(1) A brutally honest review of the 2022 midterm election.
(2) As the political discussion centers on the 2022 wins and losses from the midterm election, one thing that stands out in similarity to the 2020 general election is the difference between ballots and votes.
(3) Insofar as electioneering is concerned, where votes were the focus, the Biden administration suffered losses. However, where ballots were the focus, the Biden administration won.
(4) Since the advent of ballot centric focus through mail-in and collection drop-off processes, votes have become increasingly less valuable amid the organizers who wish to control election outcomes.
(5) As a direct and specific result, ballot distribution, assembly, collection and return has become the key to Democrat party success.
The effort to attain votes for candidates is less important than the strategy of collecting ballots.
(6) It should be emphasized; these are two distinctly different election systems. Ballots -vs- Votes
The system of ballot distribution and collection is far more susceptible to control than the traditional, now arcane, system of votes physically cast at precincts.
(7) A *vote* cannot be cast by a person who is no longer alive, or no longer lives in the area. However, a *ballot* can be printed, distributed, completed and returned regardless of the status of the initially attributed and/or registered individual.
(8) 'Votes' and 'Ballots' are two distinctly different things.
Votes require people, difficult to manage and costly for electioneering. Ballots require systems, easier to manage and more cost effective.
(9) While ballots and votes originate in two totally different processes, the end result of both “ballots” and “votes,” weighing on the presented election outcome, is identical.
(10) The controversial 2020 election showed the result of making ‘ballots’ the strategy for electoral success.
Under the justification of COVID-19 mitigation, mail-in ballots took center stage. Ballot harvesting was one term for collection process but don't get hung up on it.
(11) Now that ballot collection has been shown to be a much more effective way to maintain political power, Democrats in a general sense are less focused on winning votes and more focused on gathering ballots.
(12) When ‘ballot organization’ becomes more important than ‘vote winning,’ you modify electioneering approaches accordingly.
It might sound simplistic, but inside the distinct difference between ballots and votes you will find why refusing debates is a successful strategy.
(13) If you are trying to win votes you could never fathom campaign success by refusing to debate an opponent. However, if your focus is centered around ballot collection, the debate is essentially irrelevant.
(14) You can vote at any scale you want, but when ballots are more important than votes – the election will always favor the former.
Michigan and Pennsylvania voters are likely very unhappy today, while Michigan and Pennsylvania ballot providers are smiling.
(15) If Democrats had to win individual ‘votes’ to gain election success, they would be at a disadvantage. It would be unfair.
However, as long as Dems only need to gather ‘ballots’, they have a path to winning elections. The process of electioneering is modified accordingly.
(16) Campaigning, advertising, promoting, debating, hand-shaking, crowd attendance and venues for rallies, along with physically meeting people and convincing them of your worth, are only important if you are trying to win votes.
(17) Fortunately for Democrats, modern electioneering does not require these arcane voting efforts. So, in the larger picture of what you see in election outcomes, they have stopped wasting time and doing them.
Who cares about votes, modern elections are the result of ballots.
(18) It’s time for those in the voting group to start seeing the difference between elections decided by votes and elections decided by the ballot group.
They are two entirely different election processes.
1) Newly appointed U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, from the Eastern District of Viginia, has released a criminal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. [LINK BELOW]
The indictment alleges three counts. Counts one and two are ‘false statements’ to congress on September 30, 2020, [18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)] and count three is ‘obstruction of a federal proceeding’ stemming from the same testimony. [18U.S.C. § 1505]
The first false statement charge surrounds Hillary Clinton’s “approval of a plan concerning” Donald Trump and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
2) COUNT #1 – James Comey claimed he could not remember being made aware of the Trump-Russia collusion plan, and there is ample evidence from his own previous public statements, from public and sworn statements by former CIA Director John Brennan, from former statements by officials in the January 5, 2017, meeting memorialized by Susan Rice, from statements that remain sealed as recounted by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and from statements under oath by the former Clinton campaign team -including campaign manager Robby Mook- that James Comey was well aware of the plan.
While this first count is based on the tenuous “I don’t remember” aspect, this count holds more material benefit than simply Comey’s recollection. This count could open the door to public testimony by McCabe, Rice, Mook, Brennan and even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton herself as to Comey’s knowledge; each was a first-hand witness.
This first count holds strong material value in a public trial regardless of the outcome. This first count establishes the baseline for USAO Lindsey Halligan to bring all material witnesses into court and publicly put them on record outlining the Trump-Russia collusion scheme.
You could say, I hope the intent is not just to incarcerate Comey per se’ – but rather to use what Comey represents to indict the entire enterprise around him. The facts behind Count #1 make this possible.
Let’s all hope this strategic intent unfolds.
3) Count #2, involves James Comey falsely testify he did not direct former his FBI Special Government Employee (SGE) Daniel Richman to leak information to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt.
This second count is easily evidenced through the prior investigation of Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and all prior witness statements therein. Again, that includes testimony to Horowitz given by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Additionally, the second count is evidenced by the direct testimony of Daniel Richman himself, who was hired by James Comey and given special access privileges to classified information systems. Richman was likely a grand jury witness during the assembly of the case against Comey. Count #2 is the easiest to prove beyond any reasonable doubt.
2. The results from the FBI search warrants, was the predicate material for the J6 team to begin targeting Trump supporters in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
3. Those Arctic Frost search warrants included banking records, networks, affiliations, communications, Google search results, social media platform user IDs and much more.
2) It was in June 2022, when Senator Chuck Grassley sent a letter to then Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Chris Wray, notifying them of whistleblower allegations from within the FBI that senior leadership in both Main Justice and FBI are involved in a coordinated effort to cover up criminal activity related to Hunter Biden.
3) The whistleblower allegations, in combination with the documented history of DOJ and FBI misconduct, culminate in Senator Grassley stating:
...“If these allegations are true and accurate, the Justice Department and FBI are – and have been – institutionally corrupted to their very core to the point in which the United States Congress and the American people will have no confidence in the equal application of the law. Attorney General Garland and Director Wray, simply put, based on the allegations that I’ve received from numerous whistleblowers, you have systemic and existential problems within your agencies.”
Grassley was admitting what has been visible for years.
2) The reality is actually something entirely different.
The people in control of FBI field operations (not Kash), set up their agency head by informing the boss a suspect was in custody.
The ever concerned and focused on public opinion, Kash Patel, then took to Twitter to relay the news.
We all watched it unfold.
3) An embarrassed Patel then was forced to retract his public statement, walking back his message that a suspect was in custody.
The FBI field operatives smiled. Egg applied as expected, it worked brilliantly.
Patel couldn't then turn to those who set him up with anger, because their defense was, "we were questioning a suspect, we didn't tell you to go public with it - and as it turned out the suspect was cleared."
It was a brilliant maneuver, intended to undermine his authority and position and it worked perfectly.
Did you see his face when he eventually did arrive in Utah and didn't say a word at the microphone?
On Friday November 18th, 2016, The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:
..."The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
[…] In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters."...
In February and March 2017 HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports that were assembled exclusively for the office of the former President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.
After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd, 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he had been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.
Quotes from the presser:
1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”
3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”
4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.
“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”
•“Who was aware of it?” •“Why was it not disclosed to congress?” •“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?” •“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?” •“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”
“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th [2017] letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”
Back in 2017 when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was working to reauthorize the FISA legislation, Nunes wrote a letter to ODNI Dan Coats about this specific issue:
There is little doubt the NSA database was used by Obama-era officials, from 2012 through April 2016, as a way to spy on their political opposition. Quite simply there is no other intellectually honest explanation for the scale and volume of database abuse that was taking place.
When we reconcile what was taking place and who was involved, then the actions of the exact same principal participants take on a jaw-dropping amount of clarity.
All of the action taken by CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, ODNI Clapper and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter make sense. Including their effort to get NSA Director Mike Rogers fired.
Russia-Gate, the Steele Dossier and even the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (drawn from the dossier and signed by the above) were needed to create a cover-story and protect themselves from discovery of this four-year weaponization, political surveillance and unlawful spying.
This is why President Obama was willing to push the Russiagate story with his activity in December of 2016 after the election. Obama wasn’t only dirtying up President Trump, Obama was using Russiagate as a cover for the spying that took place using the NSA database.
Even the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel makes sense; Mueller was FBI Director when the use of the NSA database surveillance began. Aaron Zebly was his chief-of-staff.
The beginning decision to use FISA (702) as a domestic surveillance and political spy mechanism appears to have started in/around 2012. Perhaps sometime shortly before the 2012 presidential election and before John Brennan left the White House and moved to CIA. However, there was an earlier version of data assembly that preceded this effort.
Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS.
This is where the term “Secret Research Project” originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S. Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the FISA abuse:
The IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1-million-page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The transaction occurred in October 2010