Posted originally on the CTH on December 20, 2023 | Sundance
Throughout the timeline of human endeavors, do you know what the greatest story is? It’s the comeback story. From the divinity of the resurrection to the great stories of human achievement; the greatest stories -the ones that inspire legend- always surround the comeback.
The story of defeat and yet a powerful return in resilience, determination and resolute battle to overcome, is always the story that inspires. To learn and return, bolder, stronger and with more power than before, is the story that brings out emotion – because we can all connect to it. The comeback is always stronger than the setback. {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:
In this brief prelude segment, Tucker Carlson discusses the bigger picture of the Colorado Supreme Court decision to block Donald Trump from the 2024 republican presidential primary ballot. {Direct Rumble Link}
As accurately noted by Tucker, the terms used by professional leftists are always coordinated for a purpose. This seems glaringly obvious with the repeated use of the term “insurrection” as applied to the events on January 6, 2021. The hardline leftists are now moving to phase two, the actionable elements of the word use. WATCH:
Posted originally on Dec 20, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
I took some time before posting about this decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, which is an all-Democrat-appointed court, because what I had to analyze was from a legal viewpoint and not partisan in any way. What these four Colorado justices, with their names in white, have done is in fact nothing shy of a staged insurrection in itself against the US Constitution and the foundation of American liberty that defines the nation as a free society. All the justices on that bench are Democrats, and the three filed dissents (names in pink) illustrate that this should NEVER have been a case that even reached that court and should have been dismissed from the outset.
Democracy has been killed not just in Colorado but for the nation as a whole. The rule of law is the alternative to force, and when there is no rule of law left standing to settle disputes in a civilized manner, then the only alternative becomes violence. My deep concern is that this total destruction of the rule of law is the final nail in the coffin of every empire, nation, or city-state. To my shock and regret, they have fulfilled Socrates’s forecast.
The Colorado Supreme Court has abandoned the very foundation of the rule of law. To remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado demonstrates that the court itself is a political cesspool of corruption. To further that point, they issued this decision denying Due Process of Law in a criminal matter implied by the 14th Amendment to a trial by jury, violating the Sixth Amendment and the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. They have declared Trump guilty without a trial by a jury. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
The Colorado Dissents
JUSTICE SAMOUR, in his dissenting opinion, points out that this decision is outrageous. He quoted Chief Justice Chase of the Supreme Court, who laid the very foundation of what the Constitution was supposed to be all about.
Now itis undoubted that those provisionsof the constitution which deny to the legislaturepower to deprive any personof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, orto pass a bill of attainder or an ex post facto, are inconsistent in their spirit and general purpose witha provisionwhich, at once without trial, deprives a whole class of persons of offices for cause, however grave. InreGriffin, 11F. Cas . 7 , 26 (C.C.D. Va. 1869) (No. 5,815) (” Griffin’s Case” ) .
In his dissenting opinion, CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT stated that the court exceeded its authority under the statute authorizing a review. He rightly points out that this local statute was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection. In my view, this cause of action should have been dismissed. I fully agree that this decision violates so many provisions of the Constitution it is a disgrace to the rule of law. If I lived in Colorado, I would move forthwith, for you would have zero rights on anything based on this decision.
PER CURIAM decisions are not always unanimous and non-controversial – which this is certainly not. Here we have three judges dissenting, showing their names, while the other three hide in the shadows. The Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98 (2000) decision is one of the most well-known Supreme Court cases with a majority PER CURIAM opinion that also contained additional opinions. There Seven Justices of the Court agreed that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 134 (SOUTER, J., dissenting); post, at 145-146 (BREYER, J., dissenting). The only disagreement was as to the remedy.
This bogus decision is stunning, for it was issued PER CURIAM, meaning it is hiding the four judges’ names from the public, showing that they knew this was a political decision – not the rule of law. The local statute they claimed gave them the right to strip Trump and the American public of the right to a free and fair election violated the foundation of legal interpretation – the assumption that when the legislature passes a statute, it does not intend to violate the Constitution (see also The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine).
A PER CURIAM decision is a court opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than specific judges. PER CURIAM, decisions are given that label by the court giving the opinion, and these opinions tend to be short. The opinions will typically deal with issues the issuing court views as relatively non-controversial. This is certainly not the case with this decision, and it violates everyone’s right to vote in the United States. Removing Trump from one ballot is election interference and will undermine the entire national election.
These four Justices, Gabriel, Hart, Marques, and Hood, are no longer qualified to sit on that bench, and they should be removed immediately, and this is not being Partisan. Under this theory that Trump is not immune because he was acting as a “candidate” and not as president, then these four judges were acting as Democrats and not as a judge, then they too should be stripped of all immunity and criminally prosecuted. Those judges themselves have committed a felony and should be removed from office immediately! Trump is 51% ahead of all Republicans, and these judges are sentencing the United States to civil war for, as our computer has forecast – NOBODY will accept this election regardless of who wins.
Astonishingly, these four justices would PRESUME Trump is GUILTY without a trial. Not a single person was charged with the crime of insurrection on January 6th. I cannot express how unconstitutional this decision is, for they will be remembered for justifying civil war, just as the Dred Scott Decision held that blacks had no rights under the Constitution to avoid having to apply fundamental constitutional rights to slaves. The Colorado Republican Party has just announced its decision to withdraw as a party and transition to a pure caucus system, allowing them to independently select their nominee in light of this amazingly partisan ruling that defies everything that was to define America and the land of the free.
Trump is entitled to a trial by jury, and he MUST be found guilty FIRST of insurrection under 18 USC 2383, and then, AND ONLY THEN, would the 14th Amendment apply. Anyone pushing this argument is violating the constitutional rights of everyone in this country. Even the lawyers involved should be stripped of their licenses to practice law and put on trial under 18 USC 594. The mere fact that the Department of Justice does NOT criminally charge anyone pushing this argument demonstrates that the Democrats and the Biden administration sanction this.
Here in Florida, the Democratic Party has come under fire from some of Biden’s Democratic challengers who say they were unfairly shut out of getting on the March 19 presidential preference primary ballot. The Democrats wanted to remove any Democratic challenger from the ticket to prevent Biden from losing. This 2024 election is being rigged so desperately that we face serious civil unrest.
NEVER in my wildest imagination when I looked at the forecast of Socrates back in 1985 when this cycle began, did I fully appreciate the net results that 2016 would be the first time a possible third party could win, the 2020 election would be rigged, and the 2024 election would either never happen or would never be accepted. Then, in the 2028 election, it warned that there may never even be an election by that time. Putin never interfered with the 2016 election. Our computer had forecast that 3 out of four models projected a Trump victory.
Why do these people hate Trump so much? They are desperate to retain power, and Trump dares to fight back. They have moved to keep RFK off the ballot because he, too, is an outsider. Just look at the timeline of what they have done. Hillary created a fake dossier trying to link Trump to Putin, and John McCain, the godfather of neocons, handed it to James Comey. They got caught, and Comey claimed he never took notes when he interrogated Hillary – yet took notes just talking to Trump on the phone.
00:16
They impeached Trump Twice in a desperate effort to discredit him. Then they bussed in FBI staff dressed as Trump supporters to stage the Capital so they could use this 14th Amendment to prevent him from running. Others were ransacking the capital dressed covertly in black. Pelosi’s Son-in-Law was there too, taking his picture shown here – was he an Insurrectionist?
They then charged Trump in three proceedings, and the Special Prosecutor indicted Trump in Washington, DC, where he could indict a hard-boiled egg, calling it a Republican’s egg all for a case in Florida – absolutely unprecedented and illegal under the venue requirement of the Sixth Amendment. This Special Prosecutor, in jumping to the Supreme Court, has further denied Trump the right to appeal these rulings. If the Supreme Court accepts Smith’s argument that Trump has no immunity, it is time to turn out the lights on the future of the United States. Legally, they should rule 9:0 that Trump is immune. If not, civil war is inevitable.
I can confidently see what our computer is forecasting: there may never even be a 2028 presidential election. The United States will most likely head into a separatist movement by 2027. Like all empires that have gone before us, the United States will be buried in a common grave with all the other governments that turned tyrannical throughout history.
These people are so out of control, tearing apart the very foundation of civilization, that they will resort to assassination when all else fails. They will blame some Mexicans or claim it was suicide as always, and no Democrat would ever investigate. Everything they have done to Trump so they get to rule tyrannically is coming to a head. The United States will no longer represent the land of the free and the home of the brave. Civilization exists ONLY when everyone benefits. Even as Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand. The LEFT is trying to take the United States fully into the utopia of Marxism. Over 200 million people died in those revolutions. What will it be this time – more than one billion?
We warned that the 2020 election was going to be tight. While Trump should have won since the margin was greater on the first two models in what was otherwise a dead-heat, that is not the case when we look ahead.
The Biden Administration has so damaged the Democratic Party between Neocons and Climate Change extremists, that there remains the risk that it will splinter for 2028 if there is even an election. All of this hatred against Trump is undermining the confidence in the government to such an extent the United States will no longer be able to remain as a single country.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 13, 2023 | Sundance
In a three-page opinion and order [pdf Available Here], DC District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan outlines that she may be forced to pause the case against President Trump until the appellate court, and then likely the Supreme Court, make a decision on presidential immunity.
Within this opinion/order, we find the reason for Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to jump over the appellate court and ask the Supreme Court to expedite a review and determination on the issue.
The jurisdictional issue on the specifics of the pre-trial appeal is likely to slow down the trial dates being pushed by Special Prosecutor Smith. Overall, this has been a very bad day for the Lawfare team, as they run into judicial processes that cannot be facilitated by politically motivated higher courts.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 13, 2023 | Sundance
Two of the charges against Donald Trump are centered around 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As noted by Julie Kelly, “The statute was meant to close a loophole in other obstruction laws related to the destruction of evidence but left open to interpretation the terms “corruptly” and “official proceeding.”
In addition to Donald Trump, this federal statute meant to target organized crime and financial crimes has been used against 300 J6 defendants. Three J6 defendants have appealed the use of this provision to charge them with obstruction. A DC trial judge originally agreed with the argument and dismissed the framework of the Lawfare effort. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the dismissal order.
J6 Defendants Edward Lang, Garrett Miller and Joseph Fischer appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now agreed to take up the case, U.S. v Fischer. In one way, this can be looked at as the Supreme Court reviewing the charges against Donald Trump, without ruling on the charges against Donald Trump.
There is a strong possibility the twisted Lawfare use of 18 USC 1512 by the DOJ will be rejected by the court, thereby removing two of the charges against Trump.
Washington — The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear a court fight involving the breadth of a federal obstruction law that has been used to prosecute scores of defendants for their alleged actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, as well as former President Donald Trump.
An eventual decision from the Supreme Court in the case known as Fischer v. U.S. could have far-reaching impacts, since the Justice Department has charged more than 300 people under the obstruction statute in cases related to Jan. 6.
Most significantly, special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with a single count of corruptly obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, namely Congress’ certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6. The former president has pleaded not guilty to that offense and the three others he is facing in the case related to the 2020 presidential election. A trial in Trump’s case is set to begin in March.
Arguments before the Supreme Court will take place next year, with a decision, which could threaten Trump’s charge, expected by the end of June. (read more)
As we have noted from the outset, Lawfare is a construct, a twisted manipulation of law, specifically intended for media consumption with the end goal to influence public opinion.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has applied twisted interpretations of law to his cases. The ability of the constructs to withstand judicial scrutiny has only just begun.
Posted originally on Dec 4, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
Posted originally on the CTH on November 4, 2023 | Sundance
After several interesting hearings and court filings last week, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has indicated she is likely to postpone the trial schedule requested by Special Counsel Jack Smith due to the scope of material evidence and the need for defense attorneys to review slow production by the prosecution.
As noted by journalist Julie Kelly, who has attended the hearings, “On Friday morning, [Cannon] announced a stay, or suspension, of all pre-trial deadlines as she prepares a formal order to explain her thinking and very likely issue a new trial date.”
Bad News / Good News – Before getting to the great summary outline provided by Kelly, it is worth remembering one of the challenges in the case, which fortunately Judge Cannon has great familiarity with.
You might remember when the issue of defining “classified documents” surfaced, Judge Cannon appointed a “special master” to review the documents and make determinations. The prosecution filed an appeal to that approach and won within the 11th Circuit based on an outlook the Jack Smith team is relying on.
Essentially the appellate court ruled on the DOJ calling the material “classified” and “vital to national security”, by saying in the court’s determination they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to matters of national security. {Go Deep}
The appellate court (judicial branch) stated they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) as to any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determine, on their own authority, to be identified as classified (sensitive, secret or top-secret). Therefore, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge.
The Trump legal team did not appeal this 11th Circuit Appeals Court ruling for valid reasons.
The Supreme Court would not want to touch the issue of “classified documents” and/or how they are defined by the agencies in the Executive Branch. Any review of definitions by the executive could be interpreted as interfering in the plenary power of the Executive Branch to make decisions about national security.
To take up the issue would be to create consequences putting the Supreme Court in the middle of any classification argument beyond the Trump case. Think about FOIA requests denied due to “National Security” or classification status.
If the Supreme Court interjected in the debate between President Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith, they would be stepping into an argument within the Executive Branch. This could be perceived as setting precedent for any denied FOIA lawsuit to appeal directly to SCOTUS, and that would create an entire apparatus of the High Court now being the arbiter of what is “classified intelligence” and what is not. This exceeds their constitutional limitations and separation.
If the executive branch wants to call the dinner menu between President Trump and Chairman Xi a classified document in the interests of national security, they can. The Supreme Court is not going to step in and be the arbiter to determine validity of the classification status.
This outlook of the judicial branch plays into the hands of Special Counsel Jack Smith and the unprecedented Lawfare approach.
Jack Smith (Weissmann/Eisen) knows the High Court doesn’t want to get involved in an “inside executive” dispute, not on this granular stuff. So, he is leveraging the ability of the current politics within the executive to his advantage. Essentially, the executive rules are whatever the current executive says they are.
That brings us to last week, and Judge Aileen Cannon who can clearly see the approach Jack Smith is taking. Julie Kelly has a great summary of the week in the Florida court:
Julie Kelly – […] “The games already have begun. For example, Trump this week filed a motion at the appellate court in D.C. seeking an emergency stay (or hold) on Chutkan’s broad gag order. If the appellate court, stacked with Obama appointees, ultimately denies the request, Trump’s team signaled they are prepared to seek immediate relief at the Supreme Court. (Late Friday, a three-judge panel issued a temporary hold and expedited Trump’s appeal on the matter.)
Defense motions to dismiss the January 6 indictment based on selective prosecution and overall unconstitutionality now sit on Chutkan’s desk—requests she presumably will deny, prompting another wave of appeals. One can only imagine the coming fight over jury selection, which will commence on February 9 when potential jurors in D.C. are asked to complete questionnaires about their knowledge of the case.
In addition to the logical difficulties in viewing classified evidence in the documents case—which also involve tight restrictions under the Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA, and numerous hearings—the amount of discovery in the matter is “exceedingly voluminous,” Cannon wrote in July. She did not exaggerate.
DOJ so far has turned over at least 1.3 million pages of unclassified and 5,500 pages of classified records, far more than Smith’s office initially claimed. Further, roughly 60 terabytes of video footage recorded by security cameras at Mar-a-Lago must be reviewed by defense attorneys to track the movement of dozens of boxes, the basis of Smith’s obstruction charges. Both sides debated on Wednesday whether the amount of footage represented the equivalent of five years (Smith) or ten years (Trump) since the archive includes video captured by multiple cameras stationed throughout the property over the course of several months.
Team Trump also accuses Smith’s team of violating discovery deadlines, an allegation Bratt seemed to acknowledge when he admitted to the judge that the government made a discovery production as late as last week. (READ MORE)
President Trump’s legal position is very strong in the Florida documents case.
As we noted from the outset, and entirely different from what traditional pundits were saying at the time, the Mar-a-Lago documents case is the weakest case Jack Smith’s Lawfare crew have assembled. Additionally, the judge in Florida is indicating she can see through the Lawfare schemes of the prosecution – and she doesn’t like it.
Everything about the case in New York City against the Trump organization business operations is ridiculous. There are no victims. There was no fraud. All of the lenders did their own due diligence. All of the loans were paid back without issue and the statement of financial condition was factual and accurate.
Additionally, the statute being used as the predicate for the case is a consumer fraud statute, intended to protect borrowers from predatory lenders. In the four corners of this case, Trump is the borrower, and the banks were the lenders. New York is flipping the statute to claim the borrower defrauded the lenders, despite the lenders denying there was any fraud and there was no harm. The entire case is ridiculous.
In this brief video segment, Trump defense lawyer Alina Habba reviews the current status of the case. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on October 30, 2023 | Sundance
For the sake of this argument, if you wanted to align with Judge Chutkan on the need for a gag order, you would first need to clarify if Mark Meadows was a witness for the Jack Smith prosecution. Absent an actual witness list, the remarks by President Trump have to be stretched to encompass potential witnesses or foreseeable witnesses. That’s what Judge Chutkan decided. Anyone who might be a witness is protected by the gag order forbidding President Trump from talking about them.
Jack Smith baited President Trump by leaking a story to ABC News saying Mark Meadows warned President Trump that Biden’s 2020 election win was legitimate. It never happened, but the leak and story were bait to get President Trump to respond – thereby creating the dynamic that would lead to the gag order. The Lawfare worked.
I do not fault President Trump for responding to the ABC News article, he should have every right to speak about false assertions against him. In reality, Jack Smith knew Judge Chutkan wanted to reaffirm the gag order, so he just provided her the legal tool to do it. When dealing with corruption, that’s how Lawfare operates.
WASHINGTON DC – […] Chutkan reiterated that her decision to issue the original gag order earlier this month was rooted in evidence that Trump’s public attacks on witnesses, prosecutors and court personnel have routinely resulted in threats and harassment jeopardizing their safety and her duty to protect the “orderly administration of justice.” In such cases, she said, the Supreme Court and other legal precedents and rules have supported gag orders as a tool to protect the public’s interest in a fair trial.
[…] Chutkan noted that despite the clear problems with the Meadows statement, she would not act on it because the order had not been in effect. She noted that for any potential violations in the future, she would not reach any conclusions before giving both Trump and prosecutors a chance to “provide their positions on the statement’s meaning and permissibility.” (read more)
Posted originally on the CTH on October 24, 2023 | Sundance
Too many people continue falling for this Lawfare nonsense. CTH has been outlining what Lawfare operations are all about since we deconstructed the Trayvon Martin narrative. Perhaps a reminder is useful.
Lawfare, in its most obvious construct, is not a legal approach per se’, it is the intentional manipulation of the legal system to create the optics around information that is intended to be used by media to influence public opinion. {link}
That’s what Lawfare is all about, manipulating public opinion through leaks to the media. The leaks do not need to be truthful, accurate or directly in line with the prosecution of the case; they are intended exclusively to manipulate public opinion.
Remember, on August 21st, in another ridiculous Lawfare operation, Special Counsel Jack Smith told ABC that Mark Meadows testified that President Trump never attempted to declassify any information {Go Deep}. That report was transparently false, yet the media ran with it and multiple alternative media promoted it. Pure nonsense.
In this latest Lawfare effort, again from Special Counsel Jack Smith, again to ABC news, again about former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the claim is the Special Counsel granted Meadows immunity (that’s the hook), and that Meadows told President Trump the 2020 election was not rigged or stolen.
Now remember, Mark Meadows wrote about the rigged and stolen 2020 election in his book, so why would he undermine his own story by saying something completely the opposite to Jack Smith that is only coming out now? The Occam’s razor answer is, he didn’t. This lawfare story is all made up, fictitious, anonymous sources, manufactured to create a public impression.
Bolstering the likelihood that Meadows gave no such testimony, Meadows lawyers, when contacted by media, said the story is fake news. Yet again, everyone falls for it. This is how Lawfare succeeds, and this is how Trayvon Martin’s fake and fabricated ear-witness girlfriend becomes the key witness and embarrasses the prosecution on the stand.
(Via ABC) – Former President Donald Trump’s final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith’s team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith’s team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump’s prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being “dishonest” with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in.
“Obviously we didn’t win,” a source quoted Meadows as telling Smith’s team in hindsight. (read more)
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 