I am a citizen investigator exposing a cover-up: David Brock pays a guy to spread disinformation on many sites, including this one. I call him HLI, but he has used many "sockpuppet" identities including HighLevelInsider, Senate Anon, and Wisconsin_Is_Corrupt. He is also the YouTuber "Tory Smith". In this installment, I revisit my Day 8 post and a post I made in April. See my submission history for all reports to date.

In this series, I have admitted to some minor mistakes. For instance:

I thought HLI deleted two posts but Millenial_Falcon did.

I assumed Susan Sanders was Herb Sanders' wife, but she is his daughter.

I'm now admitting to a deliberate and major misstatement. In my Day 8 post, I said Paul Ryan was the Speaker in June 2013. But John Boehner was. He beat Nancy Pelosi in the election of Jan 2011, and again in 2013, resigning as Speaker on Oct 29, 2015. Ryan took over, after Boehner's first choice, Kevin McCarthy, was rejected by the rank and file.

Credibility is essential to this project. So why take the risk of giving wrong info? I had a theory about the cover-up. Things that Brock and HLI don't talk about, can be far more important than things they do. I needed proof. What they chose to do about my "mistake" would tell me if I was right.

On Day 3, I gave an example of this pattern. Obama's mentor, Frank Davis, almost certainly molested him as a boy. As a state senator, Obama hung out in gay clubs. A witness, Larry Sinclair, says he performed oral sex on Obama, twice. Two other gay men linked to Obama were killed execution-style in 2007, when he was about to run for President.

No sockpuppet operated by HLI has ever gone anywhere near this very credible story. Instead, when it comes to Obama, they talk about anything else. Now, some stories that HLI chooses to tell about Obama may be true. But the main goal here is misdirection. If people are talking about "Michelle is a tranny," or Obama being CIA from birth, then true or not, they aren't tying him to pedophilia.

Another example: Neither WIC nor ESOTERICshade have ever acknowledged the anomalies in the Milwaukee recount. They won't debate me about it, not even uttering the word "Milwaukee". When challenged, they invariably change the subject. Strange since it's a provable crime by the Clinton gang in Wisconsin.

Here's why that pattern matters today: None of HLI's sockpuppets ever mention John Boehner, for any reason. "Tory Smith" accused practically every employee or agency of the federal government, including 70 Senators, Dick Cheney, Bernie Sanders, the Air Force, ICE, FBI, CIA, etc. But no Boehner. He may have mentioned Boehner in early deleted videos, but his remaining videos date back only to November 2015, a week after Boehner resigned.

You can check the saved texts of HighLevelInsider, both here and on /pol/, and see that he never mentioned Boehner. Senate Anon never did either. Most surprising of all, @Wisconsin_Is_Corrupt has never mentioned Boehner. This is the shocking one. It doesn't matter whether you view WIC as a sockpuppet, or as genuine. Either way, WIC's silence about Boehner is very strange.

It is strange (a) because WIC casts a huge net of vague accusations centered on Paul Ryan, yet never mentions the man who asked him to take over as Speaker. But even stranger, (b) WIC and I were engaged in a nasty confrontation for five days before I made my Day 8 claim that Ryan was Speaker in 2013. Our fights continued until Day 12, and have re-erupted several times since. WIC called me "a lying evil piece of garbage," among other names. So why would he not humiliate me for getting this wrong? "Hey genius, nice theory about Paul Ryan, except he wasn't Speaker in 2013!" Zing!

Only one reason makes sense. Comments here are accessible to Google, easy for any investigator to find. If HLI/WIC said nothing it must be massively damaging for Boehner's name to even get mentioned along with the Glenn Beck whistleblower incident. That's why Brock and HLI let me get away with saying Ryan was Speaker, rather than correct me. Ryan and Pence remain important, but Boehner emerges as the real key. I believe that Boehner was the weak link in executing the plan.

If you haven't already, please read my two previous submissions (links above). Then bring up the Beck video once more, to see the clues relating to Boehner.

BECK: We talked about the NSA whistleblower, and I think -- am I like really one of the only ones? Am I really alone on the right?

GRAY: You're not alone. There are some.

3RD VOICE OFFSCREEN: It is divided, though. I would say it is divided, yeah.

GRAY: It is, definitely. And as we talked to the Congressmen yesterday -- I talked to several of them about the whistleblower -- a lot of them believe that it's a good thing it's out, [but] they don't like the way he did it. They wanted him to come to some committee, they wanted him to go to Congress.

BECK: Yeah, well, whatever.

GRAY: And like I said to one of these Congressmen, he's probably doing this in part for his safety, because if it was me, I'd want it out there, so I've got some protection.

This all has new meaning when we put Boehner into the story. He was quoted the day before (Jun 11), calling Snowden a traitor. So when Beck and Gray say those "on the right" want whistleblowers before Congress, they are talking about Boehner. Beck himself did not see Snowden as a traitor; he would have broadcast this new whistleblower live on his show. But that wasn't possible. The end result is still the same as I said on Day 8: Beck had to believe that the Speaker (Boehner, not Ryan) would invite the whistleblower to address Congress, or he never would have mentioned him or the document.

The revised sequence of events goes like this: The whistleblower reached out to Paul Ryan (the "ally" Beck mentioned), asking for security (using Pence), release of documents online and on TV (using Beck), and an address to Congress (through Boehner). Ryan remains the only logical choice for this role. He had the personal relationships to make all three things happen. After maybe 24-48 hours of working with Pence and Boehner, the plan looked like a "go," so on the 11th, Ryan told Beck of the plan and gave him the document. Then sometime on the 12th (perhaps during Beck's broadcast), the plan fell apart.

Before we examine Boehner's role, there's a loose end here, an unnamed Senator who may have played a part.

BECK: I was talking to a Senator yesterday, and he said, "What's it about?" And I said, "Senator, I'm not going to tell you what it's about. I'll just tell you that it will take down the GOP, it will take down the Democrats, it will take down many members of Congress, it will take all of them down, and outside of Congress. It will take them down."

If Beck confided in the wrong Senator, that could have wrecked the plan. But my guess is that this was Rand Paul, another favorite of Beck's. I doubt Beck would be dumb enough to say this to, say, Chuck Schumer, or to any Democrat or Republican he didn't trust implicitly. But he would trust Rand Paul. The Senator from Kentucky is very unlikely to be tied into the Clinton child sex trafficking operation. Nothing is guaranteed, but I would suspect at least 95 other Senators before I'd suspect him.

So far I haven't found a disinfo/punishment campaign aimed at Rand Paul. Or rather, since he is the subject of many rumors, I should say I haven't found any new campaign. But since he never saw the document, or knew just what the big story was, perhaps no campaign was needed.

Now, what went wrong? What did Boehner do? We still don't know. I think he was bullied or blackmailed, rather than being bribed or a pedo himself. (It seems very unlikely that he is a pedo. The whistleblower would have known from intelligence intercepts, and not bothered asking to address Congress.) Boehner isn't necessarily a traitor in the strict sense; it might have been duress, or speaking to the wrong person. But the evidence says he was the weak link. Pence and Ryan were targeted by major, prolonged disinfo, implying that HLI/Brock did not trust them to stay quiet. Boehner seems to have suffered no punishment (at least since he resigned), and yet HLI/Brock are still unwilling, four years later, to even say his name.

There is other evidence too. If you had to pick someone who would fold under pressure, Boehner would be a top choice. First, he is known as a "go along to get along" guy, not a hardliner. He took a lot of money from lobbyists, and when he retired, he became a lobbyist himself and took a board seat with Big Tobacco.

Second, Boehner is reportedly an alcoholic, "hammered" by early evening every day. In Sep 2015, Beck wanted to do a story on Boehner's alcoholism, as well as his complete lack of principle, but his staff vetoed the idea. Boehner resigned within weeks even though they did not run the story.

Finally, Boehner is a Catholic. He said he stayed on until he could get Pope Francis to address Congress, in Sep 2015. He wept openly while Francis spoke. He then resigned a few weeks later. Perhaps a gesture of contrition? Worth considering anyway.

So that's my revised view of the Glenn Beck whistleblower episode. Sorry for misleading people, but it did work. Comments?