Using his Truth Social account, President Trump shares information that Special Counsel Jack Smith intends to prosecute Donald Trump using a lawfare construct surrounding the events on January 6, 2021. [Truth Social Source]
Using twisted legal theories as advanced by the Lawfare agents behind him, special counsel Jack Smith is reportedly trying to construct criminal charges around a conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding.
Under this stretched legal theory, President Donald Trump simply by contesting the 2020 election, is responsible for efforts to stop Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s presumed electoral victory. According to the criminal approach, contesting an election result is an effort to defraud the US Government.
Something is suspicious about this in the presentation, the timing and even the wording.
Ray Epps was a guy who attended the events in/around Washington DC on January 5th and January 6th, 2021. There is a lot of video footage of Ray Epps instructing people to go to the Capitol building. Despite a rather voluminous amount of evidence, Ray Epps was never charged with any conduct related to the events of January 6th.
According to a lawsuit Epps filed against Tucker Carlson and Fox News claiming the outlet targeted and defamed him, Ray Epps states, “in May 2023, the Department of Justice notified Epps that it would seek to charge him criminally for events on January 6, 2021—two-and-a-half years later.” [lawsuit citation – pg 41]
First, since when does the DOJ inform a suspect in advance they are seeking to charge him? Second, timing. It is now mid-July; where’s the indictment? Third, the wording is suspicious – the DOJ would “seek to charge him criminally.” Meaning, the Dept of Justice told Epps they were going to make efforts to arrest him?
Considering the lawsuit itself if dependent on a very specific narrative; and considering the lawsuit itself if dependent on a sympathy construct within that narrative; and considering the media narrative has been about wrongly targeted Epps by right-wing disinformation white nationalists, something is not passing the sniff test.
I’m not going to say I toldyaso; I’m just smiling.
After a full media cycle of apoplexy and pearl-clutching, which included Andrew Weissmann appearing on MSNBC to declare “It’s the end of Trump,” CBS is now reporting there is no Defense Department memo about attacking Iran – the foundation of the media claims surrounding the leaked audio tapes from Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Worse still, and exactly as CTH previously outlined, despite the claims by CNN about how this audio would be used as the “central element” by the prosecution of Trump, the audio and mysterious memo are not part of the Special Counsel case.
So, why was the transcript of the audio recording used by Jack Smith in the indictment if the audio and nonexistent memo were never going to be used? Because it’s Lawfare, that’s why. Everything, yes including the specific language being deployed (ie “documents containing classification markings“), is hype for public consumption.
(Via CBS) – The Defense Department memo on Iran — at the heart of the now-public audio recording that captured a July 2021 meeting with former President Donald Trump — is not part of the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information charged in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News.
[…] The document and recording are described in the indictment Smith’s team secured against Trump earlier this month, recounted as an alleged meeting with “a writer, a publisher, and two members of” Trump’s staff, “none of whom possessed a security clearance.” But according to a source familiar with the matter, Trump was not charged with unlawfully holding onto the Iran-related document discussed in the recording.
I will say it until people understand. Lawfare is a specially constructed approach to weaponize the judiciary to create narratives for public consumption; it is the abnormal and twisted application of granular legal language, and as a result it requires oddball motions to support it.
The DOJ previously filed a motion for “Special Conditions of Release” to restrict President Trump’s defense from knowing or discussing the super-secret evidence and witnesses the special prosecutor plans to use against him. The motion was essentially that if President Trump refused the super special terms and conditions of the motion, then Judge Cannon should put him in leg irons in federal prison until he can be tried and convicted.
The special counsel wants everything kept under seal, quiet and invisible to the public so the omnipotent arbiters of justice can appropriately shape the narrative they prefer.
The Jack Smith team cannot have President Trump being all uncontrolled, willy-nilly and making fun of their case, while talking about his targeting in such a manner as their super-secret witnesses would be exposed to such duplicitous snark and horrible influence.
I do not know all the details of her case, trial and subsequent conviction; however, I do know Jessica Watkins and other Oath Keeper members were entrapped by a federal agent organizing activity under the username “1% Watchdog.” I am certain of this element because the J6 committee falsely accused me of being that user. {GO DEEP}
The Gateway Pundit ran an article today [SEE HERE] which includes an interview from prison with Ms. Watkins, who continues to claim her innocence. Ms. Watkins gave an interview to Flip the Switch with Jenn {Direct Rumble Link} video and audio below:
Again, I do not know Ms. Watkins or any of her allies and associates. However, the subpoena I received from the J6 Commitee, specifically identified her as one of the people they falsely claimed I was associated with. I have unredacted her name from the subpoena below in the hopes that her legal team (if any) can see the value it presents.
I have written about the entrapment issue HERE, as well as the value that should be clearly evident. Counselors – On behalf of your client(s) file a motion with the judge requesting a court order compelling Zello to give up the registration records of the ‘Stop the Steal J6’ channel. This will identify the person behind “1% Watchdog”. If federal prosecutors fight the request for the court order, well: (a) there’s your answer; and (b) take the next step of using the preexisting congressional subpoena as evidence to support your compulsion.
If you accept a very specific outlook into the mindset of the Lawfare operatives (Weissmann, Eisen, Berke, McCord et al) as strategic thinkers -the brain trust- behind the Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecution, then you might see the dynamic in this story.
Previously, amid his grand prose and proclamations outlining his spectacular and magnificent legal constructs, wunderkind Jack Smith was so confident in his case he strategically announced he would demand a “speedy trial” in order to preserve the great American democracy.
If you see Lawfare as a narrative construct, the pontification made sense.
However, less than two weeks later, suddenly the ever-confident Jack Smith is reversing his position and asking Florida Judge Cannon to delay the trial.
(Via NBC) – Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case to delay the start of his criminal trial until December.
The request came in a series of new motions filed late Friday by the special counsel.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had set a tentative date of Aug. 14 for the start of the trial. (more)
Remember, Lawfare is first and foremost a narrative construct intended for public media consumption. Lawfare originates from the perspective of an established legal goal, and then all of the activity is structured around supporting that goal. [A version of find me the man I’ll find you the crime.]
Lawfare is the opposite of following evidence. In fact, in its purest and most visible form, political Lawfare actually requires the ignoring of evidence.
Earlier this evening, President Trump sat down for an extensive interview with Fox’s human cabbage patch doll, Brett Baier. {Direct Rumble Link} Many people were apprehensive about President Trump talking to DC gatekeeper Mr. Baier given that Fox News would like to support the prosecution effort against Trump.
President Trump appears with Baier because President Trump has done nothing wrong. The legal arguments against him, and more succinctly against the power of the office of the president, are nonsensical. There is no person, agency, bureaucracy or process that exists above the executive office of the president.
The President has every right to any and all documents that are created, distributed, reviewed and/or utilized during his administration. WATCH:
Anyone who is saying President Trump did not have the unilateral right to define his presidential records -as he sees fit- needs to answer this question:
Who is this power that supersedes the executive office of the President? and where are they outlined in the constitution?
WE THE PEOPLEare the only entity that grants and/or removes presidential authority. We vest and affirm our power every 4 years to the President of the United States. We do not vest power to a bureaucracy or administrative state that believes they are above the power of We The People. The President reports to us, and we affirm or deny our support with reelection.
There is no governmental system or constitutional process that supersedes the Office of the President within the executive branch.
There are co-equal branches outside the Executive, the Legislative and Judicial branches, with their own constitutional power. However, the Legislative and Judicial cannot impede or reach into in the structure of the Executive to limit the power outlined in the constitution and granted by We The People.
A little more than a week before Special Counsel Jack Smith released his indictment against President Trump, Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen and fellow lawfare travelers, wrote an internal prosecution memo for current Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco to use on behalf of the conscripted Special Counsel. [SEE 186-page Guidance MEMO HERE]
When Jack Smith revealed his indictment in Florida, not accidentally it was almost identical to the guidance memo that Weissmann had written. Even the novel use of the Espionage Act was identical in format to the outline by Weissmann, Eisen and their crew.
Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart is the judge who authorized the fraudulent search warrant used by the DOJ and FBI in the Mar-a-Lago raid against President Trump in August of last year. Today, Judge Reinhart accepted the position of Special Counsel Jack Smith and puts restrictions on President Trump’s ability to defend himself.
Judge Reinhart has approved the motion filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith to restrict President Trump’s access to the materials the DOJ claims to use against him and block the ability of President Trump to state publicly his defense against the evidence. The star chamber of the DOJ Lawfare operation is continuing unabated.
(Via ABC NEWS) – A federal judge on Monday approved a protective order sought by special counsel Jack Smith to keep former President Donald Trump from disclosing sensitive information in his classified documents case.
Smith sought the order to ensure that neither Trump nor codefendant Walt Nauta, Trump’s presidential valet, disclose sensitive information obtained during the discovery process, where prosecutors will show the defense what evidence it has amassed during their investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents since leaving office. (read more)
“The Discovery Materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court,” Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said in the order.
Bill Barr continued his Sunday Talk appearances this week, specifically organized by the apparatus in control of DC, to attack Donald Trump and position the executive branch of government as subservient to the interests of the United States Intelligence Community.
Don’t miss the forest when you are looking at the trees.
Barr is advocating for a system of government that has institutional interests above the constitution. According to Bill Barr, the DOJ, FBI and US Intelligence Community control the Office of the President. Look at what he is saying. The bureaucracy of the administrative state is above the chief executive office holder. The intelligence community supersedes the President.
I’m not putting words in his mouth. Barr believes the President is a functionary of, and in a lesser position than, the unelected people who control institutions that make up the executive branch of government. THIS is what he believes. Get past the parseltongue and obtuse linguistics; this is Barr’s advocacy position. WATCH:
.
Why? Why is he doing this? Does he really believe this? The answer is yes, and essentially what Bill Barr is doing is protecting the system that George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama constructed and then used respectively. Barr is defending the surveillance state, the post-Patriot Act state of intelligence agency control over government.
Bill Barr is protecting the weaponized institutions of the Director of National Intelligence (Bush/Cheney), the Dept of Justice – National Security Division [DOJ-NSD (Obama/Holder)], the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA Court), and the Dept of Homeland Security (Bush/Cheney). These institutions, according to AG Bill Barr, are now in full control of the executive branch, full control of government, and now more powerful than the Office of the President of the United States.
This is the position of the DC system and everyone within it. This is why Bill Barr is positioning himself as the tip of the spear. This position is the entire reason why President Trump was told to hire Bill Barr, because Bill Barr had a job to do…. preserve the institutions, he helped build, at all costs. This is also why Bill Barr protected Robert Mueller, and never impeded the Andrew Weissmann effort.
Bill Barr knows what Jack Smith, Lisa Monaco, Andrew Weissmann, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, David Laufman and Lawfare are doing. Bill Barr supports that effort, because ultimately it preserves the institutions from the corrective action of Donald Trump.
