Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 22, 2020 by Sundance

According to reports in November of 2019, U.S Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state noted:

“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be  evidence of an extensive FBI/CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the FBI/CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to FBI/CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the FBI/CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor generally identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the FBI/CIA to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion the FBI tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

One of the more interesting aspects to the unfinished Durham probe is the possibility of a paper-trail created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for evidence of a paper trail.

HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has outlined how very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos.  The FBI also fabricated information in the FISA.

However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the international intelligence apparatus; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies was important.

Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok had a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was authored by Strzok…. and Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok appeared to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.

It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskaya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan died in a helicopter crash.

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the FBI/CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.

International operations directed by the FBI/CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.

The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.

We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why the delay?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This Russian “hacking” claim was ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus…. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.

This is why Julian Assange deserves a pardon, so he can tell his story.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist —— Bio and Archives—December 21, 2020

On December 23, 2016, the Obama administration broke with the longstanding practice of both Democratic and Republican administrations to protect Israel from one-sided United Nations resolutions. The Obama administration abstained, rather than veto, UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which declared that the establishment of settlements by Israel has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” The resolution demanded that “Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”  When it came to the resolution’s call to prevent “acts of terror” and “to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” the resolution referred elliptically to “both parties.”

Resolution 2334 remains in effect to this day. However, despite what the resolution’s supporters continuously assert, it is not legally binding under the UN Charter because it was not passed under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. The resolution is not self-enforcing and would require a further resolution to impose sanctions or other punitive measures, which the Trump administration would surely have vetoed.

The question now is whether President-elect Joe Biden will return to the Obama-Biden administration’s support of the anti-Israel resolution and its distancing from our closest ally in the Middle East. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Biden was involved in getting Ukraine, then a member of the Security Council, to vote for Resolution 2334 in 2016. We do not know if then-Vice President Biden was simply carrying out the directions of his boss Barack Obama or acting also on his own beliefs. In any case, we can expect the Biden administration to be under intense pressure from Israel-haters in the so-called “international community” and the Democrat progressive base in the United States to go along with sanctions against Israel for violating Resolution 2334’s edict against Israeli settlements.

Biden will also be under pressure from America’s European allies to reverse the Trump administration’s punitive actions against the highly politicized International Criminal Court (ICC), which declared last year that it would launch “a full investigation” into alleged war crimes committed in Palestinian territories by Israeli forces. The ICC is also undertaking a war crimes probe into U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, which led to actions taken by the Trump administration against ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and another senior court official.

“The International Criminal Court is facing persistent external challenges and the European Union stands firm against all attempts to undermine the international system of criminal justice by hindering the work of its core institutions,” Peter Stano, spokesman for EU diplomatic chief Josep Borrell, told reporters. “We are committed to strengthen our support to the ICC because this is key factor in fighting against impunity. We are standing by the ICC and we are not happy to see steps which are going against the activities of the ICC.”

Biden’s reverence for multilateral institutions and his eagerness to please our European allies make it likely that he will buckle.

Nickolay Mladenov, the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, briefed the Security Council on December 21st regarding recent events impacting the implementation of Resolution 2334. His briefing focused on Israeli actions that he said violated Resolution 2334 and international law, coupled with a plea for more “humanitarian” aid for the Palestinians.

“I remain deeply troubled by continued Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” Mladenov said. “Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of United Nations resolutions and international law. Settlements entrench Israel’s occupation and undermine the prospect of achieving a two-State solution. The advancement of all settlement activity must cease immediately.”

Madenov deplored violence against Palestinian “civilians,” allegedly perpetrated by Israeli military forces and settlers. Mladenov devoted just one paragraph in his prepared remarks calling out Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad by name for their “indiscriminate launching of rockets and mortars towards Israeli civilian population centers.” While naming these terrorist groups specifically was more than Resolution 2334 itself did, Mladenov later in his remarks urged Israel to lift the closures completely that have restricted the movement of goods and people to and from Gaza for security reasons. “It remains vital to also ease dual-use restrictions for imports into the Gaza Strip,” Mladenov said. It is vital only for Hamas, which would exploit such dual-use imports to further build up its military weaponry and infrastructure.

Mladenov’s brief discussion of the “wider peace process” had a glaring omission. He left out the historic peace agreements reached between Israel and four Arab countries – United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft, however, made these agreements the center piece of her remarks to the Security Council. “In less than four months, four states have opened diplomatic relations with Israel, paving the way for still more engagement that will help bring about the prosperity envisioned under President Trump’s peace plan,” Ambassador Craft said. “For decades we…had seen little progress towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as parties continued to reflexively resort to same old, tired rhetoric and hardened positions. Today, we instead see practical, real examples that genuine economic and cultural ties are being formed. As a result, all of us here should think long and hard about what else we may have missed or misinterpreted over the years.”

Joe Biden’s choice to serve as his Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, has said that the Biden administration would continue to support Israel and stand up for the Jewish State at the United Nations. Biden has said that he would not use the continued provision of U.S. military aid as leverage to pressure Israel on policy issues. When Blinken was asked about whether it was possible that the Biden administration would use such leverage specifically in relation to potential Israeli annexation of portions of the West Bank, he said no. Although Biden opposes annexation, Blinken claimed that Biden “would not tie our military assistance to Israel to any political decisions that it makes.”

That’s certainly good news for Israeli officials to hear. Indeed, Israelis are welcoming his selection as the next Secretary of State. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Sooner or later, Biden’s impulse to go along to get along, including his intention to rejoin the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, will clash with his professed support for Israel. And the latter will likely give way if another resolution comes up for a vote in the UN Security Council to enforce Resolution 2334’s prohibition of Israeli settlements, including economic sanctions. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate in the long foreign diplomacy record of Biden’s choice to serve as his administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, that she will stand up for Israel at the UN in the mold of Ambassadors Kelly Craft, Nikki Haley and Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 21, 2020 by Sundance

There has been considerable debate and discussion about the next steps for President Trump in contesting the election outcome.  According to media reporting on the discussions it appears the White House is listening to several opinions including a group containing Sidney Powell (outside campaign) and a group led by Rudy Giuliani (inside campaign).

Despite the common objective amid the two groups, there have been some stories written by media intended to diminish and/or marginalize the ongoing effort.  In this interview with Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s campaign lawyer outlines the formal approach underway by the inside campaign team. [The audio/visual isn’t great but it works]

In addition to the information provided by Giuliani, there are three distinct data-points that could align in favor of supporting President Trump’s ongoing effort:

1.  Acceptance by the Supreme Court of the request by the Trump campaign to hear arguments against the Pennsylvania election outcome.
2.  A pending DNI report by John Ratcliffe outlining foreign influence in the election.
3.  The outcome of the Georgia run-off election on January 5th.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the campaign case; and if the DNI report can show foreign interference connection to the election; and if the Georgia run-off holds momentum toward the GOP; then it is more likely a Senator will object on January 6th to the certification of the electors and request a roll-call vote in the House and Senate.

These three positive outcomes would align with congressional meetings reported today within the White House.

Everything above tracks with the known direction of the preferred “inside group”, and their advice toward President Trump.

However, the independent “outside group” containing: Attorney Sidney Powell, Attorney Lin Wood, Lt. General Michael Flynn, and now former CEO Patrick Byrne, appear to be advising for a more forceful approach with use of the 2018 executive order safeguarding against foreign interference in the election.

The narrative engineering media have accused the outside group of attempting to stimulate interest in use of the U.S. military via the Insurrection Act.

(Politico) […] But that hasn’t stopped the act from becoming a buzzword and cure-all for prominent MAGA figures like Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, two prominent pro-Trump attorneys leading efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and even one North Carolina state lawmaker. Others like Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser who was recently pardoned for lying to the FBI, have made adjacent calls for Trump to impose martial law.

The ideas have circulated in pro-Trump outlets and were being discussed over the weekend among the thousands of MAGA protesters who descended on state capitols and the Supreme Court to falsely claim Trump had won the election. (more)

In essence the DC media is attempting to isolate, ridicule and marginalize the entire effort of both groups by weaponizing a dictator Trump narrative open to use of the military via the Insurrection Act or Martial Law.

Into this fray any meeting with President Trump by the outside group is being weaponized by anti-Trump media.   President Trump was pushing back against this narrative effort by media over the weekend:

It is important to remember the White House counsel would be providing legal advice from the position of “The Office of the Presidency.”  The White House counsel’s job is to uphold the concentric circles of legal protection that surround President Trump or any U.S. President.  There are some topics of conversation that White House counsel would not allow to take place inside the oval office.

The distinction between White House counsel (Pat Cipollone) and Trump Campaign counsel (Rudy Giuliani) is the former looks out for the “office” while the latter looks out for the political interests.  The distinctions are narrow, but the distinctions are very real.

The difference between the two sets of advisors is a distinction the media enjoy exploiting to give the appearance of division.  This creates friction and leads to turmoil.  The DC media know this game well, and any time there is a republican president in office they use this marginalization and isolation narrative to stir up trouble.

As a direct outcome The New York Times published an article on Saturday morning attempting to create division and pushing a narrative intended to create trouble amid two aligned groups: Inside Campaign group and Outside Campaign group.

NEW YORK TIMES – President Trump on Friday discussed making Sidney Powell, who as a lawyer for his campaign team unleashed a series of conspiracy theories about a Venezuelan plot to rig voting machines in the United States, a special counsel investigating voter fraud, according to two people briefed on the discussion.

It was unclear if Mr. Trump will move ahead with such a plan.

Most of his advisers opposed the idea, two of the people briefed on the discussion said, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who in recent days sought to have the Department of Homeland Security join the campaign’s efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s loss in the election. (more)

The larger goal by DC media is to isolate President Trump by fracturing his base of support.  The outside group (Powell, Wood, Flynn, Byrne) are fighting a different type of confrontational battle, while the inside group (Giuliani, Ellis et al) are attempting to bridge their legal effort with congressional and political support.

[NOTE: White House counsel is between both groups protecting “The Office”]

Obviously the MAGA community supports both approaches. However, to no-one’s surprise the approach of the more confrontational outside group feeds a yearning for justice amid a 2020 election outcome that is filled with evidence of fraud and injustice.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, one of the outside group, Patrick Byrne, went on Twitter on Sunday and kicked-up a hornets nest of division which plays directly into the hands of the DC media who thrive on the division narrative.

While Mr. Byrne may have the best intentions in mind, saying President Trump is “lied to” by his advisors is not the best approach.  Byrne may believe the confrontational strategy of the outside group is a better plan, and he may forcefully advocate for that approach, but going public with the content of an oval office meeting is never a good idea.

The content or context of a meeting in the Oval Office should always be kept private, and outlining conflict for the purpose of position advocacy never ends well.

The public airing of internal debate (or conflict) only leads to the principle officer (President Trump) having to draw distinct lines amid participants.  Internal conflict made public only fuels the division narrative.

If Patrick Byrne feels the president is not being served by his advisors, apparently he had four-and-a-half hours to make that exact point.  There is no value in taking an antagonistic approach public, and again it only feeds division…. which is what the media are seeking to exploit.

The conflict narrative is worsened by Mr. Byrne going onto Newsmax [SEE HERE] and podcasts [SEE HERE] to keep pushing his message that President Trump is not being served…. Byrne also gave interviews to Epoch Times:https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1341203384351731713&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2020%2F12%2F21%2Fsean-spicer-interviews-rudy-giuliani-on-latest-developments-and-legal-election-processes-two-groups-have-distinct-approaches%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

At a certain point enough purposeful animosity is simply enough.  No doubt the most gleeful group watching Byrne at work are the same media who can take a backseat and appreciate the division of President Trump’s base of support.

There is a certain predictability to all of this:

• Wednesday Night – Michael Flynn recommended (Newsmax) impounding Dominion machines by order of President Trump; and noted military possibilities.
• Thursday – The DC media stirred up the controversy around the insurrection act by painting Trump supporters as unstable.  Joint Chief’s General Milley said the military would not engage in any political effort.
• Friday – Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne meet with President Trump in the Oval Office.
• Saturday – The New York Times framed the Powell/Byrne meeting as a radical effort to remain president.
• Saturday night – President Trump pushed-back against the Martial Law narrative.
• Sunday Patrick Byrne criticizes the White House advisory group, President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and the office of White House counsel.

Notice the fuel for division is from the outside group. What happens next is predictable:

• Monday (tonight) sensing the president is being boxed into a division narrative; which ultimately weakens him and fractures the base of support; President Trump’s campaign lawyer Rudy Giuliani has no other option other than to push back against Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne.

The bottom line is people within the MAGA community must resist the urge to fracture and divide based on differing opinion of approaches.  Everyone wants the same goal and nerves are on edge among patriots who have poured their heart and soul into supporting President Trump amid the face of four years of overwhelming adversity.

President Trump loves this country and is not a quitter amid adversity.  No-one loves this nation more than President Trump and his base of supporters. Everyone wants the best possible outcome.

Bottom line: Let Trump be Trump!

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 21, 2020 by Sundance

Good grief the UniParty is in full swing and they don’t even care what our opinion is about this massive $2.5 TRILLION (approximated because it hasn’t been scored) COVID/Omnibus spending bill that totals over 5,600 pages.  [LINK TO BILL]

The actual 5,600 page bill wasn’t populated for public review until shortly after noon this afternoon and staff had an issue putting it on-line.  Incredibly, and in keeping with the previous approach preferred by congress, the House plans on voting on this bill today; and Mitch McConnell wants the Senate to pass it by unanimous consent (no recorded votes).

My rough review shows an approximately 70/30 split on the $900+ billion COVID package.  Approximately 30 percent +/- of the bill will actually help working class families and businesses on Main Street.  Approximately 70 percent of the bill will go to political donors, special interests, environmental lobbyists, K-Street groups who wrote the bill, foreign interests, Wall Street and corporate beneficiaries.  [Scour the Bill Here]https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1341078170754310144&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2020%2F12%2F21%2Fhouse-voting-today-on-5600-page-pork-filled-covid-package-no-one-has-read-mcconnell-wants-unanimous-consent%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550pxhttps://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1341094756361924608&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2020%2F12%2F21%2Fhouse-voting-today-on-5600-page-pork-filled-covid-package-no-one-has-read-mcconnell-wants-unanimous-consent%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550pxhttps://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-3&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1341119170671501312&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2020%2F12%2F21%2Fhouse-voting-today-on-5600-page-pork-filled-covid-package-no-one-has-read-mcconnell-wants-unanimous-consent%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550pxhttps://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1341117320572366854&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2020%2F12%2F21%2Fhouse-voting-today-on-5600-page-pork-filled-covid-package-no-one-has-read-mcconnell-wants-unanimous-consent%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550pxhttps://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-5&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1341104220380917762&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2020%2F12%2F21%2Fhouse-voting-today-on-5600-page-pork-filled-covid-package-no-one-has-read-mcconnell-wants-unanimous-consent%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

(Via AP) The total price tag of the bill clocks in at at least $2 trillion, but the no one yet knows the bill’s final cost. That’s because the legislation was introduced just hours before the expected votes, Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper, the Joint Committee on Taxation, won’t have time to publish an estimate of the total of all the credits, deductions, and special preferences before the bill likely becomes law, according to Bloomberg News.

In addition to the many provisions on COVID-19 relief, the behemoth bill packages a wide variety of measures big and small, including a human rights bill focused on Tibet, the establishment of two new Smithsonian museums, a provision on “doping” in horse racing, and a measure that seeks to protect patients from surprise medical bills. The bill also funds the federal government through Sept. 30 of next year.

The House is expected to vote on the legislation later Monday before it heads to the Senate, where Senate leaders hope to pass it by unanimous consent. President Trump has indicated he’ll sign the bill. (LINK)

Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 21, 2020 by Sundance

In what the media is calling AG Bill Barr’s final official duty while in office, AG Bill Barr announced today he will not be appointing a special counsel to look into accusations of fraud in the 2020 election; and he will not be appointing a special counsel to look into Hunter Biden’s financial -influence selling – entanglements with foreign governments.

“I have not seen a reason to appoint a special counsel and I have no plan to do so before I leave.”

The Attorney General used a press conference announcing charges against the bomb-maker in the 1988 Lockerbie terrorist attack on Pan-Am 103 to answer questions from the media about the election and the Biden controversy.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General William Barr used his final public appearance to undercut President Donald Trump on multiple fronts Monday, saying he saw no reason to appoint a special counsel to look into the president’s claims about the 2020 election or to name one for the tax investigation of President-elect Joe Biden’s son.

In the course of breaking with Trump on matters that have been consuming the president, Barr also reinforced the belief of federal officials that Russia was behind a massive hack of U.S. government agencies, not China as Trump had suggested.

[…] Barr said the Justice Department’s existing investigation into Hunter Biden’s financial dealings was “being handled responsibly and professionally.”  (more)

Video of the question and answer below: