A revelatory article in Politico [SEE HERE] discusses a secret tribunal that Joe Biden has created to act as an arbiter in the space between the USA internet and the EU user privacy rules.  However, if you apply the Occam’s Razor perspective, you might discover the tribunal or secret court is really just an arbiter of content, a “filtering system”.

Those who do not pretend have long ago realized the systems deployed to control information and communication will always be the priority.  You cannot intentionally abuse a victim and yet allow them to have uncontrolled contact with family, the abuser needs to keep the victim isolated.  The same is true for government in their need to control information that might expose their purpose.

Recently European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said controlling information was the #1 priority of the WEF group for 2024.  That makes sense, when you consider that organized pushback would be counter to their agenda.

The western alliance of nations is collaboratively focused on definitions to help with their disinformation, misinformation and malinformation agenda.

Into this mix comes the European Union with rules and regulations on user data, a valuable commodity when enmeshed with commerce and the internet.  The USA does not have those same rules and regulations on user privacy, all our metadata is under surveillance by corporations and government, so an arbitration system is needed where an EU member, group or nation can demand the stoppage of an American company from retaining EU user data.

Joe Biden has assembled a tribunal or quasi-judicial court system for the purpose of having a destination for EU complaints and violations.  One of the people appointed to the tribunal review team is Eric Holder.

(more…)

In a 14-page opinion and ruling today [SEE pdf HERE] four judges from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals deconstruct the previous ruling from their own court as well as the DC judge beneath them that gave Special Counsel Jack Smith access to President Trump Twitter account data and then enforced a non-disclosure order.

There are multiple layers to this story, but the substantive part is the scheme and the construct of how the Lawfare took place.  There’s no way this was coincidental; I’ll explain why.

First, there are only 7 members on the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals.  When the Twitter case to gain access to President Trump communication came to the appellate level, somehow all three of the most left-wing judges were assigned to hear the appeal.

An “en banc” review would have included the full 7 members.  However, that review was made moot by the release of the information (a result of the appellate decision).  The release itself was done with the use of a non-disclosure order, hiding the ruling in secrecy and keeping President Trump from knowing about it.  Once the other four members of the DC CCA eventually found out about the case and the ramifications for ‘executive privilege’ their opinion lambasting their own court is released.

As noted from the panel, “the court here permitted a special prosecutor to avoid even the assertion of executive privilege by allowing a warrant for presidential communications from a third party and then imposing a nondisclosure order.”

The Circuit Court justices note that Jack Smith could have gone to the National Archives for the information as they held the same set of documents and information.  However, Smith didn’t want to go that route because the National Archives would inform President Trump as customary and provide him the ability to assert executive privilege over any of the 32 Direct Messages requested.

(more…)

If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.

Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {link} Why?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

(more…)

I have long been saying the Jack Smith special counsel team is the reassembly of the Robert Mueller team.  Today, inside an article {SEE HERE} outlining other ancillary matters about the 2020 election challenges, Politico inadvertently confirmed my suspicions.

First, the non-pretending BIG PICTURE.   The Clinton exoneration FBI Team became the Trump investigation FBI Team (Crossfire Hurricane) -which then became the Robert Mueller FBI Team (exact same people, plus some additions) – which then became the J6 Investigation FBI Team (exact same people, plus some additions) – which then became the Jack Smith FBI Team (same exact people).  Not only is it one long continuum, but it’s also the EXACT SAME PEOPLE.

So, the Politico Article, discussing the FBI Agents and the DOJ officials who signed the subpoena that stemmed from Jack Smith, is not really surprising other than the confirmation of the same DC-based FBI agents and DC-based Lawfare operatives.

POLITICO – […] During a tense confrontation with FBI agents who were trying to serve a subpoena, Harrison Floyd — a 2020 Trump campaign aide — considered grabbing one of the agents’ guns, Floyd told local police officers who arrived at his door shortly afterward.

[…] The subpoena and its accompanying letter were signed by assistant special counsel Jonathan Haray, a veteran federal prosecutor who once worked closely with Washington, D.C.’s U.S. attorney, Matthew Graves, who now leads the massive Justice Department probe of the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The presence on Smith’s staff of Haray, who once served as the deputy chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, has not been previously reported. Haray joined law firm DLA Piper in 2014 after a job at the Securities and Exchange Commission. He appears to have returned to government service about a year ago, around the time Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to the special counsel post in November 2022.

[…] While the federal court filings don’t name the FBI agents, a police report released to POLITICO this week with the video under the Maryland Public Information Act identifies them as Walter Giardina and Christopher Meyer. Meyer’s name is also visible in the paperwork accompanying the subpoena seen in the bodycam video.

(more…)

Most will not see the forest through the trees.  I have shortened this longer interview with Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, to emphasize a point.

Monaco is one of the extreme control operatives from the Obama era who transferred intentionally into the Biden administration to continue control operations.  Monaco is literally one of the consequential DC administrators responsible for maintaining a well-honed and weaponized Dept of Justice.  That’s all she does; organizing and keeping the Main Justice targeting mechanism focused on their priority is her job.

In this interview segment, transcript provided below, DAG Lisa Monaco outlines the importance of keeping a corrupt system isolated so that only the corrupt officials within it have reign.  Of course, that’s not the exact context of her comments, but when combined with the actual reality of the effort – that’s the cornerstone of the non-pretending message.  WATCH:

[Transcript] – […] THOMAS: I’m going to ask a couple questions that I hope get to transparency, understanding the limits that you have to operate within. Can you assure the American public that Special Counsels Jack Smith and David Weiss, Robert Hur are operating without regard to anything but the facts and the law?

MONACO: Yes. And the reason I say that, Pierre, is, look, these are matters of the utmost importance and significance. Cases of that level of significance are — it’s exceptionally important that they are handled independently, confidentially and free of any outside or inappropriate influence. And that’s exactly why the attorney general appointed special counsels in the first place.

THOMAS: Just for the record, so the public can hear it from a top official at DOJ, has President Biden ever raised the classified documents investigation, the probe of Hunter Biden with you or the A.G., tried to influence you? Has he ever done that in regard to President Trump?

MONACO: No. And the attorney general’s been exceptionally clear on this point. (more)

Outcomes are determined by controlling inputs.

(more…)

Using his Twitter/X platform to promote the 5-minute-long teaser, Tucker Carlson has finally released the interview with Julian Assange that took place on November 2, 2023. Why wait 51 days?  Your guess is as good as mine. {Direct Rumble Link Here}

.

Within the prologue, and after interviewing Julian Assange, Tucker Carlson references the extremely important DNC email issue and states unequivocally, “democrats claim the emails had been hacked by the Russian government. But they hadn’t been, that was a lie.  The emails had been leaked from within the DNC itself, almost certainly by a disgruntled employee.”    WATCH:

It is an exceptionally good teaser, and the only way to see the full Julian Assange interview is through THIS LINK (TuckerCarlson.com).

(more…)

As we stated yesterday, following the Smith request, the Trump attorney response, and the Smith re-response, the transparency of the special counsel motive is obvious.  For the Supreme Court to accept the request of Smith, would be for the Supreme Court to pretend the political motive was unknown.

The Supreme Court did not pretend and was curt in their retort: “The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith argued in his petition to the court, the speedy resolution of Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is of an urgent national interest.  The motive was/is a transparent speedy timeline effort to influence the 2024 GOP presidential primary race.  The court, heck, the entire world can see it.

Arguments on the presidential immunity issue, within the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, are set for January 9, 2024.  The decision of the 3-judge panel will come thereafter. Depending on the outcome, Donald Trump can then ask for a full panel appellate court review.  If the Circuit Court appeal results in a non-favorable outcome, the next step is the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the DC trial of Donald Trump is frozen awaiting a determination on the original issue of presidential immunity.

(more…)

In this brief prelude segment, Tucker Carlson discusses the bigger picture of the Colorado Supreme Court decision to block Donald Trump from the 2024 republican presidential primary ballot. {Direct Rumble Link}

As accurately noted by Tucker, the terms used by professional leftists are always coordinated for a purpose.  This seems glaringly obvious with the repeated use of the term “insurrection” as applied to the events on January 6, 2021.  The hardline leftists are now moving to phase two, the actionable elements of the word use. WATCH:

.

(more…)

Three main points before getting to the substance. [213 page opinion HERE]

#1)  It was a 4-3 decision. Meaning it was the politics of the court, literally the political makeup and perspective therein, that determined the outcome of the decision.  This is showcased in point #3, which is the funniest part.

#2)  The entire framework of the case against Trump in the Colorado decision is predicated on this: “[the complainants] asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.”  [pdf, page 6]  REMINDER – President Donald Trump was not charged with “insurrection,” is not accused of “insurrection,” does not fit the complaint under the definitions of “insurrection,” and has never been found guilty of insurrection.  The complaint is moot before the court.  But hey, it’s Lawfare… and we all know Lawfare is created for public media consumption, so that takes us directly to the biggest point.

#3)  Instead of me writing it, let me screengrab it so we can all laugh together [pdf page 9].

Wait, what?

Yes, that’s correct.  As long as President Trump appeals the decision to the Supreme Court, the appeals court stays their own ruling – essentially indefinitely.  The Colorado primary ballots printed, and the primary election will be over, before the Supreme Court puts this on their docket.

In addition to the virtual guarantee the high court will overrule this political nonsense, SCOTUS can make the entire issue moot before them by following their own normal schedule for submissions, arguments, deliberation and opinions delivered by the court.

The Colorado appellate court knows this, that’s why they put this self-stay into their 4-3 ruling.  It’s a politically correct way of giving the optics of telling their tribe, ‘hey we’re with you,’ without the ramifications of the political backlash.  In other words, psychological lawfare stuff – intended for media consumption.

Making the issue that much better for Donald Trump, the efforts of the Prescott-Bush clan (look it up – they live in CO) will backfire bigly.  The public backlash against a judicial ruling that interferes with the right of the citizens to determine their own election candidates plays perfectly into the sunlight operation against the Lawfare left.

This backlash will be epic, albeit hidden by MSNBC and the rest of the insufferable media.  Why? Because it doesn’t fit the Lawfare narrative.

(more…)

Sometimes I feel like I’m out in the wilderness shouting at trees, and other times it feels like we are making progress.  Today is a progress day.

Start with THIS ARTICLE in GatewayPundit.

That GP article starts to scratch the surface, but if people ever decide to dig, I mean really dig, they will find McCord is a thread that unravels some of the biggest undiscovered background stories in DC media. Including: (1) The likely leaker of the Flynn conversation with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and (2) the almost certain leaker of the Supreme Court “Dobbs Decision.”  Hint: They eat dinner together nightly.

First, a context review, because so many are only just awakening.

If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.  More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.

When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’).  That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important.  It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.

(more…)