KOMMONSENTSJANE – SECRET OBAMA MEMO COULD IMPACT JACK SMITH’S CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE AGAINST TRUMP.

5/5/2024

ttps://libertyonenews.com/secret-obama-memo-could-impact-jack-smiths-classified-documents-case-against-trump/

Look at the arrogance on Obama’s face. One sick puppy.

Follow America’s fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices. 



America First Legal, a conservative watchdog group, has discovered a confidential memo from the Obama administration that could potentially undermine Jack Smith’s assertions about President Trump lacking the power to possess or preserve classified documents.

In June, Smith formally accused Trump of 37 federal charges for housing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Trump faced 31 counts of deliberately holding onto national defense information and 6 other process crimes in a federal court in Florida. These charges were a result of his discussions with his lawyer.

In July, Jack Smith added 3 more charges against Trump in an updated indictment related to the probe into classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago.

Recently, AFL filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain additional details from the Defense Department about a covert committee initiated by Barack Obama.

In 2014, following a cyber attack by Russian hackers on the Executive Office of the President’s network, Obama established the secretive Presidential Information Technology Committee (PITC).

Via America First Legal:

In October 2014, Russian hackers breached the Executive Office of the President (EOP)’s network. In response, President Obama created, via executive action, PITC. PITC includes representatives of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others.

Why is the committee relevant today? 

First, PITC creates a presumption that the President controls all information he receives. The PITC memo established the President’s exclusive control over information resources and systems provided to the President. (§ 1, ¶ 2.). The memo created the presumption that information contained on information systems and resources was “EOP information.” ( § 4(f)). Because the memo relied upon the Federal Records Act’s definition of “information system” as resources organized for the “use” and “disposition” of “information”, the memo gives the President exclusive control over information he receives. This is relevant to what a President may reasonably believe about information given to him while in office.

Second, and related, if information stored on the PITC network formed the basis for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former President Trump, that evidence should have been disclosed to the former President and may be relevant to his liability.   

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against former President Trump, claims “Trump was not authorized to possess or retain…classified documents.” But Obama’s PITC memo may have created a reasonable belief in President Trump that he, in fact, had such authority. Additionally, if the records Trump allegedly destroyed are still preserved within the EOP or the U.S. Department of Defense as part of PITC-created information systems, then other claims in the indictment may be baseless.  

These explosive findings are consistent with America First Legal’s whitepaper contending that the President of the United States has absolute authority over presidential papers. Neither Congress nor the federal courts may lawfully abrogate or limit this authority.

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – COLLEGES ARE LYING TO THEIR STUDENTS.

5/4/2024

Interesting.

****

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colleges-are-lying-to-their-students/ar-BB1hFhur?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=86bbf3c0194b489d8636f9ee71d9ffb8&ei=35

If you’ve taken a college tour lately, either as an applicant or as the parent of an applicant, you may have noticed that at some point—usually as you’re on the death march from the aquatic center to the natural-sciences complex—the tour guide will spin smartly on her heel, do the college-tour-guide thing of performatively walking backwards, and let you in on something very important. “What’s different about College X,” she’ll say confidently, “is that our professors don’t teach you what to think. They teach you how to think.”

Whether or not you’ve heard the phrase before, it gets your attention. Can anyone teach you how to think? Aren’t we all thinking all the time; isn’t the proof of our existence found in our think-think-thinking, one banal thought at a time?

On Thinking for Yourself

On Thinking for Yourself© Provided by The Atlantic

The tour eventually ends, and in a couple of hours, you’re on another college campus, and while you’re marching from that institution’s climbing gym to its sophomore-student housing, a different tour guide spins on his heel, speeds up, and lets you in on his school’s secret: “What’s different about College Y,” he says—with what seems to be complete confidence that you haven’t heard such a thing before—“is that our professors don’t teach us what to think; they teach us how to think.”

Each of the guides seems to think this is a point of difference about his or her college, which is itself a sign that they have spent a lot more time in the “what to think” school of higher education than in the “how to think” one. When you’re visiting a college, walk through the corridors of some of the humanities departments. Look at the posters advertising upcoming events and speakers, read the course listings, or just stand silent in front of the semiotic overload of the instructors’ office doors, where wild declarations of what they think and what they plan to make you think will be valorously displayed.

Does this look like a department that is going to teach you how to think?

The truth of the matter is that no one can teach you how to think; but what they can do is teach you how to think for yourself.

To the extent that I have learned how to think for myself, it’s because my father taught me. Usually by asking me a single question.

For the love of God, I hated that question. And for some reason I always, always forgot to see it coming. My father was an academic and a writer who cared a great deal about teaching, and he was never off the clock.

There we’d be, chatting away, when some new subject or other would heave into view, and I’d launch into a long assessment of it. I’d be certain—absolutely positive—that I was right. My father would listen, head cocked a little to the side, often smiling a bit, sometimes raising his eyebrows after an especially bold point. For some reason, I would feel encouraged—not wary—and I’d bash ahead into bolder assessments.

Eventually, I’d run out of steam and finish up, with some sort of gesture meaning “case closed.”

There would be a moment of silence. And then my father would say—gently, because there was zero need to say it any other way: “And what is the best argument of the other side?”

The best argument of the other side! Jesus Christ—the other side? The whole point of the argument was to destroy the other side! I was there to illuminate and then devastate the other side by engaging deeply with the worst it had to offer.

Which is usually a light lift.

I had learned the style and the rhetorical turns of making a great case, but I didn’t know the first thing about fortifying it with facts, reason, logic—or the best argument of the side I was treating in such a cavalier way.

You don’t have to delve into the arcana of the Third Reich to destroy anyone making a case for it. But these layups rarely present themselves in decent places. Most of the time, the subjects we talk about are—for all of their flattening by cable news and internet wormholes and all the rest of it—extremely complicated.

A teacher should never do your thinking for you. She should give you texts to read and guide you along the path of making sense of them for yourself. She should introduce you to the books and essays of writers who disagree with one another and ask you to determine whose case is better.

Many college professors don’t want to do that today. They don’t want to “platform” a writer they think is wrong; they don’t want to participate in “both sides-ism.” The same thing is true for the students who pound on the doors of lecture halls and pull fire alarms and throw garbage cans down hallways to protest the 45-minute speech of a visitor.

They believe in sympathetic magic. They believe that words—even those spoken within a lecture hall—will damage them and their classmates. The truth is that they’re scared. They don’t think their ideas can outmatch those of the hated speaker.

Is there anything more satisfying than watching a debate in which the sophist gets defenestrated by someone smarter, better prepared, and obviously right?

Don’t bang on the doors of the lecture hall. Universities should book this character in the biggest auditorium they have. Broadcast him live on a campus radio station. Tell him the only requirement for his visit is that he engage in debate with a student—and then track down the young woman or man who owns this subject. And the professors who can help him or her to make the strongest possible case.

Do you think evil can stand up against that student’s case? It can’t.

The truth bats last.

In the broadest possible sense, “what’s wrong” with the modern American university is that although it still understands itself to operate under the model established by the 19th-century German university—which emphasized academic freedom, seminars, and laboratories as means of allowing students to discover the truth for themselves—it’s becoming a parody of that model. The professors are going to tell you what to think, and you’re going to backfill that “truth” with research of your own.

To college-bound students, I would say this: The college campus is full of salesmen eager to get you to buy the deluxe model without so much as a test drive. But it’s your life and your mind, and—as of present writing—you have every right to think and speak and write for yourself. You’re needed out here.

This essay is adapted from the introduction to the book On Thinking for Yourself: Instinct, Education, Dissension.

******

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/following-the-money-is-true-inside-these-institutions-we-ve-abandoned-hegseth/vi-BB1lPN1t?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a4e97929796541279b8bed8bbeeb44b9&ei=39

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – BIDEN’S CHIEF ECONOMIST LEFT BAFFLED AFTER STRUGGLING TO EXPLAIN HOW MONEY WORKS..

5/4/2024

Growing up – my Momma always said:

If a government prints too much money, it can lead to consequences:

  1. Inflation: If the money supply increases faster than output, inflation occurs.
  2. Higher Prices: Sellers raise prices for goods, services, and labor, reducing the purchasing power of money.
  3. Worthless Money: Excessive money printing can render the currency worthless12.
  4. Hyperinflation: In extreme cases, high demand due to excess money can lead to hyperinflation3.

Guess Biden’s Momma never told him that?

******

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/joe-biden-s-chief-economist-left-baffled-after-struggling-to-explain-how-money-works/ar-AA1o8kht?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e6c16771b78745dd9ea970b55ae5bf26&ei=28

Jared Bernstein, the Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to President Joe Biden, found himself in an uncomfortable situation

Jared Bernstein, the Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to President Joe Biden, found himself in an uncomfortable situation© Getty

In a recent cringe-inducing moment, Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to President Joe Biden, found himself in hot water as he struggled to explain the basic concept of how money works. This occurred during an interview for an upcoming documentary titled ‘Finding The Money’, which aims to delve into the complexities of the economy.

The film’s preview teased viewers with the elusive nature of understanding money, even for those deeply involved in economic policy-making. During one particularly uncomfortable exchange, Bernstein seemed to trip over the question of how money is created and circulated.

“We all use money, and yet the questions of what is money, and where does money come from remain elusive,” the film states in the preview.

Initially asserting that the US government cannot go bankrupt because it can print its own money, Bernstein’s response soon descended into repetition and uncertainty.

“The US government can’t go bankrupt because we can print our own money”, Bernstein initially stated, reports the Express. However, when the interviewer sought clarification on the government’s borrowing practices, Bernstein appeared to struggle with coherence.

Related video: Americans are feeling the impact of ‘Bidenomics’: Rep. Cory Mills (Fox Business)

Fox Business

Americans are feeling the impact of ‘Bidenomics’: Rep. Cory MillsUnmute

View on Watch

“Well, some of the language is just confusing. The government definitely prints its own money. The government definitely prints money and lends that money. The government definitely prints money,” Bernstein kept repeating.

“It then lends that money by selling bonds. Is that what that they do?”, Bernstein queried himself. “They sell bonds and then people buy the bonds and lend the money. Yeah,” he eventually confirmed, as if to convince himself of the response.

Despite his position as Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser, Bernstein’s struggle to explain fundamental economic principles did not go unnoticed. He openly expressed his exasperation, conceding: “I don’t get it. I don’t know what they’re talking about.”

This episode unfolds against a backdrop where economic matters are a hot topic, with inflation worries, employment concerns, and soaring prices at the center of many conversations.

Even with encouraging signs in employment figures, persistent inflation and its repercussions on interest rates remain a hurdle for numerous Americans, especially those looking to enter the housing market.

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – JUDGE MERCHAN/ALVIN BRAGG HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW – ANDY MCCARTHY.

5/4/2024

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-merchan-alvin-bragg-have-no-authority-to-enforce-federal-law-andy-mccarthy/vi-AA1o6UNd?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e6c16771b78745dd9ea970b55ae5bf26&ei=19

Judge Merchan, Alvin Bragg have no authority to enforce federal law: Andy McCarthy | Watch (msn.com)

Judge Merchan, Alvin Bragg have no authority to enforce federal law: Andy McCarthy

Fox News legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn and contributor Andy McCarthy join ‘Your World’ to discuss the latest in New York v. Trump following Hope Hicks’ testimony. 

How do these cases get on the docket if they are in the wrong court. How do State court officials get this far without being called out? Lots of wasted money being used. There should be a test before this happens so that this doesn’t happen.

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment