In a normally functioning democracy (constitutional republic), the testimony today by Trump corporate comptroller Jeff McConney would end the ridiculous “hush money” case. McConney testified he alone was the one who instructed the accounting department to classify payments to Michael Cohen as “legal expenses.”
This entire premise of the silly NY City case against Donald Trump is predicated on the claim candidate Trump had the payments classified as legal expenses to hide the hush money payment. If Trump didn’t determine the classification, the case should collapse. Alas, we all know what this Lawfare is really about.
So far, these ridiculous Lawfare attacks against President Donald Trump have backfired and generated more support. The reasoning for this reaction from the polled public is simple; the more the weaponized state and judicial system attacks President Trump, the clearer the dynamic of the 2024 election becomes.
The radicals amid the Lawfare operation consistently disregard the intelligence of the average American; however, it should be noted talking down to people is a common trait amid most leftists who consider themselves more intelligent than the people they talk about. As the operatives use transparently ridiculous Lawfare to attack President Trump, the dynamic of the race changes.
2024 is no longer about Republicans vs Democrats. The 2024 race is now framed as ‘truthful voting Americans fighting against a corrupt and weaponized government supported by a corrupt political UniParty system – Republicans and Democrats alike.
As Mary McCord, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen design the Lawfare narrative executed by District Attorney Alvin Bragg and NYC activist Judge Juan Merchan, the Lawfare crew underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate. Today, Merchan threatens to jail President Trump [SEE JUDGEMENT HERE] for violating the gag order they need in order to continue their Lawfare attacks.
Today Judge Merchan held President Trump in contempt for one of four statements prosecutors claimed were gag order violations. The ‘infraction’ was a comment Trump made about the jury, April 22 on a radio show called “Just the News, No Noise.” President Trump responded to a question saying, “That jury was picked so fast — 95 percent Democrats.” This retort, the judge claims, is a violation:
“Defendant violated the Order by making public statements about the jury and how it was selected. In doing so, Defendant not only called into question the integrity, and therefore the legitimacy of these proceedings, but again raised the specter of fear for the safety of the jurors and of their loved ones.” [Page 4, pdf]
This is a good overall encapsulation by Julie Kelly and to a lesser extent Steve Bannon about what Judge Aileen Cannon is doing with the Jack Smith “documents” case in Florida.
Kelly notes accurately {See Background} that Judge Aileen Cannon is somewhat limited on what she can do about the federal government case due to the DOJ using the false pretense of “national security” to control how the judicial branch can interact with the lawfare construct of the executive branch. The Lawfare crew intentionally created the “national security” angle to control all sides of the case and limit the release of information to the public.
Judge Cannon has recently been releasing and un-redacting documents and motions filed in the case to allow disinfecting sunlight and transparency to enter. This approach undercuts the prosecution manipulation, the DOJ does not like it. Julie Kelly outlines some of the details that Cannon’s releases have highlighted. {Direct Rumble Link}
At the 12:00 minute mark, Steve Bannon highlights his anger as he rails against congress and the staff of multiple committees who participate in the willful blindness and pretending game.
After noticing how congress is mute about the revelations that Cannon is providing, Bannon notes the republicans are essentially anti-Trump and controlled opposition, which is essentially accurate…. However, he’s just now noticing this?
It is a little annoying to see Mr. Bannon discuss outrage as a manipulative tactic {Chaffe and Countermeasures}, considering the years of outrage traps laid by the republicans in the Deep State against President Trump. The latest effort by congress pretending not to notice, and then staying quiet, is not exactly a surprise.
Judge Juan Merchan has openly targeted President Trump on behalf of the clients for the judge’s daughter Loren Merchan. Ms Merchan is president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm who represents the interests of Democrat politicians.
NEW YORK – Donald Trump was held in contempt by Justice Juan Merchan Tuesday morning for social media posts and other statements the former president made that violated a gag order imposed in his Manhattan criminal case.
The judge ordered Trump to pay a $9,000 fine — $1,000 for each violation. And he warned Trump that additional violations could land him in jail.
“Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment,” the judge wrote in an eight-page decision. (more)
A newly released CNN poll [DATA HERE] shows President Trump with a 6-point advantage over Joe Biden and when third party candidates are included the lead widens to 9 points.
(Via CNN) – Donald Trump continues to hold an advantage over President Joe Biden as the campaign – and the former president’s criminal trial – move forward, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. And in the coming rematch, opinions about the first term of each man vying for a second four years in the White House now appear to work in Trump’s favor, with most Americans saying that, looking back, Trump’s term as president was a success, while a broad majority says Biden’s has so far been a failure.
Trump’s support in the poll among registered voters holds steady at 49% in a head-to-head matchup against Biden, the same as in CNN’s last national poll on the race in January, while Biden’s stands at 43%, not significantly different from January’s 45%.
I’m catching up on perspectives from the talking head class about the ridiculous “hush money” legal case in New York City. As I watched the review by Jonathan Turley, I noticed the video caught someone on the livestream.
The issue of presidential immunity is being tested in the DC political Lawfare case against President Donald Trump.
As the Jack Smith prosecution claims President Trump tried to “overturn the results of the 2020 election,” the issue of presidential actions intended to secure & protect the legitimacy of election outcomes becomes a focus.
The legal counsel for President Trump has stated any action by the president to ensure election security falls within official acts, and is therefore subject to immunity from prosecution. The special counsel claims the act of reviewing an election outcome is a private benefit to the president and not part of presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court is now involved in determining whether the President of the United States has immunity from prosecution, or whether any/all future presidents can be prosecuted for their action while in office. Inside the debate is the larger question of whether the “bureaucratic state” controls the president, or whether the office of the president controls the executive branch bureaucratic state.
The leftists and communists agree with former AG Bill Barr, that institutions run the government, and the office of the President is simply a figurehead within it. In essence, the DC institutions are omnipotent and powerful, and the president is simply occupying space the deep state allows. That’s the core ramification within the immunity argument.
In this video, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks several questions about limiting the immunity of the president and some of the ramifications that will surface for future presidents. WATCH:
Interestingly, at 2:30 of the video, Justice Kavanaugh notes the current Lawfare approach – crowdsourcing for prosecution angles with the DOJ, which was the same Lawfare approach used by the beach friends to attack Kavanaugh’s nomination. Judge Kavanaugh uses that hidden reference point – very subtlety – but its inclusion shows that he knows exactly what is taking place here.
I also like the part where the DOJ argues President Obama is not guilty of murder, via drone strike, because the type of murder created by Obama in that situation was “lawful murder.” Collateral killing via drone strike is considered by the DOJ to be: the lawful murder of another person with malice of forethought and specific intent to kill.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong with the DC administrative Deep State having the power to determine what is “lawful conduct” vs “unlawful conduct” by their political opposition? Oh wait, it’s done by DOJ statutory interpretation, lolol… now I feel better. Good grief, can people not see where this ends.
That said, here’s what the SCOTUS is going to do… I’m 95% certain of this.
[Oh, and Steve Bannon’s insufferable legal analysis, by Mike Davis, is GASLIGHTING. Davis is an idiot and totally dishonest legal mind (wants to be AG – God, help us), who only tells MAGA what they want to hear; so, I would suggest ignoring his claim that SCOTUS will rule support for Trump with absolute immunity. Mike Davis is totally wrong.]
If you have followed law and politics for any length of time, you have probably heard of “speaking indictments.” That’s where the prosecution will write an indictment or court motion with very granular -yet perhaps not pertinent- details of a case against a suspect that highlights a much bigger picture than a singular perspective against the individual defendant. The intent is to make the public aware of the details within a case by making them part of the court record.
In the Special Counsel Jack Smith constructed Lawfare case against Donald Trump, what is generally called “the documents case”, involving the raid on Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, did something similar to a speaking indictment with an extensive court motion on January 16, 2024. The 68-page motion is a comprehensive “speaking motion” which outlines a great deal of the fraud and Lawfare manipulation by the special counsel. [SEE DOCUMENT HERE]
In response to the filing, using the pre-established legal narrative about needing to control “national security” information [SEE HERE], the Jack Smith team (essentially Lawfare operatives like Weissman, Eisen and McCord) redacted large portions of the Trump motion specifically to stop the public record from showing the outline. However, two days ago, April 22nd, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed and more importantly ‘unredacted’ the motion.
Keep in mind, back in the beginning of the pre-trial discovery phase -in response to the filing by Trump- Jack Smith gave the judge the opinion of the DOJ [SEE HERE] toward discovery and documents. As noted, and summarized well by Julie Kelly:
To clear up any confusion as to what Special Counsel Jack Smith sought to conceal in classified documents case, this is what Smith told Judge Cannon in Feb 2024 in response to Trump’s motion to compel discovery from numerous govt agencies:
1) Defendants are not entitled to discovery of internal government correspondence and memoranda, or to documents that are otherwise privileged.
2) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence of ‘Improper Coordination with NARA’ and of ‘Bias and Investigative Misconduct.’
3) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Trump’s Security Clearance With The Department of Energy.
4) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Secure Facilities at President Trump’s Residences.
5) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Production of Materials Concerning the Search of Mar-a-Lago.
AND FINALLY:
6) Defendants’ Request for Unredacted Discovery of Materials Should Be Denied.
This is not going to be a surprise for regular CTH readers; however, Politico is outlining how a group of Lawfare ideologues meet every Friday to discuss their constructed legal filings and the next week of attack angles against President Donald Trump.
In essence, the core group inside the meeting are what Christine Blasey-Ford called the “beach friends” when discussing who constructed the legal avenues for the ridiculous attack against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
As we have noted for the past several years, it’s this same group of Lawfare ideologues, mostly former DOJ administrators and lawyers, who are behind every anti-Trump effort. The primary trio is Mary McCord, Norm Eisen (left in red tie), and Andrew Weissmann.
These are the three members who write the briefs and court motions that Jack Smith then files.
Mary McCord worked in the DOJ-NSD to secure the first Title-1 warrant against the Trump campaign; then she created the Logan Act violation to use against Michael Flynn; then she went to work with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on both impeachment efforts; then McCord went to work for Bennie Thompson on the J6 committee; then she worked as the liaison between the J6 Committee and Fulton County DA Fani Willis, and now Mary McCord currently works for Jack Smith on the special counsel effort.
Politico outlines how Lawfare operative Norm Eisen organizes the weekly Lawfare meeting and lists the participants who also join in. Remember, Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann are the primary Lawfare agents.
Via POLITICO – […] Every Friday, they meet on Zoom to hash out the latest twists and turns in the Trump legal saga — and intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system.
The meetings are off the record — a chance for the group’s members, many of whom are formally or loosely affiliated with different media outlets, to grapple with a seemingly endless array of novel legal issues before they hit the airwaves or take to print or digital outlets to weigh in with their thoughts.
The group’s host is Norman Eisen, a senior Obama administration official, longtime Trump critic and CNN legal analyst, who has been convening the group since 2022 as Trump’s legal woes ramped up. Eisen was also a key member of the team of lawyers assembled by House Democrats to handle Trump’s first impeachment.
This is more than a little interesting and aligns with my own research and discussions. House Speaker Mike Johnson was lobbied by former CIA Director Mike Pompeo and current officials from the CIA, DNI and Intelligence Community.
This effort, and his son starting at the Naval Academy, is what changed Johnson’s mind about allowing the U.S. intelligence community to have his full support in the IC war against the American people.
The story is shared by CNN, the official outlet for perspectives and viewpoints held by the U.S. State Dept (CIA), so keep the narrative origination in mind. Here are the key points as written in the article:
WASHINGTON – […] The speaker’s embrace of Ukraine aid represents a remarkable evolution for Johnson, who voted against funding for the country as a rank-and-file member. But almost immediately after securing the speaker’s gavel, sources say he began to hear directly from critical Republican national security voices – including Donald Trump’s former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, who impressed upon him the urgent need to approve assistance for Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s invasion.
In March, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky lobbied the speaker directly. Within minutes of the House approving a new military aid package for Ukraine on Saturday, Zelensky offered his thanks to US lawmakers, and in particular to Johnson for his decision that “keeps history on the right track.”
And more recently, Johnson received a key intelligence briefing from CIA Director Bill Burns, who painted a picture of the dire situation on the battlefield in Ukraine and the global consequences of inaction, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation. The briefing left a lasting impression, and Johnson became increasingly convinced the fate of Western democracy was on his shoulders, sources close to him said.
