The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware has given a sweet deal to Hunter Biden. Joe Biden’s son will plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges, and a federal gun charge. The gun charge will be deferred by a division program where Hunter promises to be a better person. The two tax charges will result in a slap on the wrist.
According to a statement from Hunter Biden’s attorney, “With the announcement of two agreements between my client, Hunter Biden, and the Unites States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, it is my understanding that the five-year investigation into Hunter is resolved.”
“Hunter will take responsibility for two instances of misdemeanor failure to file tax payments when due pursuant to a plea agreement. A firearm charge, which will be subject to a pretrial diversion agreement and will not be the subject of the plea agreement, will also be filed by the Government. I know Hunter believes it is important to take responsibility for these mistakes he made during a period of turmoil and addiction in his life. He looks forward to continuing his recovery and moving forward.”
A White House spokesperson said, “The President and First Lady love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life. We will have no further comment.” (link)
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)
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:
Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2023 | Sundance
I would strongly urge people, especially those who walk the deep weeds, to READ THE INDICTMENT carefully, before watching the remarks by special counsel Jack Smith as delivered today. What you will notice is that 31 of the 37 counts alleged in the indictment are individual counts, one per document, specific to Statute 793(e) which pertains to defense department information.
There were, as claimed in the justice department prior court arguments, and again affirmed today in the indictment itself, 100 classified documents located by the FBI and DOJ after the Trump certification of compliance. Of those 100 documents, 31 of them were specifically selected to represent the baseline for the 793(e) charge. Listen to Smith emphasize Defense and Defense Intelligence, and soon you will see why. WATCH:
Jack Smith is relying on 18 U.S. Code 793, a law created in 1948 intended to stop contractors to the Defense Dept from stealing, selling, or copying U.S. defense system secrets, or patents on defense products. [READ THE LAW] The premise of 31-counts [each an individual document] pertain to “National Defense Security.” The subsequent six counts are predicated around the claimed 793(e) violations.
The DOJ is not, repeat NOT, arguing a classified documents case. The entire legal framework is centered around documents they define as vital to the defense security of the United States. EVERYTHING is predicated on this 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation:
18 U.S. Code § 793(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
Despite the verbose language in the indictment, a key element of Lawfare, the case is weak. The prosecutors know it. I will explain.
NOTE: Sixty nine documents in a Deep State rabbit hole! ~Sundance
Posted originally on the CTH on June 8, 2023 | Sundance
On June 2nd former Mueller special counsel and impeachment operative, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen respectively, published their current Trump prosecution memo [Read Here] using a novel and arcane interpretation of US Code 793. Four days later media began reporting from leaks within the Jack Smith special counsel of the main legal approach they were going to use against President Trump [citation]. What approach is Jack Smith taking, US Code 793! This is not coincidental.
In addition to protecting the interests of corrupt former Obama officials, organizing, supporting and coordinating with the Lawfare network is the purpose for Deputy AG Lisa Monaco to exist in current Main Justice operations.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is a tool, vessel and willing participant in one long Lawfare continuum that originates back in the Obama administration when they weaponized the DOJ to target their political opposition. Andrew Weissmann writing the guidelines for Jack Smith to deploy is simply a visible example of how this operation is being conducted.
Weissmann even sells Trump Prosecution swag on his podcast. They are not trying to hide their influence and control over the Main Justice operations, they are quite open about it because they sense they have nothing to fear.
However, the intent of the Weissmann and Eisen approach is based on a need to protect the illegal Lawfare activity from sunlight. The Lawfare continuum is based on a need to protect the weaponized use of government that took place during the Obama administration.
The Obama administration and all of the participants in the agencies involved, use their institutional power to target their political opponents. The DOJ and FBI targeted Donald Trump in 2016 with these weaponized systems. The ODNI and CIA also supported. President Obama, and all the affiliates, aligned ideologues and conscripts used the U.S. government to target their political opposition. In the aftermath of the 2016 election, all of the foot soldiers took up position to protect the administration from public discovery of what took place.
Inside DC, Democrats and many Republicans are aligned in common self-interested defense against Trump specifically because of the weaponization that took place. The Jack Smith special counsel is just another system in a long train of government abuse. That’s why Weissmann, Eisen and the Lawfare group are still operating – still assisting, still helping and still coordinating.
♦ Weissmann-Mueller: Everything that happened inside Main Justice from May ’17 to April ’19, activity that was grabbing every scintilla of media attention, was being done by the Mueller/Weissmann team. Key word ‘everything.’
There was not a single action from Main Justice that was not controlled by Andrew Weissman and company. This action includes the revelations of staff and congressional members from the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) having subpoenas for their private emails, phone records, text message and communication.
Andrew Weissmann sent over 2,800 subpoenas for records [See 156-Pages of Examples Here]. Some of those subpoenas were sent to various telecommunications and social media platforms so they could monitor what congress was doing.
In essence, and this is a very important part of the record that is being missed, Weissmann and his team, having been given the primary responsibility of covering up the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity from the 2016 election, needed to know what Devin Nunes and Kash Patel knew. As a result, Andrew Weissmann and team, using the figurehead of Robert Mueller as a pretext and patina, put members of congress under watch.
DAG Rod Rosenstein was presumably unaware of what Weissmann and team were doing. In the world of the bureaucratic state, willful blindness has benefits and avoids a person taking a position on whether they are directly part of the corrupt activity. As a man comfortable with the Machiavellian ways of the deep swamp, Rod Rosenstein was the perfect and useful weasel on a leash for this specific role as DOJ liaison.
Again, why does this matter?
This context matters because it is much more of an explosive revelation to realize there were two sets of investigators, each investigating each other. Devin Nunes was investigating a corrupt DOJ and FBI. Weissmann and team trying to cover for corruption within the DOJ and FBI.
Chairman Devin Nunes trying to find out what was going on and put the pieces of an opaque puzzle together. Meanwhile Andrew Weissmann was in the role of blocker to the interest of Nunes, and was a stakeholder is knowing what Nunes was piecing together.
Mueller/Weissmann were on offense against President Trump, and Weissmann/Mueller were simultaneously on defense against the House Intel Committee.
Andrew Weissmann was charged with protecting the prior corrupt activity and shielding it from sunlight. In order to accomplish this goal, he had to know what Devin Nunes and Kash Patel were doing. Thus, amid the 2,800 subpoenas and search warrants, Weissmann was investigating the House investigators.
Do you remember the prosecution “Witness #8” in the case against George Zimmerman? The person described as Trayvon Martin’s “girlfriend” who was claimed by FOUR state prosecutors to be the star “ear witness” against Zimmerman.
Do you remember how we waited month after month, laughing at how the State of Florida was relying upon their one key witness, and we all knew it was totally made up?
Do you remember the buildup, the drama, the media’s breathless anticipation, and the eventual beverage that flushed out of your nose in laughter when the State called Witness #8, and brought Rachel Jeantel to the stand?
Not only did she have no clue about any detail the prosecution was saying, she didn’t fit any of the profile that was claimed to be her importance in the case. And… not only could she not read the statement the State of Florida claimed she wrote (she didn’t), Jeantel didn’t even know Trayvon Martin. She was completely manufactured by the prosecution because her mom was a friend of Trayvon’s mom. Everyone wondered how the hell the prosecution could even put her on the stand. Remember that?
The reason they put her on the stand was because the prosecution and Trayvon’s family had no choice. For over a year, they had hyped up this imaginary “ear witness” in an effort to convince Zimmerman to take a plea deal. That was the purpose of the fabrication, and when George Zimmerman didn’t take the plea – when he forced the prosecution to put Witness #8 on the stand – the case collapsed, because the case was manufactured.
When people ask me about the DOJ and/or Jack Smith bringing an indictment against President Trump, in many ways I laugh while waiting for the DOJ to bring a proverbial Jeantel to the court. The DOJ has to indict Trump for the same reason Angela Corey had to put Jeantel on the stand. Their political narrative cases have to continue regardless of the evidence. Lawfare is a construct for media consumption intended to manipulate public opinion.
Technically Lawfare doesn’t need an actual viable legal argument behind it. Much like Zimmerman’s imaginary witness #8, Lawfare can be assembled out of loin cloth. However, at a certain point that legal fabrication runs into the reality of a judicial system it is not designed to defeat.
If the leaks to the media are accurate, WE WERE RIGHT!
Main Justice and DOJ special counsel Jack Smith have run head-first into the problem that President Trump declassified all the documents he retained in Mar-a-Lago.
Again, if the media reports are accurate, Jack Smith is now relying on 18 U.S. Code 793, a law created in 1948 intended to stop contractors to the Defense Dept from stealing, selling, or copying U.S. defense system secrets, or patents on defense products. [READ THE LAW]
The Independent has learned that prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr Trump for violating a portion of the US criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits “gathering, transmitting or losing” any “information respecting the national defence”.
The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trump’s ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021.
That section of US criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr Trump’s conduct even if he was authorised to possess the information as president because it states that anyone who “lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document …relating to the national defence,” and “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it” can be punished by as many as 10 years in prison. (LINK)
Main Justice is now stretching Code 793 to claim any document the government designates as a “national security document” is a national defense document.
I am almost certain this is because the 11th circuit court of appeals ruled the DOJ can label whatever it wants, in any form it wants. As long as the DOJ claims it is a national security interest, it becomes a national security interest. This ruling came from the arguments over the Mar-a-Lago documents. REMEMBER:
If the DOJ says a box of Cheerios is a national security threat, the Judicial Branch accepts that all Cheerio boxes are proffered national-security concerns. It doesn’t matter what the Trump documents are, as long as the DOJ can claim they are vital national security interests.
In the previous ruling of the Mar-a-Lago documents, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.” The 11th Circuit deferred all definitions to the DOJ.
The DOJ is granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.
[NOTE: In the post 9-11 surveillance state, this approach by the DOJ-NSD is a pillar holding the Fourth Branch of Government in place, as we have outlined. The other pillars are (2) the Dept of Homeland Security, (3) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and (4) the secret FISA Court system. All four pillars maintain an omnipotent fourth branch of government that operates entirely without oversight. As you can see in the 11th Circuit Court ruling, there is no check or balance in the post 9-11 national security state.]
However, their target isn’t an ordinary citizen or target. The target of these “definitions”, and make no mistake – ultimately this is what the case comes down to, definitions – is the former President of the United States who had unilateral authority to define anything he wanted.
The case against President Donald Trump might look bad on paper, because that is what the case against Donald Trump was designed to do. However, ultimately this case is on a trajectory to go up to a much higher court in discovery and pre-trial argument, because eventually these definitions are going to become an issue for the prosecution.
♦ THE TELL – Here’s the “tell” that every pundit, analyst and litigation expert will pretend they don’t notice. It’s the funniest part of the entire thing and yet no one, again except us, is noticing it. The DOJ has already predicated the baseline of their claim by saying they cannot tell anyone, even the court, what the nature of the documents are that underpin their assertion. Remember, they wouldn’t even let a court appointed “special master” review the documents.
Stop and think about that for a moment. NO ONE knows what the documents are, and the DOJ has stated they will never say what the documents are. The DOJ is filing a case about the mishandling of documents, in whatever legal construct they put forth, while simultaneously saying they are under no obligation to tell anyone what the documents are.
DOJ: Trump violated USC 793 in his discussion and/or handling of documents.
Trump Lawyers: What documents?
DOJ: We can’t say, and we won’t tell you.
The case against George Zimmerman looked bad when everyone thought Witness #8 was real. Hell, almost the entire country believed it.
This case against President Donald Trump is of a very similar Lawfare intention in construct.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 7, 2023 | Sundance
Some people reviewing the latest articles [SEE HERE] about the potential indictment framework of President Trump are stunned by this section regarding former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:
[…] Mr Meadows has already given evidence before the grand jury and is said to be cooperating with the investigations into his former boss. It is understood that the former North Carolina congressman testified as part of a deal for which he has already received limited immunity in exchange for his testimony.
[…] It is not yet known whether the testimony or the charges in question relate to the documents probe, or a separate investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Both investigations are being overseen by a Department of Justice special prosecutor, Jack Smith. According to ABC News, Mr Meadows has given evidence in both the documents matter and the January 6 investigation. (read more)
First, President Trump did nothing wrong. Meadows can give no testimony that is damaging to President Trump in any ordinary construct. The targeting of Trump is apex Lawfare, which is the manipulation of the law, including new and novel concepts of law, as weapons against opposition.
There, but for the grace of God, stand any one of us. I say this from armored experience against these creatures.
Second, removing the unsubstantiated claim about Meadows reportedly pleading guilty to some charge, which is directly and strongly called “bullshit” by his lawyer, some people are wondering about Mark Meadows. I am not one of those who wonder about Meadows; I have always viewed him as a sketchy self-interested conniving Republican, and I retain that disposition through today.
Mark Meadows and Mike Pompeo were part of the “approved” Republican group who operated inside the Trump administration with loyalty to the right-wing of the UniParty apparatus. Meadows and Pompeo were/are about as trustworthy as Rupert Murdoch and Ron DeSantis, which is to say, they ain’t. They are DeceptiCons, and this isn’t a new position about them. I have previously used the testimony of Mark Milley to show just how Machiavellian this entire tribe of ‘acceptable Republicans’ was/is.
Keep in mind, as President, Donald Trump had few options on administration personnel. He hired what everyone said at the time were solid republicans, only to see those same people undermine his efforts whenever possible. Jeff Sessions, Dan Coats, Mark Meadows, Mick Mulvaney, Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, the list is long, including his Vice President, Mike Pence.
In essence, this was the GOPe control within the Trump administration, the exact same dynamic would happen in any disruptive administration that came from outside the beltway. This is why those same DeceptiCons are embracing Ron DeSantis – he’s in the club, Trump wasn’t.
As I outlined in September of 2021, years of agonizing and frustrating reviews and analysis of the Trump administration reconciled in the testimony of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley. During his September 28, 2021, Senate testimony before the Armed Services Committee, General Mark Milley clarified some very painful issues to accept. Namely, that President Trump was being heavily managed by operatives of the Senior Executive Service (SES), and his Republican inner circle was willfully participating.
General Milley is a brutally political, manipulative, entitled and arrogant member of the United States armed forces. His delusions of grandiosity represent the worst of our nation and can only be topped by one other, Anthony Fauci. However, in his testimony Milley outlined the Republican opposition to Donald Trump.
JC Chairman General Mark Milley was attempting to flex his power in the almost identical way we saw former FBI Director James Comey pull the same angle. You might remember, during congressional testimony in March 2017, when Comey was questioned about why he never informed congressional ‘gang-of-eight’ oversight about the preceding eleven month FBI investigating the incoming President, Donald Trump. Director Comey pontificated, obfuscated, dodged carefully, and then deflected responsibility by saying he informed the “national security council” under President Obama.
When General Milley attempted to justify his unilateral contacts with Chinese military officials, he made a similar, and remarkably telling, admission and deflection.
For the January 8, 2021 phone call with General Lee of China, Milley stated he informed President Trump’s Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Keep in mind, Kash Patel has publicly stated General Milley did not inform Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller directly, at least to his knowledge. So, Milley’s secondary point about notifying Christopher Miller in January 2020 needs to be reconciled carefully.
Listen carefully to how Milley is describing those calls. Specifically, pay attention to Milley saying the calls were initiated by him in response to “concerning intelligence, which caused us to believe the Chinese were worried about an attack on them by the United States.” It is important to note what this is NOT.
The contact by Chairman Milley was not initially triggered by the Chinese contacting him or any U.S. official about their concerns. The contact to them is justified by saying the U.S. intelligence community was generating intelligence that said the Chinese were worried.
For clarity, the Chinese did not say they were worried, the U.S. intelligence community were saying the Chinese were worried. Knowing how the Deep State, aka Fourth Branch of Government operates, keep that key point in mind.
Milley goes on to say, he was attempting to “deescalate” a situation the Chinese had never escalated. Think about that carefully.
[WATCH from 09:00 forward, Prompted]
.
The first call, driven by U.S. Intelligence Community alarms, was made in October 2020, before the election. Then another call was requested by the Chinese on December 30, 2020, for scheduling on January 8, 2021, after the U.S. election. Note this important statement surrounding the January 8th call: “Shortly after my call ended with General Lee, I personally informed Secretary of State Pompeo and White House Chief of Staff Meadows, about the call – among other topics.”
Notice who General Milley did not inform.
General Milley did not inform President Trump, nor his national security advisor Robert O’Brien. This framework appears intentional; however, when you overlay what we previously suspected and outlined about Mark Meadows and Secretary Pompeo, it all makes sense.
Just like many other people who preceded them in the administration, Meadows and Pompeo were in place to manage President Trump. Unfortunately, accepting that reality brings with it a bunch of very concerning issues.
We’ve long suspected Mark Meadows was introduced into the Trump orbit specifically because the Fourth Branch was exerting influence and needed to mitigate any independent action by President Trump. This is the same scenario around introducing former CIA Director Mike Pompeo for the same purposes.
Mike Pompeo and Mark Milley worked unilaterally without President Trump’s authority on at least one situation during the winter of 2019 when U.S. strikes took place. [Background Here] [Background Here]. President Trump made Esper, Milley and Pompeo hold a press conference without Trump supporting them; then President Trump remained silent on the issue for days. There were other issues with Pompeo which looked sketchy, but that one specifically was a big red flag (or cherry on the proverbial cake).
Mark Meadows was the source of frequent leaks against President Trump including his health status during his COVID hospital stay. Mark Meadows was also the primary source for John Solomon when Meadows was in Congress. [Solomon made this admission during a podcast.]
During the peak of the 2018 “Spygate” headlines, prior to the mid-term election, it became obvious that Solomon was being managed and steered in his reporting. It always appeared that Meadows was attempting to tamp-down outrage within the Trump base in order to manage it. John Solomon and the Fox News tick-tock club were a big factor in the success of that approach.
Meadows was/is loyal to the Republican corporation inside the swamp. This was always the accurate prism to view Mark Meadows.
Yes, it is remarkable…. with so many Republicans working against the America First Agenda of President Trump, including all of the Republican members who participated in the Hillary Clinton Russiagate nonsense, it is amazing how Trump was able to achieve so many accomplishments on behalf of Main Street.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 5, 2023 | Sundance
Here we go again with the ever-familiar silo defense. The FBI is refusing to hand over the unclassified FD-1023 stating there is an ongoing investigation using the confidential human source who made allegations outlined in the document. Remember, the allegations and the statement record was created in July of 2020, almost three years ago.
Prior to last week, the FBI refused to say the 6-page unclassified document existed. After House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer told FBI Director Chris Wray he had already seen the unclassified document via a whistleblower, then Comey admitted the FBI indeed had it. Today, the FBI is refusing to release the document, stating it is now captive as part of an “ongoing investigation.” The claimed investigation began July 2020 – the investigation is “ongoing”. Go figure.
James Comer said he will begin the process, this Thursday, to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress. WATCH:
A brief post just to emphasize a point about DC and how the power centers protect themselves. You might remember when Attorney Jeff Sessions was told he needed to recuse himself from anything to do with the Trump-Russia investigation. We know from FOIA requests of schedules, the participants in the meeting on the date of those discussions:
Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself at the conclusion of a meeting involving Jody Hunt, Dana Boente, Jim Crowell, Tashina Guahar and Scott Schools; an apparent conflict of interest. Now consider….
Mary McCord was Acting Asst. Attorney General for the National Security Division, when she submitted the fraudulently constructed FISA application used against Carter Page. Mary McCord, knowingly and with specific intent, defrauded the court and broke the law. Mary McCord then went on to join Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler in the construction of the articles of impeachment. She did not recuse herself.
At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented. McCord and Atkinson knowingly submitted a fraudulent FISA application.
Atkinson then went on to become Intelligence Community Inspector General where he changed the rules for CIA whistleblowers to allow the accusation against President Trump to surface which resulted in an impeachment investigation. When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to? Mary McCord.
Consider the conflicts within the Supreme Court. Mary McCord, knowingly and with specific intent, lied to the FISA court to support the FBI targeting of Trump. Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon L Snook, was running the office of the counselor to Chief Justice John Roberts; the office which would intercept any communication from the FISA court to the Chief Justice if the FISA court had any concerns about the false FBI application. No one from the office, or the Chief Justice counselor recused themselves.
Conflicts of interest only surface to create personnel changes when those changes meet the interests of the DC administrative state. When those conflicts exist but they are useful to the interests of the DC administrative state, they are ignored.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 