Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive.  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.

As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents.  When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process.  Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.

Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part.  You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment.  However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.

This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment.  Again, pay close attention. WATCH:

.

What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023 {citation}.  What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.

Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.

First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents.  They requested a return of documents containing classification markings.  These are two entirely different things.

Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings.  Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.

Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved.  In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}

Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed.   Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.

(more…)

“81 Million Votes My Ass”, is a new counter-propaganda message turned into a song and highlighted by Kari Lake. {Direct Rumble Link}

The song is a little salty but strips down the nonsense and delivers a direct counterpunch to the elements in social society that would continually have us believe that Joe Biden won 81 million votes in the 2020 election.  WATCH/LISTEN:

.

2024 is every American patriot uniting to burn the ships behind us.  This one is for all the marbles. 2024 is not a fight where tepid half-measures and gentlemanly pastels will suffice.  Get right with God, put on the armor, absorb the focus of fighting like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s ark, and get comfortable being uncomfortable.

Our ally is anyone who stands beside us, right now. Our enemy is anyone who doesn’t.

The new sons and daughters of the revolution are going to look completely different.  The Green Dragon Tavern may be a church, a picnic table or a tailgate.  The assembly is not focused on the labels of the assembled.  The mission is the purpose. The fight is wherever it surfaces. Delicate sensibilities must be dispatched like a feather in a hurricane.

(more…)

I have been reviewing interviews, looking at discussion, and some of them I will share in the next few articles.  However, for a solid representation of the state of our current dynamic, as it relates to the targeting of President Donald J. Trump, this interview below is a solid outlook from the detractors.

CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman and CBS News investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge join “Face the Nation” to discuss what’s in the indictment — and what it means for Trump. [Transcript Here]

Before getting to the video, it’s valuable to see Rikki Klieman representing the interpretation of the media outlook toward the indictment handed down by Special Counsel Jack Smith.  It is also valuable to see CBS’s Catherine Herridge represent the defenders of the institutions, from the outside vulgarian personage of Trump.

Klieman buys the Lawfare narrative completely, including the framework of classified documents as opposed to documents containing classified markings.  She sells the Lawfare outline as gospel and makes all assertions from that position.  Herridge looks at how the bureaucracy responds to Trump, including how the institutions hold power of determination higher than a President of the United States.

As Bill Barr said emphatically earlier today, “The documents do not belong to Trump,” continuing with “The documents belong to the government who created them, not the man for whom they were created.”  So sayeth the defender of the omnipotent Dept of Justice.  This is where a sharp intellectual knife to cut through the chaff and countermeasures is needed, and notice no one brings up the visible and practical deconstruction point.

If the documents did not belong to President Donald J. Trump, then why did the government dump them in the parking lot of the White House and tell him to deal with them?

If the documents belonged to the government, and not to the man for whom they were created, then why did that same government give them to him and force him to take them to a location of his choosing?   Can you see the obtuse argument fall apart when simple pragmatic questions are raised?

The institutions are presented, by the sellers of the Lawfare narrative, as higher than the authority of the President of the United States.  This is how ridiculous our government has become.

(more…)

Good news, bad news and granular news..

First, the good news. The judge assigned to the Trump documents case is U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon.  She is the same judge who handled the lawsuit last year after the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.   Judge Cannon was the judge who appointed the “special master” to review the documents the DOJ was claiming were classified, but Team Trump was contending that definition.

Now the bad news. The DOJ is no longer legally arguing that Donald Trump held any classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.  The DOJ is arguing that President Trump held documents vital to U.S. defense security.  It’s a farce but that’s their position.  The classification status of documents is moot, nonexistent, except to create the predicate for the proverbial FBI nose under the tent.

The DOJ-NSD (that’s Lisa Monaco) got a warrant to look for classified documents, but never intended to use classified documents as a case cornerstone because President Trump had full declassification authority.  The DOJ got a search warrant by convincing a judge they were looking for something that wasn’t even a violation of law. That’s why the DOJ would not reveal the probable cause affidavit.  The search was built upon a fraudulent pretense.  “Classified” is a snipe hunt.

(more…)

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is locked in a contract dispute with his former network who took him off the air, but continues to enforce the contract he signed with them.  As the contract battle wages, and while litigation with the network continues, Carlson is limited in his options for platform broadcast.

As a result, Tucker Carlson’s personal Twitter account which existed prior to his Fox contract and is not subject to the terms and agreements, remains an outlet for him to use while not violating his non-compete clause.  Almost all other platforms represent what would be considered online competition to Fox Digital, so broadcasting a new show on any of those digital platforms would represent a potential legal issue and not an option. {Direct Rumble Link}

Tonight, Tucker Carlson aired a 10-minute monologue, what he calls “episode 1” from his Twitter account. While Tucker does not financially benefit from the Twitter platform, for the social media owner Elon Musk the broadcast represents much needed content oxygen. Tucker states at the end of his monologue that if Twitter suppresses or uses their internal fact-check mechanism known as ‘Community Notes‘ to control his content, he will exit the platform. WATCH: 

(Reuters) […] Ukraine and Russia blame each other for the collapse of the massive dam on Tuesday, which sent floodwaters across a swathe of the war zone and forced thousands to flee.  Ukraine said Russia committed a deliberate war crime in blowing up the Soviet-era Nova Kakhovka dam, which powered a hydroelectric station. The Kremlin blamed Ukraine, saying it was trying to distract from the launch of a major counteroffensive Moscow says is faltering. (more)

Elon Musk, who not coincidentally entered an ideological alignment with Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch on behalf of Ron DeSantis, has a vested financial interest in making sure his Community Notes police do not attach warnings and citations to the “controversial” dialogue of Carlson.  While there appears to be an ongoing CN notes war in the background, so far the Musk administrators have been able to keep the platform control agents from impeding the broadcast.

(more…)

It was 34 years ago tonight when the Chinese government sent the Mongolian Army into Tiananmen Square to crackdown on the mostly student protestors.

It is against the law in China to recognize today, memorialize the dead, or even speak publicly of this bloody anniversary. Few people know the short and long-term political ramifications to this event which extended far beyond the borders of China.

Many people are familiar with this image:

However, not as many people are as familiar with the wide shot.

(more…)

Boy, is there ever a loaded dump truck of potential discussion points in this subject area.

First, Google via YouTube is reversing its position and allowing content that challenges the results of the 2020 election.

[Per Axios] “In a reversal of its election integrity policy, YouTube will leave up content that says fraud, errors or glitches occurred in the 2020 presidential election and other U.S. elections, the company confirmed to Axios Friday.”

After removing “tens of thousands of videos” (their admission) previously containing content that challenged the 2020 election results, suddenly that conversation is permitted.

“Two years, tens of thousands of video removals, and one election cycle later, we recognized it was time to reevaluate the effects of this policy in today’s changed landscape,” YouTube said in a statement.

So, according to the script, the “threat to democracy” has suddenly diminished as the 2024 election cycle starts to become a topic of increased discussion? Yeah, right.

I read this Google change two ways: (1) This reads like a “mission accomplished and we don’t need this anymore” kind of policy switch; and (2) There’s that probability of Donald Trump winning the 2024 election and they need to be able to question election results again.

(more…)

Twitter CEO Elon Musk has provided some convincing commentary about his willingness to forgo revenue in order to retain “free speech.” However, more recently he has qualified that outlook by saying, “Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach.”  Musk noting Twitter will block, remove, censor, shadow ban, deboost, downrank and stop content from amplifying based on the determination of those in charge of Twitter content.

This controlled “freedom of reach” perspective, which is really shadow-banning in practice, is generally accepted and now admitted.  Against this backdrop, it becomes important to understand the priorities of the platform to understand the guidelines of the platform.  Within this context the financials are key to understanding what elements are included within “approved content.” {GO DEEP}

Twitter is now a private company, therefore understanding the financials of Twitter is a little more challenging than when they were required to post their financial statements publicly.  However, Elon Musk gave an interview with the Babylon Bee yesterday and revealed some of the internal financial challenges. [VIDEO HERE]  I am going to summarize the status of the Twitter financial position according to what Musk himself revealed.

♦ Twitter was initially purchased by Musk and his investors for around $44 billion.  The company now estimates its value around $20 billion.  Musk overpaid.

♦ Musk put roughly $30 billions of his own net worth into the purchase and financed the rest.

♦ Current outstanding debt on the financing for the purchase is around $12.5 billion. Per Musk statement.

♦ Current debt service, interest on the loans (from investors), is roughly $1.5 billion/yr.  $120.5 million per month for debt service.  Per Musk statement.

(more…)

Apparently, when the Project Veritas board of directors fired founder and CEO James O’Keefe, they didn’t expect the result to be a collapse in their operational business model.  As the kids would say, Veritas f**ked around and found out.

Stunningly, Project Veritas is now suing James O’Keefe, the man they fired, for having the audacity to launch O’Keefe Media Group (OMG), and they are demanding a court order to stop O’Keefe from earning a living. [FULL pdf HERE]

According to the lawsuit, O’Keefe will not stop doing the expose’ journalism and activism that O’Keefe is known for.  Project Veritas is not happy, because many of the donors and supporters have left PV to follow James O’Keefe at OMG.

Veritas demands an injunction against O’Keefe, which may stop people -workers and donors- from leaving PV to join him. The lawsuit is a little extreme in the way it is written as an effort to convince a civil jury to find in their favor. [READ HERE]

(more…)

Everything I have outlined about Twitter is going to surface as accurate over time.  There are two major elements: (1) DHS govt influence, now evidenced in the Twitter Files, and (2) the Twitter financial issues, which explain the recent hiring of Linda Yaccarino, which are soon to surface.

Yesterday, Elon Musk responded to criticism of Twitter censorship, vis-a-vis government demands, with this Tweet: “Please point out where we had an actual choice and we will reverse it.”

The Musk supporters are saying Musk has to comply with government demands if their national laws require it. However, that angle doesn’t take into consideration the choice that Musk/Twitter always have.

If the platform content is not approved by a government, and that govt then demands removal or censorship of that content, Twitter always has two options. One, to comply with the demand and block or restrict the user content (which is the direction they have taken) – or two, stop allowing the platform to operate in the country demanding the censorship. It is the latter option that everyone always avoids mentioning.

However, the issue appears to be bigger and goes to the heart of the second aspect of Twitter we have noted.

(more…)