Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) expresses a great deal of contempt for FBI Director Chris Wray during questioning today.

From the topic of FBI conduct in the Hunter Biden investigation to the FBI surveillance of American citizens through unauthorized and illegal database searches, Matt Gaetz goes full wolverine on the FBI director.  WATCH: 

.

(more…)

There has been a great deal of increased discussion surrounding the issues of automated Artificial Intelligence, colloquially called “AI.”

At the central core of the AI issues in communication; you inevitably enter a discussion on the issue of definitions and terms.  Who is determining the definitions of what constitutes valid information? Who is determining what types of information are not valid, not approved for communication networks and how are their definitions being applied?

A solid and short-read thread on the assembly of people, groups and institutions surrounding the issue of AI in communication and media is presented HERE.

[Article/Thread LINK]

The topic of AI in general is a very large conversation.  The topic of AI specific to communication is equally large and perhaps even more significant.

AI applied to communication must first establish a need for it to exist.  Within that discussion, government interests and corporate interests take large seats at the table.  Social media platforms, communication outlets, almost the entire technology sector and various special interest groups are also stakeholders in the discussion of how AI can be applied to the filtering of information – or what I would more appropriately call the CONTROL of information.

The predicate of the conversation jumps around a little, but the issue of defining reality is throughout the discussion.  This is where my prior warnings about defining information must be emphasized.  I am losing the current argument, but I retain optimism that eventually the control mechanisms will need to be destroyed by a generation that falls under its influence.

“There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation” or “malinformation”.  There is only information.  There is information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”

(more…)

In a previous ruling in the case of The State of Missouri v Joe Biden, Judge Terry Doughty agreed with the state position that evidence had clearly shown agencies of the U.S. government had infringed upon First Amendment free speech in targeting social media companies with demands for content removal. [Ruling and Injunction pdf]

The social media companies outlined in the state lawsuit include Facebook, Instagram, Meta Platforms Inc, Twitter, Google and YouTube.  Evidence provided by the states showed clear and convincing evidence the government was unlawfully monitoring social media and telling the platforms to remove content adverse to their interests.

The judge outlined an emergency injunction barring government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI from talking to social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech” under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The ruling provided narrow exceptions.

Obviously, given the scale of government involved censorship of speech within social media, the injunction was a major loss to the Biden regime, who operate -in part- with the benefit of controlling public opinion and information.  The judicial ruling disrupts the ability of the Biden administration to censor the online speech of Americans.

As a result of the injunction, the DOJ is now asking Judge Doughty to stay or pause his injunction while the government files a full appeal to the 5th circuit court of appeals.

(Reuters) –  The Biden administration on Thursday asked a federal judge to put on hold his earlier order barring some government agencies and officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about moderating their content.

(more…)

Like watching a video with the sound turned off, if you are to stand back away from the distractions of the media presentation, and just look at raw data in the form of actions being taken by those who circle the world of politics, the activity points to something disconnected from the official narrative.

All of the individual components of visible activity can be accepted as they are, or they can be interpreted into a picture of what they might be.

Examples include travel and visits by political entities, changes in the dates for the 2024 presidential primaries, assemblies of groups and supporters in specific constructs and various other indications of a duality within purpose.

Throughout our analysis of the preferred ’24 outcome by those in the background who ultimately seek to control elections through the activity of front men, those artfully skilled at presenting the illusion of choice, it has always looked like the RNC/DNC preferred presentation was a Ron DeSantis -v- Gavin Newsom (win/win) contest.

The landscape of the ’24 election would then be reduced to “social issues” as distinctions between the two faces of the contest, while the economics of things – the substantive part – carries a far lesser contrast. An almost identical replay to the attempted 2016 construct of Hillary -v- Jeb.

(more…)

Dr. Gal Luft was a direct witness to the Chinese bribery scheme between Chinese companies (CFC) and the Biden family.

Dr. Luft gives a stunning video testimonial today about how he contacted the DOJ and FBI in March 2019 when Attorney General Bill Barr was in office, to report specific allegations and evidence against the Biden family.  {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:

(more…)

I will be as generous in explanation as brutal honesty permits.  This is hopefully the last I will write about the internecine network of California GOPe manipulative politics and the latest episode of republican fraud within in.

Fibber Mike Davis (below left) gave an interview {Rumble Segment Here} which now provides some clarity on his character and the issues of his defense of Harmeet Dhillon (below right), in an effort to protect her from the outcome of Dhillon’s own creation.   Within the interview Davis notes that in addition to her RNC and California GOP professional relationships, Dhillon also represents the Trump campaign as a lawyer.

Within the interview we discover who and why Davis was protecting when he made claims about the Trump campaign seemingly being okay with a California GOP scheme to allocate proportional delegates to Ron DeSantis.  In essence, the “Trump campaign official” who didn’t raise objections to the CA rule change, the one Mike Davis was protecting from scrutiny, was actually Harmeet Dhillon herself. The same Harmeet who signed off on the 6/17/23 email proposal, then reversed after sunlight.

Mr. Davis also admits he and Mrs. Dhillon have a professional working relationship with the Article III Project organization that forms the basis of Mr. Davis’ affluence and influence.  Davis and Dhillon swim in, and benefit from, the same financial ocean.   Here’s the result:

Within Harmeet Dhillon’s lengthy explanation of her backtracking [SEE HERE], in the second segment {SEE HERE} she uses carefully constructed lawyer speak to highlight that she was duped by the other two California GOP officials, Jessica Patterson and Shawn Steel.  Mrs. Dhillon will not and cannot say she was lied to, for two reasons.

Mrs. Dhillon carefully says, “I was told by the state party” and “I accepted these representations” in the customary way a lawyer would obfuscate their choice not to say I was lied to.  Indeed, against the inaccuracy of the original justifications by Dhillon, and if we are to take Mrs. Dhillon at her word, she says in her reversal of position that she was misled and mistaken in her opinion by materially false representations of Jessica Patterson and Shawn Steel.

Unfortunately, Harmeet Dhillon cannot be more deliberate in her statement because she has a professional role to maintain, and the admission that she was duped is against her brand image.

(more…)

For two days Bannon Warroom frequent guest, Attorney Mike Davis, has been trying desperately to defend his friend, RNC Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon, for her participation in a California GOP scheme to support Ron DeSantis with proportional delegates.

In a series of Tweets and statements, Mike Davis continually said he had firsthand knowledge the Trump campaign was aware of the rule change and did not contest it. However, Davis refused to say who on the Trump campaign had this knowledge and seemingly approved the delegate plan without challenge.

Mr. Davis became increasingly unhinged when questioned about the issue, because it just did not make sense; yet, Davis continued to claim the Trump campaign was aware.

It became increasingly obvious to those watching the repeated desperate denials that something was afoot, and it just did not reconcile. In short, the most likely scenario was that Mike Davis was being dishonest and less than fulsome with his statements.  However, despite his credibility hanging in the balance, Mike Davis publicly continued to stick to his guns.

By the end of the second day, he really had no option; he had painted himself into a corner. When asked again last night by myself and others, he responded, “Why would I ever reveal the names of loyal Trump workers—names told to me in confidence?”  Apparently painting the mysterious campaign workers as loyal to Trump, even though the rule they seemingly approved would be unfavorable to President Trump.

After Harmeet Dhillon began her own retreat, it became obvious the fabrications were soon to collapse. Mike Davis modified slightly clarifying that President Trump personally was unaware. “I never said President Trump saw or approved anything. I said the Trump campaign was briefed about the proposed rules change and didn’t object.”

UPDATE: Richard Baris (People’s Pundit) was able to contact the Trump campaign to ask them directly.  According to Baris relaying information from the campaign, the Trump Campaign was not aware of any California GOP rule changes and were not notified of the plan as designed by Jessica Patterson, Shawn Steel and Harmeet Dhillon, to change the delegate apportionments.

Mr. Mike Davis, the former Chief Counsel for judicial nominations to Senator Chuck Grassley, former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch and frequent guest on the Steve Bannon Warroom podcast, lied in all his public statements.

Mike Davis wants to be the next Trump appointed Attorney General for the United States. Take from that, what you will.

(more…)

It is difficult to overstate just how impactful Mrs. Laura Loomer was/is in blocking a California scheme that appears to be part of a wider GOPe plan to dilute the primary election delegate distribution against the interests of President Trump and his supporters.

Mrs. Loomer exposed a three-week old plan by state RNC leadership Jessica Patterson, Shawn Steel and Harmeet Dhillon to change the California Republican primary outcome to a proportional distribution of candidates.

Loomer published the contents of a leaked email from the three organizers Patterson, Steel and Dhillon.

As people realized what was happening, all behind closed doors and hidden from public review, outrage began to surface.

Today, after initially trying to justify her position, Mrs. Dhillon reverses course and now supports the ‘winner-take-all’ option. An option that was always available, but purposefully ignored in the plan to deliver the delegates via proportional distribution. As you will see below, Dhillon an RNC rules committee member, claims she was unaware of the rule and led astray by the statements of Mrs. Patterson and Mr. Steel.

First, here’s Mrs. Loomers statement upon hearing of the Dhillon reversal:

RNC CA Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon is now backtracking. She just sent an email out saying that she supports California’s “winner take all” threshold for delegates, that this is her “personal opinion” and doesn’t speak for Jessica Patterson and Shawn Steel? and that she “regrets” that the CA GOP’s back door plan to have a bylaw amendment to remove the “winner takes all” threshold wasn’t communicated to the public and the delegates.

That’s nice and all, but if that’s the case, why was she signed onto the Amendment proposal that was sent out on her behalf on June 17 by CAGOP Chair Jessica Patterson?

In other words, they got caught and now they have to save face.

(more…)

Something about this doesn’t pass the proverbial sniff test, and when asked for a direct answer – well, things get salty.

For two days a self-proclaimed Trump advisor and frequent guest on the Steve Bannon Warroom podcast, Mike Davis, has claimed that President Trump and the Trump campaign authorized a California GOP rule change that would permit proportional delegate distribution against the interests of President Trump.

The claim itself made no sense because, if Mike Davis and Harmeet Dhillon were correct, essentially Trump would be approving a GOP change that would give delegates to his GOP nomination competition – namely Ron DeSantis.  Mr. Davis was asked to explain who specifically from the Trump campaign authorized and approved of the plan.

Mr. Davis refused to answer the question publicly, which, as normal, created additional suspicions about the validity of the claim.  More and more people started to pay attention and put the question out, because, well, quite frankly, it just doesn’t make sense.

Instead of responding simply and publicly to the question, and saying who in the Trump campaign knew about, authorized and approved the California plan, Mike Davis responded with the following Direct Message: “Go fuck yourself.”

(more…)

By now everyone is aware how the corruption in Washington DC is fraught with internecine relationships; however, this one takes the proverbial cake.  The prosecutor who organized and signed the plea deal for Hunter Biden worked for Hunter Biden’s business partner.

Senator Ron Johnson is calling attention to Title 28, Section 45.2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which says: ‘no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation if he has a personal or political relationship with […] any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation‘.

As if this entire episode wasn’t sketchy enough, Assistant United States Attorney Derek Hines (top left) was one of the prosecutors to sign off on Hunter Biden’s charges and plea deal. Hines previously worked under ex-FBI director Louis Freeh (bottom left), who was a business partner of Hunter Biden.  Hines worked for Freeh Group International Solutions which was specifically involved in the foreign company influence issue at the heart of the Hunter Biden case, and Freeh is a close friend of the entire Biden family.

This is nuts.

(Via Daily Mail) – A prosecutor who signed off on the documents charging Hunter Biden with tax and gun crimes previously worked with one of the First Son’s business partners, DailyMail.com can reveal.

Delaware US Attorney David Weiss officially filed charges against the president’s son last Tuesday after a near five-year probe into his alleged tax crimes and foreign financial dealings.

Weiss’s deputy, Assistant United States Attorney Derek Hines, signed off on the charging documents alongside his boss and two other assistant US attorneys – indicating he has a central role in Hunter’s criminal prosecution.

(more…)