This is a good opportunity to emphasize a key point that is often missed.   In the research and discussion outline yesterday, about Joe Biden’s EPA publishing new regulations for the auto industry, we dove deep into the background of what actually creates the issue. {GO DEEP}

The issue that should concern everyone is not the Joe Biden administration and their ideology around climate change, or the EPA, or even the viability of EVs themselves.  The issue that should draw the biggest concern is how the regulation originates; what is the impetus; who are the beneficiaries?

The regulation itself did not originate in the EPA, nor was it created from an origination process amid climate ideologues in the administration.  Everything starts with BlackRock positioning their assets.  From that empirical point, all political activity then takes place, which includes the regulations to support the BlackRock objective.

A massive, multinational investment firm is in control of political outcomes in the USA.  That should be the emphasis, not necessarily the regulation that flows as an outcome of that control, and certainly not the debate over whether EVs are a viable alternative to combustion engines.

BlackRock, and the control agents of finance, banking and investment, would like nothing more than to see Congress have debates about climate change, the viability of EVs as an alternative to combustion engines, the nuances of power grid generation from alternative energy sources, the scale of energy need as estimated and debated for the next two decades, etc.

All these points of debate become useful political policy issues that divide and contrast.  Sure, Congress would love to hold hearings about EV viability, U.S. grid compliance, the need for subsidized charging stations, etcetera, etcetera.  Because what is not discussed in this debate is where the subject matter comes from.

(more…)

Dan Goldman is a Lawfare trust fund millionaire who was installed in Congress specifically to construct Lawfare arguments during testimony and defend Obama/Biden’s interests.  Before taking office, Goldman was the outside government Lawfare counselor selected by the impeachment committee to question witnesses. That’s his sole purpose, and the reason for existing.

After entering Congress, via New York, Goldman continues his Lawfare objectives from inside government.  Today, Goldman’s target was former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski, who was giving testimony about the Biden family financial schemes.  At the conclusion of Goldman’s parseltongue, Bobulinski called him “a liar.”  The Lawfare leftists are big mad.  WATCH:

.

It’s a little funny, but trying not to be outdone, AOC applied the same confrontational style.  The problem is that AOC is at an intellectual disadvantage; it didn’t go too well.

(more…)

The backstory is so transparently corrupt it requires an explanation, so we’ll go down the full rabbit hole and explain how China knew – to a demonstrable certainty – their multi-billion dollar investment in Mexican EV plants would be useful.

 Always remember, there are trillions at stake.

First, who was installed in the Biden White House in charge of all personnel and staffing?  Catherine Russell. {SEE HERE} Who is Catherine Russell?  She’s the wife of Tom Donilon, a long-time aid and advisor to Joe Biden who served in the Obama White House.

After serving as Obama’s National Security Advisor (prior to Susan Rice), Tom Donilon then went on to become “Chairman of the BlackRock Investment Institute {SEE HERE}.”  His job was literally to “leverage the firm’s expertise and generate proprietary research to provide insights on the global economy, markets, geopolitics and long-term asset allocation.” 

In essence, the Donilon family represented the interests of Blackrock in the White House.

Second, Tom Donilon’s brother, Mike Donilon is a Senior Advisor to Joe Biden {link} providing guidance on what policies should be implemented within the administration.  Mike Donilon guides the focus of spending, budgets, regulation and white house policy from his position of Senior Advisor to the President.

In June of 2022, Blackrock’s Tom Donilon was then appointed to be co-chair of U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board {SEE HERE}, in charge of U.S-China policy.  Can you see where this is going?

Blackrock, a massive multinational investment firm with assets in the tens-of-trillions, was essentially guiding/constructing the policymaking of the White House, through Tom Donilon, Mike Donilon and Catherine Russell (Tom’s wife).  Blackrock then took out massive investment stakes in China, including in the Chinese auto-making industry, with specific focus on EVs.  Tom Donilon, now shifting to the State Dept and guiding US-China policy, was the Blackrock government embed, ensuring policy that would keep their investments lucrative.

(more…)

Atlanta Judge Scott McAfee ruled today that President Trump, and eight other co-defendants in the Georgia election fraud case, can proceed with an emergency appeal of his decision last week. That decision allowed lying Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to stay on the prosecution despite her affair with the special prosecutor she hired to oversee it, and despite the lies she told trying to hide it.

[SOURCE]

In a brief order issued Wednesday, Judge Scott McAfee granted the certificate of immediate review requested by President Trump. They are now expected to ask the Georgia Court of Appeals to take up the disqualification battle before the case goes to trial. (media)

(more…)

People have asked me why I have remained relatively quiet about the legal issue and targeting of Peter Navarro by a weaponized DOJ and Congress.  I will explain in greater detail after the news from today.

Peter Navarro was a former adviser to President Trump and the lead of the coronavirus task force.  Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a short opinion rejecting Navarro’s effort to have the Supreme Court intervene and stay his sentence.

Mr. Navarro was charged with contempt of Congress,  and was prosecuted by the DOJ and convicted in September of two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to provide testimony and documents to the J6 House Select Committee investigating the protest at the U.S. Capitol.  [Note, most of you know I received a similar subpoena from them, so I have a slightly different perspective than most.]

[…] Navarro spoke Tuesday morning in a strip mall in West Miami near the prison where he will serve four months. “I will walk proudly in there to do my time,” Navarro said. “I will gather strength from this: Donald John Trump is the nominee.”  Navarro called the case an “unprecedented assault on the constitutional separation of powers.” (media story)  WATCH:

.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Navarro.  I firmly believe he was unfairly targeted by the J6 committee and a weaponized DOJ who were looking for any opportunity to target people in Donald Trump’s orbit – including Navarro and Steve Bannon.  I regard Navarro as a really awesome ally, and functionally very smart and apt at the responsibilities he held in the White House.  Navarro is a good man.

Navarro was charged with failure to provide testimony and documents to Congress.  Navarro argued that executive privilege covered his refusal to provide testimony and documents.

The executive privilege that covers private conversation is held by President Trump and cannot be, should not be, waived by any advisor to the president.  However, there is a key element in the executive privilege aspect that is mostly overlooked by righteous pundits and conservative analysts as it pertains specifically to Navarro.

(more…)

When Atlanta Judge Scott McAfee ruled recently in the Fani Willis decision TechnoFog noted, “Judge McAfee rules that only one potential liar can prosecute the case – but not both potential liars. Instead of curing the “appearance of impropriety”, it allows it to continue. If Nathan Wade goes, why can Fani Willis stay? McAfee doesn’t give an answer.”

To chase down this judicial question, lawyers representing President Trump and seven co-defendants, collectively accused of RICO conspiracy, today asked McAfee to issue a certificate of immediate review of his order denying disqualification of Fani Willis.

The certificate, if issued, would allow the defendants to seek an immediate appeal of the order. Because in order for President Trump to appeal the order denying disqualification prior to trial, the defendants must obtain a certificate of immediate review within 10 days from the date of the order.  Today Trump’s lawyers asked for that certificate.  [pdf of motion HERE]

[SOURCE – pdf]

(VIA NBC) – […] It’s important to note that there isn’t an automatic right to appeal at this stage. Rather, McAfee would need to grant permission to do so within 10 days of his ruling, and then the state appeals court would need to agree to hear the case. If that happens, it could bring yet more delay to the prosecution that doesn’t even have a trial date yet and has already been sidetracked by the disqualification motion that led to McAfee’s ruling.

(more…)

Within the U.K the timing of the 2024 election is decided by the Prime Minister [LINK].  “Prime Minister Rishi Sunak can call an election at any time up to Dec. 17, with the election taking place 25 working days later.”  Most political followers expect PM Sunak to hold the election in the Autum of this year.

Now watch:

[Transcript] – “GB News is under threat. The other broadcasters don’t like it. Adam Boulton, long-time veteran of Sky News, said that GB News was damaging the ecosystem of broadcasting, by which he means it’s our little club and we don’t question climate change or mass immigration. We thought EU membership was wonderful, how dare you come along and give us a hard time.

Now the problems are getting very, very real. The industry is regulated by Ofcom. They have decided to put my programme under investigation on the basis they say that I’m a politician. Well, you know what? Even I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here had me as an ex-politician. I am not actively involved in politics at all, but they don’t like it. And some more of the great and the good are hosting a conference in Sheffield. Have a look at this. It’s absolutely bizarre.

(more…)

Oral arguments were heard today in the appeal of the government against the states of Louisiana, Missouri and seven plaintiffs who claim that Biden officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to suppress or delete content about COVID-19 that federal officials found objectionable.

The Biden administration had an extensive communication pipeline into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and various subsidiary tech companies where instructions, the government says “encouragement”, were/was given about the removal of content critical of the government position, and the removal of content providers – American citizens.  Full Hearing Audio:

Making the case for the Biden administration, Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher led the way.  “We don’t think it’s possible for the government — through speech alone — to transform private speakers into state actors,” he said.

Fletcher said the government didn’t engage in coercion — which he said would be unconstitutional — just encouragement and persuasion for the social media platforms to enforce their existing rules at the time barring Covid-19 misinformation.  “If it stays on the persuasion side of the line — and all we’re talking about is government speech — then there’s no state action and there’s also no First Amendment problem,” he said. “I think it’s clear this is exhortation, not threat.”

Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, arguing for the plaintiffs, said the speech the platforms were suppressing wasn’t their own speech but those of third parties, ordinary Americans. Aguiñaga also said the users often had no idea they were being impacted by the federal effort to prod the platforms to take down content.  “The bulk of it is behind closed doors. That is what is so pernicious about it,” he said.

The questioning by the majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared to favor the government, in large part due to the inability of the plaintiffs to outline direct actionable harm to them as an outcome of the regulation of their speech by the tech platforms.  The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the case by late June.

(more…)

President Obama was presumably in London, England, for a fundraising meeting for the Obama foundation when he was spotted going to the Prime Minister’s office at #10 Downing Street. Details of the visit are sketchy, much like the president himself.

LONDON — Former U.S. President Barack Obama has called in for a surprise teatime visit with U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at No. 10 Downing Street.

Obama, who served as president between 2009 and 2017, walked up the famous street shortly after 3 p.m, waving to the press as he entered No. 10. He is in town for a meeting of the Obama Foundation, his non-profit organization.

Downing Street later said that the pair spoke for around an hour over cups of tea. They discussed a range of subjects including Artificial Intelligence. (read more)

Video Below:

(more…)

For some reason CBS Sunday Morning put Christine Blasey-Ford back into the media cycle with an interview about her life after accusing Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh of sexual assault. {Full Interview Here} The CBS motive appears to be restimulating the gender vote in an election year.

Blasey-Ford comes across as she did in the original 2018 fiasco; detached from the information and regretting she ever participated.  For those who know the entire deep weeds backstory of the Rehoboth “beach friends,” former and current DOJ people who are now constructing political Lawfare, it is well accepted Blasey-Ford was a tool for their use.  Heck, the accuser never even penned the letter she was conscripted to write to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  [Hook, WATCH]

The resurfacing of Blasey-Ford may be intended to stimulate the gender vote, but has the potential to backfire if people start to dig deep into this prior storyline.  Within the 2018 background, and with the application of hindsight, all of the Lawfare “beach friends” become visible.

Names like Mary McCord, David Laufman, Monica McLean and Michael Bromwich all swirl around the construct that used Blasey-Ford as the vessel for their hit against Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee.  The Senate investigation into the Blasey-Ford accusations was quickly dropped by the media after the investigative staff began to discover the network and connections.

(more…)