Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Oct 29, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey should be Imprisoned for violating the Civil Rights under 18 USC 241 of the American People and Congress cannot by Section 230 grant him any immunity whatsoever that undermines the Constitution

The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).

Therefore, Section 230 cannot overrule a constitutional right. The Supreme Court held “We have rejected the view that the applicability of one constitutional amendment pre-empts the guarantees of another.” US v James Daniel Good, 510 US 43 (1993) see also Soldal v Cook County, 506 US 56 (1992).

Therefore, Section 230 CANNOT repeal the civil rights statute. They need to be brought to court and this power needs to be stripped from them as unconstitutional. Let the jury take their billions and redistribute it to all Americans fulfilling their Socialist dreams.

It is time for lawyers to bring a class-action lawsuit against Dorsey and Twitter.

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on October 28, 2020 by sundance

Essentially, Hunter Biden was a bag man for the Biden family; courting foreign businesses and governments for money so the payments could be laundered (by front businesses) and used to support the Biden family. That is the general takeaway from the interview with one of the legitimate business people, Tony Bobulinski.

More curiously though…. Mr. Bobulinski has the receipts; actual evidence of how businesses were set up to funnel the bribes, scheme and graft payments into the Biden family. According to the details he laid out Bobulinski was recruited to help set-up and facilitate the influence peddling program.

The described network is a smaller, start-up version of the Clinton Global Initiative; but essentially the intents and purposes were the same.

As Bobulinski detailed the engagements, one of the more glaring aspects was how easily the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement apparatus could monitor everything that was happening. Many of the meetings were with foreign officials outside the U.S; and many of the structural parts of the network were assembled in locations easily infiltrated by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.

The Biden network’s attempted communication was not too sophisticated. Their electronic trail of communication was captured and recorded by people inside the network. There is a ton of evidence for what they were doing including text messages, emails, phone call records and traceable meetings with all of the participants as outlined by Bobulinski.

So, knowing that, why did the U.S. intelligence apparatus not do anything about it?

Obviously, as outlined during the interview, some of the initial set-up was taking place while Joe Biden was Vice-President. The aggregate U.S. intelligence apparatus was obviously monitoring these activities; it would be intellectually dishonest not to accept that at some level this was well known inside the U.S. government.

Later on, as Hunter Biden began a downward spiral of addiction and dangerously abhorrent behavior; and keeping in mind he was formerly in the U.S. military -and kicked out due to a cocaine addiction- so his risk behaviors and issues would have been known as a risk by the U.S. government; he was a prime target for an influence operation by foreign intelligence adversaries.   This would have been clear to anyone in the intelligence community and undoubtedly shared up the information chain.

Yet, at no point did anyone do anything to try and stop the construction of the schemes?

It just doesn’t make any sense… unless….

…Unless the objective of those within the U.S. intelligence background (writ large) was to capture and retain all of this information as part of a black file for use as leverage/control later on against a Biden administration, and likely the Biden family.

There is a similarity of purpose here resembling the FBI refusing to provide a defensive briefing for presidential candidate Donald Trump as part of a strategy to gather evidence against Trump in their sketchy investigation of him.  However, in the Trump example, ultimately was no ‘there‘ there; so the investigation held no value beyond the assembly of a political narrative.  Ergo, Weissmann/Mueller and the insurance policy.

The transparent lack of effort by the U.S. intelligence community to intercept the Biden issues well in advance of the compromise of national security, is alarming.  However, it must be considered their lack of action was a purposeful decision…. and then the motive of those entities really becomes the bigger question.

This is a rather dangerous rabbit hole to start to consider.  However, against what we know of the intelligence community as a result of President Trump holding office, there are some really serious questions that need to be explored.

.