Category Big Government A Clear & Present Danger

Jun 13 2023

Senator Grassley Reveals FBI Confidential Human Source Alleging Biden Bribes Has Recordings of Himself Talking to Joe Biden


Posted originally on the CTH on June 13, 2023 | Sundance 

Things are certainly getting interesting on the Biden bribery story. Apparently, in the unclassified interview with the Confidential Human Source, the FBI redacted the source alleging he has audio recordings of himself speaking to Joe Biden.

Senator Chuck Grassley revealed this little bit of information today from the security of the Senate floor. WATCH:

[Grassley] […] Let me assist for purposes of transparency.

The 1023 produced to that House Committee redacted reference that the foreign national who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden allegedly has audio recordings of his conversations with them. Seventeen total recordings.

According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses fifteen audio recordings of phone calls between him and Hunter Biden. According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses two audio recordings of phone calls between him and then-Vice President Joe Biden. These recordings were allegedly kept as a sort of insurance policy for the foreign national in case he got into a tight spot. The 1023 also indicates that then-Vice President Joe Biden may have been involved in Burisma employing Hunter Biden. (read full transcript)

[Transcript] – Last week, I came to the Senate Floor to give a speech about the Biden Justice Department and FBI playing games with the American people by hiding the FBI-generated 1023 document from Congress.

Director Wray was going to be held in contempt for refusing to produce the 1023 that I told Chairman Comer about. Then, instead of contempt, the FBI committed to showing the 1023 and related documents to Congress.

So, the FBI showed but didn’t provide possession of that 1023 to the House Oversight Committee last week.

As the public knows that 1023 involves an alleged bribery scheme between then-Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden and a foreign national. The same allegations that Chairman Comer and I made public on May 3 of this year.

And on the same day that the FBI provided a redacted version of the 1023 to the House Oversight Committee, the Justice Department announced that former President Trump had been indicted and charged with 37 crimes relating to his alleged mishandling of classified records.

Attorney General Garland signed off on prosecuting Trump for conduct similar to what Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton engaged in. Two standards of justice in this country will turn our constitutional Republic upside down. Thanks to the political infection within the Biden Justice Department and FBI, we’re well along the road for that to happen.

This senator will do all that he can to fight that political infection. And you fight it by bringing transparency to what the government does. The public’s business ought to be public. Transparency brings accountability.

With respect to the 1023 shown to that House Committee, from what I’ve been told by folks who’ve reviewed it, it’s filled with redactions. So, Director Wray placed redactions on a document that’s already unclassified.

More than that, the FBI made Congress review a redacted unclassified document in a classified facility. That goes to show you the disrespect the FBI has for Congress. On a previous time on the Senate Floor, I asked my fellow senators what’s so unusual about an unclassified document being given to the public, when on May 18 of this year, there was leaked to the New York Times a classified document and even the name of a confidential human source. So, we’re kind of in a strange situation here. A classified document can be leaked to the New York Times, but an unclassified document can’t be made public to 300 million Americans.

Accordingly, Congress still lacks a full and complete picture with respect to what that document really says. That’s why it’s important that the document be made public without unnecessary redactions for the American people to see.

Let me assist for purposes of transparency.

The 1023 produced to that House Committee redacted reference that the foreign national who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden allegedly has audio recordings of his conversations with them. Seventeen total recordings.

According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses fifteen audio recordings of phone calls between him and Hunter Biden. According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses two audio recordings of phone calls between him and then-Vice President Joe Biden. These recordings were allegedly kept as a sort of insurance policy for the foreign national in case he got into a tight spot. The 1023 also indicates that then-Vice President Joe Biden may have been involved in Burisma employing Hunter Biden.

So, as I’ve repeatedly asked since going public with the existence of the 1023, what, if anything, has the Justice Department and FBI done to investigate?

The Justice Department and FBI must show their work. They no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s clear that the Justice Department and FBI will use every resource to investigate candidate Trump, President Trump and former President Trump.

Based on the facts known to Congress and the public, it’s clear that the Justice Department and FBI will use every resource to investigate candidate Trump, President Trump and former President Trump. Based on the facts known to Congress and the public, it’s clear that the Justice Department and FBI haven’t nearly had the same laser focus on the Biden family.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has used a recording against former President Trump. Well, what’s U.S. Attorney Weiss doing with respect to these alleged Joe and Hunter Biden recordings that are apparently relevant to a high-stakes bribery scheme?

Getting a full and complete 1023 is critical for the American people to know and understand the true nature of the document and to hold the Justice Department and FBI accountable.

It’s also important for asserting constitutional congressional oversight powers against an out-of-control Executive Branch drunk with political infection. Remember, Congress has received 1023’s in the past and they’ve been made public. So asking for this 1023 to be turned over to the American people to read is not unusual.

Congress owes it to the American people and the brave and heroic whistleblowers to continue to fight for transparency in this matter and make this document public without unnecessary redactions.

I want everyone to remember, that I have read the unredacted version. [Transcript Link]

Additionally, as more information is coming out from the FD-1023 and associated articles, the deep weeds walkers and research teams are zeroing in on the potential identity of the Confidential Human Source who gave the interview to the FBI.

SEE HERE 

Also keep in mind, this testimony was made to the FBI in July of 2020.  We are now past several elections of sequential coverup operations by the FBI in order to protect Joe Biden and manipulate election outcomes.

Jun 13 2023

The National Security “Nuclear” Documents Outlined by Jack Smith Are Pure Lawfare Manipulation – “Defense Centered” Records Not What Media Claims


Posted originally on the CTH on June 12, 2023 | Sundance 

Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive.  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.

As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents.  When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process.  Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.

Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part.  You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment.  However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.

This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment.  Again, pay close attention. WATCH:

.

What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023 {citation}.  What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.

Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.

First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents.  They requested a return of documents containing classification markings.  These are two entirely different things.

Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings.  Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.

Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved.  In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security.

Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare game playing with words taking place, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed.   Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.

During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they could *KNOW* fulsome return of documents had not taken place.  The response from the NARA officials is enlightening:

[Source pdf, testimony transcript – page 43 and 44]

Notice that NARA had knowledge these documents were in the possession of Trump and were pertinent to their archive retrieval.  It was interesting at the time that NARA would know the content of the President Obama letter, and further interesting they would know there was more than one piece of correspondence between President Trump and Chairman Kim [Jong-un].  CNN even wrote about it HERE.

[Irrelevant note: Mr Bonsanko got the name wrong, Jong-il is dead]

Reminder, keep in mind the DOJ ferocity in not wanting anyone to know what documents they retrieved and/or defined.

We know, from President Trump describing the letter left to him by the former president, that Obama told Trump in the letter that the number one foreign policy and intelligence threat perceived by Obama (at the time of his exit) was a nuclear armed North Korea.  This is where you overlay the Jack Smith writing in the indictment of national defense secrets and nuclear security issues.

We know, from President Trump speaking publicly about his communication and diplomacy with Chairman Kim Jong-un, that the two leaders exchanged letters relating to aligned national security interests that centered around DPRK nuclear ambitions and status.

Trump and Kim formed a geopolitical truce, a friendship of sorts, based on respect and trust around the nuclear issue.  Chairman Kim decreased hostilities; President Trump no longer used inflammatory language about “Little Rocket Man.”  A diplomatic détente was created.

NARA was looking for the letter written by Obama that described DPRK nukes, and NARA was looking for letters between Trump and Kim that touched on DPRK nukes.

Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to “nuclear concerns” and “national security matters” make more sense?

Would all of this hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim?  YES!  Would President Trump even characterize those as government property?  NO!

Can you see the way it unfolds?   Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.

In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictment√; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described them√.  Hey, wait… that’s exactly what they did.

But wait, it gets better….

First, why would President Obama write about the DPRK nuclear threat in his letter welcoming President-elect Trump to the White House?  It always struck me as odd, even years ago, when Trump would talk about this issue.  It never made sense why President Obama would memorialize that type of an issue in writing, until today.

Normally that type of policy and leadership issue would be part of a conversation.  “Mr. Trump, as I depart office the number one issue you might first want to deal with on a national security basis is the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, here’s my opinion”… and so it would go.  Why write it down?   If the intention was to create a record that would always mean the letter was going to remain hidden from public review, then writing about DPRK nukes would be a solid tool for that motive.

Lastly, who would know about the content of the letter that President Obama wrote to President-elect Trump, specifically as it centers around a national security issue?  Who would know what Obama wrote to Trump?

Lisa Monaco would certainly know the content of the letter written by Barack Obama to Donald Trump; she, Susan Rice and Kathryn Ruemmler might have even assisted in the writing of it.  Remember, it was Susan Rice who wrote the January 20th “by the book” memo memorializing the FBI targeting of Trump, and Kathryn Ruemmler represented Susan Rice as her lawyer when investigators made inquiry.

Lisa Monaco was previously President OBama’s senior advisor for national security.

Currently Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco is the head of the DOJ operation that was targeting the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents and framing the legal issues for the DOJ to use in court.  Special Counsel Jack Smith also reports to Lisa Monaco.

Things making sense now?

Jun 12 2023

The True Story of Hyperinflation


Amstrong Economics Blog/Cryptocurrency Re-Posted Jun 12, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
could you please explain what happens in technical terms from a capital flow perspective, when confidence is lost and hyperinflation starts to begin?
For example Turkey. When Erdogan was elected i think you wrote that ever since the lira started dropping. So confidence in politics is key. Do you think one day we will see hyperinflation in Turkey?
And another example, is Yugoslavia: what caused the hyperinflation (in technical terms/capital flow perspective)? Are foreign investors getting rid of the dinars? Too many dinars than suddenly rushed back into Yugoslavia causing hyperinflation?
Regards,
Magdalena Š.

ANSWER: The misnomer about hyperinflation is that it is caused by printing money. It is a RESPONSE to the collapse in the confidence of the government.  If we look at the 3rd century, this is where we find the greatest number of hoards of ancient coins. What began this was the capture of Valerian I by the Persians in 260AD.

Valerian was the first Roman Emperor to be captured and Rome was unable to recuse him. That shook the confidence of the Roman people, but it also was a signal to the barbarian tribes in the North that if the Persians could do it, they could as well. Within 10 years, Emperor Aurelian constructed the great wall around Rome. Never before did Romans have such a defensive wall. That had a powerful army.

There was a trend toward debasing the silver coinage which began with Nero to try to fund the rebuilding of Rome after the Great Fire. But that did not undermine the confidence in the Roman Monetary System any more than our perpetual deficit spending since World War II.

However, a spark is ignited and suddenly that trend turns into what I have called a Waterfall event in the purchasing power of the currency. Such an event has taken various forms. However, the end result is the collapse in the confidence of the government and as a result, that is when you get that waterfall event.

In the case of Germany, Yugoslavia, Hungary, etc, there was a 1918 Revolution where communists seized power and the emperor of Germany lost power. In that case, they actually asked Russia to take Germany after their revolution in 1917. This was the beginning of the Weimar Republic.

Germany was saddled with reparation payments demanded by France. First, you had a communist revolution and people with capital began to flee to other places in Europe or certainly move their money out of German banks. It was this drain of wealth that forced the Weimar Republic to print money to try to make their reparation payments. Then in December 1922, they seized 10% of everyone’s assets and handed them a bond.

Here you can see that after that December 1922 confiscation, hyperinflation simply took over. It was NOT the printing of money that caused the hyperinflation it was the collapse of confidence FIRST which then compels the government to expand the money supply lacking taxation revenues etc.

I suspect the spark this time may be the Digital Currency and the proposed cancellation of paper currency. This is why people are moving to anything tangible from real estate, gold, silver, ancient coins, and even equities. With DIGITAL CURRENCY they will have capital controls and prevent you from even moving money outside of your country.

The precise day of the ECM was the announcement of the IMF Digital Currency which they intend to replace the US dollar as the reserve currency. This may be timed with the turning point in 2024. It is unlikely that they would cancel paper currencies before the 2024 election. This is all being

Jun 12 2023

Europeans Do Not Want to Support the US in a War Against China


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Jun 12, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

America seems to have lost all true allies. Once the world police, the US has been expected to “save” democracies worldwide since the First World War. The US pledges more to NATO than any other member and has gifted Ukraine endless supplies to protect Europe from “Russian aggression.” Yet, a new poll states that Europeans would not want to back America in a war against China.

Six thousand people were surveyed from Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. Only a quarter of respondents said they’d “like their country, or Europe, to take America’s side,” while 62% would like to remain neutral. Around 43% said China is a “necessary partner” to the EU, and they must “strategically cooperate” with Beijing. Bulgarians were the most likely to side an alliance with China (8%) and/or consider the nation a “necessary partner” (58%). Swedes were the most willing to support the US, with 26% calling China an adversary. About 31% of Poles also said they would side with America if they were to go to war with China.

What will happen to America’s allies when China becomes the more strategic trading partner? American politicians have destabilized our economy and are attempting to steer away from capitalism. Countries will be lining up to sell to China, and not the US.

In the end, it does not matter. The people are never permitted to vote on whether or not we go to war. Most of us, regardless of nationality, simply want peace. We all want to have enough to live comfortably, which is not an option during wars. They ask us to sacrifice, but for what? Our politicians create conflict and send the people, who never had a say in the first place, into battle to die.

If China enters Taiwan, the world will erupt into chaos. The neocons have been waiting for that very moment to justify a new war. Every NATO member nation would be required to fight China. A Gallup poll from February showed that 65% of Americans wanted to support Ukraine against Russia, but they likely do not realize what it entails. We are not merely giving Ukraine supplies; we are preparing for a worldwide battle. In the end, the people are merely cannon fodder and I hesitate to show any support to a politician who believes war is the only option for conflict resolution.

Jun 12 2023

Sunday Talks – The Encapsulation


Posted originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance 

I have been reviewing interviews, looking at discussion, and some of them I will share in the next few articles.  However, for a solid representation of the state of our current dynamic, as it relates to the targeting of President Donald J. Trump, this interview below is a solid outlook from the detractors.

CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman and CBS News investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge join “Face the Nation” to discuss what’s in the indictment — and what it means for Trump. [Transcript Here]

Before getting to the video, it’s valuable to see Rikki Klieman representing the interpretation of the media outlook toward the indictment handed down by Special Counsel Jack Smith.  It is also valuable to see CBS’s Catherine Herridge represent the defenders of the institutions, from the outside vulgarian personage of Trump.

Klieman buys the Lawfare narrative completely, including the framework of classified documents as opposed to documents containing classified markings.  She sells the Lawfare outline as gospel and makes all assertions from that position.  Herridge looks at how the bureaucracy responds to Trump, including how the institutions hold power of determination higher than a President of the United States.

As Bill Barr said emphatically earlier today, “The documents do not belong to Trump,” continuing with “The documents belong to the government who created them, not the man for whom they were created.”  So sayeth the defender of the omnipotent Dept of Justice.  This is where a sharp intellectual knife to cut through the chaff and countermeasures is needed, and notice no one brings up the visible and practical deconstruction point.

If the documents did not belong to President Donald J. Trump, then why did the government dump them in the parking lot of the White House and tell him to deal with them?

If the documents belonged to the government, and not to the man for whom they were created, then why did that same government give them to him and force him to take them to a location of his choosing?   Can you see the obtuse argument fall apart when simple pragmatic questions are raised?

The institutions are presented, by the sellers of the Lawfare narrative, as higher than the authority of the President of the United States.  This is how ridiculous our government has become.

Institutions are not omnipotent entities; they are buildings and networks full of people who facilitate processes that are an outcome of policy.  Those buildings and offices are not the government. The elected politicians who we send to Washington DC are not subservient to the processes, norms and morays they determine within the bureaucracy that the politicians are in charge of.

The argument(s) against Donald Trump are akin to a business saying that all work product created during the tenure of employment belongs to the enterprise of the business and not to the employee.  If you want to hold that line of thought, fine.  However, you then need to reconcile that the business enterprise intentionally gave all the work product to the employee, dumped it in their lap, told them to take it and leave, and then comes back at a later date and says – we now need to review the stuff we forced you to take because some of it might not actually belong to you.

Does this happen anywhere else?  Of course not.

The fact that the National Archives and Record Administration refused to take custody of the documents upon the end of the White House tenure, combined with the fact the NARA dumped those documents in the parking lot of the White House for Trump to deal with, is a direct statement the bureaucracy was telling President Trump these are your records.  His records – not their records on loan to him.

The Presidential Records Act is the overriding legislative guidance for the flow of work product post term in office.  These are essentially document arguments.  The fact that NARA together with the Biden administration would weaponize the disposition of documents, they intentionally forced Trump to take ownership of, speaks to an intent within the bureaucracy that is transparently obvious.

Bill Barr’s entire mindset is based on a belief the institutions are of a higher power than the individuals we elect to control them.  In essence, the President of the United States is subservient to the bureaucracy.  This is nonsense.  This is also why former AG Bill Barr was more concerned about preserving the institutions than stopping the weaponizing activity that flows from them.

President Trump could store his “presidential records” anywhere he wants to; they are his records.

Now, watch Klieman obscure the difference between classified documents and documents containing classified markings.  Despite her pontifications to the contrary, the indictment is not based around any classified documents.  The classification of the documents is technically and factually moot to the ridiculous point the special counsel is making.

.

[Transcript] -JOHN DICKERSON: For more on the legal implications, we’re joined by senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge and CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman.

Rikki, I want to start with you.

You have been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. So what stands out to you, now that you have read this indictment?

RIKKI KLIEMAN: I think what stands out, obviously, is the magnitude of detail in this indictment.

It’s not only that you’re dealing with 31 counts under the Espionage Act, which simply means the unlawful, willing retention of classified information, or even unclassified information that would hurt the defense of the United States and aid our enemies. It’s the detail of a speaking indictment.

We have to remember that much of this indictment, John, is to educate not only ultimately a court and jury, but it’s really to educate the public. Much of this indictment, in terms of the detail, may not even come into evidence, in terms of what’s admissible or not in the course of a trial.

What also strikes me, John, is, the overwhelming detail leaves the Trump legal team with real need to have powerful motions to dismiss, because, if this goes to trial, the way it reads, it’s rather overwhelming for anyone to be able to fight it on the facts themselves.

JOHN DICKERSON: And I want to get to that motion-to-dismiss question in a moment.

But, Catherine, you have been doing reporting about the risk assessment about just what was in these documents. Educate us on that.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, what jumps out to me, John, is when you go to the section the willful retention of national defense information, by my count, there are 21 top secret documents, and the disclosure of top secret information has the expectation of exceptionally grave damage to national security.

But what out — stands out to me is some of the classified codings, like TK, or Talent Keyhole. You don’t see that very often. That’s about intelligence from overhead imagery. For example, if we’re looking at a terrorist target, do we have such good visibility that we can count the hairs on their head? Can we see what they’re eating for breakfast on their terrorist patio?

Those are capabilities that we don’t want our adversaries to know that we have. And then also Special Access Programs, or SAP, these are highly restricted programs because of the sensitivity of the intelligence and the technology, such as stealth technology, for example.

Think of classified information like the Pentagon. Special Access Programs are these handful of rooms where there are just a limited number of keys to control and restrict access to that information.

JOHN DICKERSON: So it’s not just secret; it’s the top of the — top of the top?

CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Some of these are way beyond top secret, like, I said, Talent Keyhole, when you’re talking about Special Access Programs or SCI, sensitive, compartmentalized information.

These really are the crown jewels of the U.S. intelligence community.

JOHN DICKERSON: Rikki, let me ask you about a part of this indictment which seems to come — which comes from one of the former president’s lawyers.

Educate us on the crime-fraud exception, how it’s possible for a prosecutor to have this information. And is that a weakness? Because we know, from our reporting, that this is something that the Trump defense team is going to talk about, is the behavior of the prosecutors.

RIKKI KLIEMAN: We all believe that, when you go to a doctor, that there’s a privilege, that what you say and what your ailments are will remain confidential.

Same thing if you go to a clergyperson. And it’s exactly the same thing. When you go to a lawyer. You believe that, if you are a client, that what you say will never be disclosed to anyone, let alone in the grand jury or court of law. It’s called the attorney-client privilege. It protects all conversations relating to legal advice.

So, how did it get broken? That is, how did a court in Washington, D.C., a judge, and then an appellate court affirm the idea that you could hear, listen, read the notes and the voice memos of a lawyer to testify against his own client?

It’s called the crime-fraud exception. So what the court believed was, the conversations between Evan Corcoran, the lawyer, and Donald Trump were really in furtherance of a crime or a fraud, and he was ordered and forced to testify.

Now, one could say, well, that’s one and done. So now Mr. Corcoran is going to be a witness in this case, should it go to trial. But we have to remember that that took place, that decision, in the District of Columbia. Now we are in Florida. So can it come up to a new judge? Might a new judge decide that it is not admissible at trial? Yes.

Will that hurt the case? Not necessarily. There’s plenty of other evidence.

JOHN DICKERSON: Catherine, I have got two questions for you.

The first is, what happens if you’re just a regular old Joe and you have this kind of information? Legally, what happens to you? What’s happened?

CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, as one example, I have contacts who work in the nuclear weapons capability arena.

Let’s say you have a nuclear document, it’s on top of the photocopier, and you walk away, you leave it there. Your clearance is gone. You are out the door. There are immediate consequences.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about a number of the president’s defenders.

Well, first of all, we should note, the current president is under investigation by a special counsel.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Correct.

JOHN DICKERSON: We don’t know much about that. But Republicans have brought that up in defending the president. They have also brought the case of Hillary Clinton.

You have been looking at that. Give us a sense of the apples and oranges or apples and apples in comparison with what’s on the table here.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, what strikes me, John, in this indictment is I think the special counsel, Jack Smith, specifically charged willful retention of national defense information in an effort to sort of blunt criticism that these cases may be the same.

If you go back to the summer of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey said that they found multiple e-mail chains on Hillary Clinton’s private server that she used for government business that contained highly classified information, including these Special Access Programs that we just discussed, but, in his view, it should not be charged because he didn’t feel there was sufficient evidence of intent or willfulness.

Critics would say that even just purchasing the server was an example of intent. And then, finally, you have to look at just the scope of the information and also the timeline. But I think this charging of willful retention really is by design.

JOHN DICKERSON: Right, the facts of the case quite different. But thank you so much for that and for all your other answers.

And, Rikki Klieman, thank you.

And Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us. (link)

.

[Support CTH HERE]

Jun 12 2023

Sunday Talks, Bill Barr Goes All-in to Support Anti Trump Campaign


Published originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance 

Appearing on Rupert Murdoch’s network Fox News, former Attorney General Bill Barr frame his false construct in the documents case against President Trump.

First, the obvious.  Barr is motivated in his position because this is the constructed inflection point against Donald Trump.  The severity of his position, the pretending not to know things, the defensive position about the power of government institutions, all of it is expressed in sum and total for one primary purpose; this is the moment they have manufactured to take Trump down.  This is the DC Republican moment all preceding moments were designed to support.

Second, on the details.  Barr states with emphasis, the “presidential daily brief (PDB) is not the president’s personal document,” it is a document provided for him by the U.S. intelligence community (IC).  Worth noting here is a little factoid that runs in opposition to Barr:

WASHINGTON – […] “while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.  By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments.” [Source] 

No one is saying the Trump PDB is Trump’s “personal document“, the point is the PDB’s in question -those noted in the indictment- were part of President Trump’s papers, his administration records; able to be reviewed and critiqued by anyone the president would assign, including speechwriters.  Barr us making a non-sequitur.

Third, Barr notes the documents created by government officials are different from personal papers of the President.  Perhaps technically true, an argument and debate that takes place after all administrations.  However, if government owned, why did government officials (NARA) then stack the documents in the White House parking lot for President Trump to take.

Lastly, like all pundits and commentators all weekend, everyone is intentionally pretending not to know the difference between ‘classified documents’ and ‘documents containing classification markings’.   The former is not part of the argument, the latter wording is artful Lawfare language.

Jun 10 2023

Jeff Clark Gives Solid Take on DOJ Trump Indictment Scheme


Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2023 | Sundance 

Rather than write 10,000 highly specific and legally granular words to deconstruct the Trump indictment, I will share the opinion of others with supporting analysis and add some substance to the issues. Later I will compile all the various points of analysis into one very granular article.

First, it is important to always remember why this indictment is taking place.  The DOJ, specifically Lisa Monaco, are continuing the offensive against Trump in large part to cover for the actions of the Obama administration in the originating targeting of their political opposition.  Originating Spygate operations (’15-’16), Russiagate (’16-’17), Mueller (’17-’19), Impeachment #1 (’19-’20), Durham (’19-’23) and Jack Smith ’22-present, are all part of one long continuum of weaponized DOJ and FBI operations.  The entirety of the effort is to protect the actions taken by the Obama administration. [Note to congress: Questioning Durham this month is defense key #1]

In this interview {Direct Rumble Link} Jeff Clark gives his opinion of the statutory weaknesses that exist in the case as outlined in the indictment.  The first two defense approaches will likely be: (1) the Presidential Records Act supersedes the issues of document holding as noted in the use of the Espionage Act. (2) However, if the Espionage Act [Statute 793(e)] has to be defended, the originating issue of “unauthorized possession” will be the second approach heading to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  WATCH:

Granular note, putting aside the fact that classification is irrelevant to the statute being used, within the indictment please notice how the DOJ states 102 classified documents [pg 27], some that were never marked classified as noted in the indictment [count 11, page 30] but defined as classified after DOJ review, were discovered after the Trump affirmation of compliance in July 2022.  This is the predicate for the FBI raid.  Again, a total of 102 documents were identified as classified by the FBI/DOJ.

They were unable to use classification status as a legal mechanism to attack President Trump; instead, they use the non-production as an evidence enhancement to the ridiculous claim that Trump lied to them (sec 1001); but notice how there are only 31 documents [31 counts] outlined as national defense security issues.  This would mean approximately 70 classified documents are memory holed by this special counsel.

70 defined “classified” documents retrieved, no description provided, those documents not a part of any legal contention – they just disappear.   I suspect we know what those sets of documents pertained to, and they have everything to do with DOJ and FBI conduct in Russiagate.

CTH has a years-long research library on all of these Trump-Russia investigative issues, including the in-real-time background stories that encompass them, and that library is massive.

If you have a specific question, ask me in the comments section and I will do my earnest best to review and answer.

Tell me what questions you have, and I will do my best.

Be of good cheer, I really don’t think this indictment will past the first defense challenge, The Presidential Records Act.

Jun 10 2023

Marjorie Taylor Greene Outlines the FBI Document She Reviewed Highlighting Bribes to Joe Biden and Family – Video and Transcript


Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2023 | Sundance 

Amid all the furor of the corrupt and political indictment against President Trump, Congress was permitted to read the witness statement from a Confidential Human Source who outlined allegations of bribery in testimony to FBI agents.

The FD-1023 report was written by FBI investigators in July of 2020.  It became an issue after the FBI seemingly took no action, and then recently claimed to be “investigating” the claims of the “highly credible” FBI source.  Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) reviewed the report and then gave her impression to the media.  Video and Transcript below. WATCH:

Transcript: Reading this form (FBI’s FD-1023) today shows the pure distinction.

This information this source that came forward. It’s a paid informant by the FBI. This has nothing to do with Giuliani. This has nothing to do with the information that he brought forward in 2020. It’s totally separate and it’s extremely incredible because he’s a paid informant.

I made some notes after I left the skiff based on the information and I’ll share that with you guys right now.

Basically, what was happening there is back in 2015 2016 Burisma was looking to buy a US based oil and gas company, and this came from being advised by Hunter Biden and his partners.

(Joe) Biden said Shokan was corrupt. That was around the time of this meeting was when Joe Biden was Vice President had said that the prosecutor Shogun was correct.
They hired Hunter on the board to make the problems go away. That’s what they specifically said.

Hunter advised that they can raise more money if they bought a US company.

So the informant was trying to do the right thing and trying to advise Burisma that they shouldn’t go this route but they should hire an attorney to work out their problems that they were being investigated for because they were having other legal problems. And that’s why they were being investigated by this prosecutor Shokin that it was advising them don’t go this route.

Why would you buy another US company while you’re under investigation? That’s not a good idea. So he’s trying to tell him to do the right thing.

The owner of Burisma said that Hunter was stupid and that his other business partner was smart.

He also said that he paid $5 million to one Biden and he paid $5 million to another Biden and it was all a bribery to get Shokin fired and end the investigation into Burisma.

He also told the informant This is common practice in Russia in Ukraine, common practice, it’s part of business there are other cultural works, that they will pay bribery money in order to get business deals done. And then many businesses, they take that into account they put in their budget, basically, when they’re preparing to buy another company or start another company, that that’s just normal.

And so over in Ukraine, for them to consider hiring Hunter Biden on the board in order to make their problems go away, which was the prosecutor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma for corruption and legal problems.

This was definitely illegal for a vice president of the United States and their family members.

The informant had asked the owner of Burisma if he was happy that Trump won and he said no he was not happy. Remember, he had invested a lot of money into the Biden’s to make these problems go away. But he did say that it would take 10 years for all of us to find out about the payments that were made to the Bidens. Because of how many bank accounts there were.

He said at the time, there were no direct payments made to big guy but at the meeting later, after he had become more upset as things are unfolding, he told that informant that he has two pieces of evidence showing proof of payment to Hunter and specifically Joe Biden.

You see, I think what everyone needs to understand is their business. Whether they perform their business in a legal manner or correct manner, they always keep records of their business payments, accounts and receivables that’s how it’s done and this owner and Burisma pepper record, especially at the bribes and if you’re in an industry where you have to pay bribes to get your business deals done.

You always want to keep a record and keep proof of your brides because that’s how you make sure you get people to follow through on whether it was done.
What I read today is again shocking just as what I read in the treasury department with all the SARS is shocking. But we are going to continue following this investigation.

We’re going to continue to look into every single thing that we can uncover.

We need the FBI to keep cooperating with us that’s extremely important. And I have very high expectations of Christopher Wray that will do the right thing and continue showing us the information that we’re asking for.

What I’m upset about though the FBI doesn’t think the American people are worthy of this unclassified information. I certainly do. I think the American people deserve to know every single bit of it and that’s why when I left the skiff, I’ve made this paper here so that I could explain everything to the American people. (End Transcript)

Jun 10 2023

Americans Can See What Is Going On


Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2023 | Sundance 

SPAN callers respond to President Trump’s indictment.  Americans can see what is happening, listen:

.

Jun 10 2023

Strategic Lawfare at Work, They Didn’t Resign – Jack Smith Takes Down Two Trump Lawyers Using Compelled Testimony, Creating Witnesses Within Indictment


Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2023 | Sundance 

Good news, bad news and granular news..

First, the good news. The judge assigned to the Trump documents case is U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon.  She is the same judge who handled the lawsuit last year after the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.   Judge Cannon was the judge who appointed the “special master” to review the documents the DOJ was claiming were classified, but Team Trump was contending that definition.

Now the bad news. The DOJ is no longer legally arguing that Donald Trump held any classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.  The DOJ is arguing that President Trump held documents vital to U.S. defense security.  It’s a farce but that’s their position.  The classification status of documents is moot, nonexistent, except to create the predicate for the proverbial FBI nose under the tent.

The DOJ-NSD (that’s Lisa Monaco) got a warrant to look for classified documents, but never intended to use classified documents as a case cornerstone because President Trump had full declassification authority.  The DOJ got a search warrant by convincing a judge they were looking for something that wasn’t even a violation of law. That’s why the DOJ would not reveal the probable cause affidavit.  The search was built upon a fraudulent pretense.  “Classified” is a snipe hunt.

You will notice Jack Smith never discussed “classified documents” in his remarks, and the issue of classified documents appears nowhere except in the indictment as a purposeful lawfare description of documents.  The DOJ is not legally charging anything relating to the classification status of the documents.  That’s the Lawfare and media banter to create a talking point.  The term “classified” is all over the indictment, but as a lawfare adjective only; it’s like using the word “stash”.

The special counsel legal framework is centered around documents the DOJ define as vital to “the defense security” of the United States.  EVERYTHING is predicated on 31 counts of an 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation.  The DOJ defines what is considered a defense document, and that intentionally has nothing to do with classification.

The granular news.  You might have heard that two of Trump’s lawyers, Jim Trusty and John Rowley, quit today.  The media wants to use their exit as a point to indicate Trump is in legal jeopardy; however, that’s not the case.

As soon as Trusty and Rowley saw their forced testimony was used in the indictment, they had no option except to exit the case.  Despite the lawyers providing no damaging information against Trump, the DOJ used language in the indictment to turn Trump’s lawyers into material witnesses. Weissmann’s Lawfare tactic create a conflict, forcing the two Trump lawyers to depart.

WASHINGTON DC – Two of Donald Trump’s top lawyers abruptly resigned from his defense team on Friday, just hours after news broke that he and a close aide were indicted on charges related to their handling of classified documents.

Jim Trusty and John Rowley, who helmed Trump’s Washington, D.C.-based legal team for months and were seen frequently at the federal courthouse, indicated they would no longer represent Trump in matters being investigated and prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, who is probing both the documents matter and efforts by Trump to subvert the 2020 election.

The resignations were shortly followed by an announcement from Trump himself confirming that a close aide, Walt Nauta, had also been indicted by federal prosecutors. Nauta, a Navy veteran, had served as the former president’s personal aide and was a ubiquitous presence during his post White House days.

In their place, Trump indicated that Todd Blanche — an attorney he recently retained to help fight unrelated felony charges brought by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg in April — would lead his legal team, along with a firm to be named later. Trump and his team have liked Blanche, who is expected to play a more elevated, central role. (more)

Weissmann, Eisen and Smith are using lawfare in the indictment to put the interests of Trump and his aide Walt Nauta against each other.   Obviously, Nauta would not turn on Trump, so the prosecution made Nauta a target for a federal 1001 charge of lying to investigators and will pressure him throughout the case to take a plea in exchange for testimony against Trump.   Nauta is the baseline of the “Conspiracy Elements” which require two or more people.  Again, pure Lawfare.

Obviously, Jim Trusty was unaware last night that his forced testimony would be used in the indictment. WATCH: