Password removed from this post (only) to permit larger dissemination.
There are many very important positions related to the expectations we hold for President Trump. Having spent years deep inside the actual workings of the current professional DC silos, I can tell you most of those expectations are very challenging to achieve.
In one 4-year term President Trump can set the cornerstone for a reconstruction effort that will take at least 15 years. [Reference, Team Obama used 18+ years to create it (January 2007 to present)].
In this series my goal is more to describe the needs of some critical positions from a very practical, non-pretending, perspective of what happens within specific offices. I already discussed two critical positions that do not require IC approval (Emissary and NatSec Advisor) today I outline a third, the White House Counsel.
The Office of White House Counsel does not need IC/Senate approval.
The Office of the White House Counsel (WHC) is the gatekeeper to the Office of the President. The White House Counsel does not represent Donald Trump; the WHC represents the office of the presidency and the person fulfilling the duty of the presidency. For the interests of an effective White House Counsel, who is president is irrelevant; they are guarding the office.
The WHC is critical because it is the advice and opinion of the lawyer in this role who can completely hamstring a President, block a President and ultimately control a President. The WHC also party controls access to the Office of the President, if the person seeking access is determined detrimental to the “office of the president.”
Essentially a legal gatekeeper, with the job to protect the office of the President (not Donald Trump the person), the White House Counsel is very critical. Understanding that lawyers in general are averse to risk, and understanding a White House primary lawyer would be exceptionally averse to risk, most White House counsel office holders are predisposed to create the concentric circles of protection around the office.
The WHC coordinates the collapse of the concentric circles when major crisis unfolds. Starting on the perimeter the WHC organizes the people who will take responsibility for a major problem, with the goal in mind to keep the collateral damage as far away from the office as possible. Like a mob lawyer, the consigliere will tell a person when they must take the blame -self immolate- and exit the White House for the good of the office etc.
That said, there was a very important facet to the White House Counsel’s office that failed in Trump’s first term. This failure cannot be repeated.
In Term-1 the opinion of the White House Counsel was to block all declassification efforts that did NOT have the full support of the Intelligence Community (IC). The IC always knows the White House is averse to risk and the IC weaponize the fear of the WHC against the office of the President.
The declassification process is a request by an agency, including a superior agency like the President of the United States, to the Intelligence Branch asking for them to release the information. The Intelligence Branch again holds full unilateral control. If the head of the CIA refuses to comply with the declassification instruction of the President, what can the president do except fire him/her? {Again, GO DEEP} How does the President replace the non-compliant cabinet member? They have to go through the SSCI confirmation. See the problem?
In Term-1 the IC message to the WH Counsel was that if Donald Trump declassified any documents, they would use the DOJ (special counsel weapon) to attack the office of the president for “obstructing justice.” The WHC was fraught with fear over what would happen, and demanded that POTUS Trump stop trying to declassify information/documents the IC didn’t support.
The IC was trying to take out Donald Trump and the WHC in essence supported their objective because the WHC was only focused on threat mitigation. In term-2 these threats are going to be of even greater significance. The IC is now in a zero-sum game.
The IC has evolved into the superseding, omnipotent 4th branch of government. If Trump wins, the IC are potentially going to be removed or at least greatly diminished. Ergo, the IC will do anything to stay in power. It is exceptionally critical for the next term Trump White House Counsel understand this. The next WHC needs to be as brave as they are legally smart and strategic.
The next WHC needs to be brave for the office, empowering for President Trump, and stand as a flea against a furnace created by the IC and Lawfare system if that is what’s needed.
The next WHC needs to look carefully at the recent SCOTUS decision about the unilateral power of the President within the Executive Branch and lean heavily into that decision; fully extending the power and influence of the Office of the President against the full system of every Executive Branch agency. Each silo needs to be confronted, and it is going to take a very bold WHC to support this effort.
The recent Supreme Court decision gives tremendous power, ABSOLUTE POWER within the Executive Branch, to the President. This is not a time for the WHC to be timid, afraid or risk averse. This is a time for the WHC to spread the wings of the Eagle and sharpen the talons for use against corrupt and weaponized agencies. In short, go on the attack.
Strategic support for the goals and objectives of the President and National Security Advisor, should be the primary filter of consideration for the White House gatekeeper. The counsel must be smart, killer smart; brutally strategic; cunning and fully versed in how the dark arts will come against them. Prior experience as a target by the same system they now confront should be considered an asset.
The person filling the role of WHC must have exceptional constitutional knowledge and capabilities to guide and counsel the key people in/around the office of the President. Not with the intent to stop the objective, but with the intent to support the objective by telling the scouts and strategic weapons “what” they will face and “where.”
There are some really good lawyers who can fill this role; however, every top-tier candidate must be filtered through the prism of stability, background, the lack of attack vectors against them and keen judgement in all facets of prior political experience. They must also have a disposition of attack, not defense. The WHC needs to push forward, not guard as much.
For this reason, I would love to see a brilliant and snarky lawyer like Eric Dublier take the job; but, I doubt he would take it. Another strong possibility would be John Eastman.
John Eastman has been the target of the weaponized IC and Lawfare. He has a brilliant mind, strong constitutional understanding, and, well, perhaps most importantly, he has a personal reason to be pissed off about the current status of our Executive Branch agencies. In the position of White House Counsel, John Eastman esq would trigger spontaneous ‘splodey heads just from the announcement itself.
A collaboration between John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark would be good strategic positioning. However, President Trump needs to be keenly aware that a team of “professionally republican advisors” will try to steer his options toward lawyers they know will retain the status quo.
~ Support CTH HERE ~
Next position will be the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the first position that needs Senate Confirmation.
RESOURCES:
I like both…..JMO … they are interchangeable.
Forgot to add….will Eastman still have his law license or is it even needed?
Eric Dubelier is definitely a fighter as demonstrated in the past. Also, John Eastman, as proven by his actions. Both are good picks Sundance! Thanks for your wisdom.
John Eastman would be a brilliant appointment. Like many I have donated to the Eastman cause and have sent a letter to the California bar association. As a long time member of the bar currently inactive, I was appalled when they disbarred an attorney of Eastmans quality. Pure politics. Shameful.
It is a huge problem.
We need a clear SCOTUS decision on whether a state can constitutionally revoke a license (which is a form of property if you frame it correctly) based on the speech, refusal to speak (think pronouns), religion, political views, or choice of client or choice not to represent certain clientele either, by an attorney.
This issue has been hanging out there like a dark thundercloud just gathering strength in the last 12 years.
Just to clarify. The California Bar Court has only recommended disbarment. It has no authority to disbar; only the California Supreme Court can do that. And we have an intermediate appeal to the Review Department of the Bar Court before it gets to the California Supreme Court. And one hopes that either the review department or the California Supreme Court will countermand the egregious recommendation or, if they don’t, that the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case, given the serious threat to the constitutional rights of speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances that is implicated by the case.
That said, I truly appreciate all the comments here. Thank you all!
Thank you for the clarification.
On the password-protected NSA thread I raised Robert Lighthizer’s name for consideration for that, or another top position.
I was going only by memory of his performance as U.S. Trade Representative and the central role that principles of “trade” play in President Trump’s approach to policy.
I hoped that someone in the know might provide some currency to the suggestion, as Lighthizer had been off my radar since that administration ended.
Evidently he was not off Politico’s:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/04/robert-lighthizer-trump-adviser-trade-00172530
Lighthizer has expressed “excitement” to get back to work with President Trump in the same role he held before. Which is great news! Let’s hope he gets the chance.
John Eastman sounds GREAT, but his law license is currently suspended by the state of California. Mr. Eastman requested that his license restriction be lifted but a judge said that he has thus far “failed to demonstrate that he no longer presents a threat to the public.” Give me a break!!! 🙁
Unfortunately, the D.C. Court of Appeals also suspended Mr. Eastman’s license citing the Califormia matter; it will remain suspended until the California proceedings are resolved. According to the article, Mr. Eastman also faces possible disbarment in D.C. Here’s the link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/04/john-eastman-trump-lawyer-disbarred/
I think that Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton would be a really solid choice–regardless of the unfair issues Mr. Eastman is facing. However, we don’t want to lose a good AG in Texas if John Eastman or someone else who is really great can be the White House counsel. I believe that Jeffrey Clark would be really good, as well; this was noted in Sundance’s post, above.
Trying to understand this. … So far,
The Emissary: Dr Carlson
National Security Advisor: Devin Nunes
WH Counsel: John Eastman (I don’t remember him ..)
Thank you, Sundance.
Sundance
Totally agree J Eastman is perfect for WHC
Amen!
Sundance, how does California’s disbarment preclude Eastman from taking the role?
I don’t think it does! Eastman is probably licensed in other states.
I’d be fine with John Eastman, but if you think a genuine fight against the American KGB is going to be under Marquess of Queensbury rules, you’re only setting us all up for failure.
Feel better
Agreed! If we don’t an AG and FBI Director that’s 100% MAGA and willing to go nuclear on the DOJ, FBI and CIA let alone the Democrat DA in Atlanta and New York this will be a repeat of the last four years under President Trump.
In addition, President Trump’s DOJ must go after the ballot fraud in Milwaukee, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit and Phoenix. We don’t have a democracy if rampant ballot fraud in Democrat ghetto cities is allowed to steal national elections!
At this point, considering how the race has changed, I am prepared to be satisficed with any Trump staffing we might get.
I consider this to be non-pretending.
The only type of lawyer acceptable will have been both a business person and lawyer, managing legal affairs for more than 25 years. This person will have served as General Counsel or aka Chief Legal Officer for large corporations. There is no background more suited than this one. I know I was a GC. I was not risk adverse, I guarded the Crown Jewels the assets reputation and culture of my client. I was a warrior if needed, I was a confident who kept long standing confidences to this day. I saw through the bullshit and knew the valued employees. I sleuthed out betrayals. My sixth sense was invaluable. SD keep these attributes in mind
God Bless President Trump
Resposting comment to add the “bell” to see responses.
100% agree. A General Counsel is what is needed here. They are not just counsel to the Office of the President but oversee the counsel of all agencies and departments, no?
No, that oversight role would be an innovation.
But is it one that follows from the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling?
It would be within the purview of the President to give that additional vetting role to the WHC.
Most of those positions like GC are subject to Senate confirmation though, I believe. Once you get down to the Deputy level, those are not Senate confirmation level.
And, by the way, here’s where the rubber meets the road at a critical time:
You can get all the GC and Deputy GC resignations you like off the bat, but every agency will shift to the “Acting GC” – a career “non-political ” attorney suit who has been there three decades, seen 6 to 8 administrations come and go, undoubtedly hates MAGA and Agenda 47 and is perfectly placed to throw sand in the gears right when you most need them to turn.
Think Tash Gauhar loyalties.
So, someone needs to be thinking about how to overcome the Acting problem, in the midst of everything else.
In good companies it is not innovation it’s teamwork, the executive team includes GC. Innovation is valued in business. I am an innovator both in business and law to this day at 75.
Yes in a way they do. For example if a HR department went rogue and began conversation with prime time media about a bad hire turned felon….of course this is a risk not only to deep dive for truth but manage conversation which HR did not have to do perhaps out of line.
Kathie,
You are spot on as to skills.
The problem is the large corporations bit.
Almost every large corporation is going to have an actual conflict of interest with Agenda 47.
In addition, almost every GC of a large corporation is an alumni of a large law firm. You know as well as I do that putting alums in GC or lower in-house counsel slots is a strategy and a goal of the largest law firms. That way your firm has a foot on the door to get the legal work.
Not to mention an informal information network.
This is the same reason you do not see any national or regional firms taking on the obvious vaccine mandate and injury cases, even pro bono. Everyone is networked, and no one wants to upset the people with the $$.
Yes they ran that up on me many times. I no longer have a feeling for current GCs…but in the day we had private group meeting once a month for lunch and more. That revealed a lot about each GC. Absolutely integrity is a must. Dishonest corporations try to hide their sins. Counseling why the better path is honest and apology and reserving properly for giant losses in insurance reserves and/or captive layers, a good executive team built on trust and instinctively knowing how to organize to deal with such matters goes a long way to keeping the company profitable which is the bottom line. I’d never nominate any lawyer for this position who came from the law firm club. Privately held good companies – soccer as well as recently retired in 60s and then perhaps asking those individuals who they admire and why. Truly a giant vetting SD has work cut out for hiher
Newest fan of Kathie Lind!
Sure just look at the ‘great ideas’ corporations have adopted as company policy, with legal department approval. Policies like DEI, ESG, climate change, adopting a LGBT policy or stock buybacks instead of company reinvestment. Disney has destroyed its brand due to adopting the LGBT policy. Budweiser destroyed its best selling beer Bud Light by adopting the same policy. Since 1998 Boeing has spent $ 61 billion on stock buybacks, not R&D or product development. Pfizer has been in business for 175 years and has cured zero diseases. Tech corporations have adopted the hiring of H1B visa holders over American citizens. The intelligence community is littered with corporations doing the spying on American citizens at the government’s behest. Companies like Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, X(Twitter) and Palantir. Today BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Berkshire Hathaway are the major shareholders in 95% of public corporations. They not the corporate legal department nor corporate management dictate corporate policy. General Counsel and most executive management of corporations are corporate politicians very few of them have dirt under their fingernails, i.e. industry work experience. They just happen to have graduated from the ‘correct’ brand name college or law school.
Lawyers are a necessary evil and Trump would do better to find a fighter like him not a corporate yes man, which is no different than career deep state players.
Sydney Powell?
I guess we are not so hot on Sidney Powell any longer How about Lin Wood? /s
She, unfortunately, couldn’t hold up to ……. Fani Willis and Nathan Wade and pleaded guilty so they could indict DJT. Retrospect indicates she was a Trojan Horse plant all along
Her problem is she had ethics, yet lacked the billions of $ to take on the lawfare swamp and survive.
The blob is massive with unlimited resources. I admire Sydney Powell, and regret her mistreatment.
👏👆🏼 I excellent response LG…
there is always bankruptcy
and then starting all over again
Very easy to say when you are not wearing her shoes.
The NY court refused to permit Guiliani to file for bankruptcy. He remains in surprisingly good spirits though.
Not for Rudy Giuliani there isn’t. The Leftist judges rejected his bankruptcy protection because they want to let creditors pick at the bones.
Yes, she was egregiously mistreated but she knew she would be . . . So you must expect and be prepared for the inevitable. I’m sad for her.
No, she is a patriot. She gave President Trump tons of proof on the 2020 coup d’etat and met with him at the WH with General Flynn and Byrne. She laid out a plan to fight the steal. Trump ordered for her to be a Special Council with offices in the WH, but later when she arrived to take office, Meadows refused her entry, in direct disobedience to the President’s orders! If Trump had listened to her,(and the others) he would be finishing out his second term right now & we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Any way for Trump to “repay” Meadows for his betrayal when re-elected?
This is what I don’t understand. Why didn’t president Trump step in and smack meadows down for refusing her entry. It seems like this happened with a lot of people. He’s was still the boss?
I don’t believe Sidney was a Trojan horse but, ultimately, she failed. And the “kracken” stuff. Hey, don’t say it if u are not certain you have the evidence.
Sidney Powell has been a warrior for 20+ years. I have read her books: Licensed to Lie, and Conviction Machine. She is the real McCoy. Sidney squared off against Andrew Weissman, Eric Holder, and the crooked shysters in the DOJ dating back to the Enron case.
I listened to the audio of the hearing on the motion to dismiss the charges against Gen. Flynn. Sidney was up against a corrupt DOJ, who finally agreed to dismiss the charges. Sidney was also up against a corrupt trial judge, who brought in another (retired) judge to appear as an “expert witness” to argue against dismissal. The whole proceeding was rigged against Flynn. Yet, Sidney stayed in the case, and got the charges dismissed. Who else has done that? If I had been in Sidney’s shoes, I would have been held in contempt numerous times, and likely incarcerated.
Sidney, now 69 years old, Sidney faced financial destruction if she stayed in the case. No time to rebuild a retirement. Sidney was a private attorney, not gorging on the public trough like the lawfare shysters.
What would any of us have done in the same circumstances? Hindsight is always 20/20. I wish that Sidney had been able to brave it out longer, as it looks like the Georgia appellate court may end disqualifying Fani Willis, and forcing a start-over. It may be too late in her career for her to be of much assistance to President Trump in a new administration. However, Sidney does not deserve the castigation and scorn that is so easy to heap upon someone who could not stand up to lawfare. Wait until it happens to you, which I hope it never does.
I agree with all of this. It’s important to also have trust of the executive and be able to have frank brief conversations with those that matter in a Socratic manner when brevity is critical.
Yes she did an excellent job for Gen flynn
No no Sidney is a good lawyer no business skills, one must know instinctively how to advise in confidence…Lin no doesn’t seem too deep in business operations or government operations….both had their downfalls whether by accident, or otherwise. No one so public would be valuable to President Trump. By the way they should be a passionate student of history.
They do not have the judgement or discernment skills necessary. Too easily duped
I think the actual “names of people” we seek for these positions have not been bandied about in the media. The real doers are the ones who have done the real work for years with absolute integrity. Not those who have recently been in the spotlight with a nice hair and a great smile.
Don’t know a lot about him but Tony Buzbee was amazing for Paxton.
Tony is a fabulous trial lawyer, reminding me of another famous Texas trial lawyer after winning a gigantic case “We eat what we kill” 😊
Are there any “legal” requirements for who can fill this role or is it at the sole discretion of the president!
Several of us have raised that question on this thread, but I can’t find a definitive answer. There doesn’t appear to be anything in the law about qualifications. The White House Counsel doesn’t actually argue cases in court. All of the descriptions I have read say that the WH Counsel gives legal advice to the President concerning the Office of the President. Since no legislative approval is required it would seem to be entirely up to the President to decide what qualifications he is looking for.
All of the options offered by Sundance are excellent recommendations.
Totally agree with SD’s assessment. These positions are critical.
The only thing that stands out to me, whether it be off topic or not, is that these articles seem to presume the criminals will let him win. Or that he will, without interference.
I pray that he rolls them all over like an asphalt compactor. That the margins are too big to overcome with the lies and cheating.
This is the most important election in history. Staffing the WH with solid, honest, patriots is a must, and the previous mistakes cannot be repeated. I hope PDJT understands all of these important roles!
My thumbs up is for John Eastman. He has the constitutional knowledge needed and apparently has backbone. And IMO if just the announcement causes splodey heads on the left, that is a good sign.
Wasn’t Eastman disbarred by sycophants of the Lawfare traitors? Would the IC then use that to smear him if Trump attempted to hire him as WHC, like the Democrats and the entire media use “Conflicted Felon” against Trump every time they open their lying mouths?
Per Sundance’s 4th Paragraph above: ” The Office of White House Counsel does not need IC/Senate approval.“
“Convicted Felon” carries as much stigma as “racist”. The commie dems have worn out all of their faux smears.
I wholeheartedly support John Eastman, an outstanding individual in all regards.
The best thing about John Eastman is that he not only understands the Constitution he believes in it.
There seem to be a lot of so-called “former Constitutional Law professors” who specialize in finding ways to circumvent the Constitution.
Great picks! Both have walked through the fire.
I also agree with many other posters that AG Ken Paxton would be great as either WHC or AG but we have to be strategic. The nation needs him far more in TX.
Wasn’t there a couple of pretty solid Paxton supporters in his office during the fake Bushy impeachment scam? Paxton is one of the few who knows the tricks of the Bushy rinos and is plenty tough enough to clean up the nazi doj and prosecute all of the leftist anti-American trash throughout the corrupt government. Paxton would be an outstanding AG if he can be confirmed by the rinos in the Senate, which isn’t a sure thing.
He very well may be excellent as an AG but Paxton is all that stands in the breach of TX going blue. If that happens… it’s game over.
👍
Patriot Act, FISA courts, domestic surveillance programs, all of the precedents for those anti-constitutional insults were instituted, defended and disclosure of blocked, criminalized under the Bush (43) administration’s White House Counsel/Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Yes. It’s an important position to insert a constitutionalist jurisprudence doctorate into under a Trump administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001%E2%80%932007)
Alberto was not a very bright individual. His mark-ups revealed at the time showed less than a 4 year lawyer skill.
Yes, the individual must know be passionate and abide by first principles of our Constitution without question their life path must reveal this in their actions/deeds AND their writings
Kash Patel needs to be somewhere in the mix.
Or, the professor, David Clemmens (sp. )
John Eastman is a great choice! I’m not familiar with the other 2 mentioned but as I was reading Sundance’s brilliant post, the name that came to my mind was Matt Gaetz.
QUOTE:
“The counsel must be smart, killer smart; brutally strategic; cunning and fully versed in how the dark arts will come against them. Prior experience as a target by the same system they now confront should be considered an asset.“
This x1,000,000 …
…with special emphasis on the 2nd sentence.
If the DS/lawfare cucks genuinely targeted him (ie. “his kind must not be allowed to rise again”), then that would seem to be an impeccable qualification and endorsement.
But first, we must get Trump to the White House.
EXACTLY.
So wait till the last minute? The time to talk about these things is now
As Sundance said earlier, “This is beyond annoying.”
All he asked for, was to stick to the topic with intelligent commentary and a little humor. These staffing articles are fascinating, and the comments should be enlightening as well.
The Demmunists will employ every method of fraud they used in 2020 to beat Trump, plus any new tactics no one else has even imagined yet. They know they have the advantage of the extremely short time limits allowed to contest the election.
And the perfectly timed Jan 6 “riots” they provoked allowed them to employ parliamentary trickery to prevent the Pubs from contesting the electoral count so fraud could at least be investigated. I’ll bet they’re already have multiple devious srategies developed to “win” again.
If only SCOTUS had had the cojones to step in on the many lawsuits filed against the Steal.
Like the Wittmer “kidnapping” was obvious practice for Jan 6, even to the point of both being run by the same FBI operative, it makes me wonder if all the things that coincidentally went wrong with the Secret Service failure to prevent the attempt on Trump’s life was just a trial for the real thing if he does win.
We not only need to get Trump elected we need him set up to go full steam ahead on day one. The last time there was no team in place and he had no experience in DC which gave the Deep State the window to sabotage his administration before it even got started.
Current Biden White House Counsel, Ed Siskel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Siskel
A Barack Obama protege, former law student, Chicago Marxist radical fellow traveler. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” Rahm Emanuel colleague. And from a family of purveyors of illusion, propaganda machines, nephew of Gene Siskel, film critic.
Previous Biden White House Counsel, Stuart Delery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Delery
Clerked for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Deep State Praetorian Guard jurist. Obama administration Associate Attorney General. Radical illegal immigration and LBTGQABCDEFG…. activist lawyer.
First Biden White House Counsel, Dana Remus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Remus
Barack Obama long-time confidant, served in multiple roles of his administration, including “ethics” adviser. Obama Foundation counsel, counsel to Big Mike Obama. Curious note: She clerked for Justice Samuel Alito. Works today in the Lawfare arm of the DNC restricting candidate access to ballots across the nation. Married to Deep State Intelligence official Brett Holmgren, of CIA, Homeland Security, domestic spying pedigree…in wedding officiated by Barack Obama.
Yes. White House Counsel is a critical position in a presidential administration that requires a complete loyalist to restoring the constitutional republic.
Side note to Sundance: For future Trump Staffing pieces please don’t overlook the role of Staff Secretary in an administration. Arguably a more powerful administration lawyer than even White House Counsel. Even more control over a president’s schedule, access to him, intimately involved in personnel decisions, vetting, etc. John Podesta held that role under Clinton. Jessica Hertz held that role under Biden as his first Staff Secretary. She had transitioned from Facebook counsel (facilitated tech collusion to censor, propagandize Covid, 2020 election, Laptop from Hell) to lead Biden transition team, deciding who would be hired for which role. A Justice Sotomayer clerk, who also officiated her wedding. Now in DC as a Big Tech lobbyist facilitating more coordination with government censorship, deplatforming, controlling internet commerce pipeline. And a Cass Sunstein “Nudge” protege. Staff Secretary is HUGELY important for the success of an administration achieving its objectives. Personnel IS policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Hertz
Excellent information!
Anyone familiar with the name Nick Clegg? Point guy for the Big Tech censorship model, Twitter Files, etc. He came from Facebook into the Biden administration. Hired by Jessica Hertz. His colleague and fellow traveler at Facebook in management, regulatory compliance, etc as she was Facebook counsel overseeing regulatory compliance (like coordination with federal government orders, directives and “suggestions”) efforts. Jessica Hertz as Staff Secretary made sure he was in the position he was in to gut free speech on the interwebs in practice, if not law.
Yes, agreed that John Eastman would be an excellent candidate for White House Counsel.
(If not Eastman, is Tom Hagen available?)
😅😅 Hagen
All these positions and people, are over my head…and I do not have enough knowledge to have a valid opinion….I just want to see American Patriot types who are honest and not out for themselves or being RINO types.
Solid knowledge of the tasks assigned…with knowledge of laws and policy as both are applied. And maybe a spark of need for straightening things out…or shall I say, retribution.
Dedication to the job and being willing and able to answer a phone at 0300, if need be…are absolute and non-negotiable requirements.
And no substance issues would sure be a plus.
If Alina Habba does have young children, that would be an impediment to doing this job as it needs to be done.
A person whose children are grown would be the best fit.
That’s why Sundance goes into details and outlines the qualifications for each of these positions.
Professor John Eastman would be a great choice. The State Bar of California entered a disbarment order against Prof. Eastman, which is currently on appeal. Eastman’s sin? He had the temerity to represent President Trump in challenging the fraudulent 2020 election! At the “hearing”, Professor Eastman was prohibited from introducing evidence of election fraud, while the prosecutor was free to say that the election was honest and fraud-free. It was a real kangaroo court. I hope that the California Supreme Court does the right thing and reverses the State Bar Court, or at least sends it back for a rehearing.
I would argue that the WHC handling of the Flynn ambush was their other great failure.
You missed the subtle tipy-top tip off who Sundance has been recently invited to dinner with then, apparently confirmed by his comment above in this post
Eastman sounds great, if he’d take it. And as a potential if he doesn’t, I’ll suggest Bill Shipley, who writes as Shipwrecked Crew. He has been doing pro bono work for the J6’rs. His CV is here:
https://hawaiifederalcriminaldefense.com/about/
100% operational fed, never won a case, always told his clients to plead guilty. One of the worst possible people in Lawfare because he pretends to be on your side. This is the person who absolutely adores the surveillance state.
Not only a big no, but seriously…. revisit your discernment skills.
Wow! That was a shock to read. Thanks!
Thank you so much for continuing to expose Shipley. Personal experience with his procedures makes him another snake in the grass. His type only like to abuse their power, produce knee dwellers, steal their ability to provide for their family, or any hope for their future lives and freedoms.
Discernment does seem to be the Achilles heel. Going deep is the only way to understand. Thank you again!
Stephen Miller would fit the bill in my estimation.
Not a lawyer
John Ratcliffe. Although his net worth is only 7.6 million. He knows the swamp as does Nunes.
Good insight. Thank you Sundance. Eastman has been bloodied. He should be ripe for revenge.
I’m reading some great insights on this thread. Feel downright Edumacated.
That being said, I know one thing that Trump needs to avoid at all costs.
Go through the resume, and any of them that have had past employment with
King and Spalding should be filed in the proper circular device. Prior to being
incinerated.
Revenge would only temporarily soothe the spirit.
Eastman should be seeking retribution.
I would not be at all surprised if someone in PT’s trusted inner circle reads here. If so, SD’s opinions could prove invaluable. There are few with his uncanny (proven) insight. These posts seem more like suggestions to the Trump team than mere speculations.
This was meant as a reply to Goatman.
Would California’s disbarment preclude Eastman from taking the role?
Maybe if Trump was seeking to fill a position after running for president of California.
Admirable to be gaming out so far ahead but I don’t see how the election can be won given so few alterations have been made following the thefts in 2020 and 2022.
For discussions such as these, I am always reminded of the quote from the legendary JP Morgan:
“Well, I don’t want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do, I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.”
Heh.
That was my first boss.
Great guy.
“Go back. Start over and figure out how we do this, and don’t tell me it’s not legally possible”
And so I did, and so we did.
I just want a snarling bull dog as AG who isn’t afraid to jail those on the left that broke the law. We have had nothing but weaklings as leaders. Except for DJT.
Robert Barnes!
Absolutely Eastman! IMO for WHC Constitutional law specialization edges out International Law. Very Trumpian – deep state attacks him, he stands up and keeps going thoughtfully. His actions are guided by the constitution and the right thing to do. Softer spoken WARRIOR.
“John Eastman has been the target of the weaponized IC and Lawfare. He has a brilliant mind, strong constitutional understanding, and, well, perhaps most importantly, he has a personal reason to be pissed off about the current status of our Executive Branch agencies. In the position of White House Counsel, John Eastman esq would trigger spontaneous ‘splodey heads just from the announcement itself.”
Particularly needed in view of the recent SCOTUS rulings re Presidential Immunity which undoubtedly will be tested by lawfare in practice. Presidential Declassification was and will be key to shine sunlight on deep state tactics to obstruct Trump term2.
During this day I have been considering Mr. Eastman as proposed WHC.
Not knowing much but yet not being exhaustive I did some research. The link following is an example of how the globalist narrative is moving through the court system to destroy those who stood up to defend the Republic in late 2020.
While Eastman is not currently disbarred, he still has trial in GA. Other states will disbar him if CA does. His hands are actually full – by lawfare design.
This alone in my view disqualifies him from serving as WHC.
In addition:
I like the idea of the warrior who stood up for us and is now paying the price receiving a just reward and victory.
I don’t believe that this position is the right reward nor is it the time for him to receive one. I do expect him to be recompensed for his righteous deeds – when he is finished fighting this good fight.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/politics/judge-recommends-john-eastman-be-disbarred/index.html
As I have contemplated Sundance’s candidate today, a light began to dawn.
Many have complained that Republicans don’t fight.
As I read the comments I am noticing the lack of contrariness. We of course are in harmony with each other, but we are not fully engaging in this opportunity offered to us. The opportunity on the table is to weigh in on the proposals.
We are supplying reasons why we agree or disagree.
I am asking if we could do a little more? That “little” being to think like the globalists, ask how they would view this person in this position and what actions would they take against this person as they wage war against our Republic?
Does this candidate create more challenges than necessary? Can we be prepared to successfully debunk the lies? If pressure is too great and the candidate resigns, who is the right person to step in and keep the cleansing moving forward?
I like those picks!
Bravo, Sundance!
How do we get a password to follow?
Who are the prominent lawyers of Judicial Watch? Would any of them be candidates for WHC?
While admittedly I’m not well versed on the who’s who of conservative lawyers, one name pops up in my mind. Kurt Schlichter. He does lawyer stuff for a law firm in LA. Writes a column for Townhall. Is all about crushing his enemies and seeing them driven before him, etc. He did support DeSantis in the primary, so maybe some further vetting is in order. But he appears to be all in for DJT as President.
Sundance, I love your job descriptions – SO enlightening and hopeful!!! And your candidate proposals are top notch!
On Ben Carson, have you seen Tucker’s interview? I was surprised b/c in it, Ben speaks very highly about Mike Pompeo. Everything I read about him on this site indicates he is clearly deep state – I was so surprised with Ben’s take. I attributed it up to Ben’s lovely character – incredibly honest, deeply committed to this country and alway seeing the best in people. I just hope he is also able to see all the snakes in the grass!!!
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-ben-carson
Pat Cipollone . . .
Great choices, not to mention astute analysis & advice.
Jenna Ellis is out. Too easy to intimidate.
Ellis just rolled over and is flipping on the alternative electors.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/former-trump-lawyer-jenna-ellis-cooperate-prosecutors-arizona-fake-ele-rcna165122
Depends on what “cooperate” means. If it means, “tell the truth,” then there’s no harm in it.
Eastman seems a good choice. I think success will depend on the “killers” he brings onto his team. Excellence is not enough, they must be aggressive.
The GOP must be dealt with carefully. They are in many respects the enemy inside the wire. They “speak in familiar accents… and wear our arguments” but will sneakily undermine and sabotage Trump.
Sundance – worth his weight in tomcat oil.
I only THOUGHT I had a basic understanding of Civics. Wow.
I want to know if and how this strategy will be given to President Trump, he’s the one who needs it. Otherwise what is the point?