Category BIDENomics

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Prepping the Landscape CBS Interviews Former DAG Rod Rosenstein About Garland Special Counsel Appointment


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance

DATA Links:  (1) Merrick Garland DOJ Statement on Appointment of Special Counsel ~ (2) pdf of Legal Appointment ~ (3) Statement of John Smith upon Appointment ~ (4) Transcript of AG Merrick Garland Public Announcement.

The pretending is severe as CBS recruits former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to discuss the decision by Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate republicans in congress and President Donald Trump.

You can tell the pretending is severe because neither Rosenstein nor Brennan even touches on the primary aspect to the written instructions by Garland to special counsel John Smith.  The primary function of the special counsel is completely avoided in the interview, [again, read the pdf of the appointment]. Instead, the conversation with Rosenstein focuses on the second, lesser included instruction, the Trump-centric portion.

The corporate media engineers, working on concert with the DC agenda, are pulling Rosenstein into the picture to frame the narrative toward an announcement of an indictment against President Trump. WATCH:

In response to the question of the appointment itself, Rosenstein noted he “probably would not” have made the decision to appoint a special counsel.  However, don’t get too caught up in the granules of the interview itself.  Instead, ask why the media is pulling Rosenstein into the prosecutorial debate?   What benefit is there?  Within those answers you then overlay the fact the primary function of the appointment itself is not part of the conversation.  [Transcript Below]

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin this morning with former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and to determine if there were links between that country and former President Trump’s campaign. And he joins us in studio. It is good to have you here in an extraordinary week.

FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN: Good morning. Glad to be here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get right to it. Due to the former president launching his campaign, the current president may also run for president, the attorney general said it is absolutely necessary to have a special counsel oversee this investigation into the classified documents found at Mar a Lago and what happened with trying to change the outcome of the 2020 election. If you were in that old role you once had, would you have appointed a special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: You know, it’s easy to second guess from outside the department. I don’t know exactly what Merrick Garland knows, what information was available to him. He didn’t say that he was required to appoint the special counsel. He said that he thought it was the right thing to do. I believed the circumstances that I faced, that the appointment of Robert Mueller was the right thing to do with regard to the Russia investigation. But I think in this case, Merrick Garland clearly made a discretionary decision. The department had been handling this itself for two years. Could have continued to handle it itself. But he believed that this would help to promote public confidence. I think it remains to be seen whether that’s the case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you wouldn’t have done this to yourself?

ROSENSTEIN: As I said, it’s it’s easy to second guess from outside. I think, you know, my inclination, given that the investigation had been going on for some time and given the stage which they’ve reached, is that I probably would not have, but I just can’t tell from the outside.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So from where you sit, does the appointment of a special counsel indicate at least a willingness on Merrick Garland part to go ahead with a prosecution, or is that overreading the decision?

ROSENSTEIN: I think what it indicates is that, you know, despite the fact the department has been at this for some time, almost two years on the January six investigation, close to a year, the Mar a Lago investigation, that they still believe that they have a viable potential case. It doesn’t mean they made a decision to go forward. But it certainly is an indication they believe it’s a possibility.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Now, one case that’s been going on longer, the investigation into Hunter Biden, which CBS has learned the FBI has gathered sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun related crimes, and that is before the U.S. attorney in Delaware. David Weiss, I believe you know him since he was a Trump appointee. Can he independently oversee this or do we need another special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, yeah, This investigation, as you said, has been going on for a very long time, which is not good for anybody. You know, it promotes conspiracy theories and suspicions. So my hope is the department will make a decision in the near future about whether to go forward. And hopefully that decision will be accepted by the public. I do believe that the U.S. attorney in Delaware- I know has the right experience to make that decision. So I think we can be confident that he’ll make the right decision in that case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So not in that case. But let me ask you about the content of what is being scrutinized here with the former president. I know when you were U.S. attorney in Maryland, you dealt with individuals who took classified material, sometimes top secret, high level clearances and kept it at home. And you prosecuted them to the full extent of the law. Why should the president be any different?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you’re right. We did have a lot of federal agencies in Maryland. And so we had a number of cases that came up during my 12 years as U.S. attorney, both under President Obama and President Bush. And we prosecuted those cases because we believe the facts justified it. Now, if the facts justify prosecution, President Trump, I think the department will make that decision. But we just don’t know from the outside. You know, there are extenuating circumstances when it’s the president, when there are a lot of staffers and lawyers involved. And so I think we have to wait to see how that all shakes out.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Former Attorney General Barr sat with PBS, and this was right before Merrick Garland’s announcement. But he said that to indict the Justice Department needs to show Mr. Trump was consciously involved. Let’s hear what he had to say.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the press. I don’t know. I’m speculating, but but given what’s gone on, I think they probably have the evidence that would check the box. They have the case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you agree?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, I don’t know. I think the Attorney General Barr, that is, you know, mentioned later in that interview that he was speculating. And I think it’s you know, there are multiple levels of issues that the department needs to consider, Margaret. Number one is, you know, is the evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction? Number two, is, is it an appropriate use of federal resources to bring that case and a case against a former president, obviously, with the extraordinary would raise unique concerns. And so I would hope that Merrick Garland and his team would be very careful about scrutinizing that evidence, not just checking the box, but making sure that they’re prepared to stand behind the decision that they make.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So when you say sustain a conviction, what do you mean by that? Does that mean looking at the courts that are likely to prosecute me, where would you prosecute this case, Florida or Washington, D.C.?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, it means ensuring that, number one, you get past a jury that has been able to persuade 12 random citizens that your case proves the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And number two, that it will be sustained or upheld on appeal. You know, the department sometimes brings cases in which they use novel theories that prevail in district court but are overruled on appeal if they’re to bring a case against the former president, you want to make sure they had a solid case and they were confident both of conviction and of prevailing on any appeal.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And that there wouldn’t be some national security implication such as political violence?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you know, that’s and that’s a difficult issue, Margaret, as to whether or not the attorney general should consider the the potential for public unrest if they were to bring a case against the president,

MARGARET BRENNAN: It has to be considered.

ROSENSTEIN: I think it highlights the importance of the department ensuring that they have a solid case that is that they’re going to win a conviction and they’re going to be able to sustain an appeal. The circumstances, the stakes are higher than an ordinary case. You need to make sure if you bring that case that you can persuade people that is meritorious that you deserve to win.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that gets at the fundamentals, the distrust of institution where we are these days. But the former president is already said he’s not going to comply with any investigations. He said that on Friday. So what does this mean for the timeline? Are we running right into the 2024 presidential campaign?

ROSENSTEIN: I’m concerned about about the timing. Obviously, the the new special counsel, Jack Smith, needs to get up to speed in the case. He’s not even in the U.S. so he needs to come back and get engaged and supervise his team. He may need to bring in additional team members, people he trusts to review the circumstances. And then there are other potential delays as well. You know, one of the downsides of appointing a special counsel is the possibility of litigation over the validity of the appointment of the special counsel. And that has always been upheld by the courts. But litigation can impose additional delay. So I think there’s a fair chance that this is going to drag in well into the campaign season.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And then the question of whether the candidate wins or not. Rod Rosenstein, thank you for your insight and for joining us today.

ROSENSTEIN: Thank you.

{End Transcript}

Nov 17 2022

Trump is Back


Armstrong Economic Blog/Politics Re-Posted Nov 17, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Donald Trump announced that he is officially running for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The only president in American history to win re-election after a defeat was Grover Cleveland in 1892. The establishment repeatedly tried to impeach Trump to prevent him from seeking a second term, but he’s back.

Trump wanted to keep America out of war. He threatened to leave NATO and pushed other countries to contribute their fair share. It is safe to say that Trump would likely not be sending billions to Ukraine under his America first policy that branded him as selfish. We talk about energy fears crippling the world, but America was the top producer of oil and natural gas under his presidency.

At this point, no one can honestly say they are better off under Biden. When I attended an event at Mar-a-Lago, I was very impressed by Trump. It was the first time in my entire career that I heard a head of state concerned about the soldiers they sent off to war. He said we needed to face the fact that foreign governments have been fighting over borders in the Middle East for ages, and it was not our place to intervene. He said he never wanted to call another mother and tell her that their child had died in a pointless battle.

He was not afraid to speak to our enemies and even became the first US president to cross the border into North Korea. Our current president can barely speak in general and has put America last. A vote for Trump was a vote against the establishment. Politicians cried that he had no experience in politics, but that is precisely why he won in 2016 — because he is not you.

The establishment will continue its efforts to take down Trump by any means. He has too many supporters for that to be an easy feat, and he’s prepared to enter political guerilla warfare. In all honesty, by the time we reach 2024, there may not even be a presidential election. We must crash and burn.

Nov 17 2022

Republicans Take the House


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Nov 16, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The Republican has won the House. It took more than a week for the Associated Press to determine the GOP had won the 218 seats necessary to control the chamber. Never in my entire life have I ever witnessed an election take this long to find out who won. This is all the paper absentee ballots where my own staff could right a national voting program in less than one month and you do not need the paper nonsense. Dead people will not be able to vote and there will be no harvesting of ballots.

While the press wants to portray this as an underwhelming performance for the Republicans when they should have won hands-down considering the national decline in confidence in Biden that normally would have worked to their advantage, the corruption in the election process has been itself unprecedented.

Our computer was correct – there would be no red wave. The report ($14.95) provided our Timing Arrays forecasting politics out for 12 years. The Republicans would take the House but not the Senate for this would be an extremely tight election due to the corruption. The whole point of the press calling for a red tidal wave was to make sure Republicans felt their vote was not needed so why bother? That was a strategy to keep that up in the press. I saw the same tactic was used to get Jimmie Carter elected. I remember that well for even I concluded it was so overwhelming I did not vote – they didn’t need me. Then you woke up with a surprise nobody expected.

This will now contribute to 2023 where we see rising civil unrest and the Republicans will bring impeachment proceedings against Biden and dive into the Hunter Laptop like never before. The Democrats are about to find out what goes around – comes around. All civility in politics has been tossed out the window.

This is the decline and fall of America. The country is now so divided, there is simply no possible way to ever bring it back to the middle. The Democrats still hate Trump and will push to discredit all Republicans using Trump. The hateful way politics has emerged ensures there is absolutely NOBODY on a white horse who will save the day. It will be soon to just turn out the lights.

Nov 16 2022

UN & ICC Now Guarantee World War III is the Only Solution


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Nov 16, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Spread the love

I previously reported that my sources inside the ICC would move to charge Putin with war crimes. No head of state has EVER been charged for the actions of those on the battlefield. Russia is not a member of the ICC, and neither is the United States for that matter. This has merely guaranteed that we are heading into World War III. Putin will not attend the G20, for now, he certainly cannot when the West would use the event to stage an arrest of Putin. They have burned all the bridges for negotiation for peace. This leaves the only resolution is all-out war.

Then the United Nations also ensured that we have no choice but to enter World War III. This is the agenda. The United Nations General Assembly has now adopted a resolution calling for Russia to pay war reparations for its invasion of Ukraine. This is to include the billions of dollars in damage and destruction, as well as reparations for the loss of life. This, too, GUARANTEES there will be no resolution, and this entire event was staged to force Putin to move in to protect the Donbas when Ukraine and the West have torn up both the Belgrade and Minsk Agreements because they want to destroy Russia for climate change.

Russia is the largest energy producer. Some 50% of its GDP is all energy. The US blew up the pipeline deliberately to cut off the sale of energy to Europe. What the US did was an act of war. Of course, nobody in the West and certainly not the ICC or the United Nations would EVER rule against the United States. The West is on this climate change mission, and they are desperately trying to destroy Russia using Ukraine as an excuse.

This UN resolution states plainly that the Russian Federation “must bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including making reparation for injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.” It boldly goes even further, stating that it will establish “an international mechanism for reparation for damage, loss or injury.”

This is the very same action that was taken against Germany following World War I. They imposed draconian reparation payments that impoverished the German people and caused hyperinflation when the government seized 10% of all private wealth to try to make those payments in December 1922 and laid the very foundation for Hitler’s rise.

It was John Maynard Keynes who warned that the reparations against Germany would create disaster. In his “The Economic Consequences of the Peace,” published in December 1919, Keynes predicted that the stiff war reparations and other harsh terms imposed on Germany by the treaty would lead to the financial collapse of the country. That indeed unleashed the hyperinflation in 1923 and led to the German people turning to Hitler, as Keynes warned, because it would have serious economic and political repercussions on Europe as a whole. That set the stage for World War II, and once again, these people are repeating the very mistakes that unleashed World War II all for climate change.

The sheer stupidity of what is taking place among our world leaders is unthinkable. They WANT war to cover up the collapse of Western debt and the entire monetary system, for they can no longer borrow endlessly. That is precisely what Yellen has said by admitting that she wants to buy back long-term debt and swap it with short-term all because there is a growing debt crisis with NO BID on the long-term as we just saw in the British market.

If you cannot negotiate peace — there is ONLY one solution — all-out war. Ukrainian people are fools. The West has been using them as cannon fodder, and they welcome the death of every Ukrainian to justify their war against Russia. They will wage this proxy war against Russia until the last Ukrainian dies. It is a shame that people believe the propaganda all to “Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war.”

This is all about climate change. Imposing these types of sanctions is total insanity. It led to the rise of Hitler, and this only confirms my deepest concern that the removal of Putin will lead to the real hardliners seizing power, and the only reparations solution will be to wipe out Ukraine off the face of the map.

There will be no other solution. They have all now confirmed that they do not seek peace. Russia has stated many times it would negotiate and simply demanded what had been agreed upon in the Minsk Agreement. The Donbas has never been part of Ukraine. Their refusal to allow Russians in the Donbas to vote on their own sovereignty and even outlawing their language and religion is not a fight for democracy, as Zelensky claims — this is a proxy war against Russia. Zelensky has committed his country to a hopeless war, and he will flee at the end, given sanctuary and a private jet for being a good boy and betraying his own people.

The West has indeed unleashed the Dogs of War. Cry Havoc, for our pretend elected politicians prefer war to honest economic reform where they would have to admit that borrowing year after year with no intention of ever paying anything back has come to an end. They were willing to sacrifice the lives of so many people all to retain power.

Nov 16 2022

Biden Asks Lame Duck Congress to Quickly Expedite Another $38 Billion for Ukraine Plus $9 Billion for Big Pharma


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 15, 2022 | Sundance

The White House is urging Nancy Pelosi to utilize the lame duck congressional session and construct a massive omnibus spending bill that will wrap Ukraine funding, COVID spending and a federal budget extension via continuous resolution.  The request for Ukraine funding is an additional $38 billion.

Federal funds to support FEMA and hurricane recovery efforts will likely be part of the bargaining chips. Essentially, the sausage ingredients are: if congress doesn’t give Zelenskyy more money, then DeSantis will not get federal financial assistance.

If you don’t support Ukraine, you’re a Russian operative.

WASHINGTON DC – The Biden administration sent a letter to Congress on Tuesday outlining nearly a $38 billion request to help Ukraine continue fending off Russian attacks.

The administration is also asking for $10 billion in emergency health funding, with more than $9 billion going toward Covid vaccine access, next-generation Covid vaccines, long Covid research and more. About $750 million would be spent on efforts to control the spread of monkeypox, hepatitis C and HIV.

Congress has so far provided about $66 billion for Ukraine and other war-related needs. The administration argues that about three-quarters of that funding has either been spent or is committed to specific purposes.

An administration official said the White House plans to request additional disaster relief in the coming weeks to help with hurricane and wildfire recovery but didn’t provide any tentative figure.

The administration’s request for emergency money comes as appropriators aim to clinch a year-end government funding deal that would stave off a partial government shutdown on Dec. 16 and increase agency budgets for the current fiscal year. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already promised to provide more money for Ukraine in a government funding package, while some conservatives are arguing that the U.S. should cut off financial assistance and assess how funding for the country has been spent to date. (read more)