The Blue Wave that the Democrats have been cheering is not impressive in the least. Everything appears to be within the projected parameters, but we are currently at 47% in the Senate. This suggests that we may not elect the Bearish Reversal. This warns that we have not yet broken down the political system and that the Democrats will do their best now to disrupt and obstruct the Trump Administration simply to win the 2020 Presidency for Hillary. This is being interpreted as negative economically by most and this indicated that we are more likely to see the USA turn more to the downside into 2020 with both economic and job growth. When we get the final numbers we will be able to provide the projection into 2020.

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; You are rather famous in legal circles and the fact it took the Supreme Court to agree to hear your case before they released you is indicative of the deep corruption in New York. This seems to be like the disgrace of Lord Bacon who took bribes from litigants. Do you think we will ever see sweeping changes to the legal system in the United States which is no longer trustworthy after that insane ruling in favor of CNN?

PJ

ANSWER: Trump’s argument that CNN was not banned, just Acosta and that CNN could send someone else. For the judge to declare that Acosta has a First Amendment right is one of the most absurd corrupt legal decisions you can possibly deliver. This decision calls into question the validity of the American court system and its inherent bias that infects the rule of law. Trump’s legal position was CORRECT. Acosta has ABSOLUTELY NO such First Amendment right to enter the White House. This ruling claiming it is a personal right of Acosta is nuts. Therefore, everybody reading this blog, including non-Americans, can all demand access at the White House for a press conference claiming they too have a First Amendment right. This decision is absurd and really there should now be demands that swarm the White House based upon that decision for it is stupid. CNN could have sent in another person. Acosta has NO personal right whatsoever or else we all do. It is judges like this who give lawyers a bad name. He should be impeached. If I were Trump, Acosta will be seated in the last row and he will NEVER get to ask a question since not everyone in that room get time to ask a question. Let CNN take that back to the court.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not the freedom of Acosta to report.

Yes, there are times throughout history that there are sweeping rebukes of the corruption in the court system. One such time took place during 1621 when Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, who was the highest legal judge/officer in the land, was accused of having taken bribes from those appearing in court before him. A process called impeachment, trial by parliament, was revived after a 150-year interval. Bacon was found guilty, dismissed from his job, fined and imprisoned in the Tower. Bacon was charged with 23 separate counts of corruption. He was sentenced to a fine of £40,000 and committed to the Tower of London. However, the imprisonment lasted only a few days thanks to the king and the fine was also remitted. Still, Parliament declared Bacon incapable of holding any future office or sitting in Parliament. He barely escaped degradation, which was the penalty of being stripped of his titles of nobility.

There have been plenty of incidents of corrupt judges in the past. Curiously, perhaps there is a 154.8-year cycle in judicial corruption. It will take more gathering of evidence to confirm it, but on the surface interestingly in 1926, there was such an incident. Illinois U.S. District Judge George English (D) was impeached for taking an interest-free loan from a bank of which he was a director. He resigned before his Senate trial for impeachment in 1926

Dominick Dunn was someone I was in contact with about the claimed murder of Edmond Safra. He told me that someone came up to him in Paris in a restaurant and politely told him he should be careful about looking into the murder of Safra. Dominick died on August 26th, 2009. He story on Safra, Death in Monaco, raised a lot of eyebrows. He also did a piece for TV on the issue. It was Edmond Safra who was the major shareholder in Hermitage Capital that Browder is now running around claiming he is Putin’s biggest critic. Once Safra was killed on December 3rd, 1999, they filed for contempt on me to prevent me from ever exposing what was behind the curtain in this affair. I was helping Dominick in his investigation.

The Russians present 1,000 pages of documentation on Browder to which the United States has refused to even respond.  The curious thing here is Browder regularly appears on US TV bashing Putin and is being protected by the US Deep State, yet he resigned his American citizenship to avoid taxes. Why would the US protect someone who resigned his American citizenship? There is a mountain of questions to be answered and nobody wants to respond. Perhaps this too has crossed the line here on the Pi Target

The Russian prosecutors on Monday allegedly charged Bill Browder of ordering the murder of accountant Sergei Magnitsky and several other business associates. Anyone who has watched the banned film on Magnitsky is left with that very impression that something is not quite right. It really made no sense for Putin to kill Magnitsky who was in prison for the way prosecutors function worldwide is to put pressure on a person to testify against others. That is precisely how Mueller is operating in his attempt to go after Trump by charges anyone he can around Trump.

Magnitsky would have been a witness against Browder and Edmond Safra of Republic National Bank which would have exposed a lot more behind the truth involving Hermitage Capital and the forced resignation of Yeltsin with the rise of Putin. If we ask who would have benefited by the murder of Magnitsky it certainly would NOT have been Putin or the Russian government. Since Magnitsky was not Browder’s lawyer but his accountant, then he would have been able to testify about Hermitage Capital which was the company that Safra’s operation was trying to get me to invest in $10 billion to “control” Russia. I rejected the proposal but I believe that if anyone would have had an incentive to eliminate Magnitsky if we follow the money, it does not lead to Putin.

It has bee speculated that for Browder to get the Magnitsky Act passed in Washington, he allegedly donated money to the bill’s sponsor’s “Institute” – John McCai