Democrats and the Biggest Financial Fraud Case In U.S. History

The Democrat Party Is In The Middle Of The Biggest Financial Fraud Case In U.S. History! #JWP

Fox News host Jesse Watters weighs in on the Democratic Party’s relationship with the now bankrupt cryptocurrency company FTX on ‘Jesse Watters Primetime.’

Some more via POST MILLENNIAL:

The multi-billion dollar cryptocurrency company FTX, run by CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, the second biggest Democrat donor right after George Soros, collapsed last week as details emerged regarding their financial practices, which led to a run by customers on FTX. FTX did not have the funds to pay out.

It was also revealed that FTX had partnered with Ukraine to process donations to their war efforts within days of Joe Biden pledging billions of American taxpayer dollars to the country. Ukraine partnered with FTX as the Biden administration funneled funds to the invaded nation, and FTX then made massive donations to Democrats in the US.

[….]

Sam Bankman-Fried & The FTX Crash featuring Tulsi Gabbard, Tucker Carlson Tonight

Tulsi Gabbard Discusses Religious Liberty with Jay Sekulow

Tulsi Gabbard opens up about the importance of her faith and how the Democratic party has come to resent religion. The former Hawaii Congresswoman shares how her personal relationship with God grounded her on the presidential campaign trail while opening her eyes to the growing hostility from inside the party towards people of faith. Tulsi is joined by Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), Jay Sekulow to discuss his career defending religious liberty and the ongoing battles that threaten this essential freedom.

FBI ‘Raiders’ Under Investigation by Durham (14 Whistleblowers)

Jim Jordan Says 14 FBI Whistleblowers Have Come Forward to Expose the Corruption

Two days ago CF noted the following:

Prior to the FBI’s raid Monday on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, a string of whistleblower reports alleged that senior officials at the FBI exhibited a pattern of bias in their handling of politically sensitive investigations and also reclassified cases without justification to substantiate the White House’s public narratives on crime and extremism.

Beginning in late May, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley called attention to then-Washington Field Office Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault over political bias concerns. Thibault expressed support for several “highly partisan” opinion articles on LinkedIn and made a series of politically charged social media posts, according to Grassley, who referred Thibault to the Office of Special Counsel to address the federal agent’s potential violations of the Hatch Act, which bars government officials from partisan political activity.

Concerns surrounding Thibault escalated in July, as whistleblowers came forward claiming Thibault’s partisan persuasion directly impacted his work at the bureau. While seeking approval from FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland to open an investigation into Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign, Thibault withheld from them that his predicating evidence was based in “substantial part” on information from a “left-aligned organization,” according to Grassley’s office.

In a separate instance, whistleblowers claim Thibault worked to falsely discredit evidence against President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and prevent the bureau from investigating him.

“Whistleblowers have told my office that the FBI maintains many sources that have provided extensive information on Hunter Biden,” Grassley said in August. “That information allegedly involves potential criminal activity such as money laundering. According to allegations, the underlying information was verified and verifiable. However, instead of green-lighting investigative activity, the FBI shut it down.”

Grassley also pointed to Robert Pilger of the Election Crimes Branch, who he alleges was of vital aid to Thibault in his efforts to open the investigation into Trump. Former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, the Iowa Republican noted, testified that “Pilger’s conduct frustrated the department’s ability to properly operate the Election Crimes Branch.”

Thibault, Grassley confirmed, was reassigned to an unspecified posting prior to the bureau securing a warrant to raid Trump’s estate. Sources briefed on the raid confirmed to Just the News that the agents came from the Washington Field Office, in which Thibault was serving until just days prior.

In late July, whistleblower reports emerged that bureau supervisors were pressuring agents to reclassify cases under the label of “domestic violent extremism” (DVE) without substantive justification in order to support White House narratives…..

(READ IT ALL)

“You are not allowed to disagree with the FBI”

The raid at Mar-a-Lago was by people flown in from the D.C. Field office where many of the whistleblower accusations have taken place. Which is interesting because some of these individuals at the D.C. office are under investigation by Durham… which would explain why the had the warrant set up the way they did.

And even the “judge” that okayed the warrant had a duty to keep the warrant focused and not as broad as it was. But something smells here. Here is my response to JIM G. on my Facebook:

  • FBI seizes privileged Trump records during raid; DOJ opposes request for independent review: sources (FOX)
  • Trump Warrant Furthers Justice Department’s January 6 Investigation (NATIONAL REVIEW)

Judge Bruce W. Reinhart even recused himself just six weeks before giving the green light to the FBI raid on Trump’s home. All this is important, because it shows a disregard for the law by the FBI. Which Alan Dersowitz notes well:

…..What’s more, the agents had no right to open Trump’s safe, as they did, without a special warrant that goes above and beyond a normal search warrant, Dershowitz noted:

“Not only that, but under the law, if you seize a safe, you don’t go into the safe – you have to get a special warrant to get into the safe, and you have to prove that the material in the locked safe would have been destroyed.”

“They darn well better have smoking-gun proof,” the Constitution scholar and law professor said. And, since it’s unlikely they do, the FBI has violated Justice Department rules, Dershowitz declared:

“So it seems to me that they have violated the rules of the Justice Department, they have gone after both a former president and a future candidate – and they darn well better have smoking-gun proof – which I don’t see happening.”

The FBI’s behavior is not redolent of that of a democratic rule-of-law country, especially since there’s no evidence that Trump committed “a serious, serious crime,” Dershowitz said:

“And, clearly, there’s been a double standard here. But, even if it was a single standard, it’s not good enough!

“You don’t get a warrant, unless a subpoena won’t suffice. In a democratic rule-of-law country, you do it legitimately: you go to the lawyer, you say, ‘By tomorrow I want that safe delivered to the Justice Department. I want these documents turned over.’

“And unless you can demonstrate that there was a very substantial chance they would have been maliciously destroyed – which would have been a serious, serious crime. I mean, that would be a serious crime.

“That’s Nixon – and there’s no evidence that that happened here.”

“I don’t think you use search warrants and prosecutions to go after political enemies,” so the Biden Administration is acting like the government of a third-world Banana Republic, Dershowitz said.

“That’s not supposed to happen in the United States,” Dershowitz said, denouncing the Biden Administration’s unjustified prosecution of its opponents as “impermissible in a democracy”:

“I’ve just written a whole book on that, called ‘The Price of Principle,‘ where I go into the whole issue of why you don’t use partisan considerations to go after political enemies. That’s what happens in Banana Republics.

“That’s what happens in third-world countries. That’s not supposed to happen in the United States. It was right not to go after Hillary Clinton, because she was a candidate for president. You need a much higher standard, but you can’t apply one standard to Hillary Clinton and another standard to Donald Trump. That is impermissible in a democracy.”

What FX does this have?

….A new poll from Convention of States and Trafalgar Group shows that 83.3 percent of Republicans and 71.7 percent of independent voters are now more motivated to vote following the FBI’s raid at Mar-A-Lago on Aug. 8.

Overall, nearly half of voters believe the raid was carried out by Trump’s political enemies. Among Republicans, that figure is more than 76.7 percent and among independent voters that number is 53.9 percent. However, 70.5 percent of Democrats believe the raid was conducted by “the impartial justice system.”

The polling data also show that after the FBI’s raid at Trump’s home, motivation to vote in the 2022 election increased 53.4 percent among Asians, 73.7 percent among blacks, 80 percent among Hispanics, and 69 percent among white voters…..

In real time? A guy I have gone rounds with a couple times on FB had this to say:

Yep. I was pulling for DeSantis… but Trump now is my guy.


RPT’s RUMBLE


Tulsi Gabbard on Media Bias and Ministry of Truth

TULSI’S TWO CLIPS FROM HER RUMBLE THIS WEEK

At Washington Post, you can print factually incorrect, biased propaganda – but they draw the line at retweeting a dumb joke. MSM priorities are so twisted and out of sync with the American people, it’s just sad to see what our media has become.

Whistleblower docs reveal the Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Board) lied to Congress about their capabilities & plans. For intelligence agencies to work w/ Big Tech to target American citizens is flatly unconstitutional, dictatorial and should be brought to the Supreme Court

LARGER CLIPS FROM FOX APPEARANCES THIS WEEK

Whistleblower docs reveal the Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Board) lied to Congress about their capabilities & plans. For intelligence agencies to work w/ Big Tech to target American citizens is flatly unconstitutional, dictatorial and should be brought to the Supreme Court

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard assesses the January 6 hearings, says the Democratic-led Congress is not taking action on the real threats facing Americans on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’

‘Outnumbered’ panelists sound off on the media and President Biden for failing to publicly denounce the murder attempt against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

‘Outnumbered’ hosts shred President Biden’s first interview on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ for playing blame-game and ‘painting a rosy picture’ of the country wrapped in crises.

“Big Sister” Is Watching You (Ministry of Truth)

Tulsi Gabbard uploaded a clip of her responding to Sean Hannity’s question regarding the newly created Department of Homeland Security’s “Ministry of Truth”. Her original clip can be found on her RUMBLE channel here.

  • MAYORKAS: We have just established a mis-and-disinformation governance board in the Department of Homeland Security to more effectively combat this threat, not only to election security, but to our homeland security.  

A wonderful [warning] TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT commentary:

DAILY MAIL has a good end to their article:

  • REVEALED: Biden’s new disinformation czar shared misleading tweets about Covid masks, claimed Trump presidency would ’embolden ISIS’ and praised British spy behind the debunked Russian dossier- but she STILL hasn’t apologized

….Musk, who is now the owner of the platform, has said that his aim is to make it a more open ‘digital town square.’

‘Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,’ Musk wrote in a statement upon the purchase approval.

In an interview with NPR prior to her appointment as disinformation czar, Jankowicz expressed her concerns about that, saying: ‘I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities.’

She said these groups are ‘already shoulderingdisproportionate amounts of this abuse’ and said free speech and lack of censoring on social media would make it worse.

Musk has now called the creation of Biden’s new ‘disinformation’ board ‘discomforting.’

He was responding to a tweet from conservative political commentator, comedian and media personality Steven Crowder.

‘The government is creating a misinformation governance board,’ Crowder tweeted on Thursday.

‘Who else did something like that?’ he continued. ‘Oh I remember, the Nazi’s. And there’s some data showing some interesting things going on post- @elonmusk’s Twitter takeover!’

Several other conservatives have also spoken out against the new disinformation board, with Republican Senator Josh Hawley demanding that the White House ‘dissolve’ it, claiming that it would only ‘monitor Americans’ free speech’. 

‘I write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to create a new Disinformation Governance Board,’ he penned in a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

‘I confess I at first thought this announcement was satire,’ he continued. ‘Surely no American Administration would ever use the power of Government to sit in judgment on the First Amendment speech of its own citizens.’

‘Sadly, I was mistaken.’

He then demanded that DHS provide more information on this new board, including how it will function and be monitored.

Hawley also questioned why the announcement was made just following billionaire Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter.

Biden rolls out his “Disinformation Board” with Hunter denier as its leader. 1984 is here. The Ministry of Truth is out to criminalize your thoughts. Paul Joseph Watson reports. Great commentary, but I had to remove the “Info Wars” shite! While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet and Summit News network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs.


Dr. Drew ~ “Centralization”
(Medicine and Censorship)


A bit long, but worth a listen. But the key point is that when entities are “centrlized,” widespread abuse of the “stated goals” tends to follow — that is, helping humanity is distorted to impossible realms.

  • “One thing our Founding Fathers could not foresee…was a nation governed by professional politicians who had a vested interest in getting reelected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then looking…forward to getting back to the farm.” — Ronald Reagan
  • The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help. — Ronald Reagan
  • “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock.

Despite his vocal support of vaccines and science, this week YouTube deleted Dr. Drew’s #2 most-viewed show, put another strike on his channel & locked it for a week. Should “Big Tech” have the power to censor debates between doctors… and how can social platform moderators correctly identify “medical misinformation” unless they are doctors themselves?

Tulsi Gabbard’s Quick Realignment on Ukraine

Tulsi Gabbard, the last of the freethinking Democrats, also steps out of line. Personally, I’m rooting for Ukraine. But which gang of unsavory characters runs an obscure country on the other side of the world is a local issue. We have our own very serious problems to address, starting with the border and inflation. — MOONBATTERY

plays the Tulsi Gabbard short with xtra commentary.

NOQ REPORT has a decent article.

Most of my readers didn’t trust corporate media’s portrayal of Russiagate or the alleged pee tape that was manufactured for effect by Hillary Clinton’s operatives. You laughed when they tried to tell us the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. You were skeptical of the narratives surrounding the after-dark counting of ballots following the 2020 election, as well as the dismissal of mountains of evidence of massive, widespread voter fraud. You didn’t buy the January 6 “insurrection” narrative. You haven’t fallen for Pandemic Panic Theater.

Why, then, are so many people buying into the notion that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is some sort of good guy in the Russia-Ukraine fiasco? The answer is found in human nature; we tend to look at things as “A vs B.” If Vladimir Putin is the bad guy, then his opposition must be the good guy. Governments and corporate media networks across the globe are playing on this false notion and compelling even lucid patriots into thinking that Zelenksy is fighting the good fight.

I’m not taking a side in the regional conflict. It’s not because I’m indecisive; my long-time readers know I take a strong stance on just about every important issue. In this situation, neither side is worth supporting. Zelensky is not a good guy, and while it’s extremely unfortunate that Ukrainian civilians as well as reluctant members of both militaries are being victimized by their two leaders, I don’t see Zelenksy’s actions serving the interests of his people. Most importantly, I don’t see an upside for America to get involved.

I’ve received hundreds of emails regarding the conflict. Some try to convince me that Putin is a crusader for good. I’m not ready to buy that. Others tell me that it’s our responsibility to help Ukraine even if I don’t trust their leader. I can appreciate that perspective, but I see no way to help while the conflict is happening. Any intervention on our part will result in more loss of life, not less.

If NATO were to get involved militarily in any function, the loss of life would increase exponentially. We cannot save Ukraine through military action without going all-in and declaring war on Russia. Any “minor” assistance such as no-fly zones or drone strikes will result in a shooting war with Russia at best, possibly a far worse cyberwar, or the worst outcome of all — nuclear.

Volodymyr Zelensky has been documented as a puppet of George Soros. He has worked closely over the years with Klaus Schwab, a graduate of his school of thought with the likes of Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau. Those two blaring klaxons alone should make you question the mainstream narrative that this charismatic and defiant leader is operating from an agenda that benefits his people or the world. He is a pawn who has been set up as a messiah. There’s only one Messiah, and Zelenksy isn’t Him………

 

 

Tulsi Gabbard Slams the Prosecutors (Kyle Rittenhouse Trial)

Three of the Prosecutions witnesses completely blew up the Prosecutors case. And the DA got caught, literally, trying to have one of his witnesses fudge the facts. Crazy! No matter what you think about a 17-year old boy going to another state , armed (where were his parents!), has nothing ta do with the law… in court. This is what #WOKE PROSECUTIONS look like. And should be a warning to what is coming down the legal pipeline from the Left.

‘The Five’ panel discuss day seven of the Rittenhouse trial in which the judge admonished the prosecution multiple times

Mayor Lightfoot (Chicago) has cancelled days off from the police force in lieu of the case being dismissed or only one misdemeanor being rendered — vs murder charges. I doubt with the vaccination demand and 40% of the force not working because of it and the feeling that police officers have regarding their mayor having their back…. I doubt many will show up to the riots coming.

Crowder reacts to Kyle getting emotional on the stand.

 

 

Tulsi Gabbard (Democrat) Zeroes In On Our Countries Real Threat

Let me say, I think Tulsi will distance herself more and more from the Democrats and affiliate more with people like Dave Rubin does — conservatives — who are the bulwark in protecting free speech and thought.

(TRANSCRIPT) The mob who stormed the capitol to try to stop Congress from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities were behaving like domestic enemies of our country. But let us be clear, the John Brennan’s, Adam Schiffs and the oligarchs in Big Tech who are trying to undermine our constitutionally-protected rights and turn our country into a police state with KGB-style “surveillance” are also domestic enemies—and much more powerful, and therefore dangerous, than the mob which stormed the Capitol.

John Brennan said, “Members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed are now moving in laser like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, Nativists, even libertarians.”

President Biden, I call upon you and all members of Congress from both parties to denounce these efforts by the likes of Brennan and others to take away our civil liberties endowed to us by our Creator and guaranteed in our Constitution. If you don’t stand up to these people now, then our country will be in great peril.

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Tulsi Gabbard (former Congresswoman) about the Big Tech social media purge, Trump being banned from Twitter, the censorship of Parler by Google, Apple and Amazon and shares an exclusive announcement with Rubin Report viewers. Tulsi Gabbard shares her concerns with the amount of power that tech corporations hold over our ability to communicate with each other. She discusses the ramping up of social media censorship on the major tech platforms and how she is using Locals.com to protect her ability to communicate with her followers.


YOU CANNOT YELL “FIRE” IN A CROWDED THEATRE


Here is a responses to that quote trotted out often, for the curious. The first comes from [of all places] THE ATLANTIC:

Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known — yet misquoted and misused — phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, “the law”–as some have curiously called it–can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

The latest example comes from New York City councilmen Peter Vallone, who declared yesterday “Everyone knows the example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater,” as he called for charges against pseudonymous Twitter @ComfortablySmug for spreading false information during Hurricane Sandy. Other commentators have endorsed Vallone’s suggestions, citing the same quote as established precedent.

In the last few years, the quote has reared its head on countless occasions. In September, commentators pointed to it when questioning whether the controversial anti-Muslim video should be censored. Before that, it was invoked when a crazy pastor threatened to burn Qurans. Before that, the analogy was twisted to call for charges against WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. The list goes on.But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.First, it’s important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU’s Gabe Rottman explains, “It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience.”

The Court’s description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:

It said, “Do not submit to intimidation,” but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed “Assert Your Rights.”

The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year–Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.–also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White’s excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis mine).

Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

Even Justice Holmes may have quickly realized the gravity of his opinions in Schneck and its companion cases. Later in the same term, Holmes suddenly dissented in a similar case, Abrams vs. United States, which sent Russian immigrants to jail under the Espionage Act. It would become the first in a long string of dissents Holmes and fellow Justice Louis Brandeis would write in defense of free speech that collectively laid the groundwork for Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s that shaped the First Amendment jurisprudence of today.

In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”……

How to Fight Big Tech (A Dave Rubin Montage)

Tulsi Gabbard is right. When foreign leaders seem more concerned than our leaders about Big Tech attacks on freedom of speech here, we have a BIG problem.

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks about big tech with Tim Pool, Dennis Prager, Tucker Carlson, Michael Malice, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Beck and more. This compilation shows how long the big tech censorship problem has been growing with clips spanning the last few years. Dave discusses section 230, social media censorship, and free speech with tech innovators like Peter Thiel, politicians like Ted Cruz, creators like Bridget Phetasy, commentators like Michael Knowles, and activists like Charlie Kirk.