Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio appears on Fox News for an extensive interview about current events. Within the interview Secretary Rubio discusses the current status of immigration vetting and the pause therein.
Additionally, Rubio outlines the current state of the U.S. operation in/around Venezuela and the ongoing negotiations with Ukraine and Russia to end the conflict in Eastern Europe. WATCH:
President Trump was asked about the Witkoff and Kusher trip to Moscow, Russia as negotiations for an end to the conflict are ongoing. President Trump noted he had not yet heard from the emissary duo, as he is spending time with media, answering questions and being the most transparent administration in history [Video Here].
In the contextual background, Russian Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Kirill Dmitriev spent time walking through Moscow center city with Trump Emissaries Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. This is before the meeting with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin.
This move is typical Putin. It’s not a negative per se’, but rather an emphatic narrative contrast intended to draw attention to a Russian/American dichotomy.
This optical presentation was likely coordinated via Yury Ushakov and Steve Witkoff. The optical message is psychological targeting; the city of Moscow -structural order, cleanliness, visual and representative Christmas holiday festival spirit- contrast and compared to the city of Washington DC, chaos, conflict and lack of social cohesion.
Traditional American intelligence review would be angered by what would be deemed psy-op manipulation; however, the reality of the situation doesn’t diminish just because the intent is to emphasize the contrast.
In reality, the Russian system of social cohesion generates these visible outcomes, and yes, there is an authoritarian mechanism that mandates the mechanics of what is inherently visible. The debate, which never takes place, regards the overall outcome, the value in the experience as contrast against the two systems.
Yes, despite our unwillingness to admit benefit, there is value in government setting social rules, enforcing cultural compliance standards, demanding self-respect, patriotism and the lack of visible vulgarity. Yes, if govt enforces a rules-based order, it will be naturally oppressive to those who are non-compliant – perhaps to those who prefer vulgarity. However, it is not as simple as dismissing the value when contrast against the outcomes.
THE UNSPOKEN MESSAGE: President Trump has to put national guard troops on the ground in Washington DC to retain lawful order, to control the thugs and enhance the safety and security (domestic tranquility) of the region. President Putin does not need to put the Russian army on the streets to control the thugs or generate the same outcome; Putin’s effort has a cultural outcome.
As the ‘West’ continues to destroy itself (Russian perspective), its culture, its moral decency – and by extension its identity – the position of Russia is to keep out these vulgar influences that devalue the national sense of self-respect.
From the position of the Russian standard, social indecency is not going to be permitted, and if it takes oppressive govt control mechanisms to enforce national cultural standards, if it takes govt to mandate self-discipline, then so be it.
That’s the larger message from Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and it is a cold, unwavering and deliberate approach that appears hard, callous and dictatorial to the ‘West’, because in many ways, it is exactly that.
Taking part in the meeting on the Russian side were Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Kirill Dmitriev.
On the American side, the meeting was attended by Special Envoy of the President of the United States of America Steve Witkoff ,together with entrepreneur, investor, and founder of Affinity Partners Jared Kushner.
Ushakov is to Witkoff as Dmitriev is to Kushner. However, I will say very directly -and this might not please a lot of Trump critics- that Jared Kushner is the key influence agent in this negotiation.
Despite what people might criticize him for, Mr. Jared Kushner has a remarkable level of self-discipline and an emotionless face that would immediately earn the respect of any Russian opposition. When you know how Russians think about strength, you realize the mental component is their focus. When the Russian delegation looks upon Kushner, they see self-control, strength, limited words and ultimately that translates to power.
If there is a hard 10% needed to get to the finish line of negotiations, it will be Kushner who penetrates that difficult part. If Ukraine is to achieve an outcome that leaves them with self-respect in the final product, it will be Jared Kushner who delivers that for them.
Additionally, Russian President Vladimir Putin is happy, because he is in a strong position having just won control of the city of Pokrovsk in Ukraine (Donbas region), saying the now-secured area is a key base for Moscow’s ongoing military advance. Ukrainian resistance is falling, as the stronghold for the best units of the Ukraine military has now collapsed.
On March 20, 2017, New York Rep Elise Stefanik questioned then FBI Director James Comey about why he opened a counterintelligence operation against the leading GOP candidate in July 2016 and did not inform congress until early March – just before the hearing.
In an effort to avoid scrutiny James Comey replied, “because of the sensitivity of the matter.” Comey obfuscated the informal requirement in a blatant attempt to dodge specific inquires the FBI’s motives and intentions with the targeting of Donald Trump.
Elise Stefanik is attempting to formalize a legal requirement for congressional notification so that any candidate for federal office cannot be investigated by the FBI without informing the ‘Gang of Eight’ about what is going on. Stefanik wants to include the requirement in the National Defense Reauthorization Act and Intelligence Authorization Act.
While the effort itself is simple, require the FBI to inform congress, as we saw in 2016 the FBI throw the bag of National Security over the issue, and the congressional notification is moot – particularly when congress is in agreement with the targeting of the FBI.
After James Comey made that admission in 2017, not a single member of congress or the House Intelligence Committee pressed him on the issue. Instead of immediately notifying James Comey that his admission was potentially a violation of law and launching an immediate investigation into the conduct of the FBI, congress simply ignored it.
STEFANIK – Great news!
After a productive discussion I had last night with President Trump and Speaker Johnson, the provision requiring Congressional disclosure when the FBI opens counterintelligence investigations into presidential and federal candidates seeking office will be included in the IAA/NDAA bill on the floor.
This is a significant legislative win delivered against the illegal weaponization of the deep state.
And, of course, while this is an important step, there is so much more work to do.” (link)
VIA POLITICO – Rep. Elise Stefanik declared victory over Speaker Mike Johnson Wednesday, saying she had secured the inclusion of a key provision she wanted attached to the annual Pentagon policy bill after a remarkable public spat with the speaker a day earlier.
Others involved credited President Donald Trump for playing mediator after the New York Republican threatened to “tank” the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act as part of her public targeting of Johnson. The three spoke by phone Tuesday night about her threats, according to two people granted anonymity to describe the private call. [link]
{GO DEEP} – Former FBI Director James Comey openly admitted to Congress on March 20, 2017, how the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing Congress [the Gang of Eight]. When asked the question, Comey winced, then justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying, “um, because of the sensitivity of the matter?”
Stupidly, Congress never pressed James Comey on that issue. The arrogance of Comey was astounding, and the acceptance by Congress was infuriating. However, that specific example highlighted just how politically corrupt the system had become. In essence, Team Obama usurped the entire design of congressional oversight…. and Congress just brushed it off.
This event, and everything in the background as outlined within the James Comey admission, factually happened. It is on the record, admitted and nothing about the reality of what took place is subject to conjecture or refute.
Yet somehow, we, specifically our Congress, just moved on as if what FBI Director James Comey outlined and admitted wasn’t a total usurpation of the U.S. Constitution and a collapse in the structure of our coequal branches of government.
We cannot fight our way through the issues until we first realize what lies at the root of the problem.
With accusations flying of war crimes on the high seas, you may find yourself asking: what really constitutes a war crime? Let us help unpack this complex issue and break down what does and doesn't make someone a war criminal:
A soldier using more than one bullet: WAR CRIME. Shooting a gun a second time is why the Geneva Convention had to happen.
"Wonderful Christmastime" by Paul McCartney: WAR CRIME. Straight to gulag.
Bioengineering a virus in a Chinese lab that kills millions and shuts down the entire world: Nah, it's cool.
Microwaving fish in the office break room: WAR CRIME. Call in Franklin!
Assassinating political leaders you disagree with: Not a crime. Brave and stunning.
Paragliding into a festival and kidnapping, murdering women and children: Nope. A peaceful act of resistance.
Having great jeans: WAR CRIME.
Killing 6 million Jews: Not a war crime. Just boys being boys.
Converting the East Wing of the White House into a ballroom: WAR CRIME. We demand blood!
Putting pineapple on pizza: War crime, peace crime, spiritual crime, everything crime.
Hitting Patrick Mahomes on his way out of bounds: WAR CRIME, death penalty.
Air dropping food to help the civilians of the country that invaded yours: WAR CRIME. People having to walk several yards to retrieve a food crate is dehumanizing.
Snapping half of all organic life out of existence: Not a war crime. It's called going green. Educate yourself.
Killing an enemy combatant, then putting a Santa hat on him and writing "NOW I HAVE A MACHINE GUN HO-HO-HO" on his sweater in his blood: Totally awesome but, yes, technically a war crime.
We hope these key examples give you a good grasp of the war crime concept. Think we missed any important examples? Let us know in the comments below.
