The vilification of Putin has been extremely successful, so much so that no one is listening to his words. The Russian leader recently spoke of conflict resolution. That is not something a warmonger hellbent on conquering nations would discuss. And yet, Putin seems to be the only world leader discussing the potential of resolving the conflict in Ukraine without escalation.
“We sincerely tried to reach an agreement [with Ukraine]. It was difficult to negotiate some kind of patchwork of southeastern Ukraine with the rest of the country, but we tried in good faith,” Putin told military correspondents according to Sputnik news. He also reiterated that their intent regarding Ukraine has not changed. He is not attempting to resurrect the USSR or threaten other nations. Putin only wants the historically Russian territories in Ukraine. Why are we starting a world war over this wish that does not involve other nations?
“What is happening there [in Ukraine] now will certainly never suit us, historically speaking. When the negotiations were held, including in Istanbul, we constantly raised this issue, and they in turn told us: ‘But there is nothing neo-Nazi about us, what do you want from us?’ [Russia wants] at least some relative legislative restrictions. In general, we also agreed on this during the round of negotiations before our troops were withdrawn from Kiev and after they threw all our agreements out of the window,” Putin said. Every attempt at conflict resolution was denied by the neocons. The very agreement that could have prevented Russia from entering Ukraine in the first place was based on a lie.
“We wanted and we still want to have the best relations with all our neighbors after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And we do so, we have come to terms with… Well, that’s what’s happened. We have to live with it,” Putin plainly stated.
It is amazing how the media portrays him as a crazed man intent on destroying the world. I discuss the propaganda techniques used at length in my new book, “The Plot to Seize Russia.” Listen to his words because is intentions are clear. He has no desire to feud with the West. ” If they really want today’s conflict to end through negotiations, they only need to make one decision – to stop the supply of weapons and equipment. That’s it,” Putin declared. The problem is that they do not want to resolve the conflict by any means other than war. Russia clearly does not want war and has been asking the world to listen to their pleas for peace.
QUESTION: Marty; This seems that the onslaught against Trump is a desperate attempt fearing that he would stop the war and reverse climate change. I have been reading you for years. You have great sources but also a great insight into what is happening in this corrupt world. I used to question your warnings that the United States would end up in a civil war. I’m at the point I cannot see how it is not possible.
Are they really this stupid to go after Trump if he could still become president even if convicted?
FS
ANSWER: This is an absolutely desperate attempt to make sure Trump does not ever get back to the White House. Even if he does, the talk in DC is that they will use this conviction for impeachment. But that would not really pass the test since it would be before taking office unless they stretch it out until January after he is sworn in. Nevertheless, there is far too much on the line for the Neocons. They will assassinate him as a last resort. These people assume the public is stupid and it will all blow over in 30 days anyhow when football season begins. They really do believe like the Romans, give us sports and they can do as they like.
If we look at the indictment, 31 of the 37 counts brought against Trump allege he willfully retained national defense information, which is a violation of the Espionage Act. This is really a stretch for the intent of that act was espionage and nobody is making a case that Trump was handing it to an enemy. Nevertheless, the indictment was extremely dangerous and far more serious than what Nixon faced. They are not playing games.
They are desperately staging this to put him in prison. Still, there is no actual smoking gun as they say. Trump has spoken about the classified documents acknowledging that they were classified. This is a serious risk and only a jury with common sense would find him not guilty. They use conspiracy so they do not have to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt. It will be a case arguing what they “think” was in his mind at the time. Even this is selective prosecution after Biden had classified documents thrown in his car.
They are already trying to recuse the judge. They want a hanging judge and that is how the government works. When Judge McKenna was protecting me, they made a recusal motion. He denied it. So they went to the Chief Judge and had the case removed and sent to a hanging judge – John F. Kennan – a former prosecutor. Here is my docket sheet. How they remove Judge McKenna was sealed. I was NEVER allowed to see how they did that. This was an outright violation of Due Process of Law. It does not matter. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to ever address anything in my case whatsoever!
I confronted Judge Owen that he was altering the transcripts which is a felony. I forced him to admit it. Under the law, he should have recused himself for now he was a witness in my case. I tried to appeal that and the Second Circuit lost the appeal 3 times and then claimed I was out of time to appeal. On top of that, changing the transcripts is a felony in addition to obstruction of justice which they are charging Trump with. The Second Circuit ignored everything. I wrote to the SEC prosecutor Dorothy Heyl. I said since you people change transcripts, why not just make one up and claim whatever and throw in I killed JFK, and let’s get this over with. She obviously did not reply.
Now you can see what Thomas Jefferson was writing about. There is no rule of law in the United States. If they want you, you have ZERO constitutional or human rights. They even tried to kill me in the same place they killed Jeffrey Epstein. I was in the hospital in a coma but to their dismay, I survived.
Shakespeare’s famous line from Henry VI, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” must be put in its proper context. At that point in history, a charged person had NO RIGHT to counsel. The ONLY lawyers were actually the king’s prosecutors. So you can see, even Shakespeare understood how the rule of law is a joke. That is why we have the Sixth Amendment – the right to counsel. In my case, they attacked all the lawyers and removed them. When Richard Altman said he would defend me for free, the government claimed they were investigating him as my co-conspirator to throw him out of court. So much for Constitutional rights – it’s all fake!
Even Charles Dickens has written about how corrupt the legal system had become back in 1853. Dickens wrote in Chapter I, “In Chancery” of his celebrated Bleake House,
“Suffer any wrong that can be done you, rather than come here!”
Indeed, the current state of American federal courts has once again reached the lowest point completing the revolution of the wheel of political fortune. Perhaps this is in line with what we should expect as we move into 2032 where governments around the world will collapse from their own internal corruption. Trump should kiss the wife and kids goodbye, for he has little chance of defeating this corrupt system. As Herbert Hoover wrote:
“Sometimes when a government; is enraged, it burns down the barn to get the rat.”
This is how the law is just always abused. If a parent is against transgenderism, in California, Newsom wants to charge them with child abuse. That would allow courts to take custody of children awake from the parent under old laws. If a child under 18 cannot have sex consensually, how can then change their sex? Good luck with ANY California judge ruling in your favor. Kiss your children goodbye as well if they are brainwashed into thinking they should change their sex even at age 7 to 12.
A 17-year-old cannot consent to sex, but to vaccinate minors without parental consent was OK because a minor can consent to be vaccinated, but they could not even open a bank account. Epstein was a pedophile with a 17-year-old but a vaccine could have life-threatening consequences and that’s ok for a school to do that claiming even a 7-year-old gave consent? Thomas Jefferson warned that the United States will collapse because of the abuse of the application of the law. He knew history!
The other six counts against Trump claim he caused false statements to be made and conspired to conceal documents from investigators and obstruct justice. This is exactly what the FBI and the DOJ have been doing to protect Hunter Biden and the Big Man.
Our computer has been forecasting that a major Directional Change took place in 2022 and 2023 going all the way into 2026 is basically tearing the very fabric of society apart at the seams. It is not just Trump, it is WOKE. Everywhere you turn, this is the same agenda of the left under Marxism. They MUST destroy the family unit and the children are to look to the state as their real parent and great protector. Communism taught children to report their biological parents if they ever spoke against the state. Hello, California is joining Stalinism.
This is what they are doing right before our eyes. This whole transgender issue is to also reduce the population. Thank you, Bill Gates, Soros, Buffett, and the rest of you. I think the money has gone to your heads and you are all playing God because you, like Soros, perhaps believe God is dead or never existed.
Please Scotty – Beam me the heck out of this world. It has gone completely insane!
Posted originally on the CTH on June 13, 2023 | Sundance
Attorney Robert Barnes appeared on a podcast yesterday to give his analysis of the political indictment of President Trump. It’s a long deconstruction of the Lawfare effort, and contains numerous defenses therein; however, it is a very good encapsulation of the ridiculous issues created by the Biden administration’s efforts to target their political opposition on behalf of the Deep State. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on June 12, 2023 | Sundance
Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.
As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents. When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process. Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.
Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part. You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment. However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.
This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment. Again, pay close attention. WATCH:
.
What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023 {citation}. What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.
Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.
First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things.
Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings. Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.
Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved. In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security.
Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare game playing with words taking place, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed. Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.
During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they could *KNOW* fulsome return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is enlightening:
Notice that NARA had knowledge these documents were in the possession of Trump and were pertinent to their archive retrieval. It was interesting at the time that NARA would know the content of the President Obama letter, and further interesting they would know there was more than one piece of correspondence between President Trump and Chairman Kim [Jong-un]. CNN even wrote about it HERE.
[Irrelevant note: Mr Bonsanko got the name wrong, Jong-il is dead]
Reminder, keep in mind the DOJ ferocity in not wanting anyone to know what documents they retrieved and/or defined.
We know, from President Trump describing the letter left to him by the former president, that Obama told Trump in the letter that the number one foreign policy and intelligence threat perceived by Obama (at the time of his exit) was a nuclear armed North Korea. This is where you overlay the Jack Smith writing in the indictment of national defense secrets and nuclear security issues.
We know, from President Trump speaking publicly about his communication and diplomacy with Chairman Kim Jong-un, that the two leaders exchanged letters relating to aligned national security interests that centered around DPRK nuclear ambitions and status.
Trump and Kim formed a geopolitical truce, a friendship of sorts, based on respect and trust around the nuclear issue. Chairman Kim decreased hostilities; President Trump no longer used inflammatory language about “Little Rocket Man.” A diplomatic détente was created.
NARA was looking for the letter written by Obama that described DPRK nukes, and NARA was looking for letters between Trump and Kim that touched on DPRK nukes.
Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to “nuclear concerns” and “national security matters” make more sense?
Would all of this hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim? YES! Would President Trump even characterize those as government property? NO!
Can you see the way it unfolds? Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.
In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictment√; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described them√. Hey, wait… that’s exactly what they did.
But wait, it gets better….
First, why would President Obama write about the DPRK nuclear threat in his letter welcoming President-elect Trump to the White House? It always struck me as odd, even years ago, when Trump would talk about this issue. It never made sense why President Obama would memorialize that type of an issue in writing, until today.
Normally that type of policy and leadership issue would be part of a conversation. “Mr. Trump, as I depart office the number one issue you might first want to deal with on a national security basis is the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, here’s my opinion”… and so it would go. Why write it down? If the intention was to create a record that would always mean the letter was going to remain hidden from public review, then writing about DPRK nukes would be a solid tool for that motive.
Lastly, who would know about the content of the letter that President Obama wrote to President-elect Trump, specifically as it centers around a national security issue? Who would know what Obama wrote to Trump?
Lisa Monaco would certainly know the content of the letter written by Barack Obama to Donald Trump; she, Susan Rice and Kathryn Ruemmler might have even assisted in the writing of it. Remember, it was Susan Rice who wrote the January 20th “by the book” memo memorializing the FBI targeting of Trump, and Kathryn Ruemmler represented Susan Rice as her lawyer when investigators made inquiry.
Lisa Monaco was previously President OBama’s senior advisor for national security.
Currently Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco is the head of the DOJ operation that was targeting the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents and framing the legal issues for the DOJ to use in court. Special Counsel Jack Smith also reports to Lisa Monaco.
America seems to have lost all true allies. Once the world police, the US has been expected to “save” democracies worldwide since the First World War. The US pledges more to NATO than any other member and has gifted Ukraine endless supplies to protect Europe from “Russian aggression.” Yet, a new poll states that Europeans would not want to back America in a war against China.
Six thousand people were surveyed from Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. Only a quarter of respondents said they’d “like their country, or Europe, to take America’s side,” while 62% would like to remain neutral. Around 43% said China is a “necessary partner” to the EU, and they must “strategically cooperate” with Beijing. Bulgarians were the most likely to side an alliance with China (8%) and/or consider the nation a “necessary partner” (58%). Swedes were the most willing to support the US, with 26% calling China an adversary. About 31% of Poles also said they would side with America if they were to go to war with China.
What will happen to America’s allies when China becomes the more strategic trading partner? American politicians have destabilized our economy and are attempting to steer away from capitalism. Countries will be lining up to sell to China, and not the US.
In the end, it does not matter. The people are never permitted to vote on whether or not we go to war. Most of us, regardless of nationality, simply want peace. We all want to have enough to live comfortably, which is not an option during wars. They ask us to sacrifice, but for what? Our politicians create conflict and send the people, who never had a say in the first place, into battle to die.
If China enters Taiwan, the world will erupt into chaos. The neocons have been waiting for that very moment to justify a new war. Every NATO member nation would be required to fight China. A Gallup poll from February showed that 65% of Americans wanted to support Ukraine against Russia, but they likely do not realize what it entails. We are not merely giving Ukraine supplies; we are preparing for a worldwide battle. In the end, the people are merely cannon fodder and I hesitate to show any support to a politician who believes war is the only option for conflict resolution.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance
I have been reviewing interviews, looking at discussion, and some of them I will share in the next few articles. However, for a solid representation of the state of our current dynamic, as it relates to the targeting of President Donald J. Trump, this interview below is a solid outlook from the detractors.
CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman and CBS News investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge join “Face the Nation” to discuss what’s in the indictment — and what it means for Trump. [Transcript Here]
Before getting to the video, it’s valuable to see Rikki Klieman representing the interpretation of the media outlook toward the indictment handed down by Special Counsel Jack Smith. It is also valuable to see CBS’s Catherine Herridge represent the defenders of the institutions, from the outside vulgarian personage of Trump.
Klieman buys the Lawfare narrative completely, including the framework of classified documents as opposed to documents containing classified markings. She sells the Lawfare outline as gospel and makes all assertions from that position. Herridge looks at how the bureaucracy responds to Trump, including how the institutions hold power of determination higher than a President of the United States.
As Bill Barr said emphatically earlier today, “The documents do not belong to Trump,” continuing with “The documents belong to the government who created them, not the man for whom they were created.” So sayeth the defender of the omnipotent Dept of Justice. This is where a sharp intellectual knife to cut through the chaff and countermeasures is needed, and notice no one brings up the visible and practical deconstruction point.
If the documents did not belong to President Donald J. Trump, then why did the government dump them in the parking lot of the White House and tell him to deal with them?
If the documents belonged to the government, and not to the man for whom they were created, then why did that same government give them to him and force him to take them to a location of his choosing? Can you see the obtuse argument fall apart when simple pragmatic questions are raised?
The institutions are presented, by the sellers of the Lawfare narrative, as higher than the authority of the President of the United States. This is how ridiculous our government has become.
Institutions are not omnipotent entities; they are buildings and networks full of people who facilitate processes that are an outcome of policy. Those buildings and offices are not the government. The elected politicians who we send to Washington DC are not subservient to the processes, norms and morays they determine within the bureaucracy that the politicians are in charge of.
The argument(s) against Donald Trump are akin to a business saying that all work product created during the tenure of employment belongs to the enterprise of the business and not to the employee. If you want to hold that line of thought, fine. However, you then need to reconcile that the business enterprise intentionally gave all the work product to the employee, dumped it in their lap, told them to take it and leave, and then comes back at a later date and says – we now need to review the stuff we forced you to take because some of it might not actually belong to you.
Does this happen anywhere else? Of course not.
The fact that the National Archives and Record Administration refused to take custody of the documents upon the end of the White House tenure, combined with the fact the NARA dumped those documents in the parking lot of the White House for Trump to deal with, is a direct statement the bureaucracy was telling President Trump these are your records. His records – not their records on loan to him.
The Presidential Records Act is the overriding legislative guidance for the flow of work product post term in office. These are essentially document arguments. The fact that NARA together with the Biden administration would weaponize the disposition of documents, they intentionally forced Trump to take ownership of, speaks to an intent within the bureaucracy that is transparently obvious.
Bill Barr’s entire mindset is based on a belief the institutions are of a higher power than the individuals we elect to control them. In essence, the President of the United States is subservient to the bureaucracy. This is nonsense. This is also why former AG Bill Barr was more concerned about preserving the institutions than stopping the weaponizing activity that flows from them.
President Trump could store his “presidential records” anywhere he wants to; they are his records.
Now, watch Klieman obscure the difference between classified documents and documents containing classified markings. Despite her pontifications to the contrary, the indictment is not based around any classified documents. The classification of the documents is technically and factually moot to the ridiculous point the special counsel is making.
.
[Transcript] -JOHN DICKERSON: For more on the legal implications, we’re joined by senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge and CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman.
Rikki, I want to start with you.
You have been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. So what stands out to you, now that you have read this indictment?
RIKKI KLIEMAN: I think what stands out, obviously, is the magnitude of detail in this indictment.
It’s not only that you’re dealing with 31 counts under the Espionage Act, which simply means the unlawful, willing retention of classified information, or even unclassified information that would hurt the defense of the United States and aid our enemies. It’s the detail of a speaking indictment.
We have to remember that much of this indictment, John, is to educate not only ultimately a court and jury, but it’s really to educate the public. Much of this indictment, in terms of the detail, may not even come into evidence, in terms of what’s admissible or not in the course of a trial.
What also strikes me, John, is, the overwhelming detail leaves the Trump legal team with real need to have powerful motions to dismiss, because, if this goes to trial, the way it reads, it’s rather overwhelming for anyone to be able to fight it on the facts themselves.
JOHN DICKERSON: And I want to get to that motion-to-dismiss question in a moment.
But, Catherine, you have been doing reporting about the risk assessment about just what was in these documents. Educate us on that.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, what jumps out to me, John, is when you go to the section the willful retention of national defense information, by my count, there are 21 top secret documents, and the disclosure of top secret information has the expectation of exceptionally grave damage to national security.
But what out — stands out to me is some of the classified codings, like TK, or Talent Keyhole. You don’t see that very often. That’s about intelligence from overhead imagery. For example, if we’re looking at a terrorist target, do we have such good visibility that we can count the hairs on their head? Can we see what they’re eating for breakfast on their terrorist patio?
Those are capabilities that we don’t want our adversaries to know that we have. And then also Special Access Programs, or SAP, these are highly restricted programs because of the sensitivity of the intelligence and the technology, such as stealth technology, for example.
Think of classified information like the Pentagon. Special Access Programs are these handful of rooms where there are just a limited number of keys to control and restrict access to that information.
JOHN DICKERSON: So it’s not just secret; it’s the top of the — top of the top?
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Some of these are way beyond top secret, like, I said, Talent Keyhole, when you’re talking about Special Access Programs or SCI, sensitive, compartmentalized information.
These really are the crown jewels of the U.S. intelligence community.
JOHN DICKERSON: Rikki, let me ask you about a part of this indictment which seems to come — which comes from one of the former president’s lawyers.
Educate us on the crime-fraud exception, how it’s possible for a prosecutor to have this information. And is that a weakness? Because we know, from our reporting, that this is something that the Trump defense team is going to talk about, is the behavior of the prosecutors.
RIKKI KLIEMAN: We all believe that, when you go to a doctor, that there’s a privilege, that what you say and what your ailments are will remain confidential.
Same thing if you go to a clergyperson. And it’s exactly the same thing. When you go to a lawyer. You believe that, if you are a client, that what you say will never be disclosed to anyone, let alone in the grand jury or court of law. It’s called the attorney-client privilege. It protects all conversations relating to legal advice.
So, how did it get broken? That is, how did a court in Washington, D.C., a judge, and then an appellate court affirm the idea that you could hear, listen, read the notes and the voice memos of a lawyer to testify against his own client?
It’s called the crime-fraud exception. So what the court believed was, the conversations between Evan Corcoran, the lawyer, and Donald Trump were really in furtherance of a crime or a fraud, and he was ordered and forced to testify.
Now, one could say, well, that’s one and done. So now Mr. Corcoran is going to be a witness in this case, should it go to trial. But we have to remember that that took place, that decision, in the District of Columbia. Now we are in Florida. So can it come up to a new judge? Might a new judge decide that it is not admissible at trial? Yes.
Will that hurt the case? Not necessarily. There’s plenty of other evidence.
JOHN DICKERSON: Catherine, I have got two questions for you.
The first is, what happens if you’re just a regular old Joe and you have this kind of information? Legally, what happens to you? What’s happened?
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, as one example, I have contacts who work in the nuclear weapons capability arena.
Let’s say you have a nuclear document, it’s on top of the photocopier, and you walk away, you leave it there. Your clearance is gone. You are out the door. There are immediate consequences.
JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about a number of the president’s defenders.
Well, first of all, we should note, the current president is under investigation by a special counsel.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Correct.
JOHN DICKERSON: We don’t know much about that. But Republicans have brought that up in defending the president. They have also brought the case of Hillary Clinton.
You have been looking at that. Give us a sense of the apples and oranges or apples and apples in comparison with what’s on the table here.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, what strikes me, John, in this indictment is I think the special counsel, Jack Smith, specifically charged willful retention of national defense information in an effort to sort of blunt criticism that these cases may be the same.
If you go back to the summer of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey said that they found multiple e-mail chains on Hillary Clinton’s private server that she used for government business that contained highly classified information, including these Special Access Programs that we just discussed, but, in his view, it should not be charged because he didn’t feel there was sufficient evidence of intent or willfulness.
Critics would say that even just purchasing the server was an example of intent. And then, finally, you have to look at just the scope of the information and also the timeline. But I think this charging of willful retention really is by design.
JOHN DICKERSON: Right, the facts of the case quite different. But thank you so much for that and for all your other answers.
And, Rikki Klieman, thank you.
And Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us. (link)
Published originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance
Appearing on Rupert Murdoch’s network Fox News, former Attorney General Bill Barr frame his false construct in the documents case against President Trump.
First, the obvious. Barr is motivated in his position because this is the constructed inflection point against Donald Trump. The severity of his position, the pretending not to know things, the defensive position about the power of government institutions, all of it is expressed in sum and total for one primary purpose; this is the moment they have manufactured to take Trump down. This is the DC Republican moment all preceding moments were designed to support.
Second, on the details. Barr states with emphasis, the “presidential daily brief (PDB) is not the president’s personal document,” it is a document provided for him by the U.S. intelligence community (IC). Worth noting here is a little factoid that runs in opposition to Barr:
WASHINGTON – […] “while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers. By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments.” [Source]
No one is saying the Trump PDB is Trump’s “personal document“, the point is the PDB’s in question -those noted in the indictment- were part of President Trump’s papers, his administration records; able to be reviewed and critiqued by anyone the president would assign, including speechwriters. Barr us making a non-sequitur.
Third, Barr notes the documents created by government officials are different from personal papers of the President. Perhaps technically true, an argument and debate that takes place after all administrations. However, if government owned, why did government officials (NARA) then stack the documents in the White House parking lot for President Trump to take.
Lastly, like all pundits and commentators all weekend, everyone is intentionally pretending not to know the difference between ‘classified documents’ and ‘documents containing classification markings’. The former is not part of the argument, the latter wording is artful Lawfare language.
COMMENT: Imagine Canadians bombing Quebec and outlawing the French language and French-speaking people.
My guess is Quebec will eventually use this opportunity to separate from Canada!
The propaganda is so thick!!
Thanks from the Great White North for being a voice of Reason and Truth!!
Jim M
REPLY: Both of my Ukrainian employees have fled to Berlin. Over 8.2 million refugees have fled Ukraine all across Europe. In addition, an estimated 8 million others had been displaced all because Zelensky refuses to negotiate. I get emails from the refugees and they blame all of this on Zelensky. They fear they will never return and his dreams of bringing Blackrock are just insane. To rebuild Ukraine will take more than a decade. He has robbed these people of peace all for the Donbas which is occupied by Russians for centuries who he/Lindsey Grahm hates.
He can always wear the same army T-Shirt for his propaganda war and put on a helmet to pretend he is a soldier. At the end of this, history will remember him in the same choir as Hitler and Stalin, and Mao.
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 