Tag Archives: CIA

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks, Bill Barr Says “Of Course” He Would Testify Against President Trump


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

This guy really is the worst of the worst.  I do not think I could dislike him more. Remember, Bill Barr appointed John Durham officially as a special counsel quietly without informing the public in October of 2020, specifically intended to block President Trump from declassifying any documents prior to the 2020 election.  We do not discover the official appointment until December, after the 2020 election.

The intent of the Durham appointment was to create the oft used silo of an “ongoing investigation” to block inquiry and/or action by President Trump.  The entire process of the DC silo deployment is one long continuum, as we have previously outlined.  Michael Horowitz was an investigative silo (blocking document release), Robert Mueller was an investigative silo (threats of obstruction blocking document release), John Durham was an investigative silo (blocking document release), and ultimately, now Jack Smith is an investigative silo, retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago and blocking document release.

You will note that every single one of John Durham’s investigative pathways was to look at Trump-Russia fabrication and corruption outside government, outside Washington DC.  None of the Durham investigation was focused inside government or inside the institutions that he and Bill Barr were protecting.   Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham was the spray paint.

Today, Bill Barr when asked if he would testify against President Trump, says “of course” he would.  WATCH: 

MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as former president’s attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. Bill, it’s good to see you.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Good to see you.

MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you’re on the show, you said “the January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest.” Having read the indictment, is that still your view?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it’s- it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment. There’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress. The allegation essentially by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.

MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  Right. And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud and what the- and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong, and false. This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. But it’s not- if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front, but they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels, that were not authorized panels, to claim that they had alternative votes. And then they- and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed, were false. But then pressuring the Vice President to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes, and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.

MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.

MAJOR GARRETT:  From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case.

MAJOR GARRETT: But from an Attorney General’s point of view?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I’ve also said consistently, really, the rubicon was passed here, when- when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case, really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor. And I think at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the rubicon was passed.

MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the Special Counsel?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  I’m not going to get into any discussions–

MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Of course.

Major Garrett: Could you describe your interactions with the President on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I wasn’t discussed- well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least, and I- I told him in no uncertain terms, that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we–

[CROSSTALK]

MAJOR GARRETT: — One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the President what you told him? How thorough was that investigation?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I- I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. Some of them are obvious, okay. One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more- that more people voted then absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should- we should have heard no more about that. Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done.

MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden. On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said, “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.” This is the Hunter Biden investigation. “And to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.” Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, because the–

MAJOR GARRETT: To which? To which? Should one be appointed now?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: When I was the attorney- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have, a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary. I felt that if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably, or the administration, would have just canceled the investigation, and I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place. But once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done and was being done fairly.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has- has been conducted?

[CROSSTALK]

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well I did agree with the- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.

MAJOR GARRETT:  Is that time passed?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously. And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done–

MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah. Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden, and if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Okay, well remember- one thing I stress is those are two different questions. Right? And, you know, things can be shameful without being illegal. And I- yes, I thought- I think it’s grotesque, cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I- I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.

MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still, whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it. I mean, some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind, there’s reasons- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy, but after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps. And apparently someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics? You know, after the election, that it was the president elect’s son, that’s not a reason not to investigate.

MAJOR GARRETT: William Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much. “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks, John Lauro -vs- Chuck Todd


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

President Trump attorney John Lauro continues running the gauntlet against the narrative engineers with this interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.

An intellectually deficient Todd attempts to justify the Biden administration targeting of Donald Trump and is countered by John Lauro. WATCH: 

.

During the CNN interview below, it was very important to narrative engineer Dana Bash to assert that Joe Biden has nothing to do with the decisions of the DOJ, which is a rather remarkable position considering the same Dana Bash has been asserting for the previous four years that Donald Trump controlled decisions of the DOJ.

.

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks – President Trump Attorney John Lauro -vs- Major Garrett


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

President Trump attorney John Lauro appears on Face the Nation with Major Garrett to discuss and debate the Biden administration’s criminal prosecution of President Trump for contesting the results of the 2020 election.  Toward that latter part of the interview, Garrett needs to enhance his leftist bona fides with a strawman argument about the 2016 election outcome.  Lauro handles Garrett’s narrative engineering very well. [Video and Transcript Below] WATCH:

MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s lawyers. He joins us now from New York. John, good morning to you. I want to let you know that we spoke with former Vice President–

JOHN LAURO: –Good morning

MAJOR GARRETT: –Mike Pence and asked him specifically about your assertions made this last week that all the President did was asked him to pause the certification on January 6, 2021. He told me flatly, quote, “That’s not what happened.” Your response?

LAURO: That’s not- that’s not what I said, though, but that’s okay.

MAJOR GARRETT: What- what is it that you believe happened between the President and the Vice President? And do you have any fear of the Vice President being called as a witness in the case?

LAURO: No, in fact, the Vice President will be our best witness. What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in. That was my statement, and what- what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying. The reason why Vice President Pence will be so important to the defense is the following, number one. Number two, he agrees that there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level, all of that will- will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump. And finally, what Vice President Pence believes and believed is that these issues needed to be debated on January 6. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in the January 6 proceeding. President Trump, on the other hand, believed following the advice of John Eastman, who’s the legal scholar, that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level. Now, of course, there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump, but the bottom line is never- never in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally. It’s- It’s unheard of.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, can I ask you a couple of very simple basic yes or no questions? Is there- first, is there any condition under which the former president of the United States, your client, would accept a plea deal on these January 6 charges?

LAURO: No.

MAJOR GARRETT: Will you seek a motion to dismiss?

LAURO: Absolutely, 100 percent.

MAJOR GARRETT: When?

LAURO: Hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted. This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of- of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from- from being prosecuted in this way.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you-do you have a ballpark figure of when you’ll be ready for trial?

LAURO: Well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.

MAJOR GARRETT: Understood. Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?

LAURO: Absolutely, we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have an expectation that will be granted?

LAURO: That reflects the- the- the characteristics of the American people. It’s up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case–

MAJOR GARRETT: — Speaking of the judge

LAURO: — very close to D.C. and a much more diverse–

MAJOR GARRETT: — Understood. Speaking of the judge’ earlier this week, your client, the former president, on his social media platform, said ‘The judge is unfair’, On what basis did he say that?

LAURO: Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season, is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign. We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And- and my role- my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way, and I’m going to do that.

MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned discovery. In the protective order back and forth between you and the prosecutors, it says, the prosecution, that discovery will be provided, quote, ‘As soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled’. What’s wrong with that?

LAURO: We’re all in favor of protecting sensitive and highly sensitive information. But it’s unprecedented to have all information hidden in a criminal case, including, by the way, information that might be exculpatory and might be exonerative of President Trump. The Biden administration wants to keep that information from the American people.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, in the back and forth on this matter, you also said in the filing to the court that the former president would be willing to come to an agreement on this matter. And what I want to ask you is would that requirement be something where the President would agree not to release any information that was highly sensitive in this matter and would he also refrain from any speech that called for or hinted at retribution about anyone associated with the prosecution of this case?

LAURO: He’s never called for that at all. He’s going to abide by the conditions of his release. But of course, we would agree that any sensitive or highly sensitive information be kept under wraps. In fact, we made that proposition to the Biden administration, but they rejected it. They want every single piece of evidence in this case hidden from the American public.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, before I let you go, do you remember what you were doing the early morning of November 9th, 2016?

LAURO: I have no idea.

MAJOR GARRETT: Well, I remember what I was doing. I was covering President-elect Trump announcing that he had won the presidency, about 3 a.m. that morning after the November 8th election. My question to you, John, is how did he know he won?

LAURO: Well, politicians are convinced in the righteousness of their cause, including President Trump, and he certainly believed that he won and he did win in 2016- (crosstalk)

MAJOR GARRETT: — But on what basis did he know he- But on what basis did he know he won?

LAURO: — Can I finish? Can I finish?

MAJOR GARRETT: — Yeah. Sure.

LAURO: — Can I finish? And he believed in 2020 that he won based on the fact that he had 10 million more votes than in 2016. He had a situation where, somehow, President Biden, or at that time candidate Biden, received 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. And he also understood in 2020, that president- that President Trump understood that he had won all- virtually all of the bellwether counties, and 84 percent of all the counties in the country-

MAJOR GARRETT: Right. John- John, let me- let me help you with this–

LAURO: — So on that basis he believed that he was successful.

MAJOR GARRETT: — John, let me help you with this, I wasn’t asking about 2020.

LAURO: — No, let me help you with this, because the issue here- I have to help you with this.

[crosstalk]

MAJOR GARRETT: I wasn’t asking about 2020, John. John, I wasn’t asking about 2020. I was asking about 2016.

(CROSSTALK)

LAURO: The issue. Right. The issue. Right. The issue in a criminal case-

MAJOR GARRETT: Because- because the votes were still being counted in 2016. The votes were still being counted in 2016. There had been no recounts. How did he know in 2016 that he had won? How did he know? On what basis?

LAURO: The issue- the issue- let me just tell you something, the issue in this criminal case is not what happened in 2016 and whether all candidates say they won. The issue now is, in 2020, whether or not the Justice Department can weaponize criminal law to go after a political opponent and prevent that opponent from running for office. That’s the issue, not what happened in 2016.

MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time.

LAURO: Do you think it’s fair- do you think it’s fair that- do you think it’s fair what the- what the Biden administration is doing to a candidate for president?

MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

LAURO: Thank you.

MAJOR GARRETT: And we will be right back.

Aug 7 2023

REMINDER – The Parliamentary Motive Behind the J6 Fedsurrection


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

Repost Due to Current Media Cycle News

The Ring of Truth – “I am too well accustomed to the taking of evidence not to detect the ring of truth.” 1908, Edith Wharton

Much has been made of the events of January 6, 2021, and with the latest broadcast of CCTV video from inside the Capitol Hill complex, more questions have been raised.

Within the questions: the FBI and government apparatus had advanced knowledge of the scale of the J6 mall assembly yet doing nothing?  Why were the Capitol Hill police never informed of the FBI concerns?  Why didn’t House Speaker Nancy Pelosi secure the Capitol Hill complex, and why did she deny the request by President Trump to call up the national guard for security support?  Why did the FBI have agent provocateurs in the crowd, seemingly stimulating rage within a peaceful crowd to enter the Capitol building?  There have always been these nagging questions around ‘why’?

Long time CTH reader “Regitiger” has spent a great deal of time reviewing the entire process, looking at the granular timeline and then overlaying the bigger picture of the constitutional and parliamentary process itself.  What follows below is a brilliant analysis of the federal government motive to create a J6 crisis that permitted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to trigger an emergency session and avoid the 2020 election certification challenges.

Those congressional floor challenges, known and anticipated well in advance of the morning of January 6, 2021, would have formed a legal and constitutional basis for ‘standing’ in judicial challenges that would have eventually reached the Supreme Court.  The certification during “emergency session” eliminated the problem for Washington DC.

Regitiger explains below, only edited by me for clarity and context:

I think most, not all, but a large number of people, are totally missing what happened; and why this happened on Jan 6th.  I am going to try my best to outline the events that day, blast past the commonly held assumptions and get right down to the core corruption.

I will present this as a series of questions and answers.

♦ Q1: How do you prevent congress from delaying the certification of state electoral votes?

A: It requires a crisis. A crisis that creates an “emergency” …An “emergency” that invokes special house rules.

FACTS: Remember carefully, focus please. Just moments, literally 3 minutes before two representatives issued a vote for motions to suspend the certification, the House members were “informed” by capitol police and other “agents” that a protest was about to breach the chambers. It was at this time that key people: Pence, Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconnell can be seen being walked out and escorted from the chamber. This effectively halted the Entire Chamber Process.

♦ Q2: Why was it necessary to halt the chamber process?

A: The crisis was created to eliminate the motion challenges to halt the certification and to begin voting to look into voting irregularities and fraud

FACTS: The two motions were completely legal and constitutional under at least two constitutionally recognized procedures… procedures that would REQUIRE the house to pause the certification and then vote to determine whether the motions of suspend could move forward.

♦ Q3: What was so important to refuse this motion and the subsequent votes to suspend the electoral certification?

A: It was important to remove that process entirely and continue the fraud and certify the fraud with no detractors on record. This effectively gives no standing for a SCOTUS ruling appeal!  Understand this.  If those two motions, even just one had successfully been voted EVEN IF THE MOTIONS were DENIED IN VOTE, this gives those who presented them with STANDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENT BEFORE SCOTUS. 

♦ Q4: Could this have been done some other way other than creating a crisis/protest?

A: Unlikely. In order to prevent those two motions, requires that speaker of the house, minority leaders, and the president of the congress (vice president of the United States: Pence), to NOT BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS.

Once the capitol police and other “law enforcements agents” informed the speaker and these three other individuals, Pelosi UNILATERALLY UNDER EMERGENCY RULES, suspended the business of the congress. This protest was necessary. The crisis was created because there is no other way to suspend the business of certification UNILATERALLY. By creating a crisis invokes emergency procedures. No other circumstances other than war or mass simultaneous explosive diarrhea can create such unilateral speaker delivered suspension of the certification.

♦ Q5: Why did the motions, once that the speaker RECONVENED congress, move forward back again to the floor for votes? Why were members disallowed to even consider putting forward ANY motions to the floor in when the chamber business was reopened?

A: The Speaker initiated the NEW sessions under special emergency rules. These rules abandon and make it clear that the ONLY purpose of the new session was to EXPEDITE the certification and dismiss all prior regular session procedural rules. This is why those two motions to table votes to consider a debate and pause to the certifications of state vote electors never happened later that evening when the house business was reconvened!

♦ Q6: Other than new rules, emergency rules, what other peculiar things occurred when the speaker reconvened?

A: Members were allowed to “vote” in proxy, remotely, not being present.  You can use your imagination about what conditions were placed on ALL members during this time to prevent anyone from “getting out of line”.

Also clearly, it was at THIS NEW SESSION that VP Pence, President of Congress, would also have no ability to even consider pausing the electoral certification, because there were no motions of disagreements on the matter. So, in a technical legal claim, he is correct that he had no constitutional authority to address any issues of fraud or doubts about electoral irregularities. But this completely dismisses the FACT that congress created rules in this crisis/emergency that never allowed them to be floored!

Understand what happened in Jan 6, 2021.  Don’t get hung up on Viking impostors, stolen Pelosi computers, podium heists, and complicit capitol police. Understand the process and what happened and what WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

This was a coup….it was a very organized and carefully planned coup. VP Pence without a doubt as well as most members of the house were quite aware of how the certification was going to be MANAGED.  It would require new rules to prevent the debate clause from occurring!  New rules that ONLY AN EMERGENCY CRISIS COULD CREATE! So, they created an emergency.

•NOTED: I understand why many people have great interest in debunking the j6 event. I get that. I think it is important to dissect and examine the events of that day but please, step back and understand WHY these things happened. Examine the chain of events in congress.  Why those two motions that would have at least paused the certification THAT WOULD GIVE VP PENCE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED POWER TO MOVE TO SUSPEND THE ELECTORAL CERTIFICATION AND THEN EXAMINE THE IRREGULARITIES AND CLAIMS OF FRAUD!

At the very center of this coup stands Mike Pence, the same individual who also spoiled President Trump’s first opportunities in the earlies hours of his Presidency just 4 years prior, when he created and facilitated the removal of Lt General Michael Flynn. I will not spend much time on this thread explaining why Lt Gen Flynn was so important to President Trump and why the IC was so afraid he would have advisory power to the President. That I will leave for another day, another time. But understand this clearly: MIKE PENCE WAS AND IS WORKING FOR THE MOST CORRUPT CRIMINAL TREASONOUS PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT.

•PRO TIP: If you really want to get a true understanding of this matter videos of protesters walking in the capitol is not going to address them. Actual video and timeline records of events and the specific actions taken by the speaker just moments before TWO MAJOR ELECTORAL ALTERING MOTIONS WERE ABOUT TO BE FLOORED.

This crisis was developed just in time with a precise coordination to prevent those two motions to be entered into the chamber record. The two motions do not exist. The emergency powers established in the new session made sure they never could be entered. The emergency powers could never happen without a crisis.

God Bless America!”

[link]

NOTE: “Under this scenario, the J6 pipe bombs were the insurance policy, in the event the feds couldn’t get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the two pipe bombs would have then been the emergency needed to stop the process.”  Which explains why the FBI has no interest in the DC pipe bomb suspects. ~ Sundance

Note from Author: “I started this effort years ago.  To date, no one and I mean no one has replied.  It’s as if everyone that can expose it that has a larger platform is either disinterested, or suspiciously withdrawn from the issue.  I made several comments about this over the years right here at CTH, on article threads that are relevant to the topic.

I was watching the certification live that day. I recorded it ALL on every channel. I was doing this because no matter what happened that day, I KNEW IT WOULD BE A PROFOUND AND SIGNIFICANT EVENT TO REMEMBER. I never in my wildest imagination (and I have a pretty vivid imagination, always have), expected to see the unmistakable perfectly timed “coincidences” that occurred.

One member raises a motion (with another in waiting for his turn) those two motions were well known and advertised. These were motions to vote for a pause in the certification to examine electoral vote fraud and irregularities. I can’t speak to the veracity and substance of those motions. They were never allowed to even be floored. it was at that exact moment that the house chambers were suspended and 4 of the key members, Pence, Pelosi, Schumer and McConnell were escorted OUT right after initiating the end of the session.

Effectively, this resulted in that motion never being floored at all.  Then, when reconvened under special emergency rules, inexplicably those two motions (and perhaps more – we will never know – or will we?) were not even attempted to be motioned. That was not just peculiar to me.

It all started to make more sense when I did some study on constitutional law AND THE HISTORY of specific special authorities given to president of the congress, Pence in this case. Not only did he have the authority and power to suspend the certification, but the duty to address the motion in the same sense that it becomes vital to the debate clause.

There really is no higher significance of weight given to the debate clause than the certification of the votes. This was more than odd to me the way that the media and pence framed their narrative: Pence would not have the constitutional power to suspend certification.  Then it hit me, like the obvious clue that was there all the time. He was right. But the reason he is right, is because there WAS NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO CAUSE HIM TO SUSPEND!

Understanding this, happened for me about 4 or 5 months after this Jan 6 day.  I took me this long to examine the facts, look at the video again, compare it to the arguments made by several leading constitutional academics, and again, inexplicably even some that I respect seemed to dodge that central reality.  The motions were never allowed to be floored in the re-convened house rules later that evening. Most would not even venture to address the exotically coincidence that the moment those two members would stand to place the motion before the house, that the House Speaker Pelosi AND Pence ended the session, effectively blocking the motions from being heard in normal house rules.

It’s been a journey for me. A journey that was initiated because I am just a simple but curious person. Perhaps even to a point where I get obsessive in those efforts. Many days and nights combing over the details. praying and trying to make sense of what makes little sense. With over 6 states having serious well known and obvious defects in the voting process, some more credible to believe – some less, but one would not expect the house would be so deliberate in marching past the motions that were definitely going to be present to slow this process down and take the time to get it right. Even IF the claims never reached an intersection that would change the outcome.

There are two possibilities: Millions of people, against all the odds, hitting all-time records even past Obama and Clinton, voted for a naval gazing ambulatory pathological racist moron. And chose Joe Malarkey as their leader.  Or this was a coup, a conspiracy, and a treasonous manipulation regime change because President Trump could not be controlled by the deep state and globalists who OWN AND OPERATE WASHINGTON DC.

BOTH POSSIBILITIES ARE TERRIFYING.

The only way for THE PEOPLE to gain power in this country is to force the transfer of it.  If truth isn’t the fuel and vehicle, we will just be replacing deck chairs and hitting the next series of expected ice bergs.

Knowing the truth is not enough; however, it is truth that makes it a righteous cause.

God Bless America!”

~ Regitiger

Sundance provides an addendum in support:

Julie Kelly – […] Just as the first wave of protesters breached the building shortly after 2 p.m., congressional Republicans were poised to present evidence of rampant voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Ten incumbent and four newly-elected Republican senators planned to work with their House colleagues to demand the formation of an audit commission to investigate election “irregularities” in the 2020 election. Absent an audit, the group of senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pledged to reject the Electoral College results from the disputed states.

The Hail Mary effort was doomed to fail; yet the American people would have heard hours of debate related to provable election fraud over the course of the day.

And no one opposed the effort more than ex-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). 

During a conference call on December 31, 2020, McConnell urged his Republican Senate colleagues to abandon plans to object to the certification, insisting his vote to certify the 2020 election results would be “the most consequential I have ever cast” in his 36-year Senate career.

From the Senate floor on the afternoon of January 6, McConnell gave a dramatic speech warning of the dire consequences to the country should Republicans succeed in delaying the vote. He downplayed examples of voting fraud and even mocked the fact that Trump-appointed judges rejected election lawsuits. 

“The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken,” McConnell insisted. “If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.”

Roughly six hours later, McConnell got his way. Cowed by the crowd of largely peaceful Americans allowed into the building by Capitol police, most Republican senators backed off the audit proposal. McConnell, echoing hyperbolic talking points about an “insurrection” seeded earlier in the day by Democratic lawmakers and the news media, gloated. “They tried to disrupt our democracy,” he declared on the Senate floor after Congress reconvened around 8 p.m. “This failed attempt to obstruct Congress, this failed insurrection, only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our Republic.”

Congress officially certified the Electoral College results early the next day. (read more)

Aug 5 2023

Seriously Sketchy – Judge Boasberg Sits in Back of DC District Court During President Trump Appearance


Posted originally on CTH on August 4, 2023 

As noted in Politico describing President Trump’s court appearance yesterday, “Minutes before Trump entered the pin-drop silent room, several federal judges — who have been processing the carnage of Jan. 6, 2021 for more than two years — filed into the public gallery, turning themselves into spectators in a building they typically rule. Chief Judge James Boasberg, who presided over several of the secret grand jury battles that preceded the charges against Trump, was among those marking the moment.”

[…] “Boasberg’s presence in the courtroom was a statement in itself. Alongside him was Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who has in her own courtroom excoriated Republicans who have refused to contradict Trump’s continued lies about the 2020 election. The pair, flanked by other judges and magistrate judges, watched Trump’s every move intently.”

In March, when I wrote the outline about Judge Boasberg being the corrupt DC judge who broke the constitutional restrictions on executive privilege, which technically forced Mike Pence to turn over his notes and testify to James Smith and the DC grand jury, I said at the time, “The entire judicial system is corrupt, soup to nuts, all of it.”  I was not using hyperbole.

For Judge Boasberg (who is on vacation) to show up in court and sit in the back row of the courtroom is a stunning visible display of judicial ideology and targeting.

In reality, Boasberg is bearing witness to the outcome he created by forcing a Vice President to give testimony against the Chief Executive, thereby establishing the basis for the fraudulent allegations Special Counsel Jack Smith was utilizing to target that same executive, President Donald Trump.

This is the same Judge Boasberg who sat as presiding judge on the FISA court.  The same Judge Boasberg who gave FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith a slap on the wrist for manufacturing evidence used in the Carter Page FISA application that defrauded the court.  The same Judge Boasberg who appointed former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord as amicus curiae advisor to the court, after she knowingly and fraudulently submitted the FISA application to the court.

Two and a half years ago, while Judge Boasberg was on the FISA Court, I warned about the implications of all these interconnected judicial dots.  The entire DC federal bench is compromised.  The entire judiciary of the FISA Court process is compromised.  The entire federal judicial system is compromised.  Now we are stunningly seeing the scale and scope of that DC judicial corruption in the fraudulent case against President Donald Trump.

Former FISA Court Presiding Judge James Boasberg is no longer on the FISC.  However, he continues to advance the interests of the DC Deep State with rulings specifically tailored to protect the national security state.  [Boasberg Background Here]

Boasberg, an ally of SSCI Chairman Mark Warner, has intercepted several cases that brought sunlight upon the corrupt DC system.  In each case Boasberg ruled in favor of maintaining the corruption, including his willfully blind support of the FBI searching NSA databases to conduct illegal surveillance of Americans, and including Boasberg’s personal appointment of Mary McCord to run defense on behalf of the corrupt DOJ main office.  Keep in mind, Mary McCord’s husband works for Supreme Court justice John Roberts.

Then Presiding Judge James Boasberg, was the decision-maker in the appointment of Amici Curiae to the FISA court. There is no way, NO WAY, Judge Boasberg did not know Mary McCord was at the epicenter of the fraudulent FISA application used against Carter Page. Remember, in addition to being the FISC Presiding Judge, Boasberg was also the trial judge in the case against Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who lied about Page working for the CIA on the FISA application. {Go Deep}

Boasberg knows Mary McCord took over from former DOJ-NSD head John Carlin (October 2016); and it was McCord who guided the Carter Page FISA application through the court and across the finish line (October 2016 and January 2017). That FISA application was built upon fraud and Mary McCord was at the center of it.

Mary McCord was also the DOJ-NSD official who went with Sally Yates to confront the White House Counsel, Don McGhan, about the Michael Flynn interview with the FBI. {Go Deep} It was also Mary McCord who had Michael Atkinson as the chief-legal-counsel for the DOJ-NSD -that’s her office attorney- when the FISA application was submitted in October 2016, and renewed in January 2017.

Michael Atkinson went from DOJ-NSD counsel to become the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). {Go Deep} In that new role, Atkinson changed the rules to allow an anonymous CIA whistleblower (Ciaramella on behalf of Vindman) to file the complaint that led to the Ukraine impeachment effort. {Go Deep} Who was the lead lawyer in the Jerry Nadler led House Judiciary Committee? Why Mary McCord of course. Judge Boasberg knows all of this… AND MORE.

[LINK to Source]

Boasberg knows the details of the fraudulent FISA application. Boasberg knows the details of the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report about the fraudulent FISA application and all the DOJ and FBI participants… which included Mary McCord. Boasberg knows exactly who Mary McCord is, and what activity she has taken on behalf of the political resistance inside the DOJ and inside congress. FISC Presiding Judge James Boasberg also knows Mary McCord has broken the law….

…And yet Boasberg appoints McCord as amici curiae?

Let’s be really clear here. The FISA court is a small unit. The judges in/around Washington DC are also a small unit. They know everything that is going on in and around their DC network. A FISA judge inside that DC system knows every granular detail of everything that comes into their purview. All of it. Judge Boasberg even wrote the last two FISA court opinions (2019 and 2020) about the FBI abuses of the FISA-702 process and warrantless, illegal violations of the NSA database.

There is simply no other way to look at the placement of Mary McCord other than to see what it was.

The FISA court is compromised – AND, McCord is being installed in order to coordinate any defensive measures that are needed to cover up that compromise.

There isn’t another way to look at this other than to see bad motives. There’s not a shred of possibility that Judge Boasberg does not know exactly who Mary McCord is, and what roles she played in the surveillance of candidate Donald Trump, President-elect Trump, President Trump and the House impeachment effort to remove President Donald Trump. Boasberg knows exactly who Mary McCord is.

Boasberg knows what the DOJ and FBI were doing in their targeting of candidate Trump and President Trump.   Perhaps more than any other DC judge, Boasberg has been at the center of it.  Yet Boasberg will force Vice President Pence to turn over executive privilege documents, give testimony against the interests of the President, and then sit in the back of the courtroom to watch the outcomes of all these years of tentacles…..

There has always been no other way to look at this.

I hate to say it so bluntly, but the federal court system in Washington DC is compromised and yes, weaponized….

… That’s the true “conspiracy against rights”.

[Support CTH Here]

Aug 3 2023

Democrats Knew About the Biden Crime Family


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Aug 3, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The story began by claiming Joe Biden had never once contacted Hunter’s business associates. There was a video circulating for years of Joe Biden bragging about threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine until they fired prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, to help out his son. Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Biden crime family, which backfired and resulting in Trump in the hot seat.

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Joe said at a Democrat fundraiser in Iowa in 2019. Trump asked Biden to explain what “10% to the big guy” regarding another scandal. Then too, Trump was accused of misspeaking.

Then we had the numerous trips Hunter took on Air Force II to accompany good old dad. The laptop from hell revealed everything, but intelligence agencies denied its existence up until a few months ago. Cathay Bank came out and said the Bidens were funneling money. A WhatsApp message sent by Hunter Biden was recently revealed where he threatened an executive by saying he is sitting right next to his powerful father. The evidence is overwhelming, but the Democrats and every intelligence agency have protected the Biden crime family.

Now, the Democrats admit that Joe DID have involvement in the Burisma deals. “Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings,” Democrat Rep. Daniel Goldman said. “As he described, it was all casual conversation, niceties, the weather, ‘what’s going on?’…“It’s kind of a preposterous premise to think that a father should not say hello to people that the son is at dinner with. And that is literally all the evidence is,” he added.”

This is a completely disgusting abuse of power that amounts to treason. What grown man asks his father to speak on the phone with his business colleagues? They could have at least attempted to lie. They are threatening Trump with every lawsuit under the sun while Biden, a known traitor to the United States, walks/stumbles freely.

Aug 2 2023

The Merging of Intent – Community Organizing and Main Justice


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

Until the era of Barack Obama and Eric Holder, the efforts of the community activists were to excuse and absolve the transparently guilty.  It was only when Barack Obama and Eric Holder moved into office that things changed; the inflection point was achieved.

What we now consider the weaponization of the DOJ is actually the outcome of Main Justice merging with community activism.  Instead of the long-standing method of absolving the transparently guilty, the justice system was repurposed to accuse the transparently innocent.

Only one voice noticed the changed activity as it was taking place and called my attention to it, that voice was author Jack Cashill.

From the Henry Louis Gates (beer summit) in the White House, which targeted Sgt James Crowley, to the accusations against George Zimmerman (Orlando), Darren Wilson (Ferguson), the Baltimore Six accusations, and all the way through to Donald Trump, Michael Flynn et al, there is one continuum of the same justice system ideological effort – to accuse the transparently innocent.  To weaponize the systems of power toward a unified objective.

In the early stages of 2009 to 2012, the media were probed and prodded, tested to identify their willful alignment and train them to assist.  In essence, the goal was to bring the corporate media into the new shifted dynamic of targeting.  The media no longer needed to justify the actions of the transparently guilty offenders.  The new goal was to frame the transparently innocent with accusations that advanced the interests of the regime.

People have noted the shift and realignment in Democrats.  This is all connected to this same shifted dynamic. The activists gained control of the levers of power.  The force of government now shifted the media narrative from bad behavior (targeting the guilty the activist supported) to good behavior (targeting the behavior of innocents the activists do not support).

While this media effort was taking place, Attorney General Eric Holder was transforming the DOJ into an ideological targeting enterprise.  Eventually, leading to what is visible now with a fully weaponized Main Justice and FBI system.  The FBI now protecting the interests of those who weaponize – those who are corrupt.

The 2011/2012 Tea Party targeting did not originate in the IRS; it began with Eric Holder triggering a “special research project” requesting CD ROM’s containing the names, organizations and entities listed on the Schedule-B’s of the various Tea Party group tax filings.  The IRS, via Lois Lerner, was eventually identified in this project by a whistleblower from the Cincinatti office, but it was Attorney General Eric Holder at the DOJ who initiated the entire operation.

The NSA database then became a tool with similar “special research” intent, and that process followed through the 2016 GOP presidential primary to the position it is today. The infiltration of Social Media platforms for this same type of targeting operation is another step in the continuum to notice.

If you step back from the granular details and look at the entire landscape, you can trace this origin to the inflection point where community activism merged with government.  That merge to generate a weaponized DOJ is entirely the result of President Obama’s 2008 election.

There are current voices who notice the Obama operative fingerprints still controlling the mechanisms today; examples like Lisa Monaco as Deputy AG at the Dept of Justice, as well as many more Obama administration officials still in positions of power and direct influence.  Special Counsel Jack Smith and his targeting operation against Donald Trump is simply another example of this extended operation.

All of these participants have some level of stakeholder investment in retaining this weaponized system.  Every tool at their disposal will be used in the retention.

Moving forward to destroy the corruption means we must first accept the origin.

Understanding the toxic outcome of the Obama origin, a fully weaponized American government, is akin to having a discussion about vaccine danger with those who already took the vaccine.   Few will want to accept the conversation!

…After all, it is easier to accept the results of a fraudulent election, than for them to admit their complicity in the demise of our nation.

P

Jul 25 2023

If I Were The Deep State – Deploying Relentless Lawfare


Posted originally on the Conservative Tree house on July 24, 2023 | Sundance 

Excellent video presented by Lauren3ve {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:

https://rumble.com/embed/v2zh8nu/?pub=as0d9

Exceptional article, outlining the Biden DC agenda and the perspective of the American majority.  This is the crux, the essence, the core reason behind the upcoming victory of the American people, through Trump, over a comprehensively corrupt DC apparatus:

[…] What we have seen over the years is that every time the Deep State tries to hurt President Trump, his poll numbers rise, and he is able to fund-raise even more than before. It is an inexplicable reaction that frustrates Democrats, who fail to understand that most Americans are honest, ethical, and busy individuals, committed to caring for their families, attending church, and being active in the community. Most voters do not understand the complexities of national security laws. Nor do they believe that Trump committed felony violations by participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Voters may not remember their civics classes, but they know that Trump has always cared about America’s standing in the world. From the moment he descended the escalator at Trump Tower in 2015, Trump’s brand is that he wants America to win. Even in television interviews in the late 1980s and 1990s, Trump’s single-most consistent grievance against American officials was that they let foreigners take advantage of America and get ahead at the nation’s cost. For Trump watchers, the Make America Great Again campaign started more than 30 years ago. (read more)

Jul 25 2023

UPDATE, Body of 45-year-old Black Male, Found in Pond Behind President Obama’s Martha Vineyard Estate


Posted originally of the CTH on July 24, 2023 | Sundance 

UPDATE: The body of the unidentified man has been confirmed to be Barack and Michelle Obama’s personal chef, Tafari Campbell, aged 45.

The original age of the victim was incorrect in the initial reporting.  Despite the Obama family vacationing on the island, the Obamas were not at their home in Martha’s Vineyard at the time of the incident.

(Chicago Sun Times) – […] Tafari Campbell, 45, known as one of the chefs who brewed White House honey ale beer while Obama was in office — using honey from Michelle Obama’s famous South Lawn garden — went to work for the former first couple when they left the White House.

In a statement, the Obamas said of one of the top chefs in the White House kitchen: “Tafari was a beloved part of our family. When we first met him, he was a talented sous chef at the White House — creative and passionate about food, and its ability to bring people together. In the years that followed, we got to know him as a warm, fun, extraordinarily kind person who made all of our lives a little brighter.

“That’s why, when we were getting ready to leave the White House, we asked Tafari to stay with us, and he generously agreed. He’s been part of our lives ever since, and our hearts are broken that he’s gone.

“Today we join everyone who knew and loved Tafari — especially his wife Sherise and their twin boys, Xavier and Savin — in grieving the loss of a truly wonderful man.”

The Obama’s have been spending part of the summer in Martha’s Vineyard for years.

Massachusetts State Police said Campbell was from Dumfries, Va., and “was visiting Martha’s Vineyard at the time of his passing. President and Mrs. Obama were not present at the residence at the time of the accident.” (read more) 

ORIGINAL OUTLINE BELOW

Details are just starting to come out, but while the identity of the victim has not been established the description matches Reggie Love, Obama’s body man.

The body of an unidentified black male, aged 43, was found this morning after an overnight search for a missing paddleboarder in the marsh pond behind the Martha’s Vineyard home of President Barack Obama.

Apparently, a call for search and rescue units came from the Obama home last night, and the body was located in 8′ of water this morning.

VIA DAILY MAIL – […] A massive joint-agency search resumed Monday morning for the African American male who was last seen wearing all black without a lifejacket, MV Times reported.

His paddle board and hat were recovered Sunday – and his body was found in the eight-foot-deep waters approximately 100 feet away from shore at 10am Monday.  The dispatch address for the incident came from Obama’s Martha’s waterfront Vineyard home. It is unclear if the former president, 61, is currently staying at the estate. 

[…] Massachusetts State Police said: ‘Shortly before 10 AM the body of the missing paddle boarder was recovered from Edgartown Great Pond by Massachusetts State Police divers. 

‘MSP Underwater Recovery Unit divers made the recovery after the victim’s body was located by a Massachusetts Environmental Police Officers deploying side-scan sonar from a boat.

‘As previously noted, the victim is a 43-year-old male. His name is not being released at this time; we expect to release his name later today.

‘The recovery was made approximately 100 feet from shore at a depth of about eight feet.

‘The investigation into the fatality is being conducted by the State Police Detective Unit for the Cape and Islands District and Edgartown Police.’  (read more)

It’s Martha’s Vineyard.  The whitest place in the USA.

How many black males not related to Barack Obama are on the Island?

🤔 Reggie Love?

Jul 24 2023

Operation Acoustic Kitty


Armstrong Economics Blog/Police State Re-Posted Jul 24, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The Central Intelligence Agency has a long history of spying on Americans. People think of the old Soviet Union or North Korea as examples of extreme government surveillance measures, but it happens right here in the Land of the Free. A reader wrote in about this topic, and I can confirm it is not a conspiracy theory. Operation Acoustic Kitty was launched by the CIA in the 1960s to spy on the Kremlin and Soviet embassies in the US. They implanted surveillance technology into seemingly stray cats to listen in on conversations.

Surgeons would take cats and implant a radio transmitter in its skull, with a small wire going down its body. The first test run was a complete failure. They sent a cat loose to spy on two men conversing on a park bench. The helpless cat became confused, ran into the street, and was killed by a taxi.

The CIA spent $20 million on this program before abandoning it entirely in 1967. It should not have taken $20 million to realize cats are too independent to be trained spies. As the CIA document notes: “The problem was that cats are not especially trainable,” she writes. In a heavily redacted memo, the CIA concluded: “Our final examination of trained cats…convinced us that the program would not lend itself in a practical sense to our highly specialized needs.”

Robert Wallace, a former director of the Office of Technical Service, attempted to cover the animal abuse by saying the remaining cat lived happily ever after. “The equipment was taken out of the cat; the cat was re-sewn for a second time, and lived a long and happy life afterward,” he claimed. Governments continue to use animals and insects for surveillance measures. Expect more animal/insect cyborgs as we move closer to the Great Reset.