Those who understand the construct of Lawfare understand the purposes and intents. Lawfare is an outcome of a radical activist pivot point that happened during the Obama administration.

Prior to the Obama-era the radicals tearing down government defended the transparently guilty, their allies and fellow traveling communists. Those who were arrested for violence the radicals supported, were defended, excused and their activity justified.

After the election of Obama, as noted first by author Jack Cashill, something changed; the radicals reversed their position. Instead of defending the transparently guilty, the Obama aligned usurpers -now with actual power at their fingertips- began accusing the transparently innocent.

In the “anger games” era of Barack Obama, the radicals began attacking the innocent and using their allies in media as part of the attack narrative. George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, the Baltimore-six, etc. The list is long; we tracked them all with detailed research; however, the theme amid every story was the same. Isolate, ridicule and marginalize the transparently innocent target and make them appear guilty.

When you think about the construct during the 2016 election and the entirely fraudulent Trump-Russia collusion narrative, you see the same theme continued. Stand back and elevate yourself and you see this era of using completely false accusations transposed over the election.  Essentially, accuse the target, Donald J Trump, of something he was transparently innocent of doing.

After they lost the 2016 election, the radicals did not stop.  They continued constructing entirely false Lawfare stories with the intention to frame the transparently innocent.  This approach had two benefits; (1) radical Lawfare maintained the attack position blocking any reversal of Obama policy, and (2) the Lawfare process covered up their unlawful activity.

Using Lawfare constructed by Main Justice and the FBI, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation became the special counsel Mueller investigation, which became impeachment investigations, which became the Durham investigation, which became the J6 investigation, which became the Jack Smith investigation.  All of it was/is one long Lawfare operation.

(more…)

There is a rather remarkable indictment against congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Texas, CD-28) that everyone should read.  You might remember that Cuellar was openly critical of the Biden border crisis in the latter half of 2021.  Approximately a few weeks after Cuellar was openly and strongly criticizing Biden, FBI agents raided his home {BACKSTORY}.

At the time of the FBI raid (January 2022), everyone noted the visible connection between Cuellar’s criticism of Biden and the launch of the DOJ investigation against him.  The timing was just too convenient.

Last Friday an indictment was unsealed.  Representative Cuellar and his wife are each charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit bribery of a federal official and to have a public official act as an agent of a foreign principal, two counts of bribery of a federal official, two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of violating the ban on public officials acting as agents of a foreign principal, one count of conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering, and five counts of money laundering.

Interestingly, the charges and the activity date back to 2014 and continue over the next ten years culminating in the indictment a decade later.

I would strongly urge people to read THE 54-PAGE INDICTMENT.

What you realize when you read the indictment is exactly what we have talked about on these pages for well over a decade, the business end of American politics.  Cuellar and his wife are a case study in how the average federal politician gets wealthy from selling their office.

All of the DC politicians participate in this type of influence selling.  There are ZERO federal elected officials who do not participate in this process.  And within that dynamic, we find the answer to how the Intelligence Community exists to control all of the DC political systems without any checks in their authority.

(more…)

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]

(more…)

Jason Foster has filed an interesting “motion to intervene” in a court filing against the DOJ effort to keep the legal rationale for a 2017 subpoena hidden. tldr version HERE

Mr. Jason Foster was one of Chuck Grassley’s congressional lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a key Grassley research staffer when the background of the DOJ/FBI Spygate operation against Donald Trump was at its apex.

In a COURT FILING, Jason Foster notes, in September 2017, the DOJ requested and received a court order which it leveraged against Google and Big Tech to gain access to the phone and electronic data of House and Senate staff members. The DOJ then filed Non Disclosure Orders (NDOs) blocking the notification of the target(s), in this example Mr. Foster himself.   Foster wants to know what justification the DOJ gave the judge to get the warrants and subpoena.

I find this motion/filing exceptionally interesting, because the originating DOJ action was in September ’17, when the Mueller cover-up was in full bloom; the Mueller team essentially controlled all of Main Justice (per Rosenstein testimony), and the effort of the DOJ was to keep a bag over the FBI/DOJ activity in the 2016 election.

As Jeff Carlson notes, the “DOJ has kept sealed their “legal rationale” for targeting the communications of congressional staff attorneys for GOP oversight committees.”

Foster notes, this DOJ subpoena appears related to the leak of the “Top Secret” FISA application used against Carter Page.  The media received that leak, in March 2017, and the FBI (Washington Field Office) was investigating how the TS-SCI classified leak originated.  At the same time, the DOJ (“Mueller team”), now in September 2017, had a vested interest monitoring ‘who knew what’ not only about the leak (James Wolfe and Mark Warner), but also about the motives of the special counsel coverup operation.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

Serendipitous timing – SEE HERE

(more…)

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.]

(more…)

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.

(more…)

In 2021 the DOJ Inspector General released an absolutely damning investigation of FBI conduct in the rape and sexual assault of U.S. Gymnasts.  The IG report revealed how FBI agents facilitated Larry Nassar’s sex crimes by taking no action despite numerous witness statements to them.

Worse yet, the FBI never reported evidence of the sexual assaults to local law enforcement – and to top it off, the FBI agents lied during the investigation of their conduct.  The DOJ under AG Bill Barr refused to prosecute the FBI liars, but today the DOJ gave the gymnasts $138 million, bringing the total lawsuit settlement to over a billion dollars.

Michigan State University gave $500 million to more than 300 women and girls who were assaulted. USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee settled for $380 million, and today the DOJ settled for $138 million. No one in the FBI was ever held accountable.

DETROIT — The U.S. Justice Department announced a $138.7 million settlement Tuesday with more than 100 people who accused the FBI of grossly mishandling allegations of sexual assault against Larry Nassar in 2015 and 2016, a critical time gap that allowed the sports doctor to continue to prey on victims before his arrest.

(more…)

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.

(more…)