GOP Needs To Fight For Trump’s Nominees, Then Hold Them Accountable

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

Are President-Elect Donald Trump’s nominees conventional? The pundit class would lead you to believe that they are not, that they “have no experience” in the areas relevant to the positions they’ve been nominated to fill. That would be relevant information, were it a standard used in the past – used on Democrats as well – but it is not. In fact, not a single one of President Joe Biden’s nominees received a “no” vote from a single Senate Democrat, no matter how unqualified they were for their job. Why should it be any different with Donald Trump?

Scandal is usually the only disqualifying marker that prevents nominees from being confirmed. Employing an illegal alien as a nanny sunk the first two Attorney General nominees Bill Clinton submitted.

As far as experience goes, former Michigan Govern Jennifer Granholm had no experience in energy before being nominated as Secretary of it. Transportation might have made sense, as she was Governor of the automobile state, but the Department of Energy it was. After confirmation, we found out she’s had a series of stock controversies that were not previous disclosed. Each was initially reported, then almost completely ignored by the corporate media.

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg had zero qualifications for the position, he was a former Mayor of a mid-sized college town in Indiana. He was on paternity leave while the supply chain collapsed and no one seemed to notice it. He has always been in over his head, but he is favored by the media for reasons I’ll leave to your imagination, so responsibility for anything never makes it to his desk. 

Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra was the Attorney General of California, before that he was a Member of Congress for 24 years. Nowhere in his career did he have any experience with health policy. It stopped exactly zero Democrats from opposing his confirmation. 

Flashforward to today and the nominees from Donald Trump. They exist in a buzzword salad – inexperienced, controversial, unqualified, and “Trump loyalist.” Has any President ever nominated someone who pledged to be disloyal or swore they would not advance that President’s agenda? 

Secretary of Defense nominee is “inexperienced,” according to Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois. No Secretary of Defense has run the Defense Department until they started running the Defense Department. Pete Hegseth has more than a decade of military service, including two deployments to warzones. Is someone more likely to know the needs of the military from the field or an office in Washington, DC? The revolving door in the DoD that costs taxpayers untold billions is between the Pentagon and lobbying, not the Fox News green room. 

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is described by the Associated Press as a “loyalist.” What does that mean? Eric Holder once famously called himself Barack Obama’s “wingman,” then was held in contempt of Congress and his subordinates chose not to prosecute him for it. Current AG Merrick Garland authorized a raid on Donald Trump’s home and the White House claimed to have no knowledge of it, something that turned out to be “less than accurate” later on.

The President appoints various positions in government “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” While that consent is not guaranteed, it’s usually pretty damn close to certain. Joe Biden had none of his Cabinet nominees even receive a no vote from a single Democrat in the Senate. Barack Obama had one nominee withdraw – former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, because he failed to pay $140,000 in taxes. Otherwise, they got who they wanted. Republican Senators should extend the same courtesy to the incoming President.

More than that, they should go to bat for them. They are meant to be disruptors because Donald Trump is a disruptor, so Democrats whining about Kash Patel not having previously worked in the FBI does not matter, as the last three heads of the FBI didn’t work there before they were confirmed to run it. That he wants to shake it up is not a reason to vote against him, it’s a reason to vote for him. I hope he treats it like he’s its British nanny.

If the Senate finds something illegal in one of the nominee’s backgrounds, fine, otherwise extend Donald Trump the courtesy Democrats give to themselves and fight for his nominees expressly because the old order establishment is made uncomfortable by them.

As for the Democrats worried that these Cabinet Secretaries might have too much power and could abuse it, instruct them to ask themselves why the idea of being a potential problem didn’t occur to them when it was their team filling those posts. We know the answer, and these nominees, along with Elon Musk and DOGE, are tasked with removing that power; to dismantle the opportunities for abuse.

That’s why Trump needs his people in there, and why the Senate, after confirmation, will need to hold all of their feet to the fire to make sure they actually do it. 

The Climate Case of the Century

 

By Lucas Bergkamp 3 December 2024

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/12/03/the-climate-case-of-the-century/

Minding the Campus

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by Judith Curry on November 13, 2024. With edits to match Minding the Campus’s style guidelines, it is crossposted here with permission.

---

On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45 percent by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.

The Court of Appeal was not impressed by FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric and rejected its claims. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s ruling leaves much to be desired and did not eliminate the threat of activist NGOs launching climate cases to effect “system change,” i.e., set aside democracy, subordinate citizens, and destroy the economy.

Climate Science

Although M&M had offered strong rebuttals with expert reports, the Court of Appeal uncritically adopted many of FoE’s factual statements about the urgency and seriousness of the climate problem. In doing so, the Court relied on the authority of the IPCC and the alleged “consensus” that would emerge from their reports, in particular the SPMs.

The Court not only took the IPCC reports as irrebuttable proof, but also attributed normative force to them. For example, the Court ruled that climate scientists have determined that the average temperature on earth may not rise by more than 1.5 degrees. In doing so, the Court, like the Dutch Supreme Court, ignored that science cannot set norms and that scientists are not authorized to set social standards. The Dutch judiciary’s scientistic tendency is extremely worrisome and does not bode well for future climate-related judgments.

Dangerous Climate Change

A case in point, the Court arrives at the alarmist conclusion that “the climate problem is the biggest problem of our time” and that the danger of climate change is great and even “life-threatening.” Based on the non-factual findings of fact and obligatory references to the Paris Climate Agreement, the Urgenda judgment and the Klimaseniorinnen ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court confirmed a right to protection against “dangerous climate change.”

“Protection against dangerous climate change,” the Court says, “is a human right,” without any caveats or qualifications. Obviously, realizing this human right will be at the expense of all kinds of other human rights and interests, such as the right to—or interest in—reliable and affordable energy. Inevitably, the right to protection against “dangerous climate change” will harm the realization of other “sustainable development goals.” Although M&E had flagged these kinds of trade-offs extensively, the judges did not bother to deal with these implications of climate morality.

[RELATED: Ranga Dias Deals Another Blow to Scientific Integrity]

Dog Whistle

This new human right must be respected not only by states, but also by large corporations, the Court found. In civil liability law, this right translates into a duty of care for companies. According to the Court, the Paris goals require measures to reduce the demand for fossil fuels and to limit the supply of fossil fuels. Oil and gas companies should therefore consider “the negative impact on the energy transition when investing in the production of fossil fuels.”

With this line of reasoning, the judgment suggests that “saving the climate” legitimizes creeping expropriation of oil and gas companies. This dog whistle did not escape the attention of FoE’s lawyer, who has hinted at further legal proceedings to prevent the development, expansion and financing of oil and gas production, referring to forthcoming climate finance case against ING, the largest Dutch bank.

Reduction Percentage

FoE lost the case based on two lucid moments of the judges. FoE had demanded that Shell reduce scope 1, 2 and, 3 emissions. With regard to scope 1 and 2, the Court of Appeal ruled that Shell had committed itself to this objective and is on track to achieve it, so that claim was rejected.

With regard to scope 3 emissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that neither the law nor climate science sets specific reduction standards for a company such as Shell. The 45 percent invoked by FoE, the Court found, is only an “average global reduction in all sectors” that does not apply to each country and each business sector individually. Indeed, this point had been well explained in M&E’s submissions to the Court.

In this regard, the judgment serves as a dialogue between the courts and the climate movement. Climate science, therefore, knows what is expected of it: set reduction standards for the oil and gas sector, and the courts—at least, the Dutch courts—will enforce them.

Effectiveness

The Court of Appeal also undermined FoE’s lawsuit by finding that the reduction order sought by FoE would be ineffective. This too had been explained in detail in M&E’s expert opinions. As the Court confirmed, there is no reason to believe that a reduction obligation imposed on a specific company will have any positive effect: if Shell sells less oil and gas, other suppliers will simply take its place and any “climate gain” will be illusory.

Progressive Realization

In line with the human rights theory of ‘progressive realization,’ the court-made right to protection against ‘dangerous climate change’ is slowly but surely being realized. Two steps forward, one step back: first governments, then companies, then a specific reduction percentage, and then no such percentage.

This week, it was a step back, but the District Court’s verdict in first instance has already had its effect. With that verdict in hand, many other lawsuits have been launched and the climate movement has been able to persuade the European Union to oblige companies to implement a “climate transition plan” in accordance with 1.5 degrees. Judges have learned rapidly how to play the political climate game.

[RELATED: Science’s Goose is Cooked: Seven Pillars of Folly]

Threat remains

This is the first climate ruling in the Netherlands that is favorable to citizens who are suffering under the ever-rising prices of energy and other products. M&E’s intervention has had its effect, as it demonstrated for the Court that there are other interests affected by these kinds of cases and that other valid perspectives on the issues generate dramatically different conclusions. Moreover, as the main reasons for denying FoE’s claims are rather factual in nature, it will be difficult to find a good angle to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which review only points of law.

A battle has been won, but the climate war will rage on. Activist NGOs will be able to derive new legal bases from the Court’s ruling for further climate cases.

NGOs for the People

To prevent that democracy is set aside and the people are subordinated to climate activists supported by the judiciary, interventions by NGOs that are sympathetic to the interests of citizens will continue to be essential. There is much enthusiasm around this idea, but the financing of the activities continues to be the biggest challenge.

All in all, the ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal is an important first step towards restoring rationality and balance in judicial decision-making in climate cases. The rejection of the case against Shell will have ripple effects on many other climate cases throughout the world, and should cause the EU to rethink the obligation for companies to implement a climate transition plan consistent with 1.5C.

In all things climate, to use a Chinese proverb, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

Image by Nicola — Adobe Stock — Asset ID#: 262320063

X22, On the Fringe, and more- Dec 3

 

Irrational Exuberance

 

By Chance Layton for NAS

• December 03, 2024
• CounterCurrent: Week of 12/02/24
• https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/irrational-exuberance

“Free college for all” used to be all the rage. Where did it go? 

The idea that every American should attend college has been drilled into our collective consciousness, thanks mostly to talking points from Democrats. But Republicans too have engaged with this idea by expanding student aid and eligibility. 

In 2016 and 2020, the mantra “college for all” was featured heavily in the Democratic Party’s platform. Many candidates catered to college age voters by further encouraging student loan forgiveness. These policy initiatives, if enacted, would have been a boon to colleges and universities navigating strict budgets. 

And yet, Americans have continued to shy away from college. Enrollment is down nearly one million since 2019. More Americans say they have little or no confidence in higher education. And with federal COVID-19 funds drying up, many small institutions are closing at a rapid clip—72 in the past four years. This demographic trouble has left colleges and universities vulnerable.

In the 2024 election, both Harris and Biden avoided “free college for all” rhetoric. Perhaps the Democratic Party received the hint this cycle: Americans no longer believe in higher education. The public has been priced out and ideologically sidelined.

All of this leaves me wondering, has the college bubble finally burst?

After the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis many, many, authors set out to nail down a single cause. Irrational exuberance featured heavily as a potential hypothesis. In a book of the same name, Robert J. Shiller argues that this psychological contagion—this exuberance—placed blinders on investors who likely otherwise would have seen signs of the impending crash. Of course, this theory doesn’t explain it all: corrupt rating agencies, failed regulation, and complex financial tools contributed to the crisis. But irrational exuberance, especially in the form of housing for everyone sponsored by government subsidized mortgages played an outsized role.

Are American colleges facing a similar fate? Four decades of pushing students onward to college. The gutting of apprenticeship programs. Accrediting agencies that shelter mediocrity and impose ideological standards. Subsidized student loans and grants that pay for the lion’s share of university budgets, and, in turn, artificially inflate tuition and student aid ceilings.

American policymakers and higher education leaders have been too cavalier, perhaps in their own exuberance they’ve spread the social contagion to the rest of us. Everyone must go to college. The party must go on.

But the times they are a-changin’.

According to Pew, roughly half of Americans say it’s less important to have a four-year college degree today in order to get a well-paying job than it was 20 years ago. As fewer young men go to college, their potential quality of life has improved: in 2011, 17 percent of young men without a degree were living in poverty—by 2023 it dropped to 12 percent. This is partly thanks to state-based solutions providing better K-12 options for technical education pipelines. These policies have led to better employment rates for those seeking trade credentials.

The incoming Trump administration has shown all but contempt for higher education and the Education Department (ED). President Trump has advocated for a greater reliance on apprenticeship programs (the first administration attempted to expand programs through the “Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program” which was dismantled by President Biden). The Administration has also encouraged federal agencies to do away with degree requirements for positions in favor of job experience. These policies further sideline higher education in the scuffle for federal funds.

Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education, is known for her practical ideas for reform—primarily viewing education as a pipeline for workforce development. Of course, it’s worth mentioning that Trump has promised to close or dismantle the ED and drastically reform accreditation.

Some colleges and universities have smelled the winds of change too. Boston University has “paused” admissions for 12 humanities departments. As Peter Wood notes for Minding the Campus, “I expect the [BU] administration there is looking at all sorts of ways to cut costs, and freezing graduate admissions in programs that can’t pay for themselves was an attractive option.” But Boston University is not the only institution. Other colleges and universities are slashing majors to cut costs.

Others have pivoted to dual enrollment as a means to getting students on the college-bound bandwagon. While such programs have existed for decades, most were overseen by community colleges. Four year institutions are now sticking their necks out for a slice of the pie.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) scholarship is on the decline, as we reported earlier this year. The Economist reports that America is finally past “Peak Woke.” Let’s hope so.

Of course, irrational exuberance continues to blind many higher education leaders. Five selective colleges announced last week an expansion in financial aid programs, some with plans raising family income thresholds to $200,000. Others have doubled-down on their much derided—and costly—DEI programs or rebranding to hide such programs’ ideological tilt. 

Perhaps it's too early to announce the popping of the college bubble. But the rhetoric of free college for all is gone—for now. This changing atmosphere presents a grand opportunity to reform higher education. The National Association of Scholars has ready to go policies to extract the illiberal craze that has dominated higher ed for the better part of a decade, and others to bring tuition down from its lofty heights. Institutions will likely close as a result, but a little pain is necessary to readjust higher education to provide the best possible education for qualified students. 

Until next week.

P.S.: I would find myself chastised by our development team if I didn’t mention that today is Giving Tuesday! If you’d like to donate to the National Association of Scholars you can do so by clicking here. Your support helps us expand our programs, such as Minding the Campus and the Civics Alliance, and continue our work to reform higher education.

---

CounterCurrent is the National Association of Scholars’ weekly newsletter, written by the NAS Staff. To subscribe, update your email preferences here.

Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash

• 
  

Is This Why Joe Biden Pardoned Hunter?

Rebecca Downs reporting for Townhall 

On Sunday night, President Joe Biden made an announcement that he was pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, despite previous and repeated claims from the White House that he would do no such thing. There's been plenty of reaction, as Townhall has been covering, with even Democrats speaking out against such a pardon. Biden, a lame duck president, already has particularly low approval ratings, and it doesn't look like they're getting any better, especially after such a pardon.

Last week, there was a slew of post-election polls, including from CBS News/YouGov, Emerson College, The Economist/YouGov, and Gallup. As we noted when covering them, such polls show Biden looking at rather low approval ratings, among his worst, in fact. The Emerson poll for November, shortly after President-elect Donald Trump beat Vice President Kamala Harris, had Biden at his lowest approval rating, of 36 percent. Gallup had him close to it, with a 37 percent approval rating. In the Gallup poll, only President Jimmy Carter, another failed, one-term president, dropped more in his approval rating from October before the election to November.

RealClearPolling, as of December 1, has Biden's approval rating at an average of 40.5 percent, while 55.8 percent. The most recent poll included is from Rasmussen Reports, which actually is on the kinder side to Biden, despite being a right-leaning poll. Looking at their daily tracker for December 2, Biden actually has a 46-53 percent approval/disapproval rating. 

Do Biden's approval ratings have to do with his pardoning of Hunter? Cygnal President Brent Buchanan thinks so. In his daily takes for Monday, Buchanan referenced the exclusive reporting on the pardon from NBC News. 

"Biden's pardon proves he knows the nation has already moved on from his presidency," read the subject line for the day's daily takes, with Buchanan pointing out, "Why not?" As he also noted as part of his take, "The last deeply disliked Democratic president (FYI: Carter) restored Confederate President Jefferson Davis' full citizen rights, so why wouldn't Biden--potentially more disliked--pardon his criminal son?"

Just like Biden, Carter only served one term. He lost reelection to President Ronald Reagan in a catastrophic fashion for the 1980 election, whereas Biden's fellow Democrats forced him out of the race in something of a coup back in late July, less than one month after his disastrous debate performance against Trump. Carter, did, however, face a primary challenge by then Sen. Ted Kennedy. 

Gallup's monitored presidential approval ratings for several years, going back to President Harry S. Truman. Sure enough, Carter was the only Democratic president with a lower approval rating at the end of his term, 34 percent in December of 1980, compared to Biden's current 37 percent approval rating for November 2024. 

Even when it looked like Biden was still going to be the Democratic nominee, and would likely face Trump in a rematch, there were still concerns about his candidacy due to his approval rating. In July 2023, Biden was once more compared to Carter, the most unpopular president at that point in his term, while Biden was the second most unpopular. On July 18, 2023, FiveThirtyEight showed Biden with a net approval rating of -16.3 percent. In his Yahoo! News article at the time, Andrew Romano pointed out that that number is "really bad historically speaking."

Bringing us back to the present,. FiveThirtyEight now has Biden with a +19 disapproval rating for November 27, with 37.7 percent disapproving of his job performance and 56.7 percent disapproving of his job performance.

Will Biden pardoning his son further drag his approval rating down? CNN's Scott Jennings certainly thinks so. As we covered earlier on Monday, he went on the network this morning to tear Biden apart for such a move, as well as those Democrats who defend him. Biden and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who is still pushing such a lie, are "a disgrace" as Jennings put it, with Biden "draining" his credibility, Jean-Pierre's credibility, and any others who defend such a move.

Jennings also specifically referenced how Biden is in the 38-39 percent approval rating range. "He is going to leave office--you think 38-39 percent job approval is bad? Just you wait. Just you wait," Jennings warned, speaking about Biden's already low approval ratings. "He's disgraced."

Biden still has about a month and a half until he leaves office and Trump is inaugurated for his second term. Here's hoping there's another poll out to prove Buchanan and Jennings correct. 

#7 - Scott Jennings Shuts Down CNN Panelist Trying to Blame Trump for Biden Pardoning Hunter

This is the mic drop moment of the day.

“We are sitting on the biggest cover-up of who knows what crimes, and Biden knows exactly when it started. He’s leaving office in disgrace—a… pic.twitter.com/4zmyXbbV2N

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) December 3, 2024

Update: the White House press secretary actually doubled down on the lying today. What a disgrace. https://t.co/vKthgOtwYh

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) December 2, 2024

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Truth Tellers -vs- Truth Managers: POTUS Declassification Examples

Sundance  reporting  for  CTH 

Laying the groundwork for uncomfortable discussions is never easy. However, sometimes the best approach is to cite examples and then expand. Here’s two factual examples.

♦ EXAMPLE FACT #1 – In December 2017, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes asked the White House, specifically President Trump, to declassify the “Nunes Memo.” President Trump did not declassify the memo because President Trump was told by the concentric lawyers within the office that he should not. So, he didn’t.

[We eventually did see the memo, albeit with negotiated redactions, because Nunes (and Kash Patel) played by the Silo rules and entered a period of negotiations with the Intelligence Community. Nunes leveraged reauthorization of FISA-702 authority, predicated on declassifying his memo. We The People subsequently saw the memo, but we were screwed by the FISA reauthorization.]

♦ EXAMPLE FACT #2 – In January 2020, as he exited the White House, President Trump, using his office, played by the Silo rules and asked for the Russiagate documents to be made public. They never were.

This is such a great example of “Truth Management.”

Y’all are probably familiar with this declassification letter written by Mark Meadows. But what you didn’t see before is how it was designed to fail.

This approach is following the DC rules of the Intelligence Community (IC) Silos.

Mark Meadows, a Truth Manager, intentionally – with purpose and intent – followed this approach because he knew it would fail.

Meadows didn’t make a mistake; he was not mistaken in his approach; he didn’t make an error. This is purposeful.

In January 2020, breathing a sigh of relief, the people around President Donald Trump, were managing his exit and defending the system as they exited power.

They requested the IC Silos to release information, knowing full well the information would never be released.

The only way this information would be guaranteed to be released to the public, is if President Trump took those file boxes personally into the Brady Room, and using his full plenary power and authority, gave them to the media and said, “I hereby designate under my official act power, that this information is of priority to the American people.”…. and literally handed it to the media.

Giving the information to the Silo operators and saying please release this; a process that follows the rules of the IC system that is designed to protect itself; only ensures it will never reach sunlight.

Meadows and everyone else around this moment, knew this to be true. They knew this would fail.

Understanding these two examples is the first step in understanding how the DC Silo system works.

♦ In research projects about detailed granular events attached to corruption in Washington DC, eventually you reach a point where you have identified the specific people involved.

That’s when things get sketchy.

When doing these research projects, you discover that certain DC “insiders,” media people and current/former silo staff, names most of you know very well, are also aware of the information you are discovering.

The “insiders” are generally positioned in such a manner as most of the information-aware public consider them “Truth Tellers.”

Alternative media now gives the Truth Tellers a larger influence voice. This is where it gets interesting.

When you have nailed down the story with direct, irrefutable evidence against the bad actors, you start to notice a pattern emerge about how the Truth Teller media types consistently stay away from certain names.

If you do this long enough, and find the same outcome frequently enough, you realize most of these “Truth Tellers” are not that at all; they are, instead, Truth Managers.

The DC Truth Managers are willfully blind to the activity of certain people they have identified as what can only be reasonably assumed to be CIA operators.

Having spent thousands of hours on this subject, no other reasonable explanation make sense.  There are bad actors in DC that I can only believe are “CIA operators.” Why? Because earnestly after years of doing this, I cannot think of any other reason why they would be protected.

Why is CIA operative Nellie Ohr openly discussed, yet the stronger and more important name, Mary McCord, purposefully avoided.  I have reached the conclusion that Mary McCord is factually a CIA operator.  Nothing else makes sense.

♦ Be careful about assigning the label “Truth Teller” toward any alternative media DC insider who is a “reformed journalist” or “former staff member” of the machine.

There are well known voices from inside the system, that exit the corporate media world, and enter the alternative media world, only to carry on the same purpose.

I see the information managers frequently now and identify them easily by who they *do not* talk about.

Truth Tellers have no vested financial interest in the information, or control thereof; Truth Managers always do.

When a current or former information manager comes across a story of corruption that involves a “CIA designated bad actor,” they never discuss that person in their information reveal. They continue the protection.

A good rule of thumb is never to think of anyone from inside the DC information system, regardless of their disposition, as a Truth Teller.

Every Information Manager was matriculated, and are compromised, by the system around them that is entirely based on corrupt activity.

Hang around a one-legged tribe long enough, and inherently you begin limping.

• Truth Teller Examples: Patel Durov, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden and Matt Taibbi.  Pavel Durov (arrested in France) now lives in Dubai. Glenn Greenwald now lives in Brazil. Edward Snowden now lives in Russia.

• Truth Manager Examples: John Solomon, Sean Hannity, Sara Carter, Catherine Herridge, Steve Bannon, Kash Patel, Glenn Beck, Jack Posobiec, Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin and the entire Fox News lineup.  There are many more, but the financial aspect runs consistent.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had to agree to stop being a Truth Teller and become a Truth Manager in order to be released from prison.  As he readily admits, part of the agreement was to give the Western Intelligence Community first right of review for any information WikiLeaks would release.  This shifts Julian Assange from Truth telling to Truth managing.  In this unique case, I don’t fault him a bit.

♦ In our larger discussion of information, how does Information Management surface:

Let me give you a great example using this video shared yesterday.

Listen carefully to what Kash Patel says at the 01:23 moment about the “Russiagate report” that was written, and how the “ICA” (Intelligence Community Assessment) was constructed with fraudulent information from the CIA.

As Patel notes, “Gina buried it.” That’s Gina Haspel, the Trump CIA Director who replaced Mike Pompeo.

Now, you might think that Patel is a Truth Teller in this segment but stand back and think about it with fresh eyes, non-pretending eyes.

Patel knows, because he (with others) created a report that highlights a fraudulent CIA operation. A report that was absorbed by the CIA and buried.

Put another way, Patel is talking about a body that he knows is buried. Ergo, people might say, “Patel knows where the body is buried,” right?

But ask yourself, with the known stakes to the nation as an outcome of horrific fraud, why didn’t this self-identified “#2 in the Intelligence Community” bring this information forward regardless of outcome?

Is Patel a “Truth Teller,” or is he a “Truth Manager,” obeying the Silo rules out of self-interest?

New Eyes – Use them.

What is the difference between Edward Snowden and Kash Patel?

One is a Truth Teller the other is a “buy my books” Truth Manager.

Of course, Kash Patel defenders will justify by saying he was just waiting to release the information he alluded to, until he was in a better position.  So, his plan to reveal the truth was to: (1) hope Trump won the election, (2) hope he would be appointed to an administration position, and then (3) hope to be able to reach into the CIA silo and somehow retrieve his work product.  Please. Just stop.

As a “confirmed”, not “acting” FBI Director, Kash Patel *could* declassify information or documents that is the exclusive equity of the FBI Silo, but only the FBI Silo.

If there was a joint silo operation, he cannot.

If the information was from a source outside the FBI silo, he cannot.

If the information is not 100% exclusive to the FBI silo, he cannot.

Modify your outlook accordingly.

♦ The “continuing central power” that Patel talks about already exists.

This is part of the problem with people who come from inside the system; and it is a problem for those who cannot spend thousands of hours understanding it.

The IC Silo rules, are followed by people who matriculate surrounded by the IC Silo rules.

The “central power” needed to fracture the system is the physical person of the President of the United States.

The President is, well, Snowden-proof. The President, not the office, the actual physical person, is the power of the system. The epicenter of the system where the atom splits, is the physical President.

Acting in his “official duty,” the President of the United States can take a document (any document) and walk into the Brady Room, hand it to a journalist and that document is automatically declassified.

He doesn’t need a stamp on it. He doesn’t need anyone else’s approval or permission. He, the physical person, the President, can simply say, “I view this in my official capacity as President of the United States to be a vital interest to the American public,” and hand it to anyone he chooses. That’s the central power.

Knowing this, knowing the factual reality of it, is exactly why the concentric circles around the President, intentionally and forcefully stop him from doing it. The silo system self-protects.

If it can be done this way, then why wasn’t it done this way?

Kash Patel, Devin Nunes, Ric Grenell, John Ratcliffe etcetera. all know this to be true. So why wasn’t it done?

Go ask Edward Snowden.

♦ Impeachment is the political backstop that protects the IC Silo business model.

Impeachment origins are amorphous by definition.

Declassify something the IC Silo operators don’t like, and it’s a national security breach worthy of impeachment.

These are the warnings to President Trump built into the Silo rules.   This is why the White House Counsel is so important. This is why the Nunes Memo was never declassified.  This is why President Trump relied on Mark Meadows, which ultimately culminated in an FBI retrieval operation in Mar-a-Lago.

See the political backstop?

Wait, are you saying there’s no point in declassifying then?

No. Exactly the opposite.

Strike now. The House is still in GOP hands.

Force the Legislative Branch to impeach President Trump in the first year as the only way to stop him.

Draw out the enemy. However, don’t YOU be so naïve that you do not take the time to understand exactly, in granular detail, what will be needed to do the actual declassifying.

If the Legislative Branch prioritizes retention of the system and takes down Trump via impeachment, JD Vance has to be willing to continue it… And so on, and so on…