Mediaboss Marketing

After the disastrous Covid-inspired changes to the 2020 election, you might think the left is finished with voting reforms. But an even bigger effort is coming, one that promises to permanently hand Democrats a built-in advantage and all but ensure no Republican wins the presidency again.

Meet National Popular Vote, the group spearheading the campaign to destroy the Electoral College and abandon centuries of constitutional history in the name of saving democracy (read: electing Democrats). If NPVs plans succeed, it would mean the end of elections as we know them, with would-be presidents shunting aside swing states and ignoring flyover country to schmooze voters in Manhattan and San Francisco. It would create the top-down nightmare that Americas founders fought desperately to prevent.

This campaign isnt being waged just by left-wing activists but by trusted conservative lobbyists targeting Republican politicians in bright-red states. Its the kind of deception mastered by leftists from Margaret Sanger to Saul Alinsky, fooling your opponents into believing theyre fighting you when theyre really fighting for you.

My colleagues and I at the Capital Research Center have exposed the plan to effectively federalize all future elections through a combination of hastily adopted vote-by-mail rules, privately funded drop boxes in major U.S. cities, and nonprofits that specialize in flooding mailboxes with absentee ballot forms in battleground states. That plan sits astride a larger voting machine, big foundations that pumped up 2020 Census figures in blue states, nonprofits that specialize in registering Democratic constituencies to vote, and a slew of pro-gerrymandering lawyers led by Eric Holder.

Together they reveal the radical lefts vision: one-party rule from Washington, D.C., with no pesky Constitution to stop them. NPV is the latest step in that plan.

* * *

According to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, each state receives a certain number of electoral votes equal to its total number of U.S. senators and U.S. representatives (anywhere from 3 to 55 votes), which are reapportioned after each census. Those electors meet as a body every four years to vote for the next president and vice president, with the results sent to the president of the Senate (who is also the vice president) for approval during a joint session of Congress, during which objections to individual electors are considered. The candidate who receives a simple majority (270 votes) wins.

If that sounds inefficient or clunky, thats the point. The founders careful strategy in establishing a representative republic hobbled by checks and balances also extended to the Electoral College, which was just as plodding in 1787 as it is in 2021. Elections were intended to be the domain of state legislatures, not the federal government, giving them broad discretion to run elections as they see fit including how to award electoral votes.

For most states, that means a winner-take-all system in which the statewide winner takes all of that states electoral votes. (Maine and Nebraska have opted for a different approach. Two electors are selected on a statewide basis, the rest by congressional district.) Its meant to ensure smaller communities are represented at the national level instead of being drowned out by big cities. It isnt actually that uniquenumerous countries with parliamentary systems select their executives through the legislature, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Australia, and Japan.

But this is hopelessly undemocratic and out of date, according to National Popular Vote. The group formed in 2006 with the mission to eliminate the Electoral College by ignoring it.

NPV proposes that the candidate who wins the popular vote at the national levelwhich happens to be the Democrat in every election since 2008should receive all electoral votes from states that adopt the NPV plan, regardless of whether the candidate wins that states popular vote. If every state were to pass NPV legislation, the winner of the popular vote would win all 538 electoral votes and the loser would win none.

NPV believes that its plan would cure the nations deep political polarization. But is that true?

Imagine an alternate 2016 election in which every state adopted the NPV plan. Hillary Clinton, not Donald J. Trump, would emerge the winner by a scant two million votes out of an electorate of nearly 124 million voters. Each of the 30 states that voted for Trumpincluding Pennsylvania and Michigan, which flipped into the GOP column for the first time since 1988would have instead sent their 308 electoral votes to Clinton, even though she lost those and other swing states.

What message would that send to the Trump voters in the purple states that decided the 2016 election? Far from mending fences, bypassing the Electoral College would permanently alienate tens of millions of already disillusioned Americans by proving what they currently suspect: Their vote doesnt matter.

American elections would never be the same. Instead of wooing voters in battleground states with small-to-middling populationsthink North Carolina, Iowa, and Arizonasavvy campaigners would dedicate all their time to churning out absurdly high turnouts in the biggest states: New York, Texas, California, Florida, Illinois. Time spent campaigning in smaller states would be time wasted.

Few people realize the extent and power of the lefts network of professional voter registration and get-out-the-vote groups, which exist to produce votes for Democrats. Those groups are currently hindered by having to focus on swing states. Eliminating the Electoral College would simplify their strategy to greasing up a handful of major citiesPhiladelphia, New York, and Chicagoinstead of winning voters across entire states.

Deciding presidents by popular vote does away with the entire reason the Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the power to run elections. Urban voter turnout machines would decide the outcome of every election. It would transform presidential elections from a contest in which candidates sell their vision of the future to a skeptical nation to a twisted version of Americas Got Talentin short, a popularity contest.

* * *

Amending the Constitution to remove the Electoral College is virtually impossible in todays political climate, so instead NPV has opted for a compact of states that have passed national popular vote legislation, which will only take effect after enough states join, representing 270 electoral votes.

To date, the compact has reached 195 electoral votes, entirely from Democratic-run statesCalifornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washingtonand the District of Columbia. But that still leaves 75 electoral votes to nab, a challenge given that the campaigns momentum ceased in 2019 when NPV bills failed in Democratic-run Maine and Nevada.

More importantly, NPV is running out of Democratic states. Shifting strategy to bring on Republicans has proven challenging. NPV has an image problem among conservatives, as it should.

NPV founder John Koza is a former Stanford University computer science professor best known for popularizing state-run lotteries and inventing the lottery scratch card. Hes also a regular donor to Democratic candidates who has twice-served as a Democratic elector. Koza says that President George W. Bushs unfair election inspired him to found NPV.

Koza is the main donor behind NPV, pumping perhaps as much as $28 million into the group, half of it in $2 million annual grants since 2014 (the exact amount is unclear). NPV denies that the project is left-wing, since over 90% of its donations have come in roughly equal quantities from Koza (a pro-choice, pro-Buffett-rule, registered Democratic businessman) and Tom Golisano (a pro-life, anti-Buffett-rule, registered Republican businessman), founder of the payroll services company Paychex.

But Golisano pulled back from the campaign in recent years and is no longer involved, according to Politico in 2017, and no other right-leaning donors besides him have been identified. Fred Lucas, an investigative journalist for the Daily Signal, also uncovered a few million dollars in grants to NPV from the left-wing Tides Foundation and the philanthropy of Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros, buttressing accusations of partisanship.

Most recently, the group used concerns over 2020 election integrity to try to whip up Republican support for its plan. Saul Anuzis, NPVs top lobbyist and spokesman, blames the Electoral College for conservative frustration over election irregularities and problems. Americans everywhere will have to live with another four years of questioned legitimacy surrounding another president, Anuzis wrote in December 2020, all because not every voter in every state was relevant in the 2020 election The candidate with the most votes should win. Thats an American ideal.

Anuzis points out that NPVs plan is distinct from proposals from the left to simply abolish the Electoral College. National Democrats favor the elimination of the Electoral College and using a direct national popular vote to elect the president, he says, whereas NPVs plan is a bipartisan proposal that takes a federalist approach to preserve the Electoral College and states rights to regulate, administer, and determine how electors are chosen to [it] by using the national popular vote.

Anuzis is head of the conservative 60 Plus Association and former chair of the Michigan Republican Party who ran for RNC chairman in 2011. He lost to Reince Priebus, in part because of his support for gutting the Electoral College. Anuzis resurfaced as an adviser to Sen. Ted Cruzs 2016 presidential campaign and later as a delegate representing Michigan in that years Republican Convention, where he voted to nominate Cruz despite Trump winning the states primary.

Anuzis got in hot water in 2011 for circulating a pro-NPV letter on bogus RNC letterhead after his request to use the elephant logo was denied by Priebus. When an Alaska Republican lawmaker confronted him, he told her, Anyone can get the elephant off the internet.

Anuzis represents the tip of the spear aimed at winning Republican support for NPVs plan. The strategy is meant to make Republican lawmakers feel like theyre strengthening the Constitution when theyre actually undermining it.

* * *

NPV typically approaches GOP legislators in targeted states using well-known and trusted Republican lobbyists like Constantin Querard, a campaign consultant whose firm, Grassroots Partners, has been hired by at least 40 Republican state representatives and 19 senators in Arizona.

Querard was a registered lobbyist for NPV from 2015 to 2019, yet there are almost no registered transactions between him and any elected officials save two small food or beverages expenditures in 2016 for state Rep. Don Shooter, who was expelled from the house in 2018 after allegations of sexual harassment.

Sean Parnell, senior legislative director for the proElectoral College watchdog group Save Our States, believes he knows why. For the last decade, National Popular Vote has invited legislators on swanky weekend trips to expensive resorts in Sedona, Hawaii, and other luxury destinations to sell them on the groups plan, paid for by its 501(c)(3) arm, the Institute for Research on Presidential Elections.

Although NPV has bristled at the mention of these lavish resort trips and in one instance denied paying for them, these junkets are well-documented across multiple states and numerous news articles. Strategically, they present a slick way to butter up elected officials on the institutes dime, thereby avoiding embarrassing public disclosure forms.

The first day is basically free time, according to what Ive been told by legislator attendees, Parnell explainsgolfing, spas, dinner, whatever they want. Day two is when they get down to business with half-day seminars on how this legislation is not only good for ensuring one-person, one-vote, but how its good for getting Republicans elected. Thats the main thrust of their presentation.

To his knowledge, the group has targeted Republican lawmakers, not Democrats, with few exceptions. Nor was it just legislatorsin 2017 Politico reported that the institute flew eleven journalists to Panama for a three-day, all-expenses-paid seminar on election reform, where they were aggressively educated in the pool, at the bar, overlooking the Panama Canal.

Parnell, who learned of the seminars from elected officials whove attended them, stresses that hes found no evidence of illegality or official ethics violations. He also admits that, in many states, no one was visiting legislators offices to explain why they should support the Electoral College, something Save Our States regrets. We couldve done a better job educating folks back then.

In February 2016, Arizona house Republicans introduced national popular vote legislation (HB 2456) matching almost word for word the text of NPVs model bill. It passed 40 to 16, with 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats voting for the bill against 14 Republican and two Democratic nays. The bill only died in the state senate after local conservative groups flooded Republican state senators with messages urging them to oppose the compact.

Many of the lawmakers who voted for it still regret their vote, Parnell says, and blame NPV for bamboozling them. Yeah, I got sucked in, one Republican told him. Another frustrated legislator blamed lobbyists for getting him to vote for this stupid thing. A third blames the vote for him losing reelection in a 2020 primary.

Parnell believes that Anuzis and Querard were again trying to woo Arizona legislators as late as August 2021 with a seminar held in Sedona, but Republican interest has waned. Republican legislators who felt burned by NPVs lobbyists in 2016 are literally warning their new colleagues to avoid the compact, he told me.

* * *

A similar story unfolded in early 2014 in Oklahoma, one of the countrys most conservative states, with large Republican majorities in the state house and senate.

Two former candidates for state house, Darren Gantz and David Tackett, reportedly served as NPVs liaisons with local lawmakers, who were invited on expenses-paid, invitation-only panel educational seminars in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Miami, Las Vegas, and elsewhere.

As in Arizona, none of the expenses were reported on public disclosure forms because they were paid for by FairVote, a Maryland-based leftist group and NPV ally. FairVote is funded by George Soross Open Society Foundations, eBay founder Pierre Omidyars Democracy Fund, and the Tides Foundation.

One official FairVote invitation to the JW Marriott resort in Scottsdale, Arizona, touted the benefits: three nights of guest accommodations and reimbursement for meals, provided attendees commit to reviewing a collection of reading materials that will be provided by email before the meeting so that all participants can [be] ready to share their insights and questions in panel sessions the following day.

In February, two senate Republicans and one Democrat introduced SB 906 to join the NPV compact, and sixteen Republicans joined all of the chambers twelve Democrats to pass the bill against eighteen Republican naysthis despite the fact that the state GOP officially opposed national popular vote legislation.

One local blogger called the vote a betrayal: Im told that Saul Anuzis, a consultant for the NPV movementwas working the corridors for the bill. Anuzis and his colleagues persuaded some of our friends in the Senate that NPV could improve the Republican Partys chances. Never mind that the NPV movement is funded and run by leftists who are hardly likely to back an idea that would help conservatives win the White House.

Again, once grassroots groups caught wind of the bill, it soon died in the state House. Several Republican senators quickly recanted their support for the compact. But that wasnt the end of the story. NPV returned a year later to push the same legislation through the House again, introduced by Republican Rep. Lee Denney. The Okie, Oklahomas self-described top political news blog, reported that NPV lobbyists were at the Capitol every day, pushing the issue, but it never left committee.

* * *

NPVs crusade extended to Georgia in 2016, when five Republicansjoined by then-Rep. Stacey Abramsintroduced a national popular vote bill in the state house. Companion legislation followed in the state senate, also with five Republican sponsors and one Democrat. Neither bill left its respective chamber after conservative groups met with the Republican legislators. Democrats have since introduced three more NPV bills in 2017, 2019, and 2021, but none garnered GOP support.

In 2018, NPV turned its sights on Michigan, which leans Democratic in presidential elections but has a comfortable Republican majority in the state legislature. Republican state senator Dave Hildenbrand introduced an NPV bill in September, which quickly died in committee. That death was in no small part thanks to local investigative reporters who unearthed evidence that the Institute for Research on Presidential Elections paid for 20-plus Republican lawmakers to travel to resorts in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and California (which, again, went unreported in public disclosure forms).

NPV is still trying to win over Michiganders with a ballot initiative started in September 2021, run by Anuzis and Mark Brewer, an election law attorney and former Michigan Democratic Party chair. It remains to be seen whether the initiative will reach enough signatures to make the next ballot.

* * *

Theres one more element to the story the public should know.

According to its latest Form 990 filing, Saul Anuzis is vice president and board member for the Institute for Research on Presidential Elections, earning $104,000 in 2020 for the ten hours per week (thats $200 per hour) he provided undescribed services to the organization, making him by far its highest-paid staffer. By comparison, Larry Lessler, the groups board secretary and a Cupertino-based financial advisor, earned $31,500 last year in CPA fees from the group.

Anuziss salary is important because it represents nearly one-third of the institutes $358,000 budget, and one sixth of its total revenues in 2020. The institutes 2019 Form 990 also suggests that Anuzis collected $100,000 in fees as part of Medaglia, possibly referring to a difficult-to-trace firm in Washington, D.C. (Medaglia & Associates) listed in an older NPV Form 990 filing.

Anuzis political consulting firm, Coast to Coast Strategies, has pulled in at least another $330,000 in consulting fees from the institutes 501(c)(4) sister, National Popular Vote, across three years (2019, 2016, and 2010).

Institute president Ray Haynes, a former Republican California assemblyman and state senator, is another principal at Anuziss Coast to Coast Strategies. Haynes has also received personal payments from both the institute and NPV for consulting services totaling at least $159,000 since 2016.

As consultants, these payments present no problem and are in fact quite common. But as board members, the payments paint a picture of elite operatives enriching themselves off of a left-wing campaign that threatens to undermine the Constitution.

Whats clear is that the campaign to replace the Electoral College has hit the stumbling block of public perception. Conservatives in 2021 now understand what many folks misunderstood a decade ago: Any effort to dismantle, replace, or bypass the Constitution is a threat to the republic Americas founders established. Stripping out the Electoral College isnt fixing the Constitution, but disemboweling it. Dont expect the left to let up as long as activists believe their best chances at seizing power rest in destroying it.

This convoluted history also presents a clear message to conservative elected officials: If you back attempts to gut or ignore the Electoral College, be prepared to reap the whirlwind with your constituents and grassroots groups. After so many embarrassments, it seems Republican politicians have finally gotten the messagefor now.

Hayden Ludwig is senior investigative researcher for the Capital Research Center.

Read more:
The War on the Electoral College - The American Conservative

PHOENIX (AP) Arizonas independent redistricting commission unanimously approved Dec. 22 new boundaries for congressional districts that are likely to shift the states congressional delegation in favor of Republicans.

The new boundaries create four solidly Republican districts, two where Democrats are likely to dominate and three that could be relatively competitive, based on metrics the commission uses to measure competitiveness. Of the potentially competitive districts, one strongly favors Democrats and two lean toward Republicans based on their voting patterns in nine past elections.

Arizonas congressional delegation currently has five Democrats and four Republicans. The likelihood that Democrats will lose ground in Arizona further complicates the partys bleak prospects in next years midterm elections, when control of the U.S. House will be at stake.

This is not the map that I wouldve liked, Democratic Commissioner Shereen Lerner said, saying the two competitive districts couldve been more balanced. But she said the final boundaries had improved from earlier drafts and expressed hope that the picture will improve over the next decade the maps are in effect.

Republican Commissioner Doug York said an earlier draft was better for the GOP, and he credited the commission with approving a map that wasnt favored by either side.

The commission also adopted new boundaries for Arizonas 30 legislative districts in a 3-2 vote after independent Chair Erika Newberg sided with the Republican commissioners. The legislative map includes four competitive districts in the northern and eastern parts of the Phoenix metro area.

Lerner tried in vain to tweak one competitive district in the North Valley to reduce its Republican leaning before the final vote.

On the new congressional map, districts currently represented by Democrats Tom OHalleran and Ann Kirkpatrick the two most competitive in the state under the existing boundaries moved in favor of Republicans. The new boundaries for OHallerans rural district tilt it strongly toward Republicans, casting serious doubt on his prospects for reelection.

Kirkpatrick has already announced plans to retire. The new district boundaries for the region she represents include eastern Tucson, Casa Grande and most of southeastern Arizona.

Much of the area now represented by Republican David Schweikert is likely to become the most competitive district in the state. The new boundaries include Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, parts of North Phoenix, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation.

The regions now represented by Schweikert and Kirkpatrick will be the states two battleground districts. An East Valley District including Tempe, Mesa, Ahwatukee and part of Chandler is considered marginally competitive under the commissions metrics, though voters there have elected Democrats in eight of nine races analyzed by the commission.

The redistricting panel is made up of two Republicans, two Democrats and independent Chair Erika Neuberg, who mainly backed Republican-favored versions of the maps through much of the recent deliberations. Redistricting is required every 10 years under the U.S. Constitution to adjust for population changes around the country.

Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general under Democratic President Barack Obama, said Tuesday night that the maps could draw a lawsuit.

The Chair has a duty to ensure a fair process and not side with Republicans or push a partisan agenda, Holder, who is leading Democratic efforts to influence redistricting around the country, wrote on Twitter. Anything less than maps that are fair will be challenged.

Maps drawn by the Arizona redistricting commissions based on the 2000 and 2010 censuses both were challenged in court.

The voter-created redistricting law, which removed the job from the Legislature and was supposed to limit partisanship, says commissioners should draw districts that are compact and contiguous, comply with the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and respect communities of interest and city, county or geographic lines or features.

The commission adopted draft maps in late October and then held a monthlong series of meetings across the state before starting its final set of meetings last week.

Republicans generally liked the district maps drawn after the 2000 census, and those done following the 2010 census were regarded as more favorable to Democrats, prompting strong criticism from Republicans.

Original post:
Redrawing the lines: Final map of congressional districts approved - Grand Canyon News

For Democrats, this could mean that they would be unlikely to reap the sole political rewards for any efforts on marijuana policy. Lucky for them, many in the partyincluding the president himselfare desperate to notch bipartisan wins. Passing a bill in Congress would almost certainly garner sizable support from Republicans as well as Democrats and possibly even more than the infrastructure bill that was signed into law last month. There are several options. The most promising is the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, a bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker, and Ron Wyden that builds on a legalization bill passed by the House last year. (There are also several other, less ambitious legalization bills floating around, including the MORE Act.) Unfortunately, a frosty reception from some Democrats, a lack of enthusiasm from Senate Republicans, and the continued existence of the filibuster means that these efforts have stalled outfor now. The bully pulpit, plus the midterm elections, could revive them.

There are other options, however. Mace is pushing a bill that would decriminalize marijuana, while Joyce has one that would reform the federal governments incredibly outdated marijuana policies. Given the general sense of inertia in Congress, there are other less far-reaching but still important things the Biden administration could do. The Cole memo, issued by Eric Holder in 2013 and revoked by Jeff Sessions five years later, instructed U.S. attorneys not to enforce federal marijuana laws. That memo could be reinstated and even expanded to other departments. Biden could offer clemency to people currently imprisoned for nonviolent cannabis-related offenses and pardons for them and those who have been released.

All of this would be better politically and morally, and in policy terms, than what Democrats are doing now. You would think that President Biden would embrace legalization, considering where his constituents are on this issue, Lindsey told me. Theres really no question [about] the level of support that they have, and yet the president seems to be AWOL. After a year ending with political and legislative inertiaand with Bidens tanking poll numbers, particularly among young peoplemarijuana policy would be the perfect place to start.

More:
Legalize It, Already! - The New Republic

quote:Hey asswipe, Just admit you didnt read the entire article quote:When Barack Obama was installed in January 2009Yeah, semantics on when the black jesus continued the formation of an insidious govt is silly. This is the core center piece of the overall corruption. quote:The people behind Obama, those same people now behind Joe Biden, knew from years of strategic planning that radical transformation would require control over specific elements inside the U.S. government. Eric Holder played a key role in his position as U.S. Attorney General in the DOJ.

AG Holder recruited ideologically aligned political operatives who were aware of the larger institutional objectives. One of those objectives was weaponizing the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) a division inside the DOJ that had no inspector general oversight. For most people the DOJ-NSD weaponization surfaced with a hindsight awakening of the DOJ-NSD targeting candidate Donald Trump many years later. However, by then the Holder crew had executed almost eight full years of background work.

THE TRAP Many people say that Congress is the solution to eliminating the Fourth and superseding Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. This is an exercise in futility because the Legislative Branch, specifically the SSCI, facilitated the creation of the Intelligence Branch. The SSCI cannot put the genie they created back in the bottle without admitting they too are corrupt; and the background story of their corruption is way too intense to be exposed now. Every member of the SSCI is compromised in some controlling manner. Those Senators who disliked the control over them; specifically disliked because the risk of sunlight was tenuous and, well, possible; have either left completely or stepped down from the committee. None of the SSCI members past or present would ever contemplate saying openly what their tenure involved.

[Note: You might remember when Vice Chairman Mark Warners text messages surfaced, there was a controlled Republican SSCI member who came to his defense in February of 2018. It was not accidental that exact Senator later became the chair of the SSCI himself. That Republican Senator is Marco Rubio, now vice-chair since the Senate re-flipped back to the optics of Democrat control in 2021.]

~ 2021 Gang of Eight ~

The Go8 design is intended to put intelligence oversight upon both political parties in Congress; it is designed that way by informing the minority leaders of both the House and Senate as well as the ranking minority members of the SSCI and HPSCI. Under the concept, the President cannot conduct an intelligence operation; and the intelligence community cannot carry out intelligence gathering operations without the majority and minority parties knowing about it.

The modern design of this oversight system was done to keep rogue and/or corrupt intelligence operations from happening. However, as we shared in the preview to this entire discussion, the process was usurped during the Obama era. {GO DEEP}

This is our current status. It is not deniable. The truth exists regardless of our comfort.

Not a single person in power will say openly what has taken place. They are scared of the Fourth Branch. The evidence of what has taken place is right there in front of our face. The words, actions and activities of those who participated in this process are not deniable.

There are only two members of the Gang of Eight who have existed in place from January 2007 (the real beginning of Obamas term, two years before he took office when the Congress flipped). Only two members of the G08 have been consistently in place from January of 2007 to right now, today. All the others came and went, but two members of the Gang of Eight have been part of that failed and collapsed oversight throughout the past 15 years, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.

Through the advise and consent rules, the Intelligence Branch uses the SSCI to keep out people they consider dangerous to their ongoing operations. Any appointee to the intelligence community must first pass through the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, before they get a full Senate vote. If the SSCI rejects the candidate, they simply refuse to take up the nomination. The president is then blocked from that appointment. This is what happened with President Trump over-and-over again.

Additionally, the Intelligence Branch protects itself, and its facilitating allies through the formal classification process. The Intelligence Branch gets to decide unilaterally what information will be released and what information will be kept secret. There is no entity outside the Intelligence Branch, and yes that includes the President of the United States, who can supersede the classification authority of the Intelligence Branch. {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} This is something 99.9% of the people on our side get totally and frustratingly wrong.

No one can declassify, or make public, anything the Intelligence Branch will not agree to. Doubt this? Ask Ric Grenell, John Ratcliffe, or even President Trump himself.

* The classification process is determined inside the Intelligence Branch, all by themselves. They get to choose what rank of classification exists on any work-product they create; and they get to decide what the classification status is of any work product that is created by anyone else. The Intelligence Branch has full control over what is considered classified information and what is not. The Intelligence Branch defines what is a national security interest and what is not. A great technique for hiding fingerprints of corrupt and illegal activity.

Yes, the history of the U.S. national security apparatus goes back decades; however, the weaponization of that apparatus, the creation of an apex branch of government, the Intelligence Branch, originated as we currently feel it under President Barack Obama.

Obama took the foundational tools created by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and used the intelligence system architecture to create a weapon for use in his fundamental transformation. An alliance of ideologues within government (intel community) and the private sector (big tech and finance) was assembled, and the largest government weapon was created. Think about this every time you take your shoes off at an airport.

After the weapon was assembled and tested (Arab Spring), the Legislative Branch was enjoined under the auspices of a common enemy, Donald J. Trump, an outsider who was a risk to every entity in the institutional construct of Washington DC. Trillions were at stake, and years of affluence and influence were at risk as the unholy alliance was put together.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to U.S. Intelligence Branch interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the FBI/CIA were in 2016.

Read more here:
Barack Obama and Eric Holder & the weaponization of the ...

By JOSH GERSTEIN

10/06/2014 03:04 PM EDT

A federal judge has declined a House committee's bid to have Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt of court and perhaps even jailed for failing to turn over documents related to the Justice Department' s response to Operation Fast and Furious.

However, in a ruling Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson also denied Holder's request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any "non-privileged" documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation. The judge previously ruled that Holder must give the panel any documents that are not both predecisional and deliberative in nature.

Jackson called the House contempt motion "entirely unnecessary" and said it was evident that she was considering the government's motion to lift her prior order. "Under those circumstances, the Court finds no basis to hold defendant in contempt," she wrote.

But the judge also said she saw no reason to allow the Justice Department to withhold unprivileged documents until the case was complete. She ordered those records turned over to the committee by Nov. 3, along with a log of the records claimed to be privileged.

"Though the Court has the discretion to grant a stay in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, pending appeal or otherwise, there is no pending appeal here and the Court has already ruled that defendant has no legal basis to withhold non-deliberative documents. The 'possibility' of an appeal and piecemeal litigation does not satisfy defendants burden to demonstrative a 'clear case of hardship or inequity' without a stay," she wrote in her decision (posted here).

A Justice Department spokesman welcomed the decision, at least the part rebuffing the motion to hold Holder in contempt. "We are pleased that the court rejected the committee's latest stunt," spokesman Brian Fallon said.

A spokesperson for the House committee said the judge's ruling is a step towards the panel receiving documents it should have been given years ago. "The Oversight Committee is pleased that the Judge in the case has rejected the Department's request to continue illegally withholding documents and its attempt to unnecessarily prolong the proceeding. This court ruling affirms that Attorney General Holder broke the law in withholding subpoenaed documents, which led the House of Representatives to vote him in criminal contempt," said the spokesperson.

UPDATE (Monday, 4:35 P.M.): This post has been updated with reaction from the Justice Department and the House Oversight Committee.

Go here to see the original:
Judge declines to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in ...