Spygate Judge Tries To Protect Hillary Clinton In Latest Pre-Trial Rulings

Spygate Judge Tries To Protect Hillary Clinton In Latest Pre-Trial Rulings

The Obama-appointed judge presiding over the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann let politics trump the law when he declared in a weekend opinion he would not rule on whether the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee conspired with others to peddle the Russia collusion hoax.

Special Counsel John Durham charged Sussmann last September in a one-count indictment with making a false statement to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker when Sussmann provided Baker data and “whitepapers” purporting to show a secret communication network between Donald Trump and the Russian-based Alfa Bank. According to the indictment, Sussmann told Baker he was sharing the information on his own, when, in fact, Sussmann represented both tech executive Rodney Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

With trial set to begin in one week, the last month has seen a flurry of pretrial motions—called “motions in limine”—seeking pretrial rulings on the admissibility of evidence. The court previously ruled on several of the issues the parties presented, holding in many cases that a final decision must await trial. Then, late Saturday, presiding Judge Christopher Cooper issued a further opinion resolving many of the still-outstanding evidentiary challenges.

Overall, Cooper’s Saturday night opinion, like his previous rulings in this case, represented a studious and a balanced approach to the legal issues, with Sussmann prevailing at times, but the special counsel succeeding on other issues. For instance, in a victory for Durham, the court ruled that prosecutors could present evidence concerning how the Alfa Bank “data came into being and who was involved in its collection and analysis, as well as how Mr. Sussmann came to possess the data, what he did with it, and why.”

But the court also ruled in Sussmann’s favor, first reiterating its previous holding that unless Sussmann claims at trial that the Alfa Bank data is accurate, the government may not present evidence challenging its validity. Cooper further held that the government could not present evidence that Joffe inappropriately accessed proprietary or sensitive government information to gather the data or write the whitepapers, absent some evidence “showing that Mr. Sussmann had concerns that the data was obtained inappropriately.”

Judge Cooper further demonstrated his baseline when he confronted two more significant issues presented by the opposing parties. Sussmann scored a victory when the court held the government could not admit evidence concerning notes taken by former FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap and former Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson unless they testified about their previous conversations with Baker. Even then, Judge Cooper indicated that at most the jury would likely only be read the contents of the notes, as opposed to receiving the notes themselves as exhibits to view.

Such a limitation will surely inure to Sussmann’s benefit because seeing in writing Priestap’s notation, “Michael Sussman[n]—Atty: Perkins Coie—said not doing this for any client” and Anderson’s note, “Sussman[n] Mtg w/ Baker,” “No specific client but group of cyber academics talked w/ him abt research,” would likely strike a more solid punch than merely hearing their testimony.

Sussmann, however, failed in his attempt to force the government to provide Joffe immunity so Joffe would be willing to testify in Sussmann’s defense. Sussmann had argued that the government had no reasonable basis to claim that Joffe remained a target of a criminal investigation given that the five-year statute of limitations for false statements had run, and that therefore the special counsel’s threat of prosecution served solely to induce Joffe to plead the fifth and refuse to testify on behalf of Sussmann.

Not only did the court reject this argument, in doing so the court stated—simply and without commentary—that “the Special Counsel’s continued representation that Mr. Joffe is a subject of its investigation, rather than simply a witness, does not amount to prosecutorial misconduct on this record.” Given that Sussmann framed the government’s claim that Joffe remained a target as unbelievable, the court’s refusal to question the special counsel’s representation illustrates Judge Cooper’s baseline apolitical equilibrium.

The Obama appointee faltered, however, on the Clinton campaign and handling the special counsel’s argument that various emails, even if they were hearsay, were admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. At issue were emails between Joffe and the Georgia Tech researchers Manos Antonakakis, Dave Dagon, and April Lorenzen, the “originator” of the Alfa Bank data whom Joffe had allegedly tasked to mine internet data to find a Trump-Russia connection.

After concluding some, but not all, of the emails were hearsay, the court addressed the government’s argument that the emails were admissible under federal rules of evidence as “a co-conspirator statement.”

First, Some Lawsplaining

Under federal rules of evidence, a statement made by a “co-conspirator” of a defendant “during and in furtherance of the conspiracy” is admissible even though it is hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, oral or in writing, that is presented to the jury to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

The “conspiracy” need not be criminal, however, for a statement made by another member of the “conspiracy” to be admissible, with courts typically calling non-criminal conspiracies “joint ventures.” But before a court may admit a statement under this “co-conspirator” exception, it must find “by a preponderance of the evidence” that such a conspiracy or joint venture existed. (A “preponderance of the evidence” means it is more likely that a conspiracy existed than that it didn’t, i.e., that the court is 50.1 percent sure there was such a joint venture.)

The Joint Venture

In the Sussmann case, the special counsel submitted that Joffe, Sussmann, and the Clinton campaign (or its agents) were “acting in concert toward a common goal”—i.e., “assembling and disseminating the [Alfa Bank] allegations and other derogatory information about Trump to the media and the U.S. government.” The Georgia Tech researchers and Lorenzen were also part of this joint venture, according to prosecutors.

Judge Cooper, however, refused to consider whether such a joint venture existed, stating instead that, for a variety of reasons, his court was exercising “its discretion not to engage in the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it.”

A court is well within its discretion to refuse to undertake a “lengthy journey” to assess whether a “joint venture” existed and thus whether the various emails are admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. But in the same breath that he declared himself unwilling to make this excursion, Judge Cooper contradicted his own reasoning.

“The government has indicated that it intends to call one or both of the Georgia Tech researchers at trial,” Judge Cooper wrote. “Either of them could testify to their role in assembling the data, how they came to be tasked with the project, and whether they believed the research was done for the Clinton Campaign or some other purpose.”

Thus, contrary to the court’s rationale, there is no “lengthy journey” to traverse: The court need only wait until trial to allow the government to elicit from witnesses testimony confirming the “joint venture”—something Cooper ruled they “could” testify about. In fact, in its brief in arguing the emails were admissible as “co-conspirator” statements, the special counsel’s office noted that a court could “preliminarily admit hearsay statements of co-conspirators, subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.”

But Judge Cooper didn’t even need to admit the emails were “subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.” All the Obama appointee needed to do was follow the same approach he did when confronted with other evidentiary issues that were unclear or where the admissibility depended on the proof at trial: wait for trial to issue a ruling.

Further, ruling on the admissibility of the emails based on the “co-conspirator” exception to the hearsay rule during trial would require little effort, as Cooper’s Saturday opinion itself recognized, by noting that it “has already ruled on the admissibility of many of the emails on other grounds.”

That Judge Cooper deviated from the approach he took with other evidentiary issues, namely withholding final ruling until trial, only on the question of whether the Clinton campaign had conspired to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax, suggests politics motivated that approach.

Two Other Supporting Facts

Two other details from Judge Cooper’s opinion bolster that conclusion. First, not only did Cooper declare he would not rule on the co-conspirator exception for purposes of the specific emails the special counsel’s office sought to introduce, he prejudged the importance of other emails “the Court has not yet seen.”

“Whatever few emails remain,” the court noted, “are likely to be either irrelevant or redundant of other admissible evidence,” thus negating, in the court’s view, the need to address the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

Tellingly, after announcing he would not consider the co-conspirator exception in deciding whether these still-unseen emails were admissible, Judge Cooper added that during trial he would consider whether those same emails might be admissible for a non-hearsay reason. Again, why not do the same on the co-conspirator exception?

The answer seems clear: A court declaring that Hillary Clinton’s then-lawyer had engaged in a conspiracy to “gather and spread damaging information about a Presidential candidate shortly before the scheduled election” would be a devastating blow to the Democrat.

Trying to Protect Democrats and Clinton

Judge Cooper’s efforts to counter the impact of the case on Clinton, and more broadly the Democratic Party, extend beyond merely declaring the “co-conspirator” exception off limits. Rather, in his weekend opinion, after announcing his plan to punt, Judge Cooper proceeded to question the special counsel’s theory, calling the “contours” of the joint “venture and its participants are not entirely obvious.” He then noted he was “particularly skeptical that the researchers” shared in this common goal.

Beyond being an unnecessary annotation to a case in which he expressly declined to address the co-conspirator exception, Judge Cooper’s analysis constructed a strawman to destroy. Durham’s team never claimed that the researchers joined in a conspiracy with Clinton directly, and never claimed they intended to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax to the FBI.

Rather, the joint venture concerned the shared goal of gathering and spreading damaging information about Trump and involved agents of the Clinton campaign, such as Fusion GPS. And the evidence of that joint venture was overwhelming, easily satisfying the preponderance of the evidence test. But even if Judge Cooper was not so sure about that conclusion, waiting for the trial testimony was the proper procedure, as his many earlier rulings demonstrate.

In refusing to consider the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, Judge Cooper may see himself as keeping politics out of the case. After all, as the federal judge noted in the opinion, the special counsel did not charge Sussmann with a conspiracy. But a conspiracy need not be charged for the co-conspirator exception to apply, and this case is political to its core—just as the FBI’s investigation of Trump and the corrupt press’ reporting on the Russia collusion hoax was.

And Hillary Clinton was behind it all, whether the court opts to ignore the conspiracy or not.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

Comrade Neil Oliver Discusses Living as a Dissident Through Orwellian Times

Comrade Neil Oliver Discusses Living as a Dissident Through Orwellian Times

Comrades, in his weekly monologue Neil Oliver walks through the stages of mental exhaustion the corrupt globalists have created in order to retain power.  Looking at the landscape through the prism of George Orwell’s prescient warnings, Oliver ponders if the mirrored reality is actually their roadmap.

The Ministry of Abundance positioned to discharge the pending scarcity.  The Ministry of Peace now used to carry out wars without authority.  The Ministry of Truth purposefully created to retain lies…. and so it goes.  Indeed as the warning was predicted, even “to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak, facecrime it was called.”

The Global Ministry of Nutrition now instructs us to enjoy the benefits of eating bugs, slugs and “lab-grown meat” amid rising costs of farming. The Ministry of Residential Equity promotes the benefits of tiny houses; shared space cubicles where owning nothing leads to increased happiness.  The Ministry of Education replaces academic endeavors with emotional learning.  Math replaced by pansexual dance lessons for the non-binary kindergarteners.   Smile Comrade, smileWATCH:

[Transcript] “Given all that’s happened, I might have expected overwhelming anger in the country by now, loud calls for answers and apologies. Promises that mistakes made in the recent past, liberties taken, would not be repeated in the future. Also maybe demands for change.

Many are the dissenting voices – I know because I hear them every day – but the silencing and ridiculing still goes on.

What I sense around me most of all now, however, is weariness. Council elections have been held up and down Great Britain and apart from anything else, I think we can agree that turnout was low.”

In some polling stations in Hull, for example, turnout was down at 12 per cent apparently. In terms of numbers taking part, exercising their democratic right, it was a damp squib all over.

As so often happens in these plebiscites, the day-to-day rule of the many has been decided by the relatively few who could even be bothered to vote. Among that minority are fervently committed activists, of course, those who see and know that power belongs to those who can be bothered.

Most people are not activists though. Most people have more than enough to do just keeping their heads above water. This depressing state of affairs is hardly surprising. In spite of the media’s attempts to whip up excitement about the results, local council elections have been a lacklustre non-event.

I think it’s getting worse, however. I trotted along to my local polling station and made my marks on the paper. It took some effort though. Along with so many people, I’m sure, I looked at the list of names and parties and thought, “What’s the point? What difference will it make?” I looked at the names and knew what the results would be even as I went through the motions of completing my vote.

We hear a lot of use now of the word, Orwellian. It refers to the English journalist and author George Orwell, of course – he of The Road to Wigan Pier, Animal Farm and 1984 and much else besides. I have a podcast in which, for the fun of it, I invite listeners to imagine that reading history is as close to time travel as a person might get. As the years go by, I wonder more and more if George Orwell wasn’t actually a time traveller for real – so right has he proven to be about where decisions made, and actions taken, in the 20th century would lead future generations.

In Animal Farm, his fable about Communism, he predicted the abuse of trust and the exploitation of power. Once the pigs have control of the farm, they immediately set about taking advantage of their situation. When the other animals notice, for instance, that the pigs are taking all the milk and apples for themselves, while everyone else must eat tasteless slop, the pigs’ PR spokesman – called Squealer – explains the move is backed by science:

“Comrades,” he tells them, “You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples – this has been proved by science, comrades – contain substances absolutely necessary to the wellbeing of a pig. We are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of the farm depends on us.”

I read those lines again and think about the Science we have heard so much about recently. I think too about all the news stories about how good it will be for us as well to eat bugs and lab-grown meat, instead of the good stuff. That’s science too, don’t you know. Then I read about Bill Gates being the biggest owner of farmland in the US and wonder if it will be bugs and lab-grown meat he will produce from all those acres, or maybe cattle for sirloins and corn on the cob for the barbecue. Who could say?

Energy giant E.ON recently sent pairs of polyester socks to customers with the message:

“Energy down – CO2 down”. Those literally in control of the power have been telling people to wear more clothes to fend off the cold, rather than have heating in their homes.

All the while this is going on, oil and gas companies report record profits and bountiful dividends for shareholders.

Follow the science … or follow the money. You choose.

In Animal Farm, before the revolution, the pigs promised the animals that in future they would have electric light in their stalls, hot water as well as cold. Later on, once the pigs have control of the farm, such ideas are silenced. Napoleon, the leader of the pigs, says such notions are contrary to the spirit of Animalism, which is their ideology. He tells them the truest happiness lies in working hard and living frugal lives.

You will own nothing, a person might hear, and you will be happy.

I read about socks in the mail from energy companies. I read about MPs awarding themselves a pay rise in excess of £2,000 a year.

I listen to Boris Johnson justifying tax hikes and the rest.

Asked by a reporter: “What would you say to families trying to make ends meet? Buy cheaper food? Don’t replace clothes? Turn down the thermostat or turn it off altogether? What should people do?”

Boris Johnson answered: “People are obviously going to face choices that they are going to have to make.”

Frugal lives. Napoleon the pig would be proud.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect to see Boris Johnson, or Sir Keir Starmer or the rest of them waiting until the end of the day to hit the supermarkets in search of foods reduced to clear. I don’t expect to hear about them choosing between eating and heating.

In 1984, Orwell’s novel about a dystopian future in which the population is kept in a state of perpetual fear, on account of perpetual war with an enemy they never see, he wrote about how inconvenient facts and truth are “memory holed” which is to say, made to disappear. The protagonist is Winston Smith, who works in the Ministry of Truth. Among other state departments there is a Ministry of Plenty, which is actually a ministry of starvation, dedicated to keeping the people in a state of perpetual poverty, scarcity, and food shortage.

In his booth in the Ministry of Truth there is a slot in the wall into which Winston must post any document featuring information that is inconvenient to the government. Such data disappears at that point, as though it had never been – unless of course there comes a time in the future when the information is actually useful to the government again, at which point it miraculously reappears.

Big pharma giant Pfizer have just released the next 80 thousand pages of data related to the trial of their vaccine. 80 thousand pages. Before barely a word of it is read, many are the voices insisting it’s time anyway to move on and forget. It turns out you don’t even need memory holes when information can hide in plain sight among a population too wearied and distracted by other, more recent problems and fears, to pay enough attention.

The very people who would have us move on unquestioningly – politicians, journalists and others – those who demanded lockdowns – longer and harder – are now in the habit of lamenting the harm done by such measures. All of a sudden those that were ardent cheerleaders for the measures that have done so much harm have the unmitigated gall to fret publicly about the economy, about damage to physical and mental health, to the education and physical and emotional development of children. That they were the ones shouting loudest that we should “suck it up” and “cancel Christmas” to save Granny and the NHS, is information that seems to have been shoveled by the barrow load into the nearest memory hole.

I won’t forget, though. And neither will millions of others.

And in among all of this, ordinary tax-paying law-abiding people are simply and understandably exhausted. After two years of fear and anxiety and obeying rules that made no sense to them, many are on their knees. Into this climate of exhaustion came the local elections and, surprise, surprise, most people had energy only for going to work and feeding their families. And in this way, enervating patterns are repeated.

Another writer, Elena Ghorokova, wrote a memoir about life in the Soviet Union called A Mountain of Crumbs. In it she described how the population was ground down by fear, want, and hardship until people found they could cope best by pretending.

The joke about their relationship with the state boiled down to: “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

The state was lying to the people. The people knew they were being lied to. The state knew the people knew they were being lied to. And still the state lied. It was all a great pretense played by people with power against those with none. And just in order to survive, the mass of the population played their part by joining in the pretense.

Many people are simply at the ends of their tethers – and why wouldn’t they be? We look at our politicians and would-be councillors – at Conservatives, and then at Labour, and then at Lib Dems and the rest. We look from one to the other – at those who called for lockdowns – which is to say prominent members of every party – at those who wanted them in place quicker and harder and for longer. Now we see them clamour for more control, more censorship, more compliance. We look at each in turn and in our hearts and stomachs we wonder if it makes any difference who we choose because in truth they are all the same now.

By the end of Animal Farm, the pigs are walking upright on two legs and wearing human clothes. They carry whips in their trotters. In the final scene, they host a meeting with neighbouring human farmers – the same that they had once claimed to hate as the enemies of all animals. Four legs good, two legs bad, they had once said. The pigs live in the farmhouse now. The other animals, left on the outside, in the farmyard, watch the pigs and human farmers sitting around the table, toasting each other and making plans to cooperate in the future.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again,” wrote Orwell. “But already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Is it just me, or does it feel like someone out there is using Orwell’s work not as a warning, but as an owner’s manual?”  (LINK)

Source

CNN Claims Pro-Life Supporters Will Turn Violent with SCOTUS Victory, Amish Extremists now Threatening ANTIFA Peacekeepers

CNN Claims Pro-Life Supporters Will Turn Violent with SCOTUS Victory, Amish Extremists now Threatening ANTIFA Peacekeepers

No, it’s not opposite day.  This example is just another example of how the Ministry of Truth operates.  Political violence is speech, unless actual speech is heard from their opposition; then, it becomes violence.  War is peace. Water is dry, etc. George Orwell sighs. {Direct Rumble Link}

Knowing there is an increased likelihood of violence incited by far-left democrat activists and the White House, CNN moves their advance narrative engineering team into place to lay the blame for violence at the feet of their political opposition.  With Roe -v- Wade potentially being overturned, Amish extremists are now going to lay siege to the peaceful assembly of ANTIFA in DC, or something equally stupid.  WATCH:

.

If the issues were not serious, this nonsense from CNN would be funny.  Far left activists have been threatening the Supreme Court justices and the White House has been provoking their political allies to keep up the anger against the court.  As a result, every sub-chapter of leftist political activism has been triggered to a state of rage and grievance.  The rhetoric and hatred expressed toward the justices on the court has been extreme.

However, CNN redefines the mob by calling them “right-wing”, the exact opposite of who is making the threats.

Keep in mind, none of the previous ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter violence could take place without the expressed support from the FBI.  If the FBI wanted to stop riots, political violence or the unlawful intimidation of federal judges, they could.

It would be very easy for the FBI to intercept the people making threats and arrest them for intimidation of federal judges.  18 U.S.C. § 1503Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).”   The reason the FBI and DOJ are staying silent, is because the FBI and DOJ support the targeting of the Supreme Court.  It really is that simple.

It should be alarming how the Executive Branch of the United States Government is openly targeting the Judicial Branch of the United States Government, but that point seems to be completely missed by everyone.   U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland standing aside while extremists in the democrat party attack supreme court justices only highlights how political the DOJ and FBI have become.

Last night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson drew attention to the media portrayal and the violent targeting now condoned by DHS, DOJ, FBI and the White House. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:

.

Source

Beyond a Slush Fund, Biden $33 Billion Ukraine Package Includes $8.8 Billion to Establish State Dept Global Disinformation Bureau, and International Civil Asset Forfeiture

Beyond a Slush Fund, Biden $33 Billion Ukraine Package Includes $8.8 Billion to Establish State Dept Global Disinformation Bureau, and International Civil Asset Forfeiture

This is why Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were in Kyiv yesterday…

The details of the Joe Biden $33 billion supplemental budget allocation have been released.  I would strongly urge everyone to read the proposal which now heads to congress for passage {SEE pdf here}.

The spending request outlines a massive amount of money for various ideological foreign policy initiatives under the guise of Ukraine relief (it isn’t).  The proposal outlines a kickback and bribery scheme.

Some of the spending includes an allocation of funds to the State Dept including funds to USAID to “provide $8.8 billion to the Department of State for economic support and assistance to the people of Ukraine and other affected countries, including direct budgetary support, as well as support for food security, democracy, anticorruption, cybersecurity, counter-disinformation, human rights, atrocity documentation, energy, and emergency infrastructure needs.” {pdf page 41The request specifically authorizes the transfer of these funds globally, outside of Ukraine.

{READ SOURCE DOCUMENT}

Apparently, the State Dept is going to set up an international version of DHS “disinformation governance board.”  But wait, it gets worse…

U.S. taxpayers are also going to subsidize farming in Europe and fund the climate change initiatives by paying for the development of alternate energy sources. “This would include [$500 million] support for small- and medium- sized agrobusinesses during the fall harvest and for natural gas purchases by the Ukrainian state energy company.” {page 44}

Mechanisms to legalize defense contractor kick-backs: “This request would authorize Ukraine to utilize Foreign Military Financing Program funds appropriated in this Act and prior Acts to the Department of State to contract directly with U.S. companies to procure defense related materials which would facilitate the delivery of military assistance and security sector support.” {page 48}

Mechanisms to spread the money all over government institutions without prior approval: …”This request would provide the authority to reprogram funds appropriated in this Act and prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for assistance to Ukraine without regard to any minimum amounts specifically designated in such Acts. This authority would provide the needed flexibility to match resources with evolving needs and decrease reliance on new appropriations.” {Page 50}

The last segment is a massive change in the U.S. government power to seize Russian private property and assets, sell them to whoever Biden chooses, and then give the proceeds of the sales to U.S. politicians, friends, family members, or perhaps Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

It is an international version of current DOJ civil asset forfeiture.  The United States government (DOJ, Dept of Treasury and Dept of State) takes ownership of any targeted Russian asset, sells the asset (to whoever they choose, including personal family members) then take the proceeds and distributes them to whoever they choose in the U.S. or Ukraine government.

Example:  Confiscate a $200 million oligarch yacht, sell it to Hunter Biden (or Black Rock / Vanguard) for $50,000, give the $50k to Zelenskyy and then have Black Rock / Vanguard deposit $10 million in James Biden or DNC bank account.  {Page 52}

No, I’m not joking.  Sit down and read how they are legalizing this process.

Source

White House NSA Organizes Security Summit With 50 Nation Peers to Discuss Future of the Internet

White House NSA Organizes Security Summit With 50 Nation Peers to Discuss Future of the Internet

Given what we discussed yesterday, this announcement {SEE HERE} should leave us all feeling warm and fuzzy… NOT!

(SOURCE)

What could possibly go wrong when the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, organizes a “minister level launch of the Declaration for the Future of the Internet.”   Put more succinctly, that would be 50 nation intelligence ministers getting together to decide what they will permit on the internet.

Apparently, a collective partner rule book is forthcoming.   Big Tech will be given specific instructions on how to comply.

The global rulebook on how to handle, define and eliminate ‘disinformation’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘malinformation’ on the world-wide internet.

Sounds like satire, but it’s totally legit.

This meeting provides more context for the formation of a Homeland Security “disinformation board.”

Source

The Desperation of Democrats Surfaces in Effort to Block GA Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Reelection

The Desperation of Democrats Surfaces in Effort to Block GA Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Reelection

The issue would be insanely ridiculous, stupid and generally prone to ridicule if the judicial branch was not willing to engage this nonsense.

The far-left activists are attempting to use Lawfare tactics to block MAGA Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene from reelection using claims of “insurgency” as a justification to disqualify her from the ballot.  As unbelievable as it sounds, Representative Greene was forced to testify today in court as the Lawfare idiots test out the approach they intend to deploy against Donald Trump if they succeed in Georgia.

Andrew Celli, lawyer for the challengers, attempted to frame Greene as a leading insurrectionist in the J6 events in Washington DC.  To grasp how ridiculous this is, the lawyers even tried to use soundbites from a Hollywood movie, Independence Day, to give the impression of Greene trying to overthrow the government by saying, “We will not go quietly into that good night.” {Direct Rumble LinkWATCH:

Apparently, lawyer Celli, has never read the poem “Do not go gentle into that good night,” as written by Dylan Thomas [1914-1953].  That poem is the original iteration of the phrase that has been used many times by various speakers for emphasizing grit, courage and determination.   Many public speakers have used various iterations of the sentiment in speeches and comments.

The Georgia case revolves around an archaic Civil War-era provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says any American official who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution is disqualified from holding any future office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”   However, how this would possibly apply today is a silly legal question, which takes the court down the rabbit hole of questioning free speech and political discourse.

…But that’s how desperate the Democrats are.

Of course, all of these silly theatrics ignore the extreme efforts of the leftists in the Democrat Party to overthrow Donald Trump when he was in office.  You might remember the riots Democrats promoted on Inauguration Day 2017, and the tribes of Moonbat leftists who wore genitalia on their heads while threatening to bomb the White House.

The fact that Marjorie Taylor Greene even has to show up in a courtroom to defend herself only highlights the ridiculous efforts the Democrats will attempt in order to control political outcomes.  The courts even hearing these cases, let alone granting them some bizarre legitimacy, is beyond ridiculous.

Unfortunately, that’s where we are in 2022.

What I also find interesting is the silence from Ronna McDaniel and the RNC on these issues.  Where the heck is the Republican Party in ridiculing this stuff and pointing out how crazy the Democrat communists have become in their lust for power.

The silence from the RNC is only exceeded by the silence of the Republican politicians in leadership.

Source

Club Rules Highlighted Again – Tennessee Republican Club Blocks Morgan Ortagus, Baxter Lee and Robby Starbuck From Ballot

Club Rules Highlighted Again – Tennessee Republican Club Blocks Morgan Ortagus, Baxter Lee and Robby Starbuck From Ballot

The Tennessee Republican Club has met to decide who they will permit on the ballot.  Morgan Ortagus, Baxter Lee and Robby Starbuck have been disavowed by the TN Club for being unworthy candidates according to private rules within the assembly.  Mitch McConnell smiles.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which outlines or supports the use of political clubs to create political parties for candidates for office.  This is one of the lesser-known facets to U.S. elections.

The Republican and Democrat parties are private clubs with internal rules that operate within the system for elections.  Each club chapter can make up their own rules and select candidates for approval based on their own qualifications.

TENNESSEE – The Tennessee Republican Party has removed three candidates, including one endorsed by former President Trump, from the primary ballot for one of the state’s House races.

The Tennessee Republican Party voted on Tuesday to dismiss Trump-backed Morgan Ortagus, who previously served as a spokesperson at the State Department, as well as Baxter Lee and Robby Starbuck, from the primary ballot for the state’s 5th Congressional District, state GOP Chairman Scott Golden confirmed to The Hill. (read more)

As the 2022 primary season begins to take shape, it is important to remember that all messaging from the people within the private club known as the GOP (for selected politicians) or RNC (for membership to support the selected politicians), does not come from some organic coincidence.

Everything we witness as the club enters their season of greatest business opportunity is all carefully coordinated and presented.

Remember, “artful politics is the purposeful creation of an illusion of options for the audience,” and YOU are the audience.

The RNC want to give the illusion of support for MAGA conservatism because they need the base and donor activity.  However, every move they make on an operational level is exactly in line with their previous outlook toward cocktail class republicanism.  The MAGA base of support cannot trust this group and must not be blind or unguarded about the Machiavellian schemes they construct.

Both the Democrat and Republican wings of the UniParty in Washington DC created and support the Fourth Branch of Government.  Political candidates from within the party machinery should be reviewed carefully by voters who must ask themselves are they really seeing an illusion of choice?

At federal and state levels, the party operates as a private club to prescreen approved candidates for their ballots.  Nothing about this entire process changes until MAGA people at the local and state level invest themselves to influence the club determinations.  In order to change the club, you must enter the club. That requires a serious investment in time and effort.   Changing the things you can no longer accept is not easy.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Tennessee Republican club decision, you must ask yourself if you are comfortable with a private club making the decision about who can appear on a ballot.  That is the essential problem with party politics, it is rife for corruption, manipulation and the continuation of a political process that never results in the change you may prefer to see.

Conservatives will argue that to run a candidate outside the GOP approval process leads to a split vote that ultimately helps the Democrat party.  Ultra-leftists will argue that to run a candidate outside the DEM approval process leads to a split vote that ultimately helps the Republican party.  That’s the argument stimulated and promoted by club insiders.

Tactical Civics is the only way to overcome this challenge.  Citizens must join the clubs and work to ensure the voice of the majority is represented by the final club outcome, not a filtering process that only keeps the UniParty system in place.

In the past 15+ years, the Communist wing of the Democrat party has done a much better job of tactical civics.  That is why the Overton window keeps moving left.   The conservative wing of the Republican party, the current MAGA movement, has not been as effective on a local, state and federal level as the Communist wing of the Democrats.

If you live in Tennessee, you might want to ask the state Republican Party officials: what is the intention of blocking choice in a Republican primary?  Shouldn’t the primary contest be the place where the voters decide on these candidate filters?   If not, why not?   What exactly is the intent of club filtration?

Asking these probing questions will likely result in some very uncomfortable discoveries.

It’s your vote, but maybe their candidate.  Find out who “they” are.

Source

Too Dangerous to Allow Elon Musk Control Over So Much Data Says Washington Post

Too Dangerous to Allow Elon Musk Control Over So Much Data Says Washington Post

The latest developments in the effort to purchase the unsustainable magic coffee shop are quite revealing.

According to the New York Post, “Musk himself is willing to invest between $10 billion and $15 billion of his own cash to take Twitter private, two sources close to the situation said. That’s up from the current 9.1% stake in the company he revealed on April 4, which is worth about $3.4 billion.”

However, more revealing about the overall issue are the comments from the PR firm of the U.S. Intelligence Community, The Washington Post:

(WaPo) […] “Putting so much power in the hands of one company is bad enough, but putting it in the hands of one person, as is largely the case with Facebook shareholder Mark Zuckerberg and would be the case if Twitter were owned by Musk, would be incompatible with democracy.” 

“There are simply no checks and balances from any internal or external force,” … “It would leave Musk, like Zuckerberg, with an amount of assembled data about people and the ability to use it to manipulate them “that cannot be compared to anything that has ever existed, and allows intervention into the integrity of individual behavior and also the integrity of collective behavior.” (read more)

People are starting to catch on to the reality that costs for data processing on many social media platforms (the free coffee), exceeds the ability of the platform to generate revenue.  People are starting to understand that behind the scenes of the Big Tech consortium, there is something else, some other operational construct and mechanism, that subsidizes & facilitates their existence.

It is very revealing how the intelligence apparatus of the United States had no issue with Twitter data and influence, until the potential for private ownership, perhaps uncontrolled private ownership, surfaced.  Do not be naïve in pretending not to know how The Washington Post represents the interests of the intelligence apparatus.

In the long arc of history, I truly believe we will discover the inflection moment for the merge of U.S. Deep State (intel community) and U.S. Social Media, will be identified in the early moments of the Arab Spring of 2010/2011.  That was when Facebook and Twitter became tools for the State Dept operation in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain and beyond.  That was the beta-test of synergy.

“Arab Social Media Report by the Dubai School of Government give empirical heft to the conventional wisdom that Facebook and Twitter abetted if not enabled the historic region-wide uprisings of early 2011.” (LINK)

It was from that original, albeit misguided and manipulative partnership, when the actual details about how to create the social surveillance state was first tested.   Everything after those events more than a decade ago, has been this rapidly evolving blend of social media technology and the capacity of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to create and fund the underlying structures.

Daily, we see numerous examples of the ideological control that surfaces as a direct result of this public-private partnership, the closed-conversations between deep government interests (the Fourth Branch) and social media companies which are dependent on the subsidized technology for them to exist.

Perhaps 2022 represents the first time the commonsense of the American electorate begins to recognize the fallacy of the ‘free coffee’ business model.  Personally, I am very optimistic people will soon recognize what many have suspected for a long time.

Ultimately the question becomes, how far will the U.S. Fourth Branch of Government go to stop people from understanding?

Marc Andreessen believes Govt and Big Tech will double, triple and quadruple down to keep their public-private partnership, the backbone of the Free Coffee Shop, hidden.  I cannot say I disagree, because ultimately it is still only the minority of people who understand the stakes.  However, on the upside, the number of people who are starting to understand it, is growing almost exponentially thanks to Elon Musk.

(Source Link)

This is one of those situations where we should all welcome being called ‘conspiracy theorists’, because no matter how big the crowd is that refuses to believe it, ultimately the impossible business model of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop will reveal everything.

That’s why the public-private partnership must stop Elon Musk.  As the Washington Post noted, this level of revelation “cannot be compared to anything that has ever existed.”

“Very shadowy” indeed.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)