Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Talk of ‘pre-emptive pardons’ sets the stage for Trump to drain the Washington swamp

Published

16 seconds ago

14 minute read

President-Elect Donald Trump reacts during his meeting with Prince William, Prince of Wales at the Embassy of the United Kingdom’s Residence on December 7, 2024, in Paris, France

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

Once you understand how Donald Trump is assembling his White House and once you accept the mission of the DC system to defend itself by isolating a weak spot in the mechanism, then the assembly of cabinet based on loyalty makes sense.

Any time the professional leftists lose anything, they immediately become victims. Whether defeated in the battle of ideas (retreat to safe spaces), defeated in the field of pop culture, or even defeated linguistically through debate (words are violence). Whenever the professional left loses, they immediately become victims. It’s what they do.

The professional political left, newest version from the Chicago spawn of Dohrn/Ayers, has been waging full combat lawfare via a weaponized government for the past 16 years. However, Obama/Plouffe were defeated, “their kind” rose again and won the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

What we see in this “pre-emptive pardon” narrative, is a repeat of the victim narrative. This time the White House discussion boils down to “lawfare agents must be protected from any retaliation for their action.” Pardons presumably provide the mechanism to protect the victims. In the big picture of ideology, this is a continuation of the same mindset.

Politico started the narrative with an outline saying the White House was having an internal debate as to whether Joe Biden should pre-emptively issue pardons to members of the January 6 committee, members who constructed false impeachment accusations, members within the DOJ who fabricated political cases using the special counsel process, or generally people on the political left who supported/facilitated all the aforementioned false attack fronts.

As the narrative is told, all those who supported the attacks against President-Elect Donald Trump and his allies now need to be protected from “retribution.” Inherent in the argument, and within the use of pardons, is the baseline that some form of illegal activity was taking place. Heck, if it wasn’t unlawful conduct, then no pardon would be needed. This is the political catch-22 created by the pre-emptive pardon narrative.

Various congressional people, DOJ insiders, White House liaisons, State Department officials and underling staff are all possible recipients if Joe Biden decides to take this unprecedented approach. However, if you look at the expressed approach indicated by Trump and the assembly of cabinet members who would be in place to carry out such “retribution,” you will not find any indication of intent. Quite the opposite is true.

Trump does not appear to be in alignment with any approach that would lead to legal indictments, arrests, charges or other legal accountability measures.  Beyond the public release of hidden, perhaps classified information that might put sunlight on the previous activity by those who weaponized their offices, there is nothing. Sunlight on prior events, while moving forward to restore functioning law and order, appears to be the most likely approach. From Politico:

… White House officials, however, are carefully weighing the extraordinary step of handing out blanket pardons to those who’ve committed no crimes, both because it could suggest impropriety, only fueling Trump’s criticisms, and because those offered preemptive pardons may reject them.

The deliberations touch on pardoning those currently in office, elected and appointed, as well as former officials who’ve angered Trump and his loyalists.

Those who could face exposure include such members of Congress’ Jan. 6 Committee as Sen.-elect Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming. Trump has previously said Cheney “should go to Jail along with the rest of the Unselect Committee!” Also mentioned by Biden’s aides for a pardon is Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who became a lightning rod for criticism from the right during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The West Wing deliberations have been organized by White House counsel Ed Siskel but include a range of other aides, including chief of staff Jeff Zients. The president himself, who was intensely focused on his son’s pardon, has not been brought into the broad.

All outward indications are that Trump wants to create a legacy presidency for the Gen-Z generation (Barron), similar to what was created by Ronald Reagan for the Gen-X generation. Selecting Susie Wiles as chief of staff is the strongest indication of this intent.

The appointments to White House legal counsel positions and main justice legal offices by Trump all appear to have one common denominator: to protect the president. I strongly doubt there will be any effort beyond that.

Big picture

Once you understand what Trump is assembling (the phalanx) and once you accept the mission of the D.C. system to defend itself by isolating a weak spot in the mechanism, then everything from the assembly of the cabinet to the process being discussed makes sense.

Within a phalanx, if one shield drops the entire construct is compromised. The strongest shields need to surround the core with ferocity.

The recent Supreme Court decision affirmed the president of the United States as the unitary, plenary power that controls every mechanism of the executive branch of government, and as long as the president is acting within his “official duty” he holds absolute power and absolute immunity.

Think of each cabinet member as a shield in this political phalanx that surrounds the weapon, Trump.

Yes, the phalanx is by construct an offensive fortification used to advance upon the enemy. However, the strength of the phalanx is its ability to be impervious to attack from 360°.

The phalanx advances, inch by inch, against a larger fortification. In the transition team assembly, this is what Trump is putting together.

Hegseth is a key component of the phalanx, the fortification process that puts Trump at the center of the cabinet. Each component of the cabinet protecting the center.

The phalanx is the mechanism to carry the weapon that is President Donald Trump. The D.C. UniParty is looking for a weakness in the phalanx, like a wolf circling a porcupine.

Trump has turned his focus to the “war fighters,” the men and women who carry out the mission objective of the Defense Department. The nomination of Pete Hegseth represents the confrontation of a power struggle that has been decades in making.

The self-serving senators are trying to block Hegseth, while maintaining a position of pretending support for Trump. The DeceptiCon republicans in the Senate are in full circling mode, looking for a weakness to exploit.

The schemes of the conniving Republican senators are transparently visible in the efforts of Senator Joni Ernst, who is circling the phalanx Trump is creating – while simultaneously inserting herself into the DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) mission.

Ernst is doing Mitch McConnell’s work, under instruction from John Thune and Mitch. See Ernst with clear eyes.

One does not become unattached to corrupt intent.

Clear eyes!

 

I did not think President-elect Trump had the accurate laser vision for the task.

I was getting concerned.

Then I saw the very specific wording of this:

The McGinley move makes a lot of sense. DOGE and the Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) are going to be joined at the hip. They are going to have to navigate the Impoundment Control Act, challenging the system that places limits on a president’s ability to unilaterally withhold funding.

Inside that legal battle, deciding what DOGE can do without legislative approval, the OMB is going to be the execution part. McGinley will be the legal liaison focused on what technical approaches DOGE/OMB can execute. In essence, can they stop funding XX, thereby eliminating it?

That said, that’s not the important part.

The language Trump is using to describe the role of David A. Warrington, the switched White House counsel, is something entirely new.

Donald Trump says: “to serve as Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President. Dave will lead the Office of White House Counsel and serve as the top attorney in the White House.”

Normally the White House counsel does not represent the interests of the president, the WHC represents the interests of the office.

It would appear to me, at least as I review the details, that Trump is now fully aware how his presidential interests can sometimes conflict with the interests of the White House counsel, and he is making a move to ensure that conflict doesn’t happen.

An example of the conflict I have explained repeatedly in the “declassification of information.”

Not kidding, it is almost as if someone very close to Trump read something I previously outlined, because it came with a serious warning borne out of years of frustration:

In Term-1 the IC message to the WH Counsel was that if Donald Trump declassified any documents, they would use the DOJ (special counsel weapon) to attack the office of the president for “obstructing justice.” The WHC was fraught with fear over what would happen and demanded that POTUS Trump stop trying to declassify information/documents the IC didn’t support.

The way Trump is now portraying the role of the White House counsel is to represent his interests first and foremost, then represent the interests of the office. In a few subtle, and not so subtle ways, this makes sense.

We can tell by the nominations to attorney general, deputy attorney general, and assistant attorney general-national security division, that main justice is already positioned to defend and protect Donald Trump. The people in charge of the silo are all loyalty-first people, aligned in the interests of Trump.

It would appear that Trump is now bringing that same outlook into the White House. The White House counsel aligning in common purpose, with the specific purpose of executing the intentions of President Donald Trump.

I’m glad to see this approach, because as I have repeatedly affirmed, only President Trump (the person) can confront the silo system in Washington, D.C.

That’s why the phalanx makes sense.

Reprinted with permission from Conservative Treehouse.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 16 seconds ago

Talk of ‘pre-emptive pardons’ sets the stage for Trump to drain the Washington swamp

Health / 1 hour ago

The People Cheering Brian Thompson’s Murder Can’t Have the Medical Utopia That They Want

Daily Caller / 11 hours ago

Daniel Penny Stands By His Actions, Says He’d Face Court ‘Million’ Times To Save Others

Health

The People Cheering Brian Thompson’s Murder Can’t Have the Medical Utopia That They Want

Published on December 11, 2024

By

Whether private or public, third-party payment for health care is a huge problem.

Evoking a collective scream of despair from socialists and anti-corporate types, police in Pennsylvania arrested Luigi Mangione, a suspect in the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Thompson, they insist, stood in the way of the sort of health care they think they deserve and shooting him down on the street was some sort of bloody-minded strike for justice.

The assassin’s fans—and the legal system has yet to convict anybody for the crime—are moral degenerates. But they’re also dreaming, if they think insurance executives like Thompson are all that stands between them and their visions of a single-payer medical system that satisfies every desire. While there is a lot wrong with the main way health care is paid for and delivered in the U.S., what the haters want is probably not achievable, and the means many of them prefer would make things worse.

“Unlimited Care…Free of Charge”

“It is an old joke among health policy wonks that what the American people really want from health care reform is unlimited care, from the doctor of their choice, with no wait, free of charge,” Michael Tanner, then of the Cato Institute, quipped in 2017.

The problem, no matter how health care is delivered, is that it requires labor, time, and resources that are available in finite supply. Somebody must decide how to allocate medications, treatments, physicians, and hospital beds, and how to pay for it all. A common assumption in some circles is that Americans ration medicine by price, handing an advantage to the wealthy and sticking it to the poor.

“Today, as everyone knows, health care in the US can be prohibitively expensive even for people who have insurance,” Dylan Scott sniffed this week at Vox.

The alternative, supposedly, is one where health care is “universal,” with bills paid by government so everybody has access to care. Except, most Americans rely on somebody else to pay the bulk of their medical bills just like Canadians, Germans, and Britons. And while there are huge differences among the systems presented as alternatives to the one in the U.S., third-party payers—whether governments or insurance companies—do enormous damage to the provision of health care.

Third-Party Payers, Both Public and Private, Raise Costs

“Contrary to ‘conventional wisdom,’ health insurance—private or otherwise—does not make health care more affordable,” Jeffrey Singer, a surgeon and senior fellow with the Cato Institute, wrote in 2013. “The third party payment system is the principal force behind health care price inflation.”

In the U.S., the dominance of third-party payment, whether Thompson’s UnitedHealthcare, one of its competitors, Medicare, Medicaid, or something else, makes it difficult to know the price for procedures, medicines, and treatments—because there really isn’t one price when third-party payers are involved.

Several years ago, the first Trump administration required hospitals to publish prices for services. My local hospital offers an Excel spreadsheet with wildly varying prices for procedures and services, from different categories of self-pay, Medicare, Medicaid, and negotiated rates for competing insurance plans.

“A colonoscopy might cost you or your insurer a few hundred dollars—or several thousand, depending on which hospital or insurer you use,” NPR’s Julie Appleby pointed out in 2021.

That said, savvy patients paying their own bills can usually get a lower price than that paid by insurance.

“When government, lawyers, or third party insurance is responsible for paying the bills, consumers have no incentive to control costs,” Arthur Laffer, Donna Arduin, and Wayne Winegarden wrote in the 2009 paper, The Prognosis for National Health Insurance. After all, the premium or tax is already paid, right?

Other Countries Struggle With Similar Issues

Concerns about rising costs, demand, and finite resources apply just as much when the payer is the government.

“State health insurance patients are struggling to see their doctors towards the end of every quarter, while privately insured patients get easy access,” Germany’s Deutsche Welle reported in 2018. “The researchers traced the phenomenon to Germany’s ‘budget’ system, which means that state health insurance companies only reimburse the full cost of certain treatments up to a particular number of patients or a particular monetary value.” Budgeting is quarterly, and once it’s exhausted, that’s it.

Last year in the U.K., a Healthwatch report complained: “We’re seeing a two-tier system emerge, where healthcare is accessible only to those who can afford it, with one in seven people who responded to our poll advised to seek private care by NHS [National Health Service] staff.” Britain’s NHS remains popular, but it has long struggled with the demand and expense for cancer care and other expensive treatments.

And Canada’s single-payer system famously relies heavily on long wait times to ration care. “In 2023, physicians report a median wait time of 27.7 weeks between a referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment,” the Fraser Institute found last year. “This represents the longest delay in the survey’s history and is 198% longer than the 9.3 weeks Canadian patients could expect to wait in 1993.”

You have to wonder what those so furious at Brian Thompson that they would applaud his murder would say about the officials managing systems elsewhere. None of them deliver “unlimited care, from the doctor of their choice, with no wait, free of charge.” Some lack the minimal discipline imposed by what competition exists among insurers in the U.S.

We Need Less Government Involvement in Medicine

“Policymakers need to understand that the key to ‘affordable health care’ is not to increase the role of health insurance in peoples’ lives, but to diminish it,” Cato’s Singer concluded.

My family found that true when we contracted with a primary care practice that refuses insurance. We pay fixed annual fees, which includes exams, laboratory services, and some procedures. My doctor caught my atrial fibrillation when he walked me across his clinic hall on a hunch to run an EKG.

The Surgery Center of Oklahoma famously follows a similar model for much more than primary care. It publishes its prices, which don’t include the overhead and uncertainty of dealing with third-party payers.

Those examples point to a better health care system than what exists in the United States—or in most other countries, for that matter. They’re probably not the whole answer, because it’s unlikely that one approach will suit millions of people with different medical concerns, incomes, and preferences. But making people more, rather than less, responsible for their own health care, and getting government and other third-parties as far out of the matter as possible, is far better than cheering the murder of people who supposedly stand between us and an imaginary medical utopia.
Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Daniel Penny Stands By His Actions, Says He’d Face Court ‘Million’ Times To Save Others

Published on December 10, 2024

By

Former Marine Daniel Penny said Tuesday that he stands by his actions, despite enduring years of harsh criticism. (Screenshot/Fox News)

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Mariane Angela

Former Marine Daniel Penny said Tuesday that he stands by his actions on a New York City subway, despite enduring years of harsh criticism.

During an interview with Judge Jeanine Pirro on “The Five,” Penny revealed his motivations and said he intervened to prevent potential harm as he prioritizes the safety of others over his personal comfort with the public and media attention. He added that he would endure a “million court appearances and the hatred and name-calling that comes with them” if it meant preventing even one person from coming to harm.

“This type of this is very uncomfortable. All this attention and limelight is very uncomfortable. I would prefer without it. I didn’t want any type of attention or praise.. and I still don’t. The guilt I would have felt if someone did get hurt if he did do what he was threatening to do, I would never be able to live with myself,” Penny told Pirro when she asked him what made him choose to get involved.

Penny also touched on the broader implications of his experience and criticized the policies of liberal city leaders, which he believes contributed to the subway incident.

“These public officials would do something so self-serving… These political gain, I mean these are their policies and I don’t mean to get political or make enemies, although I guess I have already,” Penny said.

A Manhattan court found Penny not guilty on Monday after the jury dismissed a charge of second-degree manslaughter last week when they could not reach a unanimous verdict. Penny subdued 30-year-old Jordan Neely in May 2023 with a chokehold after Neely began exhibiting erratic behavior on a New York City subway.

Law enforcement sources and witnesses on the F train described Neely as yelling and acting unpredictably, prompting passengers to feel threatened. According to prosecutors, Penny maintained the chokehold on Neely for around six minutes.

Penny’s lawyer, attorney Thomas Kenniff, previously said he was confident that a Manhattan jury would focus solely on the facts, not racial issues, despite a recent refusal to dismiss the case.

Continue Reading

Trending

X