Criminals have the right of way in the US where they are permitted to commit crimes with absolutely no repercussions. I advise you to read my article on the Cloward-Piven Strategy if you want to know the real reason this is all happening. Overburden the bureaucracy to break the system, create controlled chaos, usurp power as civil unrest peaks, and offer government aid as the only solution. This was the basis behind the Cloward-Piven strategy created by sociologists Frances Fox Piven and her husband, Richard Cloward. The couple published their theory in The Nation Magazine on May 2, 1966, entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.”
The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
Overload and Break the Welfare System
Have Chaos Ensue
Take Control in the Chaos
Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force
In Chicago, we see mobs of people absolutely destroying small businesses and personal property. It is not safe there. Yet, the mayor refuses to call these groups “mobs” and urges the public to have compassion for the criminals.
In Oakland, California, the police are advising residents to place security bars on their doors and windows due to the uptick in crime. Burglaries have risen over 41% in Oakland and robberies are up 20%. Instead of properly telling residents that their 2A rights may be the only difference between life and death, the police have advised residents to use airhorns. Breitbart reported on a recent incident that went as expected:“On Sunday, July 30, 2023, a 75-year-old Oakland woman was home alone and armed with more than an airhorn when two alleged armed intruders entered her home. The woman had a .357 Magnum revolver, which she used to fire one shot at the alleged intruders, KTVU reported. The alleged intruders fired multiple shots then fled the scene.”
Clearly, the airhorns did not cause the criminals to flee. This woman is lucky that she was armed when criminals, likely career criminals who fail to contribute to society in any meaningful way, broke into her home.
The store owner finally decided to fight back. He did not use lethal force but began beating the career criminal with a broomstick as another man held him down. They can’t cry racism because the store owner is Sikh. The criminal began complaining that he was in pain and cried on camera, causing the tables to turn, and the store owner was placed under investigation. You are permitted to steal up to a certain amount in California; Newsom has ensured it by law. So technically this “criminal” is a law-abiding citizen in the state of California.
Self-defense in Biden’s America is now considered vigilantism. They are following the Cloward-Piven model and ensuring that chaos ensues across the nation. Then they will cry that we need gun control – so that these vigilantes who don’t want to be harmed by criminals cannot protect themselves and must rely on the police who are not permitted to protect them. Blue cities in this country are absolutely ruined and people need to consider this at the polls.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 9, 2023 | Sundance
I have been researching the MACRO economic dynamic in Russia quite deeply for the past six months. Essentially looking to discover not only what impact the western imposed sanctions might be having, but more broadly looking to see what happens to self-sustainability when essentially locked out from the world of commercial imports.
The research is fascinating, not simply because it is a unique opportunity, but also because national economic issues play a big role in the overall social dynamic. That said, I can say the social aspect is stunningly more interesting than the data driven outcomes. When you really dig deep into actual life of the ordinary people in Russia, far away from the geopolitical contexts, you get an entirely different perspective. My worldview of the average Russian person/family has completely changed.
There is a really good thread on how the western sanctions against Russia are having a much lesser impact than initially thought [SEE HERE]. On the economic side, one thing I would point to is how the economy is essentially an outcome of two facets: (1) the internal production strength, and (2) the service side of the ledger.
The author makes the accurate point that from a production side perspective, Russia actually has a larger economy now than Germany, the largest EU nation. The cause for this is “autarchy” or self-sufficiency. Indeed, as the timeline of the sanctions closes in on the second year completing, the Russian production economy is even stronger than when the sanctions began. Quite simply, they are making even more of their own goods now.
The sanctions hit what would typically fall into the service side of the economy, as well as financial and economic roadblocks. However, that aspect of the Russian economy was much smaller than most suspected and there were sanctions going back to 2014 which made the outcome of the 2022 western imposed restrictions less impactful.
I will be finishing my review of the economic data once Q3 is over, that will give me an entire year of data to share. However, the social stuff is even more fascinating.
I have a new understanding of why former NSA contractor Edward Snowden was so comfortable using Russia as the place to hide after his release of classified intelligence showing how the U.S. government was spying on Americans via social media and metadata collection.
I have mostly been looking at three areas in Western Russia. Kazan, Moscow and St Petersburg (formerly Leningrad). Of the three generally large metropolitan areas, St Petersburg is by far the most interesting. It’s beautiful there and the city is alive and vibrant.
In many ways you might compare Russia in 2023 to the USA in/around 1988. Life is just not complicated and far more socially engaged.
I’ll have more on this later, but if you are ever bored check out the Russian YouTubers who livestream broadcast “a day-in-the-life” type of activity. The infrastructure is in generally good repair, the people seem warm and friendly and there is a strong social value placed on family and kids.
There are certainly negatives and the cultural dynamic of the former USSR is still evident. Technologically they are somewhat behind in some details, but the overall cohesion of their value system is something I did not fully appreciate until I started down this road of research.
I can see why the average Russian could be wide-eyed during a visit to the USA and fascinated with the overall quality of life that might be considered indulgent. However, I can also see how reciprocally the average American could be wide-eyed and smiling at the overall sense of the Russian people.
Strip out the politics, and we are all much more similar than we are different.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 9, 2023 | Sundance
What do Pakistan’s Imran Khan, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, USA’s Donald Trump, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Mexico’s Lopez-Obrador all have in common?
First, they are all strong nationalists. Second, the U.S. government has either influenced the removal and judicial incarceration or is currently seeking the removal and judicial incarceration of each of them.
As the U.S. State Dept. (Tony Blinken), USAID (Samantha Power) and CIA (Director Burns) conduct influence operations around the world to advance the interests of the multinationals; newly released diplomatic cables from inside Pakistan reveal the U.S. influence effort to remove former Pakistan President Imran Khan.
It sucks to wake up every day and accept the USA are the bad guys.
THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT encouraged the Pakistani government in a March 7, 2022, meeting to remove Imran Khan as prime minister over his neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a classified Pakistani government document obtained by The Intercept.
The meeting, between the Pakistani ambassador to the United States and two State Department officials, has been the subject of intense scrutiny, controversy, and speculation in Pakistan over the past year and a half, as supporters of Khan and his military and civilian opponents jockeyed for power.
The political struggle escalated on August 5 when Khan was sentenced to three years in prison on corruption charges and taken into custody for the second time since his ouster. Khan’s defenders dismiss the charges as baseless. The sentence also blocks Khan, Pakistan’s most popular politician, from contesting elections expected in Pakistan later this year.
One month after the meeting with U.S. officials documented in the leaked Pakistani government document, a no-confidence vote was held in Parliament, leading to Khan’s removal from power. The vote is believed to have been organized with the backing of Pakistan’s powerful military. Since that time, Khan and his supporters have been engaged in a struggle with the military and its civilian allies, whom Khan claims engineered his removal from power at the request of the U.S.
The text of the Pakistani cable, produced from the meeting by the ambassador and transmitted to Pakistan, has not previously been published. The cable, known internally as a “cypher,” reveals both the carrots and the sticks that the State Department deployed in its push against Khan, promising warmer relations if Khan was removed, and isolation if he was not. (read more, including cable)
The Financial Times estimates that European companies have lost at least €100 billion ($110 billion) since the Russia-Ukraine war began. Around 176 European companies noted significant losses in their fiscal year reports for 2022, and the future remains grim as tensions continue to grow.
Naturally, energy-related industries faced half of those losses, followed by banking, chemicals, industrial, and automotive. BP, TotalEnergies, and Shell lost 40.6 billion euros due to the war, but the spike in energy costs helped them to post favorable earnings reports. Numerous European companies cited “asset impairments, foreign exchange-related charges and other one-off expenses as a result of the sale, closure or reduction of Russian businesses.” Britain, Germany, and France reported the steepest losses, attributing to at least 20 billion of the 100 billion euros lost.
Half of the 1,871 European companies previously operating in Russia are still conducting full or limited business there, according to the Kyiv School of Economics. Russia has since required foreign companies fleeing Russia to pay a 10% exit fee and sell their assets to Russian companies at a 50% discount. It is nearly impossible for companies to operate in Russia due to high sanctions, logistics, and public pressure. Businesses that did not flee will be faced with massive charges from Moscow and are practically stuck between forfeiting their businesses or attempting to operate amid an escalating war.
Planned Parenthood released its annual report for 2021-2022, congratulating themselves for the work they have done. Bans off our bodies – sure. I do not take the authoritarian route on any personal choice. But there is no mistaking the targeted eugenics program at the foundation of Planned Parenthood. They have been openly targeting Black and Brown babies since the beginning. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who Hillary Clinton calls her idol, openly believed that minorities were unfit to have children. Sanger attended KKK rallies to promote abortions and gain funding. She endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision that allowed the US government to forcibly sterilize “unfit” mothers without consent, resulting in thousands of women losing their right to reproduce.
It could not be more obvious. Sanger began the “Negro Project” in 1939, where she hired Black nurses and doctors to eliminate fears of racism. She even recruited Black religious leaders. Sanger opened clinics in the South in predominately Black neighborhoods, and to this day, Planned Parenthood clinics are in predominately Black neighborhoods.
In 2022, Planned Parenthood ACTIVELY MARKETED its services to “reach new audiences,” predominately in the Black and Latino communities. Page 25 of their report discusses how they enrolled the help of Black, Latina, and non-binary creators to reach minorities and successfully received over 20 million views and 135,000 new followers. They specifically want minorities to walk through their doors. They make no mention of marketing to the White or Asian communities for a reason. This is not merely about abortion; it’s a eugenics program.
So in 2021, Planned Parenthood performed 374,155 abortions, amounting to 1,200 abortions per day. Only 1,803 women opted to put their babies up for adoption. The clinics saw fewer clients but performed more abortions, meaning the education piece is not a priority. They now offer the abortion pill through telemedicine as well. They are promoting gender transitioning services to reduce further the number of people who can reproduce, and even have a guideline on how to talk to your PRESCHOOLER about gender identity.
So sure, make your decision based on your own circumstances. The government need not tell us what to do on any level. That is between you, your doctor, and God. But this organization was never intended to empower women. From the beginning, their mission has been to rid the world of those deemed undesirable and unfit to live by the founders. Hence, the US government supplements 35% of its funding as reducing the global population is the goal.
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.
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.
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.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 