One of the ways you can immediately detect federal Lawfare deployment is to look at how media articles are written when they outline court filings without direct citation for review.  The Hill began SEE HERE. The New York Times is similar, SEE HERE.

Notice both national publications talk about a DOJ court filing, presumably made under seal, that limits President Trump’s defense access to materials and documents used in the case against him.  Notice the media do not say how they gained insight into the details of the sealed filing itself; nor do they provide any source context for how their reporting is structured.  Nothing like, “according to sources with familiar with the matter” or anything similar. Just nothing; no attribution at all.

That media context is a BIG red flag indicating the need to ‘create a narrative’ is more important than the actual substance of the evidence material underpinning it.

Both stories hit on the issue of the DOJ filing a (presumably sealed) motion with the Florida court, to place limits, rules and restrictions on evidence against President Trump, that limits his ability to review it, talk about it and/or provide context for it.  THIS IS A LAWFARE MOVE.  This is what happens in the prosecutorial star-chambers where they hide information in order to create the appearance of something nefarious, where nothing nefarious exists.

When we see this legal approach, we can be assured the case that uses the evidence is built upon fraud and pretense.  Do not be afraid to tell your family, friends and others about this dynamic.  President Trump is being accused of the crime of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, a violation of the espionage act, and the DOJ is requesting that President Trump must not permitted to defend himself by discussing the evidence against him.

The DOJ wants to limit public knowledge of the material evidence, not because it would harm national security – but rather because the nature of the evidence itself would highlight to the nation how fraudulent the targeting is.  This is the guaranteed DOJ motive, that’s why everything is under seal and even the media will not talk about how they are gaining their leak knowledge.  This is LAWFARE narrative engineering at its apex deployment.

(more…)

We live with a new type of tyranny, where we find ourselves dissidents.  It is not like any previous tyranny. It is not revolutionary in nature. Instead, it operates very scientifically and technocratically by convincing those it tyrannizes to demand their own enslavement, under the guise of comfort.

Prior dissidents were at least dissidents of a tangible, kinetic revolution. We are dissidents of what the willfully tyrannized perceive as their secure position within the rightful order of things. This needs to be factored into how we think about “converting” and “awakening” others amid the ongoing insurgency.

(Via Daily Mail) – A Fox News producer who resigned over a chyron that described Joe Biden as a ‘wannabe dictator’, has broken his silence.

Alexander McCaskill posted a photo of himself on Instagram holding a cardboard box outside the corporation’s New York offices.

He told his followers ‘Today was my last day at Fox’ and described his time there as a ‘wild 10 years’.

McCaskill is thought to have been responsible for the chyron which claimed President Biden was intent on locking up his 2024 rival, Donald Trump on Tuesday.

Fox had it on screen for less than 30 seconds, and then apologized. Dailymail.com has approached Fox News and McCaskill for comment.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson claimed the producer had resigned during his new show, now being broadcast on Twitter, on Thursday.

(more…)

Comrades, dissident voice Tucker Carlson continues broadcasting his rebellious monologues on Twitter.  For his latest episode 4, Carlson notes the new American dictatorship. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:

Dear Leader does not appreciate the unauthorized broadcasts from dissident citizens.

(more…)

Hopefully Team Trump was reading here last year when we predicted the moves of the professionally Republican. 😉 Today, as predicted, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez files to run for the 2024 GOP nomination.   He’s not running to win; he’s running to split. I’ll explain. Murdoch had Suarez on Fox News Sunday for a reason.

FOX NEWS – Miami Mayor Francis Suarez officially filed paperwork on Wednesday declaring his campaign for president in 2024 as a Republican, according to a Federal Election Commission filing.

The filing comes after a newly re-branded super PAC that supports Suarez launched a digital ad blitz earlier Wednesday in the first four states that hold contests in the 2024 GOP presidential nominating calendar. (more)

Here’s the Florida plan from the CLUB.  ♦Carve out the largest voter population center of Miami-Dade from the GOP nomination (that’s what Suarez is for). ♦Change the Florida primary rules from the current ‘winner-take-all,’ so that delegates are distributed ‘proportionately’ (will happen rules).  ♦Split the remainder of the state votes between DeSantis and Trump, permitting DeSantis to carry out delegates with a 2nd place finish.

[CURRENT POLLING]

The “Florida Play” won’t work as effectively now that Ron DeSantis is naked with his ambitions to the public.  That’s a big part of the reason why I went full wolverine as soon as I saw the design last summer.  It’s also the reason why I included Suarez in the graphic above, while everyone laughed at me.

The GOPe is predictable.

Now watch two things. 1. Watch for the Florida delegate rule changes; and 2. Keep watching nationally for the moves of the Republican Governors Association (RGA).

The Club plan requires the RGA to play a big role against Trump.  The Republican Governors are under pressure to align with the program.  The RGA is funded and controlled by the same donors to Ron DeSantis.

(more…)

As customary in this era of a great awakening, there are a lot more Republican masks dropping this week.  There is a great deal of sunlight upon the professional and institutional Republican politicians that hold office, when contrast against the indictment of Donald Trump.  As we bear witness to the establishment opposition of candidate Donald Trump, once again it is valuable to understand the motive at the heart of this opposition.

CTH can get down in the weeds of each specific issue to discuss the motives and intents (we will, and do), but the big picture MUST remain at the forefront of understanding. If we lose track of the big picture, the weeds are overwhelming.

…“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”

~ Niccolò Machiavelli

♦POTUS Trump was disrupting the global order of things in order to protect and preserve the shrinking interests of the U.S.  He was fighting, almost single-handed, at the threshold of the abyss. Our interests, our position, is zero-sum. His DC opposition seeks to repel and retain the status-quo. They want to return to full economic control.

In these economic endeavors, President Trump was disrupting decades of financial schemes established to use the U.S. as a host for their endeavors. President Trump was confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of us.

There are trillions at stake. The need for control is a reaction to fear. The billionaire donor class fear losing control over economic policy and finance. They are funding every candidate, media resource, influencer operation, RNC, RGA, and every institution possible to retain their equity position. Opposition is based on economics; everything else is chaff and countermeasures.

(more…)

Tucker Carlson is defying the gravitational pull of Fox News legal department and continuing to broadcast his monologues on the Elon Musk platform known as Twitter.

For his third episode, tonight Tucker Carlson discussed the Biden administration using the Dept of Justice to target Donald Trump, while the republican establishment, including the majority of the 2024 republican presidential candidates, generally stand aside and watch the targeting take place. {Direct Rumble Link}

What Mr Carlson outlines is accurate in the context of the DC UniParty and their aligned outlook toward foreign policy. However, Carlson is smarter than this.  He knows the core opposition to Trump is not centered around foreign policy; it is one level higher; the opposition is based on economics, yes money. It is the economic policy of our nation that drives the foreign policy of our nation, perfectly encapsulated in this era when President Trump said, “economic security is national security.”

The truest reality of the thing is that foreign policy is an outcome of economic priority. So, why would Tucker stop at the neocon angle to the opposition and not drive all the way through to the core issue. Who is controlling the money? Decide for yourself.  WATCH:

Democrats want power. Republicans want money. This creates the two wings of the Uniparty apparatus. Donors to democrats do so in order to support an ideological agenda based around social control; you are a prole.  Donors to republicans do so in order to support financial control; you are a serf. This is the main distinction between the two corporations that align with mutually beneficial non-compete clauses.

As long as democrats allow republicans to operate systems toward their objective, the assembly of wealth, there is no opposition to the democrat agenda of social control.  This is the baseline of the political frustration noted by almost all “republican” voters.  The GOP politicians who are created by the billionaire donors are not acting on a priority to defend, preserve or support individual liberty.  The GOP politicians prioritize what their benefactors tell them to prioritize, the assembly of wealth and financial control.

(more…)

Tonight, President Donald J. Trump will address the media and deliver national remarks on the date of his political arraignment in Miami, Florida.

RSBN and the Trump Campaign are livestreaming the speech, links below. Remarks scheduled for 8:15pm ET  UPDATE: Video ADDED

(more…)

Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive.  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.

As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents.  When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process.  Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.

Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part.  You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment.  However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.

This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment.  Again, pay close attention. WATCH:

.

What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023 {citation}.  What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.

Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.

First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents.  They requested a return of documents containing classification markings.  These are two entirely different things.

Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings.  Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.

Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved.  In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}

Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed.   Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.

(more…)

Nothing shouts “complicity” quite like paying $290 million to make the issues disappear.  However, according to the Wall Street Journal, fortunately ““The U.S. Virgin Islands will continue to proceed with its enforcement action to ensure full accountability for JPMorgan’s violations of law,” said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general.”

In one of the biggest settlements within the banking industry relating to sexploitation, JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pay the victims of Jeffrey Epstein $290 million in damages in order to settle a class action lawsuit against the bank.   Epstein used JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank as the financial mechanisms to pay for the sex trafficking operation he ran.  There are other civil and legal cases still ongoing, but JPMorgan hopes to extricate themselves from the collateral damage of Epstein’s horrific exploits.

Wall Street Journal – JPMorgan Chase JPM -0.25%decrease; red down pointing triangle agreed to pay $290 million to settle a lawsuit over its ties to Jeffrey Epstein, said lawyers for Epstein accusers, shortly after top executives were questioned about the bank’s years of dealings with the convicted sex offender.

The lawsuit on behalf of women who accused Epstein of abuse helped expose details about the bank’s relationship with Epstein for years after his conviction, forced Chief Executive Jamie Dimon to answer questions under oath, and led the bank to turn around and sue a former top leader, Jes Staley.

Dimon said in his deposition last month that he had never discussed Epstein or his accounts. Staley was deposed over the weekend.

The lawsuit was brought by an unnamed accuser who claimed the bank ignored red flags about Epstein until 2013 because he was bringing wealthy clients to the bank. JPMorgan has denied any wrongdoing. The bank still faces a related lawsuit from the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein had a residence.

(more…)

I have been reviewing interviews, looking at discussion, and some of them I will share in the next few articles.  However, for a solid representation of the state of our current dynamic, as it relates to the targeting of President Donald J. Trump, this interview below is a solid outlook from the detractors.

CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman and CBS News investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge join “Face the Nation” to discuss what’s in the indictment — and what it means for Trump. [Transcript Here]

Before getting to the video, it’s valuable to see Rikki Klieman representing the interpretation of the media outlook toward the indictment handed down by Special Counsel Jack Smith.  It is also valuable to see CBS’s Catherine Herridge represent the defenders of the institutions, from the outside vulgarian personage of Trump.

Klieman buys the Lawfare narrative completely, including the framework of classified documents as opposed to documents containing classified markings.  She sells the Lawfare outline as gospel and makes all assertions from that position.  Herridge looks at how the bureaucracy responds to Trump, including how the institutions hold power of determination higher than a President of the United States.

As Bill Barr said emphatically earlier today, “The documents do not belong to Trump,” continuing with “The documents belong to the government who created them, not the man for whom they were created.”  So sayeth the defender of the omnipotent Dept of Justice.  This is where a sharp intellectual knife to cut through the chaff and countermeasures is needed, and notice no one brings up the visible and practical deconstruction point.

If the documents did not belong to President Donald J. Trump, then why did the government dump them in the parking lot of the White House and tell him to deal with them?

If the documents belonged to the government, and not to the man for whom they were created, then why did that same government give them to him and force him to take them to a location of his choosing?   Can you see the obtuse argument fall apart when simple pragmatic questions are raised?

The institutions are presented, by the sellers of the Lawfare narrative, as higher than the authority of the President of the United States.  This is how ridiculous our government has become.

(more…)