Category Corrupt White House

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

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

If They Say You’re Too Small to Make a Difference, Tell Them to Sleep in a Room with a Mosquito


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

Wall Street -vs- Main Street

Corporate Donors -vs- MAGA

.

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}

Nov 19 2022

Nunes: Special counsel investigating Trump is criminal


Devin Nunes Published originally on Rumble on  November 18, 2022

Biden (Obama?) Directs AG Merrick Garland and the DOJ to Ramp up Attacks on President Donald Trump.

Nov 19 2022

Democrats Lied About Abortion Just to Win


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Nov 18, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Dick Armey is the former House Majority Leader and an Economist from Texas. He was elected to Congress in 1984,and arrived in Washington as a novice. Dick, being an economist, was a strong believer in the policies of Ronald Reagan. He was a staunch supporter of his policies, which were revolutionary for Washington. Because of his background, Dick quickly rose through the ranks of his party in Washington and became the primary author of the “Contract with America.” That was actually a collection of ten bills that would be brought up for a vote during the first 100 days of a Republican-controlled Congress.

Bill Archer served as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1970 to 2001. Bill was a lawyer and originally a Democrat who saw the light of failed Marxism and switched to the Republican Party in 1969. He later on represented Texas in the House of Representatives for 30 years, from 1971 until 2001. Bill’s last six years was as chairman of the most powerful committee, the House Ways and Means Committee.

Dick was for the Flat Tax and Bill was for the Retail Sales Tax. I found myself trying to negotiate between the two and that was the end of my effort to try to contribute in Washington and ended my naivety. I was sitting in Dick’s office and he said to me, “Marty, you know cycles.” He explained that he could not support Bill because without repealing the 16th Amendment that created the income tax, “when the Democrats get back in, we will have both.”

It was at that moment that I realized my effort was hopeless. I said: “Dick, you are right.”

An amendment to the Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose.

There is no way the Democrats were being honest. They knew they could NEVER create a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, gay marriage, or repealing the Income Tax. Such amendments are impossible for even getting passed in the House and Senate, they  still must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Perhaps all the women who voted Democrat solely because of the lies they told about abortion will wake up and realize in politics, all is fair as in war. It NEVER has anything to do with truth.

I can run for office and promise whatever is fashionable to win. However, when you get to Washington, you are given a little greeting ceremony and then you are told that means nothing. You will be instructed what to vote for and that is why you see all these votes down party line. You NO LONGER vote for any politicians individually, you vote for the party and people in the backroom determine what will be the vote – the unelected bureaucrats.

So the Democrats outright lied to win. They could NEVER get abortion as a constitutional right – total BS just as repealing the 16th Amendment to end income taxes. We do not live in a Democracy for We the People have no direct right to vote on anything.

We live in a Republic which is becoming an Authoritarian Regime abandoning the foundation of civilization turning one group against another until the whole thing comes crashing down, Civilization exists ONLY when everyone benefits – not what we have today rising hatred and political arguments pitting man against his brother until mankind exists no more.

Nov 19 2022

UPDATE, Video Added – President Trump Responds to DOJ Special Counsel Appointment from Mar-a-Lago at 8:30pm


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 18, 2022 | Sundance

I’m looking around for livestreams, so far, no luck. However, with significant MSM interest, the response from President Trump to the special counsel appointment should likely be broadcast by media.  Not sure.

President Trump has posted on Truth Social he intends to respond at 8:30pm EDT tonight:

UPDATE: Video Added {Direct Rumble Link} (h/t Gateway Pundit)

(Source)

Nov 19 2022

Biden DOJ Assigns Special Counsel to Investigate Republicans in Congress and President Trump for Insurrection, Additionally Investigate Trump for DOJ Defined Classified Documents and Obstruction


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 18, 2022 | Sundance 

Okay, first things first.  CTH will not play the pretending game or structure the discussion of the special counsel appointment through the prism of MSM references.  Instead, we will stick to the facts as they are presented, explain the events as they are factually reflected within the actual documents, and avoid the pretending constructs.

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

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.  To wit, earlier this afternoon Joe Biden’s Attorney General, Merrick Garland, announced the appointment of DOJ Attorney Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate two specific areas:

♦ First, to investigate current republican members of congress (House and Senate), former President and current candidate Donald J Trump, former Trump administration officials, former White House staff, and other individuals, groups and organizations for their role in supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021, against the incoming administration of President-Elect Joe Biden.  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. Watch. (More on why later)

♦ Second – and this is ancillary to the first priority – DAG Lisa Monaco has written, and AG Garland has appointed, Jack Smith to target Donald Trump with the same special counsel process previously used by Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.

The Special Counsel is further authorized to conduct the ongoing investigation referenced and described in the United States’ Response to Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief, Donald J Trump v. United States, No. 9:22-CV-81294-AMC (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2022) (ECF No. 48 at 5- 13), as well as any matters that arose or may arise directly from this investigation or that are within the scope of [Special Counsel Regulation 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)].

The Trump Mar-a-Lago document investigation (the proverbial nothingburger – just like Trump/Russia) transfers to the Special Counsel office, along with an intended angle to look for an obstruction of justice charge (just like Mueller).   This is Robert Mueller 2.0 using Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The Trump-centric part of the special counsel appointment, the part that everyone is focusing on, is ancillary to the real purpose of the appointment.  However, that said, all investigative resources from Main Justice and the FBI will transfer to Jack Smith as they did when Crossfire Hurricane transferred to Robert Mueller.  The investigative people will transfer along with the investigative evidence.

Duplicating history, all of the DC elements of the UniParty, both Democrats and Republicans, will sing the praises of Jack Smith as an honorable man, beyond reproach, blah, blah, blah.   If you want to stop playing the pretending game, just pay attention to the people praising him, and THOSE voices are the bad guys.

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

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?

This also explains why Nancy Pelosi did not resign from congress, but only stepped down from her leadership role.  The timing of mid-November (today) gives Smith time to get all his midterm counter-offensive ducks in a row before his republican targets take office in January.

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 today, 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.

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.

Jack Smith’s curriculum vitae as a lawyer experienced in international government law, think about tribunals for overthrowing government, then becomes a clarifying skillset.

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 will be providing the illusion of choice for the American electorate.

Things making sense now?

(Source pdf)

It’s all right there, if we just stop pretending.

Accept things as they are, not as they are presented to be.

If you want to fight this stuff, help me….

Nov 18 2022

Article 5 Against Ukraine?


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Nov 18, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Ukraine attacked Poland. Does this not make Ukraine an enemy now since they struck  a nato country?

REPLY: That would certainly be a plot twist. It would never happen since the agenda is to go to war with Russia. Zelensky did not immediately apologize to Poland for killing two Polish citizens, as he was hoping his new friends would blame Russia and immediately begin World War III.

It was a very passive apology as well. He apologized for the “Russian missile terror” and alleviated himself of any blame. “Expressed condolences over the death of Polish citizens from Russian missile terror. We exchanged available information and are clarifying all the facts. Ukraine, Poland, all of Europe and the world must be fully protected from terrorist Russia,” Zelensky said on Twitter.

Technically, Ukraine did attack Poland. Poland is a NATO member, and Ukraine is not. It does not matter if it was an accident, as they can use any excuse to start a full-scale global war under the current conditions of NATO that say “any” attack could be grounds for collective defense.

As Article 5 notes:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”