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
1. At sporadic times of inconsequential normalcy, on the streets of Russia you will see two distinct types of people asked for identification, Asians and middle eastern males. When asked why, the average, ordinary grey-person in Russia going about their business, ambivalently has no idea.
Russia is a massive country.
To the southeast they are bordered by China, Mongolia and Asia, they even have a small border with North Korea. To the southwest they have the “stans,” most notably Kazakhstan; this region is the source of most domestic terrorists who attack inside Russia. To the West they have Ukraine and the EU nations.
From the standpoint of Russia, they have Asians on their East, Turks/Arabs on their South and EU supported Nazis on their Western flank.
Keep in mind, despite the breakup of the Soviet Union the muscle memory from World War II is still very much a part of their social compact.
2. Consider Arlington Cemetary for scale. If you were to build an Arlington type cemetery for all the Russians killed in World War II, the 27 million gravesites would envelop a landmass bigger than Washington DC. These realities underpin Russian perspectives.
Russia is drawn into an alignment with China not by desire, but rather by necessity. Most ordinary Russians do not like China, and they would prefer not to purchase Chinese industrial or manufactured goods. Russian President Vladimir Putin is well aware of this, and I believe U.S. President Donald Trump is aware also.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said publicly it should be U.S. policy to support separating the two biggest nuclear powers, China and Russia as a matter of strategic U.S. interest. President Trump said, “I’m going to have to un-unite them, and I think I can do that, too,” shortly before his election in November. “I have to un-unite them.”
In a very downplayed statement earlier this year generally hidden/ignored by media, the former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and current Secretary of State -also National Security Advisor- Marco Rubio, said “Ukraine was a proxy war for the United States against Russia.” Despite the U.S. media intentionally hiding the statement, Moscow immediately noticed and affirmed the accuracy.
3. Ukraine launched a covert attack against Russian air force bases last Sunday June 1st. President Trump was not informed of the attack in advance and was unaware it was going to take place. In the aftermath, President Trump and Secretary Rubio stayed quiet.
Three days after the attack, Wednesday, June 4, President Trump held a 90-minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Last week the New York Times received “an eight-page internal F.S.B. planning document” … “that sets priorities for fending off Chinese espionage.”
[…] Ares Leaks, a cybercrime group, obtained the document but did not say how it did so. That makes definitive authentication impossible, but The Times shared the report with six Western intelligence agencies, all of which assessed it to be authentic. The document gives the most detailed behind-the-scenes view to date of Russian counterintelligence’s thinking about China.
[…] Russia has survived years of Western financial sanctions following the invasion, proving wrong the many politicians and experts who predicted the collapse of the country’s economy.
[…] The Russian document describes a “tense and dynamically developing” intelligence battle in the shadows between the two outwardly friendly nations.
[…] Read one way, the F.S.B. document lends credence to the theory that, with the right approach, Russia can be cleaved away from China. The document describes mistrust and suspicion on both sides of the relationship."
"...[...] 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.