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.
4. When the Clinton campaign launched the Russia Collusion dirty trick move against her opponent Donald Trump, originally using Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson, the role of the Obama administration was to facilitate the political hit, and at the very least not impede it. Hence, former CIA Director John Brennan briefing Barack Obama on the status of the Russia collusion hoax as it spread in 2016 via the Clinton campaign.
However, as a result of the circle of information, Obama had a problem. The sourcing of the intel could trace to the FBI surveillance of the NSA database.
That's why they needed a plausible shift within the surveillance. That's where the Carter Page FISA comes in.
Specifically because President Obama was, by extension, now a participant in the Clinton created “Russia Collusion hoax,” and specifically because his administration officials were participants in the process (DOJ, FBI), when President Trump won the 2016 election President Barack Obama was now exposed by the threat the operation represented. This context is the impetus for the January 5, 2017, Susan Rice memo.
Following the surprising result in the 2016 election, the team around Obama was urgently framing plausible deniability.
5. President Obama did not orchestrate the Russia Collusion hoax; he facilitated it by not interfering with his administration officials who were assisting Hillary Clinton. This is a very key distinction. President Obama knew what was going on, he was willfully blind as it was carried out. However, the mess and fallout from the extreme lengths his FBI and DOJ officials went eventually represented a threat to Obama.
Robert Mueller and all 19 of his Clinton-aligned Lawfare operatives, were put into place to cover-up the entire mess created within the Russia Collusion operation. Mueller +19 continued the Crossfire Hurricane operation, while the extreme Lawfare strategy was deployed against the Trump administration.
That’s the short, encapsulated version.
The Russia Collusion hoax was created by Hillary Clinton, spread to media through Fusion GPS and given the patina of credibility by the DOJ and FBI. President Obama facilitated the operation by not interfering in the operation, until it became a threat to him personally.
Both the Obama and Clinton political teams supported and organized the Robert Mueller cover-up.
Clinton was supposed to win!
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
2. 40 FBI agents investigated Trump for two years, knowing there was nothing to investigate.
"mistakes were made?"
3. “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.”
1) **ahem** Also, every argument for retention of 702 is a false premise. Americans either have a 4th Amendment, or we do not. It really is that simple.
Want to conduct electronic surveillance on an American; want to read their "private papers," GET A WARRANT!
This is my hill!
2) Why is this my hill?
Because every downstream action for the surveillance state is predicated on the legal arguments behind FISA 702.
Real ID, facial recognition surveillance, metadata collection, AI enhanced trace and tracking, etc, all of it is contingent upon the arguments within the FISA 702 issue as it relates to the 4th amendment.
If FISA 702 is not a violation of the 4th amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure, then all domestic downstream DHS surveillance, collection and exploitation is similarly not a violation.
If FISA 702 is determined to be a violation of privacy, a violation of the 4th amendment to be secure in your papers and effects (which it is), then all approaches to conduct domestic electronic surveillance through the network of DHS data assembly is also a violation of privacy.
This is a privacy argument that has not reached SCOTUS. It is still being fought with success at state level.
If you are being monitored without a warrant, you have no privacy. The core argument behind 702 authorizes warrantless monitoring.
3) This is why the DC system supports FISA 702 with such severity. It is essentially the path through which the U.S. Govt is authorizing itself to conduct surveillance.
This is why the SSCI will not confirm a nominee without them supporting 702. Congress demands every member of the national security apparatus approve domestic surveillance, on behalf of the Intelligence Community who create and operate the systems.
Remove 702 authority and Palantir stock drops overnight. Why? Because the predicate of their domestic product intents, the surveillance software, are dependent on the legal arguments behind it.