Dave Emory’s entire lifetime of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained here.  (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books available on this site.)
COMMENT: The ginned-up non-scandal surrounding the Benghazi attack is beginning to clarify, and our ruminations concerning the Petraeus affair  and the succession of Michael J. Morell to the position of acting CIA director are becoming increasingly prescient.
It seemed apparent that Petraeus was set up to fall. (This is not to say he wasn’t a damn fool to take the bait–i.e. former counter-terrorism investigator Paula Broadwell.) 
Some of the bullet points that we made in the context of the Petraeus affair:
- Petraeus was going to be questioned about the Benghazi affair behind closed doors. Does this impinge on the Benghazi situation? Might this be connected to the “October Surprise II”  that the GOP was crowing about last fall?
- Petraeus was also seen by the Obama administration as an element of stability going into the second term . Might this affair be an effort at de-stabilizing Obama?
- In the above context, note that negative headlines are dominating in the wake of Obama’s re-election.
- The acting head of the CIA is Michael J. Morell, who gave Dubya his intelligence briefings and was actually with him on 9/11 . Some observers were critical of Morell as being too much of an insider to effectively counteract abuses at the agency. Is this the agency “re-righting itself”–i.e. cleaning out an outsider? (The agency was initially reported to be leery of Petraeus, only coming to accept him when he adopted a “hands-off” approach to intelligence matters and CIA.)
- On a highly speculative note, we’ve read of Nazi generals named Morell during our research into the Third Reich. I wondered if Morell might be an Underground Reich insert when I heard he was acting head of CIA and being considered as director. A legend would have been created to obscure his Nazi/German/Underground Reich background. This suspicion grew more profound when I saw Morell’s picture. Again, this is admittedly highly speculative. Look at Morell’s picture at right and see what you think.
- Will Morrell work with the GOP and Underground Reich against Obama?
Since that analysis was posted, we have learned that Morell is of German-American extraction. One wonders if his ancestors might have been part of the large German-American Fifth Column in the United States, encompassing such organizations as the Steuben Society and the German American Bund. (Under Cover  by John Roy Carlson, available for download on this website, details that milieu.)
The thrust of the GOP charges in the Benghazi incident are allegations that the Obama administration denied that the attack was a terrorist incident and deleted references to CIA warnings in their report.
It has now become clear that it was none other than Michael J. Morell who deleted the references to the terrorist warnings! He was opposed by David Petraeus in this attempt!
Do not fail to note that Petraeus was then sacked, leaving Morell in charge of the CIA! (Again, it was Morell who gave George W. Bush his intelligence briefings and was actually with him at the time of the 9/11 attacks.)
As the destabilization of the Obama administration takes form, do not fail to note that the head of the IRS when the Tea Party fronts were targeted was a George W. Bush appointee! 
At the same time, the whored-out American media are up in arms over the Justice Department’s seizing of reporters’ phone records. The phone records concern a story that contained leaked material about a counter-terrorism sting in Yemen.
Who leaked that material? Might it have been Michael J. Morell, or someone else linked to the Bush administration/GOP/Underground Reich?
We note that that seizure of phone records could be precisely calculated to inflame the media.
The suspicion in these quarters centers on the 2012 leak as part of the pre-calculated destabilization of Obama.
EXCERPT: E‑mails released by the White House on Wednesday revealed a fierce internal jostling over the government’s official talking points in the aftermath of last September’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, not only between the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, but at the highest levels of the C.I.A.
The 100 pages of e‑mails showed a disagreement between David H. Petraeus, then the director of the C.I.A., and his deputy, Michael J. Morell, over how much to disclose in the talking points, which were used by Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, in television appearances days after the attack.
Mr. Morell, administration officials said, deleted a reference in the draft version of the talking points to C.I.A. warnings of extremist threats in Libya, which State Department officials objected to because they feared it would reflect badly on them.
Mr. Morell, officials said, acted on his own and not in response to pressure from the State Department. But when the final draft of the talking points was sent to Mr. Petraeus, he dismissed them, saying “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” adding that the heavily scrubbed account would not satisfy the House Democrat who had requested it.
“This is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get,” Mr. Petraeus wrote, referring to Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which had asked Mr. Petraeus for talking points to use with reporters in discussing the attack on Benghazi.
The White House released the e‑mails to reporters after Republicans seized on snippets of the correspondence that became public on Friday to suggest that President Obama’s national security staff had been complicit in trying to alter the talking points for political reasons.
While the e‑mails portrayed White House officials as being sensitive to the concerns of the State Department, they suggest that Mr. Obama’s aides mostly mediated a bureaucratic tug of war between the State Department and the C.I.A. over how much to disclose — all under heavy time constraints because of the demands from Capitol Hill. The e‑mails revealed no new details about the administration’s evolving account of the Sept. 11 attack, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. . . .