealment of a felony which a man knows, but never assented to; for, if he assented, this makes him either principal, or accessory”


    Misprision of a felony was visit introduced into US criminal code in the Crimes Act Of 1790.

    “Sec. 6. And be it enacted, That if any person or persons, having knowledge of the actual commission of the crime of wilful murder or other felony, upon the high seas, or within any fort, arsenal, dock- yard, magazine, or other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, shall conceal and not disclose and make known the same to some one of the Judges or other persons in civil or military authority under United States, on conviction thereof, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of murder of killing”


    Today there are four elements necessary to prove misprision of felon.

    The fourth element is:

    “that he took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal.”

    It is the “affirmative steps” that is important. Knowing that a crime was committed and not reporting it is not considered concealment.

    In the imaginary scenario that DeMaio has created the “scores of individuals in the web of law and lobbying firms, “research organizations” and computer tech entities – both in D.C. and elsewhere – possessed of information” would not be guilty of misprision unless they took affirmative action to conceal the felony.

    The “scores” would also have to know that actions being taken in Mr. DeMaio’s speculation were felonies.

  3. Duly authorized analysis of internet traffic is not surreptitiously monitoring the president’s communications.

    Speculation is not evidence; it is based on the absence of evidence.