Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 13, 2021 | Sundance | 209 Comments

From the outset in October 2020 everything around the “plot to kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer seemed sketchy, almost silly.   The goofy similarities and suspicions were familiar to those who remembered the sketchy October 2018 “mail bombing plot” that involved Cesar Sayoc.

It just didn’t seem coincidental that both 2018 and 2020 FBI exploits involved weird frameworks, odd suspects and obviously both operations just happened to culminate in October of an election year… Surprise!

Add to that suspicion all that was known about the FBI’s intense political motivations found in their activities over the past several years; including the sketchy attempt to frame candidate Donald Trump for a vast Russian election conspiracy, coordinated with the opposing candidate, Hillary Clinton; and well, suspicious cats were increasingly suspicious of the FBI engineered mess.

By the time FBI Director Chris Wray was questioned about the content of Sayoc’s Acme “mail bombs” and he said they were comprised of: “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction,” yes, it could have been anything from matchsticks to coffee cream, well, eyes were rolling.  When the DOJ then sealed the evidence against Sayoc and all court documents behind the shroud of super-duper national security secrecy, the FBI political motives again seemed transparent.

That’s the backdrop two years later for the FBI’s vast Michigan militia plot to kidnap Whitmer…. and the side-eye from anyone who has ever paid attention to these matters.

Well, as the vast Michigan kidnap conspiracy now reaches court with six indicted co-conspirators, today we discover there were twelve FBI operatives, apparently ‘informants‘ is the new lingo for paid FBI enlisted civilians (pay attention Patrick Byrne, I digress), working inside the group on the plot.

MICHIGAN – […] “A trial in the federal case is currently scheduled for October. Monday marked a filing deadline for defense motions in that case.

Although prosecutors have acknowledged using informants to build the case, the court file to date has provided very little detail on their activities or identities save for one informant, who testified in March. According to an attorney for Franks, the government has shared ID numbers linked to 12 confidential informants but, with one exception, has not provided background on how they were recruited, what payments they may have received from the FBI, where they are based, or what their names are.” (read more)

Yes, you read that correctly, 12 FBI ‘informants‘ amid a group that had six arrests.

Put another way twice as many FBI operatives as there were Acme militia plotters.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy Re-Posted Jul 13, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: The CDC acts like it has government power to issue legal rules, and enforce them.
Yet, research into the topic only results in confusion concerning its power.
Much insisting that the CDC is actually a private entity, but then, again, more, insisting that it is an agency created legally by government.
I would really like to see some detailed and enlightening words on this confusing situation.

DC

REPLY: The press never wanted to publish a court decision by Judge Steven Merryday in Florida v. Becerra. On June 18, 2021, Judge Merryday, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, temporarily suspended cruise industry restrictions issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC’s challenged provisions established testing, vaccination, quarantine and isolation, and social distancing requirements. In its complaint, the state of Florida argued that the “CDC does not have the authority to issue year-and-a-half-long nationwide lockdowns of entire industries,” adding that “even if it did, its actions here are arbitrary and capricious.”

Judge Merryday sided with Florida, finding that the CDC had exceeded its authority: “Never has CDC implemented measures as extensive, disabling and exclusive as those under review in this action.” Under the terms of Merryday’s ruling, the CDC’s restrictions were set to become guidance after July 18, 2021. Merryday gave the CDC until July 2, 2021, to propose narrower restrictions.

There is no question that under the pretense of a pandemic, the health agencies tried to usurp unconstitutional power. Ever since that decision, you will notice that the CDC began to make “recommendations,” but could not exercise dictatorial power that superseded even the president of the United States and Congress. This has been the clear attempt of the Deep State to take over the country and put an end to any form of a representative form of government. The CDC and FDA did their best to hide the efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. They DELIBERATELY caused people to die by withholding treatment to make the crisis worse so they would gain power. These people really should be hunted down and criminally charged just like the Nazis in Nuremberg. They have acted without fear because they assume the Great Reset will end democratic forms of government and bring about a new era of totalitarianism.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Jul 13, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

If Ashli Babbitt, who was unarmed and shot point-blank and killed, was black and this was on the street, there would be national riots everywhere. The policeman would be identified, and demands to be prosecuted would echo down every airwave. But she was a white veteran and the Democrats tried to call it an “armed insurrection” when nobody had a gun. This is a disgrace. Most police departments in the nation are required to release an officer’s name within days of a fatal shooting. Not the U.S. Capitol Police, which is controlled by Congress and answers only to Congress. It can keep the public in the dark about the identity and investigation of an officer involved in a shooting indefinitely.

Ashli Babbitt was unarmed on January 6. Giving up the policeman who murdered her goes against the entire narrative the Democrats want to portray. This was an insurrection, and allowing the officer to stand trial would undermine the Democrats and the commission they appointed for the purpose of using this in the next election. So Babbitt’s death will never be addressed. She is collateral damage for the Democrats, for the term “JUSTICE” to them is really “JUST US.”

This all gets far worse. I believe Nancy Pelosi is out of control. She has used her power to create another law enforcement agency that will never be subject to review and can act totally outside the Constitution. She has been using January 6 to expand her power calling this domestic terrorism to be able to go after any political opponent. Pelosi is placing satellite field offices for the DC Capitol Police in key regions around the country. She is bypassing the FBI, which answers to the president and has field offices all over the country. Pelosi has transformed the Capitol Hill police into a national secret police force that answers to her and is exempt from all other laws, as we see by withholding the name of the officer who murdered Ashli Babbitt.

Nancy Pelosi is expanding the federal law enforcement mechanism for Capitol Hill into an unconstitutional legislative branch which she is targeting specific areas where they can investigate political opposition armed with legal authority that is unchallengeable. The law enforcement under the Separation of Power belongs to the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch has no such power that Pelosi is exercising.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Jul 13, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Anything Trump does the media will call a joke. This lawsuit they all claim Trump will lose. But their bias blinds them to two important points one of which he makes which is that they are acting under the color of law which means that the First Amendment would apply to a private person or entity. Big Tech is claiming they can do as they like because the constitution only applies to the government – not them. This may be true ordinarily, but not if someone is acting with the sanction of the government. In other words, you hire someone to kill somebody and they claim you did not kill anyone. The assassin did so under your orders so you are still liable for the murder.

This is a very loose example of what would be acting under the color of law. The central claim in Mr. Trump’s class-action lawsuit states that the defendants should be treated as state actors (under color of law) and are bound by the First Amendment when they engage in selective political censorship. This is a valid claim. Their censorship constitutes state action because the government granted them immunity from legal liability. They have clearly engaged in selective censorship nullifying free speech. That is not a frivolous claim, but I question if Trump’s lawyers have really done a good job on this issue.

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Secondly, Trump has sued Facebook and Twitter for violating his First Amendment rights. If you actually look at Section 230, it does NOT authorize censorship of political speech or canceling someone because they were against vaccines or Fauci. We typically hear that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 preempts any such state laws and shields Big Tech 100% from any lawsuits. However, that line of thought is what Big Tech wants people to believe, and it benefited Democrats sho they pretended they were correct.

However, read the statute and you will see that this is one massive misapplication of Section 230. This section only shields Big Tech from civil liability suits regarding the censorship of sexually obscene or excessively violent material. They have embarked on a political agenda that is the same method of the Communist revolutions to silence all opposition. In the vast majority of cases, political speech and cultural commentary are not sexually obscene or excessively violent.

Trump has challenged Section 230 as unconstitutional. I would argue that it is unconstitutional as applied and the censorship is in violation of 230(b)(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

The “intent” of Congress was NOT to allow censorship of free speech. Therefore, how Big Tech is using Section 230 is unconstitutional as applied to their practices. Most people do not know that back in 2019, BEFORE Covid,  a settlement was reached in a lawsuit brought against YouTube by the state of New York and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which required YouTube to pay $170 million for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA). The settlement not only resulted in the fine but a bunch of new rules that content creators must comply with.I do not see Section 230 as unconstitutional on its face, only as applied by Big Tech.

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 12, 2021 | Sundance | 225 Comments

As our understanding of The Fourth Branch expands, it is important to pause and reflect upon a specific ‘check and balance‘ within the system before finishing with the final two chapters.

The modern system to ‘check’ the executive branch was the creation of the legislative “Gang of Eight,” a legislative oversight mechanism intended to provide a bridge of oversight between the authority of the intelligence community within the executive branch.

The Go8 construct was designed to allow the President authority to carry out intelligence operations and provide the most sensitive notifications to a select group within Congress.

The Go8 oversight is directed to the position, not the person, and consists of: (1) The Speaker of the House; (2) The Minority Leader of the House; (3) The Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI; (4) The Ranking Member (minority) of the HPSCI; (5) The Leader of the Senate; (6) The Minority Leader of the Senate; (7) The Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI; and finally (8) the Vice-Chair of the SSCI.

Example: When the Chief Executive (the President) initiates an intelligence operation on behalf of the United States, the President triggers a “finding memo.” In essence the instruction to the intel agency or agencies to authorize a covert operation.   When that process takes place, the Go8 are the first people notified.  Depending on the sensitivity of the operation, sometimes the G08 are notified immediately after the operation is conducted.  The notification can be a phone call or an in-person briefing.

Because of the sensitivity of their intelligence information, the Gang of Eight hold security clearances that permit them to receive and review all intelligence operations.  The intelligence community are also responsible for briefing the Go8 with the same information they use to brief the President.

~ 2021 Gang of Eight ~

The Go8 design is intended to put intelligence oversight upon both political parties in Congress; it is designed that way by informing the minority leaders of both the House and Senate as well as the ranking minority members of the SSCI and HPSCI.  Under the concept, the President cannot conduct an intelligence operation; and the intelligence community cannot carry out intelligence gathering operations without the majority and minority parties knowing about it.

The modern design of this oversight system was done to keep rogue and/or corrupt intelligence operations from happening.  However, as we shared in the preview to this entire discussion, the process was usurped during the Obama era. {GO DEEP}

Former FBI Director James Comey openly admitted to Congress on March 20, 2017, that the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing the Go8.  Comey justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying “because of the sensitivity of the matter.”

Stupidly, Congress never pressed James Comey on that issue.  The arrogance was astounding, and the acceptance by Congress was infuriating.  However, that specific example highlighted just how politically corrupt the system had become.  In essence, Team Obama usurped the entire design of congressional oversight…. and Congress just brushed it off.

Keep in mind, Comey did not say the White House was unaware; in fact he said exactly the opposite, he said “the White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC).  The implication, the very direct and specific implication; the unavoidable implication and James Comey admission that everyone just brushed aside; was that President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was totally informed of the intelligence operation(s) against Donald Trump.  After all, the NSC reports to the National Security Advisor.

Does the January 20, 2017, Susan Rice memo look different now?

Again, no-one saw the immediate issue.  What Comey just described on that March day in 2017 was the total usurpation of the entire reason the Gang of Eight exists; to eliminate the potential for political weaponization of the Intelligence Community by the executive branch.  The G08 notifications to the majority and minority are specifically designed to make sure what James Comey admitted to doing was never supposed to happen.

Team Obama carried out a political operation using the intelligence community and the checks-and-balances in the system were intentionally usurped.  This is an indisputable fact.

Worse still, the entire legislative branch of Congress, which specifically includes the Republicans that now controlled the House and Senate, did nothing.  They just ignored what was admitted. The usurpation was willfully ignored….. The mechanism of the G08 was bypassed without a twitch of condemnation or investigation…. because the common enemy was Donald Trump.

This example highlights the collapse of the system.  Obama, the executive branch, collapsed the system by usurping the process; in essence the process became the bigger issue and the lack of  immediate legislative branch reaction became evidence of open acceptance.   The outcomes of the usurpation played out over the next four years, Donald J Trump was kneecapped and lost his presidency because of it.   However, the bigger issue of the collapse still exists.

The downstream consequence of the legislative branch accepting the executive branch usurpation meant both intelligence committees were compromised.   Additionally, the leadership of both the House and Senate were complicit.  Think about this carefully.  The legislative branch allowance of the intelligence usurpation meant the legislative branch was now subservient to the Intelligence Branch.

That’s where we are.

Right now.

That’s where we are.

Term-3 Obama is now back in the White House with Joe Biden.

Term-1 and Term-2 Obama usurped the ‘check and balance‘ within the system and weaponized the intelligence apparatus.  During Trump’s term that weaponization was covered up by a compliant congress, and not a single member of the oversight called it out.  Now, Term-3 Obama steps back-in to continue the cover-up and continue the weaponization.

Hopefully, you can now see the scale of the problem that surrounds us with specific citation for what has taken place.  What I just explained to you above is not conspiracy theory, it is admitted fact that anyone can look upon.  Yet….

Have you seen this mentioned anywhere?

Have you seen this called out by anyone in Congress?

Have you seen anyone in media (ally or adversary) call this out?

Have you seen any member of the judicial branch stand up and say wait, what is taking place is not okay?

Have you seen a single candidate for elected office point this out?

Have you seen anyone advising a candidate point this out?

This is our current status.

It is not deniable.

It is.

Yet, not a single person, no-one, will say openly what has taken place.  It is right there in front of our face.  The words, actions and activities of those who participated in this process are not deniable.

♦ Last point.  There are only two members of the Gang of Eight who have existed in place from January 2007 (the real beginning of Obama’s term, two years before he took office when the Congress flipped).  Only two members of the G08 have been consistently in place from January of 2007 to right now, today.   All the others came and went but two members of the Gang of Eight have been part of that failed and collapsed oversight throughout the past 15 years.

…Who are they?