Sunday Talks, Speaker Kevin McCarthy -vs- Margaret Brennan

Posted originally on the CTH on January 29, 2023 | Sundance

With talking points in hand CBS’s Margaret Brennan drops all pretenses and goes straight into her role as defender of the Biden regime in the White House.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy appears on Face the Nation for a dueling narrative contest with Ms. Brennan.  WATCH (transcript below):

[Transcript] -Mr. Speaker, good morning to you.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-California): Good morning. Thanks for having me back in studio.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It must be sobering to hear that reminder.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, it took me a little while to get there, but it feels good.


MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you are here now at this key moment in time. And I want to get to some of the top agenda items.

You have accepted an invitation to meet with President Biden. When will that happen, and what offer will you put on the table?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, we’re going to meet this Wednesday.

I know the president said he didn’t want to have any discussions, but I think it’s very important that our whole government is designed to find compromise. I want to find a reasonable and a responsible way that we can lift the debt ceiling, but take control of this runaway spending.

I mean, if you look at the last four years, the Democrats have increased spending by 30 percent, $400 billion. We’re at a 120 percent of GDP. We haven’t been in this place to debt since World War 2. So we can’t continue down this path.

And I don’t think there’s anyone in America who doesn’t agree that there’s some wasteful Washington spending that we can eliminate.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So, I want to sit down together, work out an agreement that we can move forward to put us on a path to balance, at the same time, not put any — any of our debt in jeopardy at the same time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But avoid a default, in other words?


MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you have any indication that the president is willing to discuss both lifting the debt ceiling and the issue of future spending?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, if he’s changed his mind from his whole time in the Senate and vice president before — I mean, he literally led the talks in 2011 and he praised having those talks. This is what he’s always done in the past.

And if he listens to the American public, more than 74 percent believe we need to sit down and find ways to eliminate this wasteful spending in Washington. So, I don’t believe he would change his behavior from before, and I know there’s a willingness on our side to find a way that we can find a reasonable and responsible way to get this done.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But, right, I mean, you know why I’m asking that…


MARGARET BRENNAN: … in terms of not linking one as leverage for the other.


Well, in my first conversation — and, to be fair, the president, when he called me to congratulate winning speaker, this is one of the first things I brought up to him. And he said we’d sit down together.

Now, I know his staff tries to say something different, but I think the president is going to be willing to make an agreement together.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll watch for that on Wednesday.


MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to dig into what you are willing to put on the table because Republicans campaigned on fiscal responsibility.

You promised you won’t spend more next year than you did last year. Are you willing to consider any reductions to Social Security and Medicare?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No. Let’s take those off the table. We want to…



I mean, if you read our commitment to America, all we talk about is strengthening Medicare and Social Security. So — and I know the president says he doesn’t want to look at it, but we’ve got to make sure we strengthen those. I think…

MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean by strengthen them? You mean lift the retirement age, for example?


What I’m talking about, Social Security and Medicare, you keep that to the side. What I want to look at is, they’ve increased spending by 30 percent, $400 billion, in four years. When you look at what they have done, adding $10 trillion of debt for the next 10 years in the short time period, if you just look a month ago, they went through and they never even passed a bill through appropriations in the Senate.

While Mr. Schumer has been leader, he’s never passed a budget. He’s never passed the appropriation bill. He simply waits to the — to the end of the year and allowed two senators who are no longer here to write a $1.7 trillion omnibus bill. I think we…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You want to work with Democrats to come to agreement on a budget?


MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what you’re saying?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, I — I first think our very first responsibility, we both should have to pass a budget. We both should have to pass the appropriations bill, so the country can see the direction we’re going.

But you cannot continue the spending that has brought this inflation, that has brought our economic problems. We’ve got to get our spending under control.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, just fact-check, though, 25 percent of the debt was incurred during the last four years of the Trump presidency. I mean, this is cumulative debt over many, many years.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, well, over the short — this time period.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you’ve also found that you had a pandemic.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: And, as that pandemic comes down, those programs leave. I have watched the president say he cut it.

No, it is spending $500 billion more than what was projected. They have spent more. And we’ve got to stop the waste.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is defense spending on the table?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, look, I — I want to make sure we’re protected in our defense spending, but I want to make sure it’s effective and efficient.

I want to look at every single dollar we’re spending, no matter where it’s being spent. I want to eliminate waste wherever it is.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But when you became speaker, you did come to that agreement I have referenced of capping ’24 spending at ’22 levels.


MARGARET BRENNAN: So that would call for reductions.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, I mean, look, you’re going to tell me, inside defense, there’s no waste? Others? I mean…


MARGARET BRENNAN: So defense spending is up for negotiation?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: They spend a lot of — I think everything, when you look at discretionary, is sitting there.

It’s like every single household. It’s like every single state. We shouldn’t just print more money. We should balance our budget. So I want to look at every single department. Where can we become more efficient, more effective, and more accountable? That should be…

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, more efficiencies in Social Security and Medicare as well?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The one thing I want to say, we take Social Security…


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … and Medicare off the table.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you support a short-term debt limit extension until September, buy more time for talks?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Look, I don’t want to sit and negotiate here.

I would rather sit down with the president, and let’s have those discussions. The one thing I do know is, we cannot continue the waste that is happening. We cannot continue just to spend more money and leverage the debt of the future of America.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We’ve got to get to a balanced budget.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, and I think many people would agree with you on the issue of fiscal responsibility, but there’s that deadline on the calendar in terms of facing potential default.

Are you saying…


MARGARET BRENNAN: … you will guarantee the United States will not do that?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Listen, we’re not going to default.

But let me be very honest with you right now. So we hit the statutory date. But let’s take a pause. We have hundreds of billions of dollars. This won’t come to fruition until sometime in June. So the responsible thing to do is sit down like two adults and start having that discussion.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Unfortunately, the White House was saying before, like, they wouldn’t even talk.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I’m — I’m thankful that we’re meeting on Wednesday, but that’s exactly what we should be doing.

And we should be coming to a responsible solution. Every family does this. What is — what has happened with the debt limit is, you reached your credit card limit. Should we just continue to raise the limit? Or should we look at what we’re spending?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it’s paying past commitments.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: If Chuck Schumer — yes, but if — no, no.

Chuck Schumer never passed a budget since he’s been leading. He’s never passed an appropriation bill. Those are the most basic things that Congress should do. And what — if you’re going to show to the American public where you want to spend your money, and if you’re going to ask the hardworking taxpayer for more of their money, you first should lay out how you’re going to spend it, and you should eliminate any waste, so you don’t have to raise more taxes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But just to put a fine point on it, because it matters a lot to the markets in particular, you will avoid a default? You will not let that happen on your watch?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Look, there will not be a default.

But what is really irresponsible is what the Democrats are doing right now, saying you should just raise the limit.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But would you…


MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you get in the way — if 15 Republicans came to you and said they would be willing to raise the debt limit…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The only person — but let me be very clear.

MARGARET BRENNAN: … would you allow them to do so with Democrats?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The person — the only person who is getting in the way right now is the president and Schumer. They won’t even pass a budget. They won’t even negotiate. We have now until June.

I want to make sure we have something responsible, something that we can move forward on and something that we can balance our debt with. So I’m looking for sitting down. That’s exactly what I have been asking for. The only one who’s playing with the markets right now is the president to have the idea that he wouldn’t talk.

Does the president really believe and, really, all your viewers, do you believe there’s no waste in government? Do you believe there was no waste in that $1.7 trillion? That’s what we were spending just four weeks ago. So, I think the rational position here is, sit down, eliminate the waste and put us on a path to balance.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll watch for that meeting on Wednesday.

I want to ask you about your vision of leadership. You made a number of deals within your party to win the speakership. Senator Mitch McConnell, your Republican colleague, said: “Hopefully McCarthy was not so weakened by all this that he can’t be an effective speaker.”

How can you effectively govern with a very narrow majority and when your conference is so divided?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, that may be somebody else’s opinion. So let’s just see what my father always said. It’s not how you start. It’s how you finish.

So, let’s — you see what happened in the first week. So, in the very first week, we have passed what? We repealed the 87,000 IRS agents. We bipartisanly created a new Select Committee on China, where 146 Democrats joined with us.

We bipartisanly passed to stop the Strategic Petroleum Reserve being sold to China, where 113 Democrats joined with us. We have just now, for the first time on the House — it hasn’t happened in seven years, the entire time the Democrats were in the majority, where you had an open rule.

And let me explain what that is. An open rule allows every single member of the House to offer an amendment on a bill. So what I’m trying to do here is let every voice in America have their ability inside the House. We opened the House back up so the public could actually join.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re arguing you haven’t been weakened? But…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I — no, it’s only been strengthened.

Maybe people didn’t like what they saw that we didn’t win on the very first vote, but that was democracy. And what you found at the end of the day, we’re actually stronger.




REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We changed it where members of Congress now have to show up for work. I know, in the Senate, they don’t come very often.

But if you look what we’ve been able to do, we’re transforming Congress. We’re looking for solutions.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you also allowed one — just one member now can force a vote to oust you as speaker.


MARGARET BRENNAN: How can you expect to serve in the next two years in this role?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Exactly how every other speaker has served with that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Without those rules like that right now.


MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a risk.


MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, do you really think you can control the Freedom Caucus and some of those more conservative members who gave you such a hard time?


But let me — let me explain that. That one vote to vacate, that’s not new. That’s been around for 100 years. The only person who took it away when they got a small majority was Nancy Pelosi. So, Nancy felt she did not have the power to stay in office if that was there. I’m very comfortable in where we are.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So I don’t have any fear in that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You don’t regret any of the concessions you made?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The only concession I made was taking it from five to one, where it’s been around for 100 years.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about some of the makeup of your caucus.


MARGARET BRENNAN: According to CBS records, 70 percent of the House GOP members denied the results of the 2020 election.

You’ve put many of them on very key committees, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Oversight. Why are you elevating people who are denying reality like that?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, if you look to the Democrats, their ranking member, Raskin, had the same thing, denied Trump when Bush was in there. Bennie Thompson, who was the…


MARGARET BRENNAN: Did you see those numbers we just put up there?


MARGARET BRENNAN: Seventy percent.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Did you also be fair and equal and where you looked at Raskin did the same thing. Bennie Thompson, who’s a ranking member and was the chair?

These individuals were chair in the Democratic Party.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m asking you, as leader of Kevin McCarthy’s House…


MARGARET BRENNAN: … why you made these choices. These were your choices.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, They’re my choices, but they’re the conference choices.

But I’m also asking you, when you look to see just Republicans, Democrats have done the same thing. So maybe it’s not denying. Maybe it’s the only opportunity they have to have a question about what went on during the election.

So, if you want to hold Republicans to that equation, why don’t you also hold Democrats? Why don’t you hold Jamie Raskin? Why don’t you hold Bennie Thompson, when Democrats had appointed them to be chair? I never once heard you ask Nancy Pelosi or any Democrat that question when they were in power in the majority, when they questioned…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re talking about things going back to 2000, which was a time…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, you’re talking about…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … when I didn’t have this show back then…


MARGARET BRENNAN: … which is why I’m asking you now about your leadership.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, on, but they were — they were in power last Congress. So, why — why…

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re talking about questions from 2000 election.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you’re asking me about that happened to another Congress.

MARGARET BRENNAN: About these choices you just made, you just made.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You’re asking about questions for another Congress.

So, the only thing I’m simply…

MARGARET BRENNAN: This is your Congress.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: These — these are members who just got elected by their constituents, and we put them into committees, and I’m proud to do it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about some specifics then. Marjorie Taylor Greene, you put her on a new subcommittee to investigate the origins of COVID.


MARGARET BRENNAN: She compared mask requirements to the type of abuse Jews were subjected to during the Holocaust. She called for Fauci to be arrested and imprisoned, and she spread conspiracy theories.

How is anyone supposed to take that work seriously and find that work credible?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Very well. You look at all of it, so you have all the questions out there. I think what the American public…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You think these are legitimate questions?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I think what the American public wants to see is an open dialogue in the process. This is a select committee where people can have all the questions they want, and you’ll see the outcome.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You know that there is a lot of doubt about institutions and faith in institutions in this country.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Oh, yes, when you saw what happened in Congress where they had proxy voting, where bills didn’t go through committees, and you…


MARGARET BRENNAN: I don’t think most people know what proxy voting is.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, let — well let — Well, let’s explain what proxy…

MARGARET BRENNAN: But — but approval…


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But I think it would be fair to your viewers…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Approval level, according to Gallup, of Congress is at 22 percent. Approval level of journalists is also not very high, I will give you that.

But doesn’t it further wear down credibility when you put someone who is under state, local, federal, and international investigation as a representative of your party on committees?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Are you talking about Swalwell?

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m talking about George Santos…


MARGARET BRENNAN: … representative from New York.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, we should have that discussion. So let’s have that discussion.

You want to bring up Santos, and let’s talk about the institution itself, because I agree wholeheartedly that Congress is broken. And I think your — I think your listeners or viewers should understand what proxy voting was, because it never took place in Congress before.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But I’m asking you about George Santos.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I know you asked me a question. Let me ask you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you could put it to a vote to try to oust him.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You asked me a question. I would appreciate if you let me answer.

So let’s go through this, because it’s not one simple answer. Congress is broken, based upon what has transpired in the last Congress. The American public wasn’t able to come in to see us. People voted by proxy, meaning you didn’t have to show up for work, Bills didn’t go — have to go through committee.

So what I’m trying to do is open the people’s house back for the people so their voice is there, so people are held accountable.

So, now, as I just had in the last week, for the first time in seven years…


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … every member got to vote.

MARGARET BRENNAN: If you got a third of your caucus to vote to oust him, you could do so.


MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you — you don’t think you could get your Republicans to do that?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I wasn’t finished answering the question.

So, if every single new person brought into Congress was elected by their constituents, what their constituents have done is lend their voice to the American public. So those members can all serve on committee.

Now, what I’m trying to do is change some of these committees as well, like the Intel Committee is different than any other committee.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re just not going to answer the question I asked?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, no, I — no, you don’t get a question whether I answer it. You asked a question. I’m trying to get you through that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I don’t think you’ve said the name George Santos, like, once.


MARGARET BRENNAN: I have asked you a few times.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you know what? I just — but — but…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re talking about proxy voting and other things.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, no, no, but — no, you started the question with Congress was broken, and I agreed with you.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But I was answering the question of how Congress is broken and how we’re changing it.

So, if I can finish the question that you asked me, how Congress is broken, I equated every single member…


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … that just got elected by their — by their constituents. They have a right to serve.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So that means that Santos can serve on a committee…


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … the same way Swalwell, who had a relationship with a Chinese spy.


REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But they will not serve on Intel, because I think…


MARGARET BRENNAN: They’re wrapping me in the control room, because we have a break.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well that’s unfortunate. I wish I could answer the question.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I have to leave it there. I would love to have you back.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I would love to be able to come back and have time to answer the questions.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. We’ve spent a lot of time here, and I have more questions for you.

But I got to go.

President Trump Warns GOP House, The Alternative to McCarthy Could be Worse

Posted originally on the CTH on December 18, 2022 | Sundance

One thing I dislike immensely about republican punditry, specifically as it relates to internal dynamics, is their tribal narrative engineering. The example from Breitbart about President Trump’s discussion of the next speaker of the House is a case study.

Take out Matthey Boyle’s woven narrative; and remind yourself that Boyle is writing from a position of DeSantis advocacy; read just the direct quotes from President Trump about the risk of House Speaker if the party doesn’t align to support Kevin McCarthy, and the position is pragmatic.

Essentially, if not Kevin McCarthy, and the House vote is dependent on Democrat support, the result will likely be worse.

Just the Trump quotes: “I think it’s a very dangerous game that’s being played,” Trump said. “It’s a very dangerous game. Some bad things could happen. Look, we had Boehner and he was a strange person but we ended up with Paul Ryan who was ten times worse. Paul Ryan was an incompetent speaker. I think he goes down as the worst speaker in history. We took [out] Boehner—and a group of people, some of whom are the same, and they’re very good friends of mine. All those people are very good friends of mine.”

[…] ““Think of it—we ended up with Paul Ryan. Boehner was like Winston Churchill compared to Paul Ryan,” Trump said. “Boehner wasn’t perfect—nobody’s perfect—but Paul Ryan was a disaster for the Republican Party. That’s what we got. Now we have to live with him. He’s destroying Fox and he’s destroying the New York Post. We got to live with this maniac. This guy, Paul Ryan, couldn’t have gotten elected in his own area of Wisconsin. I went with him after I won the election and we had a tremendous crowd of people and they booed him off the stage. You remember that? They booed him off the stage. This guy is now telling Fox what to do.”

[…] “Look, I think this: Kevin has worked very hard,” Trump said. “He is just—it’s been exhausting. If you think, he’s been all over. I think he deserves the shot. Hopefully he’s going to be very strong and going to be very good and he’s going to do what everybody wants.”

[…] “Now, I’m friendly with a lot of those people who are against Kevin. I think almost every one of them are very much inclined toward Trump, and me toward them. But I have to tell them, and I have told them, you’re playing a very dangerous game,” Trump said. “You could end up with the worse situation. I don’t even want to say what it is, but I could tell you it’s a worse situation. You could end up with some very bad situations. I use the Boehner to Paul Ryan example. You understand what I’m saying? It could be a doomsday scenario. It could be. You could end up with somebody who would be a disaster like Paul Ryan was.” (LINK)

I see absolutely nothing ‘controversial’ in those statements.

President Trump is correct. The conservative House took down John Boener, the creepy and emotionally unstable 60-year-old sitting at the end of the bar who hits on your 21-year-old daughter.   What came next was Paul Ryan, the current brother-in-law to radical SCOTUS Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the Wisconsin politician married to a Democrat lobbyist.

Ryan then blocked any effort to hold the FBI accountable for their role in the 2016 election and the promotion of Russiagate. Then followed that obstruction with an intentional effort to lose the 2018 midterm election, while announcing his own resignation.

Kevin McCarthy might suck, but at least he sucks in a controlled environment.

I’m not a fan of Kevin McCarthy, few would dislike him more than I; however, in the final analysis who else has put their name in the hat and is going to -or could- get the entire republican caucus on their side?

The GOP only has a five-vote House margin.

It takes a simple majority to confirm the House Speaker.

What other method, candidate, representative or alternative position is there to take?

Congress Quietly Slips Ukraine Debt Relief into 4,400 Page National Defense Authorization Act

Posted originally on the CTH on December 9, 2022 | Sundance 

When it comes to congress and the graft that is Ukraine, nothing should come as a surprise.  Last month, the Biden administration asked Congress for another $37.7 billion in support for Ukraine. If that passes, and it certainly will, Congress will have approved more than $100 billion in Ukraine-related spending.

To wit, yesterday congress slipped Ukraine Debt Payment Relief, into the 4,400 page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which will make the Senate happy as the intent of the upper chamber is to continue the laundry operation.

(Via Fox News) – The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2023 passed the House Thursday afternoon in a 350-80 vote. Included in that 4,400-page bill is a section on “Ukraine Debt Payment Relief.”

That section says the U.S. treasury secretary will instruct U.S. representatives of international financial institutions to “use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to advocate that the respective institution immediately provide appropriate debt service relief to Ukraine.”

It instructs Treasury to commence “immediate efforts” with other governments and commercial creditors to “pursue comprehensive debt payment relief for Ukraine.”

The language talks only about debt payment relief, and not forgiveness of the assistance given to Ukraine this year to defend itself from to Russia’s invasion. (read more)

Sunday Talks, Incoming Republican Oversight Chair Promises Investigations of Biden Laptop, Twitter Files, China, Energy Policy and More

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:

Sunday Talks, Incoming Republican House Intelligence Chairman – Orange Man Bad, Joe Biden Should Be Commended, Zelenskyy is Awesome, More Money for Ukraine, Working Great with Adam Schiff and Mark Warner

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?


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–


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–


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–


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}

Sunday Talks, Former AG Says Biden Administration Positioned Resources to “Absorb” the Violence Created by Corrupt Political Indictment of President Trump – Trade Arrest of Hunter Biden for Arrest of President Trump and Play Blind Justice Game

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).


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.

Keep watching.

Sunday Talks, Kevin McCarthy Discusses His Effort to Become House Speaker – Agreement With Biden to Remove COVID Vaccine Mandate for Military

Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance 

Appearing with Maria Bartiromo, California Representative Kevin McCarthy discusses the opportunities and challenges for the republican caucus as his own effort to become Speaker of the House is impeded by conservative republicans in legislature.

McCarthy notes a conversation last week with Joe Biden and the upcoming reauthorization for defense spending that will likely remove the COVID vaccine mandate. Additionally, McCarthy discusses the removal of Adam Schiff from the HPSCI and how that removal connects to the latest revelations about people within the intelligence community who purposefully lied about the Hunter Biden laptop in order to interfere in the 2020 election.  WATCH:


With 222 republicans, a five-seat majority in the House, what options do they have except to elect McCarthy as Speaker?

Steve Bannon Frames the GOP Motives for 2024 Remarkably Well

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

Steve Bannon does a good job in the first eight minutes of this War Room segment {Direct Rumble Link} framing the context of the corporate stakes in the 2024 election.  The reference to former Republican Governor Scott Walker, and who was backing him, is accurate and strong context {Go Deep}.

Bannon notes the nature of the republican donor-class dynamic as it relates to their multinational interests in controlling the RNC corporate outcome.  While Bannon doesn’t go into the details of the donor controlled 2024 ¹roadmap, the big picture of what he explains is right on the money.  WATCH (first 8 mins):

[¹CTH has that roadmap essentially pieced together, the only two things missing are, (1) firming the sequencing and (2) the rule changes from Jan/Feb 2023, so we can show how it all connects.  However, most of the GOPe candidates are already identified, funded and are in the preliminary stages of preparation.]

DeSantis will be the last to enter the 2024 race for two primary reasons: (1) the goal of the entrants between now and then is to weaken, ridicule and attack Trump; and (2) if DeSantis gets in too early, people will see that he planned to do this all along -and- the recognized trickery may sour people to the corporate club objective.

Red boxes = essentially confirmed 2024 participants in the GOP nomination process for DeSantis.

Note: South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem will also likely be an entrant, and either Christie or Cruz could enter (leaning Cruz) but it will only be one of them, either/or.

The corporate donors behind the DNC Club want a Gavin Newsom ticket with a left-wing (likely black) female.

The corporate donors behind the RNC Club want a Ron DeSantis ticket with a right-wing female (bets on Noem).

Each participant in the ‘illusion of choice’ game is selected for a specific role and function.  But in the bigger picture they are all advancing for the same intent, which is the point Steve Bannon accurately makes.

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?


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.

Sunday Talks, Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy States His Intention to Remove Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar from House Congressional Committees

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

During an interview with Maria Bartiromo {Direct Rumble Link Here} incoming Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy discusses his outline to become Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Additionally, Leader McCarthy states his intention to disallow Democrats Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell to maintain status on the House intelligence committee, and also remove Democrat Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. {Segment Rumble Link}  WATCH:

{Full Interview Here}

Full Interview: