As expected, the lawyers representing Donald Trump have asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the DC appellate court decision on presidential immunity.  [SEE pdf Here]

At the heart of the matter is really the intersection of politics and a weaponized judiciary. If presidents do not have absolute immunity while in office, then their political opposition can just threaten to file charges against them once their term expires.  The obvious problems are easy to see.

WASHINGTON DC – Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to block a lower court’s ruling that he is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his bid to subvert the 2020 election.

The 39-page motion puts the fate of his criminal case in Washington, D.C. squarely in the hands of the nine justices, three of whom he nominated.

(more…)

Here’s the baseline context of my review on this discussion provided by Tucker Carlson, as he takes part in the “World Government Summit at What’s Next for Storytelling?”

Tucker is shocked, shocked to see with his own eyes that Russia is a modern, beautiful, safe, clean, well-run nation filled with generally happy people who are just like you and me – only they don’t pretend.  That’s it, that’s the major difference.

If you were to analyze all of the varying realities around the opinions of those few people from the West who have literally put boots on the ground in Russia, the major thing that everyone would have a hard time explaining is this non-pretense.  However, as soon as you say, “They don’t pretend,” anyone who has visited Russia in the last two years says, “Yes – that’s it; exactly that.”  Essentially, that’s what Tucker is trying to explain also.

Yes, we in the West are being played by Western interests in creating our opinion of Russia.  Yes, to just about everything Tucker Carlson is saying in this segment – only more.  Tucker didn’t even go to the beautiful places like St. Petersburg; he was limited by self-choice to being stuck in Moscow.  WATCH (prompted):

.

Any independent journalist who writes about the constructs in/around Russia, yet has not been there in the last few years, can be completely disregarded.   Yes, we are all getting played, and I have repeatedly said the same thing openly.

(more…)

Three judges from the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals have denied the immunity request from President Trump.

In a rather stark decision reached by the panel [SEE Ruling Here] “We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed,” the court wrote in its ruling Tuesday.   “We conclude that the interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation.”

WASHINGTON  – The judges put their decision on hold only until Monday to allow Trump to ask the Supreme Court to take up the immunity fight on an emergency basis. If he does so, the decision won’t take effect until the high court acts on his request, the appeals panel decreed.  (read more)

The court essentially stayed its own ruling, pending a punt to the Supreme Court.

(more…)

A revelatory article in Politico [SEE HERE] discusses a secret tribunal that Joe Biden has created to act as an arbiter in the space between the USA internet and the EU user privacy rules.  However, if you apply the Occam’s Razor perspective, you might discover the tribunal or secret court is really just an arbiter of content, a “filtering system”.

Those who do not pretend have long ago realized the systems deployed to control information and communication will always be the priority.  You cannot intentionally abuse a victim and yet allow them to have uncontrolled contact with family, the abuser needs to keep the victim isolated.  The same is true for government in their need to control information that might expose their purpose.

Recently European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said controlling information was the #1 priority of the WEF group for 2024.  That makes sense, when you consider that organized pushback would be counter to their agenda.

The western alliance of nations is collaboratively focused on definitions to help with their disinformation, misinformation and malinformation agenda.

Into this mix comes the European Union with rules and regulations on user data, a valuable commodity when enmeshed with commerce and the internet.  The USA does not have those same rules and regulations on user privacy, all our metadata is under surveillance by corporations and government, so an arbitration system is needed where an EU member, group or nation can demand the stoppage of an American company from retaining EU user data.

Joe Biden has assembled a tribunal or quasi-judicial court system for the purpose of having a destination for EU complaints and violations.  One of the people appointed to the tribunal review team is Eric Holder.

(more…)

In a 14-page opinion and ruling today [SEE pdf HERE] four judges from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals deconstruct the previous ruling from their own court as well as the DC judge beneath them that gave Special Counsel Jack Smith access to President Trump Twitter account data and then enforced a non-disclosure order.

There are multiple layers to this story, but the substantive part is the scheme and the construct of how the Lawfare took place.  There’s no way this was coincidental; I’ll explain why.

First, there are only 7 members on the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals.  When the Twitter case to gain access to President Trump communication came to the appellate level, somehow all three of the most left-wing judges were assigned to hear the appeal.

An “en banc” review would have included the full 7 members.  However, that review was made moot by the release of the information (a result of the appellate decision).  The release itself was done with the use of a non-disclosure order, hiding the ruling in secrecy and keeping President Trump from knowing about it.  Once the other four members of the DC CCA eventually found out about the case and the ramifications for ‘executive privilege’ their opinion lambasting their own court is released.

As noted from the panel, “the court here permitted a special prosecutor to avoid even the assertion of executive privilege by allowing a warrant for presidential communications from a third party and then imposing a nondisclosure order.”

The Circuit Court justices note that Jack Smith could have gone to the National Archives for the information as they held the same set of documents and information.  However, Smith didn’t want to go that route because the National Archives would inform President Trump as customary and provide him the ability to assert executive privilege over any of the 32 Direct Messages requested.

(more…)

If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.

Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {link} Why?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

(more…)

I have long been saying the Jack Smith special counsel team is the reassembly of the Robert Mueller team.  Today, inside an article {SEE HERE} outlining other ancillary matters about the 2020 election challenges, Politico inadvertently confirmed my suspicions.

First, the non-pretending BIG PICTURE.   The Clinton exoneration FBI Team became the Trump investigation FBI Team (Crossfire Hurricane) -which then became the Robert Mueller FBI Team (exact same people, plus some additions) – which then became the J6 Investigation FBI Team (exact same people, plus some additions) – which then became the Jack Smith FBI Team (same exact people).  Not only is it one long continuum, but it’s also the EXACT SAME PEOPLE.

So, the Politico Article, discussing the FBI Agents and the DOJ officials who signed the subpoena that stemmed from Jack Smith, is not really surprising other than the confirmation of the same DC-based FBI agents and DC-based Lawfare operatives.

POLITICO – […] During a tense confrontation with FBI agents who were trying to serve a subpoena, Harrison Floyd — a 2020 Trump campaign aide — considered grabbing one of the agents’ guns, Floyd told local police officers who arrived at his door shortly afterward.

[…] The subpoena and its accompanying letter were signed by assistant special counsel Jonathan Haray, a veteran federal prosecutor who once worked closely with Washington, D.C.’s U.S. attorney, Matthew Graves, who now leads the massive Justice Department probe of the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The presence on Smith’s staff of Haray, who once served as the deputy chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, has not been previously reported. Haray joined law firm DLA Piper in 2014 after a job at the Securities and Exchange Commission. He appears to have returned to government service about a year ago, around the time Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to the special counsel post in November 2022.

[…] While the federal court filings don’t name the FBI agents, a police report released to POLITICO this week with the video under the Maryland Public Information Act identifies them as Walter Giardina and Christopher Meyer. Meyer’s name is also visible in the paperwork accompanying the subpoena seen in the bodycam video.

(more…)

Most will not see the forest through the trees.  I have shortened this longer interview with Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, to emphasize a point.

Monaco is one of the extreme control operatives from the Obama era who transferred intentionally into the Biden administration to continue control operations.  Monaco is literally one of the consequential DC administrators responsible for maintaining a well-honed and weaponized Dept of Justice.  That’s all she does; organizing and keeping the Main Justice targeting mechanism focused on their priority is her job.

In this interview segment, transcript provided below, DAG Lisa Monaco outlines the importance of keeping a corrupt system isolated so that only the corrupt officials within it have reign.  Of course, that’s not the exact context of her comments, but when combined with the actual reality of the effort – that’s the cornerstone of the non-pretending message.  WATCH:

[Transcript] – […] THOMAS: I’m going to ask a couple questions that I hope get to transparency, understanding the limits that you have to operate within. Can you assure the American public that Special Counsels Jack Smith and David Weiss, Robert Hur are operating without regard to anything but the facts and the law?

MONACO: Yes. And the reason I say that, Pierre, is, look, these are matters of the utmost importance and significance. Cases of that level of significance are — it’s exceptionally important that they are handled independently, confidentially and free of any outside or inappropriate influence. And that’s exactly why the attorney general appointed special counsels in the first place.

THOMAS: Just for the record, so the public can hear it from a top official at DOJ, has President Biden ever raised the classified documents investigation, the probe of Hunter Biden with you or the A.G., tried to influence you? Has he ever done that in regard to President Trump?

MONACO: No. And the attorney general’s been exceptionally clear on this point. (more)

Outcomes are determined by controlling inputs.

(more…)

Using his Twitter/X platform to promote the 5-minute-long teaser, Tucker Carlson has finally released the interview with Julian Assange that took place on November 2, 2023. Why wait 51 days?  Your guess is as good as mine. {Direct Rumble Link Here}

.

Within the prologue, and after interviewing Julian Assange, Tucker Carlson references the extremely important DNC email issue and states unequivocally, “democrats claim the emails had been hacked by the Russian government. But they hadn’t been, that was a lie.  The emails had been leaked from within the DNC itself, almost certainly by a disgruntled employee.”    WATCH:

It is an exceptionally good teaser, and the only way to see the full Julian Assange interview is through THIS LINK (TuckerCarlson.com).

(more…)

As we stated yesterday, following the Smith request, the Trump attorney response, and the Smith re-response, the transparency of the special counsel motive is obvious.  For the Supreme Court to accept the request of Smith, would be for the Supreme Court to pretend the political motive was unknown.

The Supreme Court did not pretend and was curt in their retort: “The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith argued in his petition to the court, the speedy resolution of Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is of an urgent national interest.  The motive was/is a transparent speedy timeline effort to influence the 2024 GOP presidential primary race.  The court, heck, the entire world can see it.

Arguments on the presidential immunity issue, within the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, are set for January 9, 2024.  The decision of the 3-judge panel will come thereafter. Depending on the outcome, Donald Trump can then ask for a full panel appellate court review.  If the Circuit Court appeal results in a non-favorable outcome, the next step is the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the DC trial of Donald Trump is frozen awaiting a determination on the original issue of presidential immunity.

(more…)