Catherine Austin Fitts Explains the Financial Coup D'état

Published September 17, 2019

Catherine Austin Fitts has been following the story of the black budget, the missing trillions, and the back door in the US Treasury for decades. Now, her tireless work on this subject has been published in a comprehensive report from Solari.com, "The Real Game of Missing Money" Volumes 1 and 2. Today James Corbett talks to Fitts about FASAB 56, the missing trillions and the financial coup d'état which has liquidated the wealth of the United States and shipped it out the back door. SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=33017​

---

---

FASAB Statement 56: Understanding New Government Financial Accounting Loopholes

Published: January 10, 2019 - Solari Staff - Articles

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. History of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB)
III. FASAB and Standard 56
A. What Does Standard 56 Do?
B. Reporting Entities Within the Scope of Standard 56
C. Changes to Disclosure Standards Under Standard 56
D. Modifications to Avoid Disclosure of Classified Information
E. Reporting on Consolidation Entities
F. Interpretations Modifying Reporting Standards in the Future
IV. Administrative History of Statement 56
A. Commentary on Required Disclaimers
B. Federal Commentary on Standard 56 Generally
C. Concerns From Accounting Firms
V. The Results of Statement 56 for the Public
VI. About Us

I. Introduction

Financial accountability for the government is a cornerstone of a functioning representative democracy. The ability for the people to know where taxpayer money goes to is crucial to having an informed opinion regarding the actions of your representatives and to react accordingly. Unfortunately, as we’ve discussed in previous articles, the current state of government accounting is far from ideal–often bordering on useless to the public. This is largely due to lax enforcement of existing laws such as the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act, but also stems from the very real tension between completely transparent government financial disclosure and national security interests (see The U.S. Statutes Creating Modern Constitutional Financial Management and Reporting Requirements and the Government’s Failure to Follow Them, available at https://constitution.solari.com/the-u-s-statutes-creating-modern-constitutional-financial-management-and-reporting-requirements-and-the-governments-failure-to-follow-them/). As of the last few months, this tension has taken the future of government financial disclosure to the public to new levels of opacity. The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has released Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56 (Standard 56), taking government accounting practices from laxly enforced reporting standards to a new benchmark entirely–expressly approved obfuscation of reporting and, in some cases, outright concealing financials.

This sounds fairly alarmist at first blush but, simply put, Standard 56 creates a set of situations where government entities may move numbers around to conceal where money is actually spent or even not report spending outright. Many of the concepts in Standard 56 are not new and have been discussed in FASAB reports for nearly a decade. However, these new changes make a substantial portion of government financial reporting so unreliable as to not be a useful tool to the public (see FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_56.pdf).

In order to fully understand Standard 56, we will be taking a fairly deep dive on the new accounting standards it creates—from the history leading up to the new rules, to summarizing the exact changes of Standard 56. We’ve said that Standard 56 isn’t new, and this is true; it has hundreds and hundreds of pages of memorandums and the like which came before it, outlining the exact parameters of these new reporting rules. For that reason, a complete summary of what a government entity must report will not be possible–or likely even useful–in an article of this length. That being said, we will explore the role of FASAB itself, the functional changes of Standard 56, and how it will impact the ability of the U.S. taxpayer to see how their money is spent.

II. History of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB)

FASAB came about as a response to the requirements of the CFO Act. We previously wrote about the CFO Act in The U.S. Statutes Creating Modern Constitutional Financial Management and Reporting Requirements and the Government’s Failure to Follow Them (available at https://constitution.solari.com/the-u-s-statutes-creating-modern-constitutional-financial-management-and-reporting-requirements-and-the-governments-failure-to-follow-them/). Under the Act, the individual CFOs of covered federal agencies are responsible for preparing financial statements for regular audit in order to ensure accuracy in accounting. The CFOs also were tasked by the Act with integrating accounting and budget information into a form consistent with those used to make budgets, put together a uniform financial management system for their agency, and–perhaps most importantly–make sure that the system they put together allowed for actual useful measurement of the financial performance of the CFO’s agency.

However, the CFO Act was light on the details, and after the Act passed in 1990, there was a need to determine the actual details of the accounting standards required. Therefore, the Treasury, OMB, and Comptroller General signed a Memorandum jointly establishing the FASAB to “consider and recommend the appropriate accounting standards for the federal government” (see History of FASAB, available at http://www.fasab.gov/the-history-of-fasab/). Until 1999, FASAB simply gave recommendations to those three sponsoring entities. Then, in 1999, FASAB was approved to set final generally acceptable accounting practices (GAAP) for the federal government, with only a 90 day review period by the sponsoring entities. In 2002, the Treasury was removed as a sponsoring entity, leaving the OMB and GAO as the only entities able to object to FASAB set standards (see id.).

III. FASAB and Standard 56

As mentioned above, since 1999, FASAB sets the final GAAP for the federal government. These practices are then used throughout the federal government to determine the content and structure of the financial reports the CFO Act requires federal government agencies, departments, and the like to prepare. While the GAAP are not themselves literally binding law, they do show what the federal government considers to be compliance with the law. As long as an agency follows GAAP, there will generally be a presumption that it is also complying with the federal financial accounting requirements. Therefore, unless the underlying legislation is amended by Congress, FASAB essentially determines the extent of the federal government’s financial transparency (see id.). With the official adoption of Standard 56 as of October 4, 2018–completely unchanged from the pre-comment period version from July 2018–FASAB has determined that national security concerns essentially trump the need for financial transparency to the public. So how does Standard 56 do this?

A. What Does Standard 56 Do?

In the absolute most simple terms, Standard 56 allows federal entities to shift amounts from line item to line item and sometimes even omit spending altogether when reporting their financials in order to avoid the potential of revealing classified information.¹ However, as with all laws, nearly every word in that sentence is a complicated concept to unpack. Who counts as a federal reporting entity? When and how can these entities conceal or remove financial information from their reports? What information can be removed? When does something count as confidential, and who makes that determination? All of these questions have enormous bodies of writing in FASAB memorandums addressing, and sometimes failing to address, their answers.

The simplest place to start with understanding Standard 56 is its scope. It applies to federal entities that issue unclassified general purpose federal financial reports (GPFFR), including where one entity is consolidated with another. This means it only applies to otherwise unclassified financial reports where there is a risk of revealing classified information; classified financial reports are their own can of worms. (See generally, FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_56.pdf). Standard 56 also doesn’t remove the actual requirement to report, it just allows these entities to change their reports in ways that don’t reflect their actual spending (see id.). However, for the purposes of government transparency, determining who is responsible for classifying information, and/or removing that information from unclassified reports, is quite opaque for the average interested citizen.

B. Reporting Entities Within the Scope of Standard 56

The actual reporting entities empowered by the standards of Standard 56 include organizations which are included in the government wide GPFFR (see id.). This includes any entities that are “(1) budgeted for by elected officials of the federal government, (2) owned by the federal government, or (3) controlled by the federal government with risk of loss or expectation of benefits” (FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 47, p. 1, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_47.pdf).

However, many different departments, bureaus, and agencies prepare their own GPFFRs as well. The various entities that both prepare their own GPFFR and are within a larger reporting entity are called Component Reporting Entities. This includes executive departments, independent agencies, government corporations, legislative agencies, and federal courts (id. at 7). Their GPFFRs are then consolidated into the government wide GPFFR.

Under the Component Reporting Entities and included in their GPFFRs are various other organizations, from smaller departments to government contractors, which are split into two categories: disclosure entities and consolidation entities (see id.).

Consolidation entities are entities like agencies and departments. A consolidation entity generally (1) is financed through taxes and other non-exchange revenues, (2) is governed by the Congress and/or the President, (3) imposes or may impose risks and rewards to the federal government, and (4) provides goods and services on a non-market basis (see id. at 16). For instance, a department or corporation established by Congress to perform a government function is a classic example of a consolidation entity. Consolidated entities are reported by a larger entity as part and parcel of their financial reporting–as if they were one economic entity. We will discuss this type of entity later in great depth, as it constitutes one of the largest potential loopholes of Standard 56 (see id.).

Disclosure entities are financially independent organizations. These organizations still need to be included in the government wide GPFFR, but do not fully meet the four characteristics of consolidated entities above. They include quasi-governmental entities, organizations in receiverships and conservatorships, and organizations owned or controlled through federal government intervention actions (see id. at 16). A good example would be government-established non-profits that have a significant portion of their board appointed by the President but are entirely funded by their own activities.

Additionally, there are “related parties,” which are organizations where at least one of the parties involved has the ability to exercise significant influence over the policy decisions of the other party. This significant influence does not need to amount to control, but can include things such as representation on a board of directors, participation in policy making procedures, shared managerial personnel, and things along those lines. The existence of significant influence is generally determined through a full analysis of the particulars of each situation. This classification is usually applied to organizations that do not even rise to the level of a disclosure entity, but nonetheless would be misleading to exclude. Some common examples of related parties are some government-sponsored enterprises and organizations governed by representatives from each of the governments that created the organization, including the United States, wherein the federal government has agreed to ongoing or contingent financial support to accomplish shared objectives. Related entities generally do not include government contractors, government vendors, some non-profits, organizations created by treaty, or special interest groups–although they can in the right circumstances (see id. at 7 and 31-33).

However, there are also certain entities that would probably be consolidation or disclosure entities, but are expressly excluded from the government wide GPFFR: the Federal Reserve System and bailout entities (see Financial Report of the United States Government 2016, p. 227, available at https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/financial-report/01112017FR-(Final).pdf). In particular, this includes entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (see id.). If the government obtains rights in another entity which would give them the sort of control that normally makes a disclosure entity, but gains those rights when it “guarantee[s] or pay[s] debt for a privately owned entity whose failure could have an adverse impact on the nation’s economy, commerce, national security, etc. . .” those rights don’t count for determining a reporting entity (id).

This means that in addition to consolidation and disclosure entities, the scope of Standard 56 stretches to any organization which it would be misleading to exclude but isn’t otherwise incorporated into their list of covered entities. Because of this, although there is not a exhaustive list of whose financial reporting is impacted by Standard 56, if you can think of an entity related to the government, it is a safe bet they count as a covered reporting entity. This can include publicly traded corporations with significant funding and/or control from the federal government.

C. Changes to Disclosure Standards Under Standard 56

For these covered entities, Standard 56 offers financial reporting exceptions in a few situations for national security purposes. These reporting exceptions are the meat of Standard 56, three rules substantially modifying the reporting requirements of the above discussed entities to varying degrees (see FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, p. 6, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_56.pdf).

In general, disclosure entities are required to provide their financial reporting in a manner which is clear, concise, meaningful, and transparent (see FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 47, para 71-73, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_47.pdf). This is done through a single, integrated report of finances disclosing the relationship of the organization to the government and related entities, the nature and magnitude of their activity and their financial balances, and a description of financial and non-financial risks, potential benefits, and, if possible, the amount of the federal government’s exposure to gains and losses from the past or future operations of the disclosure entity or entities (see id. at para 74). This generally includes how much control or influence over the entity is exercised, key terms in their contractual agreements, percentage ownership and voting rights, a summary of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, gains and losses, key financial indicators, information on how their reports are stored and can be obtained, and quite a bit more (see id.). Essentially what is required is a transparent summary of how money is spent to provide accountability to the public. Standard 56 creates three loopholes to this disclosure standard.

D. Modifications to Avoid Disclosure of Classified Information

The first new loophole allows disclosure entities to modify their financial reports to “prevent the disclosure of classified information in an unclassified GPFFR” so long as these modifications do not change the net results of operations and net position. (See FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, p. 6, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_56.pdf).

This ultimately means that, when done to conceal confidential information, entities can–and are essentially required to under the terms of Standard 56–shift money from one line item to another so long as the totals stay consistent. The rule also allows entities to omit the line item entirely while retaining the amounts so as to maintain the same net results. This means that readers of these reports will never know if the amounts reported spent on specific projects or things are an accurate representation (see id.). As you might expect given the rationale of this being a national security precaution, there will not be any narrative in these reports explaining or revealing where a modification has taken place (see id.). If they can maintain net position in their reports, an entity can even omit a project entirely by folding it into another department or project within the same entity.

While it could obviously be worse for transparency purposes, the alternative would be that the amounts would just be omitted entirely. That brings us to the next two changes to accounting standards created by Standard 56.

E. Reporting on Consolidation Entities

We briefly discussed consolidation entities above as one of the larger loopholes to reporting within Standard 56. This is because the second change to reporting requirements of Standard 56 allows the reporting entity which the consolidation entity is consolidated with to modify reports to avoid disclosure of confidential information even if that modification changes net results of operations or net position. The reporting entity can move the financials of the consolidation entity or even choose not to include it in its report; full stop. (See FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, pp. 6-7, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_56.pdf).

The concept of consolidation entities being incorporated into the reports of a larger reporting entity is far from new. FASAB has memorandums detailing the rules regarding consolidation from as far back as 2012 (see FASAB Federal Reporting Entity Memorandum, November 29, 2012, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/tab_a1_concepts_federal_2012dec.pdf). By itself, it is not a particularly problematic issue. Under FASAB rules, consolidation in financial reporting is appropriate for those organizations financed by the taxpayer, governed by elected or appointed officials, imposing risks and rewards on the taxpayer, and providing goods and services on a non-market basis. However, consolidation is not appropriate for organizations operating with a high degree of autonomy (see id. at 7).

In general, where an organization is controlled by the federal government and stands to make or lose money, but doesn’t have enough independence for a disclosure entity, it is included somewhere as a consolidation entity (see FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 47, pp. 14-15, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_47.pdf). As you’ve seen, the determination of what sort of entity something is hinges a great deal on the level of autonomy of the entity–the greater the control the government has, the more likely something will be classified as a consolidation entity. This control doesn’t mean the government has to actively manage on the day-to-day, but does require an examination of–among other things–whether the government can do things like appoint a majority of board members, dissolve the organization, authorize or deny action within the organization on some or all issues, or direct the policies or use of assets within the organization, and/or direct investment decisions. Consolidation entities are only assigned to one component entity and, in general, where that sort of control exists for a consolidated entity, the public would rely on the larger reporting entity for information on the consolidation entity’s financials (see id.). Under the second accounting standard change within Standard 56, the public can’t even count on these financials being reported in the first place (see FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, pp. 6-7).

F. Interpretations Modifying Reporting Standards in the Future

The final change to accounting standards within Standard 56 doesn’t do much at the moment, but has the greatest potential to undermine financial transparency in the future. It allows FASAB to issue Interpretations of Standard 56 in the future which would allow other modifications to financial reports for the purpose of avoiding disclosure of classified information. FASAB can, and likely will, release these Interpretations over time. These Interpretations can allow modifications to reporting without regard for maintaining an entity’s net results or net position in their reporting. Those interpretations may even be classified themselves (Appendix A, A16), resulting in a portion of the federal government’s accountability standards being concealed from the public (see FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, pp. 6-7).

Looked at in the most optimistic light, this will allow FASAB to ensure that Standard 56 isn’t abused and issue rulings of when disclosure is necessary in situations not yet considered. Looked at in a less optimistic light, this means that the ability of the government to obfuscate financial records will continue to grow in the coming months and years, without public oversight, as Interpretations add to or clarify these existing loopholes.

IV. Administrative History of Statement 56

Statement 56, and its reporting exceptions, have been in the works within FASAB for months. When an issue is identified, FASAB performs preliminary deliberations, prepares the initial documents, and then releases a review version to the public for comment and public hearings. After the comment period, FASAB enters further deliberations to consider the comments and make revisions. Then, the Board approves the proposed statement by a two-thirds majority vote, and submits it to the principals (the OMB and the GAO) for review. If neither principal objects to the proposal after 90 days, it is published by FASAB and is added to the GAAP for federal entities (Definition: FASAB (Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board), available at https://searchcompliance.techtarget.com/definition/FASAB-Federal-Accounting-Standards-Advisory-Board).

For Standard 56, the exposure draft was published on July 12, 2018, with comments due by August 13, 2018. Seventeen comments were submitted by various departments, agencies, and accounting firms (see FASAB Classified Activities, available at http://fasab.gov/ca/). The final Statement 56 was published on October 4, 2018, with little if any change from the exposure draft. However, the comments on Statement 56 are themselves interesting and somewhat enlightening.

A. Commentary on Required Disclaimers

FASAB proposed two possible alternatives for disclosure/disclaimer requirements under Standard 56. Either reporting entities could be given a choice in whether or not to consistently disclose that certain presentations may have been modified, or all reporting entities must disclose the possibility that certain presentations may have been modified, regardless of actual modification (see FASAB Exposure Draft Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56: Classified Activities, available at https://fas.org/sgp/news/2018/07/fasab-review.pdf).

The SEC gave a fairly entertaining comment on Standard 56. After answering “No Comment” to literally every preceding question, the SEC gave its thoughts on FASAB’s proposal for how component entities should disclose that they have modified their reports. The SEC, the nation’s foremost agency in the fight against financial fraud, doesn’t think that every component entity should have to disclose that modifications may have occurred, and especially the SEC shouldn’t have to. The reasoning the SEC gave for this position was that they “believe that this would be misleading and likely to cause confusion for financial statement readers, by implying that SEC is involved in classified activities. It’s likely that SEC, as well as other agencies, would receive numerous inquiries from the public and from the media by including such an unexpected disclaimer in its financial statements.” In other words, they’re worried it would look strange to the public if they disclosed that they had modified their financial reporting, despite no such modification. The public may think it odd that component entities such as the SEC would make such a, in their own words, “unexpected disclaimer” (FASAB Exposure Draft: Classified Activities, SEC Comment, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/CA_13_SEC.PDF).

Veterans Affairs and the Association of Government Accountants had a similar stance, and while they commented on other aspects of Standard 56 as well, they joined the SEC in criticizing a mandatory disclaimer, and suggested disclaimers would only be appropriate when GPFFRs were actually modified (see FASAB Classified Activities, available at http://fasab.gov/ca/).

Several other commenting parties had a different take on the required disclaimers. For instance, the Department of Defense’s Office of The Chief Financial Officer and the Department of the Interior wanted agencies to have the option to give a disclaimer or not, irregardless of whether or not they made changes to classified information under the new standard (id.). The Department of Energy’s Office of The Chief Financial Officer even felt it would be appropriate to have no disclaimers whatsoever, even if GPFFRs were materially modified (id.).

B. Federal Commentary on Standard 56 Generally

Various government agencies commented on the “meat” of Standard 56, and most were in favor² of FASAB’s proposals in general. For instance, Housing and Urban Development had fairly positive comments across the board, and deferred greatly to the need to classify information. The organization agreed with all of FASAB’s methodology and conclusions, and stated the new standards would strike a correct balance between protecting classified information and a commitment to open government.

However, oddly enough, the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General was particularly concerned with the proposed Statement. They wrote “[t]his proposed guidance is a major shift in Federal accounting guidance and, in our view, the potential impact is so expansive that it represents another comprehensive basis of accounting” (FASAB Exposure Draft: Classified Activities, Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General Comment, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/CA_8_DoD_OIG.PDF). They suggested already existing methods like redaction are sufficient to protect classified information, and stated the FASAB “should clarify whether this proposed standard, or subsequent Interpretations, could permit entities to record misstated amounts in the financial statements to mislead readers with the stated purpose of protecting classified information. We believe that no accounting guidance should allow this type of accounting entry” (id.).

Additionally, while not quite as critical as the Inspector General, the Treasury expressed concerns about the modification of net results of operations and net position.

C. Concerns From Accounting Firms

The accounting firm Kearney & Company had a more critical take on the proposed standard as well. They worried that “[t]he FASAB’s proposed approach could result in material omissions in GPFFR. . . If GPFFR can be modified so material activity is no longer accurately presented to the reader of financial statements, its usefulness to public users is limited and subject to misinterpretation” (FASAB Exposure Draft: Classified Activities, Kearney & Company Comment, available at: http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/CA_14_Kearney_&_CO_.PDF).

The accounting firm KPMG was more concerned with clarity and consistency, stating that because of potential classified interpretations, only some people with clearance will be able to understand the complete set of GAAP. Because of this, “[i]t is not clear how management of each federal entity will be able to assert that their GPFFR have been prepared in accordance with GAAP when management does not have access to all of GAAP” (FASAB Exposure Draft: Classified Activities, KPMG Comment, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/CA_2_KPMG.PDF).

V. The Results of Statement 56 for the Public

There is a legitimate existing tension between the need to protect confidential government information and the public’s interest in financial transparency and accountability. Standard 56 isn’t without possible justification. That being said, the concerns of both the accounting world and many within the federal government itself are extremely valid.

Statement 56 undercuts the reliability of government accounting standards and financial statements to such a degree as to render an already questionably valuable reporting tool virtually useless to the public. The possibility of false or omitted information renders the reports largely unreliable as to actual amounts, as does the fact that even an accurate report is rendered questionable by the very existence of modifications that are not necessarily exposed. Classifying portions of the federal GAAP mystifies the process even further, and the fuzzy definitions of reporting entities leaves the potential for this to touch not only direct government entities, but government contractors and other private (but federally entangled) entities. The general disclosure of the government–requiring all reporting entities to report the potential of modifications whether or not they actually exist in their report while simultaneously forbidding the actual disclosure of the actual existence of any modifications–is essentially a worst case in terms of transparency for the public.

VI. About Us

This article was written and edited by Michele Ferri and Jonathan Lurie of The Law Offices of Lurie and Ferri for use by The Solari Report. Michele Ferri and Jonathan Lurie are both practicing attorneys out of California. The Law Offices of Lurie and Ferri focus on working with start-up businesses as well as on intellectual property and business law issues. They can be found at http://www.lflawoffices.com/ or contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Sources

• FASAB
  • http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_56.pdf
  • http://www.fasab.gov/documents-for-comment/
  • About: http://www.fasab.gov/mission-objectives/
  • History: http://www.fasab.gov/the-history-of-fasab/
  • General info: https://searchcompliance.techtarget.com/definition/FASAB-Federal-Accounting-Standards-Advisory-Board
  • Reporting Entities
    • http://www.fasab.gov/concepts-federal-entity/
    • http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_47.pdf

________________
^{1 The extent of what qualifies as classified or confidential information is determined by Executive Order 13526 (the most recent standard set back in 2009), changes over time, and could fill a book by itself. (https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html).}

^{2 The Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, and The Interior, all had agreement with the proposed standard more or less across the board, with a few exceptions for disagreements about the disclaimers.}

^{https://constitution.solari.com/fasab-statement-56-understanding-new-government-financial-accounting-loopholes/}

---

---

Missing Money 2020 Update

https://missingmoney.solari.com/missing-money-update-may-2020/

---

---

Solari is a private company founded by Catherine Austin Fitts

The Secrets of Silicon Valley: What Big Tech Doesn't Want You to Know

Published: July 05, 2019

Once a sleepy farming region, Silicon Valley is now the hub of a global industry that is transforming the economy, shaping our political discourse, and changing the very nature of our society. So what happened? How did this remarkable change take place? Why is this area the epicenter of this transformation? Discover the dark secrets behind the real history of Silicon Valley and the Big Tech giants in this important edition of The Corbett Report.

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/siliconvalley/

---

---

More than 400 Ex-intelligence Officers to Investigate Election Irregularities

- By Terri Wu - The Epoch Times - January 2, 2021

Over 400 people from the Intelligence Community (IC), military, law enforcement, and the judiciary have formed a loose network to investigate irregularities in the 2020 election.

Robert Caron, one of the organizers of this network, began his intelligence career with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He later worked for the Special Situation Group, a task force established by President George H.W. Bush that includes strategic planning, technologies, and foreign and domestic investigations.

He told The Epoch Times that he was recruited to the network in 2014, during which time many in the intelligence community (IC) were seeing an increase in improper operations. Many IC officers were withholding information from their leaders, and their leaders were withholding information from the public. Caron mentioned that in 2014, Lt. General Michael Flynn called out then-President Barack Obama for “not acting properly on intelligence.”

In the same year, Obama fired Flynn over management issues. On Aug. 7, 2014, Flynn left his post as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and ended his 33 years of an army career. After President Donald Trump pardoned Flynn last month, Flynn said in an interview with The New York Post that he was framed via the Russia-collusion investigation partly because Obama was afraid of Flynn’s ability to expose his corruption.

“President Obama was not acting properly on intelligence that he received concerning Benghazi,” Caron said, referring to an attack of U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of several U.S. officials. He said he believes it was then that a lot of people from the intelligence community got together and started recruiting people to join the network.

After numerous reports of irregularities in the 2020 election, the investigation network expanded. Many have focused on investigating the election, according to Caron, who said most are volunteering, while some are getting paid for the inquiry. He said that as far as he knows, the size of the network is “way over 400” and that each member of the network sees obvious election fraud based on their own observations.

Caron said that the network includes former intelligence officers, analysts, operatives, military, law enforcement, and judiciary from the FBI, CIA, Military Intelligence, DIA, and National Security Agency (NSA), among others, as well as many former intelligence officers in other countries.

“The fraud was so massive and so blatant, despite what the mainstream media said, that we need to get this information out to the public,” said Caron. “That’s why more and more people from the intelligence community and law enforcement are coming out, which is unheard of.”

Caron shared an example of information control by the mainstream media that he witnessed in McAllen, Texas, when Trump visited the border wall there in January 2019.

He said he saw two groups on both sides of the street. A group of about 100 was on one side, and a much larger group was on the other side. “A lot of people, because of what was told in the mainstream media, thought that all the people in the big crowd were the ones against the president. But no, they were the ones that were for the president.”

He said he asked them what they thought and learned that the border wall made their families feel safer, and was told that without the wall, various Mexican criminal organizations would cross the border and force their children to sell drugs.

One of the IC network’s current investigations focuses on foreign interference during the Nov. 3 election, with the Chinese Communist Party being a significant player.

---

---

George Soros got hacked. Can you guess what we found?

Published: August 18, 2016

Welcome to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news.

---

---

Also See:

Catherine Austin Fitts - Covid 19 Coup d'état - Full Interview - Planet Lockdown

The Coronavirus and the Constitution | Constitution Day Celebration Panel

Crimes Against Humanity: The German Corona Investigation - The PCR Pandemic

Heated Vaccine Debate - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - vs - Alan Dershowitz

Dr. Carrie Madej Warns About New Vaccine Technology

Respiratory Therapist Exposes the Fake Virus Pandemic

Many Health Benefits of Garlic, The Organic Wonder Drug

Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance

Bill Gates denies ever talking about digital vaccine passports, but there’s video proof he did

Tuesday, December 15, 2020 - by: Ethan Huff

(Natural News) Back in the summer, billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates admitted during a virtual TED Talk that his plan is to require all humans to obtain digital vaccine passports before being allowed to travel again post-COVID. Since that time, however, Gates and his allies have attempted, but failed, to memory hole all evidence of this statement.

If you try to search online for footage of Gates’ June 2020 TED Talk, the only thing that now pops up are edited versions of it that remove the portion where Gates admits to wanting to track and trace humanity with plandemic microchips and quantum dot tattoos.

“So eventually there will be sort of this digital immunity proof that you know will help facilitate the global reopening up, um,” Gates stated in the original footage, which as far as we can tell has been scrubbed everywhere except for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Instagram page.

For whatever reason, Gates is suddenly shy about wanting to inject people with subdermal microchips and luciferase tattoo ink as part of the “Global Reset” that the so-called “elites” have planned for the world.

Unless you already knew that Gates made the aforementioned statement during the original livestream, it is difficult to tell in the “updated” footage that this portion of the interview was removed. Most people who watch it will agree that Gates “never said it,” simply because it is no longer available on YouTube or anywhere else in the mainstream media.

Bill Gates was plotting global genocide and Mark of the Beast implants long before COVID-19

Back in April, Gates admitted during an “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) event on Reddit to much the same thing, though.

Gates told interested Redditors about his goal to transform the world in the name of “public health” by unleashing “digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine, who has received it.”

The former Microsoft head also talked about quantum dot tattoos, ID2020, and other Mark of the Beast paraphernalia that will soon be released from the pit of hell to “cure” the world of COVID-19.

In July 2019, roughly six months before COVID-19 was even a thing, Scientific American published an in-depth article about how Gates had commissioned scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to develop said technology.

Just in time for COVID-19, Gates invested billions into a program that will eventually implant quantum dot tattoos into children so their health status can be tracked using smartphone apps.

Microsoft also developed an implantable chip technology with sensors that will monitor body and brain activity. Those who comply with Gates’ microchip scheme will be “awarded” cryptocurrency payments and other “perks.”

Also in July 2019, Gates bought 3.7 million shares of Serco, a military contractor with contracts in both the United States and the United Kingdom that tracks and traces pandemic infections and vaccine compliance.

Other Gates investments include $20 million in MicroCHIPS, a company that makes digital implants, as well as $1 billion in EarthNow, a company that promises to blanket the globe in 5G video surveillance satellites.

“EarthNow will launch 500 satellites allowing governments and large enterprises to live-stream monitor almost every ‘corner’ of the Earth, providing instantaneous video feedback with one-second delay,” reports Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also acquired 5.3 million shares of Crown Castle, which owns 5G spy antennas including more than 40,000 cell towers and 65,000 small cells.”

More of the latest news about Bill and Melinda Gates can be found at Evil.news.

More of the latest news about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) can be found at Pandemic.news.

---

---

Who Is Bill Gates? (Full Documentary, 2020)

Published: June 13, 2020

There can be no doubt that Bill Gates has worn many hats on his remarkable journey from his early life as the privileged son of a Seattle-area power couple to his current status as one of the richest and most influential people on the planet. But, as we have seen in our exploration of Gates' rise as unelected global health czar and population control advocate, the question of who Bill Gates really is is no mere philosophical pursuit. Today we will attempt to answer that question as we examine the motives, the ideology, and the connections of this man who has been so instrumental in shaping the post-coronavirus world.

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/gates

---

---

TED - How we must respond to the coronavirus pandemic | Bill Gates

TED - March 25, 2020

---

---

Also see:

The Coronavirus and the Constitution | Constitution Day Celebration Panel

Crimes Against Humanity: The German Corona Investigation - The PCR Pandemic

Heated Vaccine Debate - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - vs - Alan Dershowitz

Respiratory Therapist Exposes the Fake Virus Pandemic

Catherine Austin Fitts - Covid 19 Coup d'état - Full Interview - Planet Lockdown