Clinton, Epstein, and a Mysterious Death

Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted May 16, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Reminder: Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself. The media stopped covering Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial but she is still alive and so are her secrets. She is imprisoned for sex trafficking, but not one abuser has been identified or brought to justice. The media failed to mention that she recently agreed to reveal the names of the alleged sex ring members in exchange for a reduced sentence. If she were to produce the names of high-profile clients, such as politicians, that would only help her case.

Epstein likely blackmailed high-profile individuals by using underage girls as bait. Bill Clinton was one of those individuals, allegedly, and the man linking Clinton to Epstein just died under mysterious circumstances. Clinton’s former special advisor Mark Middleton passed away at the age of 59 in a “sudden” death, according to his family. In 1994, the Clinton campaign asked Middleton to seek out funds from Les Wexner, and his money manager was none other than Jeffrey Epstein.

Bill had been linked to Epstein ever since and allegedly granted him access to the White House numerous times. Middleton is the original link between Clinton and Epstein and even flew on the Lolita Express. The Clintons initially disposed of Middleton, politically, in 1995 after they accused him of abusing “access to impress business clients and he was barred from the executive mansion without senior approval” and there was a probe against him the following year.

Middleton left politics entirely and lived a life out of the spotlight. Yet, the connection remained. As soon as Maxwell stated she would reveal her client list, Middleton suddenly passed away. Coincidence? What names will Maxwell reveal, and will the media cover the story?

Pennsylvania Senate Candidate Kathy Barnette Appears on Fox News to Answer Critics

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 15, 2022 | Sundance

Pennsylvania Senate Candidate Kathy Barnette appeared on Fox News Sunday with Shannon Bream to answer questions about her prior positions, statements and current candidacy.  Barnette has climbed in the polls and is in a tight race for the PA senate seat.

There has been an onslaught of criticism and critique in opposition to Kathy Barnette.  Many political followers are concerned she might win the primary but then get crushed in the general election due to inflammatory statements in her past.  This interview was a great opportunity for her to calm the nerves of republican primary voters and instill confidence. Unfortunately, Barnette did not do well in this interview.  WATCH:

Shannon Bream was fair and gave Barnette plenty of time to explain her positions.   Pennsylvania voters will need to make their own decisions.  Trust your instincts; if you sense sketchy, it is likely because sketchy exists.

Sunday Talks, Bartiromo Interviews Nunes and Patel About Sussmann Trial

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 15, 2022 | Sundance

In the second segment of the interview with Maria Bartiromo, Devin Nunes and Kash Patel discuss the trial of Michael Sussmann which begins tomorrow. {Direct Rumble Link}

Ultimately the issue in the Michael Sussmann trial is quite simple:

Did the DOJ and FBI know the material Michael Sussmann was giving them came from the Hillary Clinton campaign?

We all know the answer to that question, of course they did.  However, there has been –and continues to be– a game of grand pretense from the DOJ/FBI group where they pretend not to have known.

Two groups: the “insider group” (DOJ/FBI) and the “outsider group” (Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, Sussmann, Elias, Mook, etc).

Claiming the DOJ and FBI were duped, is the government firewall that protects the inside group.  However, this claim is now against the interest of Michael Sussmann who has been accused of false representation and lying to the FBI about the provenance of the information he provided.

In her capacity as the DOJ lawyer assigned to the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page played a role in evaluating the provenance of the concocted Trump-Russia information given to McCabe via FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker (who received it from Sussmann).

Lisa Page (above left) is legally represented by Amy Jeffries (above right), who is the wife of the trial judge (Michael Cooper) in the Sussmann case.  So, think about it…

…The FBI lawyer (Lisa Page) in charge of vetting the provenance of the fraudulent material from Clinton (via Sussmann), retains legal services from the wife of the Judge now determining whether the provenance was accurately disclosed by Sussmann.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Everyone knows the FBI was aware the Sussmann material (Trump-Russia fabrications) came from Clinton’s campaign.

Lisa Page knew the material she reviewed came from Hillary Clinton. However, everyone in the DOJ and FBI has to pretend they didn’t know, or else they’re in deep shit.

So, this grand pretense is taking place, where everyone inside govt (DOJ/FBI) is pretending not to know the Sussmann stuff came from Hillary Clinton, and everyone outside government (Fusion, Clinton, Perkins Coie, Sussmann, Elias et al) is saying the govt (DOJ/FBI) did know the provenance, or else the outside team would be in big shit for lying or perpetrating fraud.

Enter Special Prosecutor John Durham amid this game of great pretense. That’s really what the Michael Sussmann trial boils down to.

INSIDERS – DOJ/FBI saying they didn’t know (or else trouble).

OUTSIDERS – Sussman saying the DOJ/FBI did know (or else trouble).

The “didn’t know” -vs- “did know” is the firewall between the INSIDERS and the OUTSIDERS. Put another way, the DOJ/FBI were duped -vs- the DOJ/FBI were complicit.

As long as INSIDERS can claim they were duped, they are safe. However, if the OUTSIDERS prove the INSIDERS were not duped, then the spotlight shifts.

If Sussmann wins, it means the DOJ/FBI lose. If Sussmann loses, it means the DOJ/FBI firewall remains intact.

Same thing, another way: If Durham wins, it means the INSIDERS are safe. If Durham loses, it means the INSIDERS are exposed.

That’s why the majority of the previous media participants are not writing about the trial. For them, the dynamics are tenuous. They want Sussmann to win, but the media don’t want their INSIDERS exposed. If the insiders are exposed it means the DOJ and FBI knew the information came from Hillary Clinton, AND they pushed that false Trump-Russia information into the media via leaks.

Then the story circles around to the media claiming they were duped by the DOJ and FBI feeding them false information – versus the media admitting they knew the information was false, yet they used the method of reception from the DOJ/FBI to enhance the credibility of claims they knew were fraudulent.

It’s all FUBAR. A through the looking glass game of grand pretense. A public pantomime of silliness and abject nuttery.

Everyone involved, both inside and outside government, are still pretending not to know things.

The trial is ridiculous theater, created to give the illusion of legitimacy to a series of events and investigations that is designed around this game of pretending.

One example of the nuttery. Judge Christopher Cooper is the trial judge. If Michael Sussmann is NOT Guilty, it means the FBI did know he was representing Hillary Clinton when he passed the information along. That means the DOJ/FBI insiders are exposed.

If the DOJ/FBI insiders are exposed, Lisa Page could need Judge Cooper’s wife again.

Sunday Talks, Bartiromo Interviews Nunes and Patel About Musk and Twitter

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 15, 2022 | Sundance 

Fox News Maria Bartiromo interviewed Devin Nunes and Kash Patel ahead of the trial for Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann which begins tomorrow.  The interview breaks down into two segments, the first segment outlines the discussion of Elon Musk purchasing Twitter. {Direct Rumble Link}  WATCH, Part I

The issue of ‘bots’ operating on the Twitter platform is an interesting aspect when you consider the cost of platform operation.

On one hand, extensive auto-generated ‘bots’ would be an issue of cost and data-processing, a net negative.  On the other hand, the use of bots would be a manipulative practice for the creation of false impressions to generate advertising revenue.

If the scale of data-processing was subsidized, an outcome of a network of data processing centers -clouds- linked to government resources, the bots would not be an issue for the operation.  Despite the false impressions generated, bots would, however, under this weird situation, be useful for the manipulation of the conversation.  At the root of Elon Musk’s line of inquiry is the need to discover if this suspicion is true.

If the scale of bots has been underestimated (likely by a willfully blind operation) the advertising fees charged by Twitter were potentially fraudulent.  This is another operational reason (mitigating lawsuits from advertisers) for Musk to make the determination prior to the final purchase of the platform.

Taking Twitter private as a company, eliminating bots (which is essentially removing fraudulent users) then carries the potential benefits of both lowering costs and positioning the company to increase genuine ad revenue from authenticated users as real people.

Many people suspect the size of the political left on the Twitter platform is manipulated by programatic bots.  Meaning there seems to be more people on the left side of the spectrum because bots are deployed to give the impression of like-minded users.  I am one of the people who believe this suspicion is accurate, because it would be a typical way the ideological left operates.

The bots would be in addition to the deployment of algorithms that are designed to suppress speech the platform operators do not like.

I have long suspected the Twitter algorithm process is essentially assigning certain users into specifically designed data-processing containers where their voice is suppressed.   Some people call this ‘shadow-banning,’ I simply call it suppression.

Elon Musk represents a threat to the way the platform was/is designed to operate.  If Musk removes the discussion constraints, opens the containers and removes the restrictions, while simultaneously eliminating bots and fake accounts, the entire perspective of the platform could change very quickly.  This is what I think the current board and operators are trying to avoid.

As CTH has said for many years, there are more of us than them.  However, Big Tech controls the mechanisms we use to communicate – and as a consequence the scale of our assembly is severely understated.

Twitter user fraud is the digital and social media equivalent to voter fraud.   The voices raised in opposition to both are exactly the same.

NBC Poll, Contracted to Same Democrat Firm Who Created Ultra MAGA Branding Effort, Reflects Highest Disapproval Ever for Joe Biden

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 15, 2022 | Sundance 

NBC is promoting their contracted poll today [pdf HERE] around the lesser-important voting issue of abortion.  However, before getting to the poll it is worth noting again who they contracted with.  Inside the article you will note this sentence, “[…] who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates.”   If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it is the same ideologically aligned polling outfit who spent six months creating the ultra-MAGA branding campaign for Anita Dunn and the White House {link}.

The abortion polling is irrelevant to the issue of larger public opinions of the Biden administration.  On abortion, 10% of polled respondents say they are single issue voters [respondents = 790 RV’s, (79 single issue)].  Out of 79 single issue voters, 22% list abortion as their top priority. So, out of 790 registered voters, 17 view abortion as their single issue to vote on.  That’s the scale being overemphasized.

On the larger issues of voter priorities, the economy dominates with 40% responses.  Additionally, the polling identifies 39 percent of Americans approving of President Biden’s job as president, versus 56 percent who say they disapprove.  75% say the country is heading in the wrong direction, and only 16% saying the country is on the right track.   That’s the bigger headline.  WATCH:

[POLL pdf Here]

Sunday Talks, Goldman Sachs CEO LLoyd Blankfein Still Sees Demand Side Inflation

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 15, 2022 | Sundance 

Appearing on Face the Nation (FtN) Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein discussed his views and perspectives on the economy overall and U.S. inflation specifically.  Undoubtedly Blankfein has access to resources and analysis far beyond CTH scope; however, despite a statistically factual contracting GDP, Blankfein is claiming to see overall demand side inflation remaining in the macro economy.

Perhaps that view might still be true domestically on the service side (it certainly isn’t on the trade side), but demand driven inflation does not appear visible on the goods side of the economic ledger.  What is clearly present as the price driver is “production side inflation,” the costs to create goods and bring them to market.   If you look at economic activity in units instead of dollars, the units are contracting.

The demand for goods is now focused almost entirely on priority or essential purchases like housing, energy, fuel and food.  The price for those essential products is driven by production costs, which are a direct outcome of the energy policy, environmental policy, regulatory policy, and to a lesser extent trade policy, of the Biden administration.  Blankfein is pretending not to know things… WATCH:

Putting housing aside due to investment purchasing of real estate, if Blankfein was correct, and demand was still driving inflation, then a massive deflationary cycle would be coming as a result of lowered consumer purchasing of goods.   There isn’t any chance we are going to see “deflation” in the next several years.  [We will likely see housing prices collapse, but not consumer goods.]

Inflation is being driven by production costs, and there is no end in sight to the production cost increases as long as the crew behind Joe Biden keeps strangling the U.S. energy sector…. and then compounding the domestic price issue by creating incentives for energy exports (vis-a-vis EU sanctions).  The production inflation is a purposefully inflicted wound on our economy.  Production inflation is avoidable.

That interview is Wall Street gaslighting to a Main Street audience.  I don’t like it one bit.

The Pentagon Testified Assessing Ukraine and No One Noticed

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 14, 2022 | Sundance

As we contemplate the massive $40 billion transfer of U.S. taxpayer funds to Ukraine, a few things need to be emphasized.

First, congress has decided to pay the salaries, benefits and pensions of Ukraine political officials and citizens.  As U.S. citizens try and figure out how to afford housing, gasoline, food and basic goods, congress has decided to subsidize another country.  That’s the first point.

Second, as to the pragmatic question of “to what end?” There was a critical point made last week by Defense Intel Agency (DIA) Director Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, that not a single media outlet or politician discussed.  During his briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Berrier was asked “can Ukraine win” the conflict against Russia?

Lt. General Berrier replied: “That is a difficult predication to make. I think where the assessment is at, is a prolonged stalemate should no factor change on either side. In other words, the Russians continue to do what they’re doing, and we continue to do what we are doing for the Ukranians.”  WATCH:

The Pentagon assessment is the best that can be achieved is a stalemate.  Billions of billions of dollars being poured into Ukraine, and the most likely outcome is a stalemate.  More people killed, an endless need for continued money to be poured into the ‘war’, and the best possible outcome is a stalemate.

So, riddle me this, why isn’t the U.S. policy position advocating for Zelenskyy and Putin to enter negotiations for a resolution?

What possible U.S. interest can be advanced, knowing the only outcome is a stalemate, where people are killed on either side and money spent on a proxy conflict that ends in loggerheads at some distant point months from now?

Also, why has no U.S. media outlet or pundit played the remarks and assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency, so that the American people can understand the intent of U.S. policy?

Republican Senate Leadership Travel to Kyiv, Ukraine to Inspect the Treasury

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 14, 2022

Comrade taxpayers, as the glorious and esteemed senate move through the procedural hurdles to pass a massive $40 billion spending bill for the U.S. altruistic Ukraine money laundering operation, a fabulous diplomatic envoy consisting of Mitch McConnell, John Barrasso, John Cornyn and Susan Collins travel to Kyiv to meet the magnanimous defender of the international treasury and wealth transfer operation, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The magnificent republican leaders went to visit the nicest war zone their bipartisan efforts have created in the past four decades.  As the angels of abundance parted the clouds, many congratulations were shared from the delegation toward their generous host and the expressions of appreciation and respect for the generosity were reciprocated.  WATCH:

No U.S. border security, no gas money, no grocery money, no infant formula, no voting integrity…. Meh, no problem comrades.  We’ve got Ukrainians to support.  We are paying the pensions and benefits of Ukraine government officials and Ukraine citizens.

Keep in mind, the politicians are not tone deaf, out of touch or disconnected; they simply do not care.  We The People are irrelevant to them.

We are in an abusive relationship with our own government.

Tucker Carlson Explains the Govt Created Subsidized Baby Formula Monopoly and Current Shortages

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 13, 2022 | Sundance 

Tucker Carlson did a pretty decent job tonight outlining the current issues with shortages of baby formula and why it is specifically galling for the Joe Biden administration to claim they don’t know anything about the problem they helped create.  WATCH:

REMINDER: Judge in Sussmann Trial is Married to Lisa Page’s Lawyer

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 13, 2022 | Sundance 

Just a brief reminder as you review the decisions in the pre-trial motions for the case against Clinton Lawyer Michael Sussman.

It is worth remembering that Judge Christopher Cooper is married to Amy Jeffries, Lisa Page’s lawyer.

(Foreground left) Lisa Page, FBI Lawyer, (Foreground right) Amy Jeffries (Judge Cooper’s wife)

Additionally, Judge Cooper and Michael Sussmann both worked in the DOJ together.  When he was selected as judge in the Sussmann trial, Cooper revealed the potential conflict of interest in the event the Durham prosecution wanted him to recuse himself from the case.  Special Prosecutor John Durham did not ask Judge Cooper to recuse himself.

September 2021 – The judge in the case of recently indicted Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann is married to the lawyer who represented a disgraced former FBI official that worked on the Donald Trump Russia probe that Sussmann played some role in advancing. 

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Columbia, who is presiding over the Sussmann case, is married to lawyer Amy Jeffress, who represented FBI lawyer Lisa Page in a civil case. 

Cooper, an Obama-appointee, and Jeffress, a former top aide to Attorney General Eric Holder, are well connected in the Democratic party. Current Attorney General Merrick Garland even presided over their 1999 wedding. (read more)

Techno Fog has more on the latest pre-trial details…