Posted originally on the CTH on December 5, 2022 | Sundance
President Donald Trump came under massive amounts of fire recently for saying, “So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
What President Trump is noting, is the exact same reason why Kari Lake’s lawsuit, like every other election lawsuit before it, will fail. Our U.S. Constitution permits election fraud and manipulation, as long as that state level election fraud and manipulation does not break federal law. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:
Obviously, it would be frustrating for President Trump to ask legal advisors what can be done about certified results from fraudulently constructed elections. The reply from the legal advisors around the state certification would frustrate anybody, because the constitution permits fraudulent elections. The decision on how to conduct elections is entirely up to the states.
The states, via state legislature, determine their election rules, laws and outcomes that eventually lead to state certification. If a state wants to block voters, impede voters, or manipulate the voting outcome, there is generally nothing in federal law to stop them – as long as the state or county does not break federal laws protecting classes or protected categories of persons.
Federal law generally prohibits disenfranchisement of people based on race, age, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation and disability, along with other categories.
Federal law does not prohibit disenfranchisement based on ideology, political affiliation or outlook. If a state or local election system wants to block voters based on affiliation or ideology, they can…. as long as it doesn’t have a disparate impact on the protected category.
If a state legislature wanted to assign 1/2 value to each Republican vote, there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit that rule.
If a state election outcome results in the loss of 50% of the republican votes in the local or state election, there is nothing in the federal law that would correct the issue. The state is responsible for certifying the results.
The supreme court will not hear an election controversy issue or legal challenge based on certified results from states. The constitution permits states to conduct their own elections, and as long as federal laws are not violated, the state certification ends the discussion. This is the great dichotomy within U.S. election around election manipulation by a state or local election officials. There is no federal recourse if no federally protected category was adversely impacted.
The DNC argues election disenfranchisement, rules, dates, times, locations, etc based entirely on protected federal categories, ie. the date or method of the election has an adverse impact to a specifically protected category of racial minorities. This is the typical DNC lawsuit.
EX. the RNC or DNC candidates have no legal footing to sue in federal court if everyone wearing a green shirt was turned away from county polling locations; unless they can prove that a green shirt was worn by a higher percentage of a protected category of persons (i.e., disparate impact).
Additionally, due to the private nature of the corporations that run candidates, notably the RNC and DNC, there is also no prohibition to stop the RNC or DNC from disapproving candidates unless they also were discriminating based on a protected category. Not coincidentally, political parties are not recognized in the U.S. constitution.
This election reality is why control over state level elections is where the battle has to be fought. Once a state certifies the election outcome, there is almost no way the federal courts can/will intervene unless the lawsuit is based on a claim that federally protected voters were specifically targeted.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance
In a move that could have considerable consequences for the future of the Republican party, Politico is reporting that Harmeet Dhillon is considering a challenge to Ronna McDaniel for the RNC chair position.
Ronna McDaniel said she was going to run for reelection to the RNC chair post despite dismal performance by the national organization against the DNC ballot gathering operation. Additionally, the trust factor between the RNC and the voting base of the party, specifically the MAGA base, has completely evaporated. The RNC has focused more on raising money than supporting elections and candidates.
Previously, New York Congressman Lee Zeldin said he was considering a challenge, and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell announced his full intent to challenge McDaniel for the role and responsibility. Into this dynamic now steps Harmeet Dhillon.
As a party insider, Harmeet Dhillon would represent a significant threat to the Ronna McDaniel wing of the RNC as many members who may not support Zeldin or Lindell would likely support Dhillon over McDaniel.
Arguably, Ronna McDaniel was motivated by self-preservation and using a proclaimed reformer, albeit RNC contracted legal advisor, Harmeet Dhillon, to put a coat of new paint over the corrupt and failed RNC vehicle. Dhillon and Barbour playing a role for the RNC as a failed institution similar to the tamp-down efforts of Bill Barr and John Durham at the DOJ.
In their article, Politico avoids mentioning the financial relationship between Dhillon Law and the RNC. By the time 2022 is completed, the Republican National Committee will likely have paid Dhillon Law over a million dollars for services rendered.
We previously wondered how Harmeet Dhillon was going to vote against the reelection of Ronna McDaniel who is effectively her employer. Obviously, there is a conflict of interest inside the financial dynamic overall.
Ms. Dhillon, claiming all of her work for the RNC was/is voluntary, was furious at criticism over her self-promoted relationship with the notoriously corrupt Henry Barbour, and then secondarily angered by public knowledge about her financial relationship with the RNC.
(Politico) Ronna McDaniel is about to draw a challenge to her post as Republican National Committee chair.
Harmeet Dhillon, a RNC committeewoman whose firm represents Donald Trump, is prepping a bid for party chair, according to two people familiar with her planning. Dhillon has been talking with fellow RNC members about a prospective run, and those close to Dhillon say a formal launch could come within the next few days.
“After three successive terms of underwhelming results at the polls for the GOP, all the while with leaders congratulating ourselves for outstanding performance, I feel that we owe it to our voters to have a serious debate about the leadership of the party and what we must change to actually win in 2024,” Dhillon said in a statement.
A Dhillon candidacy would mark the most serious challenge to McDaniel to date.
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who ran an unsuccessful bid for New York governor, has also said he is considering a bid, though he has yet to declare his candidacy. Mike Lindell, the MyPillow executive and Trump backer who has risen to prominence through his denial of the 2020 election outcome, has launched a longshot campaign for the post.
The committee’s 168 members will hold a vote to determine the RNC chairmanship at the committee’s annual winter meeting, which is set to be held in late January in Dana Point, Calif. A McDaniel representative declined to comment on Dhillon’s anticipated candidacy.
McDaniel, who has been RNC leader since 2017 and would be the longest-serving chair in more than a century should she be reelected to a third term, may be tough to unseat. Her allies say she has already received commitments of support from more than 100 members — more than the majority of votes she would need. On Friday, McDaniel received an endorsement from David Bossie, an influential Maryland RNC committeeman once seen as a potential contender for the chairmanship. Trump himself has not endorsed.
People close to Dhillon, however, insist that McDaniel’s support is soft and that she could win over those who are unhappy with the party’s disappointing showing in this year’s midterms. (read more)
It is likely that Harmeet Dhillon could fracture the support base for Ronna McDaniel at the RNC.
What is lesser known is the difference that might exist within the organization if Dhillon replaced McDaniel.
The DNC wants power. The RNC wants money. The DNC uses money to get power. The RNC uses power to get money.
The ideology of the DNC drives their donor activity. The donor activity of the RNC drives their ideology. This is the essential difference.
The priority of the DNC is to win elections, assemble power and by extension control the mechanisms that deliver them wealth. The priority of the RNC is money, and by extension winning elections is not the most important thing. The priority of the RNC is the accumulation of wealth for itself.
The DNC has ideology as their core mission objective, that focus drives their fundraising and ballot collection. In this approach the ideology remains consistent. However, the RNC has monetary gain as their core mission objective, and that drives their ideology. The RNC ideology is therefore subject to being purchased by the desires of the current biggest buyer.
The democrats want power. The republicans want money. The DNC uses money to get power. The RNC uses power to get money.
Every single decision by Ronna McDaniel emphasized this RNC dynamic over the past six years. Would the RNC prioritization of money change under Harmeet Dhillon? Some might say yes, but Dhillon’s aversion to sunlight on her paid role for the RNC points to an answer by itself.
The biggest issue within the dynamic of the RNC is the lack of honesty, transparency and clear-thinking stewardship. The RNC regards republican voters as annoyances to be overcome and managed in the assembly of their priority, money. Harmeet Dhillon has expressed on her social media she wants to change this dynamic. However, change comes first by looking in the mirror and dropping the conflicts of interest.
Ronna McDaniel, Harmeet Dhillon, Mike Lindell and possibly Lee Zeldin.
If honesty, integrity and a willingness to take slings and arrows in defense of the country are the main organizational attributes desired in an RNC leader, you can look at the names and make the prediction. However, if the priority of RNC members is the desire to continue business operation for maximum financial gain, that too is predictable.
Money, it’s what the modern RNC is all about. Nothing else has mattered in the past 15+ years.
Given the outcome of the November election, I don’t see that priority changing. However, given the outcome of 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022, maybe there is enough pressure now to change it.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance
Incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (U-DC) appears with Maria Bartiromo to promise House investigations of the Biden Laptop and Twitter Files from Elon Musk.
Kentucky’s best and brightest DC republican, and formidable letter writer, becomes the 5th Republican Chairman in the past ten years on the Oversight Committee to promise investigations and accountability based on demonstrable corruption. Chairman Comer is very concerned about the possibility of corruption. Additionally, Comer is very excited to get into the details of the Elon Musk “Twitter Files” and explore all the investigative possibilities they provide.
Finally, on an issue close to the personal interest of Mr. Comer, he states his desire to investigate the Joe Biden energy policy. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance
Sooner or later someone, if not Donald Trump, is going to have to start a second party.
Appearing on CBS with Margaret Brennan, incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner walks through the priorities of the new HPSCI committee, to include that President Trump is horrible, Ukraine President Zelenskyy is awesome, Joe Biden is doing an awesome job and Ukraine needs more U.S. money and weapons.
If you listen closely, you might even catch the part where Mike Turner says he is working swimmingly with current HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and current Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner. Yes, folks, you just cannot make this stuff up. Ms. Brennan is absolutely smitten with Mr. Turner, he’s an acceptable republican. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we turn now to Ohio Congressman Mike Turner, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Turner, good to have you here in person.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Thank you. Yes. It’s great to be here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So just yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said that Russia was perhaps struggling to keep up with the amount of munitions that it’s using in this war in Ukraine, the cold weather is slowing combat. The Secretary of State, though, didn’t really give hope for diplomacy at this moment. Given what you know, when will this war end?
REP. TURNER: Well, the one thing that we know is that the- the gains that Ukraine is making are real, they’re real in the battlefield. They’re real in the support that they have around the world, they have with democracies on the floor of the United Nations, in condemning this aggression by Russia. But Ukraine really has to be the one that decides that if, when, and how negotiations are entered into, and at this point, you know, they’re battling for their country. They’re losing lives for democracy. President Zelenskyy says, I was just in Ukraine, just before the elections, he says openly, he understands that he’s the frontlines for democracy, and he’s fighting an authoritarian regime. And I think, you know, obviously, Russia has to reevaluate how they look at this conflict and how Putin looks at what he has started–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you agree with the administration on this?
REP. TURNER: I agree absolutely. That this is, this is something where, that this is a war of aggression, that Russia needs to reevaluate and to withdraw from Ukraine.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve said, because you are poised to run the intelligence committees since you are at the top Republican when Republicans take control in January. Is this going to be an area where as you promised, you can take politics out of it and actually work across the aisle? What does that mean?
REP. TURNER: Right. So, you know, we’ve, when I went we went on a bipartisan trip to deliver to President Zelenskyy a message that there’s bipartisan support for Ukraine. I think there’s a number of issues that we’re going to be working on a bipartisan basis. What should the United States policy be? How do we make certain that the I serve on the Armed Service Committee and the Intelligence Committee? How do we make certain that they get the weapon systems that they need? How do we hold together this world alliance that-that we have where the world is condemning what Russia is doing? And of course, the expansion of NATO, we’re looking forward to Sweden and Finland, joining NATO, which is the opposite of what Putin believed he was going to achieve and attacking Ukraine. He’s now sees the expansion by two valuable partners with great military capabilities joining NATO.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to show our viewers some pretty extraordinary video that the Pentagon unveiled this week, a B-21 Raider. It’s the first US nuclear stealth bomber aircraft in more than 30 years. And it’s being packaged as this deterrent to Chin- to China. How concerned are you about the pace of Beijing’s nuclear development?
REP. TURNER: Extremely, and I want to co-co-commend the-the administration because they’ve been very forward leaning in releasing and declassifying information about what China is doing. They are expanding their nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons capabilities, their ICBMs that are targeting the United States. This plane is incredibly important. I served as chair of the air and land subcommittee as we, on a classified basis, began the process of working on this plane. And it gives us an additional balance, because it’s an additional delivery vehicle, additional way to combat what China’s doing–
MARGARET BRENNAN: to drop nuclear weapons?
REP. TURNER: to cause people not to drop nuclear weapons. I mean, that’s what’s so–
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s- it’s really the deterrent.
REP. TURNER: Right. It is to make certain that the balance of power is there so that people understand that the-that the cost is just too great. When China is expanding the nuclear weapons, they’re looking at United States if we blink if we don’t, if we don’t respond, and they assume that they can get first strike capabilities that not only holds us at bay, but really holds us at risk, because then you have the leader of a nuclear power that might make that miscalculation and of course, cost unfathomable lives.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You talked about being open about intelligence. I’m wondering, in your new role, will you be asking the Director of National Intelligence for a briefing and a damage assessment related to Mar-a-Lago and the documents the former president took to his private home?
REP. TURNER: That’s already in process. I mean, we’ve already talked–
MARGARET BRENNAN: It hasn’t happened. In the new Congress will you ask for it?
[CROSS TALK]
REP. TURNER: Yes. I’ve just talked to the director of national intelligence about this particular issue. One issue that we have discussed with the director, which is very, very interesting is is that, you know, prior to the Mar-a-Lago and raid, no one in the intelligence community or in the national security community was engaged at all by the FBI to request an assessment as to what the risk of the documents that had been surrendered from Mar-a-Lago,or that might have been at Mar-a-Lago, or that were even perceived as being missing–
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you the Justice Department–
[CROSS TALK]
REP. TURNER: This was just the FBI and the and the archivist, which is basically a glorified librarian, coming together and deciding to raid Mar-a-Lago. Now-
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re not downplaying that taking classified material to your private home is a problem particularly for the commander in chief.
REP. TURNER: Absolutely not. There were just- there were other options that the FBI had versus the escalation that- that they did. That’s certainly going to be one of the questions we have. The Director of National Intelligence indicated they have conducted their risk assessment, and they are prepared to give both of our committees on the Senate and the House presentations as to what those are–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you have a sense of when or what the scale of the damage is?
REP. TURNER: At this point it’s just a scheduling issue. We just had a meeting with the director, but both Sen. Warner, myself and Adam Schiff. And as they look to how do we get everybody scheduled together, and those who’ve done the assessment, because again, it’s not just a director that will be coming–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REP. TURNER: They’ll have to come forward to give us, what did they see, what did they have, and how do they perceive the threat that may or may not have existed from some of these documents.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This may seem a basic question, but all elected leaders swear to uphold the Constitution. Does calling for its suspension, is that disqualifying for a presidential candidate?
REP. TURNER: It’s certainly not consistent–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You know why I’m asking this question?
REP. TURNER: I do. It’s certainly not consistent with the oath that we all take.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So yesterday, the front runner for the Republican nomination, the standard bearer for your party, posted on Truth Social, and we know he lost the 2020 election, but continues to claim he did not. “A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” Should the standard bearer for the Republican Party, the front runner for the nomination for the presidency for your party in 2024, say this?
REP. TURNER: Well, I you know, I, first of all, I vehemently disagree with- with the statement that Trump has made. Trump has made, you know, 1,000 statements in which I disagree. There is a political process that has to go forward before anybody–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Constitutional conservatives are pretty clear about where they value the constitution–
REP. TURNER: Exactly. There has to be–
[CROSSTALK]
REP. TURNER: You do get picked questions, but I do get to pick my answer.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I know. I’m trying to get you to answer the question I’m asking.
REP. TURNER: There is a political process that has to go for before anybody’s a front runner or anybody is a- even the candidate for the party–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you condemn him saying something like this?
REP. TURNER: Absolutely. And I believe answering your question that people certainly are going to take into consideration a statement like this as they evaluate a candidate.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I also have to ask you about the other statement and the people that he has been spending time with, a neo-Nazi, pro-Putin misogynist, named Nick Fuentes came to have dinner with the former president at his home alongside Kanye West who just this past week, praised Hitler.
REP. TURNER: This is atrocious. This is- everybody I think- everyone both condemns and is shocked and is as disgusted and nauseated by the fact that we’re even in this year, in 2022, having anyone that would make statements like that, nevertheless, have anybody who would engage in a conversation with someone who’s having- making statements like that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So having classified documents at the same place where they’re having the dinner–
REP. TURNER: Well that’s- that’s not–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –which we’re not necessarily securely held, and they’re government records that should be in government property, all those things together, it’s a problem.
REP. TURNER: Well, as you know, the FBI raided his home, and I suppose there are not classified documents there. But all of these are issues of judgment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The president is saying he doesn’t know who he’s having dinner with at that home.
REP. TURNER: These are all issues of judgment, and a political process has to go forward. And I believe voters are smart, and they’ll take those things into consideration in a political process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman, thank you for coming on and answering questions. We’ll be back in just one minute so stay with us. {End Transcript}
Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance
Appearing on CBS with Margaret Brennan, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama’s fellow traveler and wingman in the fundamental change process, stated his belief the progressive movement and Biden administration has adequately prepared the nation to “absorb” the political violence that may surface as the result of an arrest of former President Donald Trump.
The rather remarkable admission and statement comes at approximately 06:30 of the video interview below where Margaret Brennan reads her prepared script and questions Eric Holder about such a divisive decision by a comprehensively corrupt U.S. justice system. The statement also comes on the heels of an 11th circuit appeals court ruling that removed the court ordered ‘Special Master’ in the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents case.
In the Mar-a-Lago case the 11th circuit court stated if the search warrant was legally predicated, and if the search warrant was legally executed, then all of the proceeds from the search warrant were legally valid as investigative outcomes – and no special master is needed. However, President Trump is not allowed to see the search warrant, nor are his lawyers allowed to see the predicate affidavit that underpins the search warrant, and they are not permitted to see what documents were seized by the FBI.
In essence, if the secret and general warrant was legal, then all seizure is legal, but you are not allowed to see the secret and general warrant. Former AG Eric Holder rejoices in this judicial ruling as he evaluates the ability of the nation to “absorb” an arrest of Donald Trump based on that justice system position. WATCH:
If you read between the lines, and know how Holder (Obama Inc) operate, you can see what Obama structured Deputy AG Lisa Monaco has to do. Monaco will coordinate the timing of the arrest and indictment of Hunter Biden to coincide with the arrest and indictment of President Trump. This will provide the narrative of blind justice the DOJ will attempt to leverage to stop national reaction.
There’s actually a lot in this interview. Eric Holder doesn’t surface accidentally; he is preparing the Lawfare landscape.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to former Attorney General Eric Holder. He now heads up the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. And he has a book, “Our Unfinished March,” which examines the current state of America’s democracy. Welcome back to the program.
ERIC HOLDER: Good to see you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have a number of things I want to get to with you. But I want to start on something I know is immediate this week. An organization that you run that we mentioned here that focuses on redistricting is involved in a Supreme Court case, Moore v. Harper. It’s going to be heard on the seventh of this week. And it boils down as I understand it to the question of what the Constitution means when it assigns state legislatures the task of regulating elections. That sounds really wonky, but you phrased it as the future of democracy being at stake. What are you worried is actually going to happen here?
HOLDER: Yeah, this case is all about something called the independent state legislature doctrine. It’s a fringe theory that North Carolina Republicans are trying to use to make sure that the North Carolina Republican legislature has the sole responsibility of doing redistricting in the state and excluding from that determination the state court system. It is something that if the Supreme Court goes along with it, would really upend our system of checks and balances. And it’s for that reason that I am extremely concerned. It is a fringe theory, this is something that if the Court I think does the right thing, you should have a nine to zero opinion by the court that rejects this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine that has been rejected by conservative scholars, by practicing Republican lawyers, by former Republican judges, and by this conference of state supreme court justices, as well. This is a very, very dangerous theory. It would put our system of checks and balances at risk.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there were a number of Democratic senators who actually filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not even to hear the case. So there are some heavy hitters here saying don’t even talk about it. What does that tell you about the potential harm here? I mean, is there value in the Supreme Court hearing this and striking it down? Or does them hearing it at all indicate something more to you?
HOLDER: Yeah, it’s hard for me to see how this case was ever taken by the Court. I think the better thing would have been for the court to simply have rejected it. But now having taken the case, I would hope that the Court would drive a stake through this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine and get it off the- off the books and out of our consideration, once and for all. It truly is, I cannot emphasize this enough. It truly is a fringe theory that should result in a nine to zero rejection of the- of the theory.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So we mentioned you’re working on redistricting. Democrats are suing to overturn congressional maps in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio and Texas. I read a quote from you in the Washington Post that said the work you’ve been doing on redistricting has paid off in the most recent midterms. Do you think that your legal battles will help Democrats make gains in 2024? What are you trying to say there?
HOLDER: Yeah, I think that what we have seen, there been studies that said that we have had the most fair redistricting process in the last 40 years as a result of the work that we’ve done. 75% of the redistricting is considered to be fair, which also means that 25% of it is unfair, and that is still problematic. I think, for instance, the House of Representatives is going to be in play for the entirety of this decade, very contrary to where it was in the past decade where after the successful Republican gerrymandering that occurred in 2011 and in 2012, it was really difficult for Democrats to take the House back. I think Democrats will be able to take the House back as early as 2024. But it doesn’t ensure what we have done doesn’t ensure the Democrats are going to hold on to the House for the entirety of the decade. It will be for the American people to decide. Fairness will reign in that determination.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When you were last on this program in May you shared at the time that you had changed your mind recently that you did believe that the Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland should hold former President Trump accountable for his actions. You previously thought it would be too divisive for the country. Now, where we are with this special counsel, what is your assessment? And how should Merrick Garland, who has to ultimately decide, weigh the question of a risk to political violence in this country from any decision he makes regarding the former president?
HOLDER: Well, I think the Attorney General has said it quite well, that he’ll make the determination without fear or favor. There is- Everybody has to be held accountable for the same system. The determination that he’s going to have to make will have to be based on the facts and the law. And we’ll just have to deal with the consequences. The reality is that if he makes a determination one way or the other, it is going to be divisive. And so the best thing simply is to make sure that everybody who is under consideration for possible criminal treatment, including the former president, is treated just like every other American. And that’s what that opinion out of the Circuit Court this week essentially said that you can’t craft things. As a district court judge you can’t craft things for a former president that don’t exist for regular American citizens. Treat everybody in the same way, make the determination based on the facts and the law. And the United States, I think, has the capacity to absorb a possible indictment and to deal with it fairly and to get on with the business of the country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: As someone who’s been an attorney general, I wonder as well, how you think about the case before the U.S. District Attorney in Delaware regarding President Biden’s son Hunter. CBS has reported the FBI has sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun related crimes. How would you handle this? A plea deal? Is the Attorney General boxed in to take a hard-line position because of working for the President?
HOLDER: No, I mean, you have- they left in place, the Republican, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney in Delaware to consider the case. You’ve got career lawyers working on it, career FBI agents. You want to listen to their recommendations and then again, make a determination based on the facts and the law. The defendant should not be treated any more harshly because of who he is, who he is related to, should not be given breaks because of who he is or who he is related to. He should be treated as former President Trump should be treated, just like any other American citizen. If there is culpability, that person should be held liable for his or her acts. And if there is not a basis for a case, a case should not be brought.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But it will ultimately come to the Attorney General’s desk.
HOLDER: That’s certainly the way I would have run the Justice Department. And my guess is also that that would be something that Merrick Garland will be doing as well. That determination will be made I suspect in Washington, D.C.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. General Holder, thank you very much for your time today. [End Transcript]
On the election stuff…. Holder is moving to phase 2
REFERENCE and CONTEXT is critical to understanding.
PHASE 1 – After Eric Holder left the Obama administration as Attorney General, he was hired by the State of California to defend against the Trump administration in early January 2017 (LINK).
Why?
When Eric Holder left the Obama administration, his firm was contracted by California during a process of linking the motor vehicle registration files to the Secretary of State voter registration system. Holder was advising on part of a technology system being constructed to bridge the DMV and SoS offices. You might know this as a “Motor/Voter” process. However, former AG Eric Holder had a very specific function in the construction of this technology bridge.
The process of adding voters to the registration rolls when they receive or update their driver’s license was seen as an opportunity to expand the voter rolls. Making the voter rolls as big as possible is the key to the utilization of mass mail-out balloting. I will skip the part where California started giving illegal aliens drivers licenses for a moment – you can obviously see how that would play with motor/voter rolls – instead I am choosing just to focus on the specifics of the Holder aspect.
The DMV needed to connect to the SoS office. This was simply a part of a tech system that needed to be built. CTH has previously spoken with the lead engineer, a member of a very small technology group, who worked in the California information technology (IT) unit that was tasked with building the system that connected the DMV to the SOS. [NOTE: I invite the state of California to sue me as they will likely claim what you are about to read is not true.]
In the process of connecting the two state networks together, there needed to be a “flag”, essentially a check box, where the applicant to the DMV would attest to being legally authorized to vote. It is a positive affirmation, a check box, that says the Driver’s License holder affirms they are legally eligible to vote. That affirmation (the technical flag in the process), when affirmed, then transmits the information to the SoS office with the DL operator identity, and the California driver is automatically added to the SoS rolls and registered to vote.
During the time when Eric Holder was the legal counsel for the California Secretary of State, the technology team was constructing the internal data processing systems.
The lead engineer in the unit was instructed to code the data transfer in such a way that even if the “check box” was left unchecked, the registration data would transmit from the DMV to the SoS office.
Essentially, instead of only those who affirmed their legal eligibility by checking the box, everyone -including those who did not check the box- would get a DL and would automatically have their information transmitted to the SoS office. Everyone who received a driver’s license or state issued id was automatically going to be registered to vote, regardless of their legally authorized status. That request led the engineer to contact me.
I wrote about it, published the details, then the engineer freaked out as he/she realized there was only a very limited number of people who could expose the issue. He/She was worried about his/her safety and family and asked me to remove the article. This background is how I know the details of who, what, when and why the California mass mailing ballot process was being constructed.
In the 2018 midterm elections we all watched the outcome of that process surface in the weeks following election day. As each day passed more and more California mail-in ballots were being counted and day-by-day Republicans who won on election day 2018 watched their lead evaporate.
What happened in the California 2018 midterm election surrounding state-wide ballot distribution, collection (harvesting) and eventual presentation to the counting and tabulation facilities, was the BETA test for the 2020 covid-inspired national ballot mailing process.
The outcome we are seeing from the 2022 midterm ballot collection program was not just similar to the 2020 general election ballot collection program, it is a direct outcome of the refined BETA test from 2018. Now we have multiple states following the California mass distribution of ballots approach. Washington state, California, Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, there’s a long list.
In many states mass mailing of ballots is now codified in election law. Activist election lawyer Marc Elias now coming in behind the construction team of Eric Holder with the legal arguments to support the ballot collection programs.
The Importance of Election Rolls – As you can see from the California initiation point (Motor/Voter), in order to most effectively use the mass distribution of ballots as an electioneering process you first need a massive state secretary voter file in order to generate, then mail, the physical ballots.
Remember, votes require people – ballots require systems.
Any institutional system that can link people into the SoS system to generate a larger registration file for ballot distribution is a net positive. The key point is not to generate voters, the key is to generate ballots – the more the better. Mass printing of ballots is the origin of the electioneering process.
Any state or federal system that links a physical identity to the secretary of state voter rolls is good. Any system, like the USPS postal change of address system, that would remove physical identities from the state voter rolls is not useful. The goal is to maximize the number of systems that generate registration, that eventually generates ballots.
Beyond the Driver’s License issue, it’s everything. Sign up for public assistance, get registered to vote. Sign up for state benefits, get registered to vote. Sign up for a state id, get registered to vote. Sign up for state college, get registered to vote. Sign up for a grant, get registered to vote. Sign up for unemployment, get registered to vote. Sign up for any state system and get registered to vote. Get married, change names, change addresses, etc, that’s how the voter rolls expand and that’s how the massive distribution of ballots is created.
The states then fight against anything, any effort, any process, that would purge voter rolls or fix incorrect voting rolls. To use the new electioneering system, the system operators need ballots created, they no longer need votes. They need ballots.
Downstream from this process that’s where you find the “ballot submission assistance” programs. This is where the local community networks, regional activist groups and widespread community organizers come into play. Instead of advertising or the previous electioneering systems around candidate promotion and Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts, the majority of donations to the DNC are now used in the ballot assistance programs. This was phase 1.
PHASE 2 – What Eric Holder is describing as his “victories so far”, is the codification of phase 1 together with controlling the geographic process for ballot collection.
Forget votes. Congressional districts (CD’s) need to be looked at as ballot gateways.
Zip codes are where the importance exists for phase 2.
On a congressional district level, the problem for ballot use is the lack of ballots in certain areas. Moving forward, ballots that DNC activists can gather and control need to come from geographic regions where they can impact congressional representation. CD’s now need to be looked at as district mail regions to modify so that zip codes can determine election outcomes.
With ballot collection and assembly as the new process, congressional districting maps are no longer important from a representation standpoint, now the priority needs to be zip code representation.
Mass distribution ballots need to go to addresses in zip codes in order for them to be harvested to change the congressional district representation.
Now that elections are based on ballots and not votes, zip code control is where the action is.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 4, 2022 | Sundance
Appearing with Maria Bartiromo, California Representative Kevin McCarthy discusses the opportunities and challenges for the republican caucus as his own effort to become Speaker of the House is impeded by conservative republicans in legislature.
McCarthy notes a conversation last week with Joe Biden and the upcoming reauthorization for defense spending that will likely remove the COVID vaccine mandate. Additionally, McCarthy discusses the removal of Adam Schiff from the HPSCI and how that removal connects to the latest revelations about people within the intelligence community who purposefully lied about the Hunter Biden laptop in order to interfere in the 2020 election. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on December 2, 2022 | Sundance
A former target of the Twitter speech police, actor James Woods, calls in to the Tucker Carlson broadcast tonight after the release of the Twitter files. {Direct Rumble Link}
Mr. Woods gives his first reaction to discovering the Biden campaign and government employees had access to Twitter for content removal. Mr. Woods states he intends to sue the DNC and Biden Campaign for his personal targeting as outlined by the Twitter document release. WATCH:
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 