Category Corporate Donors -vs- MAGA

Nov 21 2022

Why All Elections Are Rigged


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Nov 20, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Do you think the midterm elections were rigged?

SK

ANSWER: Under normal conditions, one would have to answer that question as – OF COURSE.

In the past five midterm elections, the Republicans gained control of the Senate in 2014, the House in 2010, and the Senate in 2002. The Democrats gained both the House and Senate back in 2006. So it has been 20 years since a midterm election didn’t result in a change of control in at least one chamber of Congress when the Republicans kept the House and Senate in 1998.

Biden has used the strategic oil reserve which was to protect the nation against another embargo as during the 1970s all to manipulate the midterm election. He also sold oil to China. And then Biden promised that he would make abortion a constitutional amendment, which he cannot do – it would take states to vote on that and he knew he was just a bold face liar.

The reason he deplete the strategic oil reserve is because if the economy turns into a recession and/or high inflation, Congress will always flip and in a presidential election, the president is booted out like Hoover in 1932 or Jimmy Carter in 1980.

The youth voted for Democrats and they will soon realize that they were played as the typical fool just as the Democrats, the party of slavery during the Civil War, used the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and many have said it was to get the black vote.

MSNBC reporter Adam Serwer writes:

In Senate cloakrooms and staff meetings, Johnson was practically a connoisseur of the word. According to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, Johnson would calibrate his pronunciations by region, using “nigra” with some southern legislators and “negra” with others. Discussing civil rights legislation with men like Mississippi Democrat James Eastland, who committed most of his life to defending white supremacy, he’d simply call it “the nigger bill.”

Anyone who thinks that those on Capitol Hill really care about you or your future is a brainwashed fool. This is a game of party politics and that is civil war on Capitol Hill.

EVERY election is always rigged! The only question is did it actually effect the outcome. Nobody will dare to actually launch a real investigation into that. When a Grand Jury in 1908 investigated elections in Chicago, they concluded that there was probably NEVER a fair election. It does not matter which side, for they all are in the game.

Nov 21 2022

There is Nobody Coming on a White Horse to Save the Day


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re

Posted Nov 21, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty, this was my first WEC. I had already met so many people and made friendships that the trip alone was worth it. I also found it interesting that you said nobody is coming in on a white horse from the Republican Party to save us. That struck me for you are really middle-of-the-road independent. The question period with Mike Cambell was great. You should expand that more. Now that Trump announced he will run in 2024, what are the prospects for him v the Republican Party?

DL

ANSWER: I found the comments of Senator John Hawley of Missouri on point. He commented on Mitch McConnell who was shamefully elected leader of the Senate GOP once again. Hawley said: “I think Sen. McConnell’s view is that [former President Donald] Trump is largely to blame” for the party’s poor midterm showing. Hawley added: “I think that frankly, that lets the party off too easy. I think that Republican-leaning independents, that is, people who don’t like [President] Joe Biden but don’t identify as Republicans. I think they look at this party and they’re like, ‘Man, I don’t think they’re doing it for me,’” the Missouri senator said. “That’s why they stayed home.”

“They don’t like what’s going on in the country. They looked at Republicans, and Trump wasn’t on their ballot but looked at the Republicans who were. As a group they were like, ‘We just don’t think you guys do anything for us.’ I think that’s a huge problem.”

Let’s get real. The two MAJOR issues that swept Trump into the White House were (1) term limits and (2) draining the swamp. That is why Mitch McConnel and the elite Republicans were always against Trump from the outset. Why? Because the swamp is both parties and nobody on Capitol Hill wants term limits. They staged a campaign to slander Trump at every possible moment. Mitch McConnel is still blaming Trump when the people see Capitol Hill as not just a swamp – it has become a cesspool.

The Democrats hated Trump and they were told every lie possible by RussiaGate and so forth because the Democratic Elite like Washington just as it is. The real career politicians in the Republican Party NEVER supported Trump for the very same reason. Sure, Trump would be crude. But he was always on the side of the people against Capitol Hill. That is why they are desperate to bring criminal charges against Trump which has NEVER before ever been done to a former president no matter what. They are transforming the USA into nothing different than a Banana Republic. Even Zelensky imprisons his political opponents.

If someone would actually impose term limits and end corruption on Capitol Hill, I think you would have a lot of Democrats cheering on that person as well. We will run our political models for the Present in 2024. I can tell you now – there is nobody from either party who will save our nation from complete collapse.

Nov 21 2022

The Core Battle Within the Republican Party


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 21, 2022 | sundance

An inflection point is coming.  In preparation for what we are about to witness, it is critical to understand that both the DNC and RNC are private corporations with no affiliation to government.

It is a difficult shift in thinking to appropriately understand, but the party system in U.S. politics revolves around two clubs that feed from the same corporate trough and position for influence and affluence within a political dynamic they control.

The priority for both clubs, Republican and Democrat, is NOT primarily ideological.  In the modern era, the corporate priority first begins with a battle over who controls each corporation.

As long as there is no challenge, the clubs operate without issue.  However, when there is a battle for control of the corporation, a battle that will ultimately determine the financial outcome, the internal battle becomes the priority.

2024 is going to be the election season when we see this corporate battle explode inside in the Republican group.  Decades of entrenched power are at stake, and there has been four years of counter positioning and backroom discussion leading up to this moment.

As a consequence, and I know this might sound odd to many people – but winning and/or losing elections becomes a secondary issue.  The RNC is not focused on winning elections. The RNC corporation is focused on retaining control.

The RNC want to give the illusion of support for MAGA conservatism because they need the base voter, and they need to maintain the illusion of choice. However, every move they make on an operational level is exactly in line with their previous outlook toward cocktail class republicanism.  The MAGA base of support cannot trust this corporate group and we must not be blind or unguarded about the Machiavellian schemes they construct.

When you hear the influence group saying the two priorities for control of the Republican Club involve, (1) eliminating populism in the ranks; and (2) realigning with multinational corporate objectives (vis a vis Wall Street), what they are publicly expressing is their RNC corporate need to get rid of the America First economic agenda; to get rid of the MAGA influence.

How has this historically surfaced?

Well, at a national level there is a unique policy priority that almost every politician, on both sides, will avoid discussing.  At a national level a single policy priority determines all other national policy outlooks.  That policy is the national economic policy.

The national economic policy of a presidential candidate determines all other national policies that flow from the presidential candidate.  The national economic policy impacts the obvious policies like energy and trade, and also determines the lesser obvious policies like regulation and even foreign policy.

It is specifically because a candidate’s national economic outlook impacts all other issues, that most national politicians never talk about it.

It would be impossible to support Main Street USA, a popular talking point, and still support the Paris Climate Treaty, the Transpacific Trade Partnership (TPP) or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

To avoid the contradictions, most Democrat and Republican politicians avoid discussing their national economic policy. It is an unspoken rule within the billionaire club and donor game, an economic code of omerta amid most political candidates.

President Trump broke the rule and even went so far as to campaign on an America First economic policy agenda.  That core outlook forms the Make America Great Again foundation.  MAGA is based on a national economic policy outlook that determines every other national policy as carried by President Trump.

While most Americans may not be able to articulate how the national economic policy impacts them, almost every American feels the consequences through gasoline prices, energy prices, employment, wage rates and the expenses within their everyday lives.  To try and hide this reality, often media and economic analysts will say the U.S. President has no control over gasoline prices; however, this is unequivocally false.

Yes, it is true that oil prices are determined by the global market for the product, the supply and the demand.  However, the energy policy of the president determines the domestic investment in natural resource development and extraction by oil companies.  The energy policy determines domestic supply.  The regulatory policy determines the expansion, or lack therein, of oil and gasoline refinery capacity.  So yes, it is ultimately the U.S President who determines gasoline prices indirectly through energy and regulatory policy.

If this were not the case, then gasoline would cost nearly the same in almost every nation. It doesn’t.  Right now, gasoline in Mexico is almost $1 less than gasoline in the United States, specifically because Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador is not trying to reduce oil resource investment, development and/or gasoline refinery capacity.

President Trump was the first presidential candidate who campaigned on a domestic national economic policy.  He even went one step further and stated the T-word, tariffs.  Yes, the commerce department holds tools to support a national economic policy.

The tariff tool is another aspect to national economics that most politicians avoid discussing because the toolbox is counter to the interests of Wall Street, multinational corporations and hedge fund managers.

For a reference point you might remember the apoplectic fits from financial and economic punditry to President Trump’s 2017 and 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs.

Economic security is determined by national economic policy.  National security is also an outcome of national economic policy.  Again, President Trump was also the first modern president to put that outlook to work when he said, “economic security is national security,” and then began constructing a foreign policy agenda using the cornerstone of national economic policy.  The result was quite remarkable and led to what eventually became the Trump Doctrine.

It was inherently the US national economic policy that underpinned President Trump challenging NATO to meet their financial obligations.  It was national economic policy that drove trade policy and created the north American USMCA trade agreement.  It was national economic policy that led to countervailing duties on Chinese and European imports.  Which had the remarkable effect of actually lowering prices inside the United States.

We began importing deflation through lower priced goods as the value of the dollar increased and China/EU central banks devalued their currency to avoid the impact of tariffs.  Asia and the EU also subsidized their export manufacturing with incentives in order to lower costs as an offset to the tariffs, while simultaneously Asian and European companies began investing in production facilities inside the U.S. as a long-term approach to retaining access to the U.S. market. To put it succinctly, this was MAGAnomics at work.

U.S. wages increased, U.S. job growth increased, U.S. energy prices dropped with increased energy development and a massive cut in regulations, and that in turn lowered the cost of domestic goods.  Suddenly we were importing goods at lower prices and generating goods internally at lower prices.  More MAGAnomic outcomes, which, not coincidentally, was the exact opposite of all Wall Street claims and predictions.

Making America Great Again, was an outcome of national economic policy.  At its core, MAGA is a national economic dynamic within a political movement that is represented by President Donald J Trump.

It is critical to understand, the MAGA economic policy is essentially a national policy completely, and uniquely, under the control of the office of the President.  The impact to the lives of Americans is a direct outcome from national economic policy.  If a president wants to lead an independently wealthy country, he/she applies a very specific economic outlook to all other policy areas including energy, regulation and foreign policy.

It is also true that opposition to President Donald Trump is uniquely connected to the America-First economic agenda.

Multimillion-dollar lobbyist firms like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, along with dozens of economically established SuperPAC’s funded by Wall Street and multinational corporations, are vehemently opposed to the America-First economic agenda.

All of the national politicians and political candidates taking money from these aforementioned groups necessarily bind themselves to a position that stands against the America-First economic agenda.

In essence, if you take money from the multinationals you cannot deliver on MAGA economic outcomes for banking, trade, finance etc.  And that’s exactly where we run into the problem.

Because MAGA national economic priorities conflict with the multinational corporations, hedge funds and the Wall Street donor class, all of the politicians who accept the influence checks from these self-interested groups cannot run on, or deliver, a MAGA national economic agenda.

At a local, county and state level you have direct impact on the political policy agenda in your community.  Who you elect to the city council, school board, state house and senate as well as governor’s office has an impact on those local and state priorities.  However, national economic policy, national energy and trade policy and national foreign policy are not under your control.

As a result, the same skillset, or policy outlook, that makes a governor a successful state politician doesn’t carry into a federal office, [see the example of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker].  Yes, there are some executive and administration skills that carry over; however, on the bigger issue of steering the national policy agenda, almost every candidate for office comes with the baggage of having accepted donor contributions from a class of people who are paying for economic policy influence.

MAGA cannot be purchased.  It is a political outlook that seeks only to enhance the best interests of the American people, regardless of consequence for the multinationals or foreign beneficiaries of globalist U.S. economic policy.  Unfortunately, as a result, all of the beneficiaries are aligned to make sure the MAGA economic policy outlook is extinguished.  There are literally trillions at stake.  This reality underpins the opposition to Donald Trump.

When you understand why the national economic outlook of the President is so important, you can also understand why every political candidate is told not to discuss it by the handlers and campaign managers who are essentially selling their candidate to a millionaire and billionaire donor class who do not want an America-First economic policy agenda.

There is no easy solution for this problem, and ironically this core economic issue is where you find supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in alignment.

Where the Sanders and Trump camps split is on the solution.  Team Sanders wants the government to play the role of economic referee (regulation), while Team Trump wants the government to change the rules of the economic game (countervailing duties, tariffs etc).

Before Donald Trump entered politics there was no home for people voting on the issue of a national economic agenda. Both Democrat and Republican candidates had essentially the same worldview on national economic policy because they are all getting money from the same multinational corporate trough.  However, President Trump changed that dynamic by presenting an alternative national economic policy called America-First.

For decades middle America was begging the McConnell’s, Ryans, Boehners, Romney’s, McCain’s, Bushes, et al, to make America First economic policies their priority.  All of our shouts for help fell upon deaf political ears plugged by corporate donations and influence.  Our communities were literally collapsing around us (see rust belt), and yet no national politician would do anything of consequence.

By the time Donald Trump arrived decades of frustration exploded in an eruption of massive applause because he was articulating the central economic issue that was being ignored by the professional political class.  The America First agenda is the restoration agenda.  From Trump’s national economic policy, the middle-class erosion stopped. Economic security, specifically U.S. employment stability and wage rates, goes hand in glove with border security and immigration controls.

MAGAnomics is the core of the great MAGA republican coalition, a working-class coalition that cuts through all other distinctions and divisions.  It is not republican because of political affiliation, it is “MAGA republican” only because the republican party was the political vehicle selected by Donald Trump to install the policy.

This reality creates a problem for the DC professional political class and the corporate media. Because MAGAnomics is the fundamentally binding principle there is no way to fracture the Trump supporter coalition.

I am a “MAGA Republican” by default of my wanting a national economic agenda that looks out for the economic interests of American’s first.

Donald Trump is the irreplaceable Great MAGA King because Donald Trump is the only one who holds that same outlook.  Unfortunately, the Republican corporation does not carry that priority. Thus, the Big Ugly battle for control of the Republican Party is being previewed right now, and will grow in scale and consequence very soon.

Let me emphasize the key point.  The Republican Party is not positioning to win the 2024 election.

The people in control of Republican Club do not care who is in the White House, that is a secondary objective.  What they care about right now is controlling the Republican corporation and stopping the hostile takeover.

Every single Republican presidential candidate for 2024, sans Trump, will be inserted into the race to help the Republican corporation in this battle.  When you see them enter, instead of asking, ‘how can they win‘, ask yourself what is their mission on behalf of the Club priority?

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Paul Ryan Dismisses 75 million Member MAGA Movement, Claims Corporations Will Win Power Struggle Within GOP Battle


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

This interview is excellent news as Paul Ryan delivers a full-throated dismissal of Donald Trump and puts himself as the arbiter of “acceptable republicans” moving forward.

This Big Club operation in public is exactly what we need to see happen in order to wage a war against uniformed enemies within the republican party.  Keep in mind, as Paul Ryan talks about winning elections he recently campaigned for Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger in their failed 2020 midterm reelection campaigns.

Nothing about this interview where Paul Ryan positions himself against the blue-collar working-class MAGA movement is bad.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and for Paul Ryan to openly proclaim his anti-Donald Trump allegiances, which will soon evolve into open promotion for Ron DeSantis, will only help the awakening as we highlight the Republican Club strategy for 2024.  WATCH:

As I have said for years, there was no doubt in my mind that Paul Ryan was positioning himself to lead the “establishment” republican wing of the UniParty.  He has now openly and publicly embraced that role.  Pretenses are dropping, and that is a glorious thing. However, in reality, Paul Ryan as a candidate for Vice-President in 2012 received less votes in his own state of Wisconsin than candidate Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.

The ‘America First’ national agenda, both economically and in larger global terms, was not represented in either wing of the UniParty system until Donald Trump came into politics.  The economics of the thing, the financial graft that oils the wheels of politics, is the source of all opposition.

On the part where Ryan outlines his view of the current financial situation, I can only laugh in his face.

This is the guy who was Speaker of the House of Representatives when he dispatched regular budgetary order in order to facilitate President Obama’s need for omnibus spending and continuing resolution bills.  Obviously, Ryan needs to pretend not to know that, and counting on, as Jonathan Gruber would say, “the stupidity of the American electorate.”

This battle into 2024 is going to be epic and fun.

Ryan named Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott as his three favorites. {source} DeSantis fighting Disney was “really good for him, from a political perspective,” Ryan said.

As the House Speaker, Paul Ryan undercut President Trump at every turn in the first two years of his administration.  Ryan’s duplicity included his unwillingness to support Devin Nunes and other House chairman in their subpoena efforts against the bad actors in the intelligence community.  Paul Ryan was, in deliberate terms, knowingly and with specific intent protecting the corrupt DC interests.

Yes, it is something he would rather people not remember, but it was Speaker Paul Ryan who blocked republicans in the House from issuing subpoenas in 2017 and 2018 for the election surveillance and FBI lies against President Trump.  It is also worth remembering that Paul Ryan’s leadership PAC funded democrat Conner Lamb in the 2018 mid-term election after Ryan announced his intended departure.

Paul Ryan has always been the type of DeceptiCon who could get the CPAC audience to stand and cheer for him only minutes after passing a massive omnibus spending package to support President Obama.  Thus, the UniParty maneuvers are always present; including when Ryan said: “I am not going to defend Trump – not now, and not in the future.”

Additionally, former House Speaker Paul Ryan previously held a fundraising event for Liz Cheney (March 2021), and then Paul Ryan announced a failed attempt to fundraise for Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger.. ..

A week after saying any Democrat who made the 2020 presidential race about “Trump’s personality” will beat him, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch hired Paul Ryan to serve as a board member for the news organization.  This announcement followed on the heels of Fox News hiring the former head of the DNC, Donna “Debate-Gate” Brazile, as a contributor.  Yes, it is clear to see the direction and intent of Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch.

[…] Lachlan Murdoch, the heir apparent and eldest son, who co-chairs News Corp and runs the parent company of Fox News, has reportedly told DeSantis that the group would back him if he ran in the next election. “Lachlan has been keen on Ron for some time,” said the i’s source. “He’s viewed within the organization as a sanitized version of Donald.” (read more)

It must also be remembered that in 2013 Fox News worked behind the scenes to facilitate the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform platform.  Additionally, a year later, Murdoch himself advocated for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio as the preferred candidates in 2016, using Megyn Kelly to achieve their objective.

Yes, it is all one unfortunate, political and ideological continuum.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “RINO Paul Ryan, who became a lame duck Speaker of the House, lost all vote-getting capability with the people he represented in Wisconsin, and was the single biggest factor, other than Romney himself, for the monumental Romney/Ryan loss in the Presidential race of 2012 (I got more votes by far, 75M, than any sitting president in history!), and he is now speaking to other Republicans telling them how to win elections. Interestingly, I was in the Great State of Wisconsin when they booed him off the podium—I literally had to come to his rescue.

Ryan should instead be telling them how to stop the cheating of elections and that we would have won if Republican leadership fought the way the Democrats did.

It was the day that Ryan went on the board of Fox (Fox will never be the same!) that Fox totally lost its way and became a much different place, with millions of its greatest supporters fleeing for good. Paul Ryan has been a curse to the Republican Party. He has no clue as to what needs to be done for our Country, was a weak and ineffective leader, and spends all of his time fighting Republicans as opposed to Democrats who are destroying our Country.

As a Republican, having Paul Ryan on your side almost guarantees a loss, for both you, the Party, and America itself!” (link)

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Democrat J6 Committee Confirms Intent to Transfer Evidence to Special Counsel During Lame Duck to Begin Republican Targeting Operations


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

If you doubted the intent of the primary function of the appointment for Special Counsel John Smith, you can put that doubt to rest now.  Appearing on CBS FtN Democrat Rep Zoe Lofgren confirms the intent of the Garland appointment is to receive evidence from the J6 Committee and utilize that evidence in the targeting operation against Republicans in congress.

Read the carefully worded statements from Lofgren and compare them to the background we previously outlined.  Everything is clear.  WATCH:

Primary goal, create enough of a legal mess as to obstruct any republican legislative effort against the Biden White House.  Additionally, if Smith’s DC team can pick-off a few republican House members under charges of “supporting an insurrection“, the political power will revert back to the Democrats in office.

They didn’t just think this up overnight.

This is why the January 6 committee never ended.  They are using J6 as a weapon against their losing the House to republicans.  The Democrats are now structurally targeting Republicans with the appointment of Jack Smith.  It’s actually a brilliant move.  The executive is now investigating the legislative branch; the legal structure of this eliminates the separation of powers issue.

The DOJ is not investigating republicans, they are investigating defined criminals; insurrectionists that are national security threats, that happen to be republicans.  See how that works?

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. She serves on the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee investigating January 6. Good morning to you, Congresswoman. I want to get straight to it. Does the refusal of the Vice President and the former president to comply with your investigation in any way impede the impact or outcome?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, we wish they had come in. Certainly other Presidents have come in when asked by the Congress, including Gerald Ford, Teddy Roosevelt, many others. It is almost Thanksgiving, and the committee turns into a pumpkin at the end of December. So we don’t have time to litigate this. But I think they’ve cheated history. And they should have done otherwise. We, on the other hand, have received substantial information from other sources. And we’re in the process of, as I’m sure you know, writing our report now, and —

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re continuing to gather information, as I understand it, speaking to two Secret Service officials recently. What more do you need? And are you still sharing that information with the Justice Department?

LOFGREN: Well, we’re not sharing information with the Justice Department. We’re doing our own investigation. However, we anticipate when our report is released, to release all of the evidence that we have assembled so the public can see it, including the Department of Justice.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, what do you have? I understand the committee has released documents to the Department of Justice, is that not the case?

LOFGREN: Well, we’re not – we’re no, we’re, we’re, we’re doing our own investigation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

LOFGREN: And within a month, they – the public will have everything that we’ve found, all the evidence. For good or ill. And I think we’ve, as we’ve shown in our hearings, made a compelling presentation, that the former president was at the center of the effort to overturn a duly elected election, assembled the mob, sent it over to Congress to try and interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. It’s pretty shocking.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, as we know, the Justice Department has its own investigation. And that’s what led us to the Attorney General making news just a few days ago with this special counsel to take up the events surrounding January 6. But what does putting this in the hands of a Special Counsel accomplish here? Do you think it actually removes politics? Or does it still just keep it there since the Attorney General will still have oversight of the special counsel?

LOFGREN: Well, I think from what the Attorney General said he sought to depoliticize this investigation. Obviously, career professionals are doing it and to have a special counsel overseeing it. But you know, the right wing never fails, up is down and down is up. The effort to depoliticize they are now criticizing is somehow a political measure. So, you know, the effort to say segregated the investigation from the Attorney General himself, is in the eye of the beholder. And of course, the former president is saying he won’t partake as if you know, it’s a – it’s a slice of pizza. I mean, it’s not up to him. He is being investigated for these offenses, and we’ll see what they find.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You sit on the Judiciary Committee, you just heard Rod Rosenstein say that he thinks the US Attorney in Delaware is sufficient in terms of being able to independently decide on what to do with Hunter Biden and that case. I wonder if you agree with that, or if you think your Republican colleagues are right to ask for a special counsel to deal with the current president’s son?

LOFGREN: Well, I don’t know anything about that case. Certainly, in the case of –

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you do have oversight of the Justice Department?

LOFGREN: Yeah. Yes, but we don’t, you know, I served with Mike Pence on the Judiciary Committee. We don’t oversee and interfere with individual investigations in cases. That would be improper in terms of oversight. You know, if if the president’s son has committed offenses, then, you know, there’ll be a judgment on whether to prosecute or not, and that’s the rule of law. Just as the rule of law applies to the former president, people in this country have to adhere to the law. And, you know, if you don’t, if you commit an offense and the facts are there, then there’ll be a prosecution. And that’s what it’s about living in a country where the rule of law, not just politics, leads us. That’s about our democratic republic.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the issue of what to do with Hunter Biden will come before your committee as the chair – the incoming chair of it has said along with the head of oversight, they want to lead investigations.

LOFGREN: There’s nothing – no role for the legislative body and a prosecution.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood, but are you prepared as Democrats for this knife fight?

LOFGREN: Well, I mean, we’re going to be there and the incoming Judiciary Committee Chair has a history of playing fast and loose with the truth. We’re aware of that. And we will be there as truth-sayers.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be watching Congresswoman. Thank you.

[End Transcript]

The overarching Lawfare framework has been transparently created by President Obama’s former White House Legal Counsel and current U.S. Asst Attorney General Lisa Monaco.

In essence, the J6 investigation – with an emphasis on congress – transfers to Special Counsel Jack Smith:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021, as well as any matters that arose or might arise directly from this investigation or that are within the scope of [Special Counsel Regulations 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)]. (pdf)

This is an extension of the January 6th Committee special investigation that transfers the committee’s investigative findings, ie phone records, text messages, transcripts, emails, prior testimony and all evidentiary records, into the newly appointed Special Counsel.

However, all prior and current DOJ prosecutions against citizen individuals will remain within the control and direction of Main Justice.  This structure frees up Jack Smith to target the new republican controlled congressional members, their staff, families and/or communication network.   Main Justice keeps focus on the citizen insurrectionists, Jack Smith now appointed to go after the public officials.

J6 Committee staff, committee investigators, FBI agents and DOJ lawyers will now transfer from the committee to the special counsel office.

As you can see from the simple (non-pretending) explanation of what is being done, the Lawfare process becomes clear.

Everything a republican congress now begins to question falls under the protective blanket of an “ongoing investigation,” exactly as we predicted.  Plus, you get the additional Lawfare elements of congressional leadership under investigation which provides an entirely new ‘conflict of interest dynamic’ to the political equation.

Then you have the congressional representatives under investigation and search warrants on their phones, text messages, emails, etc…. AND the added benefit of using DOJ-NSD defined terms of “national security threat” (that’s why they emphasized insurrection) to gain FISA warrants on an entire incoming congressional delegation.

How slick is that? 

All of the congressional J6 and DOJ main justice teams will now assemble in new DC offices to set up the 2023 targeting operation.  The announcement was made a few days ago, but the planning of the construct has been in place for months, contingent upon the number of actual House seats that could flip.  The Lawfare design is transparent when you stop looking at the obfuscation reporting from mainstream media.

Think of it like the legal ideology of the United Nations (democracy as defined by progressives) prosecuting members of the United States government for acts of rebellion under the framework of a constitutional republican form of government they abhor.  That’s Jack Smith.

In addition, the same ideological Lawfare elements will be targeting the threat represented by U.S. nationalist politician Donald J Trump.   It’s like The Great Reset crew inserting an operative inside a corrupt and friendly United States Dept of Justice, with the intent to remove the threat Donald J Trump represents to their interests.

On the multinational corporate side, while all this is special counsel stuff is taking place, the Wall Street billionaires and multinationals -those who control the two Big Clubs known as the DNC and RNC- will be providing the illusion of choice for the American electorate.

More on that aspect coming soon….. 

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}