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]

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:

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)

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:

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.

.

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?

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.” {linkWhy?  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.

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


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

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.

High Court Drama – 19 States File Brief With Supreme Court Supporting Donald Trump Immunity Decision, Jack Smith Files Response


Posted originally on the CTH on December 21, 2023 | Sundance 

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow the legal arguments with presidential immunity to follow the traditional path through the appeals court [pdf court filing].  Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wants to sidestep the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.

As noted by Politico, President Trump’s lawyers “repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.”  In essence, Jack Smith is trying to force a fast trial on schedule to gain maximum interference with the GOP primary election, while Trump’s lawyers are calling him out for it.

Jack Smith filed a response to the Trump filing, again reasserting, “the public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our nation’s history — criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election,” wrote Mr. Smith. “The nation has a compelling interest in a decision.”

Smith is worried the appeals court arguments and final decision will extend beyond the 2024 term of the Supreme Court, setting up a lengthy continuation of the DC case against Trump into October and November of 2024.   Trump’s team is saying the issues before the court are unprecedented and careful deliberation is needed.

To support the position of Donald Trump, 19 states filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today [pdf Here].

[…] “In 234 years of American history, no President ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists. To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.

This Court’s ordinary review procedures will allow the D.C. Circuit to address this appeal in the first instance, thus granting this Court the benefit of an appellate court’s prior consideration of these historic topics and performing the traditional winnowing function that this Court has long preferred. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has already granted highly expedited review of President Trump’s appeal over President Trump’s opposition, with briefing to be concluded by January 2, 2024, and oral argument scheduled for January 9, 2024.

The Special Counsel urges this Court to bypass those ordinary procedures, including the longstanding preference for prior consideration by at least one court of appeals, and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. The Court should decline that invitation at this time, for several reasons. (read more, pdf)

Making matters more complex for the high court to review, former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and law professors Steven G Calabresi and Gary S Lawson have filed a briefing as Amici Curiae (friend of the court, not connected to either party), [pdf HERE] challenging the legitimacy of the Biden appointed special counsel, Jack Smith.

[SOURCE]

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court wants to weigh in on these issues, they are going to have to respond. This is in addition to the Supreme Court ultimately having to determine how the insufferable Colorado lawfare ruling is going to stand.

The Robert’s led supreme court does not like issues involving the political dynamic; however, on these two issues they are likely going to have to choose. If they deny the Jack Smith request, the trial of Donald Trump could be delayed until the resolution of presidential immunity ultimately reaches them (after appellate court review). However, there is a strong possibility the appeals court will side with President Trump, and the appeal to SCOTUS will then come from Jack Smith.

Abuse of Law


Posted originally on Dec 4, 2023 By Martin Armstrong 

Civilization Rule of Law

QUESTION: Is it true that Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, and when the Supreme Court ruled against him, he just ignored them? Didn’t this also undermine the rule of law to where we stand today?

WG

Taney Roger_B Chief Justice

ANSWER: Sadly, yes, you heard correctly. At the time, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln just ignored the Supreme Court entirely and refused to release John Merryman, who was a state legislator from Maryland, whom they arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington. Later, on July 4, Lincoln, in a speech was very defiant. He acted like a tyrant and claimed he needed to suspend the rules in order to put down the rebellion in the South. So in other words, the rule of law and the Constitution mean nothing if the government claims it needs to act unconstitutionally.

Five years later, a new Supreme Court essentially backed Justice Taney’s ruling: In an unrelated case, the court held that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus and that civilians were not subject to military courts, even during a war.

Blackstone 10 guilty

I have read the discussions to form the Constitution. There is no question that the Framers intended to apply Blackstone’s foundation of law and to some extent, even Lord Coke. These were the glory days of the Rule of Law. The abuse of the rule of law in England really began during the 18th century. The colonies were denied most of the English Bill of Rights from the 17th century, which emerged after the English Revolution against King Charles I and his beheading in 1649.

The Sixth Amendment to our Constitution was intended to guarantee you counsel, which was denied in England since you had to defend yourself and all lawyers were prosecutors for the King. It entitled you to a trial by jury created in the Magna Carta against the abuse of the King back in the 13th century.

Coke Edward Lord

However, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a trial where the crime occurred – VENUE. The King would charge you, but because American juries would rule against the king, he put you in chains and transported you to England, where an English jury would always find you guilty. These were part of the abuses of the Rule of Law that led to the Revolution. You see, the Special Prosecutor indicts Trump in Washington DC, where 85% of the people are Democrats, but then files the criminal change in Florida. He is abusing the rule of law exactly as did the King.

Now, the mistake the Framers made was it took the theoretical King/Queen’s Bench which was supposed to be strictly law, and merged it with Chancery, which was “discretion” under EQUITY. It is true that the concept of equity or fairness predated Romans and was part of Asian culture as well as Judaea, where King Solomon decided who the real month of the child was.

I am concerned with the evolution of how we ended up where we are, and there is now NO POSSIBLE WAY the lawyers can reverse this trend. We have to crash and burn. Once you merge the King/Queen Bench with Chancery (discretion), there can be no rule of law. The very standard of review by an appellate court is now abuse of discretion. That is precise what Lord Coke declared:

“God send me never to live under the law of convenience or discretion.”

Lord Jeffreys

It was during the late 17th century that we find the original hanging judge – Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys. He was a ruthless prosecutor who targeted Catholics from 1677 until 1685. Then he was made Chief Justice. He was absolutely ruthless. He was a Puratin – no mercy. On Christmas Day no less, Jeffreys ordered the whipping of a woman:

“Hangman, I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady. Scourge her soundly, man; scourge her till her blood runs down! It is Christmas, a cold time for madam to strip. See that you warm her shoulders thoroughly.”

For stealing an apple when starving, he would ship you to America and rob your family of any support, all for the profit of selling “criminals” to plantation owners in America. You have no idea of how evil the rule of law has become when governments seek to exercise their power. There are never any rights that supersede the sheer will of the government.

Mill John Stuart Legal Persecution

This is what John Stuart Mill wrote about in his celebrated On Liberty. Just look at what they are doing to Trump. Indicting him where they can ensure Democrats would execute him if they could, and they charge him in Florida to comply superficially with the Sixth Amendment. This is the same abuse of law that led to the American Revolution, and there is NOBODY in Congress standing up for the last string that holds our civilization together.

Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus by executive decree. During World War II, the Supreme Court allowed the imprisonment of all Japanese based entirely on their race, even if they were third-generation Americans. If we go to war with China, does that allow the government to imprison all Chinese simply because of their race? What if we went to war with Italy? Shall all Italians report to concentration camps?

Marshal Law

We handed out one of the reports on Marshal Law, which Lincoln used to circumvent the Constitution. He just ignored the Supreme Court, and this is what we have to look forward to.

When Will the World Wake Up?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ukraine Re-Posted Jun 21, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; It makes no sense for Poland to support Ukraine when they refused to ever apologize for their slaughter of 100,000 of us in their ethnic cleansing under Bandara. The rumor is that Poland had hoped that Russia would defeat Ukraine and take the Donbas and that Poland would retake the Western part of Ukraine. Have you heard anything about that?

Thank you for your truth in the middle of a war.

BR

ANSWER: There has also been an underlying resentment in Poland against the Nazi-Ukrinians who have never apologized and have never changed. They simply still cling to their idea of ethnic cleansing and the only people acceptable in their new country are Ukrainian by pure blood. Bandera remains a national hero and he is of the same vile character as Joseph Stalin – enjoyed washing his hands in the blood of others.

Bandera’s philosophy was pure hatred. In 2014, they were out in force showing Bandara’s photo and preaching hatred of Russians. Still, to this day, even Hungarians and looked down on in Ukraine. The hatred of Bandara is deeply embedded and it is against everyone who is not Ukrainian – Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Greek. In Macedonia, the people support generally Russia and view Ukrainians as always troubling seeking war.

As one Ukrainian wrote to me:

“Despite my upbringing for some reason I never held this hatred for Russians or any other people but the Ukrainian diaspora around me has generally taken the bait.

If I hate anything it’s more the ideology that seeks to limit and enslave us with lies.  An endless battle!”

What the Ukrainians overlook is that Stalin’s seizure of the food from Ukraine and their starvation have two MAJOR factors they do not want to acknowledge. (1) Stalin was not Russian, he was from Georgia. (2) Stalin’s right-hand man was Ukrainian – Kagan who was in charge of taking the food from Ukraine. Some say he was Jewish and sought retribution against the anti-Jewish attitude in Ukraine.

Others say that he is an ancestor of Victoria Nuland’s husband Robert Kagan. I cannot verify that he is a blood relative of Lazar. His family dropped “ovich” at the end of the name. The sister-in-law of Nuland is the one that started the Institute for the Study of War, which strangely never seems to advocate peace. Even the NY Times commented on this family and their connections. Ron Paul commented that their family business is always a war against Russia. So when a family member dies in battle in their endless wars, remember who has been cheering this death and destruction. Even Europe is taking note of how this family pushing for war. And now, Nuland is #2 at the State Department in the Biden Administration. This is a coup!

Warsaw is indeed considering submitting restitution demands to Kiev for the 1943 Volhynia massacres, which saw over 50,000 to 100,000 Poles killed by the Nazi-allied Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists led by Stepan Bandera. Germany has apologized as well as Japan for their atrocities during World War II – not the Ukrainians.

This is the problem, they were parading around with banners and still supporting Bandara and his ethnic cleansing. So how could they possibly apologize when they still follow Bandara’s philosophy of only pure-blood Ukrainians allowed?

As I said, Kiev currently considers the Nazi collaborator Bandara a national hero.  If Germany still considered Hitler a national hero and built a monument to him, or Italy did that with Benito Mussolini, would that not cause many people to question Germany or Italy?

Victoria Nuland, the #2 in the US State Department, was not only there in Kiev in 2014 egging on the revolution and starting the civil war against Russia, her family is Ukrainian. Her hatred of Russians is legendary and she has infiltrated the United States with the very same philosophies.

Ukraine sought to separate from Russia and that was fine. But when the Russians in the Donbas wanted to separate from the Ukrainians, suddenly they were terrorists and Kiev launched a civil war against them. It was NOT the other way around with the support of the American Neocons.

When will the world wake up? We are being manipulated and this time we are on the side of the Nazis that our fathers fought against.