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. {GO DEEP}

Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, 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:

[Source pdf, testimony transcript – page 43 and 44]

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 “nuclear national defense” 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 letters as government property?  NO!

♦ The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists.  It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”

[SOURCE page 41]

There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings.  As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.”  When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.

This language is the underpinning of the entire DOJ/FBI framework that predicated the raid on Mar-a-Lago.   Specifically, neither NARA nor the DOJ-NSD requested President Trump or his team to return Classified Documents.  The DOJ demanded the return of any documents that contained “classified markings.” [SEE BELOW]

[Indictment Source, page 4]

Because the verbiage is so intentionally obtuse (ie. Lawfare), a fulsome production in compliance with this DOJ demand would include any newspaper or magazine articles that had a picture of the Carter Page FISA application, or any printed online article that might contain the same or similar elements.  There is a big difference between asking for a classified document return, and asking for a return of documents that contain “classified markings.”

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.

♦ In a previous court ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice – National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), and blocked the lower court order instructing a Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]

Essentially the order of the appellate court was based on the DOJ defining Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents as “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination said they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to how they DEFINE matters of national security.

The court (judicial branch) openly stated they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) regarding any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determined, on their own authority, to be identified as classified or matters of “national security.”

In the prior opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge and stop the special master review.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.”   The 11th Circuit is deferred to the DOJ.

The DOJ was granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.

This ridiculous ruling meant the DOJ could define any document as a document of “national security interest” and there is no countervailing review of their definitions.  As soon as this decision was reached the DOJ then moved to appoint a special counsel.  Can you see how this works?

With this ruling in his briefcase, Special Counsel Jack Smith could now define the Mar-a-Lago documents according to the legal intention of his targeting.  That’s exactly what he did.  The case against Trump is not a case about classified documents, it is a case about the DOJ defining unilaterally what documents are considered “vital to national security.”

With the DOJ getting to define those documents, the special counsel then moves to claim national security threats created by Trump’s ownership.  The overlay of “vital to the nuclear capabilities of the defense dept,” can then be shifted to include letters from President Obama and Kim Jong-un about DPRK nuclear capabilities.

But wait, it gets better….

♦ First, ask yourself 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 national security policy and leadership challenge 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?

Why memorialize the nuclear threat of North Korea in a letter welcoming Donald Trump?  Well, if the Obama intention was to create a written record that would always mean his letter was going to remain hidden from public review, then writing about DPRK nukes would be a way to make that happen.

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.  Monaco is now the Deputy Attorney General to AG Merrick Garland.

Deputy AG 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.  Monaco would know that any production of documents that did not include the Obama letter would mean a “national security document” remained in Mar-a-Lago.

Special Counsel Jack Smith also reports to Lisa Monaco.

Things making sense now?

♦ There is also a letter from lawyers representing President Trump to the chair of the House Intel Committee that is very interesting [pdf available here].  The letter was written to the HPSCI prior to the testimony by officials for NARA

The letter is written to HPSCI Chair Mike Turner and copied to the other seven members of the gang-of-eight in the Senate and House.  The letter outlines the details of the documents that became the contested issue between the DOJ-National Security Division (‘NSD’, important distinction), specifically a DOJ-NSD official named Jay Bratt, and the attorney for President Trump, Mr. Evan Corcoran.

The letter is fascinating because it outlines how the process of moving documents from the White House was weaponized by a politically motivated National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”), and the letter also gives fulsome context to the types of “classified materials” that have been insanely over emphasized by media.

[…] “Tim Parlatore and Jim Trusty, two of the undersigned counsel for President Trump, reviewed all 15 boxes at NARA earlier this year and based on that review, it is clear to us what happened. The boxes contain all manner of documents from the White House, are loosely grouped by date, and include newspapers, magazines, notes, letters, and daily schedules. Following its review of the materials, NARA inserted placeholder pages where it had removed documents with classification markings. That allowed Messrs. Parlatore and Trusty to discern what the documents were, as well as what other materials in the boxes were in the proximity of the marked documents when the White House staff packed them. The vast majority of the placeholder inserts refer to briefings for phone calls with foreign leaders that were located near the schedule for those calls.”  (page 3, pdf link)

Additionally, get this part…  despite the standard process that has been in place for the prior four administrations, the NARA refused to participate in the collection of any documents from the White House during the transition phase following the November 2020 election.

The NARA refused to assist in the collection of the Trump records for national archive holding and review, and then the NARA triggered a sequence of events that led to the DOJ using a reference from the NARA, to weaponize a process they refused to engage in.  The NARA refused to do their specialized bureaucratic job, and then the NARA used what they defined as an incomplete job as a reason to refer the outcome to the DOJ.   The details are quite interesting.

The letter details how the DOJ-NSD then weaponized the process, fought with the FBI investigative and supervisory agents who were saying Trump was doing nothing wrong, and then culminating in a documented lie to the Florida magistrate, in order to get a politically motivated search warrant.

The DOJ will not release the documents they used to convince the judge to obtain the warrant.  Additionally, the DOJ will not release a list of the documents, or even describe the documents, they later claimed are classified.   To this date, the Trump defense team is being told President Trump held classified documents, yet the DOJ will not describe to the lawyers who represent President Trump, what specifically those classified documents are.

I strongly urge anyone interested to read the 10-page letter.  It is a key part of the puzzle being explained and outlined.

[Support CTH Research HERE]