QUESTION: In “The Trump Florida Indictment Violates the Constitution,” you recommend that Trump’s lawyers should file motions to dismiss based on substantive due process violations. I am a lawyer and believe you’re correct. Any speculation as to why they don’t?
FS
ANSWER: Not sure if they are representing him. This has never been done before. It is certainly a ripe question of first impression for the Supreme Court. I would be jumping all over this.
My concern is that there has to be a reason they are NOT really defending him. They may have been intimidated by the government. They imply the IRS might personally audit them if they do not cooperate. I am stating this OPENLY for someone had better really defend Trump, for this is more than him; this is the entire rule of law on trial here. As you know, once they create a precedent, they will cite Trump’s case and start indicting people in one district after venue shopping and then put them on trial only to comply with the 6th Amendment.
They already rig the selection process for judges more often than not. Here is my docket sheet. Judge McKenna granted my motion to compel the government to explain the case against me because they constantly changed the theory. The prosecutors went to the Chief Judge and had my case removed from Judge McKenna to John F. Keenan, who, on the first day, overruled Judge McKenna and denied my motion after McKenna had granted it. The Chief Judge then sealed my docket so I could never see how they rigged my case. I have witnessed every dirty trick in the book that these people pull.
The court-appointed lawyer David Cooper never said a word. This was an outright denial of my Due Process right, and he REFUSED ever to file an appeal. The Supreme Court has subsequently held that a lawyer who refused to file an appeal is ineffective assistance of counsel. I believe the government threatened him, and they may be doing the same to Trump’s lawyers. Of course, they will never admit that.
Posted Originally on the CTH on August 15, 2023 | Sundance
The Fulton County clerk of courts is putting out the third public statement trying to explain and justify why they posted the grand jury indictment of Donald Trump before the grand jury had even met to vote on the indictment. This latest explanation is so incredulous it’s almost impossible to believe they are making this public:
According to the story above, the original indictment before the jury met, was a trial run upload, made of a totally fictious construct, with totally random charges, that just happened to line up with the exact same charges, in the exact same sequence, as the indictment after the jury voted. …
Yeah, when you are trying to get out of a hole this deep, it’s best to stop digging.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 11, 2023 | Sundance
This interview segment is almost as if Devin Nunes reads here. The former House Intel Committee chairman outlines the appointment of David Weiss as another DC silo creation similar in construct to John Durham. {Direct Rumble Link}
Obviously, Nunes is correct. Additionally, as Nunes accurately outlines the entire weaponization process traces back to when Barack Obama took office and unleashed the apparatus of the intelligence agencies to target domestic political opposition. At the same time, Obama’s AG Eric Holder created the DOJ National Security Division and then weaponized surveillance under the auspices of FARA and FISA Courts to target one side of the political dynamic. WATCH:
Elevator Speech:
(1) The Patriot Act turned the intel surveillance radar from foreign searches for terrorists to domestic searches for terrorists.
(2) Obama/Biden then redefined what is a “terrorist” to include their political opposition.
The changed definitions continue through today. The DHS partnership with Big Tech is an extension of the issue. Thus, political opposition spreads “disinformation,” ergo the voice and content of the political opposition must be removed. The targeting is one long continuum.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 11, 2023 | Sundance
Let’s see… We will trade you one SBF incarceration in exchange for one DJT incarceration and call it fair.
After a US judge in New York tells Sam Bankman-Fried he does not have unlimited first amendment rights, Judge Lewis Kaplan revoked bail and sent SBF to jail for using leaks to the media to intimidate a key federal witness against him – his former girlfriend.
Setting the stage for…
A US judge in DC telling President Donald John Trump he does not have unlimited first amendment rights; establishing the groundwork for sending DJT to jail for using his political platform to intimate Mike Pence, a key federal witness against him – his former Vice President.
Both of these things happened. A narrative coincidence, I’m sure.
(Via NBC) – Sam Bankman-Fried will head to jail on Friday after a judge sided with a request by federal prosecutors to revoke the FTX founder’s bail over alleged witness tampering. Bankman-Fried will be remanded to custody directly from a court hearing in New York, where he will remain ahead of his criminal trial – which is due to begin on Oct. 2.
Judge Lewis Kaplan denied Bankman-Fried’s request for delayed detention pending an appeal.
[…] In the motion requesting Bankman-Fried’s detention, the government said that, over the last several months, the defendant had sent over 100 emails to the media and had made over 1,000 phone calls to members of the press. The final straw, according to prosecutors, was Bankman-Fried leaking private diary entries of his ex-girlfriend, Caroline Ellison, to the New York Times. Ellison pleaded guilty to federal charges in Dec. 2022.
Ellison, who is also the former chief executive of Bankman-Fried’s failed crypto hedge fund, Alameda Research, has been cooperating with the government since December and is expected to be a star witness for the prosecution.
[…] The prosecution described the effort by Bankman-Fried – who faces several wire and securities fraud charges related to the alleged multibillion-dollar FTX fraud – as an attempt to discredit Ellison, characterizing it as a “means of indirect witness intimidation through the press.”
It is an argument that proved sufficient to convince Judge Kaplan to send Bankman-Fried to jail ahead of his trial. (more)
Meanwhile in DC….
(Politico) – U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan warned Donald Trump and his attorney Friday that repeated “inflammatory” statements about his latest criminal prosecution would force her to speed his trial on charges related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election.
“I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,” Chutkan told Trump lawyer John Lauro during a hearing. “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”
Chutkan’s stark admonition came at the conclusion of her first courtroom session in the newest criminal case against the former president. The aim of the hearing was for special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors and Trump’s attorneys to hash out disputes about the handling of evidence in the case. Once Chutkan enters a so-called “protective order” governing evidence, prosecutors say they’re prepared to share millions of pages of documents with Trump’s team, jumpstarting the case and setting it on a path to trial.
But Chutkan, aware of the national spotlight on her oversight of the explosive case, repeatedly emphasized that she intended to keep politics out of the courtroom and treat Trump like any other criminal defendant. That included potential consequences if he makes statements that could be construed as harassing or threatening witnesses.
“The fact that he’s running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice,” Chutkan said. “If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.”
“Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,” Chutkan added later. (read more)
We all know that the intelligence agencies have become President Biden’s personal Gestapo. Biden is now permitted to carry out hits on those who defy him. Craig Robertson, a Utah resident, threatened the president on social media. Robertson is now dead.
“I hear Biden is coming to Utah. Digging out my old ghille suit and cleaning the dust off the m24 sniper rifle. welcom, [sic] buffoon-in-chief!” the Utah man posted online two days before his death. Do you know how many people have threatened to murder Trump and his family? One has-been comedian even posted images of herself holding what appeared to be Trump’s severed head. Nothing happens when baseless threats are made unless there is a genuine threat to the safety of the president. We have (had) free speech but now the law is listening in to everything we say and do online.
The FBI raided Robertson’s home on Wednesday, before the president was set to arrive in Utah. “The FBI is reviewing an agent-involved shooting which occurred around 6:15 a.m. on Wednesday, August 9, 2023, in Provo, Utah. The incident began when special agents attempted to serve arrest and search warrants at a residence. The subject is deceased. The FBI takes all shooting incidents involving our agents or task force members seriously. In accordance with FBI policy, the shooting incident is under review by the FBI’s Inspection Division. As this is an ongoing matter, we have no further details to provide,” the spokesperson said.
Robertson had also posted about wanting to murder D.A. Alvin Bragg and California’s Gov. Newsom. They claimed Robertson’s misspelled social media post broke federal law through interstate threats, influencing, and impeding and retailing against federal law enforcement. He was also charged with threatening the president. Again, you can scroll social media and see countless threats toward Republican politicians. It is not right but no one bats an eye, let alone sends a kill squad to their personal residence.
The Secret Service also commented on the incident. “We are aware of the FBI investigation involving an individual in Utah who has exhibited threats towards a Secret Service protectee. While we always remain in close coordination with the Bureau, this is an FBI-led effort and we refer any related questions to the FBI and DOJ,” the spokesperson wrote. No one mentioned if this man had a plan in place, all they said is that he was a gun owner.
We now must be very careful of what we say. We cannot joke or make note about our Dear Leader. Big Brother is watching everything you do and say online and there will be repercussions for those who threaten “the big guy.”
Posted originally on the CTH on August 10, 2023 | Sundance
This is a short reminder about linking President Obama, Teh One true bringer of all progressive enlightenment, into the discussion and analysis of Joe and Hunter Biden’s corruption, bribery and influence selling while in office.
There are an increasing number of people who are asking when the golden child will be brought into the issue of Vice-President Joe Biden selling his influence while working for the Lightbringer. Please stop! There will never be any accountability for Obama in any endeavor or discovery – not by this generation.
Historians will note the issue later in the annals of historical reference long after we are departed; but right now, in this era, the Lightbringer is immune. Obama represents the personal identity of the professional political left. To remove the veil of Teh One is to deliver a black pill so toxic that entire segments of the U.S population, including every facet of DHS controlled media operations, would melt in place. It will never happen. Not ever in this era.
You would have a greater likelihood of success convincing the youthfully vaccinated to accept they have decreased their life expectancy. Which is to say, it will never happen. Remember, we are living in an era of “Great Pretending,” that is why I emphasize this continued pretense so forcefully. Stop pretending, and the entire political system collapses. Collapse the political farce, and the social fabric starts self-repairing.
As long as the era of great pretending remains as the easiest psychological condition to survive the abuse, there will be no shift for people to look at their core beliefs and the fabricated world around them.
When you see articles written like this in the Wall Street Journal, keep in mind the presentation is done while remaining in a state of perpetual pretending:
[…] Also, perhaps Barack Obama would consider explaining why he doesn’t appear to have enforced the same ethical rules on Joe Biden that he did on Hillary Clinton.
If voters have any hope that the office of the vice presidency will not be abused in the future the way it was by Joe Biden, then a full accounting is required to understand how and why normal ethical standards were not applied. (link)
The question about Obama, and Joe Biden as his VP, is based on pretense. Stop pretending and the leverage Joe Biden held over Barack Obama is transparently easy to see. Obama could not stop Biden from selling his office for financial gain, because Obama made a deal with Biden in 2008.
Joe Biden was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with oversight jurisdiction of the State Dept., and by extension all foreign policy nominations etc.
John Brennan was working for the Obama campaign when his outside government group, The Analysis Corporation, “hacked” into the state dept database to clean up issues and gain leverage over the Senator from Illinois.
John O. Brennan, Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, is the owner of The Analysis Corp. – the firm that was cited in March 2008 for penetrating the files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain in the State Department’s passport office.
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign. After the breach was revealed by the Washington Times , Brennan stated:
“This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,” Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public. (link)
The Washington Times Reported – Passport application data includes such details as date and place of birth, e-mail address, mailing address, Social Security number, former names and travel plans. Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961 to a Kenyan father and American mother. He lived in Jakarta, Indonesia, from age six to 10.
Computer-monitoring equipment detected the activities by the three employees on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14, triggering alarms in each case, Mr. McCormack said. Mr. McCormack said the officials accessed Mr. Obama’s records “without a need to do so.”
“In each case, we immediately contacted our contractors, their employer, and two were fired and one was disciplined,” he said. (link)
But it is important to remember EXACTLY what Brennan’s background was prior to the State Department breach. Brennan spent 25 years working for the CIA prior to the security breach:
Mr. Brennan spent most of his C.I.A. career as an analyst, but during the 1990s served a tour as the chief of the station in Saudi Arabia. From 1999 to early 2001, he was chief of staff to George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, as the position was then called. At the end of his CIA. service, in 2004 and 2005, Mr. Brennan set up what is now the counterterrorism center. (link)
Yet, people would have you believe, after 25 years within the CIA, and after being the Chief of Staff to the Director, and after being the person who set up the counter terrorism center, and after being the CIA approved contractor for the State dept., well, he just didn’t know that someone from his firm was penetrating the passport files within the State Dept. on three occasions in Jan and Feb to look at information of the candidate who he was specifically working for….. you getting this?
Well, that was their story, and they stuck to it in 2008.
After the initial inquiry, federal investigators maintained the target of the illegal activity was Obama’s passport file. It does not take a stretch to come to the conclusion this was for the sole purpose of cleansing the records of information that would jeopardize Obama’s candidacy. As many people speculated at the time, the breach of the passport records of the other candidates was merely to create confusion.
Brennan was, at the time, an unpaid advisor working with Obama’s campaign. Passport files include an applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number. Additional information may include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S. born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.
It is important to remember the oversight agency that would be investigating the breach – The Senate Foreign Relations Committee oversees the State Department.
At the time Senator Joe Biden, now President Biden, was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the breach would be investigated.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Obama and personally apologized for the breach. “I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file,” Rice told reporters. She phoned Clinton and McCain and offered similar apologies.
Following the breach, State Department managers met with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, whose committee has oversight over the Foreign Service and the passport office. (link)
And, well, what do you know… Biden became the VP pick of Obama.
CLEANUP – State Department employee, Lieutenant Quarles Harris, Jr. who had the passport access, apparently was the guy who penetrated the database and scrubbed the records. Harris was killed – April 18th, 2008. Yes, Lieutenant Harris decided to cooperate with the FBI who were investigating the break-in. Soon after his cooperation became a matter of record, his body was discovered in his parked car; he had been shot twice in the head, likely a “suicide”.
Last point. In mid-February 2010, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs alerted WH reporters that certain questions about Obama’s job with Business International Corporation (BIC) would not be subject to discussion. BIC was well known in Washington DC to be a front company for the CIA; hence, many speculated the State Department passport records were scrubbed to erase any potential mention of Obama’s CIA activities and his personal information. You decide.
Stop the pretending and it all makes sense.
As long as we keep pretending, it all seems rather odd.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
This guy really is the worst of the worst. I do not think I could dislike him more. Remember, Bill Barr appointed John Durham officially as a special counsel quietly without informing the public in October of 2020, specifically intended to block President Trump from declassifying any documents prior to the 2020 election. We do not discover the official appointment until December, after the 2020 election.
The intent of the Durham appointment was to create the oft used silo of an “ongoing investigation” to block inquiry and/or action by President Trump. The entire process of the DC silo deployment is one long continuum, as we have previously outlined. Michael Horowitz was an investigative silo (blocking document release), Robert Mueller was an investigative silo (threats of obstruction blocking document release), John Durham was an investigative silo (blocking document release), and ultimately, now Jack Smith is an investigative silo, retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago and blocking document release.
You will note that every single one of John Durham’s investigative pathways was to look at Trump-Russia fabrication and corruption outside government, outside Washington DC. None of the Durham investigation was focused inside government or inside the institutions that he and Bill Barr were protecting. Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham was the spray paint.
Today, Bill Barr when asked if he would testify against President Trump, says “of course” he would. WATCH:
MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as former president’s attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. Bill, it’s good to see you.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Good to see you.
MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you’re on the show, you said “the January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest.” Having read the indictment, is that still your view?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it’s- it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment. There’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress. The allegation essentially by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.
MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Right. And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud and what the- and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong, and false. This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. But it’s not- if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front, but they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels, that were not authorized panels, to claim that they had alternative votes. And then they- and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed, were false. But then pressuring the Vice President to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes, and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.
MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.
MAJOR GARRETT: From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case.
MAJOR GARRETT: But from an Attorney General’s point of view?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I’ve also said consistently, really, the rubicon was passed here, when- when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case, really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor. And I think at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the rubicon was passed.
MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the Special Counsel?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I’m not going to get into any discussions–
MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Of course.
Major Garrett: Could you describe your interactions with the President on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I wasn’t discussed- well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least, and I- I told him in no uncertain terms, that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we–
[CROSSTALK]
MAJOR GARRETT: — One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the President what you told him? How thorough was that investigation?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I- I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. Some of them are obvious, okay. One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more- that more people voted then absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should- we should have heard no more about that. Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done.
MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden. On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said, “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.” This is the Hunter Biden investigation. “And to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.” Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, because the–
MAJOR GARRETT: To which? To which? Should one be appointed now?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: When I was the attorney- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have, a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary. I felt that if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably, or the administration, would have just canceled the investigation, and I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place. But once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done and was being done fairly.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has- has been conducted?
[CROSSTALK]
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well I did agree with the- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.
MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously. And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done–
MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah. Yes.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden, and if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Okay, well remember- one thing I stress is those are two different questions. Right? And, you know, things can be shameful without being illegal. And I- yes, I thought- I think it’s grotesque, cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I- I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.
MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still, whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?
FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it. I mean, some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind, there’s reasons- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy, but after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps. And apparently someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics? You know, after the election, that it was the president elect’s son, that’s not a reason not to investigate.
MAJOR GARRETT: William Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much. “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump attorney John Lauro continues running the gauntlet against the narrative engineers with this interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
An intellectually deficient Todd attempts to justify the Biden administration targeting of Donald Trump and is countered by John Lauro. WATCH:
During the CNN interview below, it was very important to narrative engineer Dana Bash to assert that Joe Biden has nothing to do with the decisions of the DOJ, which is a rather remarkable position considering the same Dana Bash has been asserting for the previous four years that Donald Trump controlled decisions of the DOJ.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump attorney John Lauro appears on Face the Nation with Major Garrett to discuss and debate the Biden administration’s criminal prosecution of President Trump for contesting the results of the 2020 election. Toward that latter part of the interview, Garrett needs to enhance his leftist bona fides with a strawman argument about the 2016 election outcome. Lauro handles Garrett’s narrative engineering very well. [Video and Transcript Below] WATCH:
MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s lawyers. He joins us now from New York. John, good morning to you. I want to let you know that we spoke with former Vice President–
JOHN LAURO: –Good morning
MAJOR GARRETT: –Mike Pence and asked him specifically about your assertions made this last week that all the President did was asked him to pause the certification on January 6, 2021. He told me flatly, quote, “That’s not what happened.” Your response?
LAURO: That’s not- that’s not what I said, though, but that’s okay.
MAJOR GARRETT: What- what is it that you believe happened between the President and the Vice President? And do you have any fear of the Vice President being called as a witness in the case?
LAURO: No, in fact, the Vice President will be our best witness. What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in. That was my statement, and what- what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying. The reason why Vice President Pence will be so important to the defense is the following, number one. Number two, he agrees that there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level, all of that will- will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump. And finally, what Vice President Pence believes and believed is that these issues needed to be debated on January 6. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in the January 6 proceeding. President Trump, on the other hand, believed following the advice of John Eastman, who’s the legal scholar, that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level. Now, of course, there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump, but the bottom line is never- never in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally. It’s- It’s unheard of.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, can I ask you a couple of very simple basic yes or no questions? Is there- first, is there any condition under which the former president of the United States, your client, would accept a plea deal on these January 6 charges?
LAURO: No.
MAJOR GARRETT: Will you seek a motion to dismiss?
LAURO: Absolutely, 100 percent.
MAJOR GARRETT: When?
LAURO: Hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted. This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of- of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from- from being prosecuted in this way.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you-do you have a ballpark figure of when you’ll be ready for trial?
LAURO: Well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.
MAJOR GARRETT: Understood. Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?
LAURO: Absolutely, we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have an expectation that will be granted?
LAURO: That reflects the- the- the characteristics of the American people. It’s up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case–
MAJOR GARRETT: — Speaking of the judge
LAURO: — very close to D.C. and a much more diverse–
MAJOR GARRETT: — Understood. Speaking of the judge’ earlier this week, your client, the former president, on his social media platform, said ‘The judge is unfair’, On what basis did he say that?
LAURO: Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season, is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign. We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And- and my role- my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way, and I’m going to do that.
MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned discovery. In the protective order back and forth between you and the prosecutors, it says, the prosecution, that discovery will be provided, quote, ‘As soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled’. What’s wrong with that?
LAURO: We’re all in favor of protecting sensitive and highly sensitive information. But it’s unprecedented to have all information hidden in a criminal case, including, by the way, information that might be exculpatory and might be exonerative of President Trump. The Biden administration wants to keep that information from the American people.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, in the back and forth on this matter, you also said in the filing to the court that the former president would be willing to come to an agreement on this matter. And what I want to ask you is would that requirement be something where the President would agree not to release any information that was highly sensitive in this matter and would he also refrain from any speech that called for or hinted at retribution about anyone associated with the prosecution of this case?
LAURO: He’s never called for that at all. He’s going to abide by the conditions of his release. But of course, we would agree that any sensitive or highly sensitive information be kept under wraps. In fact, we made that proposition to the Biden administration, but they rejected it. They want every single piece of evidence in this case hidden from the American public.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, before I let you go, do you remember what you were doing the early morning of November 9th, 2016?
LAURO: I have no idea.
MAJOR GARRETT: Well, I remember what I was doing. I was covering President-elect Trump announcing that he had won the presidency, about 3 a.m. that morning after the November 8th election. My question to you, John, is how did he know he won?
LAURO: Well, politicians are convinced in the righteousness of their cause, including President Trump, and he certainly believed that he won and he did win in 2016- (crosstalk)
MAJOR GARRETT: — But on what basis did he know he- But on what basis did he know he won?
LAURO: — Can I finish? Can I finish?
MAJOR GARRETT: — Yeah. Sure.
LAURO: — Can I finish? And he believed in 2020 that he won based on the fact that he had 10 million more votes than in 2016. He had a situation where, somehow, President Biden, or at that time candidate Biden, received 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. And he also understood in 2020, that president- that President Trump understood that he had won all- virtually all of the bellwether counties, and 84 percent of all the counties in the country-
MAJOR GARRETT: Right. John- John, let me- let me help you with this–
LAURO: — So on that basis he believed that he was successful.
MAJOR GARRETT: — John, let me help you with this, I wasn’t asking about 2020.
LAURO: — No, let me help you with this, because the issue here- I have to help you with this.
[crosstalk]
MAJOR GARRETT: I wasn’t asking about 2020, John. John, I wasn’t asking about 2020. I was asking about 2016.
(CROSSTALK)
LAURO: The issue. Right. The issue. Right. The issue in a criminal case-
MAJOR GARRETT: Because- because the votes were still being counted in 2016. The votes were still being counted in 2016. There had been no recounts. How did he know in 2016 that he had won? How did he know? On what basis?
LAURO: The issue- the issue- let me just tell you something, the issue in this criminal case is not what happened in 2016 and whether all candidates say they won. The issue now is, in 2020, whether or not the Justice Department can weaponize criminal law to go after a political opponent and prevent that opponent from running for office. That’s the issue, not what happened in 2016.
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time.
LAURO: Do you think it’s fair- do you think it’s fair that- do you think it’s fair what the- what the Biden administration is doing to a candidate for president?
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
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 