People often ask me why I seem to highlight datapoints and background events that do not trend to the media-driven narrative priority of the moment.  The answer is simple; everything is connected to the next thing that happens. If you do not outline the originating point, the accurate reference is missed when needed.

This approach is why I have focused significant research on Elon Musk’s financial situation with Twitter {GO DEEP}.

The issue of Twitter’s financial status speaks to the motives of Musk that later surface – like his relationship with Fox News billionaire Rupert Murdoch.  Once you see the connections, suddenly everything makes sense.  Musk and Murdoch have intersecting interests.

Elon Musk is in desperate need of revenue for his social media platform Twitter.  By his own admissions, Twitter is currently in the red on an annual basis between $1.5 to $4.0 billion; that may go as high as $5 billion, depending on what happens over the next six months.  Currently losing $100 million/mo, Musk is limited on how much he can pull from his other companies to support Twitter, and with $1.5 billion in debt service alone on the $12.5 billion borrowed for the Twitter purchase, Musk needs an income stream quickly.

Advertising revenue has dropped 50%. This is the motive for Musk to hire Linda Jaccarino, the former head of NBC Universal advertising, to bring urgently needed revenue to a platform currently considered too extreme for the DEI-minded corporate advertising executives.  Musk is also captive to contracts with Bezos’ Amazon (AWS) and Google cloud services for platform data processing support.  Those very expensive contracts – $1 billion and $2 billion respectively – do not expire until 2025.

In short, Musk needs revenue. For Twitter, this reality drives his decision-making.  Enter, Rupert Murdoch.

(more…)

This is a little long and very boring, but people keep asking.. lol

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 was acting head of the DOJ-NSD when the Carter Page FISA application was submitted.  After leaving the DOJ-NSD, McCord became head of the Nadler/Schiff impeachment staff.  McCord was the organizer of the Vindman CIA whistleblower during impeachment effort #1, and it was Mary McCord’s former NSD lawyer turned Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, who changed the rules for whistleblowing in the CIA -a request made by McCord- to permit anonymity.

Mary McCord was the person who went to the White House with Deputy AG Sally Yates to carry out the DOJ justice scheme to remove National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.  McCord was also selected by a seriously sketchy FISA Judge Boasberg to be the amicus for the court clouding the issues with the FBI and fraudulent information to the FISC. Mary McCord also worked with the congressional team on the second impeachment effort, and it was Mary McCord who went to work for J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thomspon to frame the J6 case and narrative.

To say that Mary McCord is deeply and professionally attached to the lawfare effort to target Donald Trump would be an understatement.

Today, as a Lawfare contributor to MSNBC, and while discussing the dropping of the investigation in the Pence classified documents case, McCord said she can see no way the DOJ doesn’t indict Donald Trump for the Mar-a-Lago classified documents.  “I don’t think it’s realistic to think that the DOJ would avoid, from here on out through the 2024 election, taking any kind of legal action against Trump or those in his inner circle,” says McCord.  WATCH: 

(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…)

An interesting series of updates to the FBI whistleblower case of Joe Biden taking a $5 million bribe payment which now looks to have originated in Ukraine.

The background claim is pretty basic. A whistleblower approached congress stating the FBI had a report, an unclassified FD-1023, detailing a conversation with a ‘confidential human source’ (CHS) that outlined Vice President Joe Biden taking a $5 million payment from a foreign national to affect a U.S. policy decision.  The FBI agent responsible for investigating the CHS claim was FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, a sketchy character from the Trump-Russia probe.

The investigative events took place in June and July 2020 during the presidential election year.  The claim is that FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Auten reportedly buried the CHS allegation saying it could not be corroborated, and then wrote an assessment that it was Russian disinformation.  However, the FBI investigative team didn’t see any effort by any FBI member to substantiate it.  Hence a whistleblower, with specific knowledge of the details in the allegation, surfaces and tells congress the FBI is hiding the FD-1023 that outlines the confidential human source allegation of bribery.

Congress requested the FD-1023, the FBI refused to provide it.  House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer then set a compliance deadline while he coordinated with Senator Chuck Grassley.  The FBI still refused to turn it over, saying they would neither confirm nor deny the FD-1023 existence, and said releasing any information like that would potentially compromise Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s).  The proverbial sources and methods excuse.

(more…)

One of the key aspects to noticing a controlled candidate is the speech, cadence and distinct linguistics used during prepared remarks.

When a candidate is authentic in delivery of advocacy points, their speech is a natural flow of thoughts and ideas they create in verbal delivery.  However, when a politician is delivering a speech constructed for them, using the thoughts of others, you will notice a cadence constructed around a series of soundbites that are strung together.

Ron DeSantis kicked-off his official Iowa campaign today literally reading prepared remarks that did not come from his own thought processes.  When delivering a speech from the thoughts of others, there is an emphasis on the reading of it; in the example we highlight today with DeSantis the reading is extreme.  You can see below.

This is not to say that speech writers are not useful, they are. Almost all politicians use speech writers to assist them in putting their thoughts into words to assist communication.  The key is to use the candidates’ thoughts. However, when the thoughts themselves are not from the candidate, there is a very different outcome in delivery.

This is what becomes very visible with Ron DeSantis.

As candidates, Dr. Ben Carson and Newt Gingrich wrote most of their speech scripts and delivered their own thoughts on points of policy and advocacy.  President Trump also communicates his own thoughts through speeches written from them.  When the thoughts are from the candidate, you will notice a tone of authenticity in the delivery. Speeches delivered by people like Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson also communicate with authenticity because the thoughts conveyed are their own.

Conversely, in traditional politics there are candidates who do not convey their own thoughts and end up reading speeches that are disjointed with emphasis misplaced, syllables in wrong context, and carrying an odd syntax and cadence.  The more disconnected from the thoughts of the reader, the odder the delivery.

(more…)

Sea Island, GA, is a go-to place for those who operate in the background of U.S. politics. Similar in purpose to Jackson Hole, WY.  Sea Island serves as an East Coast meeting place where the globalists strategize and the paid for performance politicians are given instructions.

We do not have details. However, even for the exclusive Sea Island high security protocols, this notice is unusual. 👀

Given the timing, watch for news that follows.

(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…)

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…)

As the geography narrows before us, it is important to remember the stakes and avoid the distractions.  As a consequence, the baseline must be reaffirmed. It is critical to understand that both the DNC and RNC are private corporations with no affiliation to government.

It is a difficult shift in thinking, but the party system in U.S. politics revolves around two distinct private corporations – two clubs that feed from the same corporate trough and position for influence and affluence within a political dynamic they control.

The priority for both clubs, Republican and Democrat, is NOT politically or culturally ideological.  In the modern era, the corporate priority first begins with a battle over who controls each corporation.

As long as there is no challenge, the clubs operate without issue.  However, when there is a battle for control of the corporation, a battle that will ultimately determine the financial outcome, the internal battle becomes the priority.

2024 is going to be the election season when we see this corporate battle explode inside in the Republican group.  Decades of entrenched power are at stake, and there has been four years of counter positioning and backroom discussion leading up to this moment.

As a consequence, and I know this might sound odd to many people – but winning and/or losing elections becomes a secondary issue.  The RNC is not focused on winning elections. The RNC corporation is focused on retaining control.

The RNC want to give the illusion of support for MAGA conservatism because they need the base voter, and they need to maintain the illusion of choice. However, every move they make on an operational level is exactly in line with their previous outlook toward cocktail class republicanism.  The MAGA base of support cannot trust this corporate group, and we must not be blind or unguarded about the Machiavellian schemes they construct.

When you hear the influence group saying the two priorities for control of the Republican Club involve, (1) eliminating populism in the ranks; and (2) realigning with multinational corporate objectives (vis a vis Wall Street), what they are publicly expressing is their RNC corporate need to get rid of the America First economic agenda – to get rid of the MAGA influence.

How has this historically surfaced?

(more…)

According to Florida lobbyists, they have been contacted by state employees with instructions to send payments to the campaign of Ron DeSantis.  The ethical problems within this effort are numerous and could potentially be legally liable for DeSantis government officials participating.

At best, the issue is extreme swamp behavior, where DeSantis officials are pressuring lobbyists in Florida to donate to the DeSantis 2024 election campaign or their advocacy may be disregarded in state budget considerations.

When state employees use their offices to solicit payments to political entities, the legal issues become very murky.  Then again, this is swamp behavior – and when you hire the swamp to push your agenda, these are the types of outcomes that surface.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Officials who work for Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration — not his campaign — have been sending text messages to Florida lobbyists soliciting political contributions for DeSantis’ presidential bid, a breach of traditional norms that has raised ethical and legal questions and left many here in the state capital shocked.

NBC News reviewed text messages from four DeSantis administration officials, including those directly in the governor’s office and with leadership positions in state agencies. They requested the recipient of the message contribute to the governor’s campaign through a specific link that appeared to track who is giving as part of a “bundle” program.

“The bottom line is that the administration appears to be keeping tabs on who is giving, and are doing it using state staff,” a longtime Florida lobbyist said. “You are in a prisoner’s dilemma. They are going to remain in power. We all understand that.”

(more…)