Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

At The FBI, The Rotten Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From The Tree

You can’t make this up.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Put these clichés together and you have the chilling saga of two FBI agents linked by blood whose conduct has forever stained the Bureau’s reputation.

One bad apple is former FBI Deputy Director Larry A. Potts. He was in a supervisory role during the Waco raid and demoted in the 1990s following the Ruby Ridge fallout, two of the bloodiest incidents in FBI history.

The other is Walter Giardina, who was among several senior FBI officials terminated by Director Kash Patel in August 2025. His firing came after months of Senate Oversight letters citing whistleblower allegations about his role in Trump-related investigations.

As I recount in my new book “I Went To Prison So You Won’t Have To,” Giardina was also the FBI agent who put handcuffs and leg irons on me after orchestrating my circus-style arrest at Reagan National Airport, an ambush that dragged my fiancée into the spectacle as collateral damage.

Here’s the you can’t make this up kicker: Potts is Giardina’s father-in-law.

Potts: A Study in Bad Apple FBI Culture

In the early 1990s, Larry A. Potts rose quickly at FBI headquarters, eventually becoming the Bureau’s second-in-command as deputy director. His ascent coincided with the Ruby Ridge tragedy of 1992. Potts was in the Washington oversight chain when the Bureau abandoned its standard deadly-force policy and adopted special “rules of engagement” for that operation.

Under normal FBI policy, agents were authorized to use lethal force only when facing an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. At Ruby Ridge, however, the rules were rewritten. The order declared that “any armed adult male observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin could and should be shot.”

This was not the restrained standard of constitutional policing. It was a license to kill. Within 24 hours, Randy Weaver’’ 14-year-old son was dead, as was Vicki Weaver, killed while holding her infant daughter in her arms. Barely a year later came Waco. After a 51-day standoff, the FBI’s siege — armored vehicles, CS gas, aggressive psychological tactics — ended in a fire that killed 76 men, women, and children.

Under intense scrutiny, FBI Director Louis Freeh demoted Potts; he then retired in 1997.

But not before “Pottsgate.”

To justify billing the Bureau for Potts’ lavish retirement dinner, senior managers created paperwork for an ironically named “ethics conference” at Quantico. When exposed, letters of censure followed. Rank-and-file agents fumed: falsify records as a line agent and you’re fired; do it for a boss’s party and you get a slap on the wrist. (DOJ OIG—Potts retirement; GAO).

Potts would later sit at the family table with his daughter and son-in-law Walter Giardina. Giardina is not just the FBI thug who put me in handcuffs; he also tried, in my view, to take down Donald John Trump.

Keep reading

FBI, DEA and others target international drug conspiracy affecting the Tri-State

They say it was enough fentanyl to kill 70 million people.

The feds announced in Cincinnati on Wednesday the breakup of an international drug ring. FBI Director Kash Patel was in Cincinnati for the announcement.

Operation Box Cutter yielded three arrests and the indictments of 22 foreign nationals and four companies in China. The particulars of the operation were disclosed at the FBI’s Cincinnati field office.

“We’re done playing whack-a-mole,” said FBI Director Kash Patel.

He stood with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio and the DEA, describing how the team unraveled a complex web that was an international drug ring.

“We didn’t just arrest a couple of people,” said Patel. “We charged an enterprise-wide system in mainland China to include dozens of individuals in banks and companies that are responsible for making these lethal precursors and shipping them here. And you should ask yourself this: what other country in the world has a fentanyl crisis? None. Just us.”

Because of that, Patel says the feds focused on the companies that make the drugs used to cut fentanyl. They are based in Hebei and Guangzhou, China, shipping the drugs via U.S. Mail and other standard carriers to Tipp City, just north of Dayton. The drugs are used to mix with fentanyl, increasing the yield multiple times, without losing the potency of the drugs.

“Two were arrested recently in Dayton by our FBI SWAT team. And the third is in another state, and we are coordinating their arrest. So through the investigations, we have seized multiple kilograms of cocaine, methamphetamine, metatomidine, and other drugs,” said Elena Iatarola, the Special Agent in Charge at the FBI Cincinnati Field Office.

Local 12 went to the websites of a couple of the companies indicted. They are still online selling the same drugs to anyone who will buy them. The U.S. Attorney was asked how he expected this to dent the drug distribution network if there is no way to extradite those responsible in China.

Keep reading

Bipartisan bill targets nitazenes: Synthetic opioids 40 times stronger than fentanyl

A new bipartisan bill is aiming to stop the spread of nitazenes, a deadly synthetic opioid that’s 40 times stronger than fentanyl and already causing a new wave of overdose deaths.

The two lawmakers spearheading the bill, Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., and Rep. Michael Baumgartner, R-Wash., both of whom took to social media to lobby for the legislation.

These drugs are the next fentanyl: cheap to make, easy to traffic, and devastating families across America,” Vindman wrote on ‘X.’ “This threat won’t wait, neither can we,” Baumgartner also posted.

While speaking with Dr. Shravani Durbhakula about nitazenes last fall, she told The National News Desk the synthetic opioids were first detected in the U.S. over five years ago. The most common form, five to nine times stronger than fentanyl. But others could be up to 40 times more potent. All are resistant to Narcan.

They were developed in the 1950s and the 1960s but they were not approved by the FDA because of how potent they actually are. They quickly make people stop breathing. Sedate them,” said Durbhakula.

This year, the U.S. is seeing a rise in nitazene overdose deaths. A map put together by the New York Post showed the areas most affected, which span from New Mexico to Virginia. Drug Enforcement Administration Houston Division Special Agent in Charge Jonathan Pullen recently told the Post, just as authorities in the U.S. and China increased efforts to tackle the surge in fentanyl, drug manufacturers shifted production to nitazenes.

I do think we are behind the curve. But that’s been the case with these synthetic opioids — that they shift,” Pullen said.

According to Pullen, nitazenes are produced in China, often with the help of Mexican cartels who then move north across the border. But although the federal government is making headway to tackle the threat, including President Trump’s border crackdown, more work needs to be done.

It’s very very difficult to stay ahead of it, so we’ve got to continue to step up our enforcement along the border,” said Pullen.

In addition to increased border security, the Trump administration has also hit China and Mexico with sanctions and tariffs to force foreign governments to act against illicit drug producers.

Keep reading

Washington’s Fiscal Doom-Loop

With U.S. gross debt now at a staggering $37 trillion—roughly equivalent to the combined debt of all other major advanced economies—Washington is trapped in a fiscal doom loop of its own making. Decades of bipartisan overspending have pushed the nation to a point where a mere 1% increase in mean Treasury interest rates adds $370 billion to annual debt service costs. The arithmetic is unforgiving. Yet, Donald Trump’s second administration is doubling down, pursuing policies that risk accelerating the crisis.

Consider the following combination: President Trump’s push for the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates by as much as 3%, his aggressive mix of tax cuts, tariffs, and subsidies aimed at “reshoring” American manufacturing, his championing of increased military spending and expanded domestic outlays. Absent fanciful projections about growth rates, it is overwhelmingly likely that tax revenues would plummet while spending obligations soar, widening the already yawning fiscal gap.

Already the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates annual deficits of 6-7% percent of GDP over the next decade, regardless of which party controls Congress. Trump’s first term saw the national debt rise by $7.8 trillion, driven by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), COVID spending, and bipartisan spending increases. Biden picked up where Trump left off, and Trump in his second term is promising more of the same, with proposals to extend the TCJA and cut corporate taxes further, potentially adding an additional $5 trillion to $11.2 trillion to the debt by 2035.

Those hoping the Federal Reserve will be able to do anything to help, including President Trump, are bound to be disappointed. In the case of hoping for lower interest rates to finance yet more spending, while the Fed does control short-term rates, longer-term yields are market-driven. Aggressive rate cuts could spark inflation fears, pushing up 10- and 30-year bond yields, as economists Ryan McMaken and Kenneth Rogoff have noted. Long-term rates will likely rise despite the cut. This dynamic is already evident, with markets resisting Fed dovishness by increasing Treasury borrowing costs.

The Fed faces a trap: tightening policy balloons debt service costs, while loosening invites market backlash, undermining the dollar and raising long-term rates. In 2024, net interest payments reached $879.9 billion, surpassing defense and Medicare spending. With the debt-to-GDP ratio at 119.4% in mid-2025, the Fed’s room to maneuver is shrinking.

Then there is the fading “Dollar Discount”: For decades, the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency has shaved 0.5 to 1% off annual Treasury borrowing costs. However, in an increasingly multipolar world—where China, Europe, and others are developing parallel payment systems and central banks are diversifying their holdings—this “exorbitant privilege” is at risk. The so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” a rumored proposal for selective default on foreign-held debt, has heightened doubts about U.S. creditworthiness. Moody’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating in 2025 cited unsustainable deficits and growing interest costs, warning that the debt-to-GDP ratio could hit 134% by 2035. Eroding confidence in the dollar will drive borrowing costs higher, compounding the crisis

Keep reading

The Feds Defend Their Tortures Again

While the public’s attention this summer has been drawn to masked ICE agents arresting folks without warrants, presidentially imposed sales taxes on goods emanating from foreign countries that have been invalidated by three federal courts, and the fruitless Kabuki dance between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, last month, the federal government continues its slow assault on the Constitution at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In April, the feds suffered a major setback when a military judge ruled that evidence obtained under and as a result of torture is inadmissible at the trial of Ammar al-Baluchi, who is one of the five remaining defendants accused in the attacks of 9/11. Al-Baluchi is the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the so-called mastermind of the attacks. So-called because Osama bin Laden was the person designated by the feds as the mastermind until they murdered him and his family – without any 9/11-related charges having been filed against him – in his home in Pakistan.

Mohammed and al-Baluchi were to have been tried together, along with their three alleged accomplices when the feds decided that the torture of Mohammed was too egregious for them to defend in a public courtroom.

So, the prosecutors then initiated plea negotiations with Mohammed’s defense lawyers, which resulted in a plea agreement that was accepted by the court, the defense, the prosecutors and their bosses in the Department of Defense. Then the Secretary of Defense at the time, Lloyd Austin, overruled the general in charge of the prosecutions and directed the prosecutors who had initiated, drafted and publicly accepted the plea agreement to ask the court to nullify it.

Following standard rules of criminal procedure, the court declined to nullify the Mohammed plea agreement since, by the time Sec. Austin objected to it, it had become a binding contract. An appeals court disagreed, and the Mohammed case is now back in the military trial court without a trial date.

There is no trial date because there is no trial judge assigned to the case. The trial judge who accepted Mohammed’s guilty plea has since retired, and no judge has been assigned; nor are any judges volunteering for the case. The case docket consists of 40,000+ pages of documents for a judge to read prior to trial.

Whoever the judge is will be the fourth on the case. The prosecution team has changed as many times as well.

Why is this happening? Largely because military justice is to justice as military music is to music – slow, heavy, ponderous, unending and repetitive. Had President George W. Bush not created, and his successors not accepted, the crafting of a Devil’s Island 90 miles from Florida and instead permitted the Department of Justice and civilian federal judges to handle these cases, they would have been resolved 20 years ago.

But Bush believed that at Gitmo his torturers could do as they wished. He argued that because Gitmo is in Cuba, the Constitution didn’t apply, federal laws couldn’t be enforced and those meddlesome federal judges couldn’t interfere.

Keep reading

Epstein survivors creating ‘own list’ of high-profile sex abusers

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse announced on Wednesday they’re preparing their own list of high-profile names who allegedly sexually abused them, and one of the victims indicated Donald Trump was the pedophile’s “biggest brag forever” when it came to friendship, though she did not suggest the president was among the perpetrators.

“Let me announce now,” said Lisa Phillips, a model brought to Epstein’s Caribbean island in 2000, “several of us Epstein survivors have been discussing creating our own list of names. We know the names. Many of us were abused by them. Now together as survivors, we will confidentially compile the names we all know were regularly in the Epstein world. And it will be done by survivors and for survivors, no one else is involved. Stay tuned for more details on that.”

Epstein’s victims have declared they will release the names of his clients independently, without any government involvement.

They said they’ve had enough and will expose every single client they know. pic.twitter.com/AgG5ZitULY

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) September 3, 2025

“I’m demanding justice,” Phillips added. “Congress must choose. Will you continue to protect predators? Or will you finally protect survivors?”

Another victim of Epstein’s sexual abuse, Chauntae Davies, pointed out how Jeffrey would brag about being friends with fellow Palm Beacher Donald Trump.

“His biggest brag forever was that he was good friends with Donald Trump,” Davies said. “He had an 8-by-10 framed picture of him on his desk, with the two of them.”

Keep reading

Hegseth Doesn’t Rule Out Regime Change in Venezuela, Suggests More US Strikes on Boats Are Coming

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Wednesday didn’t rule out the possibility of the US military pursuing regime change in Venezuela and suggested more US strikes on boats in the region were coming.

Hegseth made the comments in an interview on Fox News on Wednesday morning, the day after the US bombed a boat in the Southern Caribbean that it claimed without evidence was carrying drugs, marking the first US kinetic military action in the name of combating drug trafficking, though the real purpose of the attack may be part of a new push to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“We have assets in the air, assets in the water, assets on ships because this is a deadly serious mission for us, and it won’t stop … with just this strike,” Hegseth said. “Anyone else trafficking in those waters who we know is a designated narco-terrorist will face the same fate.”

When asked if the goal was regime change in Venezuela, Hegseth said that was a “presidential decision” and added that “we’re prepared with every asset that the American military has.”

Brandan P. Buck, a historian and Foreign Policy Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, told Antiwar.com that it was unlikely the Trump administration would have much success trying to combat drug trafficking with military strikes.

“The US military’s strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat is a significant escalation in the long and failed war on drugs. It is unclear if the administration’s goal of deterring drug trafficking through lethal force will be achieved, but such a strike is unlikely to succeed in this way,” Buck said. “As long as the United States remains a multi-billion-dollar drug market, criminal organizations will continue to take risks for massive profits. One strike on one drug-running boat is unlikely to change that calculus.”

Buck also noted that it was unclear what the administration’s real goal is. “The strike also raises alarming questions about its true near- and long-term objectives. It is plausible that the Trump Administration is using the strike as a trial balloon for expanded military action against cartels throughout the region, or against the Maduro regime in Venezuela,” he said.

“Either would present troubling questions about executive authority to authorize military action in a post-Global War on Terror world and significantly raise the likelihood of plunging the US into another prolonged war,” Buck added.

The US has claimed that Maduro is the leader of the Cartel of the Suns, a term used to describe a network of Venezuelan government and military officials allegedly involved in drug trafficking, but it does not actually exist as an organization. Despite the lack of a structured organization, the US recently labeled the Cartel of the Suns as a terrorist group and increased the bounty on Maduro’s head to $50 million over claims of “narco-terrorism.” Maduro and other Latin American leaders have strongly denied the US claims.

Keep reading

The U.S. Should Be Skeptical about ‘Iran-Backed’ Militants

Israel carried out airstrikes on Thursday that killed the civilian political leaders of Yemen’s Houthi movement. Though they grossly violated international law, the bombings were nonetheless celebrated in Washington.

Corporate media like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported the strikes as a “symbolic and psychological blow” that demonstrated “improved Israeli intelligence” against the Houthis and their Iranian sponsors, while neocons like Mark Dubowitz of the mysteriously funded Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel think tank, applauded the attack on the “Houthi-controlled terror leadership.”

But despite the “mission accomplished” attitude from Israel and its neoconservative loyalists in America, the attacks will likely do very little to stop the Houthis, whose campaigns reflect Yemen’s own history of resistance rather than Iranian control. The group remains extraordinarily independent, producing much of their own weaponry and pursuing a strategy driven by their own political grievances with Israel and the United States.

Their central grievance is the U.S.-backed Israeli genocide and famine currently being perpetrated against the Palestinians in Gaza, with whom the Houthis identify—because, as political scientist Norman Finkelstein explains, “what was done to Gaza was done to them.”

Before Israel set out to fulfill the demands of its ultra-nationalist politicians to “destroy all of Gaza’s infrastructure to its foundation” and “erase the Gaza strip from the Earth,” Yemen was the country considered to have the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, with over 23 million people in need of humanitarian assistance by 2022.

Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, like Gaza’s today, has been entirely man made. More specifically, it has been perpetrated by Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Israel. They imposed a brutal blockade and bombing campaign that reportedly caused the deaths of nearly 377,000 people in Yemen between 2015 and 2021, more than 85,000 of whom were children who starved to death.

The Houthis’ identification with the Palestinians of Gaza is therefore neither rooted in religious “fundamentalism” nor in subservience to Tehran—it reflects a deep sense of solidarity forged through parallel suffering at the hands of U.S.-backed clients in the Middle East. This explains why, despite the assassination of its civilian leadership, the Houthis have vowed to “escalate [their] operations as long as Israel continues its policy of genocide and starvation.”

The corporate media largely ignores these motivations, obfuscating the political grievances of Israel’s enemies by recasting them as irrational and intractable. Treating the Houthis as mere Iranian proxies has about as much explanatory power—and serves the same propagandistic function—as George W. Bush’s claim that America suffered the 9/11 attacks because “they hate us for our freedoms.”

By erasing the role of U.S. military action on behalf of Israel in generating the very groups that threaten it, Israel and its American lobby are able to portray Houthi attacks as further evidence of a region-wide Iranian conspiracy to destroy Israel. This axis of resistance, the story goes, simply can’t be reasoned with and potentially threatens the United States as well, therefore requiring unlimited funds and unconditional support from American taxpayers.

As the Israeli government pushes President Donald Trump to attack its regional adversaries, Washington ought to be skeptical of Israel’s intelligence about them, especially regarding the purported threat posed by the so-called “Iran-backed” network of militant groups.

Keep reading

Europe Advancing ‘Precise’ Plans For Troops In Ukraine, Backstopped By US

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the Financial Times that European nations are developing detailed plans to potentially send troops to Ukraine as part of a future peace agreement, despite it being obvious to all the world that Moscow would never agree to this as a basis of peace or ceasefire.

Hawkish European leaders continue to claim they have support from President Donald Trump for pursuing such a plan, which would see a joint multinational force of troops from various European armies, backed by a US security guarantee. “President Trump made it very clear that the US would be part of the security backstop,” von der Leyen said.

“Security guarantees are paramount and absolutely crucial,” she described of the European consensus. “We have a clear road map and we had an agreement in the White House… and this work is going forward very well.”

She had also said that “President Trump reassured us that there will be [an] American presence as part of the backstop. That was very clear and repeatedly affirmed.”

Indeed Trump had declared immediately after hosting European leaders at the White House last month, “We’re willing to help, especially from the air – because no one has what we have.”

However, there still appears to be some distance between Washington and European expectations, with one senior official recently explaining to Axios, “Europe can’t drag out this war with unreasonable expectations and expect the US. to foot the bill. If Europe chooses to escalate, that’s their decision – but they risk turning a potential win into a loss.”

Von der Leyen admitted there’s a long road ahead in terms of organizing a joint commitment for a multinational ‘peacekeeping’ force for Ukraine.

“Of course, it always needs the political decision of the respective country, because deploying troops is one of the most important sovereign decisions of a nation,” she said, adding that “the sense of urgency is very high . . . it’s moving forward. It’s really taking shape.”

Her words were issued during a tour of European countries which lie close to Russia, which the Kremlin is sure to see as provocative in its own right – given for example she was at a military base in Estonia, and at one point was along the Poland-Belarus border, and in Bulgaria, and toured arms depots and factories in ‘NATO’s eastern flank’.

Keep reading

Trump Again Suggests He Could Back European Troops in Ukraine With Air Power as Part of a Security Guarantee

President Trump suggested in an interview with the Daily Caller published on Tuesday that he would be willing to back a European troop deployment in Ukraine as part of a security guarantee for a potential future peace deal, an arrangement Russia has made clear it would never accept.

Trump was asked if he was considering using US troops for security guarantees, and he said “no,” but made clear he was open to the idea of using US air power, something he has previously suggested.

When asked if he would use US planes for the security guarantees, Trump said, “Maybe we’ll do something. Look, I’d like to see something get solved. They’re not our soldiers, but there are, five to 7,000, mostly young people, being killed every single week. If I could stop that and have a plane flying around the air every once in a while, it’s going to be mostly the Europeans, but we, we’d help them. They, you know, they sort of need it, and we’d help them if we could get something done.”

The insistence from European officials on sending troops to Ukraine could be what ends up sinking the peace process. Russia has said that it must be involved in talks on security guarantees for Ukraine, but European leaders continue to discuss the idea with Ukrainian officials without Russian involvement.

Trump was asked how his support for the potential security guarantees squares with an “America First” foreign policy and pointed to the fact that NATO countries are now purchasing US weapons for Ukraine, although a recent deal that will arm Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles will be partially funded by US military aid.

“Look, we were spending hundreds of billions of dollars in that war. Now we sell equipment to NATO. I got them to go from two to five. Nobody thought that was, and pay. We sell equipment to NATO. We don’t sell it to Ukraine. We sell it to NATO. They pay for the equipment. We’re not spending any money on the war,” Trump said.

Keep reading