Four Judges of DC Circuit Court of Appeals Excoriate Prior Executive Privilege Ruling, and The Admitted Scheme of Special Counsel Jack Smith


Posted originally on the CTH on January 16, 2024 | Sundance

In a 14-page opinion and ruling today [SEE pdf HERE] four judges from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals deconstruct the previous ruling from their own court as well as the DC judge beneath them that gave Special Counsel Jack Smith access to President Trump Twitter account data and then enforced a non-disclosure order.

There are multiple layers to this story, but the substantive part is the scheme and the construct of how the Lawfare took place.  There’s no way this was coincidental; I’ll explain why.

First, there are only 7 members on the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals.  When the Twitter case to gain access to President Trump communication came to the appellate level, somehow all three of the most left-wing judges were assigned to hear the appeal.

An “en banc” review would have included the full 7 members.  However, that review was made moot by the release of the information (a result of the appellate decision).  The release itself was done with the use of a non-disclosure order, hiding the ruling in secrecy and keeping President Trump from knowing about it.  Once the other four members of the DC CCA eventually found out about the case and the ramifications for ‘executive privilege’ their opinion lambasting their own court is released.

As noted from the panel, “the court here permitted a special prosecutor to avoid even the assertion of executive privilege by allowing a warrant for presidential communications from a third party and then imposing a nondisclosure order.”

The Circuit Court justices note that Jack Smith could have gone to the National Archives for the information as they held the same set of documents and information.  However, Smith didn’t want to go that route because the National Archives would inform President Trump as customary and provide him the ability to assert executive privilege over any of the 32 Direct Messages requested.

Jack Smith didn’t want President Trump to know the prosecution was looking through his Twitter metadata and personal communication, so they went to district court under seal to file their search warrants in secrecy; then banning Twitter (the third party) from telling President Trump about it.   The four justices from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals are furious the other three members of the court went along with this precedent setting usurpation of authority.

President Trump could not appeal any part of this process because he was unaware it was taking place.  In essence, a star-chamber of secrecy was established and the majority on DC Circuit Court of Appeals is not happy about it.

Jack Smith gained access after Twitter lost the 3-judge Circuit Court appeal decision. So, an en banc full 7-member ruling is essentially moot.  The information was released, and Smith had access without President Trump or the White House having any option to assert privilege.

…”While a Twitter account primarily consists of public tweets, it may also include some private material, such as direct messages between users, drafts, and personal metadata. In fact, the material produced by Twitter included several dozen direct messages written by a sitting President. The district court afforded no opportunity for the former President to invoke executive privilege before disclosure, and this court made no mention of the privilege concerns entangled in a third-party search of a President’s social media account. This approach directly contravenes the principles and procedures long used to adjudicate claims of executive privilege.”  [pdf HERE]

The ruling provides no remedy other than public scrutiny and perhaps fuel for Florida Judge Aileen Cannon who already has Special Counsel Jack Smith on his heels after several rulings in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

What the publicity does is highlight to the world just how politically motivated all of this aforementioned action really is.  Lastly, what are the odds of the random 3-judge panel to approve it.  Even the DC Circuit Court itself seems to imply this was a structured outcome, which is even more infuriating to the majority within the court.

VOTE 2024 – Iowa Caucus Results and Election Discussion Thread


Posted originally on the CTH on January 15, 2024 | Sundance

As we will do with each primary contest, this is the dedicated thread to the results from the primary caucus in the state of Iowa today.

Forty delegates are up for grabs. Delegates are distributed ¹proportionately.  Caucusing begins at 8:00pm ET. We can expect results from the first-reporting precinct caucuses around 8:45pm Eastern Time tonight.

There is no Democrat primary caucus in Iowa this year as the DNC changed the primary contest. A few people, me included, have long suspected the DNC primary change was not necessarily about the DNC, but rather a change to provide space for Iowa and New Hampshire Democrat activists to influence the first two republican primaries as a block Trump strategy. We await the data to see what happens.

Associated Press Election Results Here

Politico Election Results Here

New York Times Election Results Here

CNN Election Results Here

¹Delegates are proportionally allocated to Presidential contenders based on the statewide vote. Each candidate receives (candidate’s statewide vote) × 40 ÷ (total statewide vote) delegates. Round fractions to the nearest whole number. If there are too few delegates allocated, the candidate nearest the rounding threshold receives the additional delegate. If too many delegates are allocated, the candidate furthest the threshold loses a delegate.

Atlanta DA Fani Willis Plays the Race Card Giving Proactive Speech at Big Bethal AME Church


Posted originally on the CTH on January 14, 2024 | Sundance

Two high level takeaways.  First, please pay attention to the venue {GO DEEP}, as CTH has documented for 10+ years the AME church network is the epicenter of racially driven political influence.  BLM are the activist foot soldiers; AME are the network organizers.  BLM harvest the ballots; AME are the precinct workers who scan them as many times as needed.  This is the “Atlanta way,” that duplicates in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore and Madison.

Second, Fani Willis must anticipate a major problem with her case and conduct if she is proactively going to the crew who will be tasked with circling the wagons on her defense.  In this video soundbite Fani Willis plays the race card to her audience at Big Bethal AME church in Atlanta. WATCH:

Fani Willis’ full speech was 35 minutes long and filled with racially driven context.

The AME church network is the same political system used by Barack “if I had a son” Obama, Benjamin Crump, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin in Miami-Dade/Orlando. The same network in Ferguson Missouri (Mike Brown), the same network in Baltimore, Maryland (Freddy Gray), and on it goes.

The AME network is a system built on the guise of religion, but fraught with politics, racial division, the retention of pretenses and massive fraud.

.

1.3.24: INFO Flood incoming! CEOS departing in droves, Flight logs, Lawfare, Cali Ballots, Celine, Be ready, Pray!


Posted originally on Rumble By And We Know on: Jan 3, 2024 at 12:45 pm EST

Vivek Ramaswamy States Christie Exit Was Part of Larger Control Agenda – Predicts DeSantis to Become Haley Partner


Posted originally on the CTH on January 10, 2024 | Sundance

In this video [see below], presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is essentially describing the “splitter strategy” CTH has discussed and outlined in granular detail for years.  Essentially, a process where the billionaire donors, hedge fund managers, corporations and multinationals – what we define as the Sea Island group (SIG), control the private corporation known as the RNC.

On this facet of his commentary, Ramaswamy is correct.  However, from there he gets things wrong.

Yes, as we have said, the Chris Christie exit is part of the continuum.  Remember, within mutually aligned motives the candidate doesn’t need specifically to be an active participant; they only need to be looking out for their individual interests, usually financial.

When the ‘time to exit’ tap on the shoulder is received, it comes via a key backer saying, “there’s no longer a path.”  The money stops, and the candidate suspends their campaign.  That’s how the process works.

Did Christie get that tap on the shoulder, at the specific time needed to retain the “never Trump” effort, thereby creating further support for Nikki Haley?  Yes, absolutely – again, that’s how it works.

The SIG moved all their poker chips to Nikki after they realized the weird behavior of DeSantis meant he was no longer a viable option.  When Brian Kemp began creating distance with DeSantis, that’s when the shift to Haley began.

Immediately preceding the shift to Nikki Haley, and specifically because DeSantis was not gaining traction, the evangelical brothers Mike Pence and Asa Hutchinson also received their tap on the shoulder and withdrew from their Iowa effort.

Within the plan of the SIG, Pence/Hutchinson were only camped in Iowa to pull a coalition of evangelicals together to hand them to DeSantis.  But that part of the effort never gained traction.  As a consequence, the SIG shifted to New Hampshire, where their allied Democrats could assist.

Ramaswamy is correct in the statement that the billionaire donors within the SIG want a head-to-head between President Trump and Nikki Haley, but only because that’s all that remains of the collapsing roadmap.  Where Ramaswamy is wrong is that when Haley loses, the SIG/Never Trump group will shift to supporting Biden (Newsom).  That’s the UniParty.  Ultimately, in the big picture, the foundational effort is not about supporting DeSantis or Haley, it’s about stopping Trump.

The hubris of Vivek Ramaswamy in this video then makes everything else he says ridiculous, and also explains why he cannot gain traction.

Who is Ramaswamy to say, “our America-First movement“?  As if this is something he created. :::spit:::  Right there, in that statement, is where we notice who Ramaswamy is.   He is trying to co-opt the MAGA Trump movement for his own motives and intents.

There is only one person who holds the allegiance of the American working class and the America First movement.  That person is President Donald Trump.  President Trump alone will decide later who will take that pragmatic economic-based MAGA movement forward – after his four-year term.  This is not that time.

At CTH we accept things as they are, not as we would pretend them to be.

If Vivek Ramaswamy was authentic to his words, if he really wanted to advance the America First movement, he would accept the futility of his position and endorse Donald J. Trump.  His unwillingness to do that says more about him, about his [¹]’glowing‘ motives and intents, than anything he might say about Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis.

WATCH 01:33 minutes:

.

[¹] I have stayed generally neutral on Ramaswamy for a reason.  However, he is now sending the exact signals I would expect to see if an intelligence community operator was nearing the end of his usefulness.  It’s called ‘Linguistic Programming‘.  ie “they will never allow,” etc.

Chris Christie Caught on Hot Mic Lamenting Current Status of Never Trump Operation – Nikki Haley Is “gonna get smoked” and Ron DeSantis Is “Petrified”


Posted originally on the CTH on January 10, 2024 | Sundance 

There are several layers around this story that are interesting and funny.

The obvious story is how Chris Christie is talking to Wayne MacDonald, a former chair of the New Hampshire Republican Party, and discussing the futility of Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis.  The lesser obvious story speaks to the reason for the entire RAT team’s effort; they each had/have a role to play on behalf of their corporate benefactors.

“She’s gonna get smoked,” the former New Jersey governor said of Nikki Haley. “And you and I both know it. She’s not up to this,” Christie continued.  Chris Christie also claimed Ron DeSantis called him about Iowa while “petrififed” at the prospect of coming in third.  LISTEN:

The Latest Iowa Poll:

Trump: 52% (+7)

Haley: 18% (-1)

DeSantis: 18% (-4)

Ramaswamy: 5% (=)

Christie: 3% (-1)

Chris Christie Drops Out – ‘Defeating Donald Trump, Preserving DC System, More Important Than Victory’


Posted originally on the CTH on January 10, 2024 | Sundance

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (U-DC) is quitting on cue having played his part.  Christie ended his 2024 bid for the White House moments ago.   It’s clear to me tonight that there isn’t a path for me to win the nomination,” Christie told the audience at a town hall in Windham, N.H.

Via Fox-2) – […] The former New Jersey governor’s decision will be mainly viewed as a boon for Haley, who has seen particular momentum in New Hampshire, where Christie was also putting a lot of his campaign’s energy.

Christie had launched his campaign in June, going after Trump and pitching himself as an alternative to the former president. (more)

Pretrial and Detention in Florida – Guilty Until Proven Innocent


Posted originally on Jan 9, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Rule of Law Justice

State laws should be viewed with a watchful eye as we move toward the next election. I often speak highly of Florida state laws, but make no mistake – Florida’s state government is still a GOVERNMENT but the lesser of multiple evils. Nearly every state quietly passed new legislation on January 1, and Florida’s new rules regarding pretrial release and detention are concerning.

SB 1534 regarding pretrial and detention now state that only a judge may set bail.

Section 1. Subsections (4), (5), and (6) are added to

   48  section 903.011, Florida Statutes, to read:

   49         903.011 Pretrial release “Bail” and “bond” defined; general

   50  terms; statewide uniform bond schedule.—

   51         (4) Except as authorized in subsection (5), only a judge

   52  may set, reduce, or otherwise alter a defendant’s bail. Upon

   53  motion by a defendant, or on the court’s own motion, a court may

   54  reconsider the monetary component of a defendant’s bail if he or

   55  she is unable to post a monetary bond.

   56         (5)(a) Beginning January 1, 2024, and annually thereafter,

   57  the Supreme Court must adopt a uniform statewide bond schedule

   58  for criminal offenses not described in subsection (6) for which

   59  a person may be released on bail before and in lieu of his or

   60  her first appearance hearing or bail determination. The Supreme

   61  Court must make the revised uniform statewide bond schedule

   62  available to each judicial circuit.

Judges will have the ability to raise bail, but they may not lower it. If convicted, not charged, with the following crimes, you will be detained until a judge can hear your case:

(6) A person may not be released before his or her first

   93  appearance hearing or bail determination and a judge must

   94  determine the appropriate bail, if any, based on an

   95  individualized consideration of the criteria in s. 903.046(2),

   96  if the person meets any of the following criteria:

   97         (a) The person was, at the time of arrest for any felony,

   98  on pretrial release, probation, or community control in this

   99  state or any other state;

  100         (b) The person was, at the time of arrest, designated as a

  101  sexual offender or sexual predator in this state or any other

  102  state;

  103         (c) The person was arrested for violating a protective

  104  injunction;

  105         (d) The person was, at the time of arrest, on release from

  106  supervision under s. 947.1405, s. 947.146, s. 947.149, or s.

  107  944.4731;

  108         (e) The person has, at any time before the current arrest,

  109  been sentenced pursuant to s. 775.082(9) or s. 775.084 as a

  110  prison releasee reoffender, habitual violent felony offender,

  111  three-time violent felony offender, or violent career criminal;

  112         (f) The person has been arrested three or more times in the

  113  12 months immediately preceding his or her arrest for the

  114  current offense; or

  115         (g) The person’s current offense of arrest is for one or

  116  more of the following crimes:

  117         1. A capital felony, life felony, felony of the first

  118  degree, or felony of the second degree;

  119         2. A homicide under chapter 782; or any attempt,

  120  solicitation, or conspiracy to commit a homicide;

  121         3. Assault in furtherance of a riot or an aggravated riot;

  122  felony battery; domestic battery by strangulation; domestic

  123  violence, as defined in s. 741.28; stalking; mob intimidation;

  124  assault or battery on a law enforcement officer; assault or

  125  battery on juvenile probation officer, or other staff of a

  126  detention center or commitment facility, or a staff member of a

  127  commitment facility, or health services personnel; assault or

  128  battery on a person 65 years of age or older; robbery; burglary;

  129  carjacking; or resisting an officer with violence;

  130         4. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, human trafficking, or

  131  human smuggling;

  132         5. Possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon,

  133  violent career criminal, or person subject to an injunction

  134  against committing acts of domestic violence, stalking, or

  135  cyberstalking;

  136         6. Sexual battery; indecent, lewd, or lascivious touching;

  137  exposure of sexual organs; incest; luring or enticing a child;

  138  or child pornography;

  139         7. Abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an elderly person or

  140  disabled adult;

  141         8. Child abuse or aggravated child abuse;

  142         9. Arson; riot, aggravated riot, inciting a riot, or

  143  aggravated inciting a riot; or a burglary or theft during a

  144  riot;

  145         10. Escape; tampering or retaliating against a witness,

  146  victim, or informant; destruction of evidence; or tampering with

  147  a jury;

  148         11. Any offense committed for the purpose of benefitting,

  149  promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang;

  150         12. Trafficking in a controlled substance, including

  151  conspiracy to engage in trafficking in a controlled substance;

  152         13. Racketeering; or

  153         14. Failure to appear at required court proceedings while

  154  on bail.
Judge

Now, you may read through this list, nodding your head in agreement that anyone who commits a violent crime is a danger to our society and should be locked away. However, the legal system was designed so everyone is viewed as INNOCENT until proven guilty. This method enables the law to detain people who have not been charged with a crime and may be innocent.

Read the list a bit closer, and you will notice there are non-violent offenses that could land you in jail without bail. Inciting or participating in a riot means you are guilty until proven innocent. There WILL be riots after the election regardless of who wins, and everyone who participates may be held. You are unwise if you believe this will only benefit your political party. All the new arrivals to Florida could flip it blue, and “riots” like the Black Lives Matter wave will be considered OK, as the blue states deemed them, while conservative rallies will lead to domestic terrorism charges.

Conspiracy is also on the list if you read it carefully. So, if they simply THINK you may have committed a drug-related crime, you will be locked away until a judge can hear your case. We know that three-letter agencies have planted drugs on innocent people in the past to get that conviction. They do not even need evidence, as this is opening Pandora’s box to permit the government to detain citizens before trial.

Look at what happened over COVID. The courts closed due to the pandemic, and people living in states that did not offer bail were stuck behind bars for months until a judge could take their case. In New Jersey, for example, people awaiting trial were not even permitted to go outside for months on end, and the time they spent awaiting trial was not reduced from their sentence if found guilty. The judge is not required to take your case immediately, and they could potentially delay it for as long as possible, as they did during COVID.

Very Revealing – Supreme Court Refuses to Permit Twitter to Outline Scope of FBI/DHS Unlawful Domestic Surveillance


Posted originally on the CTH on January 9, 2024 | Sundance 

If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.  Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {linkWhy?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

The Twitter lawsuit against the government wound its way through the lower courts and various levels of appeal.  Each lower court ruled against the release of the information, forbidding Twitter from releasing the information.  Why? Because the executive branch, in this example Obama DHS/FBI, have unilateral authority to determine what constitutes a “national security” issue.   If DHS/FBI says the issue is a “national security” threat, the judicial branch is not prepared to challenge that definition.

Ultimately the lawsuit ended up at the doors of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court refused to engage the question thereby supporting the rulings of the lower court.  You can read about THAT PART HERE.  However, there’s another layer to this story that needs to be accurately understood, because this deference by the judicial branch to the executive branch is part of how the system is weaponized.

You might remember this 11th circuit court of appeals ruling against Trump; it essentially encapsulates the issue:

These rulings are essentially correct, as following the process within a constitutional republic. However, here’s the rub.  The weaponized Deep State are using this deference, as a tool in their Lawfare arsenal.

If the Deep State can unilaterally determine what constitutes “national security,” and if the judicial branch is not going to review or challenge those determinations, then the executive branch can target people, target institutions, and/or conduct domestic surveillance while hiding their conduct behind the shield of national security.

That’s exactly what the weaponized institutions (DHS, DOJ, FBI) have been doing.

That’s exactly the process that Barack Obama and Eric Holder created.

That’s exactly the motive for Eric Holder creating the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).

Now, can you see the bigger issue, as presented by the Twitter case against government, that was just highlighted by the Supreme Court decision not to get involved.

The DOJ-NSD is the targeting mechanism for corrupt interests in our government to target us.  The Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI unite in the process and provide the results to the DOJ-NSD for action against the targets.  The collaboration then uses “national security” as the technique to stop those being abused by the targeting system from ever finding out, and the judicial branch cannot provide oversight.

Hopefully, this helps people put the scale of the ‘weaponization of government’ issue into a context.

That’s how they are carrying out Lawfare.  That’s why there’s no process to impede them within the ordinary structures of constitutional protection.

Their ability to use “national security” as the justification for all of the corrupt targeting and surveillance is ultimately the source of power for the Fourth Branch of Government.

Inversen Interviews Webb


Posted originally on Jan 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong