As the three-ringed circus proceeds to persecute former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Judge T.S. Ellis III has come under fire not just from the media and prosecution but he has now announced that he has received direct threats.
Giving his reasons for not releasing the jurors’ names to the press, Judge Ellis explained that:
“I can tell you there have been [threats]… I don’t feel right if I release their names.”
He further stated that threats had been made directly against him and that he required around the clock protection, saying “[t]he Marshalls go where I go.”
Judge T.S. Ellis III
The unanswered question is where the threats actually came from. Like any good judge, Ellis is refusing to answer because the fallout could prejudice the jury’s decision, but there are three likely scenarios.
Scenario #1
The threats came from the anti-Trump brigade. For those who see President Trump as “literally Hitler,” the successful prosecution of Paul Manafort is key to denying his legitimacy. Ignoring the fact that even if Manafort is found guilty on all counts, not one crime has anything to do with the Trump election campaign, this is still seen as vital to keeping the news agenda of running continuous negative coverage.
As evidenced by the Steve Scalise shooting and the growing number of violent Antifa mobs, there are certainly a wealth of dangerous and deranged people who are willing to engage in intimidating behavior with political motivations.
Scenario #2
The threats are from pro-Trumpers. President Trump has ignited a p
assion in swathes of the American public who had given up entirely on the political system. When folks see trials like this that are clearly engaged in persecution, some may take it upon themselves to make a personal stand.
A person who engages in this kind of behavior is likely not able to understand that they are doing far more harm than good.
Scenario #3
The whole thing is a false flag operation. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the threats have been made by those opposing President Trump in the guise of those supporting him. If the jury gives a verdict clearing Manafort, it can be shown that pressure was applied illegally in the form of threats; it not only makes a retrial more likely but also paints Trump and his supporters as thugs who are corrupting the legal system.
It seems circumspect that the threats (or news of the threats) only came out after the jury had begun their deliberations. When the jury asked a series of questions that culminated in a request to clarify what the term “reasonable doubt” actually meant, the balance shifted. Prior to this, most media outlets assumed the guilt and sentencing of Manafort was a foregone conclusion.
Judicial Integrity
Whatever the final verdict, these threats need to be investigated. A nation of laws can only survive if those laws are applied free of fear or retaliation. No longer can “protest” be an adequate excuse for intimidation.
The familiar castigations against men for simply being male have become all too familiar in both standard media and the never-ending screeches of the not-so-social media. Yet these are rebukes and taunts that can be suffered. What should not be ignored in a supposedly fair society is the increasing regulations being imposed by government and academia on half of the population simply because of their sex.
Whilst many, especially those of a more left-leaning disposition, may argue that it is the sins of the patriarchy that are deservedly being revisited upon the sons, any who claim to be for a more equal society need to take a cold, hard look in the mirror at the pernicious denigration of men and the dangers that this vitriol harken.
Male Privilege?
Anger and hatred towards men has been argued as the cost of “male privilege,” and therefore a cost that should be borne. But there are already costs that are associated with being male.
- In the U.S. men are 3.5 times more likely to commit suicide than women.
- In the U.K., suicide is the biggest killer of men aged under 45.
- Men die five years younger than women in most industrialized countries.
- Family courts overwhelmingly favor mothers; in the U.K., 85% of legal aid goes to mothers rather than fathers.
- Almost half of all domestic abuse victims are male.
This list does not include the staggering sexual assault statistics that suggest up to half of all rape victims are male, of which less than 10% are reported.
The real issue, however, is that despite these numbers, both males and females still dismiss the psychological trauma using phrases such as “man up,” or “be a real man and deal with it.”
Re-Education Programs
White male British professors at several colleges and universities in the U.K., are to be assigned “reverse mentors” in order to help them understand their “unconscious bias.” These mentors will be young women of color, and according to the mind behind the program are in place to make the professors feel “uncomfortable.”
The British Labour party (U.K. equivalent of the Democratic Party) recently held an Equalities Conference to look at ways and methods of increasing “fairness” in society. They began by banning straight white males from attending.
A Michigan University law study found that men are more harshly sentenced in court compared to women for the same crime even when previous convictions are taken into account. But the issue is not always a sentencing one.
Sarah Jeong
And this brings up the larger issue. In today’s divisive climate, it is pre-supposed that men not only have anything to offer on the subject of equality, but that their very speaking on the subject should be opposed with rancour and bile.
New York Times writer and editor, Sarah Jeong, recently made headlines with her disgraceful comments about men (white men in particular) and to date remains uncensored and unpunished. It is the fact that being able to espouse hatred against a group of people with impunity, and indeed with loud applause from many, that encourages the idea that men have “nothing to offer” on a given topic.
Toxic Masculinity
And we still lack an answer as to why the male suicide rate is so high? When one’s very being is considered “toxic” by those with the power to incite mobs, control employment prospects, and even access to one’s own children, surely, we cannot be too far from solving this elusive question.
When a man complains about mistreatment, he is mocked and ridiculed, and ultimately told he deserves it for historical male treatment of others. This builds, rather than decreases what many on the left refer to as Toxic Masculinity.
Perhaps the time has come to begin respecting each other and start looking for a genuine path to equality that is not littered with the broken bodies and minds of desperate young men.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will begin his confirmation hearing on September 4, where he will face several days of tough questions from Senators who will determine his success or failure. It is expected that he will take his seat on the court in time for the October session, but is Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court a done deal?
When looking at the straight numbers of Republicans against Democrats and Independents, yes, it is. But there is a very real possibility that one or more Republicans may choose to side with the opposition team, and that would mean things get very, very messy.
Assumed Math
Should every Senator vote along party lines, then the result would be clear: a narrow victory for Trump. But what if a GOP senator votes against Kavanaugh? For example, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has stated that she would not vote for anyone who was likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, and while the chances of that ruling even being brought before the court are incredibly slim, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Collins could vote against Kavanaugh based on her pro-choice stance.
With one Republican senator voting with the Democrats, that gives a 50-50 tie, which would then be decided by the Vice President. But what if a senator is unable to get out and vote… think Arizona – Senator McCain has not cast a vote since early December 2017.
This could put the number of those voting against Kavanaugh at 50 to 49.
Outcomes of Failure
If Brett Kavanaugh is not in place by the beginning of October, this does not mean that the Supreme Court would shut down, however, it may cause political damage to the Trump administration’s agenda.
Most cases would still be heard, but some of the “grander issue” cases would likely be put on hold. Political popularity rests on events continually taking place; if nothing is happening, reputations cannot be built, nor can support be won in a stagnant arena. By the same token, neither can an opponent be destroyed and a populous divided, which for some is the key to electoral success.
But what of the cases that do get heard?
It is unlikely there will be many 4-4 decisions from the sitting justices, but if there were, a per curiam opinion would be probable – a group opinion, rather than a decisive, individual one; certainly not satisfactory to create bright-line rulings.
And here is the problem. Each day of delay is considered (and well-promoted) as a victory by the left. Every case that gets sent back to a lower court is a win that the left can claim is part of the Resistance. And each per curiam opinion allows them to paint the president as a hindrance to “moving the nation forward.”
Shadow Games
It has long been apparent that those on the left of politics are willing to tear down institutions and practices in the name of their ideology. They are not seeking to stop one man’s appointment to the Supreme Court, they are seeking to reshape the process in its entirety.
By creating a delay (and who knows what promises and deals have been made behind closed doors), the left has a chance to win seats in the midterm elections. If they win seats, they begin a campaign against the president… and the decisions he makes.
For the Resistance, another SCOTUS pick for Trump is just too many. Somethings they cannot abide, and the idea that President Donald J. Trump’s influence will impact them through court decisions for the next 20 years is rattling around their heads creating anger and division. What wouldn’t they do to stop it?
Under order of a Freedom of Information Request, the FBI has released 71 pages of documents that relate to payments made to former British spy and author of the infamous Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele.
The documents are redacted to the point where almost no information is actually available, leading some commentators to declare this a Pyrrhic victory for Trump supporters. Yet the most overlooked aspect is that Christopher Steele was being paid by the FBI in the first place.
Source #1
When the Carter Page FISA warrants were released recently, there was a lot of debate around who “#Source 1” might have been. Speculation was rife that this dubious honor belonged to Steele himself. In the warrant, it was stated that the FBI “suspended its relationship with Source #1 due to Source #1’s unauthorized disclosure of information to the press.” This is now confirmed by the pay documents.
In fact, one of the only readable parts of this heavily redacted tome is that Steele’s working relationship with the FBI came to an end because he had become the lead source in a media exposé. The term “CHS” in the document is short for “confidential human source,” referring to Steele:
“CHS confirmed to an outside third party that CHS has a confidential relationship with the FBI. CHS was used as a source for an online article. In the article, CHS revealed CHS’ relationship with the FBI as well as information that CHS obtained and provided to FBI. On November 1, 2016, CHS confirmed all of this to the handling agent.
At that time, handling agent advised CHS that the nature of the relationship between the FBI and CHS would change completely and that it was unlikely that the FBI would continue a relationship with the CHS. Additionally, handling agent advised that CHS was not to operate to obtain any intelligence whatsoever on behalf of the FBI.”
The Content
These documents, despite the redaction, paint a picture of ongoing cooperation, either over a period of time or for multiple projects. They consist of:
- Eleven (FD-794b) payment requests.
- One document ending the FBI’s relationship with Steele (FD-1040a).
- Fifteen (FD-1023) source reports.
- Thirteen (FD-209a) contact reports.
- One admonishment (FD-1057) document.
Partisan individuals have been quick to point out that there is no big “there there.” Which is true. However, these documents show something that is all too often ignored or dismissed: Both the Clinton Campaign and the FBI were paying Christopher Steele (through Fusion GPS). Based on the timing of the payments and the fact that the FBI ended their working relationship with Steele after he related details to “online publications” regarding his work, it seems most likely that he was being paid specifically for dossier-related work. According to The Washington Post:
“The revelation that the FBI agreed to pay Steele at the same time he was being paid by Clinton supporters to dig into Trump’s background could further strain relations between the law enforcement agency and the White House.”
Questions of Confidence
When Michael Horowitz defended his OIG report to Congress, he was adamant that despite individual bias being present, the investigations were free and fairly conducted. When the police want to investigate the Mafia, they do not go to Vito Corleone to ask for evidence.
The FBI used and paid for a dossier that was quite literally designed to do as much harm as possible to candidate Trump. They knew that this dossier was being compiled as opposition research with a view to undermining the Trump campaign yet presented it as fact to obtain FISA warrants against Carter Page. This is at best shoddy and naïve work, and at worst, a damning indictment on near-criminal behavior by the nation’s top law enforcement agency.
Christopher Steele was paid. He was paid to produce dirt on “an enemy” by an opponent. These documents show that he was paid twice for his work, but of whom is the second paymaster an opponent? Of Trump? Or of America?
Liberty Nation believes in giving you the facts without the spin. You can read our take on the documents relating to the FBI’s payments to Christopher Steele here, but we think you should be able to see the evidence for yourself. Here is the full 71-page file. It is largely redacted:
Christopher Steele Payments from FBI by Mark angel on Scribd
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s dog and pony show trial against Paul Manafort begins. Could this be the moment that brings down President Donald Trump? For those that are both blind to facts and as gullible as new-born puppies, then it just may seem that way.
What is missing from this trial is Russians. Mueller has already announced that the trial will in no way be addressing Russian collusion, and, in fact, appears to have very little to do with President Trump at all. The July 6 court filing stated:
“The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government.”
Is it possible that there is another reason for Mueller to be involved in this case?
Two-Pronged Attack
Mueller is aiming for two outcomes from this trial. The first being to apply so much pressure to Paul Manafort that, as Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III said:
“The vernacular is, to sing… to turn the screws and get the information you really want.”
Manafort has been placed in custody, locked in solitary confinement, and subjected to treatment that is more consistent with a Banana Republic than a land of law, order, and due process. The goal here is not to get Manafort to merely “sing,” but to compose.
The second goal is far more nefarious. Mueller is stringing out this trial, and the other trial on seperate charges that is due to start in a different jurisdiction in September, because it justifies to the public the Counsel’s continued involvement in the Trump investigation, and in fact, the investigation itself!
Without Manafort’s trial, what would Mueller have left to warrant his investigation?
Clinging on to Life
The complicit media is clinging to straws on the Russian collusion narrative. After Mueller indicted Russian companies as part of his investigation, the usual suspects saw a glimpse of hope that they could bring own the president. But this transparent ploy backfired.
The companies decided to face their accuser head on and hired an American law firm and demanded to start disclosure (as is their right). Surprise, surprise, Mueller and his team, two-years into their investigation, announced that they were in no way ready to proceed. Could this be another indication that Mueller is trying to hold onto his role in the hopes that damning evidence will eventually appear?
Relevant or Gone?
If Robert Mueller cannot stay in the public spotlight, the whole collusion idea collapses. Therefore, he needs to keep promoting the story that progress is being made.
Make no mistake, this trial will be drawn out for as long as possible and the following trial in September is a backup plan in case this one is speedily concluded. The indictments against Russian companies (that Vladimir Putin described as little more than “restaurant businesses”), will likely not proceed. Mueller will not want to disclose the information he has because then it would become apparent that the whole thing is based on little more than smoke and mirrors.
The name of the game is Lawfare. Mueller plays it well. But when this game is played too well, it impacts how justice is delivered. Mueller may yet achieve his goal of damaging the presidency, but the cost to liberties and freedom may be too great to pay.
If Trump-voting Americans have one major complaint against President Donald Trump, it is that he campaigned heavily on The Wall and has failed to deliver. He delivered tax cuts, he is reforming immigration, and has managed to get through the bulk of his campaign promises – but building a strong border wall has not so far gotten off the ground.
For a president who seems to get what he wants, why is it that this particular issue is causing so many problems? Is it possible that Trump has been holding off on the wall in order to further secure his position?
The Long Game
Predicting Trump’s historic victory was supposed to be a fool’s path. While pundits and voters may have hoped for a win, the supposed “smart money” was always on Hillary Clinton; this has left the president in a precarious position for the upcoming midterms. The leftist media is still pushing the narrative that this is a “blip,” a mistake that they and their followers can begin rectifying come the midterm elections in November.
Historically, the midterm advantage goes to the opposition party when the sitting president has low support numbers among those who didn’t vote for him. This is something Donald Trump – a man used to figuring out how to get an edge – knows very well.
Has The Donald been biding his time on getting the wall through, in order to use it for political capital?
Building Tension
Since the days of Harry Truman, most presidential approval ratings have dropped over time; the exceptions were George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and, surprisingly, Bill Clinton.
Reagan suffered a major drop in the run-up to his first midterms and only started bouncing back when the Republicans maintained control of the Senate, despite Democrats increasing their House majority.
Courtesy of Gallup
Clinton, who kept a steady popularity rating throughout his presidency fell victim to what Newt Gingrich called the Republican Revolution when the GOP won a net gain of 54 seats in the House and picked up eight in the Senate.
George H.W. Bush also experienced a loss during his midterms, eight and one seats in the House and Senate respectively.
What this shows is that even popular presidents often take a beating during the midterms. But with low popularity ratings among the opposition, the danger is more imminent.
The Plan
What President Trump needs to stave off a midterm defeat is a victory right before the American people go to the polls, and it needs to be one that not only enlivens his own party (he already has an 88% approval rating there) but also shows the Democrats as weak. What could be better than a “big, beautiful wall” to show off to the voting public?
Congress has a September 30 deadline to get spending measures approved. Trump has made it abundantly clear that if real spending for the wall is not approved, he will shut down the government. In a tweet that had his fanbase cheering, he wrote:
“I would be willing to ‘shut down’ government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!”
If he doesn’t get what he wants, this threat could be all too real.
The Reasoning
Most people assume that after the first flush of victory, a president’s power decreases as the reality of actual governance sets in. If Trump can get funding for the wall through before the voters go to the polls, he will assure himself, and his party, victory.
His core base of voters will be enthused, campaigners will hit the streets and the phones with renewed vigor, and Republicans will ride this wave to the top.
But most importantly, it will create apathy in Democrat voters. If, after two years of The Resistance, the opposition appears weaker than ever, voter turnout will be low, and the much-vaunted Blue Wave will likely not reach the shoreline.
All this takes is to frame the argument… and Trump has already begun.
These midterms are becoming mini-referenda on a host of issues. From ICE to the police, and from illegal immigration to enforcing borders, Donald Trump’s posturing on each side of these issues is forcing the Democrats to take a far harder stance than they wanted.
Instead of just calling for ICE to limit their activities to those for whom a retainer has been issued, the left is now calling for the abolition of the entire organization. Trump has successfully tied the existence of ICE to 9/11, and the Democrats are opposing this without realizing that the public now sees them as soft on terrorism.
Make no mistake, The Wall is coming. As the left flounder in the backwash of their failed Wave, they will understand that they have been played from the very beginning by a master tactician who was thinking of his second term before they even figured out he was a threat.
Today on Liberty Nation‘s exclusive playlist: Shock at Brown study, Russian ambassador reveals Helsinki conversation, immigration, the Deep State, and much more!
President Donald Trump has ignited another media frenzy with his latest tweeted message to Iran. Taken as an isolated outburst, it may seem that Trump is letting anger get the best of him, yet what few are reporting is that there is a clear backstory that the public is not being told.
“To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”
Strong words indeed. But were they inappropriate?
There are four matters happening behind the scenes that are not being discussed. It is far easier, and fits the leftist agenda better, to state that Trump’s words exist in a vacuum – they don’t.
#1 Iran’s Weapons
Despite German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s outward support of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as The Iran Deal), German intelligence services have released a damning report suggesting that Iran is still attempting to manufacture weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
Reports from Germany state that Iran is seeking:
“Products and scientific know-how for the field of developing weapons of mass destruction as well [as] missile technology.”
And that:
“Regardless of the number of national and international sanctions and embargoes, countries like Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are making efforts to optimize corresponding technology.”
#2 Rouhani’s Words
The Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has been making threats of his own. On Sunday, July 22, just hours before Trump tweeted his latest Fire and Fury, Rouhani said to a meeting of Iranian diplomats:
“Mr. Trump don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret… America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.”
“You are not in a position to incite the Iranian nation against Iran’s security and interests.”
Rouhani is thought to be referring to U.S. broadcasts that are going out in Iran to offer support (in Farsi) to those who are being imprisoned and persecuted by the regime.
#3 Unprecedented Persecution
Right now, in Iran, mass arrests, imprisonments, and curtailments of rights are taking place. Arrests for breaking “modesty laws,” public beatings, and “unusually cruel” executions have ignited a strike-back against the ruling regime.
During 2017’s protests, internet services were shut down and violence hit the streets of Tehran.
It is not only President Trump who uses Twitter to get his point across. A new hashtag is gaining momentum, #IslamicRegimeMustGo. Iranian people who are tired of living under oppression use this hashtag to give their reasons why they oppose the ruling government.
One Twitter user perhaps best encapsulated the feelings of these Iranian people with:
“I can barely name a terrorist group/organisation which is not supported by Iranian Regime… Thats why #IslamicRegimeMustGo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
#4 Major Terrorist Backer
Iran has been a big sponsor of terrorist organizations over the last few decades. While some could argue that various groups only fit the U.S. definition of a terrorist organization, many of the groups that receive funding are considered by all nations to be terrorists.
What good is an agreement not to produce WMDs if the money paid to Iran is funneled out to other groups that will make and use them?