[BOMBSHELL] "Russian Collusion" - Democrats knew it was a lie from the start

I ain't clicking that, but you could include the author's name for this editorial. it's certainly not news.

 

That is incorrect. Thomas Jefferson famously said the voters don't know everything.

“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. But... the spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive... The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented... The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith, 1787

The constitution is absolutely a living breathing document ...as illustrated right out of the gate with the bill of rights. They are all making things up as they go along, past and present, because a lot has changed in society the last 250 years. The founding fathers never imagined automobiles, F-18s, the Internet, or even AI.

Ah, the old I justify my bad behavior because you do it too argument.

The issue at hand isn't the age-old argument of is gerrymandering bad.

The issue is America, both sides, has been gerrymandering for so long that America is now at an inflection point. The issue isn't what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The issue now is the absolutely consolidation of power, which that outcomes is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent. That was literally the whole point of the constitution. If Trump were to run for president for a 3rd term, it's over. He's fully consolidated power and he and his family will never relinquish it and there is nothing you and I can do to stop it, outside of revolution. This is not hyperbole.

Petty differences between conservatives and liberals is only a distraction at this point from what is really happening.

 

link will work for everyone

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-...d?st=Qehn91&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Trump Is Right on ‘Debanking’
Regulators have abused their power to cut off political opponents.
By The Editorial Board
Updated Aug. 8, 2025 6:50 pm ET

Most Republicans and Democrats would agree that nobody should be denied access to financial services because of politics or religion. That’s essentially what President Trump’s executive order on Thursday declares, though preventing “debanking” may require Congress.

President Trump’s family business sued Capital One this year for allegedly closing the company’s accounts after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and claimed other large banks rejected $1 billion in his cash deposits. We can’t confirm his claims, but people across the political spectrum in recent years have said their accounts were cancelled for unexplained reasons.

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen last autumn said he was aware of 30 tech entrepreneurs who were “debanked in the last four years.” The Alliance Defending Freedom keeps a list of de-banked conservative groups. The Blockchain Association has identified “more than 30 concrete cases” of de-banking owing to “involvement in the digital asset industry.”

Banks admit to de-banking, though they fault their regulators. Much as Biden officials pressured social-media companies to censor dissenters during the pandemic, bank examiners have pressed banks to cut off certain groups, businesses or individuals.

Starting in the mid-1990s, financial regulators started considering “reputational risk” in grading banks for safety and soundness. If a bank provides services to an unsavory business, examiners could sanction it. During Operation Choke Point, Obama regulators pushed banks to cut off gun retailers and payday lenders by deeming them reputational risks.

Regulators backed off after Republicans in Congress exposed the pressure campaign, but Biden appointees used the same tactic to clamp down on crypto. Banking regulators this year committed not to grade banks based on reputational risk, and Mr. Trump’s order directs them to remove it from guidance documents and examination manuals.

But what’s to stop the next Democratic President from reversing course? After the Federal Reserve in June said it would eliminate reputational risk from bank exams, leftwing groups objected. The Fed’s move “seeks to entrench certain companies and industries, such as fossil fuels and cryptocurrency,” said Public Citizen.

Legislation is the best way to stop another Operation Choke Point. South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott has introduced a bill to prohibit financial regulators from considering reputational risk, and Reps. Andy Barr and Ritchie Torres have offered a bipartisan companion bill in the House. Perhaps Mr. Trump could broker a bipartisan deal.

Another reason for de-banking is the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires banks to build profiles on customers, monitor their activity, and file Suspicious Activity Reports, or SARs, with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network if they suspect illicit activity. Such “know your customer” rules are intended to prevent money laundering.

But the FBI and Treasury abused the system to conduct a dragnet investigation of conservatives. A House Judiciary Committee report last fall detailed how the FBI “suggested” banks file SARs on “suspicious” people tied to the Jan. 6 riot so they could investigate them without a warrant. There’s no such thing as a “suggestion” from government overlords.

The Bank Policy Institute explains that “once multiple SARs have been filed, examiners generally expect the account to be closed.” Bank examiners, the outfit adds, may also covertly require banks to designate certain accounts as “high risk,” which effectively forces them to close accounts. Banks aren’t allowed to tell customers the reason.

Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act can lead to penalties of hundreds of millions of dollars, so banks close accounts to protect themselves. Even Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren acknowledges this problem, saying that banks “may be taking shortcuts when it comes to assessing risks” rather than “identify true criminal risks and shutting down those accounts.”

Don’t blame the banks. They’ve begged Congress to ease anti-money laundering compliance burdens so they don’t have to file so many reports on customers and close accounts. Reforming the Bank Secrecy Act has in the past drawn bipartisan backing. Do Democrats want Mr. Trump’s appointees pressuring banks to close accounts of his enemies?

Liberals are ridiculing Mr. Trump’s campaign against debanking as a “personal gripe,” to quote the New York Times. But they have as much at stake as conservatives.

Appeared in the August 9, 2025, print edition as 'Trump Is Right on ‘De-Banking’'.

​

 

there's at least one (former?) poster here to whom debanking, and targeting by the IRS, happened during the Obama years. don't recall the moniker, but I remember reading some of the posts.

 

@deb4rockets, your thoughts?

 

My thoughts are the documents were "obtained" by the massively biased Just The News. It was then handed over to Kash Patel, a loyalist. The whistleblower remain anonymous, which is fine, but no other actor in the story is unbiased.

Meanwhile, this story represents several steps in the Guide Towards Autocracy
#3: Weaken Congress and neutralize the judiciary — Legislatures become complicit, courts lose independence.
#5: Install loyalists in key positions — Fill agencies like DOJ, FBI, Defense with personal allies who prioritize loyalty over law.
#6: Undermine the free press and create propaganda networks — Attack independent media and build an echo chamber of lies.

The takeover of America is nearly complete.