Russell Brand is a former lefty who took the red pill and over time joined the great awakening. As an outcome of his current perspectives and influence, Brand is currently labeled a dissident threat and targeted by the globalist system.
Tucker Carlson invited Brand to appear on his broadcast for a discussion of the big picture amid the current era of information warfare. Brand is an eloquent voice who frames the arguments very clearly and quickly, thus his growing influence represented a threat to the system and a process of Lawfare attacks was launched against him. The British government then asked all Big Tech platforms to remove Brand from visibility. The only tech platform that refused to acquiesce to the Five-Eyes demand was Rumble.
This is a very good interview, well worth the 40 minutes of time.
Because of course he did…. Both the prosecutor Nathan Wade and District Attorney Fani Willis were on the cusp of losing control of their fabricated case against Donald Trump, because a hearing was scheduled for tomorrow where uncomfortable questions would have been asked during under oath testimony of Nathan Wade.
The duo will still have to face questions from the trial judge in the criminal case, where the evidence of their relationship first surfaced, but they both avoided devastating questioning in the civil case by settling the Wade divorce and getting the divorce attorney to back down. Their demanded testimony in the divorce case held massive ramifications for the criminal case in Fulton County.
We can only imagine the scope of the successful divorce terms for Wade’s soon to be ex-wife, Joycelyn Mayfield Wade, as the financial leverage created by this civil case against Nathan, and ultimately DA Willis, was enormous.
(Washington Post) – The lead prosecutor in the Georgia election interference case against former president Donald Trump and his allies settled a contentious divorce dispute on Tuesday, canceling a hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning that could have included testimony about allegations of an improper relationship between him and Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis.
Nathan Wade had been expected to be questioned under oath Wednesday morning about his finances — including his income as a special prosecutor in the Trump case and his spending, including his purchase of airline tickets for himself and Willis in October 2022 and April 2023.
They don’t say it the same way as me, because they are far more articulate and eloquent, but boy howdy have Carlson and Peterson come to the same conclusion.
Four years ago, you heard me say it loud, “Stop Pretending and Live Your Best Life.” The first time I realized this was the best and truest hope for our restoration was after holding years of empirical, undeniable research in my hands and finding nothing but willfully blind, isolated and siloed deaf ears in DC. What Tucker Carlson describes below is the disconnect between the people and those who hold power.
In this joint discussion about the future and possibility within this year 2024, both Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson take the first part of that framework, “stop pretending”, and turn the phrase into “speak truth.” Yes, yes, yes, THIS. When I have been asked for the past several years about what needs to be done, what can we do, my answer to every voice, influential and comfortably invisible alike, has been ‘STOP PRETENDING’ – just stop pretending. WATCH:
Stop pretending the gaslighting narrative is real. Just stop pretending. Stop ignoring the lies, and start confronting the liars directly. Look at the other voice, regardless of who they are, stare boldly directly into their eyes and speak the truth of the thing. Just stop pretending. If we all stop pretending, the narrative engineers will find no one to purchase their bulls**t anymore. At the same time, speak the truest thing as loudly as you can to confront those who use pretense as a shield to retain comfort and influence.
EXAMPLE: Mary McCord sits at the epicenter of every single Lawfare machination deployed against President Trump. This is a demonstrably true and factual reality. Yet, how many allied voices do we see publicly making her known and as a consequence uncomfortable? No one. Why? Why isn’t every person of influence talking about the true thing? Why hide behind “they” and “them” or some bland, undefined, esoteric blame-casting toward an irrelevant institution. We may not know the name of every person, but we know the name of the one single thread that unites all of the effort, Mary McCord. Why is it so hard for allies to factually identify her and the corrupt behavior she is engaged in?
I no longer stare at the absence with a side eye of suspicion, I now glare knowingly and angrily at the face behind the willful omission. “You know, and I know you know,” is what that stare represents. None of those popular and influential allies on our side can ever answer the question about their silence. None of them can. Why?
The leftist-media claim a 5-year sentence was harsh. However, in terms of the violations of privacy and law the sentence was a mere slap on the wrist.
Charles Littlejohn (38) previously pleaded guilty to stealing and leaking the tax returns of Donald Trump and approximately 2,000 other high-profile people. The tax returns were given to The New York Times and ProPublica, who published the contents of 152 individual tax returns.
Charles Littlejohn (right) and his attorney.
WASHINGTON – A former IRS consultant was sentenced to five years in prison for leaking former President Donald Trump’s tax returns as well as the filings of thousands of other wealthy people to the news media.
A district court judge on Monday agreed with the Justice Department that Charles Littlejohn, 38, deserved the maximum statutory sentence for what she called “egregious” crimes.
Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden nominee to the bench, focused on Littlejohn’s decision to release Trump’s filings, which Reyes called “an attack on our constitutional democracy.”
In his own words, Senator James Lankford says if President Trump was president today the border crisis would not exist, because the existing law would be enforced. Simultaneous to this, the same Senator Lankford says the new law he proposes will create significant border enforcement.
If the executive branch can ignore the current border enforcement law (they can and do), what makes Lankford believe new legislation will not be ignored by the same executive branch (they will)? This non-pretending reality frames the essential point: the element of “enforcement” is not within the legislative branch, so the entire effort is a moot exercise. WATCH:
Margaret Brennan is especially annoying in this interview.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by Oklahoma Republican James Lankford. He’s in Oklahoma City this morning. Good morning to you, sir, it has taken you two months to get this bipartisan deal. Do you have the support of your fellow Republicans to actually vote this through?
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD: Well, actually, I wish it would have taken only two months. It’s taken about four months to be able to go through this, we started in October. Everyone’s looking to be able to read the bill at this point. That’s the key aspect, we’re working on the final aspects of it to try to be able to get it out. So everyone can get a chance to read it. Right now, they’re all functioning off of internet rumors of what’s in the bill, and many of them are false. So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it. And to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes and how we handle our immigration system, and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That’s been the simple request of Americans, whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or independent, people just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we’re not promoting illegal immigration. And that’s what we’ve seen in the last three years.
President Donald J. Trump was accused of withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine in order to force compliance with his requests. This was the exact claim of those who attempted to impeach President Trump in 2019; this was their originating justification.
Today, NBC is reporting that Joe Biden is looking at what military aid can be withheld from Israel in order to force compliance with their requests. I doubt the insufferable dolts in the media can see the ridiculous hypocrisy in this story.
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is discussing using weaponry sales to Israel as leverage to convince the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to heed long-standing U.S. calls to scale back its military assault in the Gaza Strip, according to three current U.S. officials and one former U.S. official.
At the direction of the White House, the Pentagon has been reviewing what weaponry Israel has requested that could be used as leverage, said the sources. They said no decisions have been made.
Rudy Giuliani brought up some good points that were surreptitiously also noted by Victor Davis Hanson. As Giuliani noted in an interview with Newsmax, the core elements of the E Jean Carroll claims never made any sense.
Specifically, Carroll couldn’t even put a date or YEAR on her claims against Donald Trump, but that really didn’t matter in a civil case where the New York state legislature literally wrote a new law that permitted the lawsuit against Donald Trump. WATCH:
VDH – […] “The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional leftwing criminal prosecutions, leftwing judges, and leftwing juries to come—all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president or been a liberal progressive.
Yet here we are.
The E. Jean Carroll case is the most baffling of all five. She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.
It was never clear what were the preliminaries that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours the alleged violence took place.
Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto—and only after Trump was running for and then president.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott calls in for an interview about the federal -vs- state conflict on border security. Gov. Greg Abbott says ten other states have already sent national guard to the Texas border, and others will follow. Abbott says he is “prepared” for a conflict with federal authorities.
Following the Abbott interview, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joins Carlson in the larger legal discussion. WATCH:
President Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, delivered furious remarks to the assembled media pool following the Trump -vs- Carroll defamation trial and jury verdict. Habba outlines the lawfare effort of the New York court system. WATCH:
E. Jean Carroll is 50 shades of crazy. This New York civil jury is just as nutty. Carroll was awarded a ridiculous $83.3 million in damages for her civil defamation lawsuit against President Trump.
The goofball advice columnist and her lawfare team convinced a prior New York jury that President Trump sexually assaulted her inside a department store fitting room.
President Trump had already left court today when the verdict was read. The jurors – five men and four women – delivered their decision after three hours of deliberations. Carroll’s Lawfare crew had originally been seeking at least $24 million in damages.
NEW YORK – A jury ordered Donald Trump on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll over defamatory remarks he made about her while he was president in response to her rape accusation.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled last fall that Trump defamed Carroll by saying in 2019 that he had never met her and that her book, in which she accused him of having raped her in the dressing room of a luxury department store in the mid-1990s, “should be sold in the fiction section.” (read more)
