House Committee Releases Report Showcasing How Pelosi’s J6 Committee Was Used for Politics and Lawfare


Posted originally on the CTH on March 11, 2024 | Sundance

The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE] highlighting just how political the J6 committee was.  The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.

WASHINGTON– Today, Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)

[SOURCE]

The last bullet point has a name.  The “Select Committee staff” who met with Fani Willis was likely Mary McCord.

“For nearly two years former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th Select Committee promoted hearsay and cherry-picked information to promote its political goal – to legislatively prosecute former President Donald Trump,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “It was no surprise that the Select Committee’s final report focused primarily on former President Trump and his supporters, not the security failures and reforms needed to ensure the United States Capitol is safer today than in 2021.

“The American people deserve the entire truth about what caused the violent breach at the United States Capitol of January 6, 2021. It is unfortunate the Select Committee succumbed to their political inclinations and chased false narratives instead of providing the important work of a genuine investigation. In my committee’s investigation, it is my objective to uncover the facts about January 6, without political bias or spin. My report today is just the beginning.” (LINK)

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.

♦ 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.

Hitler’s SS – The True Story


Posted originally on Mar 2, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Julian Assange: A Primer. The Only Person Paying For US Iraq War Crimes


Posted originally on Rumble By Kim Iversen on: Feb 29, 2024 at 3:01 pm EST

2.26.24: MOAB, B2 stage is set, SC win, Biden racist, Closing act, Don, Pray!


Posted originally on Rumble By And We Know on: Feb 26, 2024 at 1:15 pm EST

Who is the American Uniparty? | Episode #169 | Royce White


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Feb 21, 2024 at 10:15 pm EST

Trump v Colorado – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction


Posted originally on Feb 13, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Trump_v_Anderson_My_Amicus_Brief

Trump v Anderson My Amicus Brief-F

QUESTION: Your argument on the Commerce Clause is spot on, I believe. Why do the lawyers involved in the Colorado case removing Trump does not grasp the structure of the Constitution as you do? They admit that ruling in favor of Colorado would result in national chaos. Your analysis of the Commerce Clause demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution understood such a result would break the union. Any comment on this oversight would be greatly appreciated.

BW

ANSWER: Sometimes, lawyers focus too intently because statutory law is wordsmithing. They are arguing if Trump is an officer when they should be looking at the subject matter jurisdiction of the law. I have had to study law from a global perspective, looking at its evolution from ancient times to the present. Continental Europe followed Canon Law, whereas England created Common Law. There are huge differences such as under French law, not even your brother-in-law can be compelled to testify against you, whereas under English Common Law, the king is ruthless, so the only one with such a privilege is a spouse. They can throw your children in prison on contempt until they testify against a parent. We do not respect the family unit, whereas, under Canon Law, anyone related by marriage is covered.

I was so appalled that the oral arguments were focused on wordsmithing I decided to submit my own Amicus Curiae brief. The Court is not supposed to raise an argument that is not presented. They will probably reject it because it was after oral argument. But if they want a clean escape that is constitutionally correct rather than not addressing the issue directly, then just maybe they might make an exception and accept a Pro Se Amicus. It might be a first, anyway.

Episode 3364: Attacks On US Troops; Big Trouble For Fani Willis


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon War Room on: February 2, 2024 at 6 am EST

The Jan 6 Rematch: Glenn Greenwald & Destiny Debate


Posted originally on Rumble By Glen Greenwald on: Jan 30, 2024 at 7:00 pm EST

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)

Righteous Indignation – Furious Trump Defense Counsel Alina Habba Gives Statement Following New York Lawfare Fiasco


Posted originally on the CTH on January 26, 2024 | Sundance 

President Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, delivered furious remarks to the assembled media pool following the Trump -vs- Carroll defamation trial and jury verdict.  Habba outlines the lawfare effort of the New York court system.  WATCH:

.