03 Apr 20 (TWENTY-FIFTH article in a series)
Allow me to paint you a picture. Hillary Clinton’s prolific political collapse and Donald Trump’s meteoric rise and historic presidential election provide our backdrop circa 08 Nov 16. There was a reason Clinton refused to address the American public that fateful night; instead dispatching John Podesta to do the difficult, responsible, adult-level work; and almost certainly because she was too drunk to do it herself. But rather than concede and apparently because of Hillary’s position toward “mine,” she instead had Podesta issue an order to stay-tuned.
Before we get into it, if you are new please see the HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS including the hypothesis for our position at the bottom otherwise you’re about ready to jump into the middle of the ocean with no shoreline in sight.
Focusing on the crux date of our hypothesis – 13 Jan 17 / presidential transition meetings – remember what I wrote previously in the 11th article HERE, as it relates to then President Obama taking action to augment the presidential transition process,
First, realize this. With almost near certainty, internal polling likely informed the Obama administration that Hillary Clinton had no chance of winning the 2016 election in the months ahead. Heck, to know this all you had to do was look at the complete dearth of audience and following that she had at all of her campaign events and recalling that she essentially refused to hold any (Hillary napped through campaign season.) To the contrary, candidate Trump’s crowd sizes were akin to what we see today. Just like we know right now that the Democrats are dead in the water for 2020, it is virtually guaranteed that they knew they were dead in the water for 2016 when they passed this law on 18 Mar 16. So then, WHY did they pass it? That’s a rhetorical question.
So, we can firmly establish that the Democrats are/were dead in the water for 2020, but where does that leave them on the eve of the most significant and consequential election in US history? In a drastic position? Drastic times call for drastic measures, do they not; especially for a group that won’t quit and is facing it’s own demise?
So, here we sit locked-down apparently until June and with the Left now pushing for contingent 2020 voting options that are ripe for corruption, fraud and theft. See HERE and HERE, for example and then ask yourself if all of this all just ANOTHER coincidence.
It seems HRC was never supposed to lose and no one except for a few of us who ignored the polls and focused on campaign events and crowd sizes saw it coming. Perhaps there is a reason that Hillary reportedly chose to utter these words on that fateful night, “If that fucking bastard wins, we’ll all hang from nooses.”
Do you get the sense that losing is not an option for these people? If you don’t you should because right now their losing has the world locked down and us sitting in our homes like Bill Murray in ‘Groundhog Day’; at least hypothetically. With each passing day, though, it appears that our hypothesis is looking less and less hypothetical.
As we move forward, it is absolutely imperative to understand this very specific point – President Trump does not have the country on lock-down; with a closed and failing economy, rather Drs. Birx and Fauci do. Be sure to remember that – it’s a finer but substantial detail.
Let’s recall the most fundamental aspect in all of this, which is what the asserted political construct does, as I discussed in-depth in this article HERE. Here’s what I wrote,
What we’re really focusing on here today (and in all of this, really) is the subtlety and nuance in politics whereby one entity is leveraging legal mechanisms applicable to designated targets so as to trigger those mechanisms and cause certain, predetermined outcomes to manifest. Subsequently, the target is exposed to the dynamics of the predetermined outcome/s. When the target interfaces with those dynamics as coupled with the target’s response, the details of those events are normally used to set, adjust or alter the narrative in predetermined, chosen ways. The public’s interface with this is through the MSM – that’s the delivery point for the end product, which is essentially manufactured and shaped propaganda (see SMITH-MUNDT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2012.)
That’s what a construct is and it’s nothing new. It’s an archaic strategy. In both cases – the COVID-19 construct (our hypothesis) and the Democrats’ failed impeachment effort – the political constructs were designed to cause a TRANSFER of authority, but in different ways; for different reasons and with entirely different outcomes, other than furthering the treasonous and seditious effort against this duly elected president. In the case of the COVID-19, the transfer functions to usurp emergency powers granted to the President of the United States while also establishing a landscape of controversy to be used to further extend the unrelenting attack on him. In the case of impeachment, the transfer functioned to impede and obfuscate that same President’s right to timely due process as a function of the broader effort to undermine and attack him and his administration as much as it worked for campaign, political and self-preservation purposes. It’s all different, but it’s all the same and it’s all rooted in transferring authority to hi-jack authority or impede it.
Factually, Russia, Ukraine and impeachment represent three sequential, transitional events and after each losing effort, this cohort of miscreants pressed forward to the next interrelated construct. That’s what these types do – they’re not like the entire literal rest of the country; or the world for that matter. Rather, this cartel plays by significantly different rules so keep that in mind because it matters in the most important ways. It’s reported that Winston Churchill once stated, “If you’re going through hell, keep going. It seems this band of miscreants kept going. No?
Then ask yourself these two very simple questions that must be taken in order:
1 – Did they keep going or did they quit after a failed impeachment?
What do you think the answer is? The evidence demonstrates that they most certainly kept going. Therefore, on the presumption that they kept going:
2- In what direction did they go?
If we agree that losing was not an option and they were compelled to continue moving forward, then in what direction did they go? If you follow it sequentially and incrementally, the gaps require little to no bridging whatsoever; rather these transitional events easily flow from one to the other and are reflective of elements of planning. TIMING can be so revealing in this way.
Look at this (incomplete) timeline below as presented and since augmented from the 24th article, which is sourced HERE. It provides for further understanding of how the actions of the WHO and the impeachment process braid together with COVID-19 like a rope. See this article HERE.
I’ve DENOTED the relevant markers but pay special attention to those denoted in RED:
11 Jan 17: Fauci makes a public statement: “During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak.” (SOURCE)
13 Jan 17: Hypothetical insertion point for political construct during Obama/Trump transition meetings.
13 Nov: DOJ/FBI Tactical Intelligence Report> China<>WMDD<>US
17 Nov: Revised (backwards) 1st COVID-19 case: Wuhan, China
05 Dec: Pelosi authorizes drafting of Articles of Impeachment
09 Dec: 21 vials stolen> Boston/Logan Intl. bio-hazard
10 Dec: Boston/Logan Intl. bio-hazard/China arrest, Nadler> AOIs
13 Dec: Nadler’s Judiciary Committee votes to impeach
18 Dec: Full House vote to impeach Trump
27 Dec: Initial (original) 1st COVID-19 case: Wuhan, China> 17 Nov
15 Jan: House: AOIs>Senate, impeachment mgrs., engrossment ceremony
16 Jan: Senate formally receives AOIs
20 Jan: 1st COVID-19 case: US, Senate receives AOIs
21 Jan: Senate votes on trial rules, FAUCI> COVID NOT MAJOR THREAT
22 Jan: Senate trial> prosecution opening arguments
23 Jan: Senate trial> prosecution opening arguments
24 Jan: Senate trial> pros. ends opening arg., Loeffler begins dumping stock
25 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
26 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
27 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
28 Jan: Senate trial> defense ends opening arguments
31 Jan: Bolton witness debate, Feinstein begins dumping stock
05 Feb: Senate acquits Trump
13 Feb: Burr dumps stock
11 Mar: Pandemic/emergency declaration, (DONE IN 30) > to 12 Apr.
12 Mar: Trump orders and takes-out Iranian commander
15 Mar: Saudi Arabia> mass arrests (SA –> US –> Asia –> EU), Fed rate cut, FAUCI> ABC> 21 million coronavirus hospitalizations, up to 1.7 million dead
19 Mar: Lock-downs begin
24 Mar: DHS essential personnel moved to NORAD, NVSS issues COVID-19 diagnosis shaping memo
25 Mar: HHS OIG announces it will investigate Trump over COVID-19
27 Mar: National Guard called-up, Trump nationalizes GM, stimulus passed
28 Mar: Projected beginning date for virus peak
29 Mar: FAUCI> REVISION> 100s of 1000s dead, millions infected, Pelosi/attack>DJT
30 Mar: Projected that banks would close> did not happen
31 Mar: Trump tweets “30 Days to Slow the Spread” > 4/30 > 5/1
01 Apr: Schiff> 9/11 style COVID-19 commission, Military> cartels
02 Apr: Pelosi> oversight investigation> Trump ongoing pandemic response, FAUCI> CALLS FOR NATIONWIDE LOCK-DOWN
03 Apr: Projected that markets would close through 13 Apr
10 Apr: Projected worst day 1
11 Apr: Projected worst day 2
12 Apr: Easter Sunday – POTUS’ initial objective end date
13 Apr: INITIAL PROJECTED END-DATE (now revised farther ahead)
30 Apr: Extended ended date for federal guidelines – 30 to slow/done in 30
01 May: Projected end date for virus peak
23 May: Lock-downs begin to relax
06 Jun: Lock-downs end
11 Jun: Identified date / significance unknown
Looking back on all of my analysis on Russia, UKRAINE, Mueller and IMPEACHMENT; especially as it relates to the President’s enemies leveraging and finessing the finer aspects of the law; otherwise known as politics, it becomes quite simple to see the big “gotcha” trap that impeachment was. It was NOT; however, properly predicated, constitutional, based or founded and that peculiarity gave rise to greater, inexplicable concerns and outside of our hypothesis, NO ONE can explain them.
Most important in all of this and it’s essentially what I’ve done and continue to do, is that the elemental evidence can be arranged to suggest that IMPEACHMENT did not stand along. Impeaching the President was a parallel objective while the devised primary objective was to run cover for COVID-19 – the Left’s REAL OBJECTIVE. Articles HERE and HERE and HERE and a full catalog of 25 articles HERE all speak to that.
Yeah, crazy, right? Maybe not so much if folks care to take the time to examine the relevant elemental evidence, which is in abundance.
With all of that established, let’s get to the anecdotal evidence that further demonstrates that our hypothesis is less of a hypothesis and more of an ongoing investigation seeking the truth.
Here’s an article from CNN that demonstrates how the Left continually uses “science” to accomplish policy and legislative objectives. They’ve used cooked-up and fraudulent weather data for decades thus driving the mechanism to export US taxpayer money all over the globe (Globalists!) under the name of “global warming,” until their data didn’t work and they changed it to “climate change.” It’s an old recipe> establish a bullshit theory, provide a bunch of bullshit evidence to support it and then rob the American taxpayer blind like the thieving bullshit artists they are. This time though, they’re using “science” to obliterate an historic economy and lock all of us inside of our homes in hopes of stealing the White House in 2020. If you care to read that junk article entitled ‘How Fauci and Birx got Trump to listen to science,’ it is linked HERE.
Consider this article HERE from one of my top three sources, Conservative Treehouse. I outlined the Deep State entanglements and questionable actions from Birx and Fauci roughly mid-March and now CTH is coming around on the same level. That’s significant. CTH’s technical analysis is second to none. This one quote sums it up best and remember that both Fauci and Birx are Obama holdovers and long-tenured Deep State human assets that President Trump inherited,
During the coronavirus briefing on Wednesday April 1st, Dr. Fauci stated -and no media challenged him- that CDC guidelines for “stay-at-home” directives would remain in place until all new cases ceased, & deaths were no longer happening. This could take years.CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE
Years? Yeah, years. Fauci actually said that. That’s ABSURD.
Now consider infectious disease specialist Dr. Stephen Smith’s findings as sourced HERE at TGP. Based upon his work in East Orange, NJ, he delineates the notion that COVID-19’s infection rate seems to predominately pose a risk to overweight, diabetic-prone older citizens.
More specifically, what else do additional statistics tell us as sourced HERE at TGP? They tell us that 99% of coronavirus fatalities have pre-existing conditions and that 94% of fatalities are over age 45.
So, we see that the measures being taken are not congruent with and are historically disproportionate according to the data at hand. Here’s is more evidence of the disproportionate response being handed-down by Fauci and Birx.
Consider this quote and tweet as sourced HERE by TGP, “The IMHE study predicted over 121,000 Americans would be hospitalized by Wednesday over the Coronavirus. The actual number was 31,142.” Remember that the USNS Mercy and Comfort both have 1,000 beds and as of the time the article was written only 3 and 15 patients had been admitted, respectively.
We take note of the fact that throughout all of this – the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic, that the WHO, which is controlled and funded primarily by two entities – Bill Gates and China – and China have routinely put up conflicting and confusing data points. We know the information is an ever-changing hot mess and it could all be by design, or so the evidence suggests.
So then, what can we learn from countries that have done it differently? What can we learn from those who took a different approach than Fauci and Birx? Let’s consider Sweden as sourced HERE by TGP.
What has Sweden done differently? That’s simple – they applied common sense and kept on trucking with an open economy like the US used to before the Globalists starting ushering in this ‘new normal’ under COVID-19.
Here is some more anecdotal evidence to consider. As you do, recall that as we speak, President Trump WAS sitting on the most historically successful administration and economy in contemporary times while the Democrats had lost Russia, Ukraine and impeachment and weren’t inclined to give-up, either. Moreover, they have no message except for identity politics and all of the “‘isms” – no new ideas; no polling numbers; no solutions; no chance; and realistically and given Joe Biden’s disastrous campaign performance thus far and on top of his prolific corruption that stands to come out, THEY DON’T EVEN HAVE A CANDIDATE.
Remember that 13 Nov 19 is an important date as outlined in this article HERE because that’s the date on the sourced intelligence report that provided the initial notice of an outbreak in the Wuhan region. This date – early to mid-November – comports with our assertion that not only did Pelosi and Schiff know about the national security ramifications of the outbreak via the intelligence report, they wittingly dismissed them in order to pursue their impeachment construct. We assert that based on the evidence, the FBI knew of the Wuhan region outbreak by at least October 2019 and in their respective positions, Schiff and Pelosi (and Nadler and the rest of them) also knew.
So between October 2019 and 27 Dec 19 (the initially reported Wuhan outbreak date), what did Adam and Nancy do? See the above timeline> the were only concerned with driving IMPEACHMENT. Why?
Now consider these these extracts with emphasis added and from this article HERE that was published on 23 Dec 19. Recall that this date is four days before the 27 Dec 19 initial Wuhan outbreak report and two days before Christmas:
Wall Street closed sharply higher on Friday, buoyed by positive development on trade war front and strong economic data. All three major stock indexes closed in the green and achieved fresh record highs. For the week also, these indexes ended in positive territory.
The Dow closed in positive territory with 22 components of the 30-stock blue-chip index closing in the green.
The tech-laden Nasdaq Composite also ended in the positive territory for the eight straight days due to strong performance of tech stocks. The S&P 500 also finished in the green. The Health Care Select Sector SPDR (XLV) gained 0.3%. Notably, eight out of 11 sectors of the benchmark index closed in the red while three finished in the green.
On Dec 20, President Donald Trump said that he had a “very good talk” with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and that a formal signing of a partial U.S.-China trade deal is being arranged. On Dec 13, both the United States and China declared that they have reached a phase-one trade deal likely to be signed by the two presidents in the first half of January.
On Dec 20, the Department of Commerce reaffirmed that the U.S. economy grew 2.1% in the third quarter of 2019. Notably, consumer spending, which constitutes 70% of the country’s GDP grew 3.2% in the third quarter, revised upward from 2.9% reported earlier. Consumer spending increased 0.4% in November, reflecting its fastest pace in four months.
Last week was a fabulous one for Wall Street. The Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite gained 1.2%, 1.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Possibility of the signing of a phase-one trade deal between the United States and China and strong economic data were primary drivers.
Four days after that economic data was published (even though the FBI, Schiff, Pelosi and others had known since at least mid-November and likely back to October), COVID-19 reportedly breaks-out in Wuhan, China. That changes everything and now we have to ask whether or not is again coincidental or by design. Consider these headlines and data points with articles linked:
Last night in real time, I posted this on social media.
It should come as no surprise that on the same day, Dr. Facui said this, and note – he sprinted to CNN of all places to directly contradict the President, which is now a pattern for him.
But what did Fauci have to say about COVID-19, the broader threat and anything that may resemble a national lock-down months before back in January?
Let’s be blunt. Yesterday’s clip is Fauci applying pressure on the President on a national platform patently antithetical to the President’s agenda and to him personally so as to coerce policy into alignment per his handlers and principals – PERIOD. Go back-up to the timeline and examine the actions towards impeachment relative to the WHO’s actions relative to those of Fauci, et al. If you don’t see the overlap, maneuvers and transitional aspects of it all, I don’t know what to tell you other than, “Enjoy the Kool-Aid.”
It gets worse.
Consider these headlines:
Millions Of Small Businesses Stunned To Learn They Are Not Eligible For Bailout Loans – ARTICLE
March Jobs Disaster: 701,000 Jobs Lost, Unemplyment Rate Soars Most In 45 Years As US Slides Into Depression – ARTICLE
And what does the Left want to do with this brand new crisis – same old crap:
It gets worse. Remember that November intelligence report citing the early notification of the Wuhan regional outbreak? Guess what? In that same report, it was indicated that a second intelligence report existed whereby the suspected smuggling of bio-weapons had been marked as FISA and therefore all of the information contained in it had been collected under FISA authority. Yeah, FISA. The question that now remains is whether that is an overlap with the FISA abuses that targeted the Trump umbrella and if so, what are those details?
On 18 Dec 19, in a mad and inexplicable rush, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. For over a month and while resting on an incomplete and shoddy case; and haggling about transferring the onus to call witnesses to the Senate, Pelosi then refused to transmit the Articles of Impeachment. Once she did, the Senate rightfully acquitted President Trump in short order on 05 Feb 20.
Three months and one day from the vote to impeach, the most historic presidency and economy the US has ever seen has been reduced to shambles….. and they want you to believe it was merely a coincidence. If you believe that, you get what you deserve. Otherwise, realize that America is being ushered-in to the next ‘new normal’ just as it was with 9/11.
We’ll end on a contextually funny note – anybody else feeling like this???
If you’re brand new, there is a recommendation as to where to begin catching up posted at the very bottom.
Hypothesis (developed over time with emerging research):
Our hypothesis asserts that this political construct was inserted into President Trump’s administration during compulsory Obama/Trump transition meetings on 13 Jan 17. That’s the same day the MSM decided to release the cooked-up Flynn/Russia story preemptively and with Flynn taking part in those meetings. Unsurprisingly, the immediate talking points from Obama administration officials and others in-the-know were about the disrupted, off-kilter, reluctant and awkward nature of the meeting. How convenient for them to build their future MSM talking points into the meeting by designing and timing those dynamics. Since the insertion point, a mountain of correlated and interconnected evidence further propels this hypothesis as represented in this growing catalog of articles.
28 Mar 20 Update: What used to be a looser conversational group has grown and, over the course of this pandemic, has become a small team of folks working together most of the day every day. Much of what I’m writing recently is a product of that collective work and/or my own opinion as influenced by that group.
Requisite disclaimer – This has now grown into a sizable series of articles on the COVID-19 coronavirus. Understand that all of this began simply with some curiosity about whom may stand to gain or benefit with the discovery of a promising treatment identified as Remdesivir – no more and no less; it’s that simple.
QAnon disclaimer: I give much time to QAnon and for this simple reason – no matter if you believe QAnon to be absolutely real or absolutely fake, QAnon has consistently remained in front of the news cycle; with great accuracy, over time and while the MSM and other “news” outlets have consistently gotten it wrong for that same time. Yes, you have to dig to get the information but the doormats are conveniently placed in front of you if you care to enter. I care to enter.
There was never an intent to write a single article; much less a series of them. The rabbit hole into which I placed myself diverged many times over transitioning into a mess of global entanglements that converted this work from an exploratory exercise to one hunting for evidence to scaffold an hypothesis. The content, therefore, is affected and takes a different tone and direction. For deeper understanding, here is the CATALOG of all articles in this series.
At this point, I’ve covered so much ground that attempting to recapitulate it to introduce each new article has become too cumbersome. Please refer back to the catalog for a deeper contextual backdrop to what appears above. To save time, I would encourage you to START WITH THE NINTH ARTICLE (it serves as a recapitulation of the first eight and launches the effort in another direction, which is where we are right now and which is seemingly in the midst of a global 9/11; assuming the fulcrum point of the truth continues to shift in favor of my suspicions relative to the evidence uncovered thus far.)
Categories: COVID-19 Coronavirus