Category NARA and deep state are afriad of Trump

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks – President Trump Attorney John Lauro -vs- Major Garrett


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

President Trump attorney John Lauro appears on Face the Nation with Major Garrett to discuss and debate the Biden administration’s criminal prosecution of President Trump for contesting the results of the 2020 election.  Toward that latter part of the interview, Garrett needs to enhance his leftist bona fides with a strawman argument about the 2016 election outcome.  Lauro handles Garrett’s narrative engineering very well. [Video and Transcript Below] WATCH:

MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s lawyers. He joins us now from New York. John, good morning to you. I want to let you know that we spoke with former Vice President–

JOHN LAURO: –Good morning

MAJOR GARRETT: –Mike Pence and asked him specifically about your assertions made this last week that all the President did was asked him to pause the certification on January 6, 2021. He told me flatly, quote, “That’s not what happened.” Your response?

LAURO: That’s not- that’s not what I said, though, but that’s okay.

MAJOR GARRETT: What- what is it that you believe happened between the President and the Vice President? And do you have any fear of the Vice President being called as a witness in the case?

LAURO: No, in fact, the Vice President will be our best witness. What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in. That was my statement, and what- what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying. The reason why Vice President Pence will be so important to the defense is the following, number one. Number two, he agrees that there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level, all of that will- will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump. And finally, what Vice President Pence believes and believed is that these issues needed to be debated on January 6. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in the January 6 proceeding. President Trump, on the other hand, believed following the advice of John Eastman, who’s the legal scholar, that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level. Now, of course, there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump, but the bottom line is never- never in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally. It’s- It’s unheard of.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, can I ask you a couple of very simple basic yes or no questions? Is there- first, is there any condition under which the former president of the United States, your client, would accept a plea deal on these January 6 charges?

LAURO: No.

MAJOR GARRETT: Will you seek a motion to dismiss?

LAURO: Absolutely, 100 percent.

MAJOR GARRETT: When?

LAURO: Hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted. This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of- of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from- from being prosecuted in this way.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you-do you have a ballpark figure of when you’ll be ready for trial?

LAURO: Well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.

MAJOR GARRETT: Understood. Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?

LAURO: Absolutely, we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have an expectation that will be granted?

LAURO: That reflects the- the- the characteristics of the American people. It’s up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case–

MAJOR GARRETT: — Speaking of the judge

LAURO: — very close to D.C. and a much more diverse–

MAJOR GARRETT: — Understood. Speaking of the judge’ earlier this week, your client, the former president, on his social media platform, said ‘The judge is unfair’, On what basis did he say that?

LAURO: Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season, is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign. We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And- and my role- my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way, and I’m going to do that.

MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned discovery. In the protective order back and forth between you and the prosecutors, it says, the prosecution, that discovery will be provided, quote, ‘As soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled’. What’s wrong with that?

LAURO: We’re all in favor of protecting sensitive and highly sensitive information. But it’s unprecedented to have all information hidden in a criminal case, including, by the way, information that might be exculpatory and might be exonerative of President Trump. The Biden administration wants to keep that information from the American people.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, in the back and forth on this matter, you also said in the filing to the court that the former president would be willing to come to an agreement on this matter. And what I want to ask you is would that requirement be something where the President would agree not to release any information that was highly sensitive in this matter and would he also refrain from any speech that called for or hinted at retribution about anyone associated with the prosecution of this case?

LAURO: He’s never called for that at all. He’s going to abide by the conditions of his release. But of course, we would agree that any sensitive or highly sensitive information be kept under wraps. In fact, we made that proposition to the Biden administration, but they rejected it. They want every single piece of evidence in this case hidden from the American public.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, before I let you go, do you remember what you were doing the early morning of November 9th, 2016?

LAURO: I have no idea.

MAJOR GARRETT: Well, I remember what I was doing. I was covering President-elect Trump announcing that he had won the presidency, about 3 a.m. that morning after the November 8th election. My question to you, John, is how did he know he won?

LAURO: Well, politicians are convinced in the righteousness of their cause, including President Trump, and he certainly believed that he won and he did win in 2016- (crosstalk)

MAJOR GARRETT: — But on what basis did he know he- But on what basis did he know he won?

LAURO: — Can I finish? Can I finish?

MAJOR GARRETT: — Yeah. Sure.

LAURO: — Can I finish? And he believed in 2020 that he won based on the fact that he had 10 million more votes than in 2016. He had a situation where, somehow, President Biden, or at that time candidate Biden, received 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. And he also understood in 2020, that president- that President Trump understood that he had won all- virtually all of the bellwether counties, and 84 percent of all the counties in the country-

MAJOR GARRETT: Right. John- John, let me- let me help you with this–

LAURO: — So on that basis he believed that he was successful.

MAJOR GARRETT: — John, let me help you with this, I wasn’t asking about 2020.

LAURO: — No, let me help you with this, because the issue here- I have to help you with this.

[crosstalk]

MAJOR GARRETT: I wasn’t asking about 2020, John. John, I wasn’t asking about 2020. I was asking about 2016.

(CROSSTALK)

LAURO: The issue. Right. The issue. Right. The issue in a criminal case-

MAJOR GARRETT: Because- because the votes were still being counted in 2016. The votes were still being counted in 2016. There had been no recounts. How did he know in 2016 that he had won? How did he know? On what basis?

LAURO: The issue- the issue- let me just tell you something, the issue in this criminal case is not what happened in 2016 and whether all candidates say they won. The issue now is, in 2020, whether or not the Justice Department can weaponize criminal law to go after a political opponent and prevent that opponent from running for office. That’s the issue, not what happened in 2016.

MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time.

LAURO: Do you think it’s fair- do you think it’s fair that- do you think it’s fair what the- what the Biden administration is doing to a candidate for president?

MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

LAURO: Thank you.

MAJOR GARRETT: And we will be right back.

Jun 19 2023

The Deep State Document Hunt Against Donald Trump in Context


Posted originally on the CTH on June 18, 2023 | Sundance 

After reading the entire 75-page transcript of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) testimony to congress [READ HERE], a testimonial that almost no one in the mainstream news has written about, issues surrounding the document search against President Trump take on some new context.

The NARA officials are essentially professional DC bureaucrats with a mission to look out for the best interests of the DC system they support.  It is very clear from their opinion; Donald Trump was considered an outsider to the DC system of government – and that baseline established the framework for why and how NARA took such extreme processes with President Trump.

From the transcript, one NARA official says, “I am storing 555,000 cubic feet of classified national security information. To put that in perspective, the white boxes that many of you have seen in your offices, that is a cubic foot. It holds about 2,500 pages. Another way for me to describe it, a typical stack area that we store records in a Federal records center can hold about 100,000 cubic feet. And that is a room that is about roughly the size of a football field. So you are looking at five and a half football fields floor to ceiling shelving.” {Transcript, page 24}

President Trump did not turn over the letter left to him by President Obama, nor did President Trump turn over the 27 letters exchanged between himself and North Korea Chairman Kim Jong-un.  NARA was looking for these along with other documents pertaining to President Trump engaging in discussions with other foreign leaders, and NARA was angry about the perceived lack of respect shown by Trump toward their endeavor.

However, when you take the current DC establishment system, look at the history of the Trump administration engagement in foreign policy, then overlay that dynamic with the gatekeeping responsibilities outlined by NARA, what you may discover is an entirely different prism through which to view the DC motives.

One can easily argue the Deep State per se’ was looking for notes, information, contacts, tips and hints of discussions that took place between Trump and foreign leaders, that may have actually exposed the mechanisms of DC money and policy laundering.

Consider the NARA apoplexy around the Trump-Kim letters as outlined on pages 43 & 44 of their testimony.  However, expand your perspective to get larger than simply the Trump-Kim letters.

NARA officials view themselves, their role, as more important than the President of the United States, that is very clear.  NARA officials consider themselves “gatekeepers” to government information.  The gatekeepers were not happy with President Trump not following protocols when he was not in office.  An example from media:

The Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported Sunday that President Donald Trump’s confiscation of the translator’s notes from a one-on-one conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2017 was “unusual.” This is incorrect. It was unprecedented. There is nothing like it in the annals of presidential history.

It is also truly unusual that Trump failed to bring in a note taker, along with his translator, during his meetings with Putin, as almost every other president has done when meeting with foreign heads of state since the end of World War II. Usually the note taker is an official or aide with deep background in the subject under discussion.

[…] There are good reasons for presidents to bring a note taker with them to such meetings. First, they want a record of what was said, both to remind themselves later of what happened and to confirm or dispute some later account of the meeting, either by the foreign leader or some reporter. Second, the president’s national security officials want to know what was said so that they can orient policy accordingly. Third, historians value these notes, once they’re declassified, as a record of behind-the-scenes U.S. foreign policy. (link)

President Trump was violating institutional norms.  He was not following the unwritten rules of the DC bureaucracy; a political system that is predicated on maintenance of a financial system where US policy is promoted with laundered dollars that flow back to the politicians.

Think about the risk that DC viewed from Trump’s processes that violated their norms.  Think about the meetings they would not know about.  Think about the conversations that might take place without their knowledge.

Think about Vladimir Putin (Russia), Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (Egypt), Mohammed Bin Salmon (Saudi), Viktor Orban (Hungary), or even Lopez-Obrador (Mexico), talking openly to President Trump about how their nations were told to engage with U.S. political systems via the State Dept., or functional politicians on various committees.

Think about the apoplexy amid a DC system built on selling foreign policy and gaining affluence, when suddenly there is a guy in the office of the President who has never made a dime from this network and financial construct.  Think about how the DC Democrats and Republicans would view Trump from the perspective of his personal engagement with foreign government officials who know the dirt on those same DC Democrats and Republicans.  Think about the fear inside the beltway as a result of this.

Consider yet another example from 2018:

2018 – President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un held their first-ever meeting, and there may never be a full record of what was said.

After meeting shortly after 9 a.m. (local time) for a handshake and photo-op, the two leaders entered a library at Capella Hotel on Singapore’s Sentosa Island to begin a one-on-one bilateral meeting. The two men were each accompanied only by an interpreter, raising concerns among experts.

Suzanne DiMaggio, who facilitated the first official discussions between North Korea and the Trump administration last year, recently said that without aides present “the fear is that he [Trump] might give away too much.”

But while Trump, and Kim, regularly stray off diplomatic scripts, a larger risk may be that there may be no full transcript, public or secret, of what the two leaders discussed. (link)

Think about a DC system that is built upon leverage and blackmail worrying about a President who might gain leverage and blackmail with evidence of their corrupt endeavors.  What would this DC system do to make sure that evidence, if it existed, was never used?

Think about an elitist and very eco-chambered DC political system viewing President Trump through the prism of a vulgarian man who will say anything, expose anything, and discuss anything without curtailment or consideration for the collateral damage his words may create.  Think about the palpable fear that would reverberate amid a professional political class who have created this system for their own financial benefit.

Does the desperation of NARA and the DC political establishment take on a new perspective?

[Support CTH Research Here]