Posted originally on the CTH on January 16, 2023 | sundance
I generally hit and miss most podcasts, often stumbling across content as an outcome of other people sharing and asking for review, analysis and opinion. You could spend all day listening/watching various podcasts, and quite frankly who has that much time. That said, this discussion has some great content as outlined by David Sacks.
Mr. Sacks is connected to some of the Twitter aspects and has a good perspective on processes being revealed in the Twitter Files. Essentially the internal filtration team is applying keystroke inquiries into the Twitter electronic archives, based on terms given by the journalists. Similar to FOIA but in a public company. Something akin to how the discovery process would work if being done by lawyers. {Direct Rumble Link}
Sacks has a very pragmatic outlook on the bigger picture but shares his overall perspective on what he views as the most disturbing revelations about the entire Deep State connection to efforts at controlling public speech. Forward the interview to around the 00:07:50 point, for a great several minutes of analysis. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on January 15, 2023 | sundance
Journalist Matt Taibbi appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss his findings within the ongoing review of the Twitter communication files.
As Taibbi notes, the FBI was asking for the unmasking of several thousand accounts to include usernames, use identity, ip addresses, geolocation of the account holders and other personal identification data that would normally require a search warrant. The Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), the FBI and in some cases the CIA would submit these requests and Twitter was fulfilling, albeit sometimes uncomfortable in the compliance demand. WATCH:
If you have followed the research behind “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop,” none of this is likely surprising. However, the ramifications and blatant violations of the fourth amendment are quite stark. It was not that long ago when you would have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist for making these now provable claims.
Mr Taibbi continues to provide the most pertinent takeaways from his reviews. And to his credit, Taibbi always notes there is a pre-filter applied to the information he is receiving; so, it’s highly likely the intelligence state is still controlling the scope of public awareness behind the justification of “national security”.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 15, 2023 | sundance
U.K political commentator Neil Oliver uses his weekly monologue on GB News to note the recently forbidden conversation about vaccine injuries and potential deaths therein.
Curiously, though the monologue was broadcast, and captured by a viewer, this specific outline (and transcript) is absent from the official site record. Regardless, as noted by Mr. Oliver, until recently it was imperative that questions about vaccine status were demanded in order to participate in society. However, now that attention is being cast upon various seemingly healthy young people collapsing from heart ailments, suddenly inquiring about their vaccinated status is verboten.
Asking questions is now a social taboo, even as increasingly obvious issues begin to surface. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on January 15, 2023 | sundance
There’s no politics here. Washington DC is comprised of magnanimous institutions filled with exceptionally moral people who commit their lives to a career of public service on behalf of this nation. So sayeth Rod Rosenstein as he takes up a defensive position against the vulgarian horde who do not cherish their rulers with enough reverence, or something like that.
As the story is told, there are only honorable and altruistic officials within the institutions of the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation. The examples of Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland and both special counsels Smith and Hur are presented as evidence to highlight the great fortune of an ungrateful nation.
If Washington DC is a bubble, the great pretending Bubble Boy is Rod Rosenstein. WATCH (or, transcript Below):
[Transcript] – CHUCK TODD: And joining me now is the former Deputy Attorney General under President Trump, Rod Rosenstein. The newly-appointed special counsel looking into Biden, Robert Hur, served as Rosenstein’s top aide in the Justice Department, overseeing the special counsel investigation into the Russian election interference. Mr. Rosenstein, welcome to Meet the Press.
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Thank you. Glad to be here, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD: In December, after the appointment of the Trump special counsel, when asked whether you would’ve done it, you said you probably wouldn’t have. How about this Biden special counsel?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Yeah, I think, Chuck, having made the appointment in the Trump case, Merrick Garland put himself in a position where he really had no choice when this matter came along, unless the preliminary inquiry were to establish that there was no chance that a crime had been committed. And according to what we’ve heard, John Lausch did not make that decision.
CHUCK TODD: Do you believe that appointing a special counsel strengthens the Trump special counsel, and strengthens their ability to come to different conclusions? Or does it muddy the waters?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I think, Chuck, you have to differentiate between the political consequences and the practical consequences for the special counsel. For Jack Smith and Rob Hur, they’re conducting independent investigations. They’re going to go evaluate the facts and the law, make their recommendation based upon what they find. So I don’t anticipate that the existence of two special counsels is going to influence the way either one of them goes about their jobs.
CHUCK TODD: To the public it appears – I had somebody use this metaphor with me, and I want to use it, there are two car wrecks: one clearly is an accident, one appears to be intentional. Is that a fair way to look at these two classified document situations?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I think, Chuck, we should wait until we know the facts. You know, the key fact with regard to the Biden documents, of course, is what did the president know about those documents? Was he aware that they’d been moved? Did he, in any case, in the past five years, has he handled those documents? Was he aware of them? We just don’t know that yet. So I think even that we really can’t speculate, just based on what’s been public record.
CHUCK TODD: Tell me your confidence level in Jack Smith and in Robert Hur.
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Well, these are two professionals who spent extended amounts of time in the Department of Justice. They understand that their goal is to focus on the facts, and law, and apply department policy. And both of these men are not going to be influenced by political pressure.
CHUCK TODD: You feel that they’re both – you said something intriguing to me. You said, “You know, every special counsel starts with sterling credentials, and then the public gets a hold of them.” But would you say that’s the case with both of these gentlemen?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: It’s certainly true of these gentlemen, as it was with people like Ken Starr and and Bob Mueller, that you pick people with sterling reputations who are known for being nonpartisan. But you’re in the political arena where it’s inevitable you’re going to be attacked.
CHUCK TODD: There’s two sort of unique defenses in each of these cases that I’m curious your take on. One is Donald Trump’s claim that he could declassify anything he wanted. Now, he’s not made a legal claim that he did that. And the second is, Joe Biden’s currently president. So is it currently illegal for him to have classified documents in his possession, even if it’s at his home, next to his Corvette?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Well, that’s one of the questions the special counsel will have to look into. And in addition, you know, the legal status of the vice president, whether or not he has authority to make any declassification decisions. But the key question, the threshold question here is going to be: was President Biden aware of those classified documents?
CHUCK TODD: And how does that get proven? Do you think he’s going to have to sit for an interview?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Well, that would be a logical step if I were conducting this investigation. I want to go right to the source and ask the president directly whether or not he was aware of those documents.
CHUCK TODD: A sitting president can’t be indicted, according to the Justice Department. So let’s say something is found, what would happen?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: You know, Chuck, I think what should happen in a special counsel investigation is that the special counsel should evaluate the facts and the law, look at Department of Justice policies, and make a recommendation to the attorney general about whether or not prosecution is warranted. Then it’s up to the attorney general to make the decision whether to apply that DOJ policy.
CHUCK TODD: Alright. If you were – you had been in this similar situation. It’s November 4th, it’s four days before the elections. The National Archives informs you that, “Hey, you know, President Biden has just turned over some classified documents that he had in his possession.” Is it too close to the election to tell people? Is that why the Justice Department didn’t inform folks publicly? Is it too soon? Are there questions that should be raised about this or not?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Chuck, it’s not the Justice Department’s job to make public announcements like that. The decision about whether or not to go public would be left to the president and the White House. So I would not anticipate the Justice Department under any circumstances to make a public announcement about something like that.
CHUCK TODD: You wouldn’t have done that in that similar situation?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: In the Justice Department I would not have publicized it, no.
CHUCK TODD: I am curious. There’s a lot of new committees on the Hill that want to investigate some Justice Department practices. And some of these are for current investigations. You essentially said, you know, no, when you were there and others, you didn’t turn stuff over to Congress in active investigations. Do you expect Merrick Garland to do the same?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I think the bright line, Chuck, is not to turn over anything that’s going to in any way interfere with the investigation. And so that’s a decision the department needs to make in addressing each request as it comes along. There are legitimate congressional oversight requirements that the department can accommodate. But there really is a bright line when it comes to anything that might interfere with the investigation.
CHUCK TODD: So the fact that they have already sent letters demanding certain things now, in your mind there’s nothing Justice can do until they’re done with this investigation, correct?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I wouldn’t say that. I mean, there are, as I said, legitimate oversight issues that can be resolved without interfering with the investigation. So for example, one bright line would be investigating the prosecutor while the case is ongoing. I think that’s a place where the department would need to draw a line.
CHUCK TODD: Let’s go back in time. In hindsight, doing special counsels, is this the slippery slope that many previous attorneys generals have always feared, that once you appoint one you essentially can’t stop appointing them? Once you claim there’s a rationale of a perception of unfairness, aren’t you stuck, basically, appointing them throughout the rest of the term?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Yeah, that was true, Chuck, under the independent counsel statute, where there was actually a statutory obligation to appoint an independent counsel. It’s not true under the special counsel guidelines. It’s always left to the discretion of the Attorney General to decide whether the public interest warrants it in that particular case. So I do think when you have a similar case, as you do with the Trump and Biden documents, that you have established a precedent. But I don’t know that you need to apply that universally.
CHUCK TODD: I ask that because a decision was made last year not to appoint a special counsel on the Hunter Biden investigation. But now he has appointed a special counsel to look into Joe Biden and these classified documents. Merrick Garland made the decision to put both January 6 and the classified documents under the umbrella of one special counsel. Is he going to be forced to do the same thing with Hunter Biden?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Well, I think you need to distinguish Hunter Biden from President Biden. We don’t know whether that Hunter Biden implicates the president in any wrongdoing. If it did, I think Merrick Garland would need to make that decision. But as long as it’s just about Hunter Biden, I don’t think that decision point will be reached.
CHUCK TODD: There’s a lot of criticism on Capitol Hill of the FBI. You worked pretty closely with Christopher Wray. What say you about Christopher Wray?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I think Christopher Wray is doing a superb job under very challenging circumstances. You know, this criticism of the FBI has been ongoing for some time. But if you look at the work the Bureau is doing on a day-to-day basis, I think the American people should have confidence in what they’re doing. And I think Chris Wray is the right person to be in that job now.
CHUCK TODD: Judging by our political climate of the last decade, do we have to figure out another way to politically appoint members of the Justice Department? Or do you think we can get through this moment?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I don’t think there’s any reason to mess with the appointment process, Chuck. You know, the majority of employees of the department are career employees. The leadership is subject to political appointment, and I think that that’s an appropriate way to manage the department.
CHUCK TODD: All right, Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Attorney General who’s seen his share of special counsels, and has been through this. Appreciate you coming on–
Posted originally on the CTH on January 14, 2023 | Sundance
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to discuss the release of Twitter File #14 which was centered around the legislative branch attempting to censor his “Nunes Memo.” {Direct Rumble Link Here}
The essence of Twitter File #14 was how the Senate Intelligence Committee, senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Warner (D-VA) along with House Intel Committee Adam Schiff (D-CA) pressured Twitter to remove content that supported the assertions of HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes. WATCH:
Essentially, as Taibbi is pointing out, various DC politicians were working feverishly in early 2018 to maintain the fraudulent narrative around the Trump-Russia investigation.
Why is this timeline important, because retention of the fraudulent Trump-Russia narrative was critical to support the predicate of the Robert Mueller (Andrew Weissmann) Special Counsel. As Taibbi notes, “On January 18th, 2018, Republican Devin Nunes submitted a classified memo to the House Intel Committee detailing abuses by the FBI in obtaining FISA surveillance authority against Trump-connected figures, including the crucial role played by the infamous “Steele Dossier.” The entire DC apparatus was going bananas about the Nunes memo because it undermined the predicate assumptions of the Trump-Russia probe.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) was the specific stakeholder institution intent on retaining the Trump-Russia fraud, because the SSCI was one of the institutions who helped construct it. Again Taibbi, “On January 23rd, 2018, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) published an open letter saying the hashtag [#ReleaseTheMemo] “gained the immediate attention and assistance of social media accounts linked to Russian influence operations.” The intelligence community politicians were furious that various Twitter accounts were tearing apart their precious, and false, story.
Into this mix comes the work of former Dianne Feinstein staffer Dan Jones who was funding various entities like “Hamilton 68” to push propaganda. “Feinstein, Schiff, Blumenthal, and media members all pointed to the same source: the Hamilton 68 dashboard created by former FBI counterintelligence official Clint Watts, under the auspices of the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD)”. The goal was to pressure Twitter to remove content that could eventually take apart the Trump-Russia narrative. Teh justification they were using was that Russian groups were behind the Twitter pushback.
SIDEBAR from CTH ARCHIVES – A fantastic catch by Twitter user “15poundstogo” previously highlighted a key phrase within the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) Russia Report Volume-5, showing how the SSCI allowed those who created the Trump-Russia narrative to avoid questioning:
This is a very important detail to underpin previous reporting we shared about former Dianne Feinstein top staffer Dan Jones attempting to avoid a subpoena from U.S. Attorney John Durham. [SEE BACKGROUND HERE] This key highlight from the SSCI is evidence of how the attempted coup against President Trump was coordinated by people outside government and inside government.
Dan Jones left the SSCI prior to the 2016 election and went to work pushing the Trump-Russia narrative through his media contacts. Jones took over funding Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele in 2017 at the same time Senator Mark Warner took over as SSCI vice-chairman. Dan Jones and Mark Warner coordinated the efforts outside and inside government on the same objective. The Senate Intel Committee was part of the effort.
As a result of their alignment and common purpose the SSCI didn’t investigate the origin of the Trump-Russia narrative; and instead positioned themselves as a shield to block any investigative inquiry into what took place.
The attempt to remove President Trump from office encompassed all three branches of the U.S. government.
Executive Branch – FBI, DOJ-NSD, CIA, State Dept., and eventually the Special Counsel Office.
Legislative Branch – SSCI in 2017 and 2018 with an assist from House Intelligence Committee and House Judiciary in 2019 and 2020.
Judicial Branch – FISA Court 2015, 2016, 2017; Federal Judges (Sullivan, Walton, Howell, Berman-Jackson) in alignment with DC intents in 2018, 2019 and 2020.
How does the office of the United States president; and more importantly a constitutional republic itself; survive a coordinated coup effort that involves all three branches of government; while simultaneously those in charge of exposing the corruption fear the scale of the effort is too damaging for the U.S. government to reveal?
[EARLIER REPORT] – […] When President Trump won the November 2016 election all of those participants involved in the use of government offices and agencies for corrupt political intent had a real problem. Immediately, a lot of strategic planning took place by a lot of desperate people.
One of the key needs of the corrupt intelligence apparatus was to find a way to stop the incoming administration from exposing their effort; that’s where the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) comes in.
Senator Dianne Feinstein was vice-chair of the SSCI in 2016. Feinstein’s former chief of staff was Dan Jones.
The post-election plan to protect the intel community would involve using the SSCI institution to cover for prior Obama-era operations. Senator Feinstein was not a good fit for that role, so Feinstein abdicated her position in advance of the next congress in 2017.
In January 2017 Senator Mark Warner took over as SSCI vice-chair after Dan Jones left the SSCI to continue efforts as a freelance operative. Warner was put into place to carry out the strategic objectives needed to protect the DOJ, NSD, CIA, FBI and ODNI operations against Donald Trump who was now the incoming president-elect.
Keep in mind with control of the SSCI the group inside the legislative branch could control who ran what intelligence agency because they held the power of confirmation; and they could control who would rise to be inspector general within the intelligence community, a position needed if a whistle-blower was to surface. The SSCI would only allow Michael Atkinson to act as ICIG – That’s because Atkinson was part of the 2015/2016 crew.
Additionally, the SSCI would control intelligence information and assist the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel after appointment. The SSCI could work as a sword and a shield as needed. Which is exactly what happened. That background, the motive of the SSCI, explains every point of conflict and corruption we have seen from the SSCI.
Meanwhile Dan Jones went freelance and in 2017 was given $50 million to fund an investigative outfit called the “Penn Quarter Group” and create a new organization called the Democracy Integrity Project.
“Jones told federal investigators that he had raised $50 million from “7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and California.” (link)
Jones used both groups to continue selling and pushing the Trump-Russia narrative. Also, it was important for those at risk to find an alternate route to keep financing their defense without using Clinton’s legal team within Perkins Coie.
Essentially, in 2017 Dan Jones, through his Penn Quarter Group, took over funding for Fusion-GPS and Glenn Simpson and kept paying Christopher Steele. The payments to these entities and Steele always looked more like a pay-off to keep their mouths shut. Jones was essentially the bagman for continued Trump-Russia operations outside government. Jones’s second job was to keep pushing the Trump-Russia narrative in the media (read more).
“NBC, Politico, AP, Times, Business Insider, and other media outlets who played up the “Russian bots” story – even Rolling Stone – all declined to comment for this story. The staffs of Feinstein, Schiff, and Blumenthal also declined comment.
Who did comment? Devin Nunes. “Schiff and the Democrats falsely claimed Russians were behind the Release the Memo hashtag, all my investigative work… By spreading the Russia collusion hoax, they instigated one of the greatest outbreaks of mass delusion in U.S. history.”
This #ReleaseTheMemo episode is just one of many in the #TwitterFiles. The Russiagate scandal was built on the craven dishonesty of politicians and reporters, who for years ignored the absence of data to fictional scare headlines.” (more)
Posted originally on the CTH on January 14, 2023 | Sundance
This article is intended toward a specific set of interests.
♦First, the larger media apparatus needs to comprehend the scale of the current situation.
♦Second, the medical establishment need to come to grips with the situation they pretend doesn’t exist.
♦Lastly, to the alternative media forums writ large, with my challenge to you to open up every format you control, ask simple questions and then just shut up and listen to readers and viewers.
I can well imagine a Rush Limbaugh show (the man had instincts) that would last for a week where he just lets listeners explain why they did not take the COVID-19 vaccine. Tens of millions of unregulated and unthrottled voices tuned-in to listen and nod their affirming heads. God, we miss Rush.
What is overwhelmingly clear right now [SEE BACKGROUND] is the need to have an honest national conversation about the entire dynamic that surrounded the COVID-19 vaccination push. Indeed, if anyone in the media, government or medical system are wondering why only one-in-five people are taking the current COVID-19 booster shots, then just READ HERE.
One aspect, now brutally obvious and anger inducing, is connected to the Twitter File revelations about how various government interests and the medical establishment were intentionally censoring anyone who questioned the early vaccine narrative.
There was never an open debate, a public conversation about the vaccine itself, where the public and counter voices in the medical field could discuss the various vaccine protocols.
Instead, there was the opposite; an intentional effort to shut down any conversation, shut out any person in opposition to the narrative, and destroy any professional voice who might raise concerns.
Throughout 2020, 2021 and deep into 2022, all of the major social media and public forum discussion platforms followed the same censorship, moderation and control protocol. With great deliberateness I am saying that issue is percolating in the background right now – like a powder keg in search of a spark.
I suspect the people in power do not want this conversation even today because there is a deep tremoring sense recognized underneath the issue, and no one in power wants to be anywhere near the eruption if the conversation were suddenly to break out.
At the end of that eruption; and with a new and fulsome recognition about the scale of our assembly; I sense we would see a demand for a deep reckoning; and that is exactly what those in power are desperate to avoid.
I would like to conclude the foreboding with an optimistic note. I believe if you were to look at what we call the “western nations”, you would discover that the uptake rate for the vaccine itself amid the U.S. population is the lowest of the entire group. There’s a reason for that.
The same strain of distrust in government that was embedded in the DNA of every American from our nation’s founding, is likely to be the inherent immunity that saves us.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 8, 2023 | Sundance
The true enemy of a constitutional republic are the Mitch McConnell’s and Nancy Mace’s of the professional political class who build systems to undermine the will of the people under the pretense of representing them. These are the abusers, the professional abusers, the psychologically Machiavellian and inherently evil people within the system of power who operate on false pretense. They are smiley-faced fascists and liars, period.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” ~ Taylor Caldwell
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin with one of the Republican members of Congress who was with Speaker McCarthy on all votes. That’s Nancy Mace of South Carolina. Good morning to you, Congresswoman. Welcome back.
REP. NANCY MACE: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Again and again, 14 times the hard right faction of your party refused to vote for Kevin McCarthy even after he was making repeated concessions to them. How can Republicans possibly govern when your party is so unruly?
REP. MACE: Well, first of all, I want to say number one, Kevin McCarthy, is the only member that- that I know of, that could bring all the different groups together within our own party, because we do have different factions, just like Democrats do. And that’s, that’s the first thing. And then the second thing is that sometimes democracy is messy. It looked kind of like an unnecessary and prolonged food fight last week. And I agreed with many Americans who thought that. I came home this weekend and listened to folks of all sides. I represent a very purple district, I have all sides to serve. And there was a lot of frustration with the prolonged and unnecessary food fight that we had this week. But you saw democracy on full display. And I think that’s healthy to have that kind of debate. I’m glad that it’s over and we can move forward.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I mean, some would say it wasn’t so much democracy as it was dysfunction. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page was pretty scathing. Said: don’t believe the happy talk this was a healthy display of deliberative democracy. It was a power play. A group of backbenchers saw an opportunity to exploit the narrower GOP margin of five seats to put themselves in positions of power that they hadn’t earned through seniority or influence with colleagues. If this rules package passes, with all the concessions that Speaker McCarthy made, this will leave you beholden, won’t it? To those backbenchers?
REP. MACE: Well, a couple of things I want, I want to say on the rules package, the rules that are governed the way- that will govern the way the House operates. There are some very great good ideas in there like the 72 hour rule, having three days to read a bill before it comes to the floor for a vote, having a path to balance the budget over the next 10 years, ensuring that they’re spending off- offsets, especially with mandatory spending. If you’re gonna increase in one area, then you have to decrease in another. But I will tell you, when I ran for Congress two years ago, I won by one point, and I ran to be a new Nancy in the house. And what I saw last week was a small faction of the 20, who were acting just like the old Nancy, trying to cut back room deals in private, in secret without anyone knowing what else was going on. And when they did the rules package. At the end of the day, there was only one point that was changed. That was on the motion to vacate. That was the only difference in the package that we’re going to be voting on tomorrow that was different from the original package that was proposed. So my question really is today is what back room deals were cut- did they try to cut? And did they get those because we shouldn’t be operating like Nancy Pelosi, this small faction. They’re the ones that are saying they were, quote, fighting the swamp, but then yet went and tried to act like you know, like, they actually are the swamp by trying to do these back room deals. And we don’t know what they got, or didn’t get. We haven’t seen it. We don’t have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman’s handshakes were made. We just, we just have no idea at this point. And it does give me quite a bit of heartburn, because that’s not what we ran on.
(crosstalk)
MARGARET BRENNAN: So Speaker–
REP. MACE: It’s quite ironic.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are saying Speaker McCarthy is not being transparent about all the deals that he brokered in order to win this job.
REP. MACE: I’m saying there’s a small handful of individuals in that 20 who were trying to cut deals in secret.
(crosstalk)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Didn’t they succeed in doing that?
REP. MACE: And not let anybody else know about them. We’re not sure, we don’t know at this point. And that does give me pause and gives me significant heartburn on what direction we’re going to take. I represent a purple district, I have to represent Republicans, Democrats and Independents. I want to know that the positions that I have are going to have a voice that it will have weighed in the conference. There are a lot of members like me that- that have issues with some of the policies that we’re going to be working on. Look at what happened after overturning of Roe v. Wade. We didn’t have a plan and I want as a woman and as a victim of rape want to know that we’re going to be serious. That we’re going to be balanced in protecting the rights of women and protecting the rights of the unborn. There’s a way to do it both and not be guided by one extreme or the other.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I just want to clarify there because I had asked you initially about the rules package, which is published and would be voted on tomorrow. Are you saying that you’re going to withhold your vote on those published agreements until you know what these back-room deals were?
REP. MACE: I am considering that as an option right now. I like the rules package. It is the most open, fair, and fiscally conservative package we’ve had in 30 years. I support it, but what I don’t support is a small number of people trying to get a deal done or deals done for themselves in private, in secret to get a vote or vote present. I don’t support that. That is just what Nancy Pelosi does. And that’s not what they should be doing. And so, I am on the fence right now about the rules package vote tomorrow for that reason.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Got it. It reportedly includes a pledge that would likely require a $75 billion cut to national security funding. Do you support that part of it?
REP. MACE: I want to see- I want to see it in writing. I want to see what promises were made. And what we are being told is that- that these handshakes, what’s going on these promises will go through regular order and go through the regular appropriations process. I don’t want to see defense cuts. I- again, we don’t, we don’t know what deals were made. And that’s something that we should be transparent about. Sunshine is the best medicine. That’s what we’ve always said. So what, what are we guaranteeing or what promises were made? We should know.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The speaker has reportedly given the Freedom Caucus, that ultra-conservative faction, a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee which controls which bills make it to the floor. You’ve called Matt Gaetz, one of its members, a political D-Lister and a fraud. You’ve sparred with Marjorie Taylor Greene, I’ll show our viewers part of that and let them interpret your meaning. How are you going to work with these folks to get anything done for the American people?
REP. MACE: It’s going to be very difficult. Matt Gaetz is a fraud. Every time he voted against Kevin McCarthy last week he sent out a fundraising email. What you saw last week was a constitutional process diminished by those kinds of political actions. I don’t support that kind of behavior. I am very concerned as someone who represents a lot of centrists, a lot of Independents. I have as many Independents and Democrats as I have Republicans in my district. I have to represent everybody. I am concerned that common sense legislation will not get through to get a vote on the floor. And I, for example, we have 12 bills that we’re supposedly going to be voting on in our first week in office. Three of them are abortion- abortion bills and pro-life bills. I am pro-life. But I have many exceptions. But they are not legislation, pieces of legislation, that can pass the Senate and get onto the desk for the president to sign into law. And so if we’re going to be serious about protecting life, for example, maybe we should look at more centrist views, like ensuring every woman has access to birth control, because if you can reduce pregnancies, you can reduce the need or want for women to have abortions, for example, a very common-sense pragmatic point of view. But that’s not what we’re going to be voting on this week. And I am concerned I want to see pragmatic- pragmatics at work, common sense, fiscal, conservative issues at work that represent all views.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, I have to ask you, you have a new colleague from the state of New York, Representative George Santos. He says he’s embellished his resume. You could say he just flat-out lied about work history, education, family background, how can you work with someone like that? And does he need to be removed from office?
REP. MACE: It’s very difficult to work with anyone who cannot be trusted, and it’s very clear his entire resume in life was- was manufactured until a couple days ago when he finally changed his website. It is a problem. If we say we can’t trust the Left when they are telling the truth, how can we trust our own? Americans want transparency, and the one lesson I’ve learned in DC: if you want a friend you can trust, get a dog.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand you are a dog fan. All right, Congresswoman. Thank you.
REP. MACE: I am a huge dog fan. Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you. Nancy Mace. Thank you for your time this morning. (link)
When 911 took place, Putin visited the site in New York. He laid a wreath. Later he offered to join with the United States to fight terrorism. The US rejected that cooperation.
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 