Red rice yeast apparently dissolves both the hydrogel & the nanotech??!!! Video by La Quinta Columna voiceover in English

Understanding the Lima agreement. We were SOLD OUT. ???? Good summary video of the Lima Declaration. I often bring up the traitorous Lima declaration and people look confused....

Todd's comments come amid a coverup of the coverup - as the MSM has chosen to plow forward instead of introspection

from Dr. Jane Ruby: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from Sputnik News: ISTANBUL (Sputnik) – A new round of Russia-Ukraine talks will most likely take place in the office of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s administration in Istanbul, a source told Sputnik. “Most likely, [the round will take place] again in the office in Dolmabahce,” the source said. At the upcoming possible negotiations with […]

Lindsey Graham and some guy that looks like a walking corpse (I know, I know, it’s Blumenthal) just travelled to their districts to check on their constituents and represent them to the best of their abilities. Just kidding! Lindsey Graham and some guy that looks like a walking corpse (I know, I know, it’s Blumenthal) just travelled to Congress to do actual work. Just kidding! Lindsey Graham and some guy that looks like a walking corpse (I know, I know, it’s Blumenthal) just travelled to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky! Not kidding, I wish I was. Take a look: Congress only has time to work 26 days this entire summer for you, but they have plenty of time to travel halfway around the globe to be war pigs for Sniffy the Clown. It’s time to primary Lindsey Graham once and for all and send him packing. pic.twitter.com/a4b4oyNtXl — Catturd (@catturd2) May 30, 2025 But what I want to talk about is whether this is a clear violation of The Logan Act. Spoiler alert: it is. And many agree with me: Hey, @AGPamBondi is this not a violation of the LOGAN ACT? https://t.co/96TzzsYL5U — 1776CatMom (@1776_CatMom) May 30, 2025 But as usual, I don’t write entire articles just based on Tweets I find online, we do real research and real reporting here. So let’s go deep…. And let’s start by going to the actual source itself: 18 U.S.C. § 953 — Private correspondence with foreign governments Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent: to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. Next I went to Grok to see what it would say. I asked the obvious question: Is Lindsey Graham flying to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky a clear violation of The Logan Act? Answer: No, Lindsey Graham’s meeting with Zelensky in Ukraine does not appear to be a violation of the Logan Act. The Logan Act prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the United States, but it specifically targets private citizens, not elected officials like Senators. As a U.S. Senator, Graham is part of the legislative branch and has a constitutional role in foreign policy, which includes oversight and the ability to engage in diplomatic discussions. His actions are part of his official duties and are coordinated with the executive branch, as indicated by the context of his legislative initiatives and the support from other senators. Therefore, his meeting with Zelensky falls within the bounds of his official capacity and does not constitute a Logan Act violation. Ok, interesting. But…I noticed a few things. First, Grok tried to tell me The Logan Act only targets private citizens, not elected officials. So I followed up with this: Your analysis is flawed. The code section does not limit itself to private citizens, it specifically say “any citizen”. It further says “without authority” and “with intent to influence measures or conduct of any foreign government. Foreign policy is largely delegated to the Executive Branch in the Constitution and certainly not to members of Congress individually. This actually seems to be almost the exact situation the Logan Act was written to deal with. Answer (Grok admits I am right): Your observation is correct that the Act does not explicitly limit itself to “private citizens” but rather uses the broader term “any citizen.” This broad language could theoretically encompass elected officials, including members of Congress, if they act without authority and with the intent to influence foreign governments in ways that relate to disputes or controversies with the United States or to defeat U.S. measures. Then it told me that it still wasn’t a violation because it historically hasn’t been enforced much. What? Say what now? What relevance does that have? So I followed up with this: I don’t care if it historically hasn’t been enforced much, I care what it says. No member of Congress is individually given any authority to negotiate directly with foreign heads of state, especially when that person has made it clear their position is contrary to that of the President. The application of the Logan Act here could not be more appropriate. Your only argument is that it historically hasn’t been enforced much and that is completely irrelevant to this exercise. Answer (Grok finally admits I am 100% right — it is a clear violation of The Logan Act): Analysis Based on the Text Alone “Any citizen of the United States”:The Act applies to “any citizen,” which includes Lindsey Graham, a U.S. Senator. There is no explicit exclusion for elected officials in the text. “Without authority of the United States”:The key phrase here is “without authority of the United States.” The question is whether Graham, as a Senator, has such authority. The Constitution does not grant individual members of Congress the authority to negotiate directly with foreign heads of state. Article I, Section 8, gives Congress powers over foreign commerce and declaring war, and Article II, Section 2, involves the President in making treaties and appointing ambassadors with Senate consent. However, these powers are collective (e.g., Congress as a body, Senate’s advice and consent role) rather than individual. Graham’s individual action to meet with Zelensky, especially if it contradicts the President’s position, could be argued to lack the requisite authority. “Directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse”:Graham’s meeting with Zelensky constitutes “intercourse” with a foreign government or its officer. This is undisputed based on the description of the event. “With intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government”:The intent to influence is inferred from the context of discussing Russian sanctions and peace talks. These discussions aim to shape Ukraine’s and potentially Russia’s responses, which relates to U.S. foreign policy. “In relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States”:The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and U.S. involvement through aid, sanctions, and diplomatic efforts constitute “disputes or controversies with the United States.” If Graham’s actions are seen as diverging from or undermining the President’s strategy (e.g., if the President opposes certain sanctions or peace talk approaches), it could be argued that he intends to “defeat the measures of the United States.” Application to Graham’s Situation Graham’s meeting with Zelensky, if it involves advocating for policies (e.g., stronger sanctions) that differ from the President’s stance, could be seen as an attempt to influence Ukraine’s conduct in a way that relates to U.S. disputes with Russia. The lack of individual authority for a Senator to negotiate directly with a foreign head of state, especially in a manner that might contradict executive policy, aligns with the “without authority” criterion. The intent to influence Ukraine’s measures regarding Russia, particularly if it conflicts with the President’s approach, could meet the “intent to influence” and “defeat the measures of the United States” thresholds. Hey Pam Bondi, care to handle this? PROSECUTE! We either have a country or we don’t. We either have one set of legal rules or we don’t. We either apply them to everyone or we don’t. What are you going to choose, Pam?