Category Lawfare

Oct 4 2024

Jack Smith Files 165-Page Re-Re-Revised Indictment, Weaving a Lawfare Story For Media Consumption


Posted originally on the CTH on October 3, 2024 | Sundance 

The overall prosecution attempt by Jack Smith was fundamentally deconstructed when the Supreme Court ruled mostly in favor of President Trump carrying ‘presidential immunity’ for officials acts while in office.  The ruling meant Smith had to go back to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s court and work through a process of outlining what is and is not an ‘official act’ according to the DOJ.

The result of that approach was made public yesterday, when Judge Chutkan revealed a new 165-page indictment [SEE HERE], essentially a list of evidence the DOJ claims as proof of “unofficial acts” allowing them to jump the hurdle of “official acts.”  However, the reality of Jack Smith’s filing is a story without much legal value. Instead, it is a 165-page Lawfare story created for media promotion.

Many followers have accepted that Jack Smith is not necessarily the person constructing the legal filings. There is a solid argument to be made that Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen and Mary McCord are the Lawfare allies tasked with writing the material.  When you read the filing, the manipulation of legalese to shape a narrative story is clear.

As former DOJ Asst AG Jeffrey Clark has noted, the filing attempts to obfuscate the legal requirements of “state of mind” by projecting what President Trump must have thought, as expressed by the opinion of unknown advisors.  Jack Smith says President Trump thought this, without actually providing any evidence of what President Trump thought. Additionally, this Lawfare approach toward including redacted quotes amounts to written testimony, which would never pass muster in any court.

The accused has a right to confront witnesses; however, in written text that questioning becomes impossible.  In essence, Jack Smith violates the principle and stated purpose of the sixth amendment.  This is one of the ways you can tell the filing itself is not intended to outline evidence, but rather to outline a story.  The claimed “evidence” is simply a story the Lawfare team want to deliver in October of an election year.

Almost all of the claimed evidence within the filing would not pass legal challenge.  If the case were to proceed, most of what is written in the motion will not pass the legal scrutiny to make it into actual testimony. All of the claimed witnesses would be challenged, and Jack Smith would be no closer to proving President Trump’s “state of mind” than he was without the witnesses.

Factually and legally, you cannot establish the state of mind of the accused, the earnest belief, simply by referencing what other people said to him.  EXAMPLE BELOW:

[Page 9 – pdf filing]

...”The background to understand the importance of the admission is that Smith is saying (like the J6 Cmte before him) that Trump’s criminal state of mind is established by the fact that many Trump advisors told him that he had lost the 2020 election.

That theory has always been ridiculous because advisors are just that — they advise — the President decides. Their advice is not imputable/attributable to the President’s state of mind.

But there is a little parenthetical on Page 9 that these advisors “were telling the truth that he [Trump] **did not want to hear**—that he had lost ….”

This inherently confesses that Trump disagreed with his advisors telling him he’d lost. That right there negates “the criminal mind” or what lawyers call scienter.  And without the requisite scienter or intent, Trump cannot legally be convicted of a crime.

Trump’s only “crime” is believing that he won the 2020 election, something many Americans both sophisticated and ordinary agree with.” ~Jeff Clark

Cutting through the fog, what this 165-page indictment is really intended to do, is weave a story that the media can push in October of an election year.  Judge Tanya Chutkan rushed approval of the filing to assist the political intents of Jack Smith, Weissmann, Eisen and McCord.

Clark also notes interestingly that nowhere in the signature attribution of the filing itself, is the U.S. Dept of Justice identified as the institution granting Jack Smith legal authorization for the prosecution.  As Jeff Clark notes, “it raises the question of whether use of any Justice Department organ to go after a former President of the United States is constitutional and could comport with the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024, immunity decision in Trump v. United States.”

Feb 3 2024

President Trump Special Counsel “Election Interference Case” in DC Suspended Indefinitely


Posted originally on the CTH on February 2, 2024 | Sundance

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.

[BACKGROUND CONTEXT]

Jan 28 2024

Rudy and VDH Debrief on the New Lawfare Era Showcased by the E Jean Carroll Nonsense


Posted originally on the CTH on January 27, 2024

Rudy Giuliani brought up some good points that were surreptitiously also noted by Victor Davis Hanson.   As Giuliani noted in an interview with Newsmax, the core elements of the E Jean Carroll claims never made any sense.

Specifically, Carroll couldn’t even put a date or YEAR on her claims against Donald Trump, but that really didn’t matter in a civil case where the New York state legislature literally wrote a new law that permitted the lawsuit against Donald Trump.  WATCH:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zsm7jqsTc3c%3Ffeature%3Doembed

Victor Davis Hanson makes some of the same points, only with a little more detail:

VDH – […] “The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional leftwing criminal prosecutions, leftwing judges, and leftwing juries to come—all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president or been a liberal progressive.

Yet here we are.

The E. Jean Carroll case is the most baffling of all five. She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.

It was never clear what were the preliminaries that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours the alleged violence took place.

Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto—and only after Trump was running for and then president.

Carroll eventually sued him for battery, but well after the statute of limitations had expired and thus the case seemed defunct.

Her claims of defamation injuries arise from being fired from her advice column job at ELLE magazine.

She claimed that Trump’s sharp denials and ad hominem retorts led to her career ruin. But the loss for anyone of a column at 76 does not seem such a rare occurrence, and the absence of a salaried job in one’s late seventies for four years does not seem to equate to a $83 million hit.

And note the allegation that her dispute with Trump led to her firing was strongly denied by the very magazine that cut her loose.

But then another strange thing happened. In 2022, a new law (“The Adult Survivors Act”) was passed in the New York legislature. It also post facto established a twelve-month window (beginning six months from the signing of bill) that permitted survivors of long ago alleged sexual assaults suddenly to sue the accused long-ago perpetrator—regardless of the previous statute of limitations.

That unexpected opening suddenly gave Carroll’s prior unsuccessful efforts a rebirth. And she quickly refiled with the help of arch-Trump hating billionaire Hoffman.

Yet the bill may have been introduced with Trump particularly in mind—given the legislator who introduced it, Brad Hoylman-Siga, was known as another Trump antagonist.

More interestingly, he had earlier introduced and had passed another Trump-targeted bill. That “TRUST” act had empowered particular federal Congressional committees to have access to the New York State once sealed tax returns of high-ranking government officials—such as Trump.

That bill’s generally agreed subtext was a green light for anti-Trump members of Congress to obtain legal access to Donald J. Trump’s tax returns.

So there is an eerie feeling that the New York legislature may have abruptly passed legislation that was aimed at the past conduct of Donald Trump but only after he entered the political arena.

While these are not quite bills of attainder, there is something unsettling if they are post facto laws aimed at targeting the most famous and controversial man in America and the leading candidate for the presidency.

In essence they were targeted statutes designed to make Trump’s prior legally unactionable behavior suddenly quite legally actionable.

Trump will be subject to such special treatment all summer and fall.

Prosecutors Bragg, James, Smith, and Willis will synchronize their court business for maximum effect.

Trump again will face leftwing prosecutors, judges, and juries on charges that are politically driven, involving alleged behavior that is either usually not criminalized or not to the same degree as Trump’s case. (Do we remember the nearly $375,000 federal fine belatedly leveled at an exempt Obama but only five years after his 2008 illegal garnering of, and not reporting, foreign campaign contributions?)

The stakes are higher each day as Trump closes in on the nomination and thus becomes the hope of half the country to end the Biden madness.

Somehow Trump will have to stay calm, give no opening to his legion of hostile prosecutors, while conducting a nonstop campaign against Biden (and for a while Hayley), and while fighting to keep his name on various state ballots.

So what we are witnessing is not even the extralegal efforts of Steele/Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary Clinton in 2016, or the 2020 “Russian disinformation” ruse/change the voting laws/infuse half a billion dollars to absorb the work of the registrar machinations against Trump.

We are way beyond all that. The legal system itself, hand-in-glove with leftwing politicos (compare campaign boasts of James and Willis, or prosecutorial visits to the January 6 committee and the White House) is turning the process of balloting and elections into an embarrassing farce.

Still, Trump will have to soldier on. He must stay controlled amid the tsunamis, not play into the hands of his accusers, and remember that he may soon be the only eleventh-hour hope to stop this mockery of American law, customs and traditions.” (link)

Jan 15 2024

Atlanta DA Fani Willis Plays the Race Card Giving Proactive Speech at Big Bethal AME Church


Posted originally on the CTH on January 14, 2024 | Sundance

Two high level takeaways.  First, please pay attention to the venue {GO DEEP}, as CTH has documented for 10+ years the AME church network is the epicenter of racially driven political influence.  BLM are the activist foot soldiers; AME are the network organizers.  BLM harvest the ballots; AME are the precinct workers who scan them as many times as needed.  This is the “Atlanta way,” that duplicates in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore and Madison.

Second, Fani Willis must anticipate a major problem with her case and conduct if she is proactively going to the crew who will be tasked with circling the wagons on her defense.  In this video soundbite Fani Willis plays the race card to her audience at Big Bethal AME church in Atlanta. WATCH:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=JFZdsR7w48I%3Ffeature%3Doembed

Fani Willis’ full speech was 35 minutes long and filled with racially driven context.

The AME church network is the same political system used by Barack “if I had a son” Obama, Benjamin Crump, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin in Miami-Dade/Orlando. The same network in Ferguson Missouri (Mike Brown), the same network in Baltimore, Maryland (Freddy Gray), and on it goes.

The AME network is a system built on the guise of religion, but fraught with politics, racial division, the retention of pretenses and massive fraud.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aGHjumOMWHA%3Ffeature%3Doembed

.

Jan 15 2024

NBC Admits Deep State Exists – Key Operative, Mary McCord


Posted originally on the CTH on January 14, 2024 | Sundance

NBC published an extensive article outlining how the DC administrative state is responding to the potential for another President Trump victory [SEE HERE].

Once again, a very specific name surfaces who is part of the organizational effort to stop Donald Trump.  {EMPHASIS mine}

(NBC) – […]  Now, bracing for Trump’s potential return, a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power, which could include pressuring the military to cater to his political needs.

Those taking part in the effort told NBC News they are studying Trump’s past actions and 2024 policy positions so that they will be ready if he wins in November. That involves preparing to take legal action and send letters to Trump appointees spelling out consequences they’d face if they undermine constitutional norms.

“We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to,” said Mary McCord, executive director of the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law.

Part of the aim is to identify like-minded organizations and create a coalition to challenge Trump from day one, those taking part in the discussions said. Some participants are combing through policy papers being crafted for a future conservative administration. They’re also watching the interviews that Trump allies are giving to the press for clues to how a Trump sequel would look. (more)

There she is again, Mary McCord, the former head of the DOJ National Security Division, and the one specific functionary that is found at the epicenter of every single deep state Lawfare operation against President Trump.   However, that citation is not the biggest reveal in the past several days….

Pay very close attention to these next two citations:

November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)

Then consider:

January 10, 2024 –  Georgia prosecutors probing Donald Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election got an early boost in the spring of 2022. It came from another set of investigators who were way ahead of them: the House Jan. 6 select committee.

Committee staff quietly met with lawyers and agents working for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in mid-April 2022, just as she prepared to convene a special grand jury investigation. In the previously unreported meeting, the Jan. 6 committee aides let the district attorney’s team review — but not keep — a limited set of evidence they had gathered. (read more)

The “J6 committee staff” that led the conversations with Fani Willis is a person, and that person’s name is Mary McCord.  As the lead in the J6 staff effort, there is simply no way to believe the committee staff that met with Fani Willis did not include McCord.

You know what seems bizarre to me?

What seems bizarre is how I began writing about the detailed activity of Mary McCord FOUR YEARS AGO.  Literally four years ago last Friday, and everything that has followed from her activity in October 2016 through to the present day is singularly focused on the removal of President Trump.  Yet, almost no one seems to connect the obvious dots.  Why?

What is it about Mary McCord and Washington DC circles that pundits and political researchers fear?

You read me writing about the key functionaries inside the system.  To give you an idea of the scope of influence of Mary McCord as a key functionary, consider what we can document.

♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.

♦ McCord created the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.

♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler.

♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.

♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.

♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.

♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.

♦ McCord is working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.

In short, Mary McCord is the lawfare string that winds through every legal ‘stop Trump’ effort; yet no one ever calls her out?

Jan 14 2024

1.3.24: INFO Flood incoming! CEOS departing in droves, Flight logs, Lawfare, Cali Ballots, Celine, Be ready, Pray!


Posted originally on Rumble By And We Know on: Jan 3, 2024 at 12:45 pm EST

Jan 10 2024

Very Revealing – Supreme Court Refuses to Permit Twitter to Outline Scope of FBI/DHS Unlawful Domestic Surveillance


Posted originally on the CTH on January 9, 2024 | Sundance 

If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.  Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {link} Why?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

The Twitter lawsuit against the government wound its way through the lower courts and various levels of appeal.  Each lower court ruled against the release of the information, forbidding Twitter from releasing the information.  Why? Because the executive branch, in this example Obama DHS/FBI, have unilateral authority to determine what constitutes a “national security” issue.   If DHS/FBI says the issue is a “national security” threat, the judicial branch is not prepared to challenge that definition.

Ultimately the lawsuit ended up at the doors of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court refused to engage the question thereby supporting the rulings of the lower court.  You can read about THAT PART HERE.  However, there’s another layer to this story that needs to be accurately understood, because this deference by the judicial branch to the executive branch is part of how the system is weaponized.

You might remember this 11th circuit court of appeals ruling against Trump; it essentially encapsulates the issue:

These rulings are essentially correct, as following the process within a constitutional republic. However, here’s the rub.  The weaponized Deep State are using this deference, as a tool in their Lawfare arsenal.

If the Deep State can unilaterally determine what constitutes “national security,” and if the judicial branch is not going to review or challenge those determinations, then the executive branch can target people, target institutions, and/or conduct domestic surveillance while hiding their conduct behind the shield of national security.

That’s exactly what the weaponized institutions (DHS, DOJ, FBI) have been doing.

That’s exactly the process that Barack Obama and Eric Holder created.

That’s exactly the motive for Eric Holder creating the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).

Now, can you see the bigger issue, as presented by the Twitter case against government, that was just highlighted by the Supreme Court decision not to get involved.

The DOJ-NSD is the targeting mechanism for corrupt interests in our government to target us.  The Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI unite in the process and provide the results to the DOJ-NSD for action against the targets.  The collaboration then uses “national security” as the technique to stop those being abused by the targeting system from ever finding out, and the judicial branch cannot provide oversight.

Hopefully, this helps people put the scale of the ‘weaponization of government’ issue into a context.

That’s how they are carrying out Lawfare.  That’s why there’s no process to impede them within the ordinary structures of constitutional protection.

Their ability to use “national security” as the justification for all of the corrupt targeting and surveillance is ultimately the source of power for the Fourth Branch of Government.

Jan 8 2024

LIVE! The “January 6” Debate | Hosted by Zerohedge


Posted originally on Rumble By Glen Greenwald on: Jan 6, 7:00 pm EST

Jan 5 2024

It’s the Same People – Politico Confirms Robert Mueller Agents/Lawyers Are Jack Smith Agents/Lawyers


Posted originally on the CTH on January 4, 2024 | Sundance

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.

Veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord discuss and dissect the cases against former President Donald Trump, including the historic indictments from the Manhattan D.A., Special Counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis. {SOURCE}

(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.

Dec 29 2023

Lawfare Continues – Maine Democrat Secretary of State Determines, Without Judicial Hearing, Donald Trump Is Disqualified from 2024 GOP Primary Ballot


Posted originally on the CTH on December 28, 2023 | Sundance 

At the same time the Colorado Republican Party files a petition to the United States Supreme Court to overturn a disqualification ruling issued by the Colorado Supreme Court {link}, a challenge that will result in President Trump appearing on the Colorado ballot {link}, the Democrat Maine Secretary of State has ruled by fiat that Trump should be disqualified.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued a public statement [SEE HERE] declaring that under her independent determination, President Trump should be disqualified.

[SOURCE pdf]

(Via Politico) – Maine on Thursday became the second state to declare former President Donald Trump ineligible to serve as president because of his involvement in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows made the decision, booting Trump off the state’s ballot under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that argues Trump cannot serve again because he supported or “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.”

[…] “I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Bellows wrote in her determination. “I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”

[…] In a statement, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung attacked Bellows as “a former ACLU attorney, a virulent leftist and a hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat.” He called the push to have Trump disqualified “partisan election interference efforts,” and said the campaign “will quickly file a legal objection in state court to prevent this atrocious decision in Maine from taking effect.” (MORE)

It is a remarkable display of political hubris and hypocrisy to see the Lawfare leftists proclaim they are defending democracy by trying to destroy the foundational “right to vote” of the American electorate.  Then again, the hubris and hypocrisy are a feature of communism, not a flaw therein.

The Maine decision by fiat will likely first travel through the judicial system in the state, as the determination of the Secretary of State holds no legal basis outside the authority granted to an individual office holder.

The need for control is a reaction to fear.  If the totalitarian left thought they could win on substance and policy, they would not resort to these insufferable Lawfare tactics.  Those who hold office by fiat need to be dispatched with extreme prejudice.

[SOURCE]