1. May I know your perspective on the midterm elections?
Answer: Without commenting on the results, I will simply say that I am proud of Americans for actively insisting on casting their votes. That made me very happy to see.
2. May I ask for your thoughts on Stephen Miller as the new White House Chief of Staff?
Answer: Again, I am not in a position to comment about politics, per se.
I did previously have concerns about Stephen Miller's alleged land holdings in Eastern Europe, because I think there is the possibility of conflict of interest vis a vis his inside knowledge of the intended use of those properties.
Again, that would have to be verified by the Congress, and I think they may have a responsibility to do so.
3. Why would a person's ownership of land in Eastern Europe represent a conflict of interest?
Answer: When land is intended for military use or even for commercial development by companies held by the President or by his relatives, the purchase of such properties by those employed by the federal government and possessing of internal knowledge is deeply concerning. It's neither lawful nor ethical conduct, and the American people would understand the conflict of interest right away.
4. How should Congress handle this matter?
Answer: With a formal inquiry.
We need to ensure that those at the highest levels of government are not engaged in self-dealing projects that run counter to the lawful and ethical requirements of public servants.
5. What is the intended military use of certain land in Eastern Europe?
Answer: I would not disclose that information in this forum, but I do think that Congress has a responsibility to ask that question and receive an honest answer.
6. Does Mr. Miller own land in Eastern Europe intended for military use, separate and apart from projects intended for civilian development?
Answer: Again, that would be a question that Congress may wish to extend to Mr. Miller.
7. The White House Chief of Staff is an appointed position without a requirement of Congressional approval.
Answer: That's true. But if the Congress has reason to be concerned about conflict of interest or unlawful conduct, they can subpoena individuals with a demand for complete disclosure.
8. You would not comment on Mr. Miller's political views?
Answer: No, I would not. The question of conflict of interest has nothing to do with political persuasion. It has to do with character and integrity.
In the United States, we ask our public servants to demonstrate the highest possible ethical standards in governing in the interests of our people and the country as a whole.
That's not a question of political preference. That's a question of the quality of leadership.
9. Congress has many priorities right now. Is an ethical issue that may possibly pertain to a White House Chief of Staff a central concern to the Senate and the House?
Answer: In the most general terms, I will say that we need to pay especially close attention to people who are focused on the architecture of governance in a manner that involves conflict of interest. Specifically, we don't want to enable profiteering from the suffering of the public -- either the American public or the public of other countries.
This should be a subject of high priority for the United States Congress whenever it occurs.
10. What relationship might a White House Chief of Staff have to knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting?
Answer: I cannot conjecture in this setting, except to say an important one.
Certainly, we would not want to see a White House Chief of Staff misappropriating funds from a prominent case of knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting by the FBI and its affiliates.
11. Have there been instances in which a White House Chief of Staff has effectively gained control of the White House altogether?
Answer: Alexander Haig, HR Haldeman, Donald Regan and Sherman Adams may represent examples of overreach by White House Chiefs of Staff.
12. If there are ethical problems with a White House Chief of Staff, what are the impacts on a presidency?
Answer: We sometimes see presidential impeachment correspond to failings in ethics by White House Chiefs of Staff.
It's always in a President's best interest to be surrounded by people of high character and integrity.
13. On a different subject entirely, how is your own safety and security manifesting at this time? Do you generally feel that you are being appropriately protected from harm and predatory conduct?
Answer: My safety continues to be imperiled on a daily basis, although there are indications of cross-currents in this realm.
It seems as though the FBI continues to take false evidence before a handful of judges in order to obtain wrongful convictions allowing for physical harm to be planned against me specifically.
The agency's desire to profiteer appears to make this line of conduct a fairly high priority for the FBI.
14. What about suggestions that one or both of your sons have provided false witness statements regarding your case?
Answer: Would any legitimate court accept witness statements coerced under torture?
The proposition is ludicrous.
And one of the things we need to understand is that humanity as a whole is now at risk of being controlled in perpetuity by the same methods the FBI has perpetrated against my family members.
The United States needs to reject torture as a means of meeting State objectives. Because if we don't, then instances will arise in which certain individuals are deploying torture to profiteer from the National Treasury, not on behalf of the nation's interests, but on behalf of themselves.
And this is what we're currently seeing.
15. Self-dealing?
Answer: Self-dealing, yes.
16. Would you like to see outreach to you concerning your case?
Answer: Clearly, that would be most appropriate, yes. Honorable outreach from an independent intermediary.
17. Before we close, can you please discuss your source for the information disclosed here?
Answer: No domestic person or organization, foreign person or entity, or alien interest disclosed any of this information to me, nor did I find it online, over the phone, through audio recordings, in writing, or in any other form.
18. Might Stephen Miller or others suggest that his land holdings in Eastern Europe should remain confidential in the national security interest?
Answer: I have not disclosed the intended use of any such properties. There is nothing confidential with regard to the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in a high-ranking government official.
The American people have a right to understand whether their government officials are conducting themselves according to the highest ethical standards.
19. There have been apparent allegations of both sniper threats and IED threats with regard to your security and that of your dogs, in addition to staged car accidents and more major fires or explosives. Is that your understanding?
Answer: It is.
20. What are your thoughts about whether those threats are realistic?
Answer: I found a bomb on the gas tank of my rental vehicle on August 28, 2026. Further, on September 25, 2026, someone fired two bullets in close proximity to us in Tehachapi, California, in two separate settings.
So, the threats clearly have some basis in reality.
The greatest risk is in underestimating their seriousness, not overestimating it.
21. What about accountability for those who are approving of such aggression?
Answer: You know, I think judicial rulings should be rendered public. If a judge below the Supreme Court is undermining the Supreme Court's determinations on a particular case, those facts should be made known.
With regard to other authorization of unjustified harm, and particularly when it applies to advocates for the sovereignty of the United States, we may need to pursue prompt accountability, with reliance on the U.S. Congress to pursue that support for the American people.
22. Will the Congress pursue impeachment of certain officials?
Answer: The Congress has the right to investigate matters of concern with regard to documented abuses of power by certain public officials. Beyond that, the Congress has the responsibility to act on its findings.
I'm sure the facts will guide any legal initiatives the Congress commences.
23. Thank you for speaking with us this morning.
Answer: You are most welcome.
Lane MacWilliams, aka Carol Elaine Von Herzen
No comments:
Post a Comment