With what is happening to social media and Hollywood in general, you think the liberals, if they wanted to make any money, would get a clue and change their ways and stop the blatant censorship and extreme propaganda. But no, even the Justice League has gone rogue. That is right, the Justice League used to pledge allegiance to America and now the new movie curses America. The “terrorist” in the movie wears a MAGA shirt. I am not joking, the trapppings associated with President Trump are attacked in the new Justice League movie. And the trusted authority figures are all from the United Nations and not the United States.
There is no difference in the extreme propaganda being put forth by the social media and Hollywood. They all serve the same Deep State. Today, the Deep State is in a panic and that panic is refleted in the extreme censorship and and data-selling policies of these globalists.
The Spotlight Is On the Globalist Media
Both Hollywood and social media (eg Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google), are in the same predicament. Social Media just completed a round of Senate hearings where they were grilled by the likes of Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz tried to get the social media giants to admit that they are “open forums”, yes or no. Yes or NO. YES OR NO! After several minutes of grilling the represenatives of Twitter, Youtube and Google, they refused to answer. This is criticially important. If these social media giants are an open forum, as I learned by watching C-Span’s coverage of the Cruz inquisition, then they cannot legally censor. If they censor, then they are not open forums. IF they are not open forums, then they are responsible for any upload to their respective platforms. This means, they could be fined and even prosecuted if someone were to upload child porn to their site. This could mean jail-time.
How did the Cruz inquisition turn out? All of the social media giants answered in the affirmative that they are indeed open forums, but they all have community guidelines that the users must follow. Thme the DOJ gets involved, as various Trump officals have hinted, these community guidelines, that Youtube is famous for, and what they use as an excuse to censor.
Hours after the resignation of John Dowd, President Trump’s lead attorney handling the special counsel investigation, Trump said he “would like to” testify in Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe – a move panned by some, including Fox’s Judge Napolitano, as a bad move.
The President’s 180 comes after the White House legal team had reportedly been considering ways that President Trump might be able to testify – including giving written answers – with Trump’s attorneys reportedly having been split on the terms of such a deal, reported the Wall Street Journal earlier this month.
But that’s not Trump’s style… After bringing on former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova on Monday – a former Special Counsel himself who went after both the Teamsters and former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer, Trump is reportedly taking the gloves off according to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman.
Earlier this month, Mueller crossed one of Trump’s stated “red lines” when he subpoenaed Trump Organization business records. According to four Republicans in regular contact with the White House, the move spurred Trump to lose patience with his team of feuding lawyers. “Trump hit the roof,” one source said. Today, Trump’s personal lawyer John Dowd resigned under pressure from Trump.
diGenova – who said in January that the Obama administration engaged in a “brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton” and “frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy,” is married to Victoria Toensing – who, as we’ve mentioned, is a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“She’s a killer,” one Republican who knows the couple told Sherman.
Toensing also happens to represent FBI whistleblower William D. Campbell – who claims to have gathered evidence of a Russian “uranium dominance strategy” which included millions of dollars routed to a Clinton charity. Campbell testified before three Congressional committees in February.
The Campbell connection makes it all the more interesting since Trump is reportedly considering adding Toensing to his legal team. In other words, Trump would be teaming up with two veteran bulldog D.C. attorneys – one of whom ostensibly has evidence in the Uranium One scandal. As Sherman points out in Vanity Fair, “The hiring of Toensing would be a sign that Trump wants to flip the script and investigate his investigators. Appearing on Fox News, Toensing has called for a second special prosecutor to investigate Mueller, the logic being that he was F.B.I. director at the time that the Uranium One acquisition was approved.”
Following Mueller’s subpoena of the Trump organization, Trump has been fuming. Last weekend, Trump encouraged John Dowd to call for an end to the Russia probe, according to Sherman. “On Sunday, Trump blasted Mueller as partisan, tweeting: “Why does the Mueller team have 13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans?””
And with the hire of Joe diGenova – it’s obvious that Trump is bringing out the big guns for a direct confrontation with Mueller, after souring on his legal team’s more diplomatic strategy:
Trump’s new offensive is a sign that he’s unilaterally abandoning the go-along, get-along strategy advocated by Dowd and Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer overseeing the response to Mueller. Cobb’s standing with Trump has been falling for months, after Cobb made the now-infamous prediction that the Russia probe would be over by Thanksgiving 2017. Dowd assured Trump that he had a “great relationship with Mueller” and could manage him, according to sources. That obviously hasn’t happened. “Trump just wants something to change and nothing was changing,” the outside adviser said. The genial and mustachioed Cobb has always been somewhat of an odd fit for Trump, whose mental picture of a lawyer is Roy Cohn, his early mentor. Sources said Trump reluctantly conceded to allow Cobb to play good cop. “Trump is looking at this saying, I did it your way for months, now I’m fucking doing it my way,” a former West Wing official said. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.) -Vanity Fair
U.S. stocks fell sharply on Thursday, with major indexes suffering their worst day in weeks as the treat of a trade war with China sparked a widespread selloff.
Losses accelerated throughout afternoon trading, pushing the S&P 500 into negative territory for the year in a decline that showed signs of panic. Also weighing on sentiment was the latest policy statement by the Federal Reserve a day earlier, which raised questions about interest-rate policy; ongoing weakness at Facebook, which led the technology sector lower; and the resignation of President Donald Trump’s lead attorney, which added another element of political uncertainty for investors.
What are the main benchmarks doing?
The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -2.93% dropped 723.42 points, or 2.9%, to end at 23,957.89. The decline took the blue-chip average to its lowest close since Feb. 8, and marked its second-lowest close of the year. At current levels, it is 10% below the all-time high hit earlier this year.
The S&P 500 SPX, -2.52% fell 68.24 points to 2,643.69, a decline of 2.5%. The benchmark index turned negative for the year, and is 8% below its all-time high. It closed at its lowest level since Feb. 9. The Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -2.43% lost 178.61 points, or 2.4%, to end at 7,166.68. The Russell 2000 index RUT, -2.24% of small-capitalization shares fell 2.1%.
For all four, the decline marked the biggest one-day drop since Feb. 8.
The day’s losses were broad, with 10 of the 11 S&P 500 sectors down on the day. Eight of the 11 fell more than 1%, with financials emerging as the weakest sector of the day. The industry dropped 3.7% and fell to a six-week low. Industrial stocks, which are seen as most sensitive to trade policy, lost 3.3%. The only positive industry group of the day was utilities, which ended up 0.4%. The group is seen as a defensive sector that outperforms in periods of economic uncertainty.
Famed whistleblower Edward Snowden was recently interviewed by Italian publication La Repubblica. The publication noted the 5-year mark of Snowden’s historic act of blowing the whistle on the NSA’s expansive surveillance programs and that >“many thought he would end up very badly, but when he connects via videolink for this interview with la Repubblica, he seems to be doing very well: the frank smile and peaceful face of someone who is easy in his mind.”
In an excerpt from the exclusive interview, Snowden explained how the presidencies of both Obama and Trump are shaped by the Deep State following an illuminating question by journalist Stefania Maurizi.
We saw that President Obama, who was an outsider to the US military-intelligence complex, initially wanted to reign in the abuses of agencies like the CIA and the NSA, but in the end he did very little. Now we see a confrontation between president Trump and so-called Deep State, which includes the CIA and the NSA. Can a US president govern in opposition to such powerful entities?
Obama is certainly an instructive case. This is a president who campaigned on a platform of ending warrantless wiretapping in the United States, he said “that’s not who we are, that’s not what we do,” and once he became the president, he expanded the program. He said he was going to close Guantanamo but he kept it open, he said he was going to limit extrajudicial killings and drone strikes that has been so routine in the Bush years. But Obama went on to authorize vastly more drone strikes than Bush. It became an industry.
As for this idea that there is a Deep State, now the Deep State is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government.
These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don’t leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go, they influence policy, they influence presidents and say: this is what we have always done, this is what we must do, and if you don’t do this, people will die.
It is very easy to persuade a new president who comes in, who has never had these powers, but has always wanted this job and wants very, very badly to do that job well. A bureaucrat sitting there for the last twenty years says: I understand what you said, I respect your principles, but if you do what you promised, people will die. It is very easy for a president to go: well, for now, I am going to set this controversy to the side, I’m going to take your advice, let you guys decide how these things should be done, and then I will revisit it, when I have a little more experience, maybe in a few months, maybe in a few years, but then they never do.
This is what we saw quite clearly happen in the case of Barack Obama: when this story [of Snowden exposing the NSA’s mass surveillance] came forward in 2013, when Obama had been president for five years, one of the defences for this from his aides and political allies was: oh, Obama was just about to fix this problem! And sure enough, he eventually was forced from the wave of criticism to make some limited reforms, but he did not go far enough to end all of the programs that were in violation of the law or the constitution of the United States. That too was an intentional choice: he could have certainly used the scandal to advocate for all of the changes that he had campaigned on, to deliver on all of his promises, but in those five years he had become president, he discovered something else, which is that there are benefits from having very powerful intelligence agencies, there are benefits from having these career bureaucrats on your side, using their spider web over government for your benefit.
Imagine you are Barack Obama, and you realise – yes, when you were campaigning you were saying: spying on people without a warrant is a problem, but then you realise: you can read Angela Merkel’s text messages. Why bother calling her and asking her opinion, when you can just read her mind by breaking the law? It sounds like a joke, but it is a very seductive thing. Secrecy is perhaps the most corrupting of all government powers, because it takes public officials and divorces them from accountability to the public.
When we look at the case of Trump, who is perhaps the worst of politicians, we see the same dynamic occurring. This is a president who said the CIA is the enemy, it’s like Nazi Germany, they’re listening to his phone calls, and all of these other things, some claims which are true, some claims which are absolutely not. A few months later, he is authorizing major powers for these same agencies that he has called his enemies.