Like watching a video with the sound turned off, if you are to stand back away from the distractions of the media presentation, and just look at raw data in the form of actions being taken by those who circle the world of politics, the activity points to something disconnected from the official narrative.

All of the individual components of visible activity can be accepted as they are, or they can be interpreted into a picture of what they might be.

Examples include travel and visits by political entities, changes in the dates for the 2024 presidential primaries, assemblies of groups and supporters in specific constructs and various other indications of a duality within purpose.

Throughout our analysis of the preferred ’24 outcome by those in the background who ultimately seek to control elections through the activity of front men, those artfully skilled at presenting the illusion of choice, it has always looked like the RNC/DNC preferred presentation was a Ron DeSantis -v- Gavin Newsom (win/win) contest.

The landscape of the ’24 election would then be reduced to “social issues” as distinctions between the two faces of the contest, while the economics of things – the substantive part – carries a far lesser contrast. An almost identical replay to the attempted 2016 construct of Hillary -v- Jeb.

(more…)

For two days Bannon Warroom frequent guest, Attorney Mike Davis, has been trying desperately to defend his friend, RNC Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon, for her participation in a California GOP scheme to support Ron DeSantis with proportional delegates.

In a series of Tweets and statements, Mike Davis continually said he had firsthand knowledge the Trump campaign was aware of the rule change and did not contest it. However, Davis refused to say who on the Trump campaign had this knowledge and seemingly approved the delegate plan without challenge.

Mr. Davis became increasingly unhinged when questioned about the issue, because it just did not make sense; yet, Davis continued to claim the Trump campaign was aware.

It became increasingly obvious to those watching the repeated desperate denials that something was afoot, and it just did not reconcile. In short, the most likely scenario was that Mike Davis was being dishonest and less than fulsome with his statements.  However, despite his credibility hanging in the balance, Mike Davis publicly continued to stick to his guns.

By the end of the second day, he really had no option; he had painted himself into a corner. When asked again last night by myself and others, he responded, “Why would I ever reveal the names of loyal Trump workers—names told to me in confidence?”  Apparently painting the mysterious campaign workers as loyal to Trump, even though the rule they seemingly approved would be unfavorable to President Trump.

After Harmeet Dhillon began her own retreat, it became obvious the fabrications were soon to collapse. Mike Davis modified slightly clarifying that President Trump personally was unaware. “I never said President Trump saw or approved anything. I said the Trump campaign was briefed about the proposed rules change and didn’t object.”

UPDATE: Richard Baris (People’s Pundit) was able to contact the Trump campaign to ask them directly.  According to Baris relaying information from the campaign, the Trump Campaign was not aware of any California GOP rule changes and were not notified of the plan as designed by Jessica Patterson, Shawn Steel and Harmeet Dhillon, to change the delegate apportionments.

Mr. Mike Davis, the former Chief Counsel for judicial nominations to Senator Chuck Grassley, former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch and frequent guest on the Steve Bannon Warroom podcast, lied in all his public statements.

Mike Davis wants to be the next Trump appointed Attorney General for the United States. Take from that, what you will.

(more…)

Something about this doesn’t pass the proverbial sniff test, and when asked for a direct answer – well, things get salty.

For two days a self-proclaimed Trump advisor and frequent guest on the Steve Bannon Warroom podcast, Mike Davis, has claimed that President Trump and the Trump campaign authorized a California GOP rule change that would permit proportional delegate distribution against the interests of President Trump.

The claim itself made no sense because, if Mike Davis and Harmeet Dhillon were correct, essentially Trump would be approving a GOP change that would give delegates to his GOP nomination competition – namely Ron DeSantis.  Mr. Davis was asked to explain who specifically from the Trump campaign authorized and approved of the plan.

Mr. Davis refused to answer the question publicly, which, as normal, created additional suspicions about the validity of the claim.  More and more people started to pay attention and put the question out, because, well, quite frankly, it just doesn’t make sense.

Instead of responding simply and publicly to the question, and saying who in the Trump campaign knew about, authorized and approved the California plan, Mike Davis responded with the following Direct Message: “Go fuck yourself.”

(more…)

I added a NOTE about Musk’s nonsense justification.

If the lessons of COVID-19 have taught us anything, it should be that each step the totalitarian dictatorships take -under the guise of protecting new democratic norms- must be viewed through the prism of future targeting.

We should pay attention, lest we find ourselves on the alternate side of populist uprisings under state targeting.

I sent the prior warning message around the collaboration between private industry and western government surrounding financial restrictions placed on Russia. When VISA, Mastercard and other payment mechanisms willingly and willfully supported the intentions of the Western Government coalition, few people thought about the Rubicon this new merge and partnership was establishing. {SEE HERE} In essence, private industry determining the lifestyle of Russian citizens in an effort to target their political leadership. Few people were paying attention, fewer still think long term.

With France now pledging to shut down internet communication in an effort to control organizing through social media, there is a bigger picture that must be considered.

[SOURCE – Translated from French]

Let me take you back to 2010 and 2011 when the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, CIA Director Leon Panetta and French President Nicholas Sarkozy wanted to support the Islamist Spring uprisings in Tunis, Libya, Egypt and Yemen.

What happened then is very much related to what we are seeing right now in Europe, specifically France; only this time we are seeing the inverse of the government interests regarding social media on display.

(more…)

Representative Byron Donalds (MAGA – SWFL) brings an important point to the audience at a local townhall.  The issue of institutional corruption, and the total lack of faith and confidence in the institutions of our government, are at the forefront of the electorate.  Representative Donalds is challenged about the intent of the MAGA republican legislators and what must be done about the transparency of corruption we all witness and know to exist.

During his response, Donalds notes a key distinction.  The MAGA coalition saw what the 2010 Tea Party conservatives went through. The MAGA coalition saw and sees what President Trump has gone through.  The MAGA coalition is delivering a message to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and others, that those who stand on the principles of anti-corrupt influence are not concerned with the perks, benefits, affluence and legislative influence that DC uses to diminish their opposition.

As noted by Donalds sharing his discussions with Kevin McCarthy, the MAGA coalition is in place -in their face- to effect change and remove the corruption, not participate in the process to give the illusion of change.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

The Twitter platform decisions are making headlines and opening conversation, because Elon Musk is trying to retain his platform against all odds and not really working to solve his problem.  Several platform changes are taking place that are being less than honestly explained.  As interested CTH readers look on quizzically, perhaps it’s time for me to revisit the truth of Musk’s challenge as it has always existed so people can understand. [NBC ARTICLE HERE, that doesn’t understand]

Keep in mind, long before people realized the Dept of Homeland Security (FBI, DHS, CISA etc.) had a portal into Twitter, I was explaining how transparently obvious it was. {Go Deep – Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop} In part, the transparency of the problem is driven by CTH understanding of the costs associated with Twitter as a very unique platform in the sphere of social media. {Go Deep – Understand the Costs}

With the latest revelations we shared about the financial position of Twitter {Go Deep on FINANCIALS}, all of the moves now underway make sense.  Musk was on track to hit a date in/around October of this year where Twitter would be insolvent. If you had read those previous “Go Deep” links, you will easily see the problem. However, if you have not read those backgrounds, this could be difficult to understand.

[Source Link]

Musk is being disingenuous in his explanation here.  I’m being generous in not calling him a fibber.  His problem is multifaceted, and he is looking at it with two approaches.

First, by Musk’s prior admissions, he’s losing approximately $300 million/month and needs to grow revenue fast.  That’s why he hired Linda Yaccarino.  Second, he’s trying desperately to reduce operational costs for data processing.  Twitter has a systemic platform cost issue that will not change easily – due to his very unique issue of “simultaneous users,” in combination with no proprietary content.  That’s where he is being less than honest about these changes.

Twitter is a global discussion platform, essentially a global commenting system.  Elon Musk is trying to address the cost and utility of his platform at the same time that a similarly constructed META alternative is about to launch.  Yes, Mark Zuckerberg is JUST ABOUT to launch a Twitter version of META that will link Facebook, Instagram, and Google YouTube content into one big instant conversation and commenting system.

(more…)

After a legal debate about standing in the case of Biden v Nebraska, the Supreme Court took up the issue of whether the President could unilaterally forgive student debt without an act of Congress.  In a 6-3 ruling {pdf here}, the court determined the executive authority of the Dept of Education did not permit such action.

Joe Biden campaigned in 2020 on a promise to eliminate student debt unilaterally, without congressional approval.  The court opinion released today affirms that Congress must be involved in their role as decision-makers of federal spending.  Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

[SCOTUS BLOG] – […] When the Biden administration announced the program in August 2022, student-loan repayments had already been on hold for over two years. Betsy DeVos, who served as the secretary of education during the Trump administration, suspended both repayments and the accrual of interest on federal student loans at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. She relied on the HEROES Act, a law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that gives the secretary of education the power to respond to a national emergency by “waiv[ing] or modify[ing] any statutory or regulatory provision” governing the student-loan programs so that borrowers are not worse off financially because of the emergency.

(more…)

In a landmark court ruling released today, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the use of affirmative action in college admissions. {237-page ruling here}

By a vote of 6-3 (UNC) and 6-2 (Harvard) the court ruled the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause barring racial discrimination by government entities.

Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion of the majority said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a woman of notoriously activist disposition defined by her self-image and race, sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board who constructed the rules the Supreme Court now determined were unlawful.

Amy Howe – […] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.”

(more…)

I will say it until people understand.  Lawfare is a specially constructed approach to weaponize the judiciary to create narratives for public consumption; it is the abnormal and twisted application of granular legal language, and as a result it requires oddball motions to support it.

The DOJ previously filed a motion for “Special Conditions of Release” to restrict President Trump’s defense from knowing or discussing the super-secret evidence and witnesses the special prosecutor plans to use against him.  The motion was essentially that if President Trump refused the super special terms and conditions of the motion, then Judge Cannon should put him in leg irons in federal prison until he can be tried and convicted.

The special counsel wants everything kept under seal, quiet and invisible to the public so the omnipotent arbiters of justice can appropriately shape the narrative they prefer.

The Jack Smith team cannot have President Trump being all uncontrolled, willy-nilly and making fun of their case, while talking about his targeting in such a manner as their super-secret witnesses would be exposed to such duplicitous snark and horrible influence.

(more…)

I do not know all the details of her case, trial and subsequent conviction; however, I do know Jessica Watkins and other Oath Keeper members were entrapped by a federal agent organizing activity under the username “1% Watchdog.” I am certain of this element because the J6 committee falsely accused me of being that user. {GO DEEP}

The Gateway Pundit ran an article today [SEE HERE] which includes an interview from prison with Ms. Watkins, who continues to claim her innocence. Ms. Watkins gave an interview to Flip the Switch with Jenn {Direct Rumble Link} video and audio below:

Again, I do not know Ms. Watkins or any of her allies and associates.  However, the subpoena I received from the J6 Commitee, specifically identified her as one of the people they falsely claimed I was associated with.  I have unredacted her name from the subpoena below in the hopes that her legal team (if any) can see the value it presents.

I have written about the entrapment issue HERE, as well as the value that should be clearly evident.  Counselors – On behalf of your client(s) file a motion with the judge requesting a court order compelling Zello to give up the registration records of the ‘Stop the Steal J6’ channel.  This will identify the person behind “1% Watchdog”.  If federal prosecutors fight the request for the court order, well: (a) there’s your answer; and (b) take the next step of using the preexisting congressional subpoena as evidence to support your compulsion.

(more…)