Supreme Court Blocks and Punts on Trump Financial Records Cases…


Apparently stall tactics are all the rage amid a political judiciary that is collapsing from a quickly metastasizing cancer inside the third branch of government.

Today the Supreme court blocked in part, and punted in part, on three cases related to the resistance effort to gain the private financial records of President Trump.  The bottom line is that none of the decisions today will likely be resolved before the November election.

♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean  financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over.  As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”

This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.

♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement.  This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.

We anticipated this ruling in the Trump -v- Mazars case because it was clear the efforts of the House were fishing expeditions.  Despite initiating an impeachment effort in order to bolster their attempt; and then attempting to backdoor the congressional subpoenas under the guise of the impeachment effort; the Supreme Court rejected that approach.

SCOTUS BLOG – […] Having found both sides’ proposed tests wanting, Roberts outlined a middle ground for the lower courts in these cases, as well as other courts going forward, to follow. Courts, Roberts instructed, should “perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the ‘unique position’ of the President.”

Among other things, courts should consider whether the president’s papers are really necessary (because the information cannot be obtained elsewhere); whether the subpoena is as limited in scope as it can be while still serving Congress’ purpose; what evidence Congress has offered to “establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose”; and what burdens a subpoena imposes on the president. Because the lower courts did not adequately consider these “special concerns,” Roberts explained, the cases will now return to those courts for additional proceedings. (more)

Trump -v- Vance (Manhattan case) decision:

.

Trump -v- Mazars (legislative case) decision:

.

 

Former Acting DNI Richard Grenell Discusses Unmasking During Transition Period…


Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell discusses the period during the presidential transition period where President Obama’s white house team was coordinating intelligence efforts to research and unmask incoming officials.

Why Did The DOJ Declassify and Release the FISA Application on July 21, 2018?….


On July 21, 2018, amid the apex of all things Trump-Russia being carefully narrated by the special counsel team, why did the DOJ release the Top Secret Classified Intelligence document known as the Carter Page FISA application?

At the time it happened everyone was so consumed with the content of the release, almost no-one stopped to ask that question.  Except, well, me.

Put yourself back into that 2018 time-frame: the Trump-Russia collusion hoax was being pushed hard; the Nunes memo -vs- the Schiff memo was being argued and the media was writing furiously about leaks from anonymous sources “with knowledge of the investigation” etc.  Congress was being blocked from all their document requests and their bucket lists for declassification.  Rod Rosenstein was refusing to testify to the House Intel Committee led by Devin Nunes.  The DOJ was blocking documents related to surveillance of President Trump.  The media was saying there was no surveillance of Trump.  Congress was desperate to break the stonewalling and asked President Trump to declassify a list of documents they provided.  Rod Rosenstein threatened Trump that if he declassified documents it would be adding to a potential obstruction investigation and claim. Etc. Etc.

Hell, despite his recusal from these matters, AG Sessions was getting major heat over the blockage from DOJ… the battle was intense.  Sessions announced an Illinois USAO John Laush to try and mediate the issues.  Laush was a major fail.

Then, amid all of that stonewalling, blocking, redacting of documents, failure to unredact, and refusal to declassify…. suddenly, all of a sudden, presto, here’s the most top secret classified document release ever.

To fulfill a FOIA request by Judicial Watch and the New York Times.

A FOIA request?

Seriously?

Considering all of the documents that would have been the easiest NOT to release because it is a top secret classified intelligence product; and considering the denial of that FOIA request would have easily withstood all judicial challenge because of the nature of its content; all of a sudden… hey, here you go. Here it is.

It just never made sense.

I have finally found the answer to that question; and while I must hold back on some details, we are at a point where you too should know.

First, an admission that I was wrong.

I always thought Robert Mueller was a false front, a semi-cogent face for a team of 17 lawyers that moved-in to take over Main Justice.  I was not wrong about Mueller, he was exactly that: a hand selected name to give credibility to a team assembly, and a man who would acquiesce to the smart, familiar and legal minds that were really running the resistance operation.

Where I was wrong, was thinking Rosenstein was a countermeasure to those who took control over Main Justice.

He was not.

Rod Rosenstein was doing exactly the same as Mueller, acquiescing to every request, instruction and demand by the seventeen legal squatters who took over Main Justice.

As Rod Rosenstein recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he never once questioned the special counsel about any request, demand or instruction; and he never once challenged their motives for the requests they made.

As Deputy AG, and with AG Sessions recused, Rod Rosenstein should have been on top of the special counsel; but he wasn’t.  He intentionally wasn’t.

The entire time the special counsel was operating, seventeen assembled members of the Trump resistance, were running the show inside the U.S. Department of Justice.  They controlled everything.

AG Jeff Sessions was fire-walled; he saw nothing, and he had no input into anything.  That was the first step in the resistance operation.

The second step was to instruct Rosenstein that every request made by the team was part of their investigation; regardless of how it might seem disconnected, it was all part of their investigative process.  That’s how they steamrolled Rosenstein into sitting in a corner and waiting for documents to sign; authorities to grant (scope memos etc.); indictments to approve; and requests to be fulfilled.

Seventeen members of the special counsel were running Main Justice.  Seventeen members of the resistance, with input guidance and assistance from Lawfare, were running Main Justice.  That’s the paradigm shift needed to baseline everything.

When the FISA application was released in July 2018, it was released by the special counsel team.  Technically Rosenstein released it; however, unofficially it was released by the demand of the resistance operators under the auspices that it was part of their investigative technique; part of the ongoing operation.

Except that wasn’t the real motive.

The real motive for releasing the FISA application, under the auspices of granting a FOIA request, was because the resistance already knew the New York Times had obtained it illegally.

In fact The New York Times had the FISA application since March 17, 2017, when SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, operating under instructions from SSCI resistance coordinator, Mark Warner, took pictures of each page of the FISA application and sent them to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed.

Ms. Watkins then shared the FISA with fellow resistance allies at the Washington Post and New York Times.   To cover her tracks Ms. Watkins did not immediately write about the FISA application, and I suspect the editors at Buzzfeed may not have known.

In exchange for her pre-planned role, The New York Times then hired Watkins; and, under the legal tutelage of the NYT, Watkins based her reporting on the Trump-Russia narrative from there.

However, in March 2017 what Watkins, Wolfe, media and Mark Warner did not immediately know, was that the FBI was conducting a leak investigation; a genuine leak investigation, and the SSCI was suspected.

The FISA application picked up by James Wolfe and delivered to the SSCI contained a leak tracer, a trap.  When the tracer showed up in media reports, the FBI knew where it leaked from – the SSCI.

[Note the FBI interception dates – The Wolfe leak was March 17, 2017]

Unfortunately, what the FBI did not know – was that SSCI Vice Chairman Mark Warner was the inside resistance operative giving Wolfe the instructions on how to proceed.

In May 2017, the FBI informed Vice-Chair Warner and Chairman Richard Burr that someone in the SSCI leaked the FISA application.   In essence FBI investigators just told the culprit they were investigating a leak he created.  Think about the ramifications.

As part of the overall investigation to locate the specific leaker, all of the SSCI was subject to review and quiet investigation.  As the FBI worked through a process of elimination, that’s when the FBI discovered the Mark Warner text messages to Adam Waldman, the lawyer for Chris Steele.   Not coincidentally the Warner text messages end in May 2017; exactly when he was first notified by the FBI about the specifics of the leak hunt.

What also started in May 2017?…..  The special counsel.

One important aspect to the coordinated demand and incessant drumbeat by the media for a special counsel, was a need to control the outcome of the FBI leak investigation.

Total control.  This was all connected.

The resistance took over Main Justice with the appointment of the special counsel; and one of their priorities was to stop anyone from: (a) finding out the FISA application had leaked; (b) block anyone from finding out how it was leaked; (c) block any independent FBI activity surrounding the leak.

Remember, in this period of 2017 the media side of the resistance operation were denying Trump was under any surveillance.  They were denying anyone in/around the Trump campaign was under surveillance.  However, they were also reporting on the investigation of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative from the investigative perspective, while using and exploiting the information they had in the March 17th leak of the FISA.

March 17th was less than two months after President Trump was inaugurated.   The FISA was leaked even before it was renewed in April (Boente/Comey), and renewed again by the instructions of the special counsel team on June 29th.

When the New York Times sent a FOIA for the FISA application, they did so as a necessary legal cover because they already illegally possessed it.  [Keep in mind, the copy they had was not redacted at all.]

When the Trump-Russia narrative was at it’s apex in July 2018; and with a need to deploy all weapons against the upcoming mid-term election; and when the resistance group  needed to provide legal cover for the New York Times; the FISA application was released by the resistance unit running Main Justice.

It was released as cover for the New York Times (and others) who were already reporting on it; and it allowed the NYT, and others, to fully weaponize the fictitious aspect of the narrative about the FBI genuinely being concerned about Trump colluding with Russia.

The July 2018 release itself was not a clean copy of the FISA application; but rather the DOJ team re-released the March 17, 2017, release and then added the final two renewals to the total release.  In 2018 the DOJ resistance group had to re-release the portion of the FISA application that was previously leaked in March 2017 (or else any reporting containing the leak tracer would not be covered/justified).

So who do you think released the Mark Warner text messages for the same purpose?

BINGO.  Yup, the same resistance group.   It was all an effort to cloud, cover and control.

Key takeaway.  The seventeen members of the special counsel were intentionally brought into Main Justice to organize the resistance.   The DOJ was running the resistance operation.  AG Jeff Sessions was fire-walled and clueless; and DAG Rosenstein was just approving anything put in front of him because it was sold as part of the investigative process.

Regardless of the FBI investigation, the DOJ resistance operation held ultimate control.

Some in the FBI were not happy… not happy at all…. but not in a position to do anything about Main Justice patting them on the head and telling them to run along now.

Oh, there’s so much more…. this is just an appetizer.

The SSCI

The Gang of Eight

The DOJ

The ICIG

Why did Warner/Burr, the SSCI and the DOJ resistance need ICIG Michael Atkinson?

…..Control, in the event a whistle-blower tried poking his head up.

 

Flynn Case Update: DOJ Provides Defense With Handwritten Notes from Tashina Guahar Meeting January 25th – And Dana Boente Notes Which Explain the Reason He Was Retired…


Today the DOJ has released additional exculpatory information to the Flynn defense team surrounding hand-written notes taken by Tashina Guahar and FBI agent Peter Strzok. The 1/25/17 meeting takes place the day after two FBI agents interview Flynn at the White House.  There’s also an internal document from the DOJ dated 1/30/17, and notes by former DOJ AAG -who later became FBI counsel- Dana Boente.

[NOTE: Keep in mind the last day for Jody Hunt, Noel Francisco and Dana Boente was last Friday, July 3rd. Coincidental timing?]

The notes and internal document are filed under seal per Judge Sullivan’s prior order. However, with previous filings the documents were made public the following day; so we might see the content tomorrow.

Tashina Guahar and Dana Boente were part of the small group inside Main Justice who convinced AG Jeff Sessions to recuse.   But you don’t need to wait for the court to release the March 30, 2017, Boente notes, because we already have them.

When the special counsel team was stirring the pot for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, they leaked the Boente notes to their allied resistance member, Rachael Maddow.   Those notes form the basis/justification for Boente signing the second renewal of the FISA warrant against Carter Page (April 2017).   James Comey called Dana Boente because he needed the FISA extended and could not call Jeff Sessions.

Comey enlisted Boente into the operation against President Trump.  Ultimately these notes form the basis for why the DOJ demanded Boente leave his position in May.  This is why Boente was removed {Go Deep}.

In 2015 the DOJ-OIG (office of inspector general) requested oversight of the DOJ National Security Division.  It was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the DOJ-NSD.

When John Carlin resigned as Asst. Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division in October 2016 he was replaced by Principal Deputy Asst. Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Mary McCord.  After President Trump took office on January 20th, 2017, Sally Yates was Acting AG and Mary McCord was in charge of the DOJ-NSD.

Yates and McCord were the two Main Justice officials who then engaged with White House Counsel Don McGahn on January 26th, 2017, regarding the General Flynn FBI interview conducted on January 24th.

The January 25th meeting notes [released today] likely document Tashina Guahar and Peter Strzok preparing Sally Yates and Mary McCord for that confrontation with Don McGhan.  The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was the headline they were driving..

On January 30th, 2017, Sally Yates was fired for refusing to defend the Trump travel ban from extremist countries.  Yates was replaced on January 31st by the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Dana Boente.

With his shift to Main Justice Dana Boente was Acting Attorney General, and Mary McCord was Asst. AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD.  Boente was in the Acting AG position from Jan 31st, 2017, until Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8th, 2017.

When Jeff Sessions became AG, Dana Boente became Acting Deputy AG, a role he would retain until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25th, 2017.   [Mary McCord remained head of the DOJ-National Security Division]

On March 2nd, 2017, Dana Boente was one of the small group who participated in a conversation that led to the recusal of Jeff Sessions from anything related to the 2016 election.  This recusal included the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, which was later picked up by Robert Mueller.

The other attendees for the recusal decision-making meeting (see above schedule) included Sessions’ chief of staff Jody Hunt; Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Jim Crowell; Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division Tash Gauhar (FISA lawyer); and Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools.  [Note: Tash Gauhar was lawyer for FBI Clinton case; and Scott Schools was part of drafting Clinton exoneration letter.]

The Main Justice group influenced Jeff Sessions to recuse.

With AG Jeff Sessions recused on March 2, 2017, FBI Director James Comey now reported to Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente.  [Technically, Boente is still EDVA U.S. Attorney and is only ‘acting’ as Deputy AG]  Additionally, on March 31st, 2017, President Trump signs executive order 13787 making the U.S. EDVA Attorney the 3rd in line for DOJ succession.

Question:  If Dana Boente was appointed “Acting Attorney General” on January 31st, 2017 (he was), then why did Don McGahn need to draw up XO 13787 on March 31st, 2017… especially after confirmed AG Jeff Sessions was already in place Feb 9th?

The answer likely has to do with a sign-off needed for FISA.

See the issue?

How does somebody (unknown) advise White House Counsel Don McGahn to draw up an executive order so that Boente can sign a FISA…. without telling Don McGahn the reason why AG Sessions can’t sign off on the FISA?   See the issue now?

In the period between March 2nd and April 25th – With AG Sessions recused, and without a Deputy AG confirmed, Dana Boente is simultaneously:

  • U.S. Attorney for EDVA
  • Acting Deputy AG.
  • Acting AG for all issues related to Sessions recusal.

It is James Comey and Dana Boente who sign the April 2017 FISA renewal for Carter Page.

(Page #271 – Carter Page FISA Application)

This dynamic would later become important as notes Boente took from conversations with James Comey became evidence for Mueller’s expanded obstruction investigation.  [3/2/17 Mary McCord is still head of DOJ-NSD]

Somehow, almost guaranteed to be  leaked by the special counsel team (Aaron Zelby and Andrew Weissmann, Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente’s personal and handwritten notes were mysteriously leaked to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

[Backstory Here]

On April 20th, 2017, Mary McCord announces her intent to resign from the DOJ National Security Division effective with the confirmation of Deputy AG nominee Rod Rosenstein.

On April 25th, 2017, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is confirmed.

Rosenstein now takes over the responsibilities held by Acting DAG Dana Boente; this includes the FBI counterintelligence probe.

I can almost guarantee you Boente was removed by AG Barr specifically because of his role in this FISA fraud……  He willingly signed-on to the objective of James Comey and Andrew McCabe.  Boente knew he was targeting the White House and President Trump.

[More on Boente Here]

Senator Chuck Grassley Ponders Lack of Durham Response Prior to 2020 Election…


U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley implied this morning that USAO John Durham may not provide evidence of the already well-documented effort to remove President Trump from office until after the November election:

Senator Chuck Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-3744
Fax: 202-224-6020

Senator Grassley is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Grassley was elected in 1981 and has held office for almost 40 years.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Attorney General William Barr said in May that Durham, who is investigating misconduct by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials, will likely not conduct a criminal inquiry into former President Barack Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

“I have a general idea of how Mr. Durham’s investigation is going. … There’s a difference between an abuse of power and a federal crime. Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime,” Barr said during a press conference. “Now, as to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”

Barr told Fox News in June that he expects there to be “developments” in Durham’s investigation into the Russia investigation this summer even as he hinted that it would continue through the November election. (more)

Important Bill Barr Interview Segment With Maria Bartiromo: “This is the closest we have ever come to an organized effort to push a president out of office”…


As Max Ehmann said in 1927 “whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.”  From an important reference point, this quote holds additional meaning when cast against the backdrop of this Bill Barr segment. [More on that later.]

This morning Maria Bartiromo released a previous segment of her interview with AG Bill Barr that was not originally broadcast.  It is a very insightful segment.  AG Barr begins by acknowledging a very key and foundational point: President Donald Trump was indeed targeted by various entities in a concerted effort to remove him from office.  Do not let the importance of just that statement alone sit without its appropriate weight.

Second, another key aspect from the attorney general perspective is highlighted at 03:30 to 03:53 where he notes the role and responsibility of media. The importance of a distinction Barr makes is subtle for most, but for CTH it’s important because of THIS.

I would urge everyone to take the time to watch this segment.

The Hawks are Out for Trumps’ Blood


First, there was John Bolton who claimed he was the smoking gun to impeach Trump. His book has revealed that he was not the smoking gun at all. Now we have Dick Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney,  joining Bill Kristol in trying to overthrow Trump. You find elite Republicans are preferring a Democrat to Trump because they will invade countries. Trump refuses to force American boys to die for the agendas of the elite. This is really quite amazing, but it reveals how the DEEP STATE hates outsiders.

Many believe that the CIA refuses to release the Kennedy files of his assassination, claiming national security since 1964, which likely means they killed him because he would not invade Vietnam. If it was really Russia, they would release that right now to justify war. The only reason not to release it is that the CIA was involved.

The fact that now Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz Cheney, is against Trump as was Bolton confirms this is the same problem they had with Kennedy. They will do their best to defeat him and rig the elections rather than try to assassinate him like Kennedy.

Sidney Powell Discusses In-Depth Background of Michael Flynn Case….


Michael Flynn’s lead defense counsel Sidney Powell sits down for a lengthy discussion with Epoch Times’ host Jan Jekielek.

In the court case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the DOJ’s request to dismiss. But what will happen next?

In the eyes of General Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell, what are the implications of Judge Sullivan keeping the case open? Is there more exculpatory evidence to come in the Flynn case? And, what are some possible steps to take to strengthen the U.S. Department of Justice as an institution?

Advertisements

Attorney General Bill Barr Podcast Interview With Senator Ted Cruz – (Video)…


U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr sat down for an important discussion with Texas Senator Ted Cruz for the Verdict podcast.  AG Barr discusses the recent riots and the ongoing effort to prosecute those engaging in violence and destruction of property.

Additionally, AG Barr also discusses the Big Tech censorship issue in combination with ongoing anti-trust investigations that will reach his desk for decision this summer.

Another important note surrounds AG Barr putting the date for Peter Strzok’s notes as January 5, 2017, following FBI Director James Comey’s pull-aside meeting at the White House with President Obama, VP Biden, Susan Rice and Sally Yates.

Devin Nunes Discusses Peter Strzok Notes that Tie Obama and Biden to Flynn Targeting…


Devin Nunes appears for a short interview with Martha MacCallum to discuss the latest information in/around the background investigation of the Michael Flynn case.