Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 9, 2021 | Sundance | 108 Comments

There’s an interesting aspect to an Andrew Weissmann statement on MSNBC that almost everyone is missing.  Before watching the brief excerpt, let me put the comments into context.  Remember, the Intelligence Branch uses intelligence silos to protect themselves; however, the Intelligence Branch also violates those silos when ever they want.

First, Andrew Weissmann comes from the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).  More specifically, in that division Andrew Weissmann was in charge of the section that used FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act), or FARA-951 as a weapon against their political enemies.

The only targets Weissmann ever selected for FARA investigations were political opposition. You might also remember it was Weissmann who led the Mueller team, and in that position Weissmann went after every target (Flynn, Rafiekian, Manafort, Papadopoulos, Phares, even Rudy Guiliani etc.) with accusations of FARA violations.

Second, the DOJ-NSD had no inspector general oversight.

During the Obama administration the DOJ-NSD exempted themselves from DOJ Inspector General review.  In 2015 the Office of the Inspect General (OIG) requested oversight and it was Deputy AG Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

There is a very specific reason for this intentional avoidance of oversight as we found out through the Carter Page FISA warrant.  The DOJ-NSD is the weaponized mechanism against domestic political opposition inside the DOJ.  [Sidebar: I would not be surprised to find out the DOJ-NSD operatives used their FARA authorities to control and threaten political opposition around Washington DC, using lobbying investigations as leverage/blackmail.]

As the current story is told a whistleblower in the intelligence community told Tucker Carlson his communication was intercepted by the NSA.  By the NSA originating standard, the same standard they claim to uphold publicly, the NSA has a foreign intelligence mission; and their data collection is supposed to be in a silo related to foreign intelligence gathering.  If an American is picked up ‘incidentally‘ by the NSA collection, that information is supposed to remain inside that silo.

However, as you watch this MSNBC segment, notice how casually Andrew Weissmann says that Tucker Carlson should have gone to the DOJ (Main Justice) with any concerns about his communication being intercepted by the NSA.  Listen carefully to how Weissmann frames what Carlson “should have done” (prompted):

We have talked about this quite a bit and I’m sure you can see why this explanation from Weissmann is problematic, yet at the same time it highlights his reference point.

Why would Tucker Carlson go to the DOJ?

Why would the DOJ have access to an ‘incidental‘ NSA intercept of Tucker Carlson?

The NSA has a foreign intelligence mission (silo), and the DOJ has a domestic federal law enforcement mission (silo).

Why would Tucker Carlson go to the DOJ to inquire about an incidental intercept, and/or unmasking of that intercept, when the person who informed Carlson said nothing about the DOJ…. exposing only that the NSA had intercepted his electronic communication?

Why would the DOJ have access to that NSA intercept?

Where exactly is this bridge between the NSA intercepts and the DOJ review of these intercepts?

Who operates the bridge between the NSA database and the DOJ?

What legal authorities guide the DOJ having random access to the NSA database?…

… and How exactly did the DOJ gain the legal authority that Andrew Weissmann is describing Carlson should inquire about?

In essence, what this segment reveals is Andrew Weissmann being so comfortable and casual with his reference point from time and experience inside the DOJ-NSD, that he doesn’t even realize what he is saying so matter-of-factly is something that is not supposed to take place.

The DOJ (or DOJ-NSD) is not supposed to have simple access to the NSA database without a reason for it.  Or without a contact from the NSA with a directive to review an intercept because it might involve unlawful activity.

The DOJ-NSD personnel are not supposed to be randomly data-mining the NSA database just to see if they can find some issue they would be under the authority to investigate.  Yet this frame of reference is exactly the casual nature of Weissmann’s diatribe.

If the NSA database is so easily searched by any domestic law enforcement agency, FBI or DOJ, then what exactly is the difference between the DOJ sucking up all the communication of Americans (brutally obvious 4th amendment violations) and the NSA capturing it?  Under the process Weissmann seems so casual about, the DOJ apparently has full unlimited access to everything the NSA captures.

This is not supposed to be happening.  However, that is also likely why the DOJ-NSD under President Obama refused to have any oversight.  That’s why I said Andrew Weissmann is saying the quiet part out loud.

Yes, I know there is ample evidence for this random domestic data-mining process I have just stated.  As we have seen from reports summarized by the FISA court, this random searching of the NSA database is apparently commonplace.

Just because we know the DOJ and FBI exploit an unlawful process for unfettered access to the electronic communication of every single American, doesn’t mean we should just sit back and accept it.

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 9, 2021 | Sundance | 233 Comments

Today President Donald Trump presented an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal explaining why he is suing Big Tech giants Google, Facebook and Twitter. You can find the filings here:  YouTube/Google Lawsuit HERE and Facebook Lawsuit HERE

Donald J Trump – “One of the gravest threats to our democracy today is a powerful group of Big Tech corporations that have teamed up with government to censor the free speech of the American people. This is not only wrong—it is unconstitutional. To restore free speech for myself and for every American, I am suing Big Tech to stop it.

Social media has become as central to free speech as town meeting halls, newspapers and television networks were in prior generations. The internet is the new public square. In recent years, however, Big Tech platforms have become increasingly brazen and shameless in censoring and discriminating against ideas, information and people on social media—banning users, deplatforming organizations, and aggressively blocking the free flow of information on which our democracy depends.

No longer are Big Tech giants simply removing specific threats of violence. They are manipulating and controlling the political debate itself. Consider content that was censored in the past year. Big Tech companies banned users from their platforms for publishing evidence that showed the coronavirus emerged from a Chinese lab, which even the corporate media now admits may be true. In the middle of a pandemic, Big Tech censored physicians from discussing potential treatments such as hydroxychloroquine, which studies have now shown does work to relieve symptoms of Covid-19. In the weeks before a presidential election, the platforms banned the New York Post—America’s oldest newspaper—for publishing a story critical of Joe Biden’s family, a story the Biden campaign did not even dispute.

Perhaps most egregious, in the weeks after the election, Big Tech blocked the social-media accounts of the sitting president. If they can do it to me, they can do it to you—and believe me, they are.

Jennifer Horton, a Michigan schoolteacher, was banned from Facebook for sharing an article questioning whether mandatory masks for young children are healthy. Later, when her brother went missing, she was unable to use Facebook to get the word out. Colorado physician Kelly Victory was deplatformed by YouTube after she made a video for her church explaining how to hold services safely. Kiyan Michael of Florida and her husband, Bobby, lost their 21-year-old son in a fatal collision caused by a twice-deported illegal alien. Facebook censored them after they posted on border security and immigration enforcement.

Meanwhile, Chinese propagandists and the Iranian dictator spew threats and hateful lies on these platforms with impunity.

This flagrant attack on free speech is doing terrible damage to our country. That is why in conjunction with the America First Policy Institute, I filed class-action lawsuits to force Big Tech to stop censoring the American people. The suits seek damages to deter such behavior in the future and injunctions restoring my accounts.

Our lawsuits argue that Big Tech companies are being used to impose illegal and unconstitutional government censorship. In 1996 Congress sought to promote the growth of the internet by extending liability protections to internet platforms, recognizing that they were exactly that—platforms, not publishers. Unlike publishers, companies such as Facebook and Twitter can’t be held legally liable for the content posted to their sites. Without this immunity, social media companies could not exist.

Democrats in Congress are exploiting this leverage to coerce platforms into censoring their political opponents. In recent years, we have all watched Congress haul Big Tech CEOs before their committees and demand that they censor “false” stories and “disinformation”—labels determined by an army of partisan fact-checkers loyal to the Democrat Party. As the cases of fellow plaintiffs Ms. Horton, Dr. Victory and the Michael family demonstrate, in practice this amounts to suppression of speech that those in power do not like.

Further, Big Tech and government agencies are actively coordinating to remove content from the platforms according to the guidance of agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Big Tech and traditional media entities formed the Trusted News Initiative, which essentially takes instructions from the CDC about what information they need to “combat.” The tech companies are doing the government’s bidding, colluding to censor unapproved ideas.

This coercion and coordination is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can’t use private actors to achieve what the Constitution prohibits it from doing itself. In effect, Big Tech has been illegally deputized as the censorship arm of the U.S. government. This should alarm you no matter your political persuasion. It is unacceptable, unlawful and un-American.

Through these lawsuits, I intend to restore free speech for all Americans—Democrats, Republicans and independents. I will never stop fighting to defend the constitutional rights and sacred liberties of the American people.”  (link)

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 9, 2021 | Sundance | 326 Comments

I hate to say I told ya so, but…. [SEE HERE]  The stakes are just too high to allow the Senate in Pennsylvania to conduct a 2020 election audit; and all prior corrupt activity must be protected and maintained.  As a direct result the White House is announcing the people behind Joe Biden are immediately dispatching all federal resources to Philadelphia to begin the war against Pennsylvania voters.

The Obama regime officials cannot permit the State of Pennsylvania to challenge or expose the scale of election fraud executed in Philadelphia county. They will manipulate every narrative needed, instruct every corporate media ally, call out every labor union and community activist group, pre-position Antifa, trigger every BIG Tech mechanism, activate the DOJ, FBI, Department of Homeland Security and even the U.S. military if that is needed to quell any rebellion.

The motive for this visit is directly the result of Pennsylvania State Senator & Chairman of the PA Intergovernmental Operations Committee, Doug Mastriano, announcing the intent of the PA legislative committee to conduct a forensic audit of Philadelphia.

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 9, 2021 | Sundance | 131 Comments

One America News host Natalie Harp does a deep dive into the election influence operation carried out by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.   After outlining the background information, including the amount of money Zuckerberg spent on the 2020 election and who he gave it to,  Ms. Harp interviews NY Rep Claudia Tenney (NY, CD-22).

As Harp and Tenney outline [Rumble Link] the money from Mark Zuckerberg was specifically designed to influence the 2020 election and the process of using mail-in ballots.  The money from Zuckerberg and others was used to pay for “ballot mules” and a myriad of corrupt election actions.  WATCH:

The relationship between Mark Zuckerberg and President Obama is well known.  The Obama administration first used Facebook and Twitter to influence elections in Egypt and Libya in 2010/2011. I consider those operations the beta test for the 2020 domestic interference by the same players.

Given the illegal weaponization of the intelligence community that President Obama initiated, it was critical for the Obama-era officials to retain control over the 2020 election.  This is one long continuum of activity to disguise the ‘fundamental transformation’ efforts of the entire Obama crew.  That’s why right now those same Obama allies are in key places in the current administration.  Lisa Monaco at DOJ, John Carlin at DOJ-NSD, Avril Haines at ODNI, Mark Warner at SSCI, Adam Schiff at HPSCI, the list is long.

Obama was at risk in the 2020 election and by extension his former VP Joe Biden was also at risk.  That is the foundational predicate needed to understand why Biden was selected to be the face of Obama’s third-term.  This is all one long cover-up operation to protect the surveillance state, the fourth branch of government, and they are all-in!