Smith and Garland are trying to indict Trump on Drug Charges, alleging he drugged Biden to win the Debate. They are desperately trying to find a statue they can twist to fit the crime.
Judge Aileen Cannon has rejected the request by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to ban President Trump from talking about the DOJ/FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, and/or the circumstances that led to the Biden administration approving the use of deadly force.
FLORIDA – […] U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon turned down the gag order request Tuesday as she delivered another sharp warning to prosecutors that they need to make more concerted efforts at dialogue with Trump’s counsel before bringing disputes to the court.
“The Court finds the Special Counsel’s pro forma ‘conferral’ [with the defense] to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy,” wrote Cannon, a Trump appointee. “It should go without saying that meaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise.”
Cannon didn’t rule out granting the request in the future, but she said prosecutors would need to to further engage with Trump’s side over the issue before she will take it up again. She also questioned Smith’s claim of urgency to file the gag order request, noting that prosecutors filed it on a “non-emergency” basis. It was submitted on the Friday evening before the Memorial Day weekend, leading Trump lawyers to complain that they were being rushed into responding.
In addition, Cannon appeared to fault Smith’s attorneys for skewing how they described the stance that Trump’s lawyers had taken on the proposed gag order. The judge suggested prosecutors had relegated Trump’s response to “editorialized footnotes,” rather than just reciting it neutrally to the court. She directed both sides to provide her with more details in the future on their attempts to work out such disputes and to do so “in objective terms.” (read more)
Those who understand the construct of Lawfare understand the purposes and intents. Lawfare is an outcome of a radical activist pivot point that happened during the Obama administration.
Prior to the Obama-era the radicals tearing down government defended the transparently guilty, their allies and fellow traveling communists. Those who were arrested for violence the radicals supported, were defended, excused and their activity justified.
After the election of Obama, as noted first by author Jack Cashill, something changed; the radicals reversed their position. Instead of defending the transparently guilty, the Obama aligned usurpers -now with actual power at their fingertips- began accusing the transparently innocent.
In the “anger games” era of Barack Obama, the radicals began attacking the innocent and using their allies in media as part of the attack narrative. George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, the Baltimore-six, etc. The list is long; we tracked them all with detailed research; however, the theme amid every story was the same. Isolate, ridicule and marginalize the transparently innocent target and make them appear guilty.
When you think about the construct during the 2016 election and the entirely fraudulent Trump-Russia collusion narrative, you see the same theme continued. Stand back and elevate yourself and you see this era of using completely false accusations transposed over the election. Essentially, accuse the target, Donald J Trump, of something he was transparently innocent of doing.
After they lost the 2016 election, the radicals did not stop. They continued constructing entirely false Lawfare stories with the intention to frame the transparently innocent. This approach had two benefits; (1) radical Lawfare maintained the attack position blocking any reversal of Obama policy, and (2) the Lawfare process covered up their unlawful activity.
Using Lawfare constructed by Main Justice and the FBI, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation became the special counsel Mueller investigation, which became impeachment investigations, which became the Durham investigation, which became the J6 investigation, which became the Jack Smith investigation. All of it was/is one long Lawfare operation.
In the classified documents case, Florida federal judge Aileen Cannon has noted the Lawfare construct of this fraudulent legal case. In practice “Lawfare” is about manipulating the narrative of a manufactured legal controversy or premise, and sometimes actual laws themselves, to change public opinion about the target of the Lawfare action. Judge Cannon clearly sees this playing out in the background of the case.
(Via NBC) – Judge Aileen Cannon has granted Donald Trump a delay in the classified documents trial by pushing back a court deadline in the case.
On Monday, Judge Cannon temporarily stayed a May 9 deadline for Trump and his two co-defendants in the federal case to submit court filings. It relates to Section 5(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), which would disclose what sensitive materials Trump intends to use at the trial.
[…] Cannon submitted court filings on Monday “temporarily staying” the CIPA request regarding what classified materials the defendants intend to use in the trial and what expert witnesses Trump’s legal team intends to call at the trial in Florida.
Cannon did not offer any explanation as to why the May 9 CIPA deadline has been indefinitely postponed, only stating that an “order setting second set of pretrial deadlines/hearings to follow.” (read more)
NBC may pretend not to know why Judge Cannon has changed the hearing date and purpose; however, CTH, you and journalist Julie Kelly can clearly see why Cannon is slowing down the process simultaneous to her putting increased sunlight on the case.
Recently, the special counsel was forced to admit they staged the pictures they gave to the media during the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Again, the purpose of Lawfare is to create the optics of unlawful action to manipulate public opinion; therein, lies the motive for “staging” images under false pretenses.
[VIA Julie Kelly] […] Jay Bratt, who was the lead DOJ prosecutor on the investigation at the time and now is assigned to Smith’s team, described the photo this way in his August 30, 2022 response to Trump’s special master lawsuit:
“[Thirteen] boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings, and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings…were seized. Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. (Emphasis added.) See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the ‘45 office’).”
The DOJ’s clever wordsmithing, however, did not accurately describe the origin of the cover sheets. In what must be considered not only an act of doctoring evidence but willfully misleading the American people into believing the former president is a criminal and threat to national security, agents involved in the raid attached the cover sheets to at least seven files to stage the photo.
Classified cover sheets were not “recovered” in the container, contrary to Bratt’s declaration to the court. In fact, after being busted recently by defense attorneys for mishandling evidence in the case, Bratt had to fess up about how the cover sheets actually ended up on the documents.
Here is Bratt’s new version of the story, where he finally admits a critical detail that he failed to disclose in his August 2022 filing:
“[If] the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet. The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose.”
But before the official cover sheets were used as placeholder, agents apparently used them as props. FBI agents took it upon themselves to paperclip the sheets to documents—something evident given the uniform nature of how each cover sheet is clipped to each file in the photo—laid them on the floor, and snapped a picture for political posterity. (more)
While it is always best to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best, there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic that Judge Cannon will eventually dismiss this ridiculous Lawfare case. If she does not dismiss the case, one of the reasons she may elect to keep the case going is simply to allow more sunlight on how the case was constructed.
The use of Lawfare requires lies, manipulation, dishonesty, deceit and a lying press. Once you put honest sunlight on a Lawfare operation, the fraud starts to collapse….. Just ask George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson and the Baltimore Six.
Before getting into the weeds, here’s the big picture baseline. All
documents and records created within the executive branch are created
for the benefit of the head of the Executive Branch, the president.
There is no entity, organization, assembly, institution, person or
individual, above the President of the United States. The president
holds absolute power and absolute immunity. Everyone within the
executive branch works at the pleasure of the president, and all work
products are created for his administration. This is the plenary power
of the president.
The
entire documents case in Florida rests on the principle that another
entity supersedes the president within the executive branch. Some
unknown, unnamed bureaucracy can override the president and decide for
themselves what would be called a “presidential record” and what would
be called “classified information.”
Jack Smith, Norm Eisen (pictured left, red tie) and Andrew Weissmann
each argue that some other entity rests atop the president and can make
this decision.
Judge Aileen Cannon has not determined which constitutional argument
is correct, and has told the parties to create jury instructions both
ways. The Lawfare crew of Smith, Eisen and Weissmann are going bananas.
[…] Cannon’s
first scenario would allow the jury to make a factual determination
about whether a former president deemed a record to be personal or
official under the PRA. That is nonsensical – presidents are not allowed
to designate official records as personal ones, so there is no factual
issue for a jury to resolve.
A different set of laws govern the
classification process and the rules for handling highly sensitive
classified documents — not the PRA. They include Executive Order 13526. One of the authors of this column (Eisen) helped write that executive order. The 11th Circuit has already established that those rules fully apply to former presidents.
Cannon seems to think that the PRA
somehow supersedes the executive order and the rest of federal law
pertaining to the handling of classified materials. It does not. On the
contrary, the PRA defines “personal records” as “all documentary
materials … of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not
relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional,
statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”
That cannot possibly include highly classified battle plans, nuclear
secrets and the other official documents at issue in this criminal
prosecution.
That rules out Cannon’s first
hypothetical. But as Smith points out in his filing, the second
alternative is just as bad. She made up a legal standard, asking both
sides to assume that Trump could have deemed a record personal by simply
not including it with the records transmitted to the National Archives
and Records Administration at the end of his term. If this were true,
the mere fact that Trump took the documents with him from the White
House would inherently turn them into personal records.
Of course, Trump leaped at this
interpretation, fashioning proposed jury instructions that would
inevitably result in his acquittal. But, as Smith noted, this approach
has no basis in the law — or the facts. Even Trump himself does not seem
to have considered classified documents personal after he left the
White House, as evidenced in an audio recording CNN obtained last year
in which Trump, during a conversation at his Bedminster, New Jersey,
estate in 2021, discussed documents remaining classified even though he
took them with him upon leaving office. Smith hits this point hard,
arguing that Trump’s position that records are personal was “invented”
when the controversy over the documents began to emerge in February
2022, over a year after Trump left the White House. (read more)
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has Trump’s Washington case brought by Jack Smith, wrote an order that means something is wrong. Her order has postponed the trial indefinitely, and rightly so, given the fact that the questions presented involve what one would classify as Subject Matter Jurisdiction, which can NEVER be waived. She wrote: “The court will set a new schedule if and when the mandate is returned.” By that language, she acknowledges that the case could be dismissed given the lack of a constitutionally valid appointment of Jack Smith. In all honesty, that would be a wonderful thing for the rule of law, for then Trump should sue those behind the prosecution.
Those who hate Trump have to understand. Whatever one side does, the other will do. These legal cases against Trump are unprecedented, and if they were to stand, it is time to turn out the lights, for the United States can no longer pretend to be the land of the free and home of the brave. Everyone from here on out would seek to use the criminal law against an opponent. I don’t care what you think of Trump; we are talking about the survivability of Constitutional Law. You might as well tear it up, for it will no longer mean anything.
They filed impeachments against Trump twice – now they move for impeachment against Biden. When you abuse the law, the other side can use the precedent against you. It never ends!
COMMENT: Well, you were right that Jack Smith did not have the authority to prosecute Trump. You have a very diverse background in markets and law.
All the best
FE
REPLY: Jack Smith was never formally appointed by the president and had to be confirmed by the US Senate. He not only lacks Constitutional authority to prosecute Trump, but he has pulled off a serious constitutional question that the Sixth Amendment was all about.
Yes, Ed Meese, who was attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals last month where he pointed out that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. Thus, this prosecution of Trump is therefore illegal – null and void.
Meese wrote in his brief that Smith was “not properly clothed in the authority of the federal government, [and] Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor.”
Smith has violated the intent of the Constitution for the Sixth Amendment was to secure your right to counsel and to be put on trial in the “district wherein the crime shall have been committed” because the King would charge you in England for a crime in the colonies where he KNEW an English jury would always rule in favor of the King but a trial in the colonies would rule against the king. Smith charged Trump in Washington DC, where he had a 95%+ Democratic bias for a crime in Florida. He had to charge him in Florida for a trial to pretend he was complying with the Sixth Amendment but cleverly indicted him in Washington when that is not where the crime took place.
Then you have the whole dubious prosecution in Georgia where the District Attorney appointed her lover as the prosecutor of Trump, who was a private lawyer and not a government employee. Then, in New York City, arguing that Trump overvalued assets on bank loans that were paid off as if that was defrauding a bank that has their own appraisers. Virtually every borrower in New York City could be charged under that theory.
All of these prosecutions are seriously disturbing and are stretching the law to the point that there is no rule of law. This shows how desperate the LEFT is to seize control of this country at all costs. If the Constitution no longer matters, the historical response is always a violent revolution. There does not seem to be anyone willing to defend the actual law. Defeat Trump at the polls – not by illegal and questionable prosecutions.
In the ridiculous federal election interference case in D.C., President Trump’s attorneys argued to the DC Circuit appellate court that President Trump holds inherent constitutional immunity. In essence, because President Trump was acquitted by the Senate of claims he incited or instigated the January 6, 2021, events, lawyers arguing under the constitution that only impeached and removed presidents can be criminally prosecuted.
The initial 3-judge panel of the court has taken up the appeal, and all subsequent lower court activity was suspended until the constitutional issue is resolved. Again, if President Trump does not have immunity, then all preceding and future presidents can be criminally prosecuted for any/all events and decisions while holding office. This is a core issue, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has to tread very carefully with these ramifications at the forefront.
The decision of the 3-judge panel could also be followed by a full en-banc review by all judges in the circuit. Then, depending on their decision, it could -likely will- go even higher to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this takes time, and the initial 3-judge appeals court have not provided any hints on their timeline.
Apparently, as a consequence, the entire trial of the case has been removed from the lower DC court docket. The removal took place within the last few days, and the Washington Post noticed the removal. This removal means the timing of the case, if at all, is completely unknown now.
WASHINGTON – Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal.
The change did not appear on the official criminal case docket before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has made clear since Trump filed his appeal on Dec. 7 that all trial deadlines would be suspended while he challenges the case. On appeal, Trump is arguing that the government does not have authority under the Constitution to bring charges against him for actions he took while president after the 2020 election through the Jan. 6, 2021. (read more)
In addition to the challenges within these core issues, the Lawfare approach by Jack Smith, Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann, faces multiple additional hurdles. These are all issues that surface when Lawfare, the application of twisted legal theory intended to manipulate public opinion, runs into the reality of ever-increasing scrutiny from courts.
Combine these fraudulent legal theories with the reality that President Trump’s status is almost certainly “presumptive presidential nominee” in the eyes of the entire judicial branch, and things change. The pretending justification for the Lawfare claims now hit the non-pretending and visible reality of political intent.
The judicial scrutiny gets even more focused, and the explanations demanded as justifications to target President Trump increase. As the calendar of the November election gets closer Jack, Mary and Andrew will have to rely on ideologically aligned black robes to maintain their Lawfare pretense. Some of the robes will not be comfortable with the demands of Jack, Mary and Andrew.
Some of the robes may not pretend, and that poses a problem for Jack, Mary and Andrew.
I have long been saying the Jack Smith special counsel team is the reassembly of the Robert Mueller team. Today, inside an article {SEE HERE} outlining other ancillary matters about the 2020 election challenges, Politico inadvertently confirmed my suspicions.
First, the non-pretending BIG PICTURE. The Clinton exoneration FBI Team became the Trump investigation FBI Team (Crossfire Hurricane) -which then became the Robert Mueller FBI Team (exact same people, plus some additions) – which then became the J6 Investigation FBI Team (exact same people, plus some additions) – which then became the Jack Smith FBI Team (same exact people). Not only is it one long continuum, but it’s also the EXACT SAME PEOPLE.
So, the Politico Article, discussing the FBI Agents and the DOJ officials who signed the subpoena that stemmed from Jack Smith, is not really surprising other than the confirmation of the same DC-based FBI agents and DC-based Lawfare operatives.
POLITICO – […] During a tense confrontation with FBI agents who were trying to serve a subpoena, Harrison Floyd — a 2020 Trump campaign aide — considered grabbing one of the agents’ guns, Floyd told local police officers who arrived at his door shortly afterward.
[…] The subpoena and its accompanying letter were signed by assistant special counsel Jonathan Haray, a veteran federal prosecutor who once worked closely with Washington, D.C.’s U.S. attorney, Matthew Graves, who now leads the massive Justice Department probe of the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The presence on Smith’s staff of Haray, who once served as the deputy chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, has not been previously reported. Haray joined law firm DLA Piper in 2014 after a job at the Securities and Exchange Commission. He appears to have returned to government service about a year ago, around the time Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to the special counsel post in November 2022.
[…] While the federal court filings don’t name the FBI agents, a police report released to POLITICO this week with the video under the Maryland Public Information Act identifies them as Walter Giardina and Christopher Meyer. Meyer’s name is also visible in the paperwork accompanying the subpoena seen in the bodycam video.
Giardina, who is assigned to the FBI’s Washington Field Office and like Floyd is a former Marine and an Iraq War veteran, has had roles in a number of high-profile, politically charged cases in recent years. He worked with special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, including on aspects of the investigation of potential foreign influence on Trump 2016 campaign adviser Michael Flynn, who briefly served as national security adviser in the first weeks of Trump’s administration.
Giardina also took part in the arrest of another former Trump aide, Peter Navarro, in a Reagan National Airport jetway in 2022 on charges of defying subpoenas from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot and Trump’s broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election. (read more)
This article comes on the heels of another confirmation that is even more critical in context.
I have been sounding the alarm about Mary McCord for a long time. A few days ago, Andrew Weissmann, who together with Norm Eisen created the Lawfare arguments that Jack Smith is using {GO DEEP}, confirmed that he is working with Mary McCord.
(SOURCE)
Last month I said, “[…] Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff all going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump? Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her background efforts continue today as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team that is still attacking Donald Trump. READ MORE HERE
This is one long continuum of the same Lawfare activity by the same core group of people.
I have previously warned that this hatred of Donald Trump is absolutely destroying our nation. Special counsel Jack Smith disclosed in court filings that he retrieved data from former President Donald Trump‘s smartphone and intends to use it in the trial. This is just astonishing. Smith has revealed that he extracted data from Trump‘s smartphone, showing he has no regard for the established precedent of Presidential Immunity in such aspects. This has crossed the Rubicon. Smith has obliterated executive privilege, establishing a precedent that will have an unimaginable chilling effect on future administrations.
Nobody will be willing to provide any candid advice to the President from here on out. Whatever they recommend will now be open to the world, jeopardizing national security. I find it unbelievable that this guy goes after Trump for having classified documents and has reviewed them himself when the whole argument is that unauthorized people could have gotten a hold of them. This sets a very highly destructive precedent for the presidency. This means all private communications between Biden and all his family members can be seized and made public.
This seriously undermines the president’s ability to get his constitutionally protected, confidential, and candid advice from his advisers that threatens National Security. Smith has trashed the very idea of presidential immunity all for allegedly interfering in the 2020 election and inciting the Capitol riot. Smith is destroying the very foundation of the United States, all for his personal vengeance to prevent Trump from ever becoming president. This is the same guy who wanted a gag order on Trump so that he could not “criticize” Biden when he was running against him. Smith is burning down the barn to get Trump as President Herbert Hoover wrote in his memoirs:
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 