1.) When I was in DC, doing deep research on the issues around spygate and trying to understand the depth of corruption within the legislative and judicial branches, I ran into a guy...
2.) DC was locked down at the time (May/June 2020), so there were very few people around. However, this guy's credentials within the DC system were impeccable.
I checked him out afterward & was stunned at how he spent his entire career in/around the IC and related apparatus
3.) After a lengthy and casual introduction and discussion, I was genuinely shocked at the severity of his warnings about the FBI, DOJ and various other agencies.
However, in hindsight, after checking him out, I realized he was certainly a person to understand.
4.) His warning was direct, devoid of emotion, very deliberate and very cold. But behind his eyes and words was a guy telling the truth; the quiet part that no-one inside the bubble says openly.
5.) What he said was that not a single person of honor or integrity can survive inside the DC institutions we were discussing. The system itself is designed to remove them... All of them... every-single-one.
6.) He laughed at the term "honorable" rank and file. But it wasn't a snarky laugh; it was almost like a resignation laugh... a genuine look toward the sky and compassion for a view I held that his honesty would destroy.
7.) He wasn't bitter, angry or jaded; and I would not call him cynical. He was very genuine, very wise, held decades of knowledge.... and was a "just the facts" kinda Joe Friday guy.
8.) I found out a few days later his job within the system was sending him overseas again. Perhaps that's why he apparently wanted to tell the genuine side of his story and experience. Dunno, but I will never forget it.
9.) I still held the belief there were three branches of government.... and there were "checks and balances"... and there had to be some way for a good person to expose corruption.
He quickly dispatched those beliefs (with examples).
10.) He explained the "checks and balances" I spoke of did exist at a time when there were three branches of government. However, that time has long passed.
There is only one overarching DC eco-system now. The three branch concept is gone. Doesn't exist.
11.) As he explained, the levers of power are all controlled by the same system, and behind that system are positions - not people. "Positions"
12.) People are evaluated based on their ability to support and protect the system. Their skill level is what moves them into position.
Position. Evaluation. Next Position. Evaluation. Etc.
13.) The system more like an institution. Within the institution there are divisions. The divisions are what we used to call "branches".
The divisions (branches) are not independent from the institution of DC. The divisions are operated by people in power who hold positions.
14.) He identified the timeline of this institutional creation as a slow build (over decades), but most visibly increasing in publicity after 9/11/01 and the patriot act.
15.) Once the patriot act made the government responsible for total safety; the previously embedded bad actors took full control. One office of particular note was the creation of the ODNI.
As he noted the amassing of surveillance power.
16.) once that Rubicon was crossed, everything after was downstream and unstoppable. The institution of the total intelligence apparatus now had full control.... over every branch (which again, he said is more like 'divisions').
17.) When he explained about the Inspector General part, I understood why the IG's offices (all of them) are compromised.... and why there can never be a whistleblower against the system.
Remember the "positions" part. Yeah, the IG's are key on that aspect.
18.) When he explained the legislative committee heads, he also explained how 'advise and consent' is used to keep the (executive) positions staffed only with particular people who have passed the institutional evaluation.
19.) He would know... his experience was deep in the part of the system that does the evaluation.
Think about what is needed to move into a position. A background check right? A clearance right?
Control of the people in the system, is done from the place where checks are done
20.) This is the place where people of honor and integrity are weeded out. They are a threat; or really not so much a threat, but just the "wrong type" of people. Said with a very matter-of-fact acceptance.
21.) One of the key institutions who do the background checks is The FBI.
That is why the FBI had to be compromised first in the structure of the new (post 9/11) system.
Visual Aid Below:
22.) Once you realize there is only one party, the UniParty, the next step is to recognize there are no longer three branches within government.
Then everything that has previously created frustration starts to make sense.
23) The discussion about there no longer being three branches of government was an eye-opening part of the talk... But if you think about it, it makes sense.
The executive, the legislative and the judicial branches all defer to the Intelligence Community.
24) Here's the exercise he sent me away with. If you doubt this thread, apply the scientific method to the hypothesis.
Show me a single example where they don't.
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"...[...] in 1962, Congress delegated to the President the power to take action to adjust imports when the Secretary of Commerce finds that an “article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, § 232(b), 76 Stat. 872, 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A)). This delegation is conditioned upon an investigation and findings by the Secretary of Commerce, and agreement by the President. See id. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) take action, which may include imposing tariffs, where “the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied” or “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(A)–(B). The USTR may impose duties also where the USTR determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” Id. § 2411(b)(1). This power is conditioned on extensive procedural requirements including an investigation that culminates in an affirmative finding that another country imposed unfair trade barriers under § 2411(a)(1)(A) or (B) or § 2411(b), and a public notice and comment period. See id. § 2414(b)."...
This is one reason why the ruling can be overturned. The Sec 301/302 investigation was completed by the USTR, with extensive citation.
The court literally ignored the USTR investigation, AND the Dept of Commerce review and investigation of the same based on the USTR published findings.
This ruling will not pass inspection by a higher court, and as to the motive of the 3-judge panel.... follow the $$$, there are trillions at stake.
This is a ruling to the benefit of the multinationals.
1. The original agreement between Clinton and Obama going back to 2008 was for Obama to take the nomination, the presidency and then eventually support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election bid.
Obama would be President. Obama would appoint Clinton to Secretary of State, Hillary would then use her office to build wealth for herself and her family, and then HRC would exit the Dept of State to begin her presidential run.
John Podesta would enter the Obama administration as Hillary left in 2013. Podesta would look out for Hillary’s interests from his position inside the Obama White House. The Clintons and Obamas never fully trusted each other.
Barack Obama would put all the mechanisms into place that would transition his administration into Hillary Clintons’. That was always the plan running in the background.
2. In 2015 Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had a check-in meeting; just touching base to firm up the goals and objectives as Hillary began her campaign launch. Podesta left the White House to take up position inside the campaign, and Team Obama would maintain Clinton’s interests as planned without an insider.
All of President Obama’s appointments in after 2015, were essentially through the prism of assisting Hillary Clinton to win in 2016. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (tarmac meeting), Deputy AG Sally Yates, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and FBI Director James Comey were all part of that.
This is a key point missed by many. In the last two years of Obama, the cabinet and top-tier members of the administration would align their institutional interests to that of Hillary Clinton.
Technically Hillary had eyes and ears all over the White House at the time, and with Hillary Clinton being a foregone conclusion per the expectations of Washington DC, everyone would fall in line during the transition from Obama to Clinton.
Again, this was the general plan. Obama would show up in 2016 to campaign for Hillary and all would be seamless.
3. The FBI was aware of the plan for transition from Obama to Clinton, hence their role in eliminating the threat later presented by the Clinton, as Secretary of State, laptop scandal and the subsequent issues of classified information.
Remember, Clinton’s motive as Secretary of State was to sell her position for material wealth; that’s why she used a personal email, maintained her own servers, and generally controlled how her activity could be monitored and tracked. [Also, she didn’t fully trust Obama]
The FBI activity was to support, defend and facilitate the Clinton effort. This is again a key to understanding "Russiagate"...
After March 2016 (Super Tuesday) it became obvious Donald Trump was going to win the Republican nomination. Trump would be Clinton's opponent.
Using access to the NSA database, the U.S. Govt., specifically "FBI Contractors", began doing political surveillance of Donald Trump's campaign. This intel was then sent to the Clinton team. Clinton would benefit from knowing the communication inside the Trump campaign. All of that intel was in the metadata captured by the NSA and searched by the FBI contractors.
All of this activity was political surveillance, using govt resources to feed the Clinton team the info.
1. OK lawyers, hear me out on my plan to address lower court 'nationwide injunctions' (or TROs) and tell me the flaw.
How about, before any lower court can issue a "nationwide" injunction, they have to get permission or approval from the SCOTUS Justice that presides over that region?
2. That singular justice decision (if approved) is then scheduled for a full SCOTUS review every-other-Friday.
[They can work out the communication structure by themselves, even using skype or similar]
Any nationwide injunction issued -hopefully fewer- would be approved by a SCOTUS justice, and then eventually reviewed by the full court.
3. Yes, that means some DEI justices (Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan), would likely approve regional injunctions. However, the ruling only applies to that region, not nationally.... Until full court approval.
Yes, in the issue of criminal illegal aliens, it essentially means that some regions would be unsafe as deportation processes would be stalled, while in the other regions the repatriation could continue without the TRO applying.
1. The absolute key to the first quarter GDP result is to remember that ‘imports‘ are a deduction in the economic equation of Gross Domestic Product. The GDP is the valuation of all goods and services produced in the USA *minus* the value of imports.
2. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) releases the results of the first quarter GDP. The overall economic growth seems low at 0.3% until you look at how U.S. companies responded in February and March to the tariff announcement.
Companies proactively purchased massive amounts of products in advance of the tariffs leading to an overall increase in imports of 41.3%. Which results in a 5.3% deduction to GDP. Every dollar of those imports is a deduction to the GDP equation, giving the false appearance of lower domestic production.
3. There was a massive surge in import goods purchases of 50.9% versus the prior period [Table 1, line 20]. That’s the largest periodic increase in import purchases I have ever seen. Simultaneously, fixed asset investment in equipment for domestic production surged 22.5% [Table 1, line 11].
Put both of these metrics together and what you see are U.S. companies building consumer inventory from overseas (imports) while simultaneously preparing themselves to shift production into the USA.
The massive import purchases are a bridge to cover the time needed to shift the manufacturing from overseas to the USA. This is exactly what we want to see.
1. I'm getting hit with a lot of newly awakened people wondering about AG Pam Bondi; wondering if the stuff from her old days surfacing is accurate.
I will try to encapsulate and provide receipts. The issues with Pam Bondi are much more serious than most understand.
Pam Bondi was the Florida Attorney General during the incident when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.
“When I worked with Governor Scott to appoint State Attorney Angela Corey to the case involving Trayvon Martin, I did so with the full confidence that a swift and thorough investigation would be conducted."
2. On the evening of February 26, 2012, in Sanford Florida, George Zimmerman fired one shot into the heart of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, fatally killing him.
The Sanford Police lead investigator into the shooting was Chris Serino; the Police Chief was Bill Lee, and the local prosecutor was Norm Wolfinger.
Detective Chris Serino questioned and investigated George Zimmerman, who used a traditional “self-defense” justification for the shooting. Eventually the case went to trial and the same “self-defense” justification was used in court. Despite what you might have heard in the media, it was never a “stand your ground” defense. It simply was not needed.
In addition to questioning Zimmerman, Serino documented two eye-witnesses to the shooting. One woman in an apartment who saw the initial encounter between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, and another eye-witness, a man in an adjacent apartment who saw and partially recorded, the entire confrontation as it unfolded on the pathway approximately 20 feet from him.
The second witness called 911 and described in real time what he was seeing. Trayvon was straddling George in an “MMA style” position and slamming Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk. During the 911 recording you can hear Zimmerman calling out, “help me; somebody help me.” [NOTE: Both of those witnesses as well as the recording were later buried but came out at trial.]
After a thorough investigation, all of the statements by George Zimmerman were corroborated by the eye-witnesses, the forensic evidence, the audio recording, and all the physical evidence found at the scene. Detective Chris Serino gave his investigative report to Police Chief Lee along with the recommendation that Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was valid and justified. Serino and Lee then consulted with prosecutor Norm Wolfinger who reviewed the evidence and agreed.
3. Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, was in a new relationship with his girlfriend Brandy Greene. Ms. Greene was a corrections officer.
Ms. Brandy Greene was eventually put into contact with a Florida “civil rights lawyer” named Benjamin Crump. After some back-and-forth positioning and discussion, Crump decided to champion a wrongful death case for the Martin family against George Zimmerman, the City of Sanford and the Sanford Police Department.
Benjamin Crump hired a PR firm run by Ryan Julison to create media pressure. Using his civil rights contacts, Crump requested support from groups like Al Sharpton, Dream Defenders, and allies in the DOJ. That approach led to AG Eric Holder and eventually President Barack Obama.
Additionally, having worked previously (2007) with Florida prosecutor Pam Bondi in the Martin Lee Anderson case, Benjamin Crump called the now Florida Attorney General Bondi for support.
The detective (Serino) sided with George Zimmerman. The Police Chief, Bill Lee, agreed with Serino and the evidence. The local Sanford prosecutor (Norm Wolfinger) refused to bring a case against Zimmerman based on the evidence.
…. Enter Florida AG Pam Bondi, who told Florida Governor Rick Scott a special prosecutor was needed for her friend Ben Crump.