In order to believe that Republican politicians support border control, you would simultaneously have to believe that Congress couldn’t shut down government until President Biden takes action.

You would have to believe the GOP House has no options, no power, no control, no ability or capacity to use the power of the people’s house to change the dynamic.  That’s all nonsense.   We do the things that are important to us.  We avoid the things we do not want to do.

Republicans can shut down government, shut down agencies, cut off funding, and tell the American people why they are doing it… They can use their power to force Joe Biden to fight them and simultaneously make Biden justify to the American people why he refuses to secure our nation.  Republicans could file court cases, force action, hold impeachment hearings, issue subpoenas, force testimony, demand action or face the consequences….  There is much they can do.

Alas, instead of taking severe action in the face of severe peril, they pretend to be powerless and announce they will “advocate” which means in DC, talk about it more.

[SOURCE]

We are in an abusive relationship with government, and the GOPe is a gaslighting wing of the UniParty vulture.

(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…)

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow the legal arguments with presidential immunity to follow the traditional path through the appeals court [pdf court filing].  Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wants to sidestep the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.

As noted by Politico, President Trump’s lawyers “repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.”  In essence, Jack Smith is trying to force a fast trial on schedule to gain maximum interference with the GOP primary election, while Trump’s lawyers are calling him out for it.

Jack Smith filed a response to the Trump filing, again reasserting, “the public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our nation’s history — criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election,” wrote Mr. Smith. “The nation has a compelling interest in a decision.”

Smith is worried the appeals court arguments and final decision will extend beyond the 2024 term of the Supreme Court, setting up a lengthy continuation of the DC case against Trump into October and November of 2024.   Trump’s team is saying the issues before the court are unprecedented and careful deliberation is needed.

(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…)

Big picture #1 – The FBI/DOJ is now seriously worried that President Trump will win the 2024 election.

Big picture #2 – CNN (Natasha Bertrand, Evan Perez and Zachary Cohen) mouthpieces for the FBI Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy fraud, now begin positioning defenses against Trump’s evidence of the fabrication.  They want to proactively stop the dossier they know consists of the evidence.

FACT: The authors know all the details about the 10-inch-thick dossier that was given by Trump to the DOJ for declassification 1/20/21, but shout that it is now missing.

FACT: The raid on Mar-a-Lago came after President Trump filed a 108-page civil lawsuit [SEE HERE] in March 2022 against the coconspirators.  Including: Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe.

The DOJ was given one copy of the 10″ binder to release publicly.  Now ask yourself, what documentary evidence was used to write the lawsuit?  lolol, duh!

The motive for the DOJ/FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago is found in the search for the binder of evidence.  The national archives classified documents angle was the justification – the cover story.  The raid on Mar-a-Lago was the recovery effort.  Who authorized the Mar-a-Lago search warrant? The same judge from the civil action.

I have previously written about the binder {Go Deep} and all of the issues around it. The CNN article is filled with multiple tell-tale indicators of why it is written.  The emphasis is mine.

(Via CNN) – A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

As if “Russian election interference” is a real thing.  No, the information relates to the fraud of the “Russian election interference” story.

Its disappearance, which has not been previously reported, was so concerning that intelligence officials briefed Senate Intelligence Committee leaders last year about the missing materials and the government’s efforts to retrieve them, the sources said.

Notice the stakeholder, the SSCI.  The same SSCI that was at the legislative epicenter of the fraud.

(more…)

In a three-page opinion and order [pdf Available Here], DC District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan outlines that she may be forced to pause the case against President Trump until the appellate court, and then likely the Supreme Court, make a decision on presidential immunity.

[Source pdf]

Within this opinion/order, we find the reason for Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to jump over the appellate court and ask the Supreme Court to expedite a review and determination on the issue.

The jurisdictional issue on the specifics of the pre-trial appeal is likely to slow down the trial dates being pushed by Special Prosecutor Smith.  Overall, this has been a very bad day for the Lawfare team, as they run into judicial processes that cannot be facilitated by politically motivated higher courts.

(more…)

Two of the charges against Donald Trump are centered around 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As noted by Julie Kelly, “The statute was meant to close a loophole in other obstruction laws related to the destruction of evidence but left open to interpretation the terms “corruptly” and “official proceeding.”

In addition to Donald Trump, this federal statute meant to target organized crime and financial crimes has been used against 300 J6 defendants. Three J6 defendants have appealed the use of this provision to charge them with obstruction. A DC trial judge originally agreed with the argument and dismissed the framework of the Lawfare effort.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the dismissal order.

J6 Defendants Edward Lang, Garrett Miller and Joseph Fischer appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now agreed to take up the case, U.S. v Fischer. In one way, this can be looked at as the Supreme Court reviewing the charges against Donald Trump, without ruling on the charges against Donald Trump.

(more…)