People have asked me why I have remained relatively quiet about the legal issue and targeting of Peter Navarro by a weaponized DOJ and Congress.  I will explain in greater detail after the news from today.

Peter Navarro was a former adviser to President Trump and the lead of the coronavirus task force.  Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a short opinion rejecting Navarro’s effort to have the Supreme Court intervene and stay his sentence.

Mr. Navarro was charged with contempt of Congress,  and was prosecuted by the DOJ and convicted in September of two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to provide testimony and documents to the J6 House Select Committee investigating the protest at the U.S. Capitol.  [Note, most of you know I received a similar subpoena from them, so I have a slightly different perspective than most.]

[…] Navarro spoke Tuesday morning in a strip mall in West Miami near the prison where he will serve four months. “I will walk proudly in there to do my time,” Navarro said. “I will gather strength from this: Donald John Trump is the nominee.”  Navarro called the case an “unprecedented assault on the constitutional separation of powers.” (media story)  WATCH:

.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Navarro.  I firmly believe he was unfairly targeted by the J6 committee and a weaponized DOJ who were looking for any opportunity to target people in Donald Trump’s orbit – including Navarro and Steve Bannon.  I regard Navarro as a really awesome ally, and functionally very smart and apt at the responsibilities he held in the White House.  Navarro is a good man.

Navarro was charged with failure to provide testimony and documents to Congress.  Navarro argued that executive privilege covered his refusal to provide testimony and documents.

The executive privilege that covers private conversation is held by President Trump and cannot be, should not be, waived by any advisor to the president.  However, there is a key element in the executive privilege aspect that is mostly overlooked by righteous pundits and conservative analysts as it pertains specifically to Navarro.

(more…)

Oral arguments were heard today in the appeal of the government against the states of Louisiana, Missouri and seven plaintiffs who claim that Biden officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to suppress or delete content about COVID-19 that federal officials found objectionable.

The Biden administration had an extensive communication pipeline into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and various subsidiary tech companies where instructions, the government says “encouragement”, were/was given about the removal of content critical of the government position, and the removal of content providers – American citizens.  Full Hearing Audio:

Making the case for the Biden administration, Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher led the way.  “We don’t think it’s possible for the government — through speech alone — to transform private speakers into state actors,” he said.

Fletcher said the government didn’t engage in coercion — which he said would be unconstitutional — just encouragement and persuasion for the social media platforms to enforce their existing rules at the time barring Covid-19 misinformation.  “If it stays on the persuasion side of the line — and all we’re talking about is government speech — then there’s no state action and there’s also no First Amendment problem,” he said. “I think it’s clear this is exhortation, not threat.”

Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, arguing for the plaintiffs, said the speech the platforms were suppressing wasn’t their own speech but those of third parties, ordinary Americans. Aguiñaga also said the users often had no idea they were being impacted by the federal effort to prod the platforms to take down content.  “The bulk of it is behind closed doors. That is what is so pernicious about it,” he said.

The questioning by the majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared to favor the government, in large part due to the inability of the plaintiffs to outline direct actionable harm to them as an outcome of the regulation of their speech by the tech platforms.  The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the case by late June.

(more…)

Tucker Carlson gives a good preliminary outline showcasing the hypocritical argument being used against the social media platform TikTok and the auspices of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) expansion and influence in America.  Carlson walks through some of the current aspects of Chinese ownership and influence in the USA and then asks why is TikTok the focus of concern.

Rand Paul then joins Carlson to discuss the specific details of HR7521 and the interests of Washington DC as espoused.  Toward the end of their conversation, Rand Paul does a good job framing the issue around the global cleaving we have discussed at length here.  Senator Paul doesn’t specifically connect the dots clearly, but his larger point about where he sees this approach going is correct.  The global cleaving, which was triggered by Western sanctions against Russia, is a very real phenomena despite people denying it is taking place.  WATCH:

.

Breeauna Sagdal – “Once you realize that TikTok and its parent company Bytedance have been working WITH the Biden Administration and CFIUS for the last three years to become compliant, once you realize that On January 19, 2021, one day before President Biden assumed office, the US Department of Commerce (Commerce) published an interim final rule implementing its sweeping new authority to block, unwind, or condition “transactions” involving information and communications technology and services (ICTS), once you realize that TikTok’s servers are in Texas, and then understand that the company already has an American board, and has already turned over ALL records of shareholders to the satisfaction of our federal government – then you start to understand the REAL target isn’t TikTok – it’s YOU via “X,” Rumble, Gettr, Crypto, and so on down the line of non-compliant, divergent thought, content hubs and decentralized financial mechanisms.”

(more…)

Serendipitously, or not – depending on who you talk to, I was previously scheduled to be in DC at the moment of inflection for the passage of HR7521, the proverbial “TikToK Ban Law.”   Allow me to encapsulate the issues and present the point of those who say there is nothing to worry about.

First, the context that should matter (it doesn’t because the USIC are in charge here) is that every element that preceded the passage of the Patriot Act is being duplicated in the passage of the TikTok ban.  Which is to say, everyone is deferring to this ridiculous need to support USA National Security.

We The People have been burned by this approach before, yet so many refuse to see the similarity.

Second, the essential shield for those who support the bill [READ HR7521] comes down to the term “Foreign Adversary”, which is defined in the bill as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.  As they make the case, TikTok ban advocates cite the content or platform of the issue must originate from, and/or be controlled by, a foreign adversary…. so quit worrying.

However, the legislative language cites Foreign Adversary Controlled Application (FACA), which applies to content providers, apps, websites, social media and hosting platforms.  This is where things get sketchy, because “under the direction of” is language that is included in the legislation, and the determinations of “at the direction of” are made by the Attorney General.

If the content, platform, website, or social media app generates content that is considered a national security threat, and providing information therein that is deemed to be under the control of a “foreign adversary,” it is the content within, not necessarily the platform ownership itself, that transfers compliance inquiry to the U.S government (DOJ Attorney General) for definitions.

(more…)

Speaking to local media, Judge Scott McAfee confirmed the decision to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will be released tomorrow.  SEE VIDEO:

District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade had a long-term romantic relationship.  They were caught lying about it in court testimony.

Additionally, according to White House visitor logs, Mr. Nathan Wade visited White House lawyers prior to indictment of President Trump, while DA Willis met with staff (Mary McCord) from the January 6 Committee prior to the indictment. The scope of the political lawfare is in bright sunlight now.

The Georgia prosecutor, meeting with Biden lawyers prior to the indictment against Biden’s political opposition, is a big issue that has yet to surface in front of Judge McAfee.  The legal ramifications of DA Fani Willis being discharged from the case for conflicts of interest and lying to the court are still unknown.

(more…)

I swear by all that I know to be righteous and accurate, the combined willpower of the UniParty in Washington DC is not targeting TikTok from the perspective of concern over data collection.  Instead, the DC system -which is to say the USIC- is using the auspices of TikTok to expand the reach of government censorship and control information.

This is a domestic information space battle, using the guise of TikTok as a baseline for justification.  How do we know? You only need to look at the mechanism of the law as it is written, the compliance section, and the definitions they are using to see they are not targeting data collection.  [pdf of HR7521 HERE]

If TikTok data collection was the issue, the law would be structured to ban foreign data collection.  That’s not what this is.  This is a law written to give the Executive Branch the power to define any platform as “foreign owned” by the service provider (even if domestic) and the substance of the content contained and/or distributed.  This has to be stopped.

[Source pdf, Page 8 – HR7521]

Read the law as written through the prism of “Information Control,” not the prism of data collection.  The law is designed to control information, not data collection.

As readers are well aware, the USIC is in alignment (I would say control) with almost all U.S-based social media platforms.  This is why/how DHS is operating in synergy with those same systems.  This is also the motive behind the mis-dis-mal-information definitions.  Ultimately, if you stand back and look at what is being done, you see the concern of the U.S. government is not data collection, its information control.

The TikTok ban, authorized by a duplicious Legislative branch, is expanding the ability of the Executive branch to control information.  Just as The Patriot Act was not about targeting terrorism, but really about domestic surveillance; so too is the TikTok ban not about foreign data collection, it’s about information control.

Again, read the law as written and you can clearly see this is a law created to authorize the agencies of the government to control information.  Silence is the same as consent in the face of oppression.  Do not be silent.

(more…)

For some reason Tucker Carlson interviewed Chris Cuomo.  The majority of the lengthy interview is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.  Chris Cuomo is either intellectually incapable of understanding the Russia dynamic and how the U.S Intelligence Community (USIC) conducts propaganda efforts against American citizens, or Chris Cuomo is a paid actor within the system he describes as “the game.”  From my perspective the former is more likely than the latter.

That said, please pay attention to the prompted segment about Russia, as outlined by Tucker Carlson, that begins at 34:18 and runs through 37:55.  If you stay with it until 46:00 it’s worth it; however, the important part is the key four minutes outlined above.  Carlson frames the “western” or U.S-led sanction regime against Russia very accurately, and the consequences he describes for the rest of the world is accurate.   WATCH FIRST:  

.

After watching this specific segment, I am left with a few takeaways.

First, Tucker is the only person -beside myself- who I have seen accurately outline the cause and consequence of the Russia sanction regime.  Why hasn’t Tucker expanded on this in granular detail?   The issue is much, much larger, than just simple sanctions.  There is a global agenda afoot, an intentional global cleaving, which was predicated by that specific sanction regime.

READ THIS from 2022 !!!

Second, he knows.  You can tell by the way Tucker frames the “I don’t know what’s really going on” aspect, that he really does know…. but he’s scared.  Tucker is scared of the consequences if he outlines in detail how the USIC and by extension the entire USA governmental system, is using Russia as a tool toward a larger corporate/globalist agenda.

It is annoying, albeit somewhat understandable in the larger picture, to see important voices who have reach – recoil and self-censor because they are fearful of the personal consequences.   Things are about to get very ugly. The Western dollar-based financial system is being weaponized against liberty. The American people are about to discover the scale and scope of consequence behind this intent, and the American people deserve to know the details of how and why this global cleaving is being pushed.

(more…)

The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE] highlighting just how political the J6 committee was.  The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.

WASHINGTON– Today, Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)

[SOURCE]

The last bullet point has a name.  The “Select Committee staff” who met with Fani Willis was likely Mary McCord.

(more…)

The next six weeks will be very interesting, as the April 19th clock-ticking dynamic leading up to the expiration of the 702-surveillance authority looms louder.  Some voices have said to me that President Trump needs to be careful of the Title-1 surveillance that surrounds him. I completely reject that approach.

There was a specific reason the Lawfare group charged Donald Trump with “national security” violations. Smart people can well understand the benefit to the surveillance state of the U.S. intelligence community, when Jack Smith defines President Trump as a national security threat under the same justification framework used against Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki. The options for the FBI-CoIntel unit assigned to monitor Trump are expanded by the definitions of the DOJ-National Security Division.

Ultimately, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the best defense against the FBI counterintelligence surveillance is to conduct affairs in a very public way.  This approach, which I fully advocate and endorse, leaves the institutional watchers with gritted teeth as transparency makes it more difficult to create narratives that are contingent upon defining the innocuous as nefarious.

Additionally, if concern over the content of any meeting (think the insufferable Logan Act construct as previously created by Mary McCord) is generated, those approaches -when contrast against the ongoing Lawfare tactics- are made moot and useless to the NSD – and by extension the judicial branch, when President Donald Trump includes his legal counsel in any meeting.  [Hi Mary]

Hungarian Prime Minister Orban is well advised by his counsel as is President Donald Trump. As an outcome of their nationalist ideology, both leaders are targets of the U.S. intelligence community (CIA) and national security state (DoS and USAID).

WASHINGTON DC – Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán traveled to Florida on Friday to visit Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, in a meeting blasted by U.S. President Joe Biden.

(more…)

If you ever needed a good point to highlight the nature of political Lawfare, this is a great example.

Julie Kelly essentially notes that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is asking DC Judge James Boasberg to decide what evidence should be given to Florida Judge Aileen Cannon.

Julie Kelly (Via Twitter) – “It appears that records related to the grand jury proceedings in DC on the classified docs case remain under seal and have not been transmitted to Judge Cannon or defense.

Recall that almost the entire investigation into the classified docs matter took place in Washington DC–not southern FLA even though it is the controlling jurisdiction since the alleged “crime” of retaining classified records/national defense info happened at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.

DOJ then Jack Smith kept the case in Trump-hating DC courthouse so they could get favorable rulings from then-chief judge Beryl Howell–which they did. For example, Howell cited the crime fraud exception to justify piercing atty-client privilege between Trump and his lawyer, Evan Corcoran, to force Corcoran to turn over his records to DOJ.

Highly unlikely that would have happened in FLA especially before Judge Cannon. But right before indictment, Jack Smith moved the case to Florida. Reports at the time indicated DOJ read summaries of its grand jury evidence to a FLA grand jury in order to secure the indictment.

So, how is it almost nine months post-indictment that trove of evidence remains under seal? When the issue was raised, David Harbach said DOJ was “in the process” of asking the current DC chief judge James Boasberg to review the file, add redactions if needed, and transmit to FLA court. (link)

There is a certain level of cognitive disassociation needed by the media to ignore how the DOJ is using a DC court system to prosecute a Florida case against Trump.   Go Deep on Boasberg HERE

(more…)