GLENN: President Trump may just be the master media manipulator he is after all. I have to tell you, I'm watching this in awe and sometimes aghast from both sides. I'm just watching this as a casual observer of history, and I can't believe what I'm seeing.
And I haven't figured it out yet. It could be that Donald Trump is the -- is the best watch the other hand guy I've ever seen. Remember, we used to say that about Barack Obama. Right, right, right. Stop arguing about that. What is the other hand doing?
We'll see. But also, he is overwhelming the system. Exactly what happened last time with Barack Obama, to the -- to the right, Donald Trump is doing to the left. There's no way you can keep up with all of this.
Tonight, at 8 o'clock, he's announcing his SCOTUS pick. In typical Trump fashion, don't miss must-see TV, Wednesday night. Is it Wednesday today? Or is it Tuesday?
STU: Tuesday. It is Tuesday. At least for the whole day.
GLENN: It's Tuesday? Wow. Wow. It's only been -- really? Yesterday was only 24 hours. It seemed like 48.
So tonight, don't miss. Ensuring as many eyeballs are possible on him tomorrow night, according to the sources close to our program, out of the 21 candidates that Trump has released prior to the election, it's down to three, and more likely, it's between two of the three men.
But here are the three finalists and what their nominations could mean to the future of the Supreme Court. Coming three at number three is William Pryor, the partisan, if you will. He is right of Alito and left of Clarence Thomas. And Pryor is the judge from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. He's the oldest of the possible choices, but he's still only 54. He still has a long career ahead of him on the bench.
However, he is by far the most outspoken of the three and the -- and definitely the least liked by the Democrats. Choosing Pryor would fit the mold of Trump about not caring about what anybody says, but the president would be in for a fight, if he was going to get him confirmed.
Chances are, he'll get him three, but he would spend an awful lot of political capital, which remains to be seen, if that even matters for this administration.
One sticking point for the evangelicals was when he, as attorney general of Alabama, had judge Roy Moore ousted for refusing to obey a federal court order and removed the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building.
Pryor said at the time, I'm just following the court's order. But this was a knock on him for the far right, and they have held on to that. As well as his recent support for transgendered rights.
He is not afraid to say what he believes, which is why the left calls him a bomb-thrower and considers him a cultural warrior. Many on the right see him as a rising conservative star, and he is a fierce critic of Roe vs. Wade. He has upheld the Georgia voter ID law and has called for sectarian prayers for opening a local commission meeting constitutional. He's probably not Scalia in waiting, but who is?
He is more in the mold of Alito, but all of this may be moot if the reports are correct, because he is, out of the three, the one who is really on the outside looking in.
Second one, the centrist, Thomas Hardiman. He is left of Roberts. Wow. Let's think about that one for a second, Stu. Left of Roberts.
STU: Yeah, I've been thinking about it.
GLENN: And right of Kennedy.
STU: And you might say to yourself, why the heck would Donald Trump appoint a centrist? Well, you know, there's a lot of reasons for it. But the one they're talking about now, as far as the way these games work is the rest of the court, they believe, will take a signal by -- as to who Trump nominates here as to how Trump is going to treat this situation. So if he goes for someone who is really right-wing and crazy, then people like Kennedy might say, "Well, I don't want to retire and let him name another crazy person to the bench."
So they're thinking -- the thought is -- and, again, this is all crazy inside-the-Beltway speculation, but the thought is, if he were to name a centrist, then Kennedy would feel more comfortable in his departure. And then if he departed, they could name a conservative to replace him.
I know that's a lot of --
GLENN: You know what that sound like? Honestly, you know what that sounds like to me? If I were sitting in the seat of the Oval Office, I would say, "Progressive BSer, get behind me."
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: That sounds like something that a progressive would say to an incoming president who is really trying to get the president to pick a centrist.
STU: Right.
GLENN: Look, I'm telling you, if you do this, this time, what will happen next time -- I mean, that just sounds like bullcrap.
STU: Right. But the question is, which progressive are you talking about? If that progressive happens to be Anthony Kennedy, then it might be a viable thing. I would not risk it.
GLENN: I wouldn't either.
STU: If you lose a Scalia and replace him with someone who as this article talks about, left of Roberts, you're in -- you're in for some trouble there. That's not a good sign. And if Kennedy doesn't step down, you have no conservative rulings potentially --
GLENN: Yeah, you have nothing. You have nothing.
STU: That's a huge problem. You think with Trump too, all his progressive sort of things with executive orders and all these big changes he wants to make, the last thing he wants to do is put the Supreme Court up to risk. There was obviously a reason that a lot of people who were very skeptical of him voted for him anyway. So, I mean, going for a centrist here is risky.
The one thing about this, which is -- we mentioned it I think yesterday is that he works with Trump's sister. Trump's sister knows him very well, and --
GLENN: I bet you this is the guy. I bet you this is the guy.
JEFFY: That's a big in. That's a big in.
GLENN: Yeah, that's a huge in.
STU: Because that was his initial reaction, right? I would name my sister. She would be a great judge.
And then obviously, over time, he kind of realized that that was just reactionary.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: But here's a kind of way you can do it. He's got to have inside information on this person from his sister.
GLENN: Yep.
STU: He's going to know -- now, assuming his sister likes him. Maybe his sister hates him. But he's lasted this long on this list. You think he's got to be fairly well liked. They sided together on a lot of major decisions. So, you know, this one is -- it's interesting. He was not really one of the ones talked about, up until the last couple of weeks.
GLENN: I bet you it's him.
STU: It could be.
JEFFY: That's a good bet.
GLENN: This is exactly the kind of guy that every Republican president always nominates.
STU: I know, but that's not supposed to be what Trump does. Right? So maybe he won't.
GLENN: I know. I know. All right.
So the name again is Thomas Hardiman. I hope this isn't the guy. More moderate than the other choices. He's left of Roberts. Right of Kennedy.
Many conservatives are wary, after Kennedy and Roberts haven't turned out the way they hoped. He is only one of the candidates or sitting members of the bench without an Ivy League pedigree. He grew up in public schools, blue-collar family. Went to Notre Dame -- or, Notre Dame. And put himself through law school at Georgetown by driving a cab.
Is he the Catholic of the group? Can you find out if he's Catholic?
STU: Sure.
GLENN: He fits the bill with pro-life stance. He's strong on the Second Amendment. But he is seen as government-friendly. He has sided with Big Brother on censorship issues. He's 51 and would have influence for decades to come. He might be the most confirmable of the three, having been confirmed 95 to zero on the appellate court, receiving votes from Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein. Stein. Stein.
Former -- he's a former trial judge who has been serving on the Third Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Happens to be the same court as President Trump's sister. He receives a glowing recommendation from her, and he is thought to have -- and she is thought to have significant influence on her brother.
This may be the nominee.
The number one pick, according to GlennBeck.com, is Neil Gorsuch. He's a Libertarian. He is -- listen to this -- right of Scalia and left of Clarence Thomas.
STU: I'm comfortable with that. If that description is accurate, I am comfortable with that.
GLENN: I am so comfortable with this. This would be the guy. Out of these three, this would be the guy.
Gorsuch is not a name that many people know outside of political junky circles. He has quickly risen to the top of the list over the past couple of weeks. He's 49 years old. So he has the best chance theoretically of having the longest lasting influence. He is pro-life. He has sided against assisted suicide, but he has yet to rule on an abortion case. But they believe because he has stated pro-life and he has gone against assisted suicide -- which I don't understand how a Libertarian does that. A Libertarian should be for -- should be pro-life, if they think it's murder. Which I do. So it should be protecting -- the rights of the unborn child. But then to protect the rights of the living, should be able to say, "What you do with your own life is your business."
STU: And I don't know that he's -- I think they're describing him as a Libertarian. I don't know that he's stated that I am a Libertarian. You know --
GLENN: Well, I doubt he's stated he's a Libertarian. You're not going to get elected.
STU: Right.
GLENN: This might help win some votes from the Democrats, while conservatives can still feel relatively comfortable on where he stands. His lack of record makes him less likely to be borked than the Pryor nomination could.
I will tell you that where we get in trouble is people saying, "Hey, he doesn't have a record on these things," and so we guess on what their record is going to be.
STU: Yeah, that is an issue. And, by the way, also, a big issue with Hardiman -- I mean, I think his record is even thinner than Gorsuch. You know, they're both on the younger side, as far as justices go. They don't necessarily have the really long record of an older judge. But, I mean, you look at the -- there's a sentence in the longer profile of Hardiman, which says he's never had any abortion rulings either. So the only one -- you can be pretty darn sure that Pryor is going to be on the right side of that one, of these three.
And I think Gorsuch, reading in context, I mean, he has ruled in cases that would -- you know, one of the big things about Gorsuch, which I liked was, this was the guy we talked about who is -- he doesn't seem to be friendly to things that aren't in the Constitution.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: The Dormant Clauses, like the Dormant Privacy Clause, which leads to abortion or the Dormant Commerce Clause. And that's why there's a large indication that he would be pro-life. But it's true. The record is not extensive on the topic.
GLENN: If you look at his record that we know -- and there are some disturbing things in there, but if you look at the record of the things that we know, he has the best chance I think of being game-changing for the Supreme Court.
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: Let me finish.
Let's see: He has sided with Hobby Lobby. He also sided with Little Sisters of the Poor, in upholding their right to follow their religious belief when it came to mandatory birth control for the nuns. And he's believed to have the Libertarian streak of Scalia and the style of Roberts. He has stated that he's an originalist, meaning he believes in the interpretation of the Constitution as written, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views.
STU: It's amazing that there's another side to that argument: Have a written or how you might think it might be because of your political views -- which one do you think? How should we rule on this? Ugh.
GLENN: I know. Right.
So we don't know. You know, there's speculation that Justice Roberts was blackmailed at the last hour. That is something that I would really like to hear some -- if there are any good facts on that one. Because that ruling from Justice Roberts was just bizarre.
STU: Bizarre.
GLENN: Bizarre. And the fact that he showed up with puffy red eyes -- it was obvious that he rewrote it in the middle of the night because of the way it was written. It shows that he was actually on the other side and then just changed things. But it was rushed so quickly, he didn't change all of it. It was just bizarre.
But, anyway, he is a champion of small government conservatism like Antonin Scalia. Chances are the nominee will stand in the vast shadow of his legacy and never eclipse the works that he was able to accomplish. That being said, there will be a nominee, and it appears to be one of these three.
According to conservative circles, Hardiman is the least liked. Pryor is beloved by some, questioned by others.
And when the dust settles, Donald Trump lands on Neil Gorsuch. Conservatives could do much worse. But let's see what happens.
STU: Yeah, that's all up on GlennBeck.com, by the way. You can read that whole analysis.
GLENN: Right.
STU: And this is assuming, by the way, the purports are right. Who knows? Maybe Trump goes a totally different direction.
GLENN: Yeah. And it will be interesting because this is the one the religious community said, "This is the most important." And they put all of their eggs in this basket and had been telling him, "We want our pick." And it is not Hardiman. Let's see if it's paid off.
Editor's Note: You don't want to miss this! To get the whole story, watch this special now. If you like what you see, use promo code GB20OFF to get $20 off a full year of BlazeTV. Help support research like this and get access to more Glenn content with breakdowns issues and complex ideas daily. With a BlazeTV subscription, you're not just paying to watch great pro-free speech, pro-America TV. Your subscription funds the intensive investigations that let BlazeTV tell the stories the liberal media wants to keep in the dark, giving you the unvarnished truth, showing you what the media doesn't want you to see.
"As one falls, two more will take their place."
Democracy does die in darkness and is being strangled in secret, back-door arrangements. In the third part of our special series on the REAL Ukraine scandal, my team's research exposes a much bigger story into what Democrats were doing in Ukraine. Disturbing details and explosive documents reveal how the Obama Deep State allowed the theft of a country and has set the stage for devastating consequences on our democracy today. It's all happening under the nose of the president and, more importantly, without the approval of the American people.
There's a big difference between conspiracy THEORY and conspiracy FACT. A conspiracy THEORY is an attempt to explain or connect the dots on something, but without any hard evidence. Everything in this is backed up with hard evidence. Is it a conspiracy? Absolutely it is, but it's a conspiracy FACT.
Watch the full special here:
As you watch the special, take time to explore the documents below, with all the proof you need to come to your own conclusion about the impeachment inquiry, Soros, and Ukraine.
The Obama Administration has been working IN TANDEM with George Soros, supporting his NGOs, going all the way back to the months leading up to the Ukrainian Coup in 2014. In 2013, just before the coup, Soros' International Renaissance Foundation was their primary financier, but the U.S. Embassy was also strangely giving them money.
Link: https://antac.org.ua/en/pro-nas/ (Go to finances and mouse over 2013, notice IRS and US Embassy.)
From 2014 through 2017, basically up until Trump became president, the two main sources of funding came from George Soros and the Obama Administration through USAID.
Link: https://antac.org.ua/en/pro-nas/ (Go to finances and mouse over 2014-2017, notice IRS and USAID.)
Now look at 2018. The Trump Administration halted the money from USAID, so look who stepped in to pull the extra weight: Soros doubled down, and then the U.S. Embassy resumed their funding role just as they did BEFORE the 2014 coup.
Link: https://antac.org.ua/en/pro-nas/ (Go to finances and mouse over 2018, notice IRS, Open Society and US Embassy.)
Why is the U.S. Embassy, and by extension the State Department, working with George Soros? What do they have to gain from this relationship? Let me ask you this: have you noticed where all the people that have been called to testify against Donald Trump in the impeachment inquiry have come from? They're ALL career diplomats. They're all privy to what went down in the months leading up to the Ukrainian Coup, and everything that went down from then up until Donald Trump. And this includes, if the rumors are correct, the whistleblower, whom everyone in Washington believes is Eric Ciaramella.
Link: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2...
Ciaramella is a CIA analyst, and was on the NSC during the Trump Administration as a Ukraine expert. He was later kicked out of the White House for leaking information and pushing Russia collusion hoaxes. He also worked directly with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa who was tasked with working alongside the Ukrainian Embassy in the U.S. to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. And if all of this isn't enough to discredit him as a witness, he ALSO worked alongside Joe Biden when he was made the “point man" in Ukraine. It's becoming all too painfully obvious why Adam Schiff doesn't want anyone talking to this guy.
Why are all these State Department officials, and CIA/NSC staffers so scared of Donald Trump poking around in Ukraine? I wonder ... does it have anything to do with the financing of some of these groups like the Soros funded NGO? I pointed out in my mega chalkboard that Ukrainian prosecutors claimed to have evidence that over SEVEN BILLION had been misappropriated. Is this part of that, because that's kind of important here. And would it also be important, or relevant, if the people currently involved in impeachment were dealing with these funds that were being given to groups like the Soros NGO? That is an answer we can not find, but that is an answer that Donald Trump was asking for on they July 25th phone call ... and it MUT BE ANSWERED in a Senate trial.
Link: https://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchT...
This email chain was released via a Freedom of Information Act request. The first email is from the alleged whistleblower sent to all the heavy weights within the State Department that were working on Ukraine. The entire email has been redacted. Whatever Ciaramella specifically said, the State Department doesn't want us to know about, but the final email in the chain reveals the overall context: Obama Administration dollars, going through the U.S. Embassy via USAID.
And the State Department official that replied with this information, was Christopher Anderson. Now why does that name sound familiar?
Link: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774552056/read-chri...
Oh that's right. He was testifying against Donald Trump at the impeachment inquiry twi weeks ago. They're ALL connected ... and the coup is on
But still, this begs the question: what was really going on in Ukraine and WHY?
Being that U.S. funding to Soros backed groups began in 2013, we started looking beyond our initial timeline. We noticed one name pop up again, and again and again. That name is Alec Ross.
Ross was appointed to the State Department as the Senior Advisor on Innovation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He first started popping up in Ukraine in late 2011.
This is Ross at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine on a fact finding mission where he was quote:
Learning about the local status of internet freedom and discussing Secretary Clinton's 21st Century Statecraft agenda.
Link: https://usembassykyiv.wordpress.com/tag/alec-ross/
This is Alec Ross addressing the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine in October 2011 (5:03 to 5:23).
Disruptive change. Some might describe this as CHAOS, but ultimately — for those willing to exploit it — the reward is ... POWER.
For most of us, no matter which side of the aisle you're on, we all pretty much agree that regime change and stoking chaos is NOT what the American people want. But this is EXACTLY what was going on under the Obama Administration, and it was all being done in YOUR name.
Hillary's State Department was bastardizing a plan that actually began a few weeks after Obama was elected in November 2008.
Link: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/us/2008/112605.htm
It was an initiative called Public Diplomacy 2.0, and it's stated goal was to enable people in other countries to combat violent or extreme ideology. More specifically, Islamic radicalism from Al Qaeda.
Link: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/us/2008/112310.htm
The State Department invited tech savvy people from all over the world to show them how to network and launch Social Media campaigns to counter radical ideology.
Link: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/nov/1...
But just a few months later, under the Obama Administration, Clinton changed Public Diplomacy 2.0 to “Civil Society 2.0." Here's Alec Ross on what Civil Society 2.0 was doing, and how they were actively training groups to mobilize through Social Media.
Let's just call a spade a spade here. Civil Society 2.0 was a training ground for the foot soldiers of what began to be known as “indigenous, spontaneous uprisings." And if you're curious as to what “civil society" or “open society" groups should be advocating, here's Hillary Clinton speaking THIS YEAR on civil society organizations (1:00:52 to 1:01:40).
Was that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren or was that Hillary Clinton? Civil Society 2.0 came to Ukraine in 2011. Alec Ross' TechCamps commenced shortly after, teaching native activists and NGOs how to mobilize, and carry their online presence to the streets.
I want to show you a video taken within the Ukrainian Parliament in November 2013. This was BEFORE the Ukrainian uprising ousted the former regime (0:20 to 1:07).
It's important to point out that this lawmaker was very pro-Russia, and he was being shouted down because of that. But it's also important to point out that everything he just said, WE KNOW was actually happening.
As we analyzed Ukraine, we started to break down the left's strategy in tearing down an entire country, and molding it in line with their political ideology. The founders of the Fabian Society would be impressed.
It's a four part strategy, and — since Ukraine was so successful for them — we'll use it as the case study. I want you to know that I'm only using Ukraine as an example, but this is happening all over the world.
Step one: The U.S. State Department - and their proxies like the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House - identifies, trains and funds “Civil Society" groups to mobilize.
This is Civil Society 2.0 and operations like Alec Ross' “TechCamps."
Link: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/19...
It all began in Ukraine — eerily enough — on September 11, 2012.
And make no mistake ... these programs are designed for one thing: REVOLUTION. They operate to nurture chaos and collapse regimes. They're not even trying to hide that fact. Check out this quote from Alec Ross:
Some of the things that I spoke about when I came into the department — things like leaderless revolution or virtual organizations — might have been really edgy or a little off-center. But after Tunisia and Egypt, nobody is questioning the abstraction of leaderless revolutions, and after WikiLeaks, certainly everybody understands the power of virtual, globally distributed organizations.
Link: https://mashable.com/2011/08/22/alec-ross-tech-int...
Leaderless revolutions ... kind of sounds familiar doesn't it? “You can't ban or go after ANTIFA. They're just a leaderless activist group." “We can't shut down Occupy Wall Street ... there's no leadership."
No administration in their right mind — outside of Obama and Hillary — would condone something like this. That's why they built it to run separately within already established organizations like the State Department. These policies are being pursued RIGHT NOW, and they could give a flying crap who the president is. Again, from Alec Ross:
Instead of trying to create a new bureau, what we wanted to do was build a long-term institutional capacity. I leave feeling that the work has been fully institutionalized and that the programs will live on.
Link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/14/tech-guru-ale...
A little tip for Alec and Hillary: Hydra from Captain America ... they're the BAD GUYS. Maybe you should stop talking and acting like them.
Is it starting to become clear now why the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine was telling Ukrainian lawmakers to keep their hands off of Soros NGOs? One fo the satr witnesses for Adam Schiff in the impeachment is the former ukrainian ambassador that trump and the new president of ukraine spoke about in the Jukly 25th call. Multiple sources verify that she told the prosecutor general in uktraine to keep their hands off of the soros ngos, and various others. Is it now a littl emore lcr]ear why should would have said that? Because Soros is working with the State Dpearmtnet. Its not criminal to them… its the plan. And why a CIA analyst was involved in USAID money going into Ukraine, and now is a whistleblower against a president that was looking into it? Or maybe why the main witnesses in the impeachment are all from the State Department and diplomatic corps? And also how the intelligence community and FBI has seemingly been operating on their own to bring down Trump. It's because, as Alec Ross said, this operation has now been quote, “institutionalized and will live on.'' This House impeachment trial is why Elliot Ness had to switch jurys. Because Al Capone had paid off the jury, press, judges and was controlling who was testifying.
Step 2: When opportunity emerges, U.S. trained activists go into action.
I'll talk about the Arab Spring more in a bit, but the opportunity in the Middle East and North Africa was a Tunisian fruit vendor setting himself on fire. For Ukraine, it was when the former president decided to side with Russia over the European Union. That's when all the people that Alec Ross and the State Department trained went into action.
Step 3: The State Department, and their proxies, actively support the opposition.
Under Obama, this was actual Administration policy, but now this happens REGARDLESS of the elected administration's policy by the “INSTITUTIONALIZED" Deep State. This institutionalized policy is what all witnesses were talking about in the impeachment trial. Trump is a threat to the policy they have going, and they will NOT STOP doing this policy no matter what the president says.
As activists, protesters and riots began to overtake the streets in Ukraine, Victoria Nuland — the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs — travel to Ukraine 3 separate times. In December 2013, she was even seen handing out cookies to activists in the streets!
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john...
That same month, John McCain showed that Obama's regime change policy was a bipartisan effort when he went to Ukraine to meet with the Ukrainian opposition. But lets not forget, it was the same John McCain that went over to Syria to meet with the terrorists who later became ISIS. When the administration used this very revolutionary system to try and overthrow Assad.
The National Endowment for Democracy, which I just showed you in our little history lesson a few minutes ago, reported that it spent over 3 million of YOUR tax dollars in Ukraine.
Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20140831044648/http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/eurasia/ukraine
Question: Why has this report has been scrubbed from their official website? And when will people learn the internet is forever?
Their funding included more than thirty thousand dollars to George Soros' Open Society Foundation. Again, this begs the question: why was the U.S. Government helping George Soros? What was their ultimate goal here?
The answer to those questions lies in the final stage of this plan.
Step 4: Once regime change has occurred, infiltrate the new government with hand picked “Civil Society" leaders.
Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught red-handed in a leaked phone conversation, discussing how they were manipulating who would become the next Ukrainian Prime Minister. And — surprise surprise — their man ended up getting the job.
But even though they'd been publicly outed, manipulating the affairs of a sovereign nation, they didn't stop ... they doubled down.
We already know that the State Department, and the Obama Administration as a whole, were working to protect a George Soros funded NGO called the Anti-Corruption Action Center. Soros and the Obama Admin were specifically using them to target Ukraine's criminal justice system. But their coordination didn't stop there. Newly released emails, obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests, shows near weekly communication between Nuland and Soros.
Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/421081817/SorosNul... (See last line in paragraph on first email at bottom.)
This email chain from June 1st 2016 shows Soros setting up a call with Nuland for one of their scheduled “updates."
Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/421081036/SorosNul...
This next email chain just one week later, initiated by Soros' organization, details how the State Department and Soros were actively working together on projects relating to Ukraine's criminal justice system.
Do you recognize any of these names? Wait ... is that the whistleblower? Crazy ... it's almost like this guy had his hands into EVERYTHING. The State Department, the NSC, CIA, DNC operatives, Joe Biden, and now George Soros. This is the REAL reason why Adam Schiff and the Democrats are so scared of naming the whistleblower. There's no way they want him testifying in an open forum, and they'll do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen.
What I'm about to show you is absolutely insane. This is the final piece that shows you the full extent of how embedded the State Department and George Soros were in the Ukrainian Government. This right here is how they sealed the deal on the theft of an entire country.
Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/421078499/Soros-Uk...
This is a leaked document that was actually written by George Soros personally, entitled: "Comprehensive Strategy For The New Ukraine"
In this paper, Soros identifies the institutions that need to either be set up or targeted.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau needed to be established.
They got this done right from the beginning. It's also relevant to point out that this relationship bore fruit for the Obama Administration after they pressured the Bureau to investigate Manafort. They later hit a home run when they illegally released information implicating Manafort in the “Black Ledger," and that kicked the Russia Investigation into overdrive. And why did I say “illegally" released the information? Because a Ukrainian court convicted the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau for doing this, and interfering in the U.S. 2016 election.
Isn't it interesting that the establishment of the Bureau was all part of Soros' plan who was coordinating DIRECTLY with the Obama Administration. And it was the head of this very organization that was caught on tape bragging how he worked to discredit Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton. By the way ... convicted in a court of law for interfering in the U.S. election.
Judiciary Reform, including the appointment of a new High Council of justice.
Rewrite the Constitution.
That's game, set and match. Control those three areas, along with an ally in the Presidency — which they had — and the country was now THEIRS.
But Soros had a problem. As he notes, the newly elected Parliament (the rada) was slowing down his master plan by having the audacity of insisting on that pesky little thing called “transparency." But, not to worry, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
(See end of page 3 and 4.)
Soros notes that after a year of preparation, all the pieces were finally in place for quote “radical reform." His plan called for the creation of the National Reform Council that would bring together the president's administration, the cabinet of ministers, Parliament and — get this — civil society. Which basically means the government — ALL OF IT — would be linked directly to HIM.
And this shows the insane hypocrisy of Soros and all these other organizations, supported by the State Department and Obama Administration, that claim to be spreading Democracy. The NSC had the power to completely bypass Parliament. It was designed to fast track “radical reform" by completely subverting the will of the people. That doesn't sound very Democracy-ish.
(See page 4 paragraph 5.)
Now here's the best part. If you wanna know who REALLY pulls the strings in what had now become the most powerful entity in the “New Ukraine", all you have to do is read paragraph 5 on page 4.
The sole financer for the National Reform Council was the International Renaissance Foundation. Also known as, the Ukrainian branch of the George Soros Foundation. Oh but never mind, it's ok. Soros points out that a Ukrainian department would later take over the funding for the Reform Council… so there's that. The “Project Management Office" would eventually fill Soros' funding role, and lead the charge on implementing reform projects. But where would THEY get their funding?
(See page 4 paragraph 5, particularly “International Renaissance Foundation" and “will be one of the main supporters of the PMO.")
Oh ... George Soros.
(See page 6.)
And he was standing by with one billion of his own money to invest in various Ukrainian businesses. Because why settle with just bending a country to your Leftist policies when you can also make billions to boot? Oh, but he wants to make it clear that he's going to reinvest all of that money into his Civil Society programs. Obama was right: sometimes you have enough money. Soros doesn't want more money. If I can quote Alec Ross: he wants more POWER.
It's really hard to grasp the concept that someone could just start revolutions, collapse countries — as Soros has. He's considered a criminal in many countries in Asia for what he's done. But this is what he's about. As I reminded you in his own words, this is fun for him.
Ukraine became the crown jewel for the now “institutionalized" U.S. Deep State and their like minded partners such as George Soros. And we might not have ever truly known the full extent of how bad it has become if not for that July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelesnky. Hydra mobilized, and they revealed themselves. But Ukraine is just the tip of the iceberg.
When Clinton's Civil Society 2.0 first came to Ukraine, consider the state of the world at the time.
The revolutions going on in the Middle East that he's talking about were more commonly known as ... The Arab Spring. At this point in time, November 2011, revolutions had broken out in Tunisia, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Libya and Morocco. TWO regimes — Egypt and Libya — had already fully collapsed.
Now for parts of the Arab Spring, the Obama Administration was much more overt in their participation. Remember this from Hillary Clinton?
Everytime I hear that, I think of the video of the barely alive Gadaffi.
Not a good guy. But can you imagine being responsbile for that and laughing about it? Its almost as if this is “fun" for those involved. Clinton, the State Department ... who do they answer to? Certainly not you.
Libya still hasn't recovered, and would eventually become the country with the largest ISIS presence outside Syria. Libya and Syria are absolute dumpster fires, and Alec Ross' “shop" within the State Department were at ground zero right from the beginning.
Link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/14/tech-guru-ale...
They were training NGOs and rebels in both countries, and actually providing communications technology to enable them to coordinate.
This was going down WHILE the Arab Spring was in full swing, but the meddling began long BEFORE.
Link: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/nov/1...
Civil Society 2.0 began in November 2009, and it's no coincidence where they chose to kick it off… North Africa.
And remember what this program is intended for… what it's designed to nurture: revolution and regime change. As they did in Ukraine, they identify “Civil Society" groups, train them, fund them and show them how to mobilize.
Just a few months later, the White House initiated secret meetings with officials from the State Department and CIA. The meetings were led by Dennis Ross, the senior advisor on the Middle East; Samantha Power, from the National Security Council; and Gayle Smith, the director for global development.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeas...
They developed an 18 page classified report which the Obama Administration dubbed Presidential Study Directive 11.
Link: https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/psd/index.html
Now, the Obama Admin issued 11 Study Directives in total, and the vast majority have been declassified. But all we know about PSD 11 is that it had to do with quote: “political reform in the Middle East and North Africa."
An official with knowledge of the classified report told this to the New York Times:
"Whether it was Yemen or other countries in the region, you saw a set of trends" — a big youth population, threadbare education systems, stagnant economies and NEW SOCIAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES LIKE FACEBOOK AND TWITTER — that was a "real prescription for trouble."
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeas...
Could I just ask: Is this why Facebook, Twitter and Google have hired so many democrats specifically form HC's State Department office? Are they an expansion of the SD? You do know that the original seed money for google came form the CIA. What had the gov asked for in return. By the way ... that's a question, not a theory. And not a conspiracy fact as of yet.
Why is this report still classified? I'll just throw this out there ... maybe because there was an office in the State Department that was traveling the world training these “big youth populations" in revolution and regime change, in the months BEFORE the Arab Spring began?
Civil Society 2.0 arrived in the Middle East and North Africa in November 2009. Presidential Study Directive 11 occurred in August 2010. The Arab Spring kicked off just FOUR MONTHS LATER.
I want to make a personal plea to President Trump. If you want to know how institutionalized Hydra is, and why they're coning after you so hard you might want to declassify directive 11. If you want to see how deep the Ukrainian rabbit whole REALLY goes ... declassify PSD 11. You have the power to do it. I have a feeling that the strategy they used to take over Ukraine is probably described IN DETAIL in PSD 11.
Everything that was happening in Ukraine, was being done during the Arab Spring. Civil Society 2.0 had been on the ground a full year before the Arab Spring kicked off.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
U.S. dollars then began to flow to the protestors on the streets. They did this through funding from Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy.
Remember that State Department meeting in 2008 a few months after Obama was elected? The Egyptian activists that brought down their countries regime ... were at that conference. They were:
Taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
This is a leaked State Department diplomatic cable where they confirm the participation of the Egyptian activists at the 2008 meeting in New York.
Link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaa...
It also reveals that the U.S. Embassy in Egypt was putting pressure on the Egyptian government in support of the street protestors.
And, just as in Ukraine, the Egyptian Regime buckled under the weight of these new tech savvy global community organizers.
All three stages that would later be used in Ukraine, were pulled off to perfection in toppling the regime in Egypt. But what about stage 4?
Infiltrating the criminal justice system was harder in Egypt because the military had an iron grasp on the government. So how did they plan on getting around that? Exactly what George Soros proposed in Ukraine ... just rewrite the Constitution.
Link: https://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE71F0...
This Reuters article, written right after the regime fell, describes who was involved in rewriting Egypt's Constitution. Look who was in charge:
“CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month."
The main group in charge was the Arabic Network for Human Rights. You'll never guess who funds them.
Link: http://www.anhri.net/en/reports/net2004/thank.shtml (Specifically, “HRINFO gratefully acknowledges the Open Society Institute (OSI) for its financial support.")
And while Soros funded NGOs went to work rewriting the Constitution, he then moved to get his guys into top level positions within the government.
Link: https://www.npr.org/2011/01/31/133307779/could-egy...
Mohammed ElBaradei emerged out of nowhere as the de facto leader of the “revolution." He's also a trustee of an organization called the International Crisis Group.
Link: https://www.crisisgroup.org/
They're a ThinkTank that claims to be:
Working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world.
They're also founded AND FUNDED by George Soros.
Everything was in place for a Ukraine level theft of a country, but the Egyptian military stepped in and put a stop to it.
What began 10 years ago in North Africa and the Middle East, and then later perfected in Ukraine in 2014 ... still goes on to this very day. We have a new president, a new administration, new lawmakers in Congress ... but Hydra marches on.
But to be fair, you could say that they're only trying to foment revolution in bad countries. Ok, but thats not the case.
A few months after Civil Society 2.0 began in Ukraine, a near identical project popped up in Macedonia.
Link: https://www.usaid.gov/macedonia/fact-sheets/civil-...
In February 2012, the U.S. Government gave George Soros nearly $5 million to carry out a quote “Civil Society Program." According to the financial disclosure, Soros was involved in training and funding Macedonians on freedom of association, youth policies, citizen initiatives, persuasive argumentation and use of new media. So, in other words, they wanted a Macedonian Spring.
The money flowed through the State Department and was facilitated by U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia Jess Baily. Now, at this point, this isn't surprising coming from the Obama Administration, but after Trump was elected in 2016 an additional $9.5 million was allocated to keep the operation going.
Judicial Watch has done some digging on this, and they've interviewed several Macedonian officials to find out what the State Department and Soros are up to. See if this sounds familiar:
The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government. One of the Soros' groups funded the translation and publication of Saul Alinsky's “Rules for Radicals" into Macedonian.
Link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicle...
I wonder ... what did Hydra have against the Macedonian Government at the time? Could it be because they had one of the more conservative governments in all of Europe? They had the lowest flat tax on the continent, close ties with Israel and were strongly pro-life. They had also recently built a border fence to try and deal with the immigration crisis.
The State Department was attacking this government, through George Soros, with YOUR money.
Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/338904121/Senator-...
It prompted Mike Lee to write an official letter to Ambassador Baily, asking him what the heck was going on. This wasn't the official policy of the U.S. Government, this was someone else's SHADOW policy.
Link: https://www.newsweek.com/crisis-macedonia-protests...
And, as it has happened time and time again since this all began, violence, riots and chaos were the consequences of that shadow policy.
The U.S. Ambassador remained in Macedonia up until a few months ago. There was never any explanation as to why he left. There's no entry on the official embassy website. He just suddenly ... wasn't there anymore. I talked to Mike Lee before this broadcast. He told me that he received what the State Department might classify as answers. But Mike says that his questions were NEVER satisfactorily answered.
“Spontaneous, indigenous popular uprisings" continue to break out TO THIS DAY, and the fingerprints of Civil Society 2.0 and George Soros are all over it. They're following their 4 part plan country by country.
I challenge you —everywhere the violence is erupting — try and find one that isn't related to the programs, groups and people that I've shown you here.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/world/americas/...
Violence in Chile continues to boil over. Chile ... the one country in South America that has actually seen economic growth by adhering to open and free markets, is now spiraling out of control. More than 15 people have died. And you know what sparked all the chaos? It wasn't self immolation like the Arab Spring. No ... “Civil Society" groups hit the streets in Chile due to a three cent cost in public transportation. THREE PENNIES.
Chile's free market government has been a target of Hydra for a long time.
Link: https://2009-2017.state.gov/statecraft/cs20/index.htm
Civil Society 2.0 began setting up TechCamps in Chile in November 2010. From the press release:
Goals of the program include increasing regional civil society organizations' digital literacy, sharing information, building networks and matchmaking like-minded individuals to organizations.
It always reads the same, and regime change and chaos in the streets always follows. And those “like minded organizations and individuals" included people like this woman (Javiera Lopez).
Link: https://twitter.com/japalola?lang=en
She's one of the lead organizers out in the streets. She's also the National Political Counselor for a far-left Socialist political party called Democratic Revolution. Their top demands, as seen in this tweet, is to force the rewriting of the Chilean Constitution:
Hmm, where have we seen that before? The State Department and Soros, the Hydra that is called Civil Society 2.0.
A year after Civil Society 2.0 began training activists in Chile, Democratic Revolution formed to organize the quote “activities of the student movement." Today, they're leading the charge in the same way Egyptian activists overthrew the Mubarak regime. But none of it would have been possible without the financing of George Soros and his Open Society Foundation.
Link: https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/chile...
Soros was there from the beginning and continued funding through, AT LEAST, 2015. Now they're poised to overthrow one of the most free market economies in South America.
They're taking down country by country, one at a time. The strategies of progressive leaders in the past of establishing large governing bodies such as the League of Nations or the UN, and bending continents under their ideological boots is largely over. Why start from the top, when you can conquer fragile regimes one by one?
And if you think this is happening purely beyond our own borders ... I've got some REALLY bad news for you. Countries like Ukraine, Macedonia, Egypt, Yemen and even Chile are much easier to heat up, destabilize and then cast into your image. You can place allies in the criminal justice system, and do deals with their leaders to fast track legislation. You can't really do that here.
However, is it a coincidence that leftists are being trained here in the U.S. by Soros groups? That our DOJ, FBI CIA, all of it has been so badly damaged in reputation? That corruption is at a level I've never seen in our country before? And our Constitution is constantly discredited and no one really knows it anymore. How far-fetched is it to believe that in the next 5 years you could get America to call for an ACB — some outside force that would rat our corruption? How hard is it to believe that protesters —leaderless organizations — could rise up to create instability and demand that a few changes to be made to our constitution?
Make no mistake, Hydra is active here in the United States. They're skipping the federal government and going state by state, county by county ... city by city. The same tactics they've been employing all over the world have come, and are coming, to main street USA. We are currently in contact with multiple state officials who have been investigating the infiltration of Soros in key positions. It is well organized and well financed and way beyond anything you might have heard before.
You're likely to see a barrage of people on left instantly labeling this entire program a conspiracy THEORY. We're already seeing that in the impeachment proceedings. In her testimony, Fiona Hill said the words conspiracy theory at least twice, and at one point specifically mentions George Soros. But I'll challenge every single one of the naysayers: try and refute any single one of the FACTS I'm about to show you. Just try. I'll bring you on the show and we can talk about, but you better bring facts because I'll be holding all of mine.
And why is it so taboo to call out Soros' involvement in the Ukraine scandal? Why is Soros "the name that shall not be named"? What are they so afraid of? I've been highlighting FOR YEARS how he plays with entire countries. He's already brought several of those countries down.
Crashing economies and bringing countries to their knees is fun for him, but the question has always been: how does he do it, and — possibly more important — are nation states colluding with him to pull it off?
