Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance
Incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (U-DC) appears with Maria Bartiromo to promise House investigations of the Biden Laptop and Twitter Files from Elon Musk.
Kentucky’s best and brightest DC republican, and formidable letter writer, becomes the 5th Republican Chairman in the past ten years on the Oversight Committee to promise investigations and accountability based on demonstrable corruption. Chairman Comer is very concerned about the possibility of corruption. Additionally, Comer is very excited to get into the details of the Elon Musk “Twitter Files” and explore all the investigative possibilities they provide.
Finally, on an issue close to the personal interest of Mr. Comer, he states his desire to investigate the Joe Biden energy policy. WATCH:
.
.
Hidden camera video provided by the Kentucky republican delegation gives us a preview of James Comer in full attack mode. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance
Sooner or later someone, if not Donald Trump, is going to have to start a second party.
Appearing on CBS with Margaret Brennan, incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner walks through the priorities of the new HPSCI committee, to include that President Trump is horrible, Ukraine President Zelenskyy is awesome, Joe Biden is doing an awesome job and Ukraine needs more U.S. money and weapons.
If you listen closely, you might even catch the part where Mike Turner says he is working swimmingly with current HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and current Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner. Yes, folks, you just cannot make this stuff up. Ms. Brennan is absolutely smitten with Mr. Turner, he’s an acceptable republican. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we turn now to Ohio Congressman Mike Turner, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Turner, good to have you here in person.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Thank you. Yes. It’s great to be here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So just yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said that Russia was perhaps struggling to keep up with the amount of munitions that it’s using in this war in Ukraine, the cold weather is slowing combat. The Secretary of State, though, didn’t really give hope for diplomacy at this moment. Given what you know, when will this war end?
REP. TURNER: Well, the one thing that we know is that the- the gains that Ukraine is making are real, they’re real in the battlefield. They’re real in the support that they have around the world, they have with democracies on the floor of the United Nations, in condemning this aggression by Russia. But Ukraine really has to be the one that decides that if, when, and how negotiations are entered into, and at this point, you know, they’re battling for their country. They’re losing lives for democracy. President Zelenskyy says, I was just in Ukraine, just before the elections, he says openly, he understands that he’s the frontlines for democracy, and he’s fighting an authoritarian regime. And I think, you know, obviously, Russia has to reevaluate how they look at this conflict and how Putin looks at what he has started–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you agree with the administration on this?
REP. TURNER: I agree absolutely. That this is, this is something where, that this is a war of aggression, that Russia needs to reevaluate and to withdraw from Ukraine.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve said, because you are poised to run the intelligence committees since you are at the top Republican when Republicans take control in January. Is this going to be an area where as you promised, you can take politics out of it and actually work across the aisle? What does that mean?
REP. TURNER: Right. So, you know, we’ve, when I went we went on a bipartisan trip to deliver to President Zelenskyy a message that there’s bipartisan support for Ukraine. I think there’s a number of issues that we’re going to be working on a bipartisan basis. What should the United States policy be? How do we make certain that the I serve on the Armed Service Committee and the Intelligence Committee? How do we make certain that they get the weapon systems that they need? How do we hold together this world alliance that-that we have where the world is condemning what Russia is doing? And of course, the expansion of NATO, we’re looking forward to Sweden and Finland, joining NATO, which is the opposite of what Putin believed he was going to achieve and attacking Ukraine. He’s now sees the expansion by two valuable partners with great military capabilities joining NATO.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to show our viewers some pretty extraordinary video that the Pentagon unveiled this week, a B-21 Raider. It’s the first US nuclear stealth bomber aircraft in more than 30 years. And it’s being packaged as this deterrent to Chin- to China. How concerned are you about the pace of Beijing’s nuclear development?
REP. TURNER: Extremely, and I want to co-co-commend the-the administration because they’ve been very forward leaning in releasing and declassifying information about what China is doing. They are expanding their nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons capabilities, their ICBMs that are targeting the United States. This plane is incredibly important. I served as chair of the air and land subcommittee as we, on a classified basis, began the process of working on this plane. And it gives us an additional balance, because it’s an additional delivery vehicle, additional way to combat what China’s doing–
MARGARET BRENNAN: to drop nuclear weapons?
REP. TURNER: to cause people not to drop nuclear weapons. I mean, that’s what’s so–
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s- it’s really the deterrent.
REP. TURNER: Right. It is to make certain that the balance of power is there so that people understand that the-that the cost is just too great. When China is expanding the nuclear weapons, they’re looking at United States if we blink if we don’t, if we don’t respond, and they assume that they can get first strike capabilities that not only holds us at bay, but really holds us at risk, because then you have the leader of a nuclear power that might make that miscalculation and of course, cost unfathomable lives.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You talked about being open about intelligence. I’m wondering, in your new role, will you be asking the Director of National Intelligence for a briefing and a damage assessment related to Mar-a-Lago and the documents the former president took to his private home?
REP. TURNER: That’s already in process. I mean, we’ve already talked–
MARGARET BRENNAN: It hasn’t happened. In the new Congress will you ask for it?
[CROSS TALK]
REP. TURNER: Yes. I’ve just talked to the director of national intelligence about this particular issue. One issue that we have discussed with the director, which is very, very interesting is is that, you know, prior to the Mar-a-Lago and raid, no one in the intelligence community or in the national security community was engaged at all by the FBI to request an assessment as to what the risk of the documents that had been surrendered from Mar-a-Lago,or that might have been at Mar-a-Lago, or that were even perceived as being missing–
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you the Justice Department–
[CROSS TALK]
REP. TURNER: This was just the FBI and the and the archivist, which is basically a glorified librarian, coming together and deciding to raid Mar-a-Lago. Now-
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re not downplaying that taking classified material to your private home is a problem particularly for the commander in chief.
REP. TURNER: Absolutely not. There were just- there were other options that the FBI had versus the escalation that- that they did. That’s certainly going to be one of the questions we have. The Director of National Intelligence indicated they have conducted their risk assessment, and they are prepared to give both of our committees on the Senate and the House presentations as to what those are–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have a sense of when or what the scale of the damage is?
REP. TURNER: At this point it’s just a scheduling issue. We just had a meeting with the director, but both Sen. Warner, myself and Adam Schiff. And as they look to how do we get everybody scheduled together, and those who’ve done the assessment, because again, it’s not just a director that will be coming–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REP. TURNER: They’ll have to come forward to give us, what did they see, what did they have, and how do they perceive the threat that may or may not have existed from some of these documents.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This may seem a basic question, but all elected leaders swear to uphold the Constitution. Does calling for its suspension, is that disqualifying for a presidential candidate?
REP. TURNER: It’s certainly not consistent–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You know why I’m asking this question?
REP. TURNER: I do. It’s certainly not consistent with the oath that we all take.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So yesterday, the front runner for the Republican nomination, the standard bearer for your party, posted on Truth Social, and we know he lost the 2020 election, but continues to claim he did not. “A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” Should the standard bearer for the Republican Party, the front runner for the nomination for the presidency for your party in 2024, say this?
REP. TURNER: Well, I you know, I, first of all, I vehemently disagree with- with the statement that Trump has made. Trump has made, you know, 1,000 statements in which I disagree. There is a political process that has to go forward before anybody–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Constitutional conservatives are pretty clear about where they value the constitution–
REP. TURNER: Exactly. There has to be–
[CROSSTALK]
REP. TURNER: You do get picked questions, but I do get to pick my answer.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I know. I’m trying to get you to answer the question I’m asking.
REP. TURNER: There is a political process that has to go for before anybody’s a front runner or anybody is a- even the candidate for the party–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you condemn him saying something like this?
REP. TURNER: Absolutely. And I believe answering your question that people certainly are going to take into consideration a statement like this as they evaluate a candidate.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I also have to ask you about the other statement and the people that he has been spending time with, a neo-Nazi, pro-Putin misogynist, named Nick Fuentes came to have dinner with the former president at his home alongside Kanye West who just this past week, praised Hitler.
REP. TURNER: This is atrocious. This is- everybody I think- everyone both condemns and is shocked and is as disgusted and nauseated by the fact that we’re even in this year, in 2022, having anyone that would make statements like that, nevertheless, have anybody who would engage in a conversation with someone who’s having- making statements like that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So having classified documents at the same place where they’re having the dinner–
REP. TURNER: Well that’s- that’s not–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –which we’re not necessarily securely held, and they’re government records that should be in government property, all those things together, it’s a problem.
REP. TURNER: Well, as you know, the FBI raided his home, and I suppose there are not classified documents there. But all of these are issues of judgment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The president is saying he doesn’t know who he’s having dinner with at that home.
REP. TURNER: These are all issues of judgment, and a political process has to go forward. And I believe voters are smart, and they’ll take those things into consideration in a political process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman, thank you for coming on and answering questions. We’ll be back in just one minute so stay with us. {End Transcript}
Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance
Appearing on CBS with Margaret Brennan, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama’s fellow traveler and wingman in the fundamental change process, stated his belief the progressive movement and Biden administration has adequately prepared the nation to “absorb” the political violence that may surface as the result of an arrest of former President Donald Trump.
The rather remarkable admission and statement comes at approximately 06:30 of the video interview below where Margaret Brennan reads her prepared script and questions Eric Holder about such a divisive decision by a comprehensively corrupt U.S. justice system. The statement also comes on the heels of an 11th circuit appeals court ruling that removed the court ordered ‘Special Master’ in the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents case.
In the Mar-a-Lago case the 11th circuit court stated if the search warrant was legally predicated, and if the search warrant was legally executed, then all of the proceeds from the search warrant were legally valid as investigative outcomes – and no special master is needed. However, President Trump is not allowed to see the search warrant, nor are his lawyers allowed to see the predicate affidavit that underpins the search warrant, and they are not permitted to see what documents were seized by the FBI.
In essence, if the secret and general warrant was legal, then all seizure is legal, but you are not allowed to see the secret and general warrant. Former AG Eric Holder rejoices in this judicial ruling as he evaluates the ability of the nation to “absorb” an arrest of Donald Trump based on that justice system position. WATCH:
If you read between the lines, and know how Holder (Obama Inc) operate, you can see what Obama structured Deputy AG Lisa Monaco has to do. Monaco will coordinate the timing of the arrest and indictment of Hunter Biden to coincide with the arrest and indictment of President Trump. This will provide the narrative of blind justice the DOJ will attempt to leverage to stop national reaction.
There’s actually a lot in this interview. Eric Holder doesn’t surface accidentally; he is preparing the Lawfare landscape.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to former Attorney General Eric Holder. He now heads up the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. And he has a book, “Our Unfinished March,” which examines the current state of America’s democracy. Welcome back to the program.
ERIC HOLDER: Good to see you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have a number of things I want to get to with you. But I want to start on something I know is immediate this week. An organization that you run that we mentioned here that focuses on redistricting is involved in a Supreme Court case, Moore v. Harper. It’s going to be heard on the seventh of this week. And it boils down as I understand it to the question of what the Constitution means when it assigns state legislatures the task of regulating elections. That sounds really wonky, but you phrased it as the future of democracy being at stake. What are you worried is actually going to happen here?
HOLDER: Yeah, this case is all about something called the independent state legislature doctrine. It’s a fringe theory that North Carolina Republicans are trying to use to make sure that the North Carolina Republican legislature has the sole responsibility of doing redistricting in the state and excluding from that determination the state court system. It is something that if the Supreme Court goes along with it, would really upend our system of checks and balances. And it’s for that reason that I am extremely concerned. It is a fringe theory, this is something that if the Court I think does the right thing, you should have a nine to zero opinion by the court that rejects this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine that has been rejected by conservative scholars, by practicing Republican lawyers, by former Republican judges, and by this conference of state supreme court justices, as well. This is a very, very dangerous theory. It would put our system of checks and balances at risk.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there were a number of Democratic senators who actually filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not even to hear the case. So there are some heavy hitters here saying don’t even talk about it. What does that tell you about the potential harm here? I mean, is there value in the Supreme Court hearing this and striking it down? Or does them hearing it at all indicate something more to you?
HOLDER: Yeah, it’s hard for me to see how this case was ever taken by the Court. I think the better thing would have been for the court to simply have rejected it. But now having taken the case, I would hope that the Court would drive a stake through this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine and get it off the- off the books and out of our consideration, once and for all. It truly is, I cannot emphasize this enough. It truly is a fringe theory that should result in a nine to zero rejection of the- of the theory.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So we mentioned you’re working on redistricting. Democrats are suing to overturn congressional maps in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio and Texas. I read a quote from you in the Washington Post that said the work you’ve been doing on redistricting has paid off in the most recent midterms. Do you think that your legal battles will help Democrats make gains in 2024? What are you trying to say there?
HOLDER: Yeah, I think that what we have seen, there been studies that said that we have had the most fair redistricting process in the last 40 years as a result of the work that we’ve done. 75% of the redistricting is considered to be fair, which also means that 25% of it is unfair, and that is still problematic. I think, for instance, the House of Representatives is going to be in play for the entirety of this decade, very contrary to where it was in the past decade where after the successful Republican gerrymandering that occurred in 2011 and in 2012, it was really difficult for Democrats to take the House back. I think Democrats will be able to take the House back as early as 2024. But it doesn’t ensure what we have done doesn’t ensure the Democrats are going to hold on to the House for the entirety of the decade. It will be for the American people to decide. Fairness will reign in that determination.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When you were last on this program in May you shared at the time that you had changed your mind recently that you did believe that the Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland should hold former President Trump accountable for his actions. You previously thought it would be too divisive for the country. Now, where we are with this special counsel, what is your assessment? And how should Merrick Garland, who has to ultimately decide, weigh the question of a risk to political violence in this country from any decision he makes regarding the former president?
HOLDER: Well, I think the Attorney General has said it quite well, that he’ll make the determination without fear or favor. There is- Everybody has to be held accountable for the same system. The determination that he’s going to have to make will have to be based on the facts and the law. And we’ll just have to deal with the consequences. The reality is that if he makes a determination one way or the other, it is going to be divisive. And so the best thing simply is to make sure that everybody who is under consideration for possible criminal treatment, including the former president, is treated just like every other American. And that’s what that opinion out of the Circuit Court this week essentially said that you can’t craft things. As a district court judge you can’t craft things for a former president that don’t exist for regular American citizens. Treat everybody in the same way, make the determination based on the facts and the law. And the United States, I think, has the capacity to absorb a possible indictment and to deal with it fairly and to get on with the business of the country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: As someone who’s been an attorney general, I wonder as well, how you think about the case before the U.S. District Attorney in Delaware regarding President Biden’s son Hunter. CBS has reported the FBI has sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun related crimes. How would you handle this? A plea deal? Is the Attorney General boxed in to take a hard-line position because of working for the President?
HOLDER: No, I mean, you have- they left in place, the Republican, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney in Delaware to consider the case. You’ve got career lawyers working on it, career FBI agents. You want to listen to their recommendations and then again, make a determination based on the facts and the law. The defendant should not be treated any more harshly because of who he is, who he is related to, should not be given breaks because of who he is or who he is related to. He should be treated as former President Trump should be treated, just like any other American citizen. If there is culpability, that person should be held liable for his or her acts. And if there is not a basis for a case, a case should not be brought.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But it will ultimately come to the Attorney General’s desk.
HOLDER: That’s certainly the way I would have run the Justice Department. And my guess is also that that would be something that Merrick Garland will be doing as well. That determination will be made I suspect in Washington, D.C.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. General Holder, thank you very much for your time today. [End Transcript]
On the election stuff…. Holder is moving to phase 2
REFERENCE and CONTEXT is critical to understanding.
PHASE 1 – After Eric Holder left the Obama administration as Attorney General, he was hired by the State of California to defend against the Trump administration in early January 2017 (LINK).
Why?
When Eric Holder left the Obama administration, his firm was contracted by California during a process of linking the motor vehicle registration files to the Secretary of State voter registration system. Holder was advising on part of a technology system being constructed to bridge the DMV and SoS offices. You might know this as a “Motor/Voter” process. However, former AG Eric Holder had a very specific function in the construction of this technology bridge.
The process of adding voters to the registration rolls when they receive or update their driver’s license was seen as an opportunity to expand the voter rolls. Making the voter rolls as big as possible is the key to the utilization of mass mail-out balloting. I will skip the part where California started giving illegal aliens drivers licenses for a moment – you can obviously see how that would play with motor/voter rolls – instead I am choosing just to focus on the specifics of the Holder aspect.
The DMV needed to connect to the SoS office. This was simply a part of a tech system that needed to be built. CTH has previously spoken with the lead engineer, a member of a very small technology group, who worked in the California information technology (IT) unit that was tasked with building the system that connected the DMV to the SOS. [NOTE: I invite the state of California to sue me as they will likely claim what you are about to read is not true.]
In the process of connecting the two state networks together, there needed to be a “flag”, essentially a check box, where the applicant to the DMV would attest to being legally authorized to vote. It is a positive affirmation, a check box, that says the Driver’s License holder affirms they are legally eligible to vote. That affirmation (the technical flag in the process), when affirmed, then transmits the information to the SoS office with the DL operator identity, and the California driver is automatically added to the SoS rolls and registered to vote.
During the time when Eric Holder was the legal counsel for the California Secretary of State, the technology team was constructing the internal data processing systems.
The lead engineer in the unit was instructed to code the data transfer in such a way that even if the “check box” was left unchecked, the registration data would transmit from the DMV to the SoS office.
Essentially, instead of only those who affirmed their legal eligibility by checking the box, everyone -including those who did not check the box- would get a DL and would automatically have their information transmitted to the SoS office. Everyone who received a driver’s license or state issued id was automatically going to be registered to vote, regardless of their legally authorized status. That request led the engineer to contact me.
I wrote about it, published the details, then the engineer freaked out as he/she realized there was only a very limited number of people who could expose the issue. He/She was worried about his/her safety and family and asked me to remove the article. This background is how I know the details of who, what, when and why the California mass mailing ballot process was being constructed.
In the 2018 midterm elections we all watched the outcome of that process surface in the weeks following election day. As each day passed more and more California mail-in ballots were being counted and day-by-day Republicans who won on election day 2018 watched their lead evaporate.
What happened in the California 2018 midterm election surrounding state-wide ballot distribution, collection (harvesting) and eventual presentation to the counting and tabulation facilities, was the BETA test for the 2020 covid-inspired national ballot mailing process.
The outcome we are seeing from the 2022 midterm ballot collection program was not just similar to the 2020 general election ballot collection program, it is a direct outcome of the refined BETA test from 2018. Now we have multiple states following the California mass distribution of ballots approach. Washington state, California, Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, there’s a long list.
In many states mass mailing of ballots is now codified in election law. Activist election lawyer Marc Elias now coming in behind the construction team of Eric Holder with the legal arguments to support the ballot collection programs.
The Importance of Election Rolls – As you can see from the California initiation point (Motor/Voter), in order to most effectively use the mass distribution of ballots as an electioneering process you first need a massive state secretary voter file in order to generate, then mail, the physical ballots.
Remember, votes require people – ballots require systems.
Any institutional system that can link people into the SoS system to generate a larger registration file for ballot distribution is a net positive. The key point is not to generate voters, the key is to generate ballots – the more the better. Mass printing of ballots is the origin of the electioneering process.
Any state or federal system that links a physical identity to the secretary of state voter rolls is good. Any system, like the USPS postal change of address system, that would remove physical identities from the state voter rolls is not useful. The goal is to maximize the number of systems that generate registration, that eventually generates ballots.
Beyond the Driver’s License issue, it’s everything. Sign up for public assistance, get registered to vote. Sign up for state benefits, get registered to vote. Sign up for a state id, get registered to vote. Sign up for state college, get registered to vote. Sign up for a grant, get registered to vote. Sign up for unemployment, get registered to vote. Sign up for any state system and get registered to vote. Get married, change names, change addresses, etc, that’s how the voter rolls expand and that’s how the massive distribution of ballots is created.
The states then fight against anything, any effort, any process, that would purge voter rolls or fix incorrect voting rolls. To use the new electioneering system, the system operators need ballots created, they no longer need votes. They need ballots.
Downstream from this process that’s where you find the “ballot submission assistance” programs. This is where the local community networks, regional activist groups and widespread community organizers come into play. Instead of advertising or the previous electioneering systems around candidate promotion and Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts, the majority of donations to the DNC are now used in the ballot assistance programs. This was phase 1.
PHASE 2 – What Eric Holder is describing as his “victories so far”, is the codification of phase 1 together with controlling the geographic process for ballot collection.
Forget votes. Congressional districts (CD’s) need to be looked at as ballot gateways.
Zip codes are where the importance exists for phase 2.
On a congressional district level, the problem for ballot use is the lack of ballots in certain areas. Moving forward, ballots that DNC activists can gather and control need to come from geographic regions where they can impact congressional representation. CD’s now need to be looked at as district mail regions to modify so that zip codes can determine election outcomes.
With ballot collection and assembly as the new process, congressional districting maps are no longer important from a representation standpoint, now the priority needs to be zip code representation.
Mass distribution ballots need to go to addresses in zip codes in order for them to be harvested to change the congressional district representation.
Now that elections are based on ballots and not votes, zip code control is where the action is.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 2, 2022 | Sundance
A former target of the Twitter speech police, actor James Woods, calls in to the Tucker Carlson broadcast tonight after the release of the Twitter files. {Direct Rumble Link}
Mr. Woods gives his first reaction to discovering the Biden campaign and government employees had access to Twitter for content removal. Mr. Woods states he intends to sue the DNC and Biden Campaign for his personal targeting as outlined by the Twitter document release. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on December 2, 2022 | Sundance
It is very well known by now that FBI agents worked within social media networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram through direct portals connecting the government to the backdoors of the networks. The Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) continue to operate in partnership with various tech systems and platforms to monitor content.
During a deposition this week the FBI admitted to giving instructions to tech companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft to block URLs without a basis in legality. Essentially the ideology of the FBI and DHS determines the targets of the content removal, blockage and/or censoring.
To repeat, these are not FBI and DHS instructions based on defined criminal activity, these are government instructions based on disagreements over ‘information’ as espoused by the content provider.
Information the government agrees with is safe; however, information the U.S. government doesn’t agree with is targeted. Obviously, a person of reasonable intelligence can see the problem with allowing law enforcement to determine which information is valid and which information is invalid.
(Fox News) – On Tuesday, lawyers from the offices of Attorneys General Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana deposed FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan as part of their lawsuit against the Biden administration. That suit accuses high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies “under the guise of combating misinformation” to achieve greater censorship.
Chan, who serves in the FBI’s San Francisco bureau, was questioned under oath by court order about his alleged “critical role” in “coordinating with social-media platforms relating to censorship and suppression of speech on their platforms.”
During the deposition, Chan said that he, along with the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and senior Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency officials, had weekly meetings with major social media companies … Fox News Digital also learned that, according to Chan’s testimony, the FBI regularly sends social media companies lists of internet URLs and social media accounts that should be taken down because they are “disinformation” from “malign foreign influence operations.” The FBI then inquires whether the platforms have taken down the content. On many occasions, the platforms take down the accounts flagged by the FBI.
“Since filing our lawsuit, we’ve uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive ‘censorship enterprise,’” Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. “Now, we’re deposing top government officials, and we’re one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we’ve uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It’s clear from Tuesday’s deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech.” (read more)
[DISCLAIMER: CTH has a heightened awareness on this issue because I received a congressional subpoena based entirely on a Tweet that was discovered to have been attributed to an account set up by a Twitter employee to create CTH as a target. What we discovered was that Twitter employees have the ability to manipulate the platform to create real world outcomes. A variation on “swatting” by Twitter. As a result, knowing that FBI and DHS officials target user accounts based on content, and knowing that Twitter employees have the ability to create content with false attribution to targeted user accounts, it’s worth an even larger pause when considering the relationship. /SD]
Posted originally on the CTH on December 2, 2022 | Sundance
Twitter CEO Elon Musk selected Matt Taibbi, one of the rare independent voices in media, as the vessel to review and share a litany of internal documents from within the social media platform showing details of how the federal government and DNC officials gave instructions to Twitter personnel to remove content.
Matt Taibbi released a stream of Twitter Communication showing the documents and details – SEE HERE
Elon Musk followed up the current release with a statement saying, “Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is.”
Journalist Matt Taibbi signs off on this release with the following notation, “There is much more to come, including answers to questions about issues like shadow-banning, boosting, follower counts, the fate of various individual accounts, and more. These issues are not limited to the political right.”
I was in conversation with people I know in Europe. It is like the entire world has flipped upside down. This Climate Change Agenda is something far more sinister than anyone in mainstream media is willing to print for it has really little to do with saving the planet. If you are pro-War with Russia, which is all the mainstream media and politicians, then you are now “progressive” and/or “liberal” and if you are against the war then you are a right-wing extremist. It is just fashionable to now desire World War III. Never in my wildest imagination when I stood up at our 2011 World Economic Conference in Philadelphia and put up our forecast that our model on war would turn up in 2014, did I ever expect war to become fashionable.
I remember the ’60s when there were protests against Vietnam. No way that those protesters were labeled as “right-wing extremists” and the pro-war were “liberals” as is the case today. I will admit, that at first, I was pro-war believing that Communism was a great threat. I grew up during the ’50s when we would have drills and we were told to hide under our desks in case of a nuclear attack. Those drills in grade school had an impact on me. It really made you think that the Communists wanted to kill everyone. I remember the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and walking with my friends when I was just 12 years old talking about geopolitics. It was an era of mental conditioning and we seem to be going through a similar process with Climate Change and War.
NETFLIX and AMAZON are both refusing to air anything that is anti-war calling them right-wing extremists. We seem to be dealing with a complete inversion of the thinking process that I noticed in reading all the newspapers to write the Greatest Bull Market in History back in 1986. Before 1929, rising interest rates were bullish for the stock market for it showed there was still a demand for money. After 1929 and the dawn of socialism, suddenly rising interest rates became bearish because the Federal Reserve wanted us to stop buying and save our cash.
Here is a photo of Prohibition agents standing with a still and mason jars used to distill hard liquor in the Washington, D.C. area on November 11th, 1922. This was a similar movement where women blamed liquor for drunk and/or lazy husbands. Nationwide Prohibition lasted from 1920 until 1933. The Eighteenth Amendment—which illegalized the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcohol—was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1917. In 1919 the amendment was ratified by three-quarters of the nation’s states required to make it constitutional. It lasted for 13 years.
During this 13-year period, Prohibition spawned the rise in candy as well as soft drinks. Coca-Cola was popular and was often sold at Soda Fountains that were common in drug stores. In fact, even in the 1950s, the Pharmacy on Main Street in the town I grew up in still had a soda fountain, and recall going after school and having a milkshake.
Indeed, Patent Medicines were all taxed. Some companies printed their own tax stamps. Even Coca-Cola was initially created as a medicine. It seems logical that Pharmacies end up creating soda fountains. Even during the early 1960s, you would go to the local Pharmacy for a milkshake.
There were the “WETS” who staged a major protest on June 14, 1919, at the U.S. Capitol to support an appeal for the exemption of beer and wine from Prohibition. They did not listen to the WETS any more than they are listening to cries for peace – not war today. When our computer projected that war would start in 2014 and had pinpointed Ukraine, looking ahead post-2024, the world will be engulfed in war. There seems to be nobody interested in peace. They are now cheering for World War III. Hiding under the kitchen table or your desk in school is not going to work in a nuclear war.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 1, 2022 | Sundance
People around the country are looking at the Georgia Senate runoff between Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican Hershel Walker. Lots of people wondering what is going on. Well, last night the Republican Party of Georgia gave an excellent example of what it means to be Republican in Georgia.
Republican Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan appeared on CNN to share his opinion of Republican candidate Hershel Walker. As Republican Duncan outlined during the interview, he stood in line for an hour, took a ballot at the polling location, and then decided he could just not vote for a Republican in Georgia, so he turned around and walked back out without voting.
Republican Geoff Duncan had no issue pushing this on CNN much to the smiles of the CNN producers, Democrats and the Warnock campaign. This is what it means to be a Republican in Georgia. WATCH (01:08 prompted 30 seconds)
.
The 2022 goal of the Republican Party of Georgia is in alignment with the 2022 Republican National Committee. The goal of Mr. Duncan and others is to remove the populist movement within the RNC by destroying the Make America Great Again grassroots movement.
Was Duncan censured? No. Was Duncan criticized by fellow Republicans? Again, no. Was Duncan ostracized for promoting an election position against the interests of the Republican Party? Yet again, no. Did RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel rebuke the effort to undermine Walker as carried out by Republican Geoff Duncan? Rhetorical at this point, I know.
In the bigger or big pictures, Republican Lt Governor Geoff Duncan is doing what professional Republicans do. He also knows there’s nothing to fear from it because he is operating on behalf of the majority Club interests who support his agenda. However, somehow this will be President Trump’s fault.
Posted originally on CTH on December 1, 2022 | Sundance
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals having previously ruled the special master cannot review classified documents, also ruled today against the special master having any involvement in the filtering of seized documents from Mar-a-Lago. [Ruling Here]
Previously, the lower court appointed a special master to review the seized documents and ensure no privileged material was exploited by the DOJ. However, the appellate court determined the DOJ can independently define a national security interest and classify documents with no legal basis for challenge, therefore the special master cannot filter classified documents.
Today the appeals court essentially said if the search warrant was legally predicated and legally valid, and if the search warrant was used legally, then all the seized documents are valid for the investigative purposes of the DOJ – regardless of their content. The only way to fight the authority of the DOJ seizure is to challenge the legality of the search warrant. However, here’s where things get weird.
President Trump’s lawyers have been: (1) blocked from receiving a non-redacted search warrant; (2) denied access to the underlying probable cause affidavit used to predicate the search warrant, and (3) denied the full contents of the documents that were seized as part of the warrant (they are not allowed to see). Yet somewhere in this convoluted mess, we are supposed to believe a 4th amendment violation doesn’t exist.
Florida – […] The ruling by the three-judge panel, including two Trump appointees, goes into effect in seven days, absent intervention by the full circuit court or the Supreme Court.
“The law is clear,” the judges found. “We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.”
The order effectively eliminates what federal authorities had described as a major obstacle in their ongoing criminal investigation into whether Trump illegally retained highly classified records after leaving the presidency and obstructed efforts by the government to recover them. He denies wrongdoing.
The appellate judges had signaled in a hearing last week that they were likely to order an end to the special master’s review. They repeatedly expressed concern that the appointment of third-party judge Raymond Dearie by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida lacked any clear precedent. (read more)
As it stands right now, President Trump has not been permitted to see the documents that support the search warrant, nor the scope of the search warrant as issued (the DOJ is claiming national security interests). The appeals court today is saying as long as the hidden search warrant is valid, all seized documents are valid.
How is President Trump supposed to challenge the legality of the seizure if the DOJ isn’t required to produce the legal basis for the warrant?
The legal challenge against the underlying warrant is the key issue.
In a recent court filing [Document Here], President Trump through his legal counsel has requested Judge Cannon to unredact and unseal the search warrant affidavit used as the predicate for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago. Apparently, the DOJ have yet to provide President Trump with the constitutionally required predicate documents to support their search.
While asking the court to provide the affidavit to the defense team, the lawyers for President Trump are noting the fourth amendment protects everyone against warrantless searches and seizures, and that same protection also guarantees the target the right to receive and review the claimed justification for the warrant.
The unredacted affidavit is obligated to be supplied so that it can be determined if the search warrant was legally valid and predicated. General search warrants are not legally permitted. The warrant must specify what is being searched and why. The DOJ is fighting against this affidavit release. The Trump lawyers are asking the judge to make a decision.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 1, 2022 | sundance
Having previously announced his intention to run for Chair of the Republican National Committee, Mike Lindell appears on a podcast with Jenna Ellis to discuss his specific proposals to reform the RNC and create a more effective election organization. {Direct Rumble Link}
In this interview Mr. Lindell discusses what he would do differently and the shakeup that he sees needed in order to realign the priority of the RNC. WATCH:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 