Post

More from @TheLastRefuge2

TheLastRefuge

Mar 28

U.S. senators (mostly) write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds.

Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered funds back through their various “institutes” and business connections to the foreign government offices. Everyone in DC knows the gig.

Example: Ukraine laundry to Biden, Haiti laundry to Clinton, Iran laundry to Obama.

The U.S. State Dept. served as a distribution network for the authorization of the money laundering by granting DC conflict waivers, approvals for financing (McCain Institute, Clinton Global Initiative etc), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money.

The officials within the State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of “indulgence fees”, commissions, junkets, gifts and expense account payments to those with political oversight.

If anyone gets too close to revealing the process they become a target of the apparatus.

President Trump was considered a threat to this process.

In reality all of the U.S. Senators (both parties) on the Foreign Relations Committee understand what is going on and/or are participating in a process for receiving taxpayer money and contributions from foreign governments. [See Bob Menendez]

A “Codel” is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing.

On the right the McCain Institute was/is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. [That is the primary reason why Cindy McCain was such an outspoken critic of President Trump.] On the left you see the Clinton Global Initiative, same/same.

This is why Senators spend $20 million on a campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year.

The “institutes” is where the real foreign money comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc. etc. There are trillions at stake.

The current nation of focus is the Ukraine laundry operation. The U.S. intelligence services, including CIA operations in USAID, have historically been the bagmen. That's why they consider Gabbard as a threat.

The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee (SFAC) is structurally designed to sell U.S. foreign policy. We all know the game of multinational corporations positioning their investment assets in various countries based on the expectation of U.S. foreign policy to support those investments. It is inside this network of long-established relationships that all of the various quid-pro-quos originate.

The Senate chamber as an institution is where most of the generational level corruption emanates; when the 17th amendment was created, this was the function and purpose for the constitutional change as organized by banking interests. In the decades since inception, the corruption within the upper chamber has become systemic. The Senate became entirely predicated on having greater power within the legislative branch.

Inside this institutional system, each Senate committee has an operational objective in alignment with the interests of the DC business. The Senate is detached from any operational function that would be considered representative of the American voter. The Senate Intel Committee supports the weaponized intelligence state. The Senate Finance and Banking committee supports the interests of big banks, who then reward the committee members. The Senate Judiciary Committee is structured to lean into the corruption needed in the Judicial branch, by controlling appointments and nominations. And so it goes, and so it goes.

Every member on the SFAC uses their position for personal and familial gain. For their specific expertise, the SFAC funding mechanism is by foreign governments and multinational corporations with foreign policy interests. It’s what they do.

Menendez is charged with the crime of doing what the Senate Foreign Affairs committee does; participate in bribery and corruption – although the pretending term is “lobbying.”

documentcloud.org/documents/2398…

Quit pretending.

In April 2024, 165 Democrats voted for a foreign aid package brought to the floor by Republican Speaker Mike Johnson. The measure included $26 billion more for Israel, $61 billion more for Ukraine and around $10 billion for Taiwan. 151 Republicans voted to support the aid bill.

There is almost $100 billion in total foreign aid and approximately $0 to secure the southern U.S. border.

This is a “Republican” bill, that passed with Democrats, not Republicans. The ideological UniParty is very real in Washington DC, and this vote was entirely against the wishes of most Americans.

politico.com/live-updates/2…

It’s really not just Mike Johnson, the root of the issue is much deeper than just corrupt and detached Republican leadership. The issue extends to every aspect of life and politics in Washington DC. Every member is participating in a process to give money to other countries, regardless of whether the American voter wants that to happen or not.

There is a complete collapse of the governmental structure of the United States as it pertains to representative government. The concept of representative government is completely gone, not even considered any longer amid the professional political class from both wings of the UniParty vulture.

I have no idea how this structural collapse can be fixed. There doesn’t seem to be any entity willing to stop the nonsense as it relates to financial systems and U.S. foreign aid.

We are in an abusive relationship with our government. There really is no other way to look at it.

Read 5 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

Feb 2

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/2018277500464275804

**ahem** [scenario #2]

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/2018277500464275804

Context for equities [fourth branch] can be found in a review of this document. The questioning of ICIG Atkinson prior to his confirmation.

intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/upl…

I'm not sure most people fully understand the nature of the enemy within that is being fought in the background

Read 10 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

Jan 24

https://x.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1221955255946174478

I really don't want to go back into this weird thing again, but I will tell you nothing about it added up six years ago.

When the Floyd/Chauvin thing erupted this weird "counterfeit money" thing was at the core of it.

When Minneapolis burned, a large number of the businesses torched were cash businesses that seemed to be connected, somehow.

With the recent reports of suitcases of cash shipped out of Minneapolis, y'all might want to go back and revisit. It wasn't a one-off then. I don't know what it all adds up to, but something very unseemly. 👇

https://x.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1221955255946174478

https://x.com/BenTallmadge01/status/1395091439831306240

https://x.com/BenTallmadge01/status/1395091439831306240

https://x.com/BenTallmadge01/status/1395092291216281600

https://x.com/BenTallmadge01/status/1395092291216281600

Read 8 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

Nov 15, 2025

Interesting. 🤔 Keep in mind this is 2019, Epstein texting Rep, Democratic member of Congress, Del. Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands, shortly before Epstein 'killed himself'...

Also Interesting... in 2019: JPMorgan Chase notified the Treasury Department of more than $1 billion in transactions related to “human trafficking” by Jeffrey Epstein dating back 16 years after the notorious sex predator killed himself in 2019, a lawyer for the U.S. Virgin Islands told a federal judge at a hearing.

“Epstein’s entire business with JPMorgan and JPMorgan’s entire business with Epstein was human trafficking,” Mimi Liu, an attorney for the Virgin Islands, told Judge Jed Rakoff in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Thursday, according to a transcript reviewed by CNBC.

cnbc.com/2023/09/01/rep…

On April 18, 2023, Elon Musk meets Linda Yaccarino for the first time.

April 26, Elon Musk meets Chuck ‘six-ways-to-sunday’ Schumer. “We talked about the future,” Musk told reporters after exiting the meeting that lasted about an hour. {link 1}

April 28, Attorney General of USVI triggers subpoena to Musk about Epstein. {link 2}

First weeks of May, USVI investigators trying to serve Epstein subpoena on Musk.

May 12, Musk hires DEI advocate Linda Yaccarino as Twitter CEO.

1. reuters.com/world/us/elon-…

2. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Early December 2022, USVI Attorney General Denise George announced a $105 million settlement with the estate of Jeffrey Epstein [link 1].

The USVI case against Epstein was based on anti-criminal enterprise, sex trafficking, child exploitation and fraud laws of the Virgin Islands. We can assume AG George gained a lot of information in the discovery phase deep inside the Epstein finances that ultimately led to the settlement.

Following the settlement with the estate of Epstein, Attorney General George now announces a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase for “knowingly” enabling the sex trafficking operation of Jeffrey Epstein.

AG George is specifically saying JPMorgan Chase was fully aware of what Epstein was doing.

1. usvidoj.com/u-s-virgin-isl…

2. yahoo.com/news/us-virgin…

Read 5 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

Oct 30, 2025

Judge James Boasberg signed off on the search warrants against congress.

Boasberg issued blanket orders to the cell phone companies not to reveal the search warrants.

Boasberg is a FISA Court Judge.

Boasberg authorized one of the Carter Page title-1 surveillance warrants.

Boasberg hired Mary McCord as amicus to the court.

After appointing Mary McCord to take up a defensive position for herself and the FISA Court (cover), Judge Boasberg then becomes the presiding judge in the case against the FBI agent who falsified the FISA application, Kevin Clinesmith. Boasberg gives Clinesmith a slap on the wrist and a few months’ probation (more cover).

Boasberg told John Durham (Bill Barr) allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly of the FISA application; a nice way to cover the issue.

t.co/FXXV4c89kE

This is the same Judge Boasberg gave J6 FBI agent provocateur Ray Epps a sentence of probation.

This is the same Judge Boasberg who established a horrible precedent by forcing Vice-President Mike Pence to testify before a DC grand jury about his conversations with President Trump (breaking executive privilege).

While on vacation, Boasberg attended the criminal indictment hearing of President Trump.

Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking DHS, Customs and Border Patrol and ICE from deporting illegal aliens and narcotrafficking gang members belonging to Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

There were calls for Boasberg to be impeached.

Immediately, the same day President Trump noted Boasberg should be impeached, Chief Justice John Roberts jumped to his defense:

..."“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said Tuesday in a rare and brief statement issued just hours after Trump publicly joined demands by his supporters to remove judges he called “crooked.”

politico.com/news/2025/03/1…

Fuck off with this nonsense telling me Roberts is NOT protecting Boasberg.

Keep in mind, Mary McCord operates in all three branches of government: Deputy AAG in charge of the DOJ-NSD (executive); on both impeachment committees by Schiff/Nadler and the J6 committee of Thompson (legislative); as amicus to the FISA court (judicial). That's why she is "untouchable."

Mary McCord's husband worked in the office of Justice Roberts. Mary McCord is partnered with Norm Eisen. Norm Eisen hosted John Roberts in Europe and travelled with Justice Roberts as friends.

There is no apple. It's all worms.

https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1763663963076608500

https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1763663963076608500

theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/03/2…

Read 7 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

Oct 24, 2025

1. Dear @jkenney, to understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the NAFTA renegotiation.

If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.

🧵 begins....

2. During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.

In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed the NAFTA agreement was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two seperate bilateral trade agreements. One between the USA and Mexico, and one between the USA and Canada.

In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole. The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.

Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the ‘environmental’ aspirations of their progressive politicians. Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs. Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.

Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement.

President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward. Trudeau said he would not support it. Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.

3. When the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to terms of the new trade deal and 80% of the agreement was finished, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed Trudeau that his position was weak and if the U.S. and Mexico inked their deal, Canada would be shut out.

The U.S Chamber of Commerce was upset because they were kept out of all the details of the agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. In actuality the U.S CoC was effectively blocked from any participation.

When they went to talk to the Canadians the CoC was warning them about what was likely to happen. NAFTA would end, the U.S. and Mexico would have a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), and then Trump was likely to turn to Trudeau and say NAFTA is dead, now we need to negotiate a separate deal for U.S-Canada.

Trudeau was told a direct bilateral trade agreement between the U.S and Canada was the worst possible scenario for the Canadian government. Canada would lose access to the NAFTA loophole and Canada’s entire economy was no longer in a position to negotiate against the size of the USA. Trump would win every demand.

Following the warning, Trudeau went to visit Nancy Pelosi to find out if congress was likely to ratify a new bilateral trade agreement between the U.S and Mexico. Pelosi warned Trudeau there was enough political support for the NAFTA elimination from both parties. Yes, the bilateral trade agreement was likely to find support.

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

TheLastRefuge

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @TheLastRefuge2

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!

Become Premium to read this thread!