Posted originally on Feb 2, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
A recent poll by Quantus Insights indicates that 74% of registered US voters believe photo ID should be required by law to vote. Nearly half (49.3%) “strongly support” the measure, while only 16% stated they “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose such legislation.
Every serious financial and legal transaction in modern society requires identification. You cannot open a bank account, board a plane, cash a check, or enter many government buildings without ID. Yet we are told that verifying identity for the selection of the most powerful positions in government is somehow unique. That argument simply does not hold up under rational scrutiny.
The real issue behind voter ID is not left versus right. It is something far more fundamental that people keep missing. Every system of government rises and falls on confidence. Once the public begins to doubt the integrity of the process, it begins to question the system.
A year ago, Romanian citizens questioned the validity of their elections and the importance of their vote after the constitutional court annulled Calin Georgescu’s presidential election. Countless people asked, “Why bother voting?” The same line of thinking applies to US elections, where rampant voter fraud has become commonplace.
Mail-in ballots led to Joe Biden securing 81 million votes—more than any president in American history. Polls indicated that fewer Americans were choosing to participate in the 2024 US Presidential Election. Gerrymandering, mail-in ballots, thousands of votes cast on behalf of dead voters, prohibiting citizens from being required to show identification and therefore permitting illegals to vote – the last election was a complete disaster, and this one will be no different. One in five Americans actually admitted to committing election fraud in 2020. Republicans were more prone to committing election fraud, but studies found that Donald Trump would have been the clear winner if mail-in ballots were prohibited.
Only one political party opposes voter ID requirements. None of the G7 nations permit people to vote without showing identification. I could not show up in Germany and expect to have a say in the future of their nation – absolutely absurd. It is categorically astonishing that the left has convinced a subset of the population that asking for identification is racist or oppressive.
The election has degraded into a performance that is meant to give the public the perception that they have an actual say in the direction of the nation. You have no say in government spending, debt, or future wars. It is an utter illusion to believe that the powerful elite in Washinton within the establish care about the wishes of the people.
originally on Posted Feb 1, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
COMMENT:
Hyperinflation and sanctions on cue in Iran, 103.2 years before Weimar.
Iran headed to 47.3 year peak in early 2027 on ECM from hostage taking, after which people will no longer have confidence in revolutionaries (on public/private ECM alternation).
Why not just recommend that US just let Iran fall on its own, to avoid potentially entangling China and Russia if US strikes first?
Thank you always!
JH
REPLY: I fully agree that Iran will fall all by itself just like Communism. You cannot have any religion dictate to the economy. Communism was in effect a religion that was atheism and sought to also control human nature suppressing it into one version fits all. The risk of Iran is that they may lash out of desperation and use war to try to cling to power. The problem I see is that February is showing up around many markets. Volatility will rise from February. Blackrock is writing down its private debt portfolio by 19% due to losses. Wait until they have to write down Ukraine. There are a lot of financial minefields out there in addition to the Sovereign Debt Crisis in Japan and EU.
Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance
In January of 2017 California Senator Dianne Feinstein abdicated her position as Vice-Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Upon the initiation of a new congress, and two weeks before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Virginia Senator Mark Warner took the SSCI Vice-Chair seat…. and that’s how things get started.
Amid a concerted effort to resist the incoming administration the Russia Collusion Conspiracy was launched. Politicians, the U.S. intelligence apparatus and DC beltway media united in common purpose to push a Trump-Russia narrative.
Within the early days of that effort, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence initiated an investigation into Russian interference with the election. Chairman Richard Burr and Vice-Chair Warner were toasted throughout DC as an example of bipartisan oversight against what House minority leader Nancy Pelosi called a “fraudulent president.”
Sometime in late February/early March 2017 Senator Warner requested a copy of the top secret FISA application used against Carter Page, falsely accusing him of being “an agent of a foreign power.” Simultaneous to this the FBI was trying to track down the details of dozens of classified intelligence leaks to the media from within the DC system. FBI Special Agent, Washington DC Field Office, Brian Dugan appears to have been tasked with tracking and identifying intelligence leakers. Dugan saw an opportunity.
On March 17, 2017, in order to fulfill the request of SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, Agent Dugan goes to the FISA Court and picks up a copy of the FISA application. At the time there were only two components: The original application (Oct ’16), and the first renewal (Jan ’17). The next renewal did not come until April and then again in June.
NOTE: The FBI did not go to the DOJ-NSD to pick up a copy. Why?
You’ll see.
The FBI went to FISA Court for their copy. The FISA Clerk stamped the copy with the Date March 17, 2017, and Dugan returned to the Washington Field Office of the FBI.
We know this was the process, because Dugan later writes the copy was “an FBI equity”, meaning the origination of the leaked document came from the FBI. Not the DOJ-NSD or the FISA Court directly (the two other possible sources).
When SSA Dugan returned to the FBI office he changed the dates (by one day) on the application and first renewal, presumably as a leak tracer, and prepared them for release.
Throughout this process DOJ Main Justice appears purposefully unaware. The Washington Field Office FBI were limiting information in order to track classified leaks.
This exclusion process narrows the possibility.
Later in the afternoon of March 17, 2017, the WFO delivered the FISA application to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe. [Wolfe indictment page 6 – Line 17, 18]
Shortly after 4:00pm Mark Warner arrives at the SSCI Sensitive Comparmented Information Facility, or SCIF. We discover this exact timeframe from text messages belonging to Chris Steele’s U.S. Attorney, Adam Waldman. More on that in a minute.
Before, during or after Senator Warner’s review of the FISA application, SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaked the FISA application content to his allied media cohort, a journalist at Buzzfeed, Ali Watkins.
Additional material later released puts the most likely sequence for Wolfe’s leak coming after Warner’s review.
The leak was accomplished by a series of picture texts. The original FISA application is 83 pages in total with one intentionally blank page [Ali Watkins is “Reporter #2”]:
James Wolfe took a photograph of each of the pages and then sent those 82 image texts to Ms. Ali Watkins. At this moment, March 17, 2017, Ms. Watkins now holds a copy of the unredacted original FISA application. However, the copy also carries the leak tracer.
After reporting of Carter Page (Male 1) appears in Buzzfeed written by Watkins; and after both the New York Times and Washington Post publish articles about the FISA application using the leak trace information; the FBI now knows the leak came from the SSCI.
Over the next several months physical surveillance on Wolfe is conducted. The FBI must have been able to gather very credible evidence that Wolfe was the leaker to Watkins because eventually a DC judge granted the FBI a search warrant for Ms. Watkins records.
It is very difficult to get a warrant on a journalist. There are tight legal protocols for doing so. The evidence gathered must have been very overwhelming. The court granted the search warrant. Ms. Watkins is unaware. Additionally, and importantly, it appears Main Justice now occupied by the Mueller investigation, is also unaware. [Doc Link]
The search warrant runs from Feb 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017. This specific leak of the FISA application is March 17, 2017.
Somewhere in/around this mid-late summer timeframe the Washington Field Office FBI also retrieved text messages from Lawyer and registered Lobbyist Adam Waldman.
We know the text messages are from Waldman’s side of the conversation from the attached screenshots later released. We also know the date of the capture was similar to Ms. Ali Watkins. Feb 15, 2017 to May 15, 2017. Again the Wolfe leak was March 17th.
The telephone communication of both SSCI Vice-Chairman Senator Warner and Journalist Ali Watkins were captured. This indicates both were suspects in the investigation. Thus, it seems likely the Wolfe pictures were sent *after* Mark Warner reviewed them, not before.
It would be very tenuous for the FBI to capture texts messages from the sitting Vice-Chair of the SSCI. This is not something the Washington Field Office of the FBI would do lightly. That aspect also explains why the texts were captured from the Waldman side of the conversation. Much easier to get the texts of a lobbyist than a sitting SSCI member.
In October 2017 the FBI first approached Wolfe with an fyi on the leak investigation to see how he would respond. [Indictment Here] By mid December 2017 Wolfe is confronted. He lied repeatedly, until shown the evidence, then he admitted, and admitted he lied.
James Wolfe was quietly removed from the SSCI immediately after, and was in a state of suspension until his indictment was unsealed June 8th. However, it’s the story between December 2017 and June 8th where things are very interesting.
As you can see from above, Mueller and the 17 resistance members that took over Main Justice had no idea any of this FBI investigation was happening, UNTIL the FBI investigative files were transferred to seat a grand jury to hear the evidence.
It appears FBI SSA Brian Dugan finished his investigation immediately after Wolfe left the SSCI; or soon thereafter. Somewhere around the end of January, to first week of February, all reports and FBI evidence would be submitted.
That transfer included: the March 17, 2017, FISA application with leak tracers; the Ali Watkins phone records; the Adam Waldman/Mark Warner phone records; and all the subsequent interview notes with James Wolfe and other parties (FD-302’s etc).
Keep in mind, every investigation that touched on Trump-Russia became proprietary to the Robert Mueller Special Counsel. This FBI investigation centered around the FISA application which was at the center of the special counsel probe.
This means the Mueller special counsel took ownership and control over the FBI evidence in the totality of the Wolfe investigation.
The evidence did not go to a grand jury.
On February 9, 2018, the evidentiary text messages capturing Mark Warner’s involvement with James Wolfe were sent back to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
In essence, Senator Mark Warner was given a head’s up. Or put another way, time to clean up any sticky issues and narrate a justification.
Four days later, February 13, 2018, the DOJ notified Ali Watkins, and the New York Times, that all of her communications were intercepted as part of the investigation. By now Wolfe was two months removed from his position; undoubtedly Watkins knew.
In essence to the New York Times, who had been using the FISA application as part of its false reporting, were also given a legal head’s up.
The Wolfe Grand Jury was not seated until May 3, 2018; and the indictment unsealed on June 8, 2018. [link] All the work that SSA Brian Dugan put into catching an intelligence leaker was ignored. Wolfe was only indicted for lying to the FBI because it appears the grand jury never saw the evidence of his leaking the FISA application.
Why not? Because an admission of the FISA leak would have been toxic to special counsel Robert Mueller in 2018. It would have also been toxic to the SSCI and specifically Senator Mark Warner. The leak would have outlined how the Senate was involved in the targeting of Trump.
In 2018 Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann were in control of Main Justice for everything surrounding the Trump-Russia information. It appears the evidence file against James Wolfe went into Main Justice with clear and overwhelming evidence of Wolfe leaking the FISA, only to have it return to DC US attorney Jessie Liu for presentation to a grand jury with the evidence of that core element removed. Ergo, Wolfe was only charged with lying to the FBI.
However, it appears FBI Special Agent Brian Dugan didn’t relent. In a sentencing attachment on December 14th 2018, well after the plea agreement was concluded, Dugan swears under oath that James Wolfe leaked the FISA application:
“In this case, because the known disclosure of classified information – the FISA application– involved an FBI equity, the FBI devoted substantial agent and intelligence analyst resources”…
The evidence is irrefutable that Wolfe leaked the FISA application on March 17, 2017.
Once that point is established…. then the reason why the special counsel released the FISA application under the premise of a FOIA application, July 21, 2018, starts to have much more significance.
However, let’s just stop there.
The Top Secret FISA application was leaked March 17, 2017, by James Wolfe.
Why wasn’t he prosecuted for it?
Additionally, despite the evidence above, no media outlet has ever admitted James Wolfe leaked the FISA application.
Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance
President Bill Clinton appears in multiple documents throughout the Epstein files. President Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff, George Stephanopoulos, questions current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about the ongoing releases of Epstein information.
Specifically concerning to Stephanopoulos this week is the rushed nature of the 3.5 million-page document release by the DOJ, and victim information. Last week Stephanopoulos was complaining about the lengthy delays in the release as DOJ officials worked to redact victim information. WATCH:
[Transcript] – STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks, Pierre Thomas, for that. We’re joined now by the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche, thank you for joining us this morning.
As you know, your release on Friday has already received a response from the victims, from Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. I want to show the statement right now. It says, “survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected. This is outrageous. The Justice Department cannot claim it is finishing releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed.”
Will there be more releases?
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: I mean, look, first of all, we took great pains, as I explained on Friday, to make sure that we protected victims. This was a — we are talking about a review of 3.5 million pieces of paper that were released on Friday.
Every time we hear from a victim or their lawyer that they believe that their name was not properly redacted, we immediately rectified that. And the numbers we’re talking about, just so the American people understand, we’re talking about .001 percent of all the materials. And so — and we knew this. I said this on Friday, that — that, of course, the nature of this type of review was — the volume of materials that were reviewed, that there would be times when this happened. And so we’re working hard to make sure that we fix that. And I expect that that will continue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Will more documents be released?
BLANCHE: We have released — there are a small number of documents, as I said on Friday, that we’re waiting for a judge to say we can — we’re allowed to release because of a protective order. But there are — this review is over. I mean we reviewed over six million pieces of paper, thousands of videos, thousands — tens of thousands of images. And — which is what the statute required us to do.
You know, it’s interesting. Leadership on the — on the Hill, Congressman Massie, Senator Schumer are quick to complain. There is no way they have spent any time looking at the materials we produced, because I know the materials we produced. We produced them on Friday. By Saturday, they’re already complaining about what we did? And by the way, apparently Massie and others wrote a letter to come and review unredacted materials. I didn’t get that letter yet. They leaked it to the press before they actually sent it to me.
But, yes, that’s absolutely totally fine. We have nothing to hide. We have nothing to hide. We never did. And our doors are open if they want to come and review any of the materials that we produced.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That was going to be my next question. So, thank you for answering it.
I do want to move on right now.
We have some video right now showing Liam Ramos, that five-year-old boy who was detained by ICE in Minnesota, being released today. He’s on his way back home to Minnesota after a judge ordered him released. And it was a pretty blistering order from the judge, Fred Biery, down in — the U.S. district judge — district court judge down in Texas.
He showed a photo of Liam, included some biblical passages, saying “Jesus wept,” and then went on to say, “civics lesson to the government: administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. This is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”
What’s your response?
BLANCHE: Well, look, that’s an active litigation, so I’m limited. But I will say this, the immigration law, the body of immigration law is much different than our typical criminal process because of the administrative nature of what we do every day. And so, to the extent that we need to appeal that judge’s decision, I promise we will.
But you see thousands and thousands of administrative actions happening every single day in this country. And you just highlighted a single one and not the thousands and thousands of others that happen. And so, this is — what we’re doing is tough. What we’re doing is difficult. I mean, we’re talking about a situation where millions and millions and millions of undocumented illegal aliens have flooded our country and we are trying to find them basically one by one.
And so, you know, I don’t have a comment specifically on what that judge said yesterday, but generally speaking, we are complying with the law every single day.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They are being released across the country as well by judges. And the president said he was going to prioritize those who had criminal records, but about 70 percent at least of those who have been detained don’t have criminal records.
BLANCHE: Well, just — hang on. The fact that they’re here illegally is a crime. And so when you say they don’t have criminal records, they are — by their presence being here without status, having come into this country illegally or overstayed illegally, that is a crime. And so, we have to be careful.
And you’re right, there is a schism in the law right now about whether an illegal alien can be held pending their proceeding or whether they need to be released on bail. We very strongly believe that they should be held and there’s a bunch of appellate cases.
So that’s another example of something where a number of district court judges have reached a conclusion that we very much believe is contrary to law and there will be an appellate court and ultimately, probably the Supreme Court that will be asked to interpret that. So — so, we should be — we should wait before we withhold judgment until the appellate courts have had their opportunity to weigh in.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I should say, to clarify, the lawyer for Liam Ramos and his father say they were following the legal process for asylum.
BLANCHE: I mean, I don’t know what that means. They were following legal process, and yet the judge disagreed with us —
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum.
BLANCHE: Excuse me?
STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum, and they were going through the legal process.
BLANCHE: Well, there’s — so that’s not true. That is not true. There’s a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly applied for asylum.
And again, I do — I cannot get into the — the specifics of this litigation, but you can read the same briefs I can. And what you just said is not true.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. That’s what his lawyer says. So, they — I’m sure they’ll have a response to that as well.
I also want to ask you about the situation. Just this week, Don Lemon was arrested, the journalist Don Lemon was arrested, along with another independent journalist. And he was — this was despite the fact that a magistrate judge in an appeals court refused to approve the request. And the Chief Federal District Judge Patrick Schultz wrote that there was no evidence that Mr. Lemon engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.
So, when do you believe that Mr. Lemon crossed the line from reporting on what was going on to criminal activity?
BLANCHE: Conveniently missing from what you just showed, George, is the appellate court and a judge on the appellate court who said just a few days later there was clearly probable cause, and it wasn’t even a close question. So — and by the way, a grand jury, which is what our system has set up to determine whether probable cause exists, concluded that there was probable cause.
That indictment is now public. Everybody in this country can pull it up and read for themselves and see what the grand jury found that that Mr. Lemon did. I am not going to comment on the charges specifically because it’s not appropriate.
But it’s interesting that — that we talk about the First Amendment right. You have a right a freedom of religion which is just as important as any other right that we have. And, George, I don’t know if you’ve — if you’ve watched the videos or read the indictment about what it’s alleged that Mr. Lemon did, but if anybody in this country thinks that that is, quote, “independent journalism,” I would like to have a conversation with you.
Now, he obviously has a very good lawyer. He can raise defenses in court to the extent he wants to, but nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it’s ongoing and disrupting that church service and thinking that we’re just going to stand by and let that happen because there is a statute that does not allow that to happen.
It doesn’t matter if you happen to be a former CNN journalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re a rioter. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re peacefully protesting. You are not allowed to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re confident he’s going to be convicted and the case won’t be dismissed?
BLANCHE: I am not going to speak to conviction. That would be completely inappropriate. He was indicted by a grand jury in Minneapolis, and he’ll have — have his day in court like everybody else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: During your confirmation hearings, you made a strong statement against partisan political investigations and prosecutions. And I want to show it for our audience.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: Partisan lawfare in our justice system wastes taxpayer money, makes communities less safe, and ruins lives. This should never happen in America.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ve got your commitment there — there will not even be a whiff of an investigation that appears to have a political motivation to it.
BLANCHE: I commit to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Since then, as you know, a number of targets of President Trump, have been publicly targeted by President Trump, have been prosecuted or investigated. I want to show that right now. It includes the former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Senators Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin, Governor Tim Walz, and Mayor Jacob Frey.
So, how do you respond to those who say you’ve broken your commitment?
BLANCHE: You just showed a handful of investigations or grand jury indictments that have been brought. We are — we are investigating tens of thousands of individuals and cases every single day. They are not political in base. The fact that you cherry-picked a handful that some people in the media have said, “Oh, those must be political,” is absurd and not fair.
I mean, don’t forget, George, when I walk into the Oval Office right now, I look around. And oftentimes every single person in that room was heavily attacked and gone after by the last Biden administration. And so, when I said to Congress and when I say to you right now that what we’re — there’s not a whiff of political partisanship in what we’re doing, I mean that. The mere fact that some Democrats, or some individuals who have spoken out against President Trump are being investigated is because there — that’s what the Department of Justice does. It doesn’t make it political because we’re investigating. And that — and that’s something important we’re doing. We have — we have brought down crime. We’re making America safe again. We’re working hard every day. And those handful of investigations or cases you just show don’t change that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Those indictments of James Comey and Letitia James came after the president explicitly said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served right now. They came after career attorneys refused to bring the indictments, and both cases have been dismissed.
BLANCHE: I mean, when you — I don’t know what it means to say they’ve come after people. I mean, listen, if you’re a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, you are expected to effectuate this administration’s priorities, like every single prosecutor in every administration. There are some prosecutors within the department who have chosen to leave. They don’t want to do that. That is their right. That is fine. But if you’re going to work in this department, you are going to execute on the president’s priorities, and that’s what we do.
And yes, there are cases that have been dismissed by judges. They’re under appeal. That’s what happens in our system. And that doesn’t make the cases wrong or right, it just means that they’ve been dismissed and they’re under appeal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you just — you just actually made my point right there. You said it’s the president’s priorities. The president calls for them publicly to be prosecuted, says they’re guilty as hell, and then they’re prosecuted.
BLANCHE: Now that’s not the president’s priorities. That’s a truth that he sent out. The president’s priorities are executing on making America safe again. And that’s what we’re doing.
And so, when we go to prosecutors and we say, you are going to do violent crime. You are going to do fraud cases out of Minnesota because that’s a horrible thing that’s happening there. If individual prosecutors say, no, I don’t want to do that, they need to leave. And they do leave. And that’s what I meant when I said that.
I’m not — I’m not saying that we — under no circumstances do we turn to a prosecutor and say you need to go after somebody because they are politically one way or another. We have never done that, and we won’t do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the president said it. The president is the one who said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served.
BLANCHE: You’re reading a small part of a — of a truth. The truth said a lot of other things to, and many other truths have said the thing. What the president has said publicly, and what he says to me, and what he says to the attorney general, and what he says to the American people is, he expects investigations to be fair. He expects investigations to be done right. But he also doesn’t expect that we investigate. He expects that we — that we do the right thing and that we root out the corruption.
I mean, we had a — an incredibly corrupt Department of Justice when we came into power last year. There can be no dispute about that. There can be no dispute that the Garland Department of Justice did not do the right thing in many cases.
And so to now be judged a year later because of a truth the president said is not appropriate, we can look at our body of work and the work that we’re doing as a department every day. And I know that we’re making this country safer again. We are bringing integrity back to the department, notwithstanding what those in the media say differently, and we’re going to continue to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to ask you about a report breaking in “The Wall Street Journal” overnight. I want to show the headline right now. It’s — the headline saying the “Spy Sheikh Bought Secret Stake in Trump Company.” “A $500 million investment for 49 percent of World Liberty came months before UAE won access to tightly guarded American A.I. chips.” It’s referring to the national security adviser at the UAE, Sheikh Tahnoon. And he made this investment just before President Trump was inaugurated.
The article goes on to say, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.” This is the company of President Trump’s family. Eric Trump is the — is the president of the company. Trump — President Trump is listed as the founder emeritus, though he’s not running it directly right now.
How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?
BLANCHE: I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before, as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.
So, I — look, I saw that article. I don’t have a comment on it beyond President Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.
And so, there — there’s nothing unprecedented about a — about the Trump Organization going out and trying to make investments that basically all will come back to the American people and jobs in this country. And so this idea that there’s something untoward or unprecedented is just a repeated story that that isn’t true. And that’s — and I think that that — the American people know that. And the fact that we’ve talked about unprecedented, and this is something that doesn’t happen is just not true. And it’s — it shouldn’t be said by these so-called newspapers that are saying it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the president doesn’t run the company, but he does profit from it. His financial disclosure show he’s received funds from that. And law professor Kathleen Clark is quoted in the article saying this sure looks like a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Ty Cobb, who served as President Trump’s lawyer in — during the first administration, said, quote, “My advice as an ethics lawyer would have been clear. You don’t do business deals with the families of the leaders of foreign countries. It taints American foreign policy.”
How do you respond to Mr. Cobb?
BLANCHE: I don’t have a response to that guy. I mean, that guy hasn’t said a nonpartisan thing in the past four years. I mean, I could have predicted what you just said he would say. That’s what he says every time anything comes out about the president. I don’t have a — the president is ethical. He talks more to the press. He says what’s happening more than any president in history. You have a question about it, you can ask him. He gaggled on the plane last night at midnight for like 20 minutes. OK?
So, like the fact that Ty Cobb claims that he would have counseled something different to the president, OK. I mean that guy. I mean, I don’t have response to that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the questions the president also took last night when he was on Air Force One was questions about his suing the Treasury Department, the IRS for $10 billion for leaking his tax returns. And he’s — he suggested that there could be some questions about the conflict. He says it’s an interesting question.
How do you respond to those who say that’s a conflict of interest for the president to be seeking funds from those who he’s administering?
BLANCHE: Look, we’re looking at how to handle that. I mean, he’s not wrong, and I don’t think even you think he’s wrong, that what happened there is horrible. The fact that his tax returns were leaked. No American should have that. And you do have Americans, whether you’re the president or just a — anybody in this country, has a right when something like that happens. And so I very much sympathize with what the president talked about and we’re looking into as a department how to address and make sure that type of thing never happens again to anybody, much less a former president or a current president. And we’ll go from there.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It is wrong for a president to have his tax returns leaked, for anyone to have their tax returns leaked. I agree with that. The president is also seeking $232 million from the Justice Department, saying his rights were violated during the 2016 campaign.
And I just wonder how you think you’re going to handle that. Both you as the deputy attorney general and the attorney general, Pam Bondi, have served as President Trump’s personal lawyers in the past. Doesn’t that pose at least the appearance of a conflict? And should you be involved in dealing with that in any way?
BLANCHE: I mean, I haven’t talked whether I’m involved with that at all anyway. I mean, it’s — that’s a fair question, George. And we all — we obviously talk about conflicts and what I’m allowed to do, what the attorney general is allowed to do because of what we’ve done in our past. But there are limits to those — to those conflicts. And I do have a job to the American people and President Trump as a deputy attorney general. And so, I — you know, we will — we will navigate that appropriately and consistent with the ethical rules and get to a just result.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Blanche, thanks for your time this morning.
Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance
President Trump and other guests attend the wedding of Director of Presidential Personnel Dan Scavino to his bride Erin Elmore. The guest list was a proverbial who’s-who of the MAGA insiders.
In addition to President Trump, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Fox News host Sean Hannity, and more attended the ceremony on a chilly day at Mar-a-Lago. Donald Trump Jr. and his fiancée, Bettina Anderson, ex-wife, Vanessa, and daughter, Kai, were also among the guests. Eric Trump’s wife, Lara, and the president’s daughter, Tiffany, her husband, Michael Boulos, also attended.
President Trump delivers remarks upon arrival (video prompted):
Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance
President Trump and Secretary Rubio are walking carefully through a process to keep Venezuela stable and authentic to the true intents of the Venezuelan people. Toward that end, both Trump and Rubio have been very careful with Maria Corina Machado, the exiled opposition leader who claims to be the legitimate voice of the people.
Machado is loved by the United Nations, the American leftists and DC control agents. However, to avoid Machado becoming Venezuela’s Zelenskyy, President Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio are working through a three-stage process that would culminate in secure national elections to coincide with Maria Machado’s return. If she wins the hearts and minds, she will have legitimacy.
If you listen carefully to her phrases and omissions, you can clearly see where the trepidation from Trump and Rubio comes from. There are a lot of platitudes and pretenses within Venezuelan politics. Video and Transcript Below:
[TRANSCRIPT] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, and it is amazing to see you here in person after so long.
MARÍA CORINA MACHADO: Likewise. Thank you very much.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio this past week. He said the U.S. now does not intend to have any military action or presence inside Venezuela, except for maybe at a reopened embassy there. Is that a good idea to take that military pressure off when the Maduro regime is effectively still in place?
MACHADO: Well, first of all, I have to say that on behalf of the Venezuelan people, we’re very, very grateful to the American people, and the first hand- first and foremost, to President Trump, to the secretary of state, and also to your leaders in Congress. I mean, the- the degree of support and care that we’ve felt in this fight at this moment is enormous, and I think it is clear on the- on the behalf and well being of the American people, but also of the Venezuelan people, and I would say the whole hemisphere. I do not think that the pressure is being taken away. Actually, everything Delcy Rodríguez is currently doing is because she’s complying with instructions she’s getting from the United States, and important steps are being taken. So I think that the message has been delivered, and so far, we’re seeing the results in the actions taken by the regime, and also in the mood and energy that is growing within the Venezuelan population.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you, or is anyone in your movement, in touch with Delcy Rodríguez, who’s the acting president of Venezuela now?
MACHADO: No, not directly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No. Why not?
MACHADO: Well, we had offered, since we won the election by a landslide, that we were willing to- to agree in the terms of a negotiated transition, they refused. On the contrary, they decided to unleash the- the- the most cruel, brutal repression wave. There are- as you know, there have been thousands of political prisoners, and they had not demonstrated any willingness to- to stop this cruelty, until January 3rd arrived and- and happened when it happened. So it sent a clear message to them, and they’re starting to realize that things have changed for good. So eventually they might understand or- and even very soon, that it is in their best interest to- to accept that transition is unstoppable.
MARGARET BRENNAN: A transition that you hope involves a democratic election at some point. Did Secretary Rubio give you any kind of timeline for the American plans?
MACHADO: What I do have very clear is that the end result is the same. What we want, what the Venezuelan people have voted and struggled and fight for with huge cause and sacrifice, and what the United States government and President Trump also desires. It is a very complex process. I mean, this is a criminal structure that has intertwined with the enemies of the West, Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, extremist terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the cartels, the guerrilla, all in association with the Maduro regime and Delcy Rodríguez and others. So it’s a process of dismantling this structure in the- in a way that it’s most orderly under control possible in the short term. And yes, the end game has to be, or the end step has to be, a electoral process in which we can have legitimate power. So I’m talking about a legitimate national assembly, governors, mayors and certainly president.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But for the people in Venezuela still living under that regime, what has actually changed for them, and do they have the patience to wait for what you’re talking about, which is basically just hoping that the Rodríguez government does what Donald Trump tells them to do?
MACHADO: Well, it’s more than hoping. We’re seeing the results, the actions. Are we there yet? Not. And- and I think it’s a good point, what you mentioned, patience. How much patience can the Venezuelan people have? Because, I mean, there were over 1,000 political prisoners on January the 1st. Still, there are over 700. Not one military prisoner, political prisoner has been liberated. There are men and women that have been in prison for years. Even the three police of the Policía Metropolitana have 23 years in prison, and they have not been liberated- released yet.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And Secretary Rubio has said it’s not happening as fast as America wants it to.
MACHADO: Absolutely. And in- in our case, we want that to happen immediately. Imagine, you know, the mothers of- of- of many of these innocent prisoners have been in vigils for over 23 days and nights. This is something that was unthinkable, Margaret, before January 3rd, and it shows that Venezuelan people are getting more and more empowered, more and more confident that this process will eventually lead to a- to a legitimate government based on the will of the people, but certainly we need to move there and leave evidence that there’s no way back.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, well, President Trump has talked a lot about Venezuela’s oil and its natural resources. Do you support the law that was just passed that allows the Venezuelan Government to privatize the oil industry?
MACHADO: Well, first of all, I do not recognize the National Assembly as a legitimate power. It has not been recognized by the Venezuelan people, not even by the American- by the U.S. government.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Not legally, but effectively they–
MACHADO: Yeah, but whatever comes from that National Assembly has no legality. So- because this is an illegitimate power. So certainly, these so-called reforms introduce positive signs in terms of what we, the Venezuelan people, want in the future. We don’t want socialism. We don’t want the state owning every single, you know, facility or production center. We want private property, but that requires rule of law, long term guarantees for foreign investment, for local investment. But one thing that is the most important of all, in my opinion, you need to have people, talent, specialized, professional, willing to work and develop these enterprises. What happened with the Venezuelan specialized talent? It was forced to flee the country, almost a third of our population, and these are people that are working all around the world. So imagine if a Venezuelan engineer working in Ghawar, the- the largest oil field in Saudi Aramco, would he leave his job and go back to Venezuela, where Delcy Rodríguez, who is part of the cartel, is in- and who originally fired him is in power? Of course, not.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you raised this point, but President Trump just said on camera that United States is going to start peeling back some of these sanctions so that Americans can travel back to Venezuela. He’s lifted the air restrictions–
MACHADO: –Well, I think–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –is it safe to go?–
MACHADO: I think it is important to take steps. I think these are signals directed to several actors. First and foremost, to the regime, saying this is going to move forward. There is no way back. And- and- and the regime knows that no American citizen or Venezuelan citizen is going to go back to a country that’s still under the power of Maduro regime and the cartel. That’s not going to happen. But- but these kinds of actions, I think, give the correct signals in terms that this is going to move ahead. And I do trust the president in what he has said regarding how much he cares about the Venezuelan people, that’s something that I think it was quite significant in our conversation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: If you return to Venezuela now, would you be imprisoned, and has the American government said that they will protect you, they will guarantee your safety?
MACHADO: Well, you know, things are changing very fast in Venezuela. If they had captured me before I left, I probably would have been disappeared or worse. Right now, I don’t think they would dare to kill me because of the United States presence and pressure and actions. I don’t know how much possibility of moving I would have inside Venezuela, certainly they would be very afraid, because the- the regime knows the connection, the intimate connection we have, you know, the Venezuelan people and- and the leadership that won the election, the legitimate government.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You won that election along with Edmundo González at the top of that ticket, even the Trump administration recognized it. Secretary Rubio testified that to Congress, but then the president of the United States stood up there and said to the public that even though you had won that election, you didn’t have the public support. And I wonder if you can understand why they made that calculation, that you and your party who won an election couldn’t be that transitional government that would do all the things you’re talking about?
MACHADO: Well, Margaret, I will concentrate in what he told me in a private conversation, looking each other in the eyes, and I, and I truly believe he understands the nature of this regime. They all know that Delcy Rodríguez is a communist that no one can trust. Not even, you know, the people surrounding her right now does. I mean these are individuals that have strong ties with Russia, Iran, China, Cuba. I mean, she is doing what she’s doing because United States is putting enough pressure for them to understand that she has no other option. If that, if that pressure were taken away, she would turn around and go back to where loyal- her loyalty is with these regimes are the enemies of America. So no one is naive here. I think she’s doing part of the dirty job of dismantling her own regime and entourage, but that’s a- there’s a limit to it. For what you said before, you know, people have to be taken account on- of. They have to be involved. And the Venezuelan people, 90% of our people want the same. Not only this regime to go immediately, but we want to live in a country with human dignity, with solidarity, with justice, with freedom. This is all about bringing our kids back home, having our families together. It’s about saving lives.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What role would you want in a future Venezuelan government? Because even President Trump says you may have a role in the future. Would you run for president?
MACHADO: I will be president when the time comes. But it doesn’t matter. That should be decided in elections by the Venezuelan people. I wasn’t allowed to run in the last election, as we mentioned before, because Maduro was afraid to running against me, and he thought Edmundo was not a threat, because nobody knew who he was. And in less than three months, we managed to put the whole country supporting him, because this is- this is matter of freedom. I mean, this is a spiritual fight, an existential fight for Venezuela. Unlike other diasporas, and I want to stress this, our people around the world, here in the United States, want to go back. Go back and live in a country where they’re safe, but most of all, where there is a future in freedom and democracy. So if we want those hundreds of thousands and millions of Venezuelan to go back, we need to have a secure and precise timeline through which this transition will advance.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we don’t know when yet–
MACHADO: Not yet–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –from the Trump administration at all.
MACHADO: Not yet. But I’m sure there is, and the secretary of state and many other members of the government, by instructions of the president, a clear willingness to move as fast as possible within, you know, control and order and understanding the complexity of such a criminal structure, but understanding that the voice of the people is what brings legitimacy to this process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go. You know, the last time we spoke, you had made this daring, covert escape by land, sea and air from Venezuela to go and receive that Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. You’ve kept those details private, you said, for safety reasons, but you did say you broke your back, you talked about being lost at sea, that you feared that you might lose your life at one point. After all of that, why did you give your Nobel Peace Prize to President Trump after you’d already dedicated it to him?
MACHADO: Look, I think this is a matter of justice, and it’s a matter of what’s in the superior interest of our country. We the Venezuelan people, are truly grateful for what he has done, and we’re confident in what he will do in the- in the days, weeks and months to come.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You believe he supports you.
MACHADO: I do. Because it is- it has to do first and foremost with you, the American people, and how dismantling this criminal structure not only saves millions of Venezuelan lives, it also saves lives in the Americas. And once Venezuela is free, then the Cuban regime will follow. The Nicaraguan regime will follow, even the Iranian regime that has turned Venezuela into its safe haven and satellite only three hours away from Florida. I mean, this has huge consequence for the Western Hemisphere, for United States. So I think this is a win-win situation for investment, for business opportunity, for security reasons, and certainly for migration tensions and crisis. So Venezuela will be free, and I know I will host you soon in a wonderful country that is very grateful to yours.
MARGARET BRENNAN: María Corina Machado, thank you very much for your time today. We’ll be right back.
Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance
Against the backdrop of President Trump’s instructions to pull back from confrontation with leftist antagonists, Dept of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appears on Fox News to discuss what that means to the ongoing immigration enforcement action in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 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