One of the ways you can immediately detect federal Lawfare deployment is to look at how media articles are written when they outline court filings without direct citation for review.  The Hill began SEE HERE. The New York Times is similar, SEE HERE.

Notice both national publications talk about a DOJ court filing, presumably made under seal, that limits President Trump’s defense access to materials and documents used in the case against him.  Notice the media do not say how they gained insight into the details of the sealed filing itself; nor do they provide any source context for how their reporting is structured.  Nothing like, “according to sources with familiar with the matter” or anything similar. Just nothing; no attribution at all.

That media context is a BIG red flag indicating the need to ‘create a narrative’ is more important than the actual substance of the evidence material underpinning it.

Both stories hit on the issue of the DOJ filing a (presumably sealed) motion with the Florida court, to place limits, rules and restrictions on evidence against President Trump, that limits his ability to review it, talk about it and/or provide context for it.  THIS IS A LAWFARE MOVE.  This is what happens in the prosecutorial star-chambers where they hide information in order to create the appearance of something nefarious, where nothing nefarious exists.

When we see this legal approach, we can be assured the case that uses the evidence is built upon fraud and pretense.  Do not be afraid to tell your family, friends and others about this dynamic.  President Trump is being accused of the crime of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, a violation of the espionage act, and the DOJ is requesting that President Trump must not permitted to defend himself by discussing the evidence against him.

The DOJ wants to limit public knowledge of the material evidence, not because it would harm national security – but rather because the nature of the evidence itself would highlight to the nation how fraudulent the targeting is.  This is the guaranteed DOJ motive, that’s why everything is under seal and even the media will not talk about how they are gaining their leak knowledge.  This is LAWFARE narrative engineering at its apex deployment.

(more…)

Comrades, dissident voice Tucker Carlson continues broadcasting his rebellious monologues on Twitter.  For his latest episode 4, Carlson notes the new American dictatorship. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:

Dear Leader does not appreciate the unauthorized broadcasts from dissident citizens.

(more…)

Tucker Carlson is defying the gravitational pull of Fox News legal department and continuing to broadcast his monologues on the Elon Musk platform known as Twitter.

For his third episode, tonight Tucker Carlson discussed the Biden administration using the Dept of Justice to target Donald Trump, while the republican establishment, including the majority of the 2024 republican presidential candidates, generally stand aside and watch the targeting take place. {Direct Rumble Link}

What Mr Carlson outlines is accurate in the context of the DC UniParty and their aligned outlook toward foreign policy. However, Carlson is smarter than this.  He knows the core opposition to Trump is not centered around foreign policy; it is one level higher; the opposition is based on economics, yes money. It is the economic policy of our nation that drives the foreign policy of our nation, perfectly encapsulated in this era when President Trump said, “economic security is national security.”

The truest reality of the thing is that foreign policy is an outcome of economic priority. So, why would Tucker stop at the neocon angle to the opposition and not drive all the way through to the core issue. Who is controlling the money? Decide for yourself.  WATCH:

Democrats want power. Republicans want money. This creates the two wings of the Uniparty apparatus. Donors to democrats do so in order to support an ideological agenda based around social control; you are a prole.  Donors to republicans do so in order to support financial control; you are a serf. This is the main distinction between the two corporations that align with mutually beneficial non-compete clauses.

As long as democrats allow republicans to operate systems toward their objective, the assembly of wealth, there is no opposition to the democrat agenda of social control.  This is the baseline of the political frustration noted by almost all “republican” voters.  The GOP politicians who are created by the billionaire donors are not acting on a priority to defend, preserve or support individual liberty.  The GOP politicians prioritize what their benefactors tell them to prioritize, the assembly of wealth and financial control.

(more…)

As President Donald Trump stands with his legal team to defend himself against political prosecution, his spokesperson Alina Habba delivered a statement and addressed reporters outside the federal courthouse in Miami.

Habba accurately noted the people currently in control of our government do not love this country. They are trying to tear this country apart and Donald J Trump is a tool to achieve that objective.  This is their goal. This is the fundamental change they desire.  Isolation, ridicule and fear are their goals as they use the weaponized power of the full governmental apparatus against their opposition.  WATCH:

Keep in mind, the powers that seek to control the American political system, and ultimately the lives of every person in this nation, need the average person to feel despair, isolated and alone.  Those who use weaponized power to isolate, ridicule and marginalize, need to control the mechanisms of social life in order to stop people from connecting to the majority.

We are in an abusive relationship with our government.  The people running the Biden administration need to ensure the American people do not assemble against them.  Every mechanism and institution are being leveraged toward that objective.  When you understand that larger goal that underpins their power, you can make earnest effort to defeat this psychological war by engaging in purposeful fellowship.

As history is a guide, when the abused take to the streets, villages and hamlets, they realize they are not alone.  Defeating the abuser starts first by destroying the dark imaginings of fear the abuser creates in order to retain control.  Ultimately this is the purpose behind the message, ‘live your best life.‘

(more…)

Attorney Robert Barnes appeared on a podcast yesterday to give his analysis of the political indictment of President Trump.  It’s a long deconstruction of the Lawfare effort, and contains numerous defenses therein; however, it is a very good encapsulation of the ridiculous issues created by the Biden administration’s efforts to target their political opposition on behalf of the Deep State.  WATCH:

.

(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…)

The Texas State House voted to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, effectively suspending him from legal authority within the state until an impeachment trial can be held in the State Senate.  There are 20 articles of impeachment [READ HERE].  The vote to adopt the 20 articles of impeachment was 121-23, with most of the Texas state republicans voting in alignment with the Texas democrats.

People are shocked when I share the opinion that Texas is not near the top of the Republican states considered deep red “conservative” or freedom/values based.   Of the mostly visible 30 states you might consider ‘conservative’ or ‘freedom balanced’, Texas wouldn’t appear in the top five; today’s vote in the Texas state house is just another datapoint in that direction.

TEXAS – In a history-making late-afternoon vote, a divided Texas House chose Saturday to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, temporarily removing him from office over allegations of misconduct that included bribery and abuse of office.

The vote to adopt the 20 articles of impeachment was 121-23, with three members absent.

Attention next shifts to the Texas Senate, which will conduct a trial with senators acting as jurors and designated House members presenting their case as impeachment managers.  Permanently removing Paxton from office and barring him from holding future elected office in Texas would require the support of two-thirds of senators. (read more)

The Texas Republicans who voted to remove the conservative AG, are the typical Texas RINO, Bush and DeSantis support group.  Understanding the dynamic, President Trump has promised to fight the Texas Republicans as they attack Ken Paxton.

(more…)

Last night I participated in a conversation. This article is written as an outcome of that conversation, as requested by those who participated.

Essentially, the framework of the conversation, as I initially listened, is best described as a series of questions amid a group of smart intellectual types who are very understanding of the nature of our current situation.

In various forms they were asking each other the same question.  What happened in the last several years that caused Democrats, leftists and the traditional political left to switch positions on their advocacy?

Liberalism literally went from railing against Big Govt, to embracing corrupt Big Govt. Why and how did this happen?

In short, it was the same line of questioning I have seen asked by Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Tulsi Gabbard and various traditionally liberal people as well as people on the right side of the continuum.

Why and how did traditional liberalism so suddenly flip from being, big picture – ‘anti-government’, to suddenly embracing corrupt government enterprise, and supporting the intelligence apparatus, federal govt (writ large), institutional oppressive law enforcement and FBI etc.?  What happened?

After listening to this conversation quietly, as I am prone to do, my remarks -with citations and examples- silenced the room.

At the conclusion of my remarks, everyone asked me if I had ever written about this, and if not – why not?   I did not have an answer, so consider this a promise fulfilled.  Perhaps you might find value.

(more…)

I am going to be outlining some details for those of you who walk the deep weeds of understanding on behalf of our nation.

If you are a “tldr” person, this effort is not for you; feel free to continue sitting on the back bench and complaining about stuff. However, if you are a person who absorbs information so that you can confront our ‘representatives‘, then these articles and points are arrows in your quiver.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board is finally starting to get it.  They wrote an article this weekend recognizing how the Durham report totally eviscerates the foundation of the Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann special counsel investigation [SEE HERE].  The conclusion they reach is accurate:

…[…] “All of this suggests that the Mueller probe was as much a cover-up as an attempt to find evidence of collusion.” (link)

Welcome to the party WSJ, nice of you to join us.  But it’s worse.  Much worse.

Keep in mind that John Durham has laid the Mueller/Weissmann probe naked to their enemies.  Unfortunately, Weissmann and Mueller don’t have any enemies in Washington DC amid any party {Go Deep to 2021}. Our representatives are not representing.  The true DC enemy is ‘We The People‘ – and I choose to fight them.

How entrenched is the defense mechanism?  Well, consider a few things:

♦ First, John Durham clearly shows in his 306-page report with a 48-page classified appendix, that Russia did nothing to interfere in the 2016 election.  The entire Russian Interference operation was a Clinton fabrication, later enhanced by a Federal Bureau of Investigation who used the fabrication as a cover-up justification to hide their surveillance of the Trump campaign.

♦ Second, accepting the empirical, factual, and inherently true reality of the first point – consider that President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats to retain the Clinton fabrication and FBI lies.  Think about this one carefully, the Obama administration expelled Russian diplomats in order to retain a domestic political ruse! President Obama did this *after* CIA Director John Brennan briefed him about the Clinton fabrication.

There were no Russian diplomats involved; there was no Russian election interference; there was no Russian hacking of the DNC; it was all a fraud created by the intelligence community (IC), FBI and Main Justice to support Hillary Clinton’s lies and then cover their own targeting tracks.

(more…)

The nature of our politically corrupt justice system takes on new clarity today as a jury in New York City decided President Trump did not rape E. Jean Carroll, the crazy moonbat funded by political operatives, but President Trump did defame her in his denial of the accusation.  Thus, the jury awards damages to the false accuser, while finding the accused not guilty.

Presumably the position of the jury was that something ‘may have happened‘ because this was not a criminal trial outcome which would be based on “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard.  Instead, this verdict was based on the possibility that something ‘may have happened,’ albeit not proven, and President Donald Trump was defamatory toward the accuser in his strong denials of the accusation.

The jury awarded $2million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for the battery allegation. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages for the defamation and $1.7million for the repair of her reputation. They awarded another $280,000 in punitive damages for the defamation. (read more)

Keep in mind that New York wrote a new law specifically to provide E Jean Carroll a pathway to file a lawsuit over the allegation that something might have happened sometime in the past, though the accuser could not identify what year President Trump assaulted her.  The accuser, a woman of notoriously odd behavior and remarkably unstable mindset, was funded by billionaire LinkedIn founder and very vocal Trump critic, Reid Hoffman.

New York created the new law for Ms. Carroll, Reid Hoffman paid for the legal costs, and Ms. Carroll made her sketchy accusations of something, from sometime, that wasn’t certain to have happened.  There were no witnesses to the claimed events, there was no evidence the event took place, there was nothing to indicate Ms. Carroll or Mr. Trump were even in the same place at the same time.

However, the judge in the case permitted the presentation of possibility, then blocked President Trump from speaking about the case, and then instructed the jury to consider that Ms Carroll’s claims may have indeed taken place, at some point – although no evidence exists and no one knows when, not even Ms Carroll.

In any other situation this case would have been thrown out of court for being ridiculous. However, in the modern era where justice is metered by regional public opinion that is based on Lawfare and political motivation, we get this situation.   President Trump responded below:

(more…)