Wednesday, May 17, 2023

You Might Be A Trump Cult Member If…


I have no problem whatsoever with people who continue to support former President Donald Trump and want to see him back in office. As a former strong supporter myself for many years, I understand the mentality. Trump was, after all, despite his many faults and failures, in many ways one of the greatest presidents in modern history. Without his epic 2016 victory, particularly the judicial picks that came with it, it’s hard to imagine where this country would be.

Even as bad as things are now, they would have been far, far worse with a leftist majority on the Supreme Court rubber-stamping everything Democrats did and overturning every Republican gain over the past several decades. And I firmly believe that no other GOP candidate in the field could have won in 2016 other than Trump, which is a key reason why I wrote several columns backing his candidacy even as many others wavered over the scandals and unforced errors of the 2016 cycle.

So yeah, it’s good that Trump won, and it’s completely understandable for conservatives, populists, and patriots to want to return to the days of economic growth, low inflation, and mean tweets. As much as we may not see eye to eye on things right now, Trump supporters are, by and large, good people who want the best for this country. They are my friends, my family, my neighbors, and my ideological allies, and the last thing I would want to do is paint them all with any sort of overly broad brush. After all, the real enemy here is the left, and after this primary cycle is over we’ll need to unite more than ever to defeat them.

All that said, given the title of this piece, you probably already guessed that I do intend to tell a few hard truths some of you may not be ready to hear. Because, sadly, there exists an element of current Trump supporters who I would indeed label as practically being members of a cult, albeit a cult of personality. And it’s beyond time they wised up, before it’s too late. 

You might be a Trump cult member if …

you refuse to vote for the nominee against a Democrat

Basic stuff here, folks. If you are a so-called “onlyTrump” voter, you need to reconsider why you entered this movement in the first place. The time to hash out differences is during the primary cycle, but when it’s over, it’s time to unite. I don’t think Donald Trump has a snowball’s chance in hell of defeating any Democrat they run, but I’ll still vote for him and support him if he wins the primary because I like his policies and, well, what other choice would there be at that point? Even a .01% chance is better than nothing.

you lie or misrepresent to make your pro-Trump point

“Ron DeSantis is a globalist supported by George Soros. Ron DeSantis is the love child of Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan. Ron DeSantis ruined Florida.” I get it. Tarnishing political enemies is a tried and true tactic, but some of this nonsense is so outlandish that it's hard to imagine anyone with a brain actually believes it, much less takes the time to type it out. But they do, over and over, because cult members will do anything to protect their cult leader, even at the expense of good people seen as the ‘opposition.’ Please, stop lying and save your energy for leftists and real neocons.

you think Trump can do no wrong

Most will give lip service to Trump “not being perfect,” while failing to realize that it goes far deeper than that. While Trump certainly has many great accomplishments, he also made enormous mistakes that not only cost him reelection, but has tanked his support among key groups crucial to any shot at winning in 2024. You should be willing to call those out or at least acknowledge them.

you think Trump is the only possible answer

Nobody, not you, not me, and not even Donald Trump, is indispensable. Putting the onus on Trump as the only person who can sink the ‘deep state’ and restore America - especially when he had the chance and failed before - is absurd. It’s about the policies, not the person.

you liked DeSantis before but suddenly don’t like him now

If this describes you, that means the only reason you feel this way is because he’s getting in the way of your cult leader’s ambitions and so must be stopped. Unless you’re super gullible and believe the lies about the Florida governor suddenly turning into some sort of globalist establishment neocon, there’s no other logical reason.

you use religious iconography or in any way compare Trump to Jesus or portray him as more pious than he really is

Examples abound all over Twitter of this sort of cultish weirdness. While the man who once claimed to have done nothing to ask forgiveness for certainly did many things in office that evangelical Christians agree with, he is hardly an example anyone of faith should ever follow in their personal lives. Unless you’re in a cult, why are you putting him on a pedestal?

you uncritically believe everything Trump says about his political rivals

How did Ron DeSantis go from being a GOP star who effectively fought the woke and made Democrats an endangered species in Florida to a globalist, establishment, neocon shill? He didn’t, that’s how. Stop believing lies and do your own research.

you automatically dismiss legitimate criticism as being untrue or done in bad faith

We were right to dismiss Lincoln Project and establishment GOP opposition to Trump as being done in bad faith, especially when many of these clowns have turned outright Democrat. But it’s cultish to make the assumption that anyone who criticizes Trump is lying or has bad motives. Many of us, particularly this cycle, strongly supported Trump in the past and have solid reasons for supporting someone else this time around.

Do any of these red flags apply to you? If so, there’s no judgment here, only a sincere wish that you reconsider your position. The country might well depend on it.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- May 17

 



1st day all week where I feel like I can finally catch a breather. 😅 Seriously, all this unpredictablity, all the possible scenarios, it can get to be a bit much if you try to think of all of them!

The Hate Industry

The “anti-hate” hate industry creates the tribalism it claims to fight, and the only beneficiary of all the hate it creates is the hate industry itself.


“The most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy.

President Joe Biden, speaking at Howard University, May 13, 2023

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, when establishment politicians started to make common use of the term “homeland,” they told us the most dangerous threat to Americans was foreign terrorists. But today, we are instructed to fear the enemy within. A new iconic date, January 6, 2021, is inscribed on our collective consciousness. From coast to coast, Americans are being herded into two camps. There are the “white supremacists,” those bad people who purportedly hate good people. And then there is everyone else, good people who are encouraged to hate the bad people.

The common thread, to state the obvious, is hate.

As Joe Biden’s would-be successor, doing his part to nurture and support the hate industry, California Governor Gavin Newsom on May 4 announced “the Launch of CA vs Hate, a New Statewide Hotline to Report Hate Acts in California.” Proclaiming that “hate will not be tolerated,” the governor said that Californians will have “another tool to ensure that not only justice is served, but that individuals have access to additional resources to help deal with the lingering wounds that remain after such a horrendous crime occurs.”

This is agenda-driven hype. The agenda, perfectly expressed by author Michael Shellenberger in a Substack post last week, is to “manufacture a fake ‘hate’ crisis as [a] pretext for mass spying, blacklists, and censorship.” The hype, also exposed by Shellenberger in his recent article, is underscored by the fact that over the past 10 years, hate crime convictions, as opposed to “criminal complaints of hate crimes,” have not increased at all. In a state with 40 million people, hate crime convictions were a minuscule 109 in 2021, and a negligible increase from 107 in 2012.

The hate industry is a vast agglomeration of lucrative hustles, now institutionalized and expanded into multiple and overlapping sectors. There is the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) sector; the equity, social, and governance (ESG) sector; the activist sector comprising countless groups, including Black Lives Matter and Antifa; the corporate, academic, and government sectors; the media sector; the politicians; and the pundits. All of these sectors have spawned scores of thousands of well-paying jobs.

If these institutions weren’t able to point to rising levels of hatred in America, then their specialty, the business of hate, would no longer be a growth industry. Where there is no hate, they must manufacture it. Where hatred has diminished, they must discover new forms of hate, often so subtle that we foolishly fail to recognize it without their assistance.

Peddling Hate Is a Dangerous Game

It’s a dangerous and divisive game. For hate to exist, you have to have a hater and a victim of hate. And who might they be? A list of Newsom’s “Community Specific Resources for People Targeted for Hate” might provide a clue. Virtually every imaginable group is listed as “people targeted for hate,” including “Communities living at the intersection of multiple identities (Coming Soon).” Isn’t that great? Resources for those who live “at the intersection of multiple identities” is “coming soon.” They’re awfully busy at the State of California’s Civil Rights Department. These, we are told, are the victims.

Not listed, of course, are heterosexual, “cisgender” white males who speak English, and lack learning disabilities, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities, or are elders, or students, and don’t belong to the “Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, and Jewish communities.” Got that? If someone is a member of this rapidly disappearing fraction of California’s population, there are no “community resources.” These, then, are the haters.

The problem for Newsom—and Biden, and every other hate-hyping demagogue in America—is that data doesn’t validate the hate narrative. To keep the industry supplied with the fuel of hatred, Newsom must differentiate between hate crimes, because hardly any of these occur, and “hate incidents,” which, like harvested ballots, appear in numbers proportional to the amount of money invested to procure them. Here is how Newsom’s Department of Civil Rights describes a hate incident: “A hostile expression or action that may be motivated by bias against another person’s actual or perceived identity(ies).”

If this seems vague, that’s on purpose. When trolling for hate incidents, cast as wide a net as possible. A “hostile expression,” that “may” be motivated by bias. That’s awfully broad and awfully subjective. And to ensure California’s epidemic of hate is fully documented, a “CA vs. Hate Portal” has been set up through the “Submit Hate Incident or Hate Crime Report” button, which is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week on your desktop or mobile device.

If you click through this online interface to the main screen, you will learn that the “Types of Crime or Incident” that qualify include “cyberbullying/internet harassment (text, email, or social media),” “verbal harassment,” “hate literature/flyers,” “hate mail,” and several other categories offering an almost unlimited latitude of qualifying criteria.

Exaggerating Hate, Marketing Hate

Anyone who thinks the number of reported “hate incidents” can’t be goosed upwards by marketing a site like this should reflect on just how trivial some of the alleged transgressions have been that attracted wide publicity and outrage.

California’s local television networks in the Sacramento area were agog a few years ago with a report that flyers stating “It’s OK to be White” were posted around the campus of the University of California at Davis. News reporters interviewed college officials who were shocked and terrified and anxious to assert their commitment to keeping UC Davis “safe” from these “triggering” flyers. The presumption was that this rather innocuous assertion was “hate literature.” Exactly why this was considered hate literature was not explained.

During the 2020 election season, the need for evidence of alarming “white supremacist” activity was so desperate that national television networks, for several days, ran a story about a white man who yelled anti-Asian slurs at some Asian diners in a restaurant in Carmel Valley, California. The point here isn’t to excuse the man’s comments. For all we know, maybe he deserved the dogpile that followed. But it wouldn’t have mattered. The hate machine needed to find a hater, so there was never any attempt to contextualize the incident. What made this man angry? How much had he been drinking? Were the diners he insulted being disruptive, noisy, or rude? Was there no provocation whatsoever?

But the answers are beside the point. This incident, while unpleasant and regrettable, did not merit national news coverage. It had no geopolitical significance. It was national “news” because it was the only example available that week, in a nation of 330 million people, during a time when it was important for the hate industry to foment a national terror of “white supremacy.”

Recognize any of that today? It’s bigger than ever, with the hate machine still focused on white racist hate crimes. And if a perpetrator isn’t white, such as the Latino man who just murdered five people in Texas, the hate machine makes sure to play down that fact, but is sure to mention he is a “suspected Nazi sympathizer.” What about another Latino, also in Texas, who recently ran his SUV into a crowd outside an immigrant center, killing eight? The media takeaway—he yelled “anti-immigrant insults” when he was detained. White supremacy, courtesy of Latinos.

If the story doesn’t fit the narrative, and you can’t find a story that does, then warp the story. Make it fit. Hugely disproportionate rates of black-on-black crime? What’s that? Blacks beating a white girl half to death? Crickets. A white person, with the assistance of black person, subdues a deranged black career criminal before he hurts somebody and, in the struggle, he unintentionally chokes him to death? The dead black criminal is a saint, the brave white hero is a “vigilante,” and the brave black hero is ignored because he doesn’t fit the narrative.

All of this warped coverage generates lucrative hate. White liberals and blacks are encouraged to hate white racists. White conservatives hate the lying media and resent the double standard. And as hate grows, money is made, and authoritarian bureaucracies expand.

This point cannot be emphasized enough: The “anti-hate” hate industry creates the tribalism it claims to fight, and the only beneficiary of all the hate it creates is the hate industry itself.

All Hate Matters, Hating Haters Is Still Hate

As is usual with so much in 21st-century America, the irony here is so thick you’d break a chainsaw trying to cut through.

Gavin Newsom, a man who checks almost every box in the “hater” category, is part of a hate machine that is fueled by ginning up hatred for the haters. There is irony everywhere. Walk into any classroom in California, and more often than not, you will encounter at least one poster stating “Everyone is welcome here,” against the backdrop of a gay/trans pride flag. You may rest assured that whoever puts up a sign like this is most definitely not going to welcome “everyone.” Whoever does not share their views is a “hater,” who deserves to be hated.

There are plenty of reasons for the growth of America’s hate industry. There have always been political incentives to marginalize opposition candidates and movements, but the modern hate industry was born when the internet democratized communication. All of a sudden, instead of three or four major broadcasting networks and newspapers competing for a huge national news audience, there were thousands of new online sources of information. The knockout blow came when social media and search giants came on the scene, within a few years co-opting over 50 percent of national advertising dollars by offering precision placements of advertising content. How did the national news media respond? By peddling hate.

In a recent interview, Elon Musk offered an insightful explanation of why hate sells better than love. As humans evolved, he said, we developed a much stronger response to fear than to attraction, because if we didn’t immediately and forcefully react, for example, to a charging lion, we would die, whereas if we took our time ambling over to a sweet berry bush, we would merely defer a bit of pleasure.

The fact that it takes less investment to retain viewers if you appeal to their negative emotions has become the business strategy of media companies struggling to compete in a market that has become infinitely fragmented and ruthlessly competitive. Hate sells.

Even if peddling hate weren’t the survival strategy of America’s beleaguered media companies, the modern era would still be spawning more than the usual amount of hate. Social media has granted every individual on earth access to billions of potential critics, every one of them with the ability to lob insults from a distance and anonymously. Humans aren’t wired to cope with an audience for their opinions that includes an infinite number of people who can insult them perpetually, without the desire to engage in reason, and without the slightest fear of consequences.

The Hate Industry’s Hidden Agenda

It’s obvious the “anti-hate” hate industry is a self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing fraud. But behind all the hatred that is nurtured by a hate industry that grows when hate grows, and hence is doing everything it can to divide Americans, there is a deeper agenda. Whether in preparation for martial law to be imposed if there is a major war, or the reduction of our standard of living in order to achieve “sustainability,” or to pacify a population that might otherwise rebel against mass immigration with all the economic and social disruption it will entail, or to divide, diminish, incite, and then crush the populist rebellion against all three of these profiteering, globalist gambits, America is slowly being turned into a technology-driven police state. If we can be convinced that we must be terrified of the haters who are rampant among us, we will accept everything being done to stop them.

America’s hate industry employs a diabolical strategy, whereby everything they do to supposedly eliminate hate actually creates more hate. In the name of fighting hate, the hate industry demands tolerance when it is not actually promoting every abnormal, deviant, debauched, destructive, indolent, criminal, or bizarre behavior. It normalizes the strange and then accuses anyone of questioning the health or the efficacy of mainstreaming the marginal of being haters. It continuously ups the ante, creating as much disruption as possible, while monetizing the controversy in the form of bigger DEI departments, more “environmental, social, governance” criteria, more bureaucrats, more thought police, and bigger audiences for their salacious, indignant cable and online shows.

If there aren’t enough adverse reactions against the hate industry’s campaign to deconstruct American culture and traditions, they make them up. Increase the scale and scope of this deconstruction while at the same time lowering the level of reaction necessary to trigger accusations of hate. Eventually, declare a state of emergency. Game over.

Several years ago, a refugee from the Soviet Union said something to me that I didn’t immediately understand. “The only perfectly safe place,” he said, “is a prison.” As America drifts further towards the state of perfect safety, free of unsanctioned hate, yet saturated with hate masquerading as tolerance, it becomes obvious what he meant. So bravo, Joe Biden. And bravo, Gavin Newsom. You two are doing your part.



The Mad Delusion of Overscrupulous Republicans

The only reason the opposition is screaming against George Santos in hypocritical rage is their hope of reducing the slim Republican majority in the House to the point where it becomes unworkable.


Recently I’ve been thinking about the Latin aphorism, Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” Contrary to what is widely believed, this well-known statement may not be of ancient origin. It may have originated among 18th-century English authors, although there is a reference in Sophocles’ Antigone to the gods driving those who are already doomed toward delusion.

These somber thoughts about madness and doom came to mind as I was reflecting on the latest attempt of Republican virtue-signalers (and unfortunately there are many of them) to shoot themselves in the head. There is now a deafening din from both parties that George Santos, who serves New York’s 3rd Congressional District, should resign from the House of Representatives because he is alleged to have committed fraud. Santos also notoriously mischaracterized himself as Jewish, although he is technically Catholic and claims without convincing evidence to have had a grandmother who suffered in the Holocaust. Clearly Santos is not a statesman distinguished by personal integrity, and he is not a person whose friendship I would seek.

But Santos does perform an indispensable task for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other Republicans in the House. He has voted with them on key issues, and his vote has been extremely valuable given the razor-thin majority with which the Republican speaker is forced to operate. Since the Republicans are holding on to a 10-seat majority in the House, giving up Santos’ seat would hurt them gravely. McCarthy can’t count on carrying along all Republicans on critical votes; and if Santos were to resign over money laundering and fraud charges, his seat would most certainly fall to a very left-leaning Democrat, in a district that is heavily Democratic as well as heavily Jewish. The person who may be the shoe-in favorite to take Santos’ seat in another election held in New York’s 3rd district is a former State Senator Anna Kaplan.

Kaplan, who is of Iranian Jewish descent, is playing up her Jewish lineage, which she contrasts to the false ethnic claims made by Santos, who is of Brazilian Catholic ancestry. The Democratic candidate claims in a video to have suffered because of her ethnicity in her native Iran. As a child, she explains, she was forbidden to touch the fruits and vegetables displayed on street stands. Kaplan’s grievance raises obvious questions. For example, how did the fruit-stand owners determine that Anna was Jewish; and should we assume that these merchants allowed Muslim children to finger their goods? 

Of course, Kaplan may have guessed correctly that her tale of woe will resonate in her district. Not surprisingly, there is nothing in her enthusiastic embrace of LGBT that is in any way compatible with the teachings of Hebrew Scripture; nor is there much in her rhetoric (except perhaps for her support of Israel) that would distinguish Kaplan from the Squad. Do our GOP moralists, including pecksniffian critics in the GOP, believe Santos should resign in favor of this likely successor? 

Allow me to suggest a fair exchange. Santos should leave his post if the Democrats meet the following conditions. Biden should be forced to resign because of his scandalous influence-peddling, evidence for which his media handmaidens have tried desperately to hide. Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) should be made to leave the House for sharing government information with a Chinese Communist spy, the alluring Fang Fang, whom the Chinese regime used to tempt the easily seduced congressman. Equally suitable for the chopping block is Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who lied outrageously and repeatedly about holding material that proved Donald Trump conspired with the Russian government. We might also ask for Rep. Maxine Waters’ (D-Calif.) head, because of her practice of inciting riots among those who are receptive to her incoherent demagoguery. During the Los Angeles riot in 1992 and again after the death of George Floyd in 2020, Waters quite plainly encouraged black violence, something her party allowed her to get away with.

But perhaps we shouldn’t demand too much, lest we behave “immoderately.” Having Biden, Swalwell, and Schiff removed from the House in return for allowing Santos to be replaced by Kaplan should be enough to satisfy our sense of justice. Fortunately, the GOP may already be learning to play hardball, something that the investigations of Rep. James Comer’s (R-Ky.) committee would seem to indicate. These legislators shouldn’t allow themselves to be diverted from their work by those who urge them to exhibit “good manners.” 

Even if a combination of Santos’ misdeeds and blunders and the media’s own partisanship make it hard for this congressman to hold on to his seat, and even if New York’s 3rd Congressional District must be surrendered to the woke Left in 2024, the Republicans should stop piling on to their doomed foot soldier. Santos is still serving their needs, and the only reason the opposition is screaming against him in hypocritical rage is their hope of reducing the slim Republican majority in the House to the point where it becomes unworkable. One has to be truly deluded in the ancient Greek sense not to notice this. 



Redemption Day 2024 – Work for It


A nice video put together in the aftermath of the Durham report. {Rumble Link}

Will people more be awake for 2024 in the aftermath of the Durham information?   WATCH:



Kamala Harris Tries to Riff on Gender Ideology, and It Goes All Kinds of Wrong

Kamala Harris Tries to Riff on Gender Ideology, and It Goes All Kinds of Wrong

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

A few days prior to this writing, I saw an article laying out the justification for Joe Biden’s decision to run for re-election in 2024. After all, that justification would have to be pretty darn convincing for Democrats to run an obviously senile individual who will be 82 years old on inauguration day. Given that, you might be asking what possible argument could exist for Biden to give it yet another go.

The answer is simple: Kamala Harris.

The vice president remains an anchor around her party’s neck, and despite Biden’s very visible failings, she somehow manages to make him seem preferable. How, you might ask? By delivering rants like this.

And most recently, they even want to eliminate classes that teach “gender ideology.” Well, so, what are we talking about here? Classes that teach women’s history? Women’s equality? The study of the fact that there are still only 25 women in the United States Senate in a body of 100?

Do you know that meme people are always sharing of the guy blinking and darting his eyes that is meant to signify being dumbfounded by what was just said? Yeah, I’m gonna need to dig that one up for this article. Hang on a sec.

Alright, let’s try this again. Does Kamala Devi Harris actually think that “gender ideology” in the context of schools is the study of women’s equality? Because that is not what the modern definition of gender ideology is. Rather, it’s a perverse, radical theory that presumes that gender is fluid and that men can become women, women can become men, and anyone can become a non-binary, nebulous nothing.

How do I know that? Because the very laws Harris decries in that speech are fighting against that specific ideology. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a report about Texas’ recent attempt to ban gender ideology in schools.

“Parental rights are paramount to the safety and well-being of a child,” Patterson said in a Jan. 3 tweet introducing his bill. “Therefore, I filed HB 1155 to ensure no school teaches radical gender ideology to any child from K-8th grade, and where parents must review and sign off on any health-related services.”

Here’s what HB 631 and HB 1155, the two bills in question, would do.

Florida’s law prohibits schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade. Both Texas bills mirror such a ban. Toth’s HB 631 would expand the restriction until fifth grade. Patterson’s HB 1155 would extend it to eighth grade.

Now, do you see anything in that description about not teaching women’s history? Is there anything in Florida’s anti-gender ideology law that bans the teaching of women’s history? What about the bill in Missouri? Or the law in Arkansas?

The answer is that not a single one of those laws or bills bans the teaching of or even addresses the issue of women’s history. Rather, they all target gender ideology in the context of the radical transgender movement and the sexualization of children. That is done for a very specific reason, i.e. to protect parental rights regarding what their children are taught about sexual orientation and transgenderism.

Yet, Kamala Harris apparently thinks gender ideology is about how many female senators there are. And while I’d normally chalk such a rant up to abject dishonesty, I think she really is just as ill-informed and terrible at her job as she appears. As I said, there’s a reason Biden is running again, and it’s not because his second-in-line is ready for battle. Harris is a liability, and that becomes more clear every single time she opens her mouth.



The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy Was a Coup D’état


The bottom line is that everything the Obama justice department, IC and FBI did, to include support from Republicans in congress during the 2016 election and aftermath, was a coup d’état against U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration.  This is the truth of the thing.

The U.S. media participation and subsequent denial of their culpability looks increasingly pathetic in the aftermath of the report outlined by Special Counsel John Durham. However, it doesn’t take a media admission of the coup effort for the demonstrable actions and evidence of the coup to be factual.

Read THE REPORT, all the evidence is there. The truth stands alone, regardless of the discomfort it creates. {Direct Rumble LinkWATCH:


Under impeachment standards created by our constitutional republic, it takes a vote in the house to begin an impeachment investigation. The impeachment investigation then produces a finding which is delivered to congress and a vote is held.

John Durham spent four years conducting the investigation. The report outlining the coup is complete and delivered to congress.  The only thing needed is a vote.

This might make House Speaker Kevin McCarthy very uncomfortable.  However, do or do not, there is no ‘TRY’.


Durham Found Zero Merit to Trump Russia Claims, So What Was Mueller Doing for Two Years?



People ask why I find it difficult to write about the Durham report empirically confirming everything we previously outlined in the past five years.  Here’s my answer.

Eventually, after the shock & awe of the Durham confirmations wear off, I am hopeful that people will stand back and realize the bigger question that covers all of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy nonsense.   This was a United States government operation to conduct full-throated surveillance on a U.S. presidential candidate, and then remove that candidate from the office of the presidency after his victory in the 2016 election.

With John Durham outlining in granular details how the FBI, DOJ and larger intelligence apparatus acted politically to weaponize government on behalf of an allied presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton, a bigger question remains.  There never was any merit to the Trump-Russia nonsense, so what exactly were Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann doing for two years?

Using the silo defense as a method of obfuscation, John Durham noted in his report [page #2] as below, never delved into that obvious question.  Durham specifically, and with great intent, says he did not look at what Mueller and Weissmann were doing; even though, Durham destroyed any predication that might have given merit to the intention of their special counsel existence.

Durham writes a 316-page report, meticulously detailing the false construct of the Trump-Russia narrative.  Yet for some reason, the Mueller/Weissmann investigation, an entire special counsel investigation that was predicated and justified by that false Trump-Russia narrative, never found the same evidence?

Durham never looked at it.  Why? Because he knew Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann were installed to cover up the original fabrications by the CIA, FBI, DOJ and U.S. intelligence apparatus.  Mueller’s probe existed in material fact to hide the Obama weaponization to target Donald Trump.   Durham knew this; that’s why he never touched it.

Stop pretending.  Once you stop pretending, you realize just how rotten this system is.

John Durham intentionally and with specific foresight, did not want to reveal the criminal conduct of the Mueller/Weissmann special counsel.

He knew exactly what they were doing; his investigation paralleled what their investigation would have done if Mueller was not established to hide the originating schemes.

Everything Durham found, Mueller could have easily found, and stated, and ended the nonsense.

This reality, and Durham’s intentional decision to avoid confronting the Mueller fraud, is why no one should defend any part of what John Durham was doing, nor the report he delivers in conclusion.   Durham is just as dirty as Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.  If he wasn’t, he would have outlined the purpose of Mueller and left them naked to the consequences.   But that’s not what a good little silo maintainer does.

Instead, John Durham simply acts as if Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann didn’t exist to try and destroy President Trump.  Durham ignores the cleanup operation entirely.

Everyone in Washington DC knew that Trump-Russia was a manufactured lie created by Hillary Clinton, promoted and supported by President Obama and fully weaponized by the Obama era justice department.  Nobody in Washington DC did not know this. Everyone knew.

Everyone in Washington DC also knew that Robert Mueller was installed to cover up the 2016 targeting operation.  Nobody in Washington DC did not know this.  Everyone knew, including John Durham.

We really need to stop pretending and start asking the obvious questions.  If Durham can destroy the predicate of the Trump-Russia nonsense, then what the hell were Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann doing for two years?

We know the answer.

The investigators know the answer.

Washington DC knows the answer.

Republicans know the answer.

They all know that we know the answer, and yet that BIGGER question just sits there….

…because everyone keeps pretending!

A reminder from the MUELLER REPORT: 

.

You might remember, Robert Mueller was in front of congress in July 2019, answering questions about Chris Steele, the dossier and the Steele sources therein.  Mueller was able to deflect and dodge answering questions about it because AG Bill Barr put John Durham into place in May 2019.

When Robert Mueller is saying there’s another group in the DOJ looking specifically at the Chris Steele, Dossier, Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson aspect to the fraudulent 2016/2017 claims about Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election, he is talking about the John Durham investigation.

Mueller was citing Durham as the reason why his purview, and subsequent report as released, did not include the Steele dossier, Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson information.

Mueller was saying that stuff is the responsibility of “the other internal investigative unit,” ie. John Durham.

When you stand back and remind yourself of the Bill Barr statements and affirmations about the ‘integrity’ and ‘honor’ of Robert Mueller, one can only accept that AG Bill Barr put John Durham into place in May 2019, immediately following Robert Mueller’s completed investigation, April 2019, so that Mueller would have a shield for why the origin of the Trump-Russia is outside his purview.

This is how they use silos as weapons and shields.  Not in my purview is the same as not in my silo.

Mueller was citing Durham as the reason his team did not expand their probe to fully investigate Chris Steele et al.  Mueller’s special counsel has an escape hatch for why they did nothing with their own investigative findings…. That was John Durham’s job.  This is the outrage trap.

AG Bill Barr established John Durham’s probe (silo) so that Robert Mueller’s probe (silo) would have cover.

If John Durham’s investigative inquiry did not exist prior to that July 2019 testimony by Robert Mueller, then Mueller would have lied to congress.

AG Bill Barr put Durham into place, essentially constructed another silo, to protect his ‘good friend’ Robert Mueller….

….The DC two-step was achieved.