Tag Archives: DHS

Jun 8 2023

Reminder, What Was in The Mar-a-Lago Documents


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

Last year, CTH outlined a four-part series of articles going deep into the background of the DOJ-FBI raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, along with the outline into why it was important to them.  It doesn’t matter how many different legal angles and Deep State justifications the DOJ attempts to deploy in order to divert away from what took place; the background of who, what, when and why they raided Mar-a-Lago will not change.

In Part One, we outlined the background of the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. In Part Two we outlined the specifics of how President Trump was targeted by political operatives using tools created by the DC system {Go Deep}.  In Part Three we outlined how and why President Trump was blocked from releasing documents {Go Deep}.  And then finally, as below in Part 4, we assembled the specifics of what documents likely existed in Mar-a-Lago.

It is important to remember, the Presidential Records Act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute.  An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.

The DOJ-NSD warrant, and the subsequent raid on Mar-a-Lago can only be related to records the U.S. government deems “classified” and material vital to national security interests.  Hence, DOJ National Security Division involvement.

In prior outlines, we have exhaustively covered the details of President Trump’s desire to publicly release information about DOJ and FBI conduct in their targeting of him during the fabricated Trump-Russia claims.  However, to understand the nature of the documents he may hold, we first review the declassification memo provided by President Trump to the DOJ upon his departure from office.

In broad terms, there are two sets of documents that intermingle and are directly related. First, documents that highlight the activity of Hillary Clinton’s team in creating the false Trump-Russia conspiracy theory (2015/2016).  Second, documents that highlight the activity of government officials targeting Donald Trump within the same timeframe (Crossfire Hurricane), that continued into 2017, 2018 and 2019 (Robert Mueller).

Think of the two sets of documents as evidence against two teams working in synergy.  Team one (Clinton) was outside government. Team two (DOJ/FBI) was inside government.  The documents pertain to both groups but are also divided.  That helps to explain the wording of the memo above.

The documentary evidence against the outside group (Clinton et al) would also involve government documented evidence as the DOJ/FBI inside group interacted with them.  Notes from interviews, materials provided, FBI 302 summaries of interviews, etc.

We can extract a lot of information on the first sets of evidence from the lawsuit filed by President Trump in March of 2022 – mostly against the outside actors. [LINK HERE]

The lawsuit was filed against specific persons, and most of those persons were interviewed by the FBI as part of the originating investigation.  Within the subjects of the lawsuit, we find names and groups including:

Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe.

In addition to being named in the lawsuit, many of those names were interviewed by the FBI as part of the origination of the Trump-Russia investigation, and/or part of the ongoing investigation of the Trump-Russia fabrication. Each of those interviews would carry an FD-302 report summarizing the content of the interview, the questions and answers given.

The totality of those 302 documents is a lot of evidence likely consisting of hundreds of pages.

For the government officials on the inside, in addition to 302’s (ex Bruce Ohr), there would be documents of communication between them.

Think about the full unredacted text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok as an example.  The DOJ publicly released over 600 pages of those text messages, and that wasn’t all of them.  The text messages were also redacted under claims of privacy and national security.  We can assume any version of these text messages declassified by President Trump would not be redacted.  Hence, you go back to the January 20th memo and see the notes about “privacy.”

We also know there are many pages of communication between DOJ lawyer Lisa Page and her boss in the FBI, Andrew McCabe.  Almost none of them were ever made public; but they exist.  This internal communication is likely the type of material contained in both the “binder,” left for the DOJ to release, and the boxes at Mar-a-Lago to be used as evidence against the named defendants in the Clinton lawsuit.

Bruce Ohr has 302’s and emails relating to his involvement as a conduit between Fusion GPS and the FBI.  Some of those were released in redacted form, and some of them were never released.  Additionally, Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, who worked at Fusion GPS invoked spousal privilege when called to testify before the House committee investigating the issues.  However, it is almost certain the FBI interviewed her, so there are likely 302’s on Nellie Ohr.

Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko and Rodney Joffe were also interviewed by the FBI.  Those 302’s were never released.  Presumably John Durham held stakeholder equity in that part of the Trump-Russia hoax, but the documentary evidence prior to January 20, 2021, that exists outside the special counsel, could also be records at Mar-a-Lago.

Then we get to the big stuff…. The records and evidence, in unredacted and declassified state, that would drive the DOJ-NSD to claim vital national security interests.

The NSA compliance officer notified NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers of unauthorized use of the NSA database by FBI contractors searching U.S. citizens during the 2015/2016 presidential primary.  That 2016 notification is a classified record.

The response from Mike Rogers, and the subsequent documentary evidence of what names were being searched, is again a classified record.  The audit logs showing who was doing the searches (which contractors, which agencies and from what offices), as noted by Director Rogers, were preserved.  That is another big-time classified record.

In addition, we would have Admiral Rogers writing a mandatory oversight notification to the FISA court detailing what happened.  That’s a big and comprehensive classified record, likely contained in the documents in Mar-a-Lago… and then the goldmine, the fully unredacted 99-page FISA court opinion detailing the substance of the NSA compromise by FBI officials and contractors, including the names, frequency and dates of the illegal surveillance.  That is a major classified document the Deepest Deep State would want to keep hidden.

These are the types of documents within what former ODNI John Ratcliffe called, “thousands of pages that were declassified by President Trump,” and given to both John Durham and Main Justice with an expectation of public release when the Durham special counsel probe concluded.  That is why the DOJ has to make their moves now.  The Durham probe has concluded.

In short, President Trump declassified documents that show how the institutions within the U.S. government targeted him.  However, the institutions that illegally targeted President Trump are the same institutions who control the specific evidence of their unlawful targeting.

These examples of evidence held by President Donald Trump reveal the background of how the DC surveillance state exists.  THAT was/is the national security threat behind the DOJ-NSD search warrant and affidavit.

The risk to the fabric of the U.S. government is why we see lawyers and pundits so confused as they try to figure out the disproportionate response from the DOJ and FBI, toward “simple records”, held by President Trump in Mar-a-Lago.   Very few people can comprehend what has been done since January 2009, and the current state of corruption as it now exists amid all of the agencies and institutions of government.

Barack Obama spent 8 years building out and refining the political surveillance state.  The operators of the institutions have spent the last six years hiding the construct.

President Donald Trump declassified the material then took the evidence to Mar-a-Lago.  The people currently in charge of managing the corrupt system, like Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Chris Wray and the Senate allies, are going bananas.  From their DC perspective, Donald Trump is an existential threat.

Given the nature of their opposition, and the underlying motives for their conduct, there is almost nothing they will not do to protect themselves.  However, if you peel away all the layers of lies, manipulations and corruption, what you find at the heart of their conduct is fear.  The need for control is a reaction to fear.

What do they fear most?…

…..THIS!

People forget, and that’s ok, but prior to the 2015 MAGA movement driven by President Donald J Trump, political rallies filled with tens-of-thousands of people were extremely rare – almost nonexistent.  However, in the era of Donald J. Trump the scale of the people paying attention has grown exponentially.  Every speech, every event, every rally is now filled with thousands and thousands of people.

The frequency of it has made us numb to realizing just how extraordinary this is.  But the people in Washington DC are well aware, and that makes President Trump even more dangerous.  Combine that level of support with what they attempted in order to destroy him, and, well, now you start to put context on their effort.

The existence of Trump is a threat, but the existence of a Trump that could expose their corruption…. well, that makes him a level of threat that leads to a raid on his home in Mar-a-Lago.

Jun 7 2023

There is no Glory in the Grave


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Jun 7, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

“The working class of Europe has nothing to gain from this war and everything to lose,” Irish European Parliament member Clare Daly stated in October 2022. “I find it laughable that those who call for arms to Ukraine never call for arms for the people of Palestine, or for the people of Yemen.” She is right – the people have absolutely nothing to gain through endless wars. Some may say, “Oh but Palestine and Yemen do not border Europe.” The neocons led Europeans to believe that they were in danger of Russian aggression, as if Russia were on a conquest to conquer all of Europe. In truth, they knew that Russia only wanted to reclaim a piece of land that historically hosted Russian people. Europe at large was never in danger; they are now.

Clare Daly has been aggressively advocating to end the war in Ukraine. Daly spoke out in March 2023, declaring, “Ukraine is burning through a generation of men.” Zelensky is sending in troops with no formal training who are expected to fight his endless war. People cheer when they hear of a successful attack or new weapons coming in, but no one thinks of the Ukrainian and Russian men on the frontlines who will never return home.

Think of the teenagers who know in a few short years that they too will be expected to fight, with no other potential future. Ukrainian male students were prohibited by the Ukrainian Ministry from traveling abroad to study, as Zelensky needed them ready to fight to replace their older brothers and peers who may perish in battle. Yet Zelensky parades around in a military green shirt, forcing men to die, knowing he will not receive so much as a scratch.

“These are human beings, and there is a shameful lack of empathy for ordinary people in the war rhetoric in here. The debate is about keeping the war flowing to keep the war going,” Daly shouted. Peace was never an option for the West. Russia did in fact offer to hold discussions. They appeased Russia with the Minsk Agreement that they never intended to keep, as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted. Merkel said that the entire premise of the Minsk Agreement was to buy time to build up Ukraine’s military. War has always been the goal of the neocons. Russia was none the wiser of the grand plan until after they entered Ukraine.

Clare Daly has expressed how livid she is at the warmongers for continuing this war. It is a rare occurrence to see her speaking out on BBC or any major channels. She has questioned what it even means for Ukraine to “win” the war. “Ordinary people don’t win in wars, they’re cannon fodder in the games of others,” Daly said, “You can shout glory all you like, but there is no glory in the grave, and only graves come out of this folly.”

Jun 7 2023

Current State of Affairs


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ukraine Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

All my sources confirm it was the guy who wears the same T-Shirt to pretends he is defending democracy when he is not in his high-heels

Jun 7 2023

Tucker Carlson Emerges on Twitter to Deliver Monologue


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

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is locked in a contract dispute with his former network who took him off the air, but continues to enforce the contract he signed with them.  As the contract battle wages, and while litigation with the network continues, Carlson is limited in his options for platform broadcast.

As a result, Tucker Carlson’s personal Twitter account which existed prior to his Fox contract and is not subject to the terms and agreements, remains an outlet for him to use while not violating his non-compete clause.  Almost all other platforms represent what would be considered online competition to Fox Digital, so broadcasting a new show on any of those digital platforms would represent a potential legal issue and not an option. {Direct Rumble Link}

Tonight, Tucker Carlson aired a 10-minute monologue, what he calls “episode 1” from his Twitter account. While Tucker does not financially benefit from the Twitter platform, for the social media owner Elon Musk the broadcast represents much needed content oxygen. Tucker states at the end of his monologue that if Twitter suppresses or uses their internal fact-check mechanism known as ‘Community Notes‘ to control his content, he will exit the platform. WATCH: 

(Reuters) […] Ukraine and Russia blame each other for the collapse of the massive dam on Tuesday, which sent floodwaters across a swathe of the war zone and forced thousands to flee.  Ukraine said Russia committed a deliberate war crime in blowing up the Soviet-era Nova Kakhovka dam, which powered a hydroelectric station. The Kremlin blamed Ukraine, saying it was trying to distract from the launch of a major counteroffensive Moscow says is faltering. (more)

Elon Musk, who not coincidentally entered an ideological alignment with Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch on behalf of Ron DeSantis, has a vested financial interest in making sure his Community Notes police do not attach warnings and citations to the “controversial” dialogue of Carlson.  While there appears to be an ongoing CN notes war in the background, so far the Musk administrators have been able to keep the platform control agents from impeding the broadcast.

NOTE: CTH was tipped off last night that this broadcast by Tucker Carlson would likely take place today. As expected, the scraping of the Tucker video on to alternate distribution platforms took place. Hence, we are sharing the Rumble version of the Carlson broadcast.

Jun 6 2023

The Cloward-Piven Strategy


Aemstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Your reporting on the Red Cross and other organizations that facilitate the mass importation of illegals into America is well done. But its purpose is about more than just a move to import a bunch of Biden voters to help secure a second term.
Are you aware of the Cloward and Piven strategy? These were two communist professors who devised a plan to take down the capitalist structure of the United States through mass illegal migration that overwhelms U.S. social safety net programs and local governments. It is an intentional plan to collapse the U.S. and bring in a new (global) regime that will issue ‘guaranteed basic income’ to all.
I’ve never seen you comment on Cloward and Piven, would you care to share whether Socrates shows their plan will be successful?

REPLY:

The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
1. Overload and Break the Welfare System
2. Have Chaos Ensue
3. Take Control in the Chaos
4. Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force

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.”

This was a decade of political activism in America. The war in Vietnam was raging on and the alternative hippie lifestyle became prominent as people protested the violence. The Black Freedom Movement and the push for equal civil rights had peaked and helped to end the Jim Crow laws in the South by 1965. The LA race riots, also known as the Watts Rebellion, occurred in 1965 as well after the police beat a black man who was arrested for a DUI. That particular riot lasted for six days and led to 34 deaths, 1,032 injuries, and over 3,000 arrests. This began a string of riots in America where black Americans and supporters clashed with police, similar to the events that occurred after the death of George Floyd that started the Black Lives Matter movement.

We had major political activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. making real change in America. The intelligence agencies had a close eye on him, and his death in 1968 is a topic for another post. On the other side were the likes of Malcom X, who originally did not advocate for peace as King did. The cohesive movement fell apart with mass unrest and no one at the helm. The movement began with African Americans asking for basic human rights and understandable anger. The purpose of the movement, again similar to BLM, became lost, and the government aimed to use the civil unrest to its advantage.

“[T]he strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls,” the sociologists wrote in their theory. This theory aimed to overburden social programs at the state level to give the federal government the power to control the people.

“Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor.”

Cloward and Piven noted that civil unrest was necessary to create change and encouraged the government to antagonize the masses. “The poor are most visible and proximate in the local community; antagonism toward them (and toward the agencies which are implicated with them) has always, therefore, been more intense locally than at the federal level.” As the anger brews and protests erupt, the government will lasso in the masses, acted as both the hero and the villain.

“In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits, which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.”

Tell the people that they are victims and instill a sense of entitlement for their neighbor’s assets. Remind the people consistently that they are oppressed and only an equal distribution of wealth can save them from the confines of poverty. Cloward and Piven insisted that hard work could not “elevate the poor en-mass from poverty.”

“The ultimate objective of this strategy–to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income,” the theory clearly stated. The theory stated that the creation of unions was a good start to bargain collectively, but still not enough to solve poverty. “Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members,” the theory noted. “A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty,” meaning a shift away from capitalism entirely.

Cloward and Piven stated that a minimum standard of living must be provided to the people through federal welfare. That right must be guaranteed to end oppression, thereby ensuring Guaranteed Basic Income. Furthermore, there could be no conditions for benefits as it “results in violations of civil liberties.” Therefore, expecting able-bodied people to work would be an attack on the welfare system. The sociologists insisted that most people were in fact eligible for welfare and encouraged the government to advertise in brochures, schools, stores, churches, civic centers, and public housing projects. They even advised the government to send people door-to-door to explain to people that they are oppressed and deserving of GBI as a “civil education drive will lend it legitimacy.”

“As the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare.” To succeed, the shift away from capitalism required “mass influence” and “publicly visible disruption.” “Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest, which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognizable eruption to public attention.”

The bigger the crisis, the more power the government could usurp. They noted that politicians paid attention to massive uprisings, and they had been used to “reinforce the allegiance of growing ghetto constituencies to the national Democratic Administration.” The sociologists noted that the Conservative Republicans would decry a public welfare system and that the Democrats needed to appeal to the emotions of the people over logic. They also urged for “a coalition between poor whites and poor Negroes” to turn the race war into class warfare.

“Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.” Cloward and Piven wanted to overburden the welfare system at the state level to eliminate state rights. Therefore, under this theory, government is encouraged to market a crisis, antagonize the people, and offer a solution. The only solution being to replace capitalism with socialism or communism by which the people would be entirely dependent on government. You will own nothing and be happy.

Jun 6 2023

England to Roll Out Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot


Armstrong Economics Blog/BRITAIN Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

England will provide thirty individuals £1,600 per month to study Guaranteed Basic Income, also known as Universal Basic Income (UBI). The pilot program will monitor these individuals for two years to see how they put the money to use. As I noted in the blog post about the Cloward-Piven study, there must be no conditions for true Guaranteed Basic Income to work. That means that those chosen will effectively receive a “free” government handout at the expense of the working taxpayers.

The working taxpayers in lower earning brackets will likely look at those receiving free handouts and wonder how they too can get in on the scheme. “This is a substantial amount. Universal basic income usually covers people’s basic needs but we want to see what effect this unconditional lump sum has on people’s mental and physical health, whether they choose to work or not,” Will Stronge, the director of Autonomy thinktank, told the Guardian. “Our society is going to require some form of basic income in the coming years, given the tumult of climate change, tech disruption and industrial transition that lies ahead. This is why building the evidence base and public engagement now is so important, so the ground is well prepared for national implementation.”

They are already setting the precedent for a need for a welfare state. They’re purposely using a small sample size of 30 so that they do not need to show the drain the welfare system causes on the system. Those behind the social experiment claim UBI could eliminate poverty and create a perfect utopia. There is not ONE example in history where socialism has worked. Global governments have exacerbated inflation and the cost of living, and now they want you to rely on them for your needs solely. Socialism is never free. They will need to raise taxes and take from others to redistribute wealth, providing no incentive to work or for innovation to take place. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

Jun 6 2023

Eugenics in Europe – Women with Disabilities Forcibly Sterilized


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ethics Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The year is 2023 — our top leaders cannot define the term “woman,” so why should they be protected? We know about the ongoing eugenics program in Canada under the expansion of MAID, but no one discusses the forced sterilization of girls and women across the European Union. Yes, the European Union. People are in an uproar over abortion and how other countries treat women, but the West is a top human rights offender.

Women with disabilities may be forcibly sterilized across the European Union. Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, and Poland are the only countries that have criminalized the practice, with Spain also banning the practice in 2020. Portugal, Hungary, and the Czech Republic permit parents to sterilize their daughters without consent. “It is a very cruel form of domination, both of sexuality and reproduction,” María Eugenia Rodríguez Palop, Member of the European Parliament, told Euronews. The European Parliament will discuss the topic in July. Should women with disabilities be prohibited from procreating?

The countries that enforce these eugenics programs do not currently keep official data. It is a dirty stain that they do not want others to see. The EU points to other countries for their human rights abuses but turns a blind eye to the treatment of their own women.

This is clearly a eugenics program and an unethical form of population control. Hitler grouped people with disabilities into a class called “useless eaters” as they could not contribute to the economy. The European Union is also closely linked to the World Economic Forum. Yuval Noah Harari, a self-described historian and one of Schwab’s loudest mouthpieces, believes that we will see the rise of the “useless class.” There will be “a new massive useless class that has no military or economic usefulness, and therefore no political power,” he stated. This is another push toward the World Economic Forum’s goal of government control – you need us but we don’t need you.

Where is the international outcry for these girls and women forcibly undergoing sterilization in the West? Be on high alert when a global agency begins referring to portions of the population as “useless.”

Jun 6 2023

New York Times Gains Insider Information on Twitter Revenue, Expanded Financials Look Worse Than Former Estimates


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

The New York Times has gained insider information on the current advertising revenue for the social media platform Twitter. [Article Here]  Ignoring the nonsense narrative engineering and just focusing on the data itself, the revenue side for Twitter is half what we previously estimated.  This makes the overlay for decisions on platform content even more stark.

According to the data, ad revenue for the month of April was a lackluster $88 million.  That’s a pace of just over $1 billion a year.  With a pre-Musk operating expense of $4.5 billion, and pre-Musk revenue at $4 billion cited by the Twitter owner as the backdrop, here’s the outlook.

Assuming post Musk labor cost reductions saved $500 million, a decline in revenue to $1 billion/yr would be a $3.0 billion deficit, to wit you would need to add the $1.5 billion in debt service as part of the investor buyout structure.

That puts Twitter into a $4.5 billion loss ballpark per year.

This is the high end of what Musk previously estimated in public statements.  Now we see why.

(New York Times) – Twitter’s U.S. advertising revenue for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May was $88 million, down 59 percent from a year earlier, according to an internal presentation obtained by The New York Times.  (read more)

$1 billion per year in advertising revenue is a whopping 75% loss from the claimed $4 billion in revenue before the Musk purchase.  Perhaps the Fidelity estimate of company value at $15 billion is closer to reality.

If the value of Twitter has dropped to the $15 billion level, that means almost all of the $30 billion in personal equity Musk put into the company has been lost.

Current investor debt is $12.5 billion, with $1.5 billion in debt service/yr. A valuation of $15 billion would only leave Musk with around $2.5 billion in equity position.  If the valuation is accurate, Musk personally would have lost around $27.5 billion in this Twitter platform purchase.

The last time I outlined the Twitter financial position, several people took exception to the data as shared.  However, the data is from Elon Musk himself, and I will again post the video at the bottom of the article.

Revenue is now Elon Musk’s #1 priority.  All other platform decisions are going through the prism of financial viability.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk has provided some convincing commentary about his willingness to forgo revenue in order to retain “free speech.” However, more recently he has qualified that outlook by saying, “Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach.”  Musk noting Twitter will block, remove, censor, shadow ban, deboost, downrank and stop content from amplifying based on the determination of those in charge of Twitter content.

This controlled “freedom of reach” perspective, which is really shadow-banning in practice, is generally accepted and now admitted.  Against this backdrop, it becomes important to understand the priorities of the platform to understand the guidelines of the platform.  Within this context the financials are key to understanding what elements are included within “approved content.” {GO DEEP}

Twitter is now a private company, therefore understanding the financials of Twitter is a little more challenging than when they were required to post their financial statements publicly.  However, Elon Musk gave an interview with the Babylon Bee yesterday and revealed some of the internal financial challenges. [VIDEO HERE]  I am going to summarize the status of the Twitter financial position according to what Musk himself revealed.

♦ Twitter was initially purchased by Musk and his investors for around $44 billion.  The company now estimates its value around $20 billion. Last week, the mutual funds giant Fidelity, which owns shares in Twitter, valued the company at $15 billion. Bottom line, Musk grossly overpaid.

♦ Musk put roughly $30 billions of his own net worth into the purchase and financed the rest.

♦ Current outstanding debt on the financing for the purchase is around $12.5 billion. Per Musk statement.

♦ Current debt service, interest on the loans (from investors), is roughly $1.5 billion/yr.  $120.5 million per month for debt service.  Per Musk statement.

♦ Previous revenue (when public) was roughly $4 billion/yr.  Twitter was generally breaking even.

♦ Advertising revenue, as a result of changes in industry in combination with concerns about Twitter, are “half” what they were during the acquisition phase, per Musk statement.  That puts current advertising revenue around $2 billion/yr. Per NYT report that’s now $1 billion/yr.

♦ Per conversation, current status of Twitter is -$3 billion/yr and could be as high as -$4 to 5 billion/yr.

The NYT revenue leak now makes the top side of this scale make sense.  If $4 billion in revenue was generally the breakeven point (before acquisition), and now they have $2 billion $1 billion in revenue and $1.5 billion in additional debt service [as they trim operational costs (including labor) to offset].

♦♦ For the bottom line to be an operational loss of $3 to $5 billion (est) per year, Twitter is generally losing around $300 million per month.

♦ There is only so much Tesla stock Musk can sell to support Twitter.  He has limits. Per conversation.

♦ Twitter has around $1 billion in liquid cash available. Per conversation.  With a burn rate of $300+ million a month.

Twitter is in locked contracts with AWS and Google cloud services through 2025 at roughly $300 million per year for both [AWS $100 million, Goog $200 million].

Twitter Blue subscriptions are around 180,000 users, paying $11/mo.  That’s around $2 million a month; pittance in comparison to what he needs.

There’s your prism for platform content!

Elon Musk needs revenue desperately.

Twitter urgently needs advertising revenue.

Without revenue or acquisition of another platform (with assets) to offset the current status of Twitter, it is only a matter of time before some form of bankruptcy.   [Note, Twitter investors are backstopped with Tesla/SpaceX as collateral against default.]

The tightrope… Elon Musk must appease the Google advertising control agents and adhere to content rules and regulation (DEI etc.) in order to maximize his revenue.  That’s where Linda Yaccarino comes in as a critical player.

Bottom line, Musk has to make decisions through one prism, THE ECONOMICS.  Musk’s decision-making, pro freedom or not, is constrained by this financial dependency. Hence, a lot of the platform censorship elements remain (including some personnel) and now the outreach to appoint Google/WEF approved Linda Yaccarino in an effort to enhance the revenue.

When you are perplexed about Musk decision making….  THERE’S YOUR ANSWER.

The recent relationship between Elon Musk and the Rupert Murdoch media enterprise, now makes even more sense.

Musk discusses the financials:

Jun 6 2023

Overnight, the Western Press Radically Rewrote the Truth About Ukraine to Serve Biden’s Endless War Policies | SYSTEM UPDATE #92


Glenn Greenwald Posted originally on Rumble Jun 5, 7:04 pm EDT