Posted originally on the CTH on August 8, 2023 | Sundance
According to most western media to say there is a vast global network of pedophiles and perverts who traffic children is akin to believing in some Q-minded conspiracy. Apparently, with headlines that appeared on AOL News today, the conspiracy is not a theory.
“Members used software to anonymously share files, chat on message boards and access websites within the network,” it said. Some were also accused of having produced their own child abuse material to share with members of the network, the agency said.
(Via AOL/NBC) – Almost 100 people in the United States and Australia have so far been arrested over child sexual abuse allegations after the fatal shooting of two FBI agents led to the unraveling of a suspected international pedophile ring, officials announced Tuesday.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) said that 19 men had been arrested on charges of sharing child abuse material online, while at least 13 children were rescued from further harm as a result of a joint operation with the FBI, dubbed “Operation Bakis.”
The development brought the total number of people arrested as part of the joint probe up to 98, with at least 79 arrests so far carried out by the FBI, according to the Australian agency.
The joint investigation began after the two FBI agents investigating the alleged pedophile ring were fatally shot in 2021 while executing a search warrant in Sunrise, Florida, for a man suspected of being in possession of child abuse material, the agency noted in a news release.
Special Agents Daniel Alfin and Laura Schwartzenberger were fatally shot and three other agents were wounded, while the gunman, David Lee Huber, 55, was also killed, NBC News previously reported.
The Australian agency said the coordinated probe was formally launched in 2022 after the FBI provided the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation with intelligence about Australian individuals suspected of being part of a “peer-to-peer network allegedly sharing child abuse material on the dark web.” (read more)
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
This guy really is the worst of the worst. I do not think I could dislike him more. Remember, Bill Barr appointed John Durham officially as a special counsel quietly without informing the public in October of 2020, specifically intended to block President Trump from declassifying any documents prior to the 2020 election. We do not discover the official appointment until December, after the 2020 election.
The intent of the Durham appointment was to create the oft used silo of an “ongoing investigation” to block inquiry and/or action by President Trump. The entire process of the DC silo deployment is one long continuum, as we have previously outlined. Michael Horowitz was an investigative silo (blocking document release), Robert Mueller was an investigative silo (threats of obstruction blocking document release), John Durham was an investigative silo (blocking document release), and ultimately, now Jack Smith is an investigative silo, retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago and blocking document release.
You will note that every single one of John Durham’s investigative pathways was to look at Trump-Russia fabrication and corruption outside government, outside Washington DC. None of the Durham investigation was focused inside government or inside the institutions that he and Bill Barr were protecting. Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham was the spray paint.
Today, Bill Barr when asked if he would testify against President Trump, says “of course” he would. WATCH:
MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as former president’s attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. Bill, it’s good to see you.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Good to see you.
MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you’re on the show, you said “the January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest.” Having read the indictment, is that still your view?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it’s- it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment. There’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress. The allegation essentially by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.
MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Right. And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud and what the- and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong, and false. This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. But it’s not- if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front, but they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels, that were not authorized panels, to claim that they had alternative votes. And then they- and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed, were false. But then pressuring the Vice President to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes, and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.
MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.
MAJOR GARRETT: From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case.
MAJOR GARRETT: But from an Attorney General’s point of view?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I’ve also said consistently, really, the rubicon was passed here, when- when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case, really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor. And I think at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the rubicon was passed.
MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the Special Counsel?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I’m not going to get into any discussions–
MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Of course.
Major Garrett: Could you describe your interactions with the President on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I wasn’t discussed- well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least, and I- I told him in no uncertain terms, that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we–
[CROSSTALK]
MAJOR GARRETT: — One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the President what you told him? How thorough was that investigation?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I- I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. Some of them are obvious, okay. One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more- that more people voted then absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should- we should have heard no more about that. Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done.
MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden. On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said, “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.” This is the Hunter Biden investigation. “And to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.” Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, because the–
MAJOR GARRETT: To which? To which? Should one be appointed now?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: When I was the attorney- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have, a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary. I felt that if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably, or the administration, would have just canceled the investigation, and I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place. But once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done and was being done fairly.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has- has been conducted?
[CROSSTALK]
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well I did agree with the- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.
MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously. And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done–
MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah. Yes.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden, and if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Okay, well remember- one thing I stress is those are two different questions. Right? And, you know, things can be shameful without being illegal. And I- yes, I thought- I think it’s grotesque, cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I- I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.
MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still, whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it. I mean, some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind, there’s reasons- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy, but after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps. And apparently someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics? You know, after the election, that it was the president elect’s son, that’s not a reason not to investigate.
MAJOR GARRETT: William Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much. “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump attorney John Lauro continues running the gauntlet against the narrative engineers with this interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
An intellectually deficient Todd attempts to justify the Biden administration targeting of Donald Trump and is countered by John Lauro. WATCH:
.
During the CNN interview below, it was very important to narrative engineer Dana Bash to assert that Joe Biden has nothing to do with the decisions of the DOJ, which is a rather remarkable position considering the same Dana Bash has been asserting for the previous four years that Donald Trump controlled decisions of the DOJ.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump attorney John Lauro appears on Face the Nation with Major Garrett to discuss and debate the Biden administration’s criminal prosecution of President Trump for contesting the results of the 2020 election. Toward that latter part of the interview, Garrett needs to enhance his leftist bona fides with a strawman argument about the 2016 election outcome. Lauro handles Garrett’s narrative engineering very well. [Video and Transcript Below] WATCH:
MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s lawyers. He joins us now from New York. John, good morning to you. I want to let you know that we spoke with former Vice President–
JOHN LAURO: –Good morning
MAJOR GARRETT: –Mike Pence and asked him specifically about your assertions made this last week that all the President did was asked him to pause the certification on January 6, 2021. He told me flatly, quote, “That’s not what happened.” Your response?
LAURO: That’s not- that’s not what I said, though, but that’s okay.
MAJOR GARRETT: What- what is it that you believe happened between the President and the Vice President? And do you have any fear of the Vice President being called as a witness in the case?
LAURO: No, in fact, the Vice President will be our best witness. What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in. That was my statement, and what- what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying. The reason why Vice President Pence will be so important to the defense is the following, number one. Number two, he agrees that there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level, all of that will- will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump. And finally, what Vice President Pence believes and believed is that these issues needed to be debated on January 6. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in the January 6 proceeding. President Trump, on the other hand, believed following the advice of John Eastman, who’s the legal scholar, that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level. Now, of course, there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump, but the bottom line is never- never in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally. It’s- It’s unheard of.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, can I ask you a couple of very simple basic yes or no questions? Is there- first, is there any condition under which the former president of the United States, your client, would accept a plea deal on these January 6 charges?
LAURO: No.
MAJOR GARRETT: Will you seek a motion to dismiss?
LAURO: Absolutely, 100 percent.
MAJOR GARRETT: When?
LAURO: Hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted. This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of- of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from- from being prosecuted in this way.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you-do you have a ballpark figure of when you’ll be ready for trial?
LAURO: Well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.
MAJOR GARRETT: Understood. Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?
LAURO: Absolutely, we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have an expectation that will be granted?
LAURO: That reflects the- the- the characteristics of the American people. It’s up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case–
MAJOR GARRETT: — Speaking of the judge
LAURO: — very close to D.C. and a much more diverse–
MAJOR GARRETT: — Understood. Speaking of the judge’ earlier this week, your client, the former president, on his social media platform, said ‘The judge is unfair’, On what basis did he say that?
LAURO: Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season, is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign. We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And- and my role- my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way, and I’m going to do that.
MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned discovery. In the protective order back and forth between you and the prosecutors, it says, the prosecution, that discovery will be provided, quote, ‘As soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled’. What’s wrong with that?
LAURO: We’re all in favor of protecting sensitive and highly sensitive information. But it’s unprecedented to have all information hidden in a criminal case, including, by the way, information that might be exculpatory and might be exonerative of President Trump. The Biden administration wants to keep that information from the American people.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, in the back and forth on this matter, you also said in the filing to the court that the former president would be willing to come to an agreement on this matter. And what I want to ask you is would that requirement be something where the President would agree not to release any information that was highly sensitive in this matter and would he also refrain from any speech that called for or hinted at retribution about anyone associated with the prosecution of this case?
LAURO: He’s never called for that at all. He’s going to abide by the conditions of his release. But of course, we would agree that any sensitive or highly sensitive information be kept under wraps. In fact, we made that proposition to the Biden administration, but they rejected it. They want every single piece of evidence in this case hidden from the American public.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, before I let you go, do you remember what you were doing the early morning of November 9th, 2016?
LAURO: I have no idea.
MAJOR GARRETT: Well, I remember what I was doing. I was covering President-elect Trump announcing that he had won the presidency, about 3 a.m. that morning after the November 8th election. My question to you, John, is how did he know he won?
LAURO: Well, politicians are convinced in the righteousness of their cause, including President Trump, and he certainly believed that he won and he did win in 2016- (crosstalk)
MAJOR GARRETT: — But on what basis did he know he- But on what basis did he know he won?
LAURO: — Can I finish? Can I finish?
MAJOR GARRETT: — Yeah. Sure.
LAURO: — Can I finish? And he believed in 2020 that he won based on the fact that he had 10 million more votes than in 2016. He had a situation where, somehow, President Biden, or at that time candidate Biden, received 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. And he also understood in 2020, that president- that President Trump understood that he had won all- virtually all of the bellwether counties, and 84 percent of all the counties in the country-
MAJOR GARRETT: Right. John- John, let me- let me help you with this–
LAURO: — So on that basis he believed that he was successful.
MAJOR GARRETT: — John, let me help you with this, I wasn’t asking about 2020.
LAURO: — No, let me help you with this, because the issue here- I have to help you with this.
[crosstalk]
MAJOR GARRETT: I wasn’t asking about 2020, John. John, I wasn’t asking about 2020. I was asking about 2016.
(CROSSTALK)
LAURO: The issue. Right. The issue. Right. The issue in a criminal case-
MAJOR GARRETT: Because- because the votes were still being counted in 2016. The votes were still being counted in 2016. There had been no recounts. How did he know in 2016 that he had won? How did he know? On what basis?
LAURO: The issue- the issue- let me just tell you something, the issue in this criminal case is not what happened in 2016 and whether all candidates say they won. The issue now is, in 2020, whether or not the Justice Department can weaponize criminal law to go after a political opponent and prevent that opponent from running for office. That’s the issue, not what happened in 2016.
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time.
LAURO: Do you think it’s fair- do you think it’s fair that- do you think it’s fair what the- what the Biden administration is doing to a candidate for president?
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
Repost Due to Current Media Cycle News
The Ring of Truth – “I am too well accustomed to the taking of evidence not to detect the ring of truth.” 1908, Edith Wharton
Much has been made of the events of January 6, 2021, and with the latest broadcast of CCTV video from inside the Capitol Hill complex, more questions have been raised.
Within the questions: the FBI and government apparatus had advanced knowledge of the scale of the J6 mall assembly yet doing nothing? Why were the Capitol Hill police never informed of the FBI concerns? Why didn’t House Speaker Nancy Pelosi secure the Capitol Hill complex, and why did she deny the request by President Trump to call up the national guard for security support? Why did the FBI have agent provocateurs in the crowd, seemingly stimulating rage within a peaceful crowd to enter the Capitol building? There have always been these nagging questions around ‘why’?
Long time CTH reader “Regitiger” has spent a great deal of time reviewing the entire process, looking at the granular timeline and then overlaying the bigger picture of the constitutional and parliamentary process itself. What follows below is a brilliant analysis of the federal government motive to create a J6 crisis that permitted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to trigger an emergency session and avoid the 2020 election certification challenges.
Those congressional floor challenges, known and anticipated well in advance of the morning of January 6, 2021, would have formed a legal and constitutional basis for ‘standing’ in judicial challenges that would have eventually reached the Supreme Court. The certification during “emergency session” eliminated the problem for Washington DC.
I think most, not all, but a large number of people, are totally missing what happened; and why this happened on Jan 6th. I am going to try my best to outline the events that day, blast past the commonly held assumptions and get right down to the core corruption.
I will present this as a series of questions and answers.
♦ Q1: How do you prevent congress from delaying the certification of state electoral votes?
A: It requires a crisis. A crisis that creates an “emergency” …An “emergency” that invokes special house rules.
FACTS: Remember carefully, focus please. Just moments, literally 3 minutes before two representatives issued a vote for motions to suspend the certification, the House members were “informed” by capitol police and other “agents” that a protest was about to breach the chambers. It was at this time that key people: Pence, Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconnell can be seen being walked out and escorted from the chamber. This effectively halted the Entire Chamber Process.
♦ Q2: Why was it necessary to halt the chamber process?
A: The crisis was created to eliminate the motion challenges to halt the certification and to begin voting to look into voting irregularities and fraud
FACTS: The two motions were completely legal and constitutional under at least two constitutionally recognized procedures… procedures that would REQUIRE the house to pause the certification and then vote to determine whether the motions of suspend could move forward.
♦ Q3: What was so important to refuse this motion and the subsequent votes to suspend the electoral certification?
A: It was important to remove that process entirely and continue the fraud and certify the fraud with no detractors on record. This effectively gives no standing for a SCOTUS ruling appeal! Understand this. If those two motions, even just one had successfully been voted EVEN IF THE MOTIONS were DENIED IN VOTE, this gives those who presented them with STANDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENT BEFORE SCOTUS.
♦ Q4: Could this have been done some other way other than creating a crisis/protest?
A: Unlikely. In order to prevent those two motions, requires that speaker of the house, minority leaders, and the president of the congress (vice president of the United States: Pence), to NOT BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS.
Once the capitol police and other “law enforcements agents” informed the speaker and these three other individuals, Pelosi UNILATERALLY UNDER EMERGENCY RULES, suspended the business of the congress. This protest was necessary. The crisis was created because there is no other way to suspend the business of certification UNILATERALLY. By creating a crisis invokes emergency procedures. No other circumstances other than war or mass simultaneous explosive diarrhea can create such unilateral speaker delivered suspension of the certification.
♦ Q5: Why did the motions, once that the speaker RECONVENED congress, move forward back again to the floor for votes? Why were members disallowed to even consider putting forward ANY motions to the floor in when the chamber business was reopened?
A: The Speaker initiated the NEW sessions under special emergency rules. These rules abandon and make it clear that the ONLY purpose of the new session was to EXPEDITE the certification and dismiss all prior regular session procedural rules. This is why those two motions to table votes to consider a debate and pause to the certifications of state vote electors never happened later that evening when the house business was reconvened!
♦ Q6: Other than new rules, emergency rules, what other peculiar things occurred when the speaker reconvened?
A: Members were allowed to “vote” in proxy, remotely, not being present. You can use your imagination about what conditions were placed on ALL members during this time to prevent anyone from “getting out of line”.
Also clearly, it was at THIS NEW SESSION that VP Pence, President of Congress, would also have no ability to even consider pausing the electoral certification, because there were no motions of disagreements on the matter. So, in a technical legal claim, he is correct that he had no constitutional authority to address any issues of fraud or doubts about electoral irregularities. But this completely dismisses the FACT that congress created rules in this crisis/emergency that never allowed them to be floored!
Understand what happened in Jan 6, 2021. Don’t get hung up on Viking impostors, stolen Pelosi computers, podium heists, and complicit capitol police. Understand the process and what happened and what WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
This was a coup….it was a very organized and carefully planned coup. VP Pence without a doubt as well as most members of the house were quite aware of how the certification was going to be MANAGED. It would require new rules to prevent the debate clause from occurring! New rules that ONLY AN EMERGENCY CRISIS COULD CREATE! So, they created an emergency.
•NOTED: I understand why many people have great interest in debunking the j6 event. I get that. I think it is important to dissect and examine the events of that day but please, step back and understand WHY these things happened. Examine the chain of events in congress. Why those two motions that would have at least paused the certification THAT WOULD GIVE VP PENCE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED POWER TO MOVE TO SUSPEND THE ELECTORAL CERTIFICATION AND THEN EXAMINE THE IRREGULARITIES AND CLAIMS OF FRAUD!
At the very center of this coup stands Mike Pence, the same individual who also spoiled President Trump’s first opportunities in the earlies hours of his Presidency just 4 years prior, when he created and facilitated the removal of Lt General Michael Flynn. I will not spend much time on this thread explaining why Lt Gen Flynn was so important to President Trump and why the IC was so afraid he would have advisory power to the President. That I will leave for another day, another time. But understand this clearly: MIKE PENCE WAS AND IS WORKING FOR THE MOST CORRUPT CRIMINAL TREASONOUS PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT.
•PRO TIP: If you really want to get a true understanding of this matter videos of protesters walking in the capitol is not going to address them. Actual video and timeline records of events and the specific actions taken by the speaker just moments before TWO MAJOR ELECTORAL ALTERING MOTIONS WERE ABOUT TO BE FLOORED.
This crisis was developed just in time with a precise coordination to prevent those two motions to be entered into the chamber record. The two motions do not exist. The emergency powers established in the new session made sure they never could be entered. The emergency powers could never happen without a crisis.
NOTE: “Under this scenario, the J6 pipe bombs were the insurance policy, in the event the feds couldn’t get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the two pipe bombs would have then been the emergency needed to stop the process.” Which explains why the FBI has no interest in the DC pipe bomb suspects. ~ Sundance
Note from Author: “I started this effort years ago. To date, no one and I mean no one has replied. It’s as if everyone that can expose it that has a larger platform is either disinterested, or suspiciously withdrawn from the issue. I made several comments about this over the years right here at CTH, on article threads that are relevant to the topic.
I was watching the certification live that day. I recorded it ALL on every channel. I was doing this because no matter what happened that day, I KNEW IT WOULD BE A PROFOUND AND SIGNIFICANT EVENT TO REMEMBER. I never in my wildest imagination (and I have a pretty vivid imagination, always have), expected to see the unmistakable perfectly timed “coincidences” that occurred.
One member raises a motion (with another in waiting for his turn) those two motions were well known and advertised. These were motions to vote for a pause in the certification to examine electoral vote fraud and irregularities. I can’t speak to the veracity and substance of those motions. They were never allowed to even be floored. it was at that exact moment that the house chambers were suspended and 4 of the key members, Pence, Pelosi, Schumer and McConnell were escorted OUT right after initiating the end of the session.
Effectively, this resulted in that motion never being floored at all. Then, when reconvened under special emergency rules, inexplicably those two motions (and perhaps more – we will never know – or will we?) were not even attempted to be motioned. That was not just peculiar to me.
It all started to make more sense when I did some study on constitutional law AND THE HISTORY of specific special authorities given to president of the congress, Pence in this case. Not only did he have the authority and power to suspend the certification, but the duty to address the motion in the same sense that it becomes vital to the debate clause.
There really is no higher significance of weight given to the debate clause than the certification of the votes. This was more than odd to me the way that the media and pence framed their narrative: Pence would not have the constitutional power to suspend certification. Then it hit me, like the obvious clue that was there all the time. He was right. But the reason he is right, is because there WAS NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO CAUSE HIM TO SUSPEND!
Understanding this, happened for me about 4 or 5 months after this Jan 6 day. I took me this long to examine the facts, look at the video again, compare it to the arguments made by several leading constitutional academics, and again, inexplicably even some that I respect seemed to dodge that central reality. The motions were never allowed to be floored in the re-convened house rules later that evening. Most would not even venture to address the exotically coincidence that the moment those two members would stand to place the motion before the house, that the House Speaker Pelosi AND Pence ended the session, effectively blocking the motions from being heard in normal house rules.
It’s been a journey for me. A journey that was initiated because I am just a simple but curious person. Perhaps even to a point where I get obsessive in those efforts. Many days and nights combing over the details. praying and trying to make sense of what makes little sense. With over 6 states having serious well known and obvious defects in the voting process, some more credible to believe – some less, but one would not expect the house would be so deliberate in marching past the motions that were definitely going to be present to slow this process down and take the time to get it right. Even IF the claims never reached an intersection that would change the outcome.
There are two possibilities: Millions of people, against all the odds, hitting all-time records even past Obama and Clinton, voted for a naval gazing ambulatory pathological racist moron. And chose Joe Malarkey as their leader. Or this was a coup, a conspiracy, and a treasonous manipulation regime change because President Trump could not be controlled by the deep state and globalists who OWN AND OPERATE WASHINGTON DC.
BOTH POSSIBILITIES ARE TERRIFYING.
The only way for THE PEOPLE to gain power in this country is to force the transfer of it. If truth isn’t the fuel and vehicle, we will just be replacing deck chairs and hitting the next series of expected ice bergs.
Knowing the truth is not enough; however, it is truth that makes it a righteous cause.
Julie Kelly – […] Just as the first wave of protesters breached the building shortly after 2 p.m., congressional Republicans were poised to present evidence of rampant voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Ten incumbent and four newly-elected Republican senators planned to work with their House colleagues to demand the formation of an audit commission to investigate election “irregularities” in the 2020 election. Absent an audit, the group of senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pledged to reject the Electoral College results from the disputed states.
The Hail Mary effort was doomed to fail; yet the American people would have heard hours of debate related to provable election fraud over the course of the day.
And no one opposed the effort more than ex-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
During a conference call on December 31, 2020, McConnell urged his Republican Senate colleagues to abandon plans to object to the certification, insisting his vote to certify the 2020 election results would be “the most consequential I have ever cast” in his 36-year Senate career.
From the Senate floor on the afternoon of January 6, McConnell gave a dramatic speech warning of the dire consequences to the country should Republicans succeed in delaying the vote. He downplayed examples of voting fraud and even mocked the fact that Trump-appointed judges rejected election lawsuits.
“The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken,” McConnell insisted. “If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.”
Roughly six hours later, McConnell got his way. Cowed by the crowd of largely peaceful Americans allowed into the building by Capitol police, most Republican senators backed off the audit proposal. McConnell, echoing hyperbolic talking points about an “insurrection” seeded earlier in the day by Democratic lawmakers and the news media, gloated. “They tried to disrupt our democracy,” he declared on the Senate floor after Congress reconvened around 8 p.m. “This failed attempt to obstruct Congress, this failed insurrection, only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our Republic.”
Congress officially certified the Electoral College results early the next day. (read more)
The J6 pipe bombs were the insurance policy, in the event they couldn't get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the pipe bombs would have been the emergency needed to stop the process. https://t.co/JqVcGROAPN
The Democrats sent a letter demanding Alito recuse himself on any such question regarding the power of the Supreme Court. Once again, just as FDR tried to stack the court to turn the United States into his vision of a Marxist Utopia following Stalin after he recognized the Communists as a legitimate government, they are at it again. They are out to utterly destroy the freedom of the United States and are attempting to regulate the Supreme Court to only rule in their favor. This is all part of 2032 where our nation is so divided, it will no longer be able to stand as one nation.
The Democrats are beside themselves after Justice Alito told the Wall Street Journalthat Congress lacks the authority to regulate the Court. He expressly stated:
“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” Alito said. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it.
No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”
Justice Alito is correct – there is ABSOLUTELY no power in the Constitution that would allow these extremist Democrats to regulate how the Supreme Court decides anything. “It just can’t be that the court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else. We’re not imperial,” Justice Kagan told the conference in remarks first reported by Politico. “Can Congress do various things to regulate the Supreme Court? I think the answer is: yes.” Not only is she unquestionably wrong, but she was also the 45th Solicitor General of the United States who represents the government. She was there when my case got to the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court ordered the government to reply, she obviously had no basis to justify my false imprisonment. To be accurate, the fantasy they used was Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988), which held that corporations do not have constitutional rights, so I was thrown in contempt NOT as an individual, but as a corporate officer. Kagan was afraid that my case would have overturned the law, so she ordered them to release me and then told the Supreme Court my case was MOOT since I was released.
Kagan never saw the power of the government has ever been a problem and now wants to advocate that Congress can use politics to change the Constitution. Under strict construction, the Constitution has no authority to downgrade the Supreme Court even as a discretionary court. The framers of the Constitution only created the Supreme Court. There cannot be any such power to diminish the Supreme Court by Congress. This is a violation of the Separation of Powers that she is advocating the Congress as an imperial dictatorial power.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE
Even the Judiciary Act of 1925 held that the Supreme Court would have the discretion to select what it wants to hear in direct violation of the Constitution, which has NEVER been addressed. The Constitution ONLY established the Supreme Court as part of a tripartite government and the separation of powers as laid out as essential to constrain tyranny by Montesquieu, who was also the inspiration for the Second Amendment, which was to keep citizens armed rather than maintain standing armies to prevent war.
As such, the lower courts were created ONLY by statute under Congress and could just as easily be shut down. The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court, and every Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office –
(1) the Constitutional Oath to defend it and
(2) the Judicial Oath.
Therefore, anyone can see on its face that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional, for it violates their oath to defend the constitution when they have the discretion not to hear cases. Previously, the Supreme Court ruled and ignored this time when it defined “discretion” by saying, “the term ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.”Langnes v Green, 282 US 531, 541 (1931). This means that those in power do not have to obey any law, even the Constitution. The Supreme Court also said, “it is obvious that discretion does not exist where there is no power to act except in one way.”Jones v SEC, 298 US 1, 18 (1936). When judges and politicians claim discretion, they claim to be ABOVE the law of men.
“[I]t is a Constitution we are expounding.”M’Culloch v Maryland, 17 US 326 (1819). “The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and binds every forum whether it derives its authority from a state of from the United States.”Cook v Moffat 46 US 295 (1847). The Supreme Court held that 28 USC §455 statute government recusal of judges was intended “to provide public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.”Liljeberg v Health Serv v Corp, 486 US 847, 859-860 (1988). That lofty goal cannot be upheld as long as judges in inferior courts know that the odds of ever being overturned by the Supreme Court are on par with winning the lottery.
The Supreme Court has NO DISCRETION whatsoever to deny any petition – PERIOD!
& Congress has NO POWER to interfere in the Judicial Process under the Separation of Powers
Congress has abused its power by refusing to expand the court to cope with the nation’s size and instead directing that it should be discretionary, which is NOT in Article III authority of Congress. The Supreme Court, under the Separation of Powers and under its Inherent Supervisory Power, cannot be now diminished by these LEFTIST Democrats seeking once again to overthrow the Constitution in pursuit of their Marxist Authoritarian views for the future. The Supreme Court relies on inherent power to shield the exercise of judicial authority from legislative interference. I would argue that the scope of this inherent power was best described in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Eash v. Riggins Trucking Inc. characterized these cases as relying on the use of an “irreducible inherent authority . . . involving activity so fundamental to the essence of a court as a constitutional tribunal that to divest the court of absolute command within this sphere is really to render practically meaningless the terms ‘court’ and ‘judicial power.’”
IF THE CONGRESS CAN REGULATE THE SUPREME COURT, THEN THIS IS TRULY THE END OF THE RULE OF LAW & THE UNITED STATES!
Montesquieu set forth the Separation of Powers to prevent Tyranny. That was the entire intent behind Article III. No clause in the Constitution even states that Congress has any such authority to regulate the Supreme Court. We have already witnessed a coup with the Neocons pushing for war when only the Separation of Powers dictates that EXCLUSIVELY the people are to have the authority to Declare War – the Executive Branch, which they have seized control of. These people fund covert actions to overthrow leaders, provide arms to Ukraine to start a war with Russia deliberately, and then when they retaliate; we claim we have been attacked.
The Neocons used 911 to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911 on the fake claims that they had weapons of mass destruction. Every single war has been launched on fake news. The neocon Robert McNamara (1916 – 2009) who took us into Vietnam cost over 50,000 American lives, and millions of dead Vietnamese needed to clear his conscious before he died. Even Pearl Harbor was provoked by Roosevelt, who could not get Congress to Declare War to enter Europe. The US had broken the code of the Japanese and knew what they were doing. Roosevelt seized all their assets in America, cut off their purchases of energy from the USA, and threatened to blockade them to prevent them from buying fuel from any other country. Hence, the United States did NOT suffer a strategic loss at Pearl Harbor since, conveniently, all the American aircraft carriers, which the Japanese intended to target, were at sea. The ships destroyed were all the old ones from WWI. The outcry against Roosevelt was so strong the Senate had to convene an investigation and claimed it was inconclusive if Roosevelt knew in advance.
It gives me no pleasure to even report that the Computer has our days numbered. This abuse is outrageous, and this latest trick to overthrow the Supreme Court will terminate the rule of law in the United States. It was the Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) decision that held that he was not a citizen of the United States and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. This holding was so off the wall and contrary to the whole concept of Territorial Jurisdiction that this became the catalyst for Civil War. It was the Democrats back then who were the slave owners and pushed their views upon the North and undermined the religious beliefs and even the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson wrote that ALL men were equal.
Without the Rule of Law and fair, independent courts, then NO country can survive. The oppressed have no other choice BUT TO resort to violence. That is precisely what our computer is projecting post-2025. The Democrats are once again trying to control the Supreme Court. They never learn. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court with Marxists, the Chicago Tribune in 1937 called it a threat to Democracy. It is precisely 86 years (10 * 8.6), and once again, the Democrats are seeking to destroy our way of life and end the Separation of Powers. They dared to criminally charge Trump when Biden & his family engaged in Treason, and now they are attempting to overthrow the Separation of Powers by regulating the Supreme Court. That demonstrates they have ZERO respect for the Constitution.
In building a database to forecast the world economy, history has been the key to opening up the mystery behind the Rise and Fall of Nations. The Rule of Law is the cornerstone of any civilization. If there is no Rule of Law, there cannot be any form of a functioning society. From ancient times, the monarch’s role was that he was the judge who presided over the disputes between the people. That is perhaps best illustrated by the Biblical Story of King Solomon deciding who the real mother was of the child.
Edward Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted how the Rule of Law collapsed. Once the law only protects the government, as the LEFT is seeking once again, then the end of any nation will not be far behind. The LEFT is demanding that they can regulate the Supreme Court to rule only in its favor. There will go not just our right to Free Speech already under assault, but all our human and civil rights will vanish. The Rule of Law is so essential because otherwise, not even your home will have any value if there is no impartial court to decide who has the title, just as King Solomon did decide the rightful mother of the child.
You cannot protect your civil rights, free speech, or your property without an agreed-upon Rule of Law. As an international hedge fund manager, the first FIRST decision you must make before even looking at an investment is what we call – COUNTRY RISK. This is all about the Rule of Law. Will they simply nationalize assets? Any state that engages in that sort of action MUST be avoided.
Edward Gibbon wrote of the crisis in the Roman Empire under the reign of Commodus (180-192AD):
“distinction of every kind soon became criminal. The possession of wealth stimulated the diligence of the informers; rigid virtue implied a tacit censure of the irregularities of Commodus; important services implied a dangerous superiority of merit; and the friendship of the father always insured the aversion of the son. Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse”
(Book 1, Chapter 4).
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is negative, meaning it is a restraint upon government, in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). That means without any clues expressly giving Congress any right to regulate the Supreme Court is an attempt to constructively amend the Constitution with interpretation. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional right or permission to exercise even “discretion” to hear a case. They must hear every case presented to them, for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by a statute written by Congress or by its own rule-making practice.
The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorarieach term (year). The court grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases annually in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous, and this practice denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government (3 branches), with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the government structure crafted by the Founding Fathers created.
Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803), where he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When the nation began, the Supreme Court justices rode on “circuits.” Each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits around the country for there were no circuit courts with federal judges. Article III, Section I of the Constitution expressly states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution guaranteed the Supreme Court. It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound, for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly:
“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”
Your constitutional right to the Separation of Power, which DEMANDS an independent Supreme Court, will be forever DENIED under this latest coup by the Democrats. There can be no guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like and Congress alters the rules so they always win. The media never writes about this and does not find it strange that we have no unified rule of law in the United States because of the discretion of the Supreme Court, which allows all the circuits to do as they please.
Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:
“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…”
Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court by eliminating the constitutional status of the court by enabling them to decide to hear cases at their “discretion,” but that is totally unconstitutional, for no statute can amend the Constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!
In Marbury v Madison, Chief Justice Marshall also stated bluntly: “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.” (id/ 5 US at 163). Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in 1967: “It is a judge’s duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense feelings in the litigants.” (Pierson v Ray, 386 US 547, 554 1967). None of this has any force of law unless the Supreme Court is returned to its constitutional role and mandates the right to be heard.
Previously, the Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and rendered a small part of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction “discretionary” and subject to the grant of a writ of certiorari. This began the process of reducing the workload of the Supreme Court, yet it remained obliged to rule. In December 1921, Chief Justice William Howard Taft appointed three justices to draw up a proposal to reduce the obligation of the Supreme Court further to hear cases. This became the Judiciary Act of 1925.
The Judiciary Act of 1925 was clearly unconstitutional since Congress could not reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Yet, William Howard Taft (1857 – 1930) served as the 27th President of the United States (1909–1913) and then became the 10th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1921–1930). It was Chief Justice Taft who lobbied with Congress to reduce the role of the Supreme Court. This is up there with Goldman Sachs sending in Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury to eliminate Glass-Steagall, which was enacted because Goldman Sachs lost more money than any public trust during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1925.
The ONLY way to save some sense of credibility is to overrule the Judiciary Act of 1925 and in so doing, shut down Congress’ claim that it has any right to ignore the Separation of Powers. How about we then adopt the original proposal of Ben Franklin, who said that the legal community should nominate judges instead of politicians? That was the system in Scotland, and he proposed we eliminate politics from the judiciary. That is the only possible way to achieve a fundamental rule of law.
The Democrats are out to destroy our very way of life in pursuit of their own self-interest.
It is time the claims of power to violate the Separation of Powers by Congress are terminated or there will be NOTHING left and we will collapse into civil war as no other alternative.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 5, 2023 | Sundance
Bill Barr enjoys talking about the weaponized DOJ as if the DOJ was not weaponized. Bill Barr is a very dangerous figure in the government weaponization process, and he had a lot of people fooled for a long time. Fortunately, he didn’t fool me and many of you remember exactly why.
Additionally, during my 2020 trip to DC, it was specific suspicions about Bill Barr that necessitated going directly into the system. Through research and eventually a stroke of luck, I was able to trace the people Attorney General Barr assigned to review the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense. I found the people working for Durham and questioned the lead investigator. Again, I immediately told everyone there was nothing being done to confront the corrupt entities who fabricated the nonsense.
After those events I also outlined the institutional silo corruption, a process Benny Johnson recently described as “the ghost in the machine“. While Johnson has the big picture accurate, these entities are not some unnamed random institutional bureaucrats. They are people, they know exactly what they are doing, and they understand exactly how to control the mechanics. These “ghosts” are the people AG Bill Barr was/is protecting. WATCH:
“I’m not being arbitrary; I’m just not going to pretend. These people know exactly what is going on. Their action is not an outcome of some esoteric thought process. They are corrupt & acting to retain the corruption with specific intent & full understanding of the consequence.” ~Sundance
Now, let us get down to the business of understanding.
♦ SILO #1 – Inspector General Michael Horowitz was given instructions by outgoing President Barack Obama, to review the internal decision-making inside the FBI, Main Justice and DOJ-NSD as it pertained to the Hillary Clinton classified document scandal.
In early January 2017, IG Horowitz was tasked to review the FBI decisions during the Clinton exoneration and deliver a report on his findings.
First, it is important to remember the DOJ inspector general can only review internal government conduct. The IG does not review or investigate outside involvement and has no authority to compel investigative compliance from outside parties. The Office of Inspector General is an internal review agency.
Second, it is important to remember the DOJ inspector general was not authorized to conduct any oversight of the Dept of Justice National Security Division, DOJ-NSD. During the Obama era, when the DOJ-NSD was created by Attorney General Eric Holder, through the entirety of the Obama era, there was no inspector general oversight into any operations conducted by the DOJ-NSD; that included the FISA process. It was not until later in 2017 when the Trump administration granted the OIG authority to conduct oversight into the DOJ National Security Division.
Think of IG Michael Horowitz as an investigative silo. You will see why this matters.
♦ SILO #2 – Robert Mueller (truthfully Andrew Weissmann) was appointed in May of 2017 by Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, as Special Counsel to investigate Trump-Russia and the reports of prior Russian influence in the 2016 election. Robert Muller was a figurehead, a person in name only to give credibility to the purpose and intent of the group who assembled under his shingle. Andrew Weissmann was the actual manager of the investigation, events and details of the Mueller probe.
On the outward face, in the aftermath of FBI Director James Comey being fired, the Mueller investigation was created to look at Russian interference in the 2016 election – against the background that Comey’s firing by President Trump was related to an intent to impede the ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation. However, on the internal dynamic, inside the mechanics of how DC silos are created, the Mueller probe existed to hide the DOJ and FBI weaponization of government that was deployed under the justification of the FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Sometime around June of 2017, while conducting his review of the FBI conduct in the Clinton investigation, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered troubling internal communications between FBI agent Peter Strzok and DOJ-NSD assigned lawyer to the FBI, Lisa Page. Silo #1 now intersects Silo #2.
Lisa Page was the DOJ lawyer advising FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Peter Strzok was the lead FBI counterintelligence agent working on the Clinton email investigation. Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe were the core of the Clinton investigation and intrinsically linked to the Clinton exoneration as announced by FBI Director James Comey.
IG Horowitz knew of the Clinton investigation and was investigating the details therein. Horowitz did not initially know about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation which, by June of 2017, had subsequently morphed into the Special Counsel Mueller investigation.
Horowitz’s 2017 task only pertained to the Clinton classified documents and decision-making. However, it was the exact same FBI and DOJ people who investigated then exonerated Hillary Clinton, who then opened an investigation of Trump, who then transferred into an expanded Robert Mueller probe.
Horowitz (Silo 1) was bound by requirements of his office to inform Robert Mueller that individuals inside his investigation (Silo 2) were under investigation.
This presented a problem for Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann who were conducting a coverup and targeting operation.
Essentially, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were a threat, as they were bringing an IG review into the security of the Mueller Silo. Almost immediately, Strzok and Page were removed by Mueller/Weissmann to purge the problematic window they represented.
Mueller and Weismann then continued their operation, absorbing any Main Justice information that had anything to do with Trump-Russia. Simultaneous to their unilateral empowerment, Weissmann and Mueller continued to fabricate a false premise of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This ‘Russia narrative’ was supported as the justification for their continued operation throughout 2017, 2018 and into 2019.
It is important to remember that Mueller/Weissmann had full control over everything that had anything to do with the Russian interference narrative or the Trump-Russia narrative. Any ancillary investigation from any government office that touched on these issues was subsequently absorbed by Weissmann and team.
As an example, this Weissmann/Mueller absorption and control included the FBI case against SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, the man who leaked the Title-1 surveillance warrant (FISA application) deployed by the Crossfire Hurricane team against Carter Page. The Wolfe investigation (April ’17 through January ’18) was conducted by FBI Washington Field Office agent Brian Dugan. James Wolfe was indicted by USAO Jessie Liu for leaking the FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins. However, the evidence file was reviewed by the special counsel, and after threats by the defense team to subpoena Senate Intelligence Committee members, the specific charge of leaking the FISA was dropped from the criminal case.
Because Weissmann/Mueller controlled everything that touched the Trump-Russia issues, in June of 2018 when the Carter Page FISA application was made public, it came from the Weissmann/Mueller team release. This was one of the lesser discussed revelations from the Rod Rosenstein June 2020 testimony about the Mueller probe.
♦ SILO #3 – After taking office in February of 2019, Attorney General Bill Barr received the Mueller report in March and a debate with Mueller/Weissmann about the content and report release began. In May 2019, AG Barr appointed Special Counsel John Durham to review the FBI operations that initiated the Trump-Russia probe.
It is important to note that John Durham was appointed *after* Bill Barr received the Mueller report from Andrew Weissmann. It is also important to note that despite the originating mandate of Weissmann/Mueller being predicated on their obligation to look into the accusations of Trump-Russia, the Clinton campaign organization of the Trump-Russia narrative does not appear in the Mueller report.
There is nothing about Clinton’s work with the Perkins Coie law firm and lawyer Michael Sussmann to work as a cut-out for the Clinton campaign contacts with Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr or any other substantively manufactured system that was used to create the illusion of the Trump-Russia connections. The absence of that information inside the Mueller report begged the obvious question:
How could Mueller investigate Trump-Russia for two years and never find the origin of Trump-Russia?
After realizing the Mueller report contained none of this information, in May of 2019 Bill Barr appointed John Durham and Silo #3 was created.
Each of the silos, purposefully created by those who operate within the DC systems of political power, were created to have specific usefulness and function. This is how the system operates.
We hear things like “ongoing investigation” as sunlight blocks, or “potential interfering with an investigation” as another technique. Each time a silo is created, the purpose of the silo is to control information and isolate the larger system from scrutiny.
When Robert Mueller (silo 2) appeared before a congressional committee in June 2019 to answer questions about his report, he was asked about the origination of Trump-Russia. Mueller’s jaw-dropping response was, “That was not in my purview.”
Wait, how can your existence be predicated on investigating Trump-Russia, and yet the origin of Trump-Russia is not in your “purview”? See the problem.
Unfortunately, and not accidentally, Robert Mueller was able to avoid scrutiny of never having investigated the origin of Trump-Russia because there was another silo, John Durham (silo 3), to take the heat off him. Each silo is sequentially created to deflect and distract from questioning that surrounds the originating corruption. Attorney General Bill Barr created Silo #3 (Durham), for exactly this reason. Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham the spray paint.
John Durham finishes up Silo-3 operations, delivers a report, and now we have a Silo #4 in operation via the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
As you can see, each silo creates an internal defense system which also allows media to deflect, ignore and distract. However, in the Trump-Russia story you will note there is a flow to how the silos are sequenced. The silos are designed to absorb information, deflect sunlight and keep accountability away. The silos are constructs, preservation systems, for the DC administrative state.
Ultimately, each silo is created to stop people from seeing the larger picture – the unlawful targeting of a presidential candidate, and then a subsequent coup against that candidate after the election. The evidence of the weaponized government is in the full story that resides, compartmented, inside purposefully constructed containment silos; each intended to block sunlight upon specific components of the evidence.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 