The CNN panel was jaw-agape as Kevin O’Leary appeared earlier today to inform them the decision by Joe Biden to guarantee every deposit in U.S. regional banks is akin to “Joe Biden just nationalized the U.S. banking system.”
O’Leary is correct, and anyone who is holding assets like stocks or bonds in U.S. banks now needs to reconsider the disappeared line between government and the bank assets. If the government can assume, control and backstop every single account balance within the bank, the government can assume and control all activity of the bank. WATCH:
.
Downstream…. think about the consequences. Remember the frozen bank accounts in Canada as a result of defining truck protest supporting Canadian citizens as domestic extremists?
Now think about the government no longer needing to ask the bank to take action, the govt has a regulatory ability to demand the bank to take action. This takes “debanking” to an entire new level. People are wondering why cryptocurrencies went up in value today. There’s your answer.
Comrade citizens, at the end of this rainbow of bank nudges, we will find ourselves at the footsteps of a government controlled central bank digital currency.
The installed occupant of the White House said something today that is just brutally false on its face.
From the words typed into the teleprompter of Joe Biden you hear, “No losses will be borne by the taxpayers. Instead, the money will come from the fees that banks pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund.” Who the hell does Biden think are paying those “fees”? Those fees paid into banks, and then out of banks, from all around the nation are paid by the people using the bank, that’s taxpayers.
The United States government does not create a single dollar of revenue. They transfer revenue from people to processes and systems of government. Charles Payne has a good perspective on this entire dynamic. {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:
During an interview with Margaret Brennan today, Congressman Michael McCaul -another GOPe weasel – said he stands with Vice President Mike Pence in saying “they avoided a constitutional crisis” on January 6, 2021, when Congress declared an emergency session and refused to entertain any challenges to the 2020 election certification. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Texas Republican Congressman Michael McCaul.
Good morning to you, Chairman McCaul.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-Texas): Good Morning, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have got a lot to get to with you today.
But I want to start where I just left off with those very strong remarks from Mike Pence last night. Do you want to associate yourself with what he said?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Let me just say Vice President Pence exercised moral clarity and judgment that day by doing his constitutional responsibility, authenticating the votes and counting them.
He avoided a major constitutional crisis that day. As you know, I voted for certification. That is our constitutional role not to overturn state- certified ballots. So, I agree. I mean, look, it was a dark — dark day. And I think people will be — history will judge everyone by what they did that day.
The Ring of Truth – “I am too well accustomed to the taking of evidence not to detect the ring of truth.” 1908, Edith Wharton
Much has been made of the events of January 6, 2021, and with the latest broadcast of CCTV video from inside the Capitol Hill complex, more questions have been raised.
Within the questions: the FBI and government apparatus had advanced knowledge of the scale of the J6 mall assembly yet doing nothing? Why were the Capitol Hill police never informed of the FBI concerns? Why didn’t House Speaker Nancy Pelosi secure the Capitol Hill complex, and why did she deny the request by President Trump to call up the national guard for security support? Why did the FBI have agent provocateurs in the crowd, seemingly stimulating rage within a peaceful crowd to enter the Capitol building? There have always been these nagging questions around ‘why’?
Long time CTH reader “Regitiger” has spent a great deal of time reviewing the entire process, looking at the granular timeline and then overlaying the bigger picture of the constitutional and parliamentary process itself. What follows below is a brilliant analysis of the federal government motive to create a J6 crisis that permitted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to trigger an emergency session and avoid the 2020 election certification challenges.
Those congressional floor challenges, known and anticipated well in advance of the morning of January 6, 2021, would have formed a legal and constitutional basis for ‘standing’ in judicial challenges that would have eventually reached the Supreme Court. The certification during “emergency session” eliminated the problem for Washington DC.
I think most, not all, but a large number of people, are totally missing what happened; and why this happened on Jan 6th. I am going to try my best to outline the events that day, blast past the commonly held assumptions and get right down to the core corruption.
I will present this as a series of questions and answers.
The 44-hour collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is having some reverberations amid the tech sector as companies who carried unsecured deposits with the bank are facing an uncertain future.
Tech company Roku streaming services holds $487 million in cash reserves at SVB representing 26% of their liquid holdings. Those unsecured funds are now tenuous, depending on what steps are taken next. Additionally, Etsy an online brokering retailer for mostly independent sellers, has also run into a snag with processing disbursement payments to those same sellers. Etsy used SVB as a depository and payment transfer provider to the merchant accounts.
According to Axios, “Circle’s usd coin (USDC), the second largest stablecoin in the world” is also in a tough position “because a portion of its cash reserves were held at SVB, which the U.S. government took control of on Friday.” These and other ancillary issues are now part of a larger conversation about whether SVB is representative of a weakness that may impact other banks. However, current consensus is that a contagion effect is not expected.
SVB was exclusively a tech sector bank. Small to mid-size tech companies who relied on SVB may have some immediate issues; but the larger banking sector seems much more solid and less exposed to the long-term treasuries that SVB was holding. “People are used to having zero interest rates and easy money, and it’s gone. And there are people who will manage that well and people who will not,” former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin said during an interview on “Cavuto Coast-to-Coast” Friday. {link}
Meanwhile, congress is meeting with treasury and FDIC officials to discuss if taxpayer intervention is needed. {insert eyeroll here}:
Drawing attention to the testimony of FBI Director Christopher Wray in his responses to Representative Darin LaHood.
Representative LaHood is leading an internal congressional review of the FISA “702” reauthorization. During the testimony, LaHood waxes philosophically about the importance of FISA-702 targeting as a tool for the FBI while simultaneously outlining how the FBI is weaponizing the tool. At 06:24 of the video below, LaHood goes on to outline the details of the NSA noncompliance report showing how the FBI intentionally targeted him, likely because he is leading the 702 reauthorization group.
The irony here is thick. The FBI illegally uses 702 search queries, and in the example of LaHood, it is demonstrable targeting because the search query was only for his name, so there can be no claim of “inadvertent” search result. Simultaneously, FBI Director Chris Wray states the number of illegal FBI searches of the database is 84% improved year-over-year. In essence, the FBI is saying they are breaking the law 84% fewer times. WATCH:
After his review of the Twitter Files, Michael Shellenberger is beginning to take a big picture approach to each of the discoveries. {Direct Rumble Link}
Shellenberger, appears on Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss how in the big picture the U.S. government is conducting psychological warfare against domestic citizens through the auspices of Twitter and likely other social media platforms. He’s not wrong, we’ve been calling it out in real time. WATCH:
Semi-related. You might remember for several months CTH has been outlining the state of the issues between the United States and Mexico regarding energy policy. Within the dynamic I have said repeatedly to “watch Mexico” through the prism of: what would the USIC, specifically in this instance the CIA, do to turn American sentiment against Mexico?
Remember me repeatedly saying that? Within those questions, and from that baseline, you will discover why I have not been writing about a Mexican cartel kidnapping four American hostages, killing two.
I did not get to watch the House Judiciary Subcommittee testimony in real time because, well, life interrupts. However, I am catching up this evening. I find myself needing to draw attention to a particular brand of familiar bullsh*t from former DOJ Lawyer and current New York Freshman Representative Daniel Goldman.
In the exchange below, prompted to 10:55, notice how weasel Goldman posits the Mueller/Weissmann Special Counsel Russian indictments as some form of evidence that Russia (a) interfered in the election, and that Russia (b) hacked and dumped the DNC emails in 2016; neither of which is factually accurate….. but he blathers on.
Unfortunately, Taibbi and Shellenberger were not deep enough in the weeds back in 2018 to appropriately skewer Dan Goldman with the verbal takedown he deserved. What Goldman is saying is ridiculous, and he counts on people not knowing the details of the Mueller/Weissmann schemes.
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein held two big press conferences announcing indictments of Russian actors in 2018. One in February and one in July, both at critical moments for the fraudulent cover operation being done by Mueller. [Citation Here – And HERE – And Here]
These are the “indictments” Goldman cites. However, the indictments were sealed within the DOJ-National Security Division, specifically so that no one could deconstruct them. Goldman is asking Taibbi to read indictments that are not even possible to see. They never were. The only thing the public saw were Weissmann and team’s descriptions of the claims within the indictments we were never permitted to review…. because, well, national security. WATCH:
Insert the familiar and hilarious case of the Russian Concord Catering Company that was indicted. Yes, Mueller/Weissmann actually indicted a place that makes ham sandwiches. The correct “Concord” company eventually took the DOJ case to court and made fun of the stupid Amerikans so much the DOJ ended up dropping the case while claiming they would have to put national security at risk (sources and methods) if they took the case to trial.
In February 2018, they needed a big presser to get away from the Senator Warner texts with Adam Waldman (Oleg Deripaska, Dan Jones, Chris Steele et al), while simultaneously trying to run an operation to deflect attention from the FBI discovery of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe and his leaking of the FISA application. The February Russian indictments were intended to: (a) suck oxygen, (b) deflect from a collapsing Trump-Russia narrative (Nunes Memo), and (c) prop up the Mueller probe.
Journalist Matt Taibbi released another Twitter File review today [#18 Available Here] showcasing how the opinion of government interests was pushed toward content censorship regardless of the truth within it.
File #18 release is a walk through all of government interests from COVID-19, Vaccination Compliance and maintenance of the Trump-Russia narrative.
I strongly suggest everyone to review the citations Taibbi presents from the documents contained within Twitter’s internal communication. SEE HERE.
One aspect that draws particular interest to those who spent years deconstructing the false Trump-Russia narrative, appears in the section beginning in Tweet #34 where Taibbi again visits the influence of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).
At the epicenter of the SSCI effort we have always found then Vice-Chair Mark Warner manipulating events. Taibbi pulls this thread a little further with his review of how the SSCI contracted with outside government agencies to maintain the false premise of Russian interference in the 2016 election. A name that might be familiar to those who read the SSCI report on “Russian Active Measures and Disinformation in the 2016 Campaign” might be familiar to you. Taibbi notes:
Profiles portray [Renee] DiResta as a warrior against Russian bots and misinformation, but reporters never inquire about work with DARPA, GEC, and other agencies. In the video below from @MikeBenzCyber, Stamos introduces [Renee DiResta] as having “worked for the CIA.”
DiResta has become the public face of the Censorship-Industrial Complex, a name promoted everywhere as an unquestioned authority on truth, fact, and Internet hygiene, even though her former firm, New Knowledge, has been embroiled in two major disinformation scandals.
In 2016, Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli was one of the lead voices behind the never-Trump pro-Cruz effort. Cuccinelli was the main floor voice trying to lead a revolt against Donald Trump at the 2016 GOP nomination convention.
After President Trump won the nomination, Cuccinelli became a fake MAGA supporter in order to retain influence in Republican politics; however, he was always of a never-Trump disposition despite President Trump letting bygones be bygones for the Cruz folks.
Now we enter 2024 and Ken Cuccinelli, a political grifter of the most extreme variant, goes back into never-Trump mode in support of Ron DeSantis and launches a Political Action Committee to support the Florida Governor. [LINK]
…[…] The Trump campaign isn’t alone in preparing for a delegate fight. Other prominent Republicans, including Ken Cuccinelli, a former Virginia attorney general and a top delegate expert, have been discussing amendments to the delegate rules, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mr. Cuccinelli declined to comment, saying only that he was not publicly committed to a candidate. (March 4, 2023)
