The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has decided against joining any lawsuits targeting the tariffs put into place by President Trump, Commerce Secretary Lutnick and the National Economic Council.  This is quite a new shift in tone from the generally hostile CoC.

In the background, the U.S. CoC has historically surveyed their corporate sponsors and conducts extensive polling on their interests as part of their decision-making process.  Perhaps the CoC is starting to realize a larger American awakening of their long history selling out middle-America is too risky for them politically.

WASHINGTON DC – The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has no immediate plans to join the growing number of lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs, two people with direct knowledge of discussions confirmed to POLITICO.

The business group, one of the most influential trade associations in Washington, will instead focus on lobbying the Trump administration on the tariffs directly, said the people, who were granted anonymity to divulge sensitive and developing discussions.

[…] “While we believe that tariffs under [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act] are legally questionable, the president has other tools to impose similar tariffs that equally damage America’s Main Street Businesses,” the Chamber said in a statement to POLITICO. “The only way to provide immediate relief is for the Administration to pull back on these harmful tariffs.” (more)

(more…)

The report comes as a result of leaks to the New York Times. Which, given the nature of the subject matter and administration officials involved, indicates the sourcing is from the domestic IC side of things. Specifically, the greatest likelihood is from someone in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) talking to media.  Keep that in mind.

According to leaked information to the New York Times, President Trump did not agree with an Israeli proposal to launch military strikes against Iran.  According to the narrative as advanced, President Trump, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were in agreement to attempt diplomatic solutions instead of bombing Iran.

Israel could not conduct the attack without U.S. support, which President Trump decided not to give.  Instead, Trump wanted a more forceful push toward engagement and diplomacy with Iran surrounding the ongoing contentious issue of nuclear development.

NEW YORK TIMES – Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

(more…)

It’s not the first part of the 46-page ruling [SEE HERE] by Judge James Boasberg, threatening to hold President Trump and Main Justice in criminal contempt of court, that presents the biggest problem; it’s the second part where Boasberg is threatening to appoint an independent Judicial Branch prosecutor against the DOJ and Trump that makes a constitutional crisis tilt toward a near civil war between the branches.

Outlining his determination that President Trump defied a court order, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg states, “the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

As noted by Politico, within the ruling Boasberg goes on to say:

…”if the administration doesn’t rectify the issue, the judge said he may require administration officials to testify under oath so that he can identify the specific individuals responsible for violating his order. He would then request that those individuals be prosecuted.

The judge signaled he could appoint an outside lawyer to prosecute the contempt case if the Justice Department declines to do so.” (link)

I think we all know the very select group of “beach friend” people whom Boasberg would lean toward in appointing someone to prosecute Pam Bondi and DOJ officials representing President Trump.

High on the list of possible judicial branch appointments, who would be subject to review by the authority of Boasberg himself, would be his prior friendship with a previous appointee, Mary McCord.  Or possibly Andrew Weissmann, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen, David Laufman or any other credentialed member of the Lawfare alliance.

(more…)

After twenty years in congress, Curt Weldon was about to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee when he publicly questioned the accuracy of the 9-11 report. In retaliation, the Bush administration sent federal agents to his daughter’s house and ended his political career. At 77, Weldon has decided to tell the truth about what actually happened on September 11, 2001. WATCH:

Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
2:33 Why Did They Oust Weldon?
7:12 Could the CIA Have Prevented 9-11?
16:00 How the FBI Tried to Intimidate Weldon
19:23 Did the CIA Lie About Osama bin Laden’s Location?
25:47 The Real Culprit Behind America’s Wars in the Middle East

(more…)

Things are again not what they seem, but you have to stand back to understand the right questions.

People have asked about the recent release of the declassified FBI documents (a partial release) and what they mean.  Having spent years deep in the research, here’s my take.

At first blush people may say there’s nothing really there that we didn’t already know. I would differ on that perspective because the process is telling us something very loudly, and the absence of material is shouting even louder.

Simple question:  This stuff was declassified by President Trump and released by the FBI, correct?  If so, then why isn’t the release simply uploaded to the FBI.Gov website.  Why release it to congress and then leak it to John Solomon?

Read the underline.  First things first. Explain to me exactly how these were “obtained.”  Where did Solomon get them?

[SOURCE]

If it’s all on the up-and-up, and if it is simply an outcome of declassified material, then why is sourcing for the documents clouded in some weird mystery.  Shouldn’t we know the process?  Those of you who remember the FISA application release, will know why this process issue is important.

Next, the information is given to the founding member of the “Tick Tock” club.  John Solomon has singularly been responsible for more purposefully controlled information releases than any other ‘conservative’ media rep for the Intel Community.  The Russiagate files coming from Solomon should be the first big “red flag” that causes pause.

Who game them to Solomon?  And again, why not just upload them to a .gov website (DNI, FBI or even HPSCI).

I suspect the intention here, the motive of the process, is to focus on the politics of the release, NOT the illegal nature of the conduct that is contained within the evidence the release outlines.  They want the public focused on the “politics” not the “illegal surveillance” and unlawful conduct that underpins Russiagate.

(more…)

President Donald J Trump announcing the end of the 80-year-old Marshall Plan (aka The European Recovery Program) of one-way tariffs against American imports has triggered a very predictable response from the European Union.

While saying the EU is prepared to enter negations toward a zero-tariff trade reciprocity, Comrade Ursula von der Leyen simultaneously announced that Brussels is prepared to launch countermeasures against The United States, in an effort to retain economic control and access to a U.S. consumer market they must exploit for their economic survival.

Speaking in very deliberate terms, the EU Komisar states the U.S. decision to demand reciprocity, and fairness will deliver “immense” and “dire consequences” for the New World Order and “global trading system.”  von der Leyen proclaims that global citizens will be impacted with higher grocery bills, shortages of medication and increased costs for transportation.

The leader of the world’s largest bureaucracy stunningly proclaims President Trump’s tariffs will increase the “burdens of bureaucracy.” The one-sided benefits and “interests of the European Union” will be protected at all costs.   WATCH:

.

Regarding “countermeasures.” Again, we repeat the predicable response.  Together with their unelected ally in Canada controlling the North American response, watch for the EU to target Big USA Tech companies and financial service sectors.

The goal of the EU will be to assemble a tariff countermeasure response that will deliver political pain, not economic consequences.  That’s just how they roll.  The EU will leverage disgruntled Wall Street, banking and Technocracy sectors in order to put political pressure on Donald Trump to back down.

Optically this is the worst possible type of pontificating EU spokesperson to generate internal American opposition.  Frankly comrade Ursula, MAGA don’t give a damn. [Pinky Finger Salute]

(more…)

Kid Rock appears on Stuart Varney show to discuss a dinner he helped organize between President Trump, Bill Maher, Dana White and himself.

According to Kid Rock the dinner went great, and everyone participating talked about the commonality of the things at the core of MAGA, economic security, border security, elimination of cultural Marxism and non-interventionist foreign policy. WATCH:

.

It’s also a little funny, because Stuart Varney is apoplectic inside about the auto tariffs.

(more…)

According to Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic [SEE HERE], National Security Advisor Mike Waltz invited him to a group chat on the Signal app, where various Trump administration officials and cabinet members were discussing how to address the Houthi rebels in Yemen in advance of military airstrikes.

The media is having a field day with the story, and it does have multiple angles that will unfold in the next several days and weeks. Some media even claiming the story could take down Mike Waltz and/or Pete Hegseth due to the national security implications in the series of events [Politico Here]. However, I wouldn’t go that far at all.

(left, Mike Waltz – right, Pete Hegseth)

Why Mike Waltz would be texting an invite to Jeffrey Goldberg is an issue for later discussion. Generally, given the nature of these things it is not the principal who sets up the text network, usually a top aide or lead staff, which might indicate Waltz’s wife Julia Nesheiwat was involved [SEE WHY], but let’s put that aside.

Goldberg claims “details of war plans” were discussed in the group chat.  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  This specific part of the story is refuted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.  What was discussed and further shared and outlined by Breitbart News [SEE HERE] is a conversation about the strategic reasoning for the U.S. to directly attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen and reopen the sea lanes into and out of the Suez Canal.

The EU and Egypt are the primary beneficiaries of U.S. involvement toward stopping the Houthi terrorists from targeting ships in the region.  Egypt manages the Suez Canal, and obviously there are some strategic U.S. benefits in the region from helping Egypt deal with the Houthi issue.  Specifically, as President Trump seeks to have Egypt, Saudi Arabia and partners help solve the problem in Gaza.

Additionally, most of the shipping through the region is headed to the European Union through the canal.  Reestablishing safe maritime flow of goods economically assists the EU more than any other region.  Again, a point of leverage for the Trump administration as President Trump confronts the issues of EU support for a Ukraine conflict he is trying to resolve.

(more…)

Within the recent interview between President Trump’s emissary Steve Witkoff and Tucker Carlson, there was a very weird segment where Ambassador Witkoff was heaping praise upon the Qatari government. [SEE HERE] Carlson sat there nodding and affirming his support for Witkoff’s opinion of Qatar. It was really bizarre. {GO DEEP}

That segment of the interview was bizarre because there is zero doubt that Qatar is a bad actor in all things related to the middle east and U.S. domestic policy outcomes. For Ambassador Witkoff to be that wrong about such a big item puts a question mark behind his judgement and the influences on his opinions toward the relationships in the middle east.

Qatar is bad news. President Trump has previously, correctly, called out the nation of Qatar for being the center of support for radical extremism throughout the region. Qatar is also connected at the hip to the CIA.

Qatar funded and supported the original “Arab spring,” more accurately known as the Islamist Spring. Qatar is the banker for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Qatari government fund Al Jazerra. When the Arab extremists were exiled from Egypt the leaders fled to Qatar. The leaders of Hamas also live in Qatar.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) eventually had to confront Qatar with sanctions and ostracization due to the Qatari support for radical Islamic extremism. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, all of which barely survived in the Arab Spring uprisings, all put pressure on Qatar to stop their support for radical Sunni extremists.

Qatar is a supporter for Hamas, and Qatar is in cooperative alignment with the Iranian influence in the region. When Biden released the $6 billion for Iran, it was deposited in a Qatari bank. When the 5 Muslim Brotherhood leaders were released from Gitmo, exchanged for Bowe Bergdahl, they went to Qatar. When Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta sent surface to air missiles into Libya, Qatar organized the transfer.

Within the USA Qatar funds the same groups the USAID (technically the CIA) funds that stir up trouble domestically. Those groups include The Brookings Institute, who in turn fund Lawfare, specifically the efforts of Mary McCord, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen.  Qatar spends money on issues in/around the USA that are against the interests of our country and President Trump specifically.

(more…)

Judge Boasberg said: “By March 21, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., Defendants shall submit a sworn declaration by a person with direct involvement in the Cabinet-level discussions regarding invocation of the state-secrets privilege;” (link)

Deputy AG Todd Blanche responds:

[SOURCE]

Boasberg gets the legal equivalent of “yup” from Blanche.

Funny.

(more…)