Tag Archives: Ballots vrs Votes

Jul 18 2023

Trump Targeting, A Three Year Timeline Review


Posted originally on the CTH on July 17, 2023 | Sundance 

Sometimes things speak for themselves:

♦ September 2015 – Billionaire Paul Singer contracts with Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS for opposition research on candidate Donald Trump during 2016 GOP presidential primary.  Simpson prior work during time at Wall Street journal serves as reference.

♦ November 2015 – Simpson hires Nellie Ohr to assist on Trump project.  Ohr was CIA open-source analyst.  Revelations by NSA compliance officer in April 2016 point to November 2015 as origin of multiple unauthorized searches of NSA database.

♦ December 2015 – Mrs. Ohr contacts Christopher Steele, submitting data for cross-reference with sources and seeking collaboration on Trump project. Ohr using ham radio license as independent operator.

♦ January – March 2016 – GOP Presidential primary ongoing.  Candidate Donald Trump wins majority of primary delegates from all early state contests.  Momentum for Donald Trump becomes significant.  Cruz, Kasich, Rubio final group along with Trump.  Late March, Paul Singer contacts Glenn Simpson to cancel opposition research. NSA compliance officer notifies NSA Director Mike Rogers about unauthorized use of database by “contractors.”  Rogers asks for full review.

♦ April 2016 – April 16, 2016, NSA compliance officer reports to Director Rogers of approximately 10,000 database searches, using “same identifiers” over “multiple dates.” Rogers responds by shutting down contractor access and blocking all FISA-702(17) “about” queries.  April 17, 2016, Glenn Simpson wife, Mary Jacoby, visits White House.  Glenn Simpson pitches preassembled oppo-research file on Trump to Clinton Team.  Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann takes over payments and signs contract with Fusion for continued work.

♦ May/June 2016 – Chris Steele constructing dossier on Donald Trump, submissions returned to Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr and husband Bruce Ohr, #4 in DOJ-NSD.  External contacts made to Trump orbit by foreign officials from Australia (Downer), U.K (Mifsud) and Cyprus.  Trump campaign continues presidential primary victories. Trump enlists Paul Manafort as delegate manager for upcoming RNC convention.

♦ July 2016 – FBI opens official investigation of Trump for Russia collusion, predicated on contact from Australian Ambassador about non-existent claim Trump group receiving Clinton/DNC emails from Russian hackers.  Attempted FISA application rejected.

♦ August 2016 – CIA Director John Brennan informs Harry Reid of Clinton oppo-research effort known colloquially as Trump-Russia.  Former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell, long time Clinton ally, publishes article in New York Times claiming Russians want Trump victory.   Hillary proclaims vast Russian conspiracy theory.

♦ September 2016 – Director Brennan directly informs White House, President Obama, Susan Rice, Lisa Monaco of Clinton oppo-research effort known colloquially as Trump-Russia.  Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson and Michael Sussmann identified as sources for organizing oppo-research Steele Dossier.

♦ October 2016 – Steele Dossier assembly used by DOJ-NSD in FISA application against Trump campaign official Carter Page.  Through April 2016, FBI used Carter Page as undercover employee in case against Russian Evgeny Buryakov; now October 2016, FBI claims Carter Page is official “agent of a foreign government” to gain FISA warrant.  Steele Dossier serves as replacement for Woods File supporting Title-1 search warrant.

♦ November 2016 – Donald Trump wins 2016 presidential election defeating Hillary Clinton and stunning world.  Clinton campaign blames Russians for her loss. Accuses Trump of colluding with Russia.   Trump campaign and transition team now under Title-1 full counterintelligence surveillance by FBI via Page FISA warrant.

♦ December 2016 – Joint Analysis Report released by intelligence community, claiming Russians were involved in attempting to influence 2016 election.  All Trump campaign and transition members under full physical and electronic surveillance. All communication intercepted.  Officially FBI Director James Comey denies President-elect Trump under investigation.

♦ January 2017 – Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) released by Obama administration claiming confidence Russia had attempted to interfere in the 2016 election.  Sanctions imposed by Obama; Russian diplomatic corps expelled.   FISA surveillance warrant resubmitted with no new context and renewed by FISC without question.

♦ February 2017 – National Security Advisor Michael Flynn under fire for talking to Russian ambassador in December during Christmas holiday.  Flynn wrongly accused of discussing possible policy changes and not to worry about Obama sanctions. Full court press by FBI and DOJ to leak information to media about Trump under FBI counterintelligence investigation.  James Comey leaks information to friend, Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman as intermediary to media.  Washington Post publish article citing FBI intercept of Flynn-Kislyak phone call.

♦ March 2017 – • On 16th HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes releases information to public about Obama presidential daily briefing containing information about Trump-Russia collusion investigation and surveillance of Trump campaign by FBI. First public indications that “wires were actually tapped.”  • On 17th copy of FISA application delivered from FISA Court to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice-Chairman Mark Warner. Shortly after 4pm, Warner instructs SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the FISA application to media.  Wolfe transmits 82 pictures to Politico journalist Ali Watkins via encrypted phone images [FISA application 83 pages with one blank page].  FISA application returned to courier FBI Agent Brian Dugan.  • March 20th, James Comey testifies to HPSCI during open hearing admitting for first time publicly that President Trump, and his entire administration, is under official FBI counterintelligence investigation.  Comey claims no information previously given to congressional oversight due to “sensitivity of the matter.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions forced to recuse.

♦ April 2017 – Absent AG, and without confirmed DAG, interim and acting DAG Dana Boente receives request for FISA renewal from FBI Director James Comey.  On same day FISA application is renewed for second time, journalist Ali Watkins -having ownership of illegal and leaked unredacted FISA application- writes first details of FISA application, then transfers employment to New York Times for senior role in Trump-Russia reporting. FBI continues leaking details of investigation to media. Mid April Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein arrives to take all responsibilities related to AG Sessions recusal.

♦ May 2017 – Early May, Deputy AG Rosenstein has phone call with FBI Director James Comey, “What do you want me to do – wear a wire?”   Mid-May, Rosenstein takes former FBI Director Robert Mueller to White House for oval office meeting with President Trump.  Next morning Mueller returns to White House to pick up cell phone he accidentally left in Oval Office. Later in afternoon, President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. Following day Rosenstein talks to Mueller (3X) and coordinates meeting.  Robert Mueller appointed Special Counsel; Mueller chief deputy Andrew Weissmann assumes organization of investigation.

♦ June 2017 – Weissmann assembles Crossfire Hurricane team into Special Counsel.  WFO FBI Agent Brian Dugan begins to suspect SSCI leak of FISA application based on media reporting.  Agent Dugan requests and receives first warrant for cell phone records of SSCI Security Director Wolfe and NYT journalist Ali Watkins.  June 29th Andrew Weissmann requests renewal of Carter Page FISA warrant to continue surveillance of administration.  Application renewed.

♦ July 2017 – While conducting investigation of internal FBI conduct during Clinton email investigation, Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovers inappropriate activity within FBI investigative team.  Horowitz informs DAG Rosenstein and SC Robert Mueller about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok compromise.  Weissmann removes Page and Strzok to avoid scrutiny by OIG of special counsel team.  President Trump White House Counsel Don McGahn discovers all 2016/2017 transition team emails, phone records, electronic communications and devices have been given to Andrew Weissmann by General Services Administration as requested by the FISA authority carried by special counsel.

♦ August 2017 – DAG Rod Rosenstein officially expands Special Counsel investigative scope as requested by Andrew Weissmann to include five specific targets: Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Walid Phares [targeting angle = FARA violations, per DOJ-NSD authority] Mr. Phares organized interview between Donald Trump and Egyptian President Abel Fattah al-Sisi during 2016 campaign.  FISA surveillance authority used to collect evidence of financial transactions, banking records, travel, communication and full Title-1 counterintelligence operations deployed against targets.

♦ September 2017 – FBI Agent Brian Dugan conducting surveillance of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and communication between SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner and Chris Steele representative Adam Waldman.  Dugan intercepts Waldman side of conversation for investigative file.  Weissmann and 18 lawyers, 50 FBI agents and 200 staff continue Trump targeting operations, continue full Title-1 authorized FISA surveillance, and outline cases against Manafort (financial crimes/FARA), Flynn (FARA), and Papadopoulos (lying to investigators).

♦ October 2017 – FISA search warrant used by Mueller/Weissmann special counsel expires.  Weissmann requests expanded scope memo from Rosenstein to target Michael Flynn Jr for use against his father, Michael Flynn.  Cases against Manafort and Papadopoulos ongoing.  Media 24/7 with Trump-Russia collusion.  Meanwhile, FBI Agent Brian Dugan first approaches SSCI Security Director James Wolfe about FISA leak and media contacts.  Agent Dugan forced by USAO Jessie Liu to inform SSCI Chair Burr and SSCI Vice-Chair Warner about ongoing leak investigation.

♦ November 2017 – All prior surveillance and assembled evidence used via Title-1 search warrant authority, in combination with FARA and threats against Mike Flynn Jr, used to coerce a guilty plea by Michael Flynn (Nov 31).   House Intelligence Committee now seeking to review FISA warrant, DOJ and FBI denying access.  Political debate between Chairman Devin Nunes and ranking member Adam Schiff ongoing.

♦ December 2017 – AFTER securing Flynn guilty plea, immediately first reports of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages released.  Within days, Bruce Ohr identified, demoted twice, former Crossfire Hurricane investigation now being scrutinized.  Nellie Ohr’s name surfaces.  Chris Steele and Fusion GPS now being reviewed with increased suspicion.  Testimony to Senate by Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson “accidentally” leaked by SSCI member Dianne Feinstein (keep stories straight, motive).   Nunes memo -vs- Schiff memo battle for media narrative.  Internal details of prior FBI targeting operation begin to surface with evidence showing sketchy behavior.  FBI Agent Brian Dugan confronts SSCI Security Director James Wolfe with evidence against him, Wolfe admits to leaks.  SSCI fire Wolfe.

♦ January 2018 – Apex for Special Counsel.  Brian Dugan assembles file against Wolfe submits for grand jury indictment. Due to file touching on Trump-Russia issues, Wolfe criminal activity file submitted to Special Counsel Weissmann for review.  Nunes memo released and discussed.

♦ February 2018 – Text messages between SSCI Vice-Chair Warner and Chris Steele layer Adam Waldman surface. Andrew Weissmann organizes a press conference for Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to conduct, announcing indictments of 17 Russians and entities for 2016 election interference; this is timed as Trump departs for summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

♦ March 2018 – Public begins to absorb totality of FBI (mis)conduct in the Trump targeting operation.  The information war is in full swing.  Narrative battles are throughout media.

♦ April 2018 – Leaks of the FISA application against Carter Page now under scrutiny.  A criminal referral from OIG toward FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to INSD investigators about his media leaks.

♦ June 2018 – The criminal indictment of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe unsealed and made public.

♦ July 2018 – The DOJ informs the FISC that despite issues surfacing about the predicate of the FISA warrant they authorized against Carter Page for being an agent of a foreign power, everything was ok.  A week later, the DOJ then releases to the public the first FISA Title-1 search warrant ever seen, …

…the publicly released version of the FISA application is the exact copy of FISA that was contained in the FBI evidence file against James Wolfe.  The same exact document hand carried from the FISC to the SSCI on March 17, 2017, was the copy released by the DOJ in July 2018; not the DOJ-NSD copy.  How did that happen?

♦ December 2018 – Despite the DOJ refusing to indict James Wolfe for leaking the Top-Secret Compartmented Intelligence Carter Page FISA application, and after the guilty plea was entered for lying to investigators, and while the Judge was considering Wolfe’s sentencing, in December of 2018, after the midterm election and under penalty of perjury, the USAO in Washington DC swears to the Judge in the case that James Wolfe leaked the FISA application.

.

Cover up much?

This timeline is off the top of my head for the interests of the group who requested.  I may come back and fill in more details and citations, but this should get you started.  For everyone else, remember, everything at CTH is always free for use as needed.

[Support CTH HERE]

Jul 8 2023

Laura Loomer Talks Republican Politics with Steve Bannon


Posted originally on the CTH on July 7, 2023 | Sundance 

An awful lot of the people who live in a world of affluence and influence afforded by professional republican politics do not like Laura Loomer.  However, what she had accomplished with sunlight on their backroom operations deserves a lot of respect.

Earlier today Laura Loomer appeared on the Steve Bannon podcast to review the California scheme to shape the primary delegate distribution. {Direct Rumble Link} Loomer and Bannon also apply the lessons from the 2016 Cruz operation to the 2024 goals and objectives of the DeSantis operation.  Both are correct in that much of what we are seeing is a replay of that same crew.  WATCH:

Jul 5 2023

Another Steve Bannon War Room Member, Mike Davis, Exposes Himself as Part of Willful RNC Deception


Posted originally on the CTH on July 5, 2023 | Sundance 

During a series of desperate attempts to obfuscate and defend fellow lawyer Harmeet Dhillon, unfortunately Mike Davis joins the ranks of former Bannon Warroom members Matthew Tyrmand and Steve Cortes.  It will be interesting to watch how Mr. Bannon responds to the latest sunlight upon his network of allies.

The issue started with Laura Loomer doing an excellent job exposing a scheme within the California GOP to change the delegate apportionments to proportional as a result of the state change in primary dates.  California representative to the RNC, and former RNC Chairwoman candidate, Harmeet Dhillon then lied about the construct of a rules change. {GO DEEP}

Mrs Dhillon claimed the California changes forcing proportional allocation were not optional. Mrs. Dhillon claimed the ability of the CA GOP to maintain “winner take all” delegate allocation no longer existed. [below left] However, that claim is false.  As reflected in RNC rule 3(ii) so long as the state keeps a “votes received” threshold above 50%, the delegates can be apportioned via winner-take-all. [below right]

The bottom line is really simple.  Laura Loomer caught on to the California GOP constructing a plan to deliver a disproportionate delegate slate to Ron DeSantis, the presumed runner up amid a contest that President Trump is dominating.

The California GOP and members of the RNC then attacked Ms. Loomer, initially denying the reports, not knowing Loomer possessed leaked emails from the organizing team that included Harmeet Dhillon.  Loomer then published the emails which highlighted the scheme, in response Dhillon lied saying the CA GOP “must also change a proportional method“, when the RNC rules [3(ii)] do not require that.

The truth is basic, like many states after seeing Trump at 50% or higher in the polling, the CA GOP wanted to have proportional distribution.  Dhillon et al proposed a rule change supporting that proportional approach and ignored their ability under RNC rule 3(ii) to keep winner take all.

After the CA GOP were called out, things got interesting.

Suddenly, a group of MAGA affiliated entities like another attorney and Bannon Warroom frequent guest, Mike Davis, came to the defense of Harmeet Dhillon. Some GOP defenders even claiming that Mrs. Dhillon likely didn’t know the RNC rules, despite Mrs. Dhillon sitting on the RNC rules committee, running for RNC chair this year, and being the lead GOP representative from California to the RNC.

Mr Davis went on to claim that both himself and Mrs Dhillon were key advisors to President Trump, and it is would not make sense for Harmeet to do anything to undermine her client, Donald Trump.   Some example Tweets below.

All of this ignores the core issue that Harmeet Dhillon lied in her excuse/justification for supporting a California proportional delegate rule change.

Accepting the claim that Mrs Dhillon and Mr Davis are advisors to President Trump, the question about why Trump wouldn’t challenge a rule seems a little silly.

First, the leaked emails show that Trump was not likely even aware of the scheme and proposed California plan; and second, if the people carrying out the plan are also -not coincidentally- advising President Trump, why would he challenge it/them.

Adding the rather lengthy background of Mrs. Dhillon into the foray, including her prior advocacy for notoriously corrupt Henry Barbour of the Mississippi clan and recent revelations of what might be considered profiteering as outlined by recent news reports, suffice to say the tendency of many to afford the RNC and Mrs. Dhillon the benefit of doubt is, well, shall we say, exhausted.

Indeed, if it had not been for the sunlight provided by Ms. Loomer and the leaker of the plan, the California GOP would have likely proceeded without anyone even knowing about the issue.  That purposefully hidden context puts a rather dubious hue on the entire plan of the insiders including Dhillon.

And that’s where the context of other RNC officials coming to the rapid response defense of Dhillon becomes more revealing. As noted in the response from Arizona National RNC Committeeman and Turning Point Action Chief Operating Officer, Tyler Bowyer.

Plebes just need to keep their heads down, insert vote, pull lever, get pellet and go back to sleep.

Apparently, we are supposed to leave the work of deciding the candidate to the professionals in charge, after all the process is “super convoluted”.  Unfortunately for Mr Bowyer the days of not challenging the powers that control the election outcomes are over.

It might frustrate the folks who gain influence and affluence from the business end of the U.S. political system, but We The People are annoyingly awake.

Jul 4 2023

Are you Still Proud to be an American?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Jul 4, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Once upon a time, being an American and traveling overseas, you had this persona like some halo around your head, and you were actually proud to be an American. When my father took me to Europe for the summer in 1964, I had Kennedy half dollars. When people saw I had one, they would forget the bill and settle for just a 50-cent coin. I remember telling my father we should have brought rolls of the new coin with us.

I was in Berlin and looking at the machine gun bullet marks on a concrete wall. An old German guy approached me and yelled – You did that! That incident stuck with me. I came to understand that there were always two views, and what he was expressing was his support for the nationalism of Germany, not actually the policies of Hitler. As they say, history is written by the victor. Both sides always commit atrocities in a war. That is just the nature of war itself.

Years later, I was in Hiroshima. Given the civilian deaths, I was perhaps embarrassed at first to be an American in that city. Yet an old Japanese lady approached me, noticing that I was an American, and apologized to me for her government forcing the United States to have dropped the bomb. I was stunned.

What is unfolding currently is that Americans I know in Europe are being tainted by the likes of warmongers such as Lindsey Graham, who always promotes war and interventionism in international affairs. As we celebrate our Independence Day, Gallup’s recent poll reveals that pride in being American has now plummeted to a historic record low. According to Gallup, indicates that only 39% of Americans consider themselves “extremely proud” to be American. When I was in London, even the Brits liked celebrating the 4th of July. Those days seem to be declining.

Speaking to European friends, they may try to avoid the subject entirely. This is the problem with the Neocons. They paint all Americans with this hatred. In turn, they get people to gate all Russians applying the image of Putin to everyone there. The truth is, the average American and Russian could care less about international objectives. They want to get by and provide for their families. The words of Goring on how to manipulate the people are words we should never forget, for all governments will seek to engage in propaganda to manipulate the people.

Jul 4 2023

Did the Supreme Court Properly Rule in Moore v Harper?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Jul 3, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

There will be repercussions from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that rejected a GOP-led effort to change federal election rules through the “independent state legislature theory” (ISL). In Moore v. Harper, the Court voted 6-3 on Tuesday to reject the ISL theory, which claims that an election clause in the Constitution gives state legislature authority to control federal elections through gerrymandering electoral maps and passing laws that could harm voter rights.

This ISL legal theory argues that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state’s elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or any other bodies with legislative power, which would include independent commissions and even constitutional conventions. This theory has been interpreted from two clauses found in the Constitution – Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 (The Elections Clause) and Article II, Section 1, Clause 2.

Article I, Section 4: Clause 1  Elections

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

A plain reading of this language would support that the state legislatures have discretion. However, it then states that Congress “may at any time” alter those regulations by passing legislation that would then need to be signed by the President.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: Presidential Electors Clause

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The phrase “the Legislature thereof” in both the Electors Clause and the Elections Clause is interpreted under ISL to refer specifically to a state’s elected representative body, not other parts of the state government. The issue at hand in Moore v. Harper was filed after North Carolina’s Supreme Court struck down a congressional map drawn in the GOP-led state legislature over alleged gerrymandering. During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, it was presented that the state court violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause when it overturned the map citing the ISL theory that state legislatures have more authority than state courts and state constitutions regarding federal elections.

Since the Supreme Court rejected this ISL theory, the way the law is twisted can create problematic alternatives. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented in this case. The majority wrote:

“Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections…[and] does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.” 

While the decision, on the surface, avoids giving partisan legislatures power to shape election laws, it can still present a REAL CONFLICT WITHIN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. It effectively hands the sole decision in such matters to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, to decide on election disputes. This may lead to even more disputes leading up to the 2024 presidential election.

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, and with whom JUSTICE ALITO joined in dissenting, makes a very important point.

As a corollary of that basic constitutional principle, the Court “is without power to decide
moot questions or to give advisory opinions which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it.” St.
Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41, 42 (1943) (per curiam). To do so would be to violate “the oldest and most consistent
thread in the federal law of justiciability.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 96 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The opinion that the Court releases today breaks that thread. It “affirms” an interlocutory state-court judgment
that has since been overruled and supplanted by a final judgment resolving all claims in petitioners’ favor. The issue on which it opines—a federal defense to claims already
dismissed on other grounds—can no longer affect the judgment in this litigation in any way. As such, the question is
indisputably moot, and today’s majority opinion is plainly advisory. Because the writ of certiorari should be dismissed, I respectfully dissent.

I believe that the majority went out of its way to reject the ISL theory and decided to hear this case that truly did not warrant review. This was yet another overreach of Judicial Power, which seems to be what this was all about – expanding the Judicial Power. This may be highly problematic when the 2024 election takes place. Is the Court setting itself up for an election it knows will be problematic in and of itself?

In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803), it was the first time the Supreme Court struck down an Act of Congress as unconstitutional. This was the case that established the Judicial Power stating that it was emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

Article III, Section 2: 
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Since the case was no longer in a controversy, this is why the dissent of Justice Thomas was correct and it appears that the Court simply wanted to decide the ISL Theory.

Jul 1 2023

First Details Surface – Fox News Owner Rupert Murdoch Paid Ron DeSantis at Least $1.25 Million For Election Effort Book Deal


Posted originally on the CTH on July 1, 2023 | Sundance 

The details are starting to surface, but something is still sketchy.  According to required state financial disclosure filings, Ron DeSantis is reporting an additional $1.25 million in income from Rupert Murdoch’s publishing house Harper Collins.

However, given the fact that Megyn Kelly was paid $10 million by Rupert Murdoch for her 2016 effort to remove Donald Trump, the $1.25 million being reported by Ron DeSantis doesn’t fit. [Unless there are going to be a series of payments.] Additionally, according to the Florida financial disclosure rules, this income report is for last year, 2022. “the financial disclosure is due July 1 of each year for the preceding calendar year.” (link)

(Via Politico) – Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis took home $1.25 million from his publisher for writing a book he released in February, according to a state financial disclosure filed Friday.

The book money is the first additional stream of income beyond his government salary that DeSantis has reported since he won election to lead Florida in 2018. (read more)

By now everyone is well aware how books are used as laundering and payment mechanisms for politicians, media influencers and people in positions of power. The entire book deal dynamic in politics is just another way to skirt campaign finance and laws on limits for contributions.

Given the nature of the stakes at play in combination with the scale of money being thrown around by billionaires, Wall Street and multinational corporations, I highly doubt that Ron DeSantis was only paid $1.25 million for his book. It just doesn’t pass the commonsense sniff test.

We will not know until July 1, 2024, how much income Ron DeSantis received in 2023.

All the suspicious cats remain, well, suspicious….

Jun 29 2023

The Stolen Election – 2004


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jun 29, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

During a recent interview, Robert F. Kennedy was criticized for claiming that the presidential election was rigged. The interviewer became silent when Kennedy corrected him by saying he never commented on the 2020 US Presidential Election. Instead, Kennedy had been vocal about George W Bush stealing the 2004 election.

It does not matter if someone is a Republican or Democrat. The neocons will win the vote. Republican candidate George W. Bush defeated Democratic candidate John Kerry and secured re-election in 2004. Foreign policy was the hot topic as the US invaded Iraq in 2003 amid the War on Terrorism. More Americas came out to vote in that election than ever before. George W. Bush and no doubt his VP Dick Cheney were hardliners, whereas Kerry was skeptical about the war in general.

As a senator, John Kerry was faced with the decision of whether to permit the president to use force in Iraq. Kerry later stated that voting “yes” was the worst mistake of his life. Former counsel to Kerry, Jonathan Winer, said that Kerry had no choice:

“The Bush administration wanted something more than that. They wanted something without any strings attached, so they could just go to war. John was [not] comfortable with it. Democrats were not comfortable with that, because they didn’t want Bush just going to war unilaterally. They felt that was risky. John definitely was unhappy with that, and expressed it.

He’d been boxed. The Bush administration had chosen to box him and all the other Senate Democrats. “You either vote with us, in which case, you’re responsible for it, too — and we’re going to do whatever the heck we please — or you vote against us, and allow Saddam Hussein to be not held accountable.”

The neocons needed Bush in office. Per usual, no sitting president had ever lost his office during a time of war. “Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House,” RFK wrote in his Rolling Stone article. As with the 2020 election, anyone who questioned the results were considered conspiracy theorists, with the Republicans accusing the Democrats instead.

Kennedy continued:

“Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots — or received them too late to vote(4) — after the pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) a consulting firm called sproul & associates, which was hired by the republican national committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding democratic registrations.(7) in new Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment — roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)”

Countless irregularities point to fraud. The neocons ALWAYS win. The party affiliation does not matter as they are two wings on the same bird. This is why people want anti-establishment candidates like Trump and Kennedy who are not bought and paid for by lobbying interest groups or engaged with neocons. The neocons have managed to usurp more power than the people, and they decide the fate of our elections.

Jun 29 2023

Over Half of Democrats Want Biden to Debate RFK


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Jun 29, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The people demand to see a debate between Robert F. Kennedy and Joe Biden. Why should we reappoint someone to the highest political office without hearing their views? Biden is not in any mental state to debate a brick wall. Still, a Trafalgar Group survey shows that 77.5% of all voters want to see Kennedy and Biden faceoff.

Only 29.3% of Democrats believe Biden, who would be 86 by the end of his second term, is too old to run for president in comparison to 92.3% of Republicans. The president must travel the world and maintain an active schedule. He’s already unable to fulfill this responsibility.

As for debating RFK, over half (57.5%) of Democrats want to see Biden discuss policies with Kennedy, while 92.8% of Republicans feel the same way. I have not heard anyone admit that they strongly support the Biden Administration, and even if they did, why wouldn’t they want to hear his thoughts on ruling over the financial capital of the world? Biden’s minions say that his opponents have not earned the right to debate him. But what about the people? We the people demand a debate.

Trump, a former Democrat himself, would like to debate RFK. Kennedy has criticized Trump’s handling of the pandemic and claims he sold out to Big Pharma. Yet, the two men seem to respect one another. “President Trump has shown himself to be the most devastating debater, probably, since Abraham Lincoln,” Kennedy commented in May. Trump said he respects RFK and “he has a lot of important points to be made.” Trump believes, however, that the Democrats would not allow Biden to “debate a child.” Will we see a Trump v Kennedy debate? They are both the anti-establishment candidates. I think most Americans would be eager to see that one. If Biden fails to debate for this campaign, it is further proof that he was INSTALLED and not elected.

Jun 29 2023

Six-Minute-Abs: Desperate for Traction DeSantis Vows to Start Shooting Mexicans at the Border


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

President Trump famously threatened Mexican President AMLO with 25 to 50% immediate border tariffs within a week if Mexico didn’t help secure the southern U.S. border. The result was 18,000 activated Mexican National Guards to enforce the “Remain in Mexico” policy, while the border wall was under construction.

The southern border crisis has created an opportunity for a desperate Ron DeSantis to skip the seven-minute-ab border security competition and go straight to the six-minute-ab pitch, whereby a President DeSantis will start shooting Mexicans who attempt to smuggle across the border.  Appearing in a heavily coordinated and scripted interview with Rupert Murdoch’s debate moderator, Martha MacCallum, DeSantis announced his “use of deadly force” policy just before traveling to the Yale Club in New York for fundraising.

A gleeful Martha MacCallum was more than willing to support the 6-minute-ab pitch, narrating an introduction of “the governor“, yes, she used that exact descriptive for the guy who is on the monitor.  The transparent construct of the interview was made even funnier by the desperate transparency of it.  WATCH:

.

Jun 29 2023

To Cement Grassroots Bona Fides DeSantis Attends Yale Club Fundraiser


Posted originally on the CTH on June 28, 2023 | Sundance 

Ron DeSantis is heading to the Big Apple to reunite with his Yale alumni and accept a boost in capital for his ailing campaign.

The $6,600/plate appearance is the latest effort by Team DeSantis to connect to the ordinary working class voter he needs to try and regain footing after his effort has fallen short of the Sea Island billionaires’ expectations.

The Yale Club appearance tomorrow is more friendly terrain for the Florida governor, a return to those who are at the root of his political career.

(Via NBC) – Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is coming to New York for a private presidential campaign fundraiser that’s set to be hosted by at least four Wall Street executives, including one with past ties to a firm backed by liberal billionaire George Soros, a frequent target of DeSantis and other Republicans.

The event is scheduled to take place June 29 at the swanky Yale Club, according to a copy of an invitation seen by CNBC. It will be one of DeSantis’ first fundraisers in the Big Apple since he officially launched his campaign for president last month.

The hosts listed on the DeSantis invitation include Paul Ardire, a partner at GoldenTree Asset Management, along with Christian Michalik, Rob Michalik and Corwynne Carruthers, who are all leaders at Kinderhook Industries, a private equity firm with at least $5 billion in assets under management, according to data from PitchBook. GoldenTree has at least $50 billion in assets under management, PitchBook says. (read more)

Despite the combined efforts of Rupert Murdoch, Ken Griffin, Elon Musk, the Sea Island billionaires, hedge fund managers, Wall Street groups and a host of multinational corporations, recent polling shows the richest fundraiser in the GOP field has failed to gain traction with the lesser controllable voters.

Additionally, the purchased right-side media, Daily Wire, Salem Inc. and a strong coalition of “conservative influencers” are producing diminishing returns.  The former Team Cruz crowd is pushing hard, but it becomes a complicated dynamic of influence when they must pretend they are not aligned with Jeb and the Bush clan.

Alas, a brief reprieve from the pretending with a Yale Club booster confab is sure to recharge the spirit of DeSantis, as he enters a full-throated albeit transparently desperate, phase of his six-minute-abs campaign.

DeSantis is now promising to use tariffs against Mexico, break up the federal government and attack the FBI and DOJ in a last-ditch effort to convince the suspicious crowd that his association with the spooks from Skull and Bones is only an optical illusion.  The tiaras of Casey are contingent upon selling a carefully branded narrative, that thus far has not captured enough of the sheeple masses for success.

Meeting with the Yale Club is sure to boost morale.

[…] DeSantis and the event’s co-hosts have ties to the fundraiser’s venue due to them all being Yale graduates. Yale Club members can only be those who received a degree from the Ivy League school or “full-time graduate students who are completing a degree-granting program at Yale, and full-time professors,” according to their website.

DeSantis graduated from Yale in 2001. DeSantis said in a book released just before he ran for president that he viewed earning a degree from Yale was the equivalent of being a political “scarlet letter” in a Republican primary. (more)