Trump Heroically Defies a Lawless Supreme Court


The court’s ruling on young illegals is an abomination that must not stand

Matthew Vadum image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  — Front Page Mag—— Bio and ArchivesAugust 10, 2020

Trump Heroically Defies a Lawless Supreme Court

President Donald Trump is quietly turning a stinging defeat at the Supreme Court over an illegal amnesty for hundreds of thousands of young illegal aliens into what could end up being a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court, of course, has no authority to tell the president of the United States that he cannot rescind an illegal executive amnesty ordered by his predecessor in the same manner it was instituted.

Normally, presidents of both parties rush to raise their arms in surrender whenever the black-robed life-tenured politicians on the high court demand it.

The president appears to be taking a stand against rampant judicial supremacism by drawing inspiration from President Andrew Jackson

Not Trump.

The president appears to be taking a stand against rampant judicial supremacism by drawing inspiration from President Andrew Jackson, whose portrait proudly hangs in the Oval Office.

After the chief justice of the day overreached in Jackson’s opinion, the 7th president allegedly uttered the following immortal words: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Now the Trump administration is taking heat over its failure to immediately resume processing of illegal aliens under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program after the Supreme Court, headed by the ever-weaselly John Roberts, found in a particularly bizarre ruling June 18 that it failed to properly rescind the Obama-era program that was created with the mere stroke of a pen.

Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm, an Obama appointee, criticized the Trump administration July 24 for not yet complying with the high court’s order, including not yet updating informational pages on government websites.

“That is a problem,” Grimm said. “As for the inaccuracy on the website, that has to change and that should be able to change very quickly. … It creates a feeling and a belief that the agency is disregarding binding decisions by appellate and the Supreme Court.”

U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Stephen Pezzi told Grimm that new DACA applications were being “held” and “placed into a bucket” while DHS officials figured out what to do with the program.

“It is a distinction without a difference to say that this application has not been denied, it has been received and it has been put in a bucket,” the judge said.

“The courts are defying the law, the Constitution, and 130 years of their own settled case law that illegal aliens have no standing to sue for a right to remain”

The Trump administration is sending out mixed messages and “that puts applicants in doubt,” whined John Freedman, attorney for the DACA recipients.

“It puts immigration lawyers in doubt. Nobody knows what’s going on,” Freedman said. “It reinforces impressions that … the administration, the defendants are not complying with the rule of law.”

But Freedman has it backwards.

The federal judiciary, not President Trump, is violating the law, commentator Daniel Horowitz argues.

“The courts are defying the law, the Constitution, and 130 years of their own settled case law that illegal aliens have no standing to sue for a right to remain in the country against the will of the political branches of government. It is they who are defying the law. Moreover, as Hamilton noted in Federalist #78, the courts ‘must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments.’ Thus, Trump declining to actively use his powers to violate immigration laws duly passed by Congress is not defying the courts; it’s following the law being defied by the judiciary.”

“You see,” Horowitz writes, “this case is different from almost every case that comes before the courts.”

“Typically, the courts will invent a contrived right and demand that the other branches take an action they need not take. In this case, the court is jumping two steps by demanding Trump not only refrain from deporting illegal aliens, but affirmatively use the tools of government to grant resident documents to people whom our law explicitly prohibits from having them. [italics original]

“If separation of powers means anything at all and we are to preserve a country of checks and balances, Trump must not issue these visas.”

Not processing DACA applications has the effect of upholding the rule of law

Horowitz has it exactly right: not processing DACA applications has the effect of upholding the rule of law, as opposed to upholding the perverse version of the rule of law proffered by Chief Justice John Roberts and the other four liberals on the Supreme Court.

Trump’s patriotic stalling buys him time to decide what to do about the much-mythologized 700,000 to 800,000 individuals eligible under the DACA program.

These people are a subset of about 4 million “DREAMers,” many of whom failed to apply for relief under DACA, but who could qualify under a further amnesty were one to be granted. Law-abiding Americans, including Trump’s political base, are adamantly opposed to the lawless program and amnesties in general.

The current dispute between the open-borders left and Trump grows out of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling earlier this summer in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) v. Regents of the University of California that the administration did not follow every jot and tittle of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), when it rescinded the program that temporarily prevented young people who came to the United States illegally from being deported.

The APA requires the government to fully explain the reasons for certain decisions, though few before the infamous ruling believed it applied to Barack Obama’s kingly fiats.

“The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts, who has been deservedly ridiculed by conservatives for this and a series of grotesquely absurd recent rulings.

“The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS, so that it may consider the problem anew.”

Like so many Supreme Court decisions nowadays, the court opinion is a pseudo-legal essay brimming with lawyerly codswallop

Like so many Supreme Court decisions nowadays, the court opinion is a pseudo-legal essay brimming with lawyerly codswallop, an after-the-fact rationalization written to justify a preordained result. The goal was not to do justice but to frustrate Donald Trump.

The court, under pressure from the illegal-alien left, invented an elaborate excuse to keep the program in place, reasoning in effect that because the decision to rescind DACA affects many people and would disrupt the lives that these illegal aliens have unlawfully been living in the U.S., the cancelation of the program needed to be stopped.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh wisely dissented from the main finding in the majority opinion.

“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas accused the members of the court’s majority of creating their own extra-legal solution to the DACA problem out of whole cloth.

“The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong DHS’ initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong—the political branches. Such timidity forsakes the Court’s duty to apply the law according to neutral principles, and the ripple effects of the majority’s error will be felt throughout our system of self-government.”

If President Trump continues to work to counteract those ripple effects, America will be better off.

* * *

Photo credit: Pax Ahimsa Gethen

 

Devin Nunes Discusses Latest Information About Politically Weaponized Intelligence and Fraud…


HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes appears with Shannon Bream to discuss the latest information about DOJ and FBI fraud.

 

Nuts ! – Senator Lindsay Graham Still Doesn’t Know Who Delivered Feb 14, 2018, FBI Briefing to SSCI…


This is theatrically absurd now.  Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham appears with Sean Hannity to say he’s going to ask Chris Wray who was the FBI official who falsely briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 14, 2018.

First, it was Scott Schools (Main Justice) and Andrew McCabe from FBI.  According to their own records that’s who did the briefing – what the hell is Graham trying to figure out?

Second, presume there were no records…. why the heck doesn’t Graham just walk down the hall and ask his senate friends who it was?  This is not a complex puzzle to solve. And Sean Hannity is just clapping and nodding along… Ridiculous kabuki.  This is what we are up against.  Nuts.

.Seriously, this is Pravda-esque controlled media at this point.

 

 

 

Senator Ron Johnson Subpoenas FBI Records From Director Wray…


Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson has issued a subpoena for records from FBI Director Christopher Wray.  [pdf here] The subpoena is a demand for documents, not testimony. Specifically, Johnson is asking for “all documents related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

[More Details]

Unfortunately, given what CTH knows of this specific committee, this approach seems a little like loading the horse into the starting gate after the race is over.   They are all good people, but it’s the system that keeps everything compartmentalized by design.

 

President Trump Calls Out “RINO Senator Ben Sasse”…


President Trump calls out a GOP member of the never-Trump community for opposing the administration efforts to assist middle-class workers and families.

“The pen-and-phone theory of executive lawmaking is unconstitutional slop,” Nebraska Senator Sasse said Saturday night. “President Obama did not have the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration law with DACA, and President Trump does not have the power to unilaterally rewrite the payroll tax law. Under the Constitution, that power belongs to the American people acting through their members of Congress.” [LINK]

Sunday Talks: Senator Graham Defends The Senate Role in Trying to Remove President Trump…


Senator Lindsay Graham appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to profess his public outrage about the senate being lied to by the FBI in 2018. {Go Deep}

In essence what Graham is doing is establishing the defense of the Senate for their role in attempting to remove President Donald Trump. ie. Selective Outrage.

The simple way to identify Graham’s motive is this way:…  The SSCI was aware of this briefing in 2018 right?  So why didn’t any SSCI member step forth after the Horowitz report in 2019 and say they were mislead?… or at any time after the truth of the primary sub-source was evident?   It does not take the public release of briefing material, two years later, to initiate senate outrage if senate outrage was genuine.

Graham wasn’t outraged when the senate knew about it, he becomes outraged when the public knows about it.  See how the application of common sense works?

 

Methinks Graham doth protest too much. The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons.

Senator Lindsay Graham Releases FBI Talking Points for SSCI Briefing February 14, 2018 – Graham Positioned to Defend SSCI…


Today Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham released a set of talking points [full pdf below – AND here] from the FBI during a briefing on February 14, 2018 to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The unknown FBI briefer is informing the SSCI about the reliability of Chris Steele’s primary sub-source, and whether he agrees with the Dossier content & conclusions:

At first blush the impression from the release; and indeed the expressed position as outlined by Graham in the release; is that some unknown entity from the FBI was misleading the SSCI in February of 2018 about Christopher Steele and the perspective of his primary sub-source. However, there’s a deeper story.

Within the release it must be noted the date of the briefing material is February 14, 2018. The unknown FBI briefer is saying, in essence, the primary sub-source doesn’t dispute the Dossier material. Obviously this position is demonstrably false given how the PSS said the Dossier was full of “rumor”, “gossip”, “innuendo” and “bar talk”.

The FBI briefer is misleading the Senate and so today we see the angry position expressed by Graham as he reveals this misleading briefing. However, five days prior to this briefing, on February 9, 2018, the text messages between SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, were released. This frames the accurate context to consider the position of the SSCI and FBI briefer on Feb 14, 2018.

Yes, the FBI briefer was misleading the SSCI… However, the SSCI wanted to be mislead. This is how plausible deniability is built into the process. The SSCI was conducting an investigation of Trump-Russia; if we are honest the SSCI was participating in a process to weaponize the committee to advance a narrative against the interests of the Trump administration; therefore the SSCI and FBI briefer were aligned in common interest.

Lindsay Graham’s outrage over the misleading briefing is nothing more than an attempt to retroactively cover for the SSCI as they continued their role in the plot to remove President Trump throughout 2018 and 2019.  Graham is taking the purposefully built plausible deniability, assembled in 2018, and using it as a distraction today in 2020.

Graham knows the FBI lied, this is not a revelation. The FBI supported the DOJ letter July 12, 2018, that mislead the FISA Court five months after this misleading SSCI briefing. The current level of Graham outrage is ridiculous when considering he could have asked these same questions in April when the DOJ-NSD letter was released.

Who was the FBI official who reviewed the July 12th letter and supported its conclusions? The most likely answer is the same FBI official who did the SSCI briefing on Feb 14th. This is not rocket science dot-connecting.

The FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) conducted the interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source in Jan, March and May 2017. Yet I’ll bet you a donut it was not the FBI-WFO who was briefing congress…. there’s another layer of plausible deniability. This is how the system is set-up. Today, Lindsay Graham is playing an outrage game. Where was this outrage in April?

Here’s the full briefing material [Original pdf Here]

.

This is all connected back to FBI SSA Brian Dugan’s work.  The briefing was a way for the SSCI to establish plausible deniability five days after Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s covert text messages were made public.

This is why the focus on the story behind SSCI Security Director James Wolfe is critical.  All of these granular machinations are connected to the objective to remove President Donald Trump.  The SSCI was supporting and coordinating with the special counsel.

It is all one team effort.

Let’s look at how the IG report frames the primary sub-source, and specifically notice the FBI contact and questioning took place in January 2017 (we now know that date to be January 12, 2017):

Those interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source took place in January, March and May of 2017; and clearly the sub-source debunked the content of the dossier itself.

Those interviews were a year before the Feb 14, 2018, FBI briefing outlined by Lindsay Graham today.

Those interviews were also 18-months, 16-months and 14-months ahead of the July 2018 DOJ letter to the FISC.   The DOJ-NSD says the sub-source was “truthful and cooperative” but the DOJ doesn’t tell the court the content of the truthfulness and cooperation.  Why?

Keep in mind this activity to support the Dossier and by extension the FISA application to the SSCI and FISC was written by AAG John Demers in July 2018 and briefed to congress in February 2018.  Jeff Sessions was Attorney General (firewalled), Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG (providing no special counsel oversight); Christopher Wray was FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy, and Dana Boente is FBI chief-legal-counsel.

Why would the FBI mislead the senate intelligence committee?  Why would the DOJ-NSD not be forthcoming with the FISA court about the primary sub-source?

This level of disingenuous withholding of information speaks to an institutional motive.

In February and July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the SSCI and FISC and even went to far as to say the predicate was still valid.  Why?

It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.

In Feb-July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.

This SSCI briefing and FISC letter, justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant.

My research shows it was the full control by the special counsel at play.  They needed to protect evidence the Mueller team had already extracted from their fraudulent FISA authority.  That’s the motive.

In February of July 2018 if the FBI, DOJ-NSD or special counsel had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation.

The FBI and DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending.  The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.

This is not simply a hunch, because that motive also speaks to why the FISC would order the current DOJ to release the July 12, 2018, letter.

Remember, in December 2019 the FISC received the IG Horowitz report; and they immediately noted the disparity between what IG Horowitz outlined about the FBI investigating Steele’s sub-source, as contrast against what the DOJ told them in July 2018.

Both the February FBI briefing and the July DOJ letter are transparent misrepresentation when compared to the information in the Horowitz report.  Hence, the FISA court ordered  the DOJ to release the July letter so that everyone, including congressional oversight and the public can see the misrepresentation.  Unfortunately the “congressional oversight” aspect was/is aligned with the scheme.

The FISA court was misled; the SSCI was willfully mislead; now everyone can see it.

The content of that FBI briefing and DOJ-NSD letter, and the subsequent disparity, points to an institutional cover-up; and as a consequence the FISC also ordered the DOJ to begin an immediate sequestration effort to find all the evidence from the fraudulent FISA application.  The proverbial fruit from the poisonous tree…. And yes, that is ongoing.

Lindsay Graham is still playing cover-up to protect the Senate.  Nothing more.

Graham could have demanded these same answers in April of this year.  He didn’t.

Ric Grenell Discusses Obama Team Motivation to Disrupt Incoming Trump Administration…


Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell appears on Newsmax TV to discuss his perspectives on the concerted effort of former Obama officials to disrupt the incoming administration of President Donald Trump.

As noted by Grenell the Obama team intentionally coordinated a resistance operation against the incoming administration, while their allies in remaining institutions workd furiously on a false Trump-Russia narrative to undercut President Trump.

Why is Romney Supporting Democrats Against his Own Party?


Mit Romney has long been suspected of not being exactly above question. He was the only person in the Republicans to vote to Impeach Trump. The former Republican presidential nominee has isolated himself from Republicans in the Senate, in his home state, and across the country. How his team is going to announce that they no longer support the Republicans and are endorsing Joe Biden. This has been a serious question with respect to Romney that he is not someone who really stands for much of anything other than himself and perhaps like Helmut Kohl which only after his death did we discover he had secreted millions in Swiss accounts that were given to him supposedly for party contributions that were funneled off to personal accounts. The fact that Romney’s people would even support Joe Biden when everyone behind the curtain thinks he is incompetent to be president which is why they are keeping him in the basement most the time, raises serious questions about the integrity of Romney.

Politics is just so disgusting anymore you have to wonder how much more will the people take before they do rise up in a full-blown revolution.

Tucker Carlson Begs Republicans to Stop Being Democrats…


Tucker Carlson used his opening monologue tonight to beg Republicans to stop being Democrats.   Most of what Carlson outlines is accurate, especially the “Nikki Haley waiting in the wings” to return to the UniParty rules part.

The end solution is the appropriate course.  We The People must take action to force a resounding Trump reelection, and then demand the GOP abandon their leftist alignment.