China is actively preparing for war against the United States. The signs are obvious and ominous.
During the Biden regime, we saw the first signs of it. The Chinese began a campaign of “elite capture” in the Western Pacific, quietly buying legislators until they controlled the parliaments of at least eight nations and then negotiating defense agreements, that, in the case of the Solomon Islands, gives China the right to deploy troops there to put down civil unrest; see China Seeks to Buy Eight Pacific Island Nations While Joe Biden and His State Department Are Comatose – RedState. Part of this was undoubtedly due to Joe being afraid to upset Xi and force him to disclose the videos of Hunter engaging in his favorite activities: drugs and hookers. There were even rumors that Hunter may have had the same problem in China that Robert Menendez was rumored to have had in the Dominican Republic.
As the Biden clique ended its misrule and opened our Southern Border to unrestricted illegal immigration, unsettling images and video began to appear of bands of unaccompanied, military-aged males with a strange uniformity of belongings, appearing on the Texas-Mexico border after coming through Panama and Central America. Because if you were a Chinese illegal, you’d certainly want to add a 3,400-mile nature walk onto the trip.
NEW: Back in Jacumba, CA this morning, where we just witnessed this group of dozens of Chinese nationals cross illegally. pic.twitter.com/izSDN81ltd
Note that the line is probably 99% male. Also note that most of the Chinese guys have military-style haircuts, they have matching rucksacks, and they are standing at “parade rest.” I’m sure there is nothing unusual about it.
As this was happening, we began to notice that Chinese entities were acquiring farmland in the heartland, often in the vicinity of military bases. The bases in question were not just any military base. They were near strategic assets such as bomber bases and missile silos.
Reporters Carol Leonnig and Ken Dilanian wrote that Elizabeth Yusi, who oversees major criminal prosecutions in the Norfolk office of the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), had concluded there was “no probable cause” to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James with federal mortgage fraud.
But one phrase in their article exposed a critical problem: Yusi “plans to present her conclusion” to U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan (appointed interim U.S. Attorney on Sept. 22, 2025) “in the coming weeks.”
The formal briefing hadn’t happened yet. Yusi’s determination leaked to national media before she could present it to the official with final charging authority.
This investigation has determined that two DOJ employees in the Norfolk office—identified by MSNBC only as “two sources” who work with Yusi—leaked the internal prosecutorial deliberation before proper chain of command could be followed. While MSNBC does not specify their exact roles, the context—access to internal charging deliberations, knowledge of Yusi’s determination before formal briefing, and willingness to leak to national media—indicates DOJ colleagues with access to internal deliberations. The premature leak appears to violate DOJ confidentiality rules (28 C.F.R. § 50.2; Justice Manual 1-7.000) and may constitute obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 if shown to have been intended to influence Halligan’s charging decision.
The leak appears strategically designed to create media pressure and preempt the U.S. Attorney’s independent evaluation of evidence. If accurate, it represents a striking example of DOJ personnel using media coordination to protect a specific defendant from criminal charges.
“Coming weeks” (future): Yusi’s scheduled formal briefing to Halligan
Two DOJ employees—MSNBC identifies them only as “sources” who work with Yusi in the Norfolk office—bypassed the chain of command and went directly to national media before their supervisor could formally present her analysis to the decision-maker.
What Federal Law and Policy Prohibit
28 C.F.R. § 50.2 – Release of Information by Department Personnel
The federal regulation and Justice Manual prohibit DOJ personnel from releasing non-public information about pending investigations to anyone outside the Department. Internal prosecutorial recommendations before formal decisions fall squarely within prohibited disclosures. The two sources appear to violate this regulation by disclosing Yusi’s determination before it became a matter of public record through proper channels.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Obstruction of Justice
This statute prohibits “corruptly” endeavoring to “influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”
The leak appears to satisfy each element if the sources can be shown to have acted with corrupt intent:
Corruptly: Acting to protect a specific defendant by circumventing proper process
Endeavoring to influence: Using media pressure to influence the U.S. Attorney’s decision
Obstruct or impede: Preventing normal deliberative process by leaking before formal briefing
Administration of justice: The prosecutorial decision-making process itself
Unauthorized disclosure of law enforcement information
Discussing ongoing investigations with media
Revealing internal prosecutorial deliberations
Leaking to influence prosecutorial outcomes
Bypassing chain of command through external communications
Why the Premature Leak Matters: Strategic Obstruction
Why would two DOJ employees risk criminal charges and career destruction by leaking before formal briefing? Because the timing wasn’t accidental—it was strategic.
The premature leak accomplished multiple objectives:
1. Established Public Narrative Before the Decision
Once MSNBC reports “career prosecutors found no probable cause,” that becomes the media baseline. Any subsequent charging decision must overcome that presumption. The leak created public expectation of no charges before Halligan could independently evaluate evidence.
2. Applied External Political Pressure
Halligan now must decide under intense media scrutiny. If she charges James, she’ll be portrayed as “overruling career prosecutors” for political reasons—even though independently evaluating subordinate recommendations and making final charging decisions is her constitutional duty.
3. Framed Any Override as Corrupt
The leak inverted proper authority. Instead of Halligan independently assessing evidence, she’s now “pressuring prosecutors” or “politically motivated” if she reaches a different conclusion. The leak delegitimized her authority before she could exercise it.
4. Armed the Defense
Attorney Abbe Lowell can now cite “career prosecutors” as vindication. MSNBC’s article extensively quotes Lowell calling any prosecution “a brazen attack on the rule of law.” The defense won a media victory before any formal decision.
5. Contaminated the Deliberative Process
Most critically: Halligan cannot now evaluate this case normally. The leak poisoned the well. She must decide under political pressure, media attention, and with her authority already questioned publicly.
This sequence—leak before briefing, create media firestorm, apply pressure on decision-maker—appears designed to obstruct prosecution by making it politically toxic.
Why “No Probable Cause” Defies the Documentary Evidence
Our October 2025 investigation “The Anatomy of a Cover-Up” documented extensive public record evidence that directly contradicts the leaked “no probable cause” claim. The evidence remains publicly accessible in government databases and land records.
Virginia Power of Attorney: Contradictory Statements 15 Days Apart
August 2, 2023: James emails mortgage broker: “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence. It will be Shamice’s primary residence.”
August 17, 2023: James signs Power of Attorney declaring under penalty of perjury: “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”
Witnesses: Jennifer Levy (First Deputy Attorney General of New York) and Sharona Parchment (Attorney General’s office counsel) witnessed James sign the declaration and certified under penalty of perjury that “the foregoing is true and correct.”
Two government attorneys watched their boss sign a document that her own written email from 15 days earlier proves was false.
Brooklyn: 20-Year Pattern of Systematic Fraud
Property at 296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn. Certificate of Occupancy #B3P0010437 (issued January 26, 2001) legally classifies it as a 5-unit building. Physical verification: 6 electric meters, 5 doorbells, 5 mailboxes. NYC Department of Buildings confirmation: “CO #B3P0010437 ON FILE FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING.”
Yet across 10+ mortgages from 2001-2021, James consistently reported 4 units or fewer:
June 21, 2021: Citizens Bank – “Dwelling Only – 1 or 2 Family Residence”
August 23, 2019: Citibank – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
October 26, 2017: Wells Fargo – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
August 29, 2003: MERS – “Premises Improved by 4 Family Dwelling”
March 30, 2001: Chase Manhattan – “Premises Improved by One or Two Family”
Pattern: Two decades of false statements to federal lenders obtaining better residential loan terms reserved for smaller properties.
Federal HAMP: Emergency Relief Fraud
2011 HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) loan modification obtained by falsely reporting unit count. HAMP was emergency relief for struggling homeowners after 2008 crisis, explicitly excluding buildings with 5+ units. Modification documents show handwritten “4 fam” notation. Estimated monthly savings: substantial reduction through fraudulent qualification for federal relief.
That the false statement actually influenced the bank’s decision
That the bank relied on the statement
That the statement was material to loan approval
The Supreme Court held: “The phrase ‘for the purpose of influencing’ covers conduct intended to influence even if the influence is not achieved.”
Direct DOJ Precedent
United States v. Muhammad, No. 17-30193 (9th Cir. 2018): DOJ successfully prosecuted Felicia Muhammad for false FHA occupancy declarations based on contradictory Section 8 housing certifications versus loan applications. The Ninth Circuit upheld her conviction on appeal.
James’s evidence is stronger: written contradictory statements 15 days apart proving knowledge, government attorney witnesses to the false signing, 20-year pattern across multiple properties, and federal program fraud.
[For complete documentation with source links, see our forensic analysis: “The Anatomy of a Cover-Up“]
When documentary evidence shows contradictory sworn statements 15 days apart with government witnesses, a 20-year pattern, and federal program fraud, claiming “no probable cause” raises serious questions about either competence or motive. Either way, such a determination should not be leaked to media before the U.S. Attorney can independently evaluate the evidence.
What MSNBC Failed to Investigate
MSNBC’s reporters are not novices. Carol Leonnig is a four-time Pulitzer Prize winner who extensively covers the Justice Department. Ken Dilanian is NBC News’ justice and intelligence correspondent. They understand prosecutorial process and the significance of chain of command violations.
Yet their October 6 article:
Never questioned the timing: Reported Yusi “plans to present…in the coming weeks” without asking why sources leaked before formal briefing
Never examined the evidence: Never accessed Virginia land records, NYC mortgage databases, or federal HAMP documents—all publicly available
Never challenged the conclusion: Presented “no probable cause” as fact without independent verification
Never questioned coordination: Never asked whether sources coordinated with James’s legal team or why the leak happened when it did
Never explored motive: Never asked why DOJ personnel would bypass their superior through media
MSNBC didn’t investigate the leak—they became its vehicle. They took the leakers’ conclusion, presented it as vindication, amplified the defense narrative, and published it nationally without examining whether any of it was accurate.
The Constitutional Crisis This Creates
The structure of federal prosecutorial authority flows from the Constitution:
President → Attorney General → U.S. Attorneys → Career Prosecutors
U.S. Attorneys are presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. They exercise prosecutorial discretion on behalf of the executive branch. Career prosecutors serve at their direction, providing advice and recommendations. But final charging authority rests with U.S. Attorneys.
When subordinates leak recommendations before formal briefing, they attempt to:
Create external pressure through media
Preempt their superior’s independent judgment
Make override politically toxic
Effectively veto constitutional authority through public pressure
If this becomes standard practice, career prosecutors gain functional veto power over constitutionally-appointed officials through strategic media coordination. U.S. Attorneys become figureheads who cannot override subordinates without being accused of political interference.
These principles transcend politics. Whether you believe James should be prosecuted or consider it political persecution, the process matters. Leaking before formal briefing subverts proper authority regardless of:
Who the defendant is
Whether the underlying case has merit
What the political context is
Whether you support the current administration
The leak before briefing is always procedurally wrong.
Questions That Demand Answers
A Call for Investigation
The leak before formal briefing appears to violate:
28 C.F.R. § 50.2 – Federal regulation prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of information concerning pending investigations
Justice Manual 1-7.000 – DOJ policy governing media relations and protection of law enforcement information
18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Obstruction of justice, if the leak was intended to influence Halligan’s charging decision
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to obstruct, if coordination with James’s legal team or other outside parties can be shown
The DOJ Inspector General should investigate whether DOJ personnel violated these statutes and policies by leaking internal prosecutorial deliberations to national media before formal briefing to the U.S. Attorney.
Conclusion: When Leaks Become Obstruction
This investigation uncovered evidence—from MSNBC’s own reporting—that two DOJ employees in Norfolk, Virginia leaked internal prosecutorial deliberations to national media before their supervisor could formally brief the U.S. Attorney with final charging authority.
MSNBC documented the timeline: Yusi “confided to co-workers,” those co-workers became “two sources” who contacted MSNBC, and the briefing to Halligan was still “coming weeks” away when they published.
The public record evidence compiled in our prior investigation contradicts “no probable cause”: contradictory statements 15 days apart with government witnesses, 20-year pattern of false statements, federal program fraud, and direct precedent for prosecuting identical conduct.
The leak strategically accomplished: public narrative before formal decision, external political pressure on the U.S. Attorney, framing any override as corrupt or political, protection for a specific defendant, and contamination of the deliberative process.
If subordinates can predetermine outcomes through strategic leaks to compliant media, U.S. Attorneys lose their constitutional authority, DOJ personnel gain unaccountable veto power, and media outlets become instruments of prosecutorial manipulation rather than oversight.
On February 16, 2024, after her civil fraud victory against Donald Trump, Letitia James declared:
“Everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage to buy a home, and if they did, our government would throw the book at them. There cannot be different rules for different people. No one is above the law.”
She was right about the principle.
But her statement assumed institutions function properly—that prosecutors follow proper channels, that subordinates don’t bypass superiors through media leaks, that journalists investigate rather than launder, that the rule of law supersedes political allegiances.
This investigation found that none of those assumptions held.
Two DOJ employees leaked their supervisor’s determination to MSNBC before she could brief the U.S. Attorney—circumventing proper process, creating external pressure, and attempting to preempt a constitutional officer’s charging decision.
If DOJ personnel can protect defendants through strategic leaks, there ARE different rules for different people.
And those rules are being written through leaks to compliant journalists.
This investigation builds on our October 2025 forensic analysis “The Anatomy of a Cover-Up,” which documented how media outlets systematically misrepresented evidence in the James case. This report focuses on what that coverage revealed: potential obstruction of justice through premature disclosure of internal prosecutorial deliberations.
The entire world knew Joe Biden was corrupt and conflicted.
Now, finally, those in the know are beginning to speak out.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev told reporters former US President Joe Biden “provoked the war in Ukraine to cover up his family’s corruption.”
Kirill added, “The truth is coming out and justice must follow.”
Kirill Dmitriev is the chief of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Russian Direct Investment Fund since 2011, was appointed in February as Putin’s special envoy on international economic and investment cooperation.
JUST IN: 🇷🇺🇺🇸 Russian President Putin's special envoy Kirill Dmitriev says former US President Biden "provoked the war in Ukraine to cover up his family's corruption."
Kirill Dmitriev posted several tweets on his X account following the news on Monday that Joe Biden intervened to suppress a CIA report from being disseminated that exposed alleged corruption by the Biden clan in Ukraine. They also reportedly pressured to remove the Ukrainian official who had uncovered the wrongdoing!
⚡️Biden provoked the war in Ukraine to cover up his family’s corruption. The truth is coming out — and justice must follow. https://t.co/cGROvnD5kR
Chicago Radio Legend Marcow StoneZONE In this episode, Roger Stone welcomes Chicago radio icon Marcow to revisit his storied career how he broke into the radio scene, memorable moments on
A rogue FBI raided me and James O’Keefe. Roger Stone recounts how he and James O’Keefe were subject to what he describes as a rogue raid by the FBI. He
Will This Resource-Rich Canadian Province Be America’s 51st State? Roger Stone explores the provocative notion that a resource-rich Canadian province could become the 51st state of America. He analyzes Trump’s
Roger Stone delves into the events of January 6, 2021—the day Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to block the certification of Biden’s victory. Stone reviews how
Roger Stone is a seasoned political operative, speaker, pundit, and New York Times Bestselling Author featured in the Netflix documentary Get Me Roger Stone.
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump—all of these Presidents relied on Roger Stone to secure their seat in the Oval Office. In a 45-year career in American politics, Stone has worked on over 700 campaigns for public office.
“Roger’s a good guy. He
is a patriot and believesin a
strong nation, and a lot of
other things I believe in.”
Stone’s bestselling books include The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, The Bush Crime Family, The Clintons’ War on Women, The Making of The President—How Donald Trump Orchestrated a Revolution, and Stone’s Rules with a forward by Tucker Carlson.
For the last 15 years, Roger Stone has published his International Best & Worst Dressed List. Stone is considered an authority on political and corporate strategy, branding, marketing, messaging, and advertising.
Stone is the host ofThe StoneZONE on Rumble and is also the host of The Roger Stone Show on WABC Radio.
