I often hear or receive this question in various iterations.  When discussing the research outlines of current events, especially when we cite the historic background of what took place leading to those events – and how it created the outcome we now witness, we often get this question – or a version therein:

…”Have you tried to meet with DNI or DOJ or NSC people to attempt to ”unsilo” their thinking and understanding of all that transpired so they can connect all the dots. You have said that different people you’ve spoken to know pieces and parts, but the silos prevent anyone from knowing the whole. Can you not be the link? I love that we know but we can’t affect change. We/I only become more frustrated as our new leaders bumble along talking and focusing on seemingly trivial things compared to the Treason that has been on display since 2008.”….

My friends, part of the reason the corrupt DC system is so transparently predictable, is precisely because everyone engaged in the events has a vested interest to retain the corruption.  When you peel down the onion, when you get through the smoke to the fire, when you go deep into the rabbit hole and finally reach the dead end, you discover the root of everything that permeates everything is money. It is not ideology – it’s money.

From my myriads of travels and interactions with the system operators, I can boil down the answer to a few key points:

♦First, to the point of those we count on to stop the corruption, these are not smart people.  You project infinitely more intelligence upon them than they actually possess.  The high-information voter and researcher has much more knowledge than they do.  We fail and become frustrated when we mistakenly believe they carry an awareness that is factually not present.  You know more than your representative, and you know the context of that information at a much, much higher level than they do.  They ARE NOT smarter than you; where “they” applies to every-single-one of the names you might reference.  You are smarter than them.

♦Second, corruption is a business; whether in the initiation of it, or in the maintenance of it. Quoting myself in discussion of the situation: “My honest and respectfully intended question to you would be: What is it that makes our representatives always want to “talk about the information” rather than act upon the information, when the information is there for the taking?

(more…)

President Trump’s lawyers were allowed to view a preliminary draft of Jack Smith’s report from the documents case in Florida, under strict rules. After a review, the lawyers wrote to the DOJ demanding the political lawfare report not be released [PDF HERE].

Obviously, the report is a political hit job intended to target the transition process.

Because there are still two codefendants in the case, Judge Aileen Cannon has issued an injunction blocking the release of the report until after an appellate court can hear arguments.

FLORIDA – […] Cannon’s order, issued at the request of two Trump allies who were co-defendants in the classified documents case, bars the Justice Department from releasing the report or any portion of it until three days after a federal appeals court rules on the issue.

The order bars Garland, the Justice Department, Smith and “all of their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with such individuals” from “releasing, sharing, or transmitting the Final Report or any drafts of such Report outside the Department of Justice.”

Cannon’s order does not apply to Trump or his co-defendants, even though Smith contends they inappropriately revealed aspects of the report — which they have reviewed in recent days — in a Monday court filing. In that filing, Trump revealed Smith described him as “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort,” as “the head of the criminal conspiracies” and said he harbored a “criminal design.” (read more)

(more…)

The overall prosecution attempt by Jack Smith was fundamentally deconstructed when the Supreme Court ruled mostly in favor of President Trump carrying ‘presidential immunity’ for officials acts while in office.  The ruling meant Smith had to go back to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s court and work through a process of outlining what is and is not an ‘official act’ according to the DOJ.

The result of that approach was made public yesterday, when Judge Chutkan revealed a new 165-page indictment [SEE HERE], essentially a list of evidence the DOJ claims as proof of “unofficial acts” allowing them to jump the hurdle of “official acts.”  However, the reality of Jack Smith’s filing is a story without much legal value. Instead, it is a 165-page Lawfare story created for media promotion.

Many followers have accepted that Jack Smith is not necessarily the person constructing the legal filings. There is a solid argument to be made that Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen and Mary McCord are the Lawfare allies tasked with writing the material.  When you read the filing, the manipulation of legalese to shape a narrative story is clear.

As former DOJ Asst AG Jeffrey Clark has noted, the filing attempts to obfuscate the legal requirements of “state of mind” by projecting what President Trump must have thought, as expressed by the opinion of unknown advisors.  Jack Smith says President Trump thought this, without actually providing any evidence of what President Trump thought. Additionally, this Lawfare approach toward including redacted quotes amounts to written testimony, which would never pass muster in any court.

The accused has a right to confront witnesses; however, in written text that questioning becomes impossible.  In essence, Jack Smith violates the principle and stated purpose of the sixth amendment.  This is one of the ways you can tell the filing itself is not intended to outline evidence, but rather to outline a story.  The claimed “evidence” is simply a story the Lawfare team want to deliver in October of an election year.

(more…)

In a major 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has finally addressed the expansive regulatory use of executive agencies to create law through interpretation.  The 40-year-old Chevron ruling granted the executive agencies of government the ability to interpret laws and apply restrictions/regulations based on their own rules and definitions therein.

The Supreme Court put the judicial branch back into the equation by ruling that courts will decide what laws apply when the legislation is ambiguous on detail.  This shift in prior precedent could have major ramifications.  [MORE AT SCOTUS BLOG]

In another big case, the court ruled in favor of Joseph Fischer a Pennsylvania police officer charged in the January 6th protest with “obstructing an official proceeding.”  [FULL RULING HERE]

The law at the center of Fischer’s case is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and as noted by Julie Kelly, “The statute … has been applied in roughly 350 J6 cases; it also represents two of four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6-related criminal indictment of Donald Trump in Washington.”

Julie Kelly – […] In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the “c2” subsection is tethered to the “c1” subsection that addresses tampering with a record, document, or “object.”

Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the dissent (!) joined by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

(more…)

Speaking to local media, Judge Scott McAfee confirmed the decision to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will be released tomorrow.  SEE VIDEO:

District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade had a long-term romantic relationship.  They were caught lying about it in court testimony.

Additionally, according to White House visitor logs, Mr. Nathan Wade visited White House lawyers prior to indictment of President Trump, while DA Willis met with staff (Mary McCord) from the January 6 Committee prior to the indictment. The scope of the political lawfare is in bright sunlight now.

The Georgia prosecutor, meeting with Biden lawyers prior to the indictment against Biden’s political opposition, is a big issue that has yet to surface in front of Judge McAfee.  The legal ramifications of DA Fani Willis being discharged from the case for conflicts of interest and lying to the court are still unknown.

(more…)

The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE] highlighting just how political the J6 committee was.  The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.

WASHINGTON– Today, Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)

[SOURCE]

The last bullet point has a name.  The “Select Committee staff” who met with Fani Willis was likely Mary McCord.

(more…)

The next six weeks will be very interesting, as the April 19th clock-ticking dynamic leading up to the expiration of the 702-surveillance authority looms louder.  Some voices have said to me that President Trump needs to be careful of the Title-1 surveillance that surrounds him. I completely reject that approach.

There was a specific reason the Lawfare group charged Donald Trump with “national security” violations. Smart people can well understand the benefit to the surveillance state of the U.S. intelligence community, when Jack Smith defines President Trump as a national security threat under the same justification framework used against Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki. The options for the FBI-CoIntel unit assigned to monitor Trump are expanded by the definitions of the DOJ-National Security Division.

Ultimately, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the best defense against the FBI counterintelligence surveillance is to conduct affairs in a very public way.  This approach, which I fully advocate and endorse, leaves the institutional watchers with gritted teeth as transparency makes it more difficult to create narratives that are contingent upon defining the innocuous as nefarious.

Additionally, if concern over the content of any meeting (think the insufferable Logan Act construct as previously created by Mary McCord) is generated, those approaches -when contrast against the ongoing Lawfare tactics- are made moot and useless to the NSD – and by extension the judicial branch, when President Donald Trump includes his legal counsel in any meeting.  [Hi Mary]

Hungarian Prime Minister Orban is well advised by his counsel as is President Donald Trump. As an outcome of their nationalist ideology, both leaders are targets of the U.S. intelligence community (CIA) and national security state (DoS and USAID).

WASHINGTON DC – Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán traveled to Florida on Friday to visit Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, in a meeting blasted by U.S. President Joe Biden.

(more…)

If you ever needed a good point to highlight the nature of political Lawfare, this is a great example.

Julie Kelly essentially notes that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is asking DC Judge James Boasberg to decide what evidence should be given to Florida Judge Aileen Cannon.

Julie Kelly (Via Twitter) – “It appears that records related to the grand jury proceedings in DC on the classified docs case remain under seal and have not been transmitted to Judge Cannon or defense.

Recall that almost the entire investigation into the classified docs matter took place in Washington DC–not southern FLA even though it is the controlling jurisdiction since the alleged “crime” of retaining classified records/national defense info happened at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.

DOJ then Jack Smith kept the case in Trump-hating DC courthouse so they could get favorable rulings from then-chief judge Beryl Howell–which they did. For example, Howell cited the crime fraud exception to justify piercing atty-client privilege between Trump and his lawyer, Evan Corcoran, to force Corcoran to turn over his records to DOJ.

Highly unlikely that would have happened in FLA especially before Judge Cannon. But right before indictment, Jack Smith moved the case to Florida. Reports at the time indicated DOJ read summaries of its grand jury evidence to a FLA grand jury in order to secure the indictment.

So, how is it almost nine months post-indictment that trove of evidence remains under seal? When the issue was raised, David Harbach said DOJ was “in the process” of asking the current DC chief judge James Boasberg to review the file, add redactions if needed, and transmit to FLA court. (link)

There is a certain level of cognitive disassociation needed by the media to ignore how the DOJ is using a DC court system to prosecute a Florida case against Trump.   Go Deep on Boasberg HERE

(more…)

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and accepted the case of President Trump arguing presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office.  At the heart of the issue the court will determine if the charges brought by Jack Smith need to be dropped, or if the case against President Trump can continue forward.

If the Supreme Court begins defining what types of immunity exist for Presidents in office, they are beginning to open the door to multiple Lawfare efforts against the chief executive by agencies of the administrative state.  This could be extremely troublesome for the future abilities of the presidency far beyond Donald Trump.

[SOURCE]

WASHINGTON DC – In a one-page order Wednesday, the court set an expedited schedule to hear the immunity issue, with oral arguments to be set during the week of April 22. In the meantime, proceedings in the trial court will remain frozen.

(more…)

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has admitted the lawfare deployed against the Trump organization and President Donald Trump himself was a specific plan for his targeting and any other business interests or people within New York should not be concerned.

It’s a rather brazen admission all things considered; however, if it changes the public outlook as the various New York lawfare cases against President Trump continue, is yet to be determined.

(Via The Hill) – New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a new interview and told them there was “nothing to worry about” after former President Trump was hit with a $355 million fine and a ban on conducting business in New York for three years.

Hochul joined John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM, where she was asked if other New York businesspeople should be worried that if “they can do that to the former president, they can do that to anybody.”

(more…)