Posted on December 18, 2020 by Sundance

I respect Dinesh D’Souza.  However, on this issue I also disagree intensely.

The foundation of D’Souza’s reason for why he does not support a new political party, a MAGA or Patriot or (__fill in blank__) party, appears flawed.  By saying a new party would only split the GOP, D’Souza is actually making the argument that creates Battered Conservative Syndrome; the DeceptiCon argument that protects the GOP wing. WATCH:

When the Tea Party rose to power and primaried a host of GOP politicians, it was the Republican party that attacked the conservative base and attempted to destroy the rebellion.  McCain called us “hobbits” and McConnell called us “jihadists.”  The threat from the Tea Party was felt amid the GOP.  The GOP was *not* going to adjust.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama destroyed the center of their political party called the Blue Dog coalition, represented by Bart Stupak.  The Blue Dogs were wiped out in 2010 because Democrats forced them into radical left-wing agenda items.

A new party, ie. ‘THE’ new party, would not be a carve out within the Republican club.  A new party would be a coalition party of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  Need proof of the scale, look at the 2020 election for Trump.  That’s the (fill__blank) party.

A new party would be a SECOND party to the UniParty occupants currently pushing more big government in Washington DC.  The fact that we have decades worth of evidence (Patriot Act, Wall Street Lobbyists, K-St. etc.), and specifically the past ten years (omnibus spending bills, limitless debt ceiling, massive wasted stimulus, political bailouts, QE1/QE2, Obamacare, college tuition takeover etc.) shows that both Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same big government bird.

The fear of “splitting the GOP” is the weaponized talking point of the GOP leadership who use that fear as a weapon to remain in power.  Those who listen to that threat are suffering from battered conservative syndrome.

There is nothing conservative about expanding government, spending into oblivion, allowing open borders and simultaneously removing liberty and freedom.   What exactly is being “conserved”? CTH has been making this argument for years.

This example from 2015 rings just as true today:

2015 – A few days ago I took the time to read Jonah Goldberg’s expressed concerns about the support for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.

Toward that end I have also noted additional GOP media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.
From your own writing:

[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable realities. I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?

A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus (then RNC Chair), or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget. We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?

All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

• Who worked against Donald Trump? The GOP

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us?

SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?  Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?

Seriously?

Posted originally on the Conservative Tree House on December 18, 2020 by Sundance

On February 28, 2018, at Convocation, North America’s largest weekly gathering of Christian students, director, and actor Jim Caviezel shared in convocation how through the Passion of the Christ, and Paul: Apostle of Christ, he wants people to meet Jesus.

Within the session Mr. Caviezel took a moment to share his perspectives on the political challenges we face as a nation.  Remembering back to President Ronald Reagan Caviezel had some thoughts for the audience that ring a particular resonance today: “Set yourselves apart from this corrupt generation”….

Prompted to 24:08 just hit play:

Borrowing from Mike Vanderboegh – “This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.”

Posted on December 19, 2020 by Sundance

(H/T Gateway Pundit) Russell James Ramsland is the security and intelligence analyst who did the audit of the Dominion ballot counting machines in Antrim county, Michigan.   Tonight on Newsmax Mr. Ramsland stated he suspects further evidence will come forward in the next few days that might “change the playing field.”

Given that many venues for evidence hearings have been shut down, I suspect this “something” relates to the Michigan lawsuit carried by Sidney Powell to the supreme court.  Michigan has until January 14th to respond to the court.

According to the audit:

“We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.

The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud.

Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.

[…] The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.

[…] It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots into two categories, 1) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots. Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch.

[…] A staggering number of votes required adjudication. This was a 2020 issue not seen in previous election cycles still stored on the server. This is caused by intentional errors in the system. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency or audit trail. Our examination of the server logs indicates that this high error rate was incongruent with patterns from previous years.

The statement attributing these issues to human error is not
consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors. The systemic errors are intentionally designed to create errors in order to push a high volume of ballots to bulk adjudication.

[…] Research is ongoing. However, based on the preliminary results, we conclude that the errors are so significant that they call into question the integrity and legitimacy of the results in the Antrim County 2020 election to the point that the results are not certifiable.

Because the same machines and software are used in 48 other counties in Michigan, this casts doubt on the integrity of the entire election in the state of Michigan.” (source)

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree house on December 18, 2020 by Sundance

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn appears on Newsmax television to give his opinion about what options are available to President Trump in the face of evidence the 2020 election was manipulated by regional officials in some key states.

Some of the options outlined by Flynn are very aggressive and most are very deliberate.  It remains to be seen what path President Trump may consider, but Flynn outlines some possibilities.  An interesting interview:

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 17, 2020 by Sundance

Stop for a minute.  Stop and breathe….

Stop and sit in peace… Just stop, and join together.

All around us is this great sense of foreboding ugh, and it’s not just connected to an election; it’s everything.  Everything is weird, everything is not comfortable, everything is less joyful and requires an intensity of thought just to carry-on ordinary events.

Christmas, the day we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is a week away; and yet everything around us seems less focused on joy – and more focused on what joy we are missing.  At the heart of that anxiety is this sense of foreboding. A sense of fear and worry; a sense of trepidation.

In our daily lives we encounter ordinary disconnects now. Masked faces are disconnecting our sense of interaction, our human connection. Unfortunately, and as a natural outcome of these challenges, we are accepting disconnect and creating a void inside ourselves. At the same time COVID is physically disconnecting people from their family.  Many families will not gather this year to celebrate the joyous event of Christ’s birth.  Many parents and grandparents will not see their adult children for the first time in years, perhaps ever.

Amid all of this flux and ugh, even simple tasks like decorating the Christmas tree somehow feels, senses, seems less joyful.  Perhaps financial worry stems the joy in shopping for family and friends.  Perhaps the shine within cheer is slightly dimmed because all around us is something we cannot quite describe, yet we feel it.

Perhaps tears flow at times and we struggle to understand what this unusual anxiety is all about. Then, we begin to struggle with the feeling of shame or guilt for being weak and allowing our humanity to pour out of our human-selves.  Then, at the worst possible time in the year, our faith organizations are slow to understand the importance of fellowship and community amid an upheaval that takes our center from under our feet.

Regional leaders make the anxiety worse.  As our grip on our familiar surroundings becomes more tenuous, we are faced with dictates and mandates that only exacerbate the issues.  The media drumbeat an incessant noise that destabilizes us and yet we cannot quite put our finger on why the impact is worse now…. it is all ugh.

It is all just, ugh.

If you find the assembly of these words familiar to your current sense, first understand YOU ARE NOT ALONE.  Second, understand there is nothing wrong with you.  This blanket of anxiety is laying across our entire nation, and we are all sensing a various level of this ‘ugh’ with some familiarity.  However, that said, it is important to know this is transitional.  We will not be in this place long.  This too shall pass.

How do we shake these destabilizing feelings and emotions?

How do we reconnect to the core-spirit we carry in our lives?

These are the questions we should use to leverage ourselves back to a center of peace and hope.   These are the questions that empower us to recharge of our sense of purpose and life within the lives of others, including our community, family and friends.

♦ The first way we shake this ‘ugh’, is to give to others without reservation.  Giving with purpose is the true spirit of human contact.  The giving is not related to money or wealth; the giving is related to our human purpose.  Perhaps we give a smile.  Perhaps we give a kind word.  Perhaps we give a compliment, or perhaps we just give time to another.

You could give a gift to another or perhaps send an email; or better yet write a letter to a dear friend or family member.  Reach out and tell them they matter and express why their place in this life of yours is important.  Remind them of your specific thankfulness, and connect to the purpose of why we endeavor in this thing we call life.  The important thing is to give, and to do it without any other intent or purpose than to fill your own heart.

♦ Within the giving, remind yourself what this journey is all about and look around to recognize how fortunate we are to have this life.  Choose to cherish the ultimate gift from a loving God who wants joy and hope to permeate our human sense.

Hope is the one necessary human element beyond all other facets of life.  Give the gift of hope and light to those you love by first reminding yourself of the gift that a loving God has given us all.  It is too easy in our human sense to forget the biggest gift we have been granted, the gift of life.  The ability to live and choose how we engage in the lives of others.

Remind yourself of the kind of purposeful HOPE that would leave a throne to be born into a manger as a baby only to grow into a Man willing to lay down His everything for the wretchedness of humanity.

No politics or false sense of security can overwhelm the message of HOPE that a loving God has provided.  No effort of man or human disposition can surmount the greatest love of all.  The message of Christ’s birth is bigger and greater than any legislative battle. “No power of hell, nor scheme of man” can come close to the purpose of God’s intent and love for you as a unique person qualified to receive that love.

Wrap yourself in the blanket of that unconditional love.  Stop what you are doing.

Pause in the peace of this moment… set down your troubles, LISTEN and FEEL.

“Long lay the world in sin and error pining, til He appeared and the souls felt its worth. A thrill of HOPE; the weary world rejoices, for yonder breaks a new and glorious morn…”

Let the tears flow, and with them release the foreboding.  Engage in the next moment with a loving purpose filled with the HOPE that He provides.  Fall forward to the centered purpose of your life, a very special life, and reflect on the gift we are too quick to diminish.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.”

‭‭Revelation‬ ‭21:1-6‬

Abiding love to all.

Steadfast,

~ Sundance

Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on December 17, 2020 by Sundance

Lawyer Sidney Powell tweets out today that the Supreme Court has rejected two cases of election fraud against Wisconsin and Arizona; and has accepted two cases against Michigan and Georgia.  The high court has given GA/MI until January 14, 2021, to file their responses.

Share

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 17, 2020 by Sundance

During a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday, December 16, 2020, Senator James Lankford delivered remarks and questions about how the American electorate has lost confidence in the election process.

The Committee discussed several irregularities in the 2020 election, and Lankford encapsulated the need for states can protect against election fraud moving forward. However, the bigger question remains: is it too late?

Posted originally on The Conservative tree House on December 17, 2020 by Sundance

During the Texas presidential electors legislative session there was a debate over an amendment to wording where the Texas House would rebuke the Supreme Court of the United States for “moral cowardice” in not allowing the Texas challenge to be heard.

During the amendment debate Texas Congressman Matt Patrick (CD-32) put into the ¹record a report from a claimed “Supreme Court staffer” about an internal debate taking place within the high court where justices were arguing the reasons for not allowing the Texas election challenge to take place.  As outlined by Patrick Chief Justice Roberts was worried about riots in the streets if the court heard the Texas arguments and evidence.

The exact statement comes at 01:32:31 of the debate video [prompted just hit play]

.

¹To be fair – It should be noted the claim comes with no specific citation for further review or analysis; and considering the heightened sense of concern over the election, more details should be requested before making assumptions about the described incident.

Posted originally on the conservative tree House on December 17, 2020 by Sundance

In his capacity as a private citizen, likely a position related to legal advice from White House counsel, Senior White House Policy Advisor Peter Navarro has released a 36-page report containing a review and summary of findings from the 2020 election.

Within the report [direct pdf here] Navarro outlines the issues at stake within several key states in the election contest.  The report highlights several troubling issues related to the way mail-in, potentially fraudulent ballots, were handled in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin Nevada and Pennsylvania.  Within those states the activity by regional officials is critical to understanding the controversial post-election-day outcomes.

As Navarro states “the observed patterns of election irregularities are so consistent across the six battleground states that they suggest a coordinated strategy to, if not steal the election outright, strategically game the election process in such a way as to “stuff the ballot box” and unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of the Biden-Harris ticket.”

Last night the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, announced there was evidence of specific election interference by foreign actors specifically: China, Russia and Iran. Additionally, a report on those malign activities is forthcoming.

While the specific topic of foreign interference is not an element of the Navarro report, there is room within the authorization of the DNI directive to include and evaluate independent audits – so the Navarro analysis could align with the DNI report.

“If, in fact, compelling evidence comes to light proving the election was indeed stolen after a fait accompli Biden inauguration, we as a country run the very real risk that the very center of our great American union will not hold.

To put this another way, if the greatest democracy in world history cannot conduct a free and fair election, and if much of the mainstream media of this country won’t even fully investigate what is becoming a growing mountain of evidence calling into question the election result, there is little chance that our democracy and this Republic will survive as we know it. It is therefore critical that we get to the bottom of this matter. That is the purpose of this report.”

One way to look at this report is the White House indirectly providing their perspective on the election outcome in advance of the upcoming DNI report. In essence, an insurance policy of sorts in the event that elements within the intelligence community attempt to water-down any election interference as a purposeful way to preserve institutions.

The Navarro report looks at granular details within key states, while the DNI report may focus upon top-line intelligence related to foreign actors.

The direct pdf of the Navarro report –IS HERE– and the embed below:

.