The Senate immigration bill, aka border security bill, is only designed as the cover for the Senate to send $60 billion more to Ukraine.  The Ukraine money is the priority (corps/lobbyists) the border “security” bill is the technique to create and spend it.

That said, they certainly would not want to let a created and purposeful border crisis go to waste, and they didn’t.  The latest version of the Senate Immigration Reform Bill is now public [SEE HERE].  The proposed Senate border security bill provisions are actually worse than existing non-secure border provisions.

[LINK TO BILL]

America First Legal did a great job hitting on the top-line issues created by this new bill.  In many ways, multiple ways, this supplemental “border security” bill makes things worse.  The bill codifies into law the loopholes currently being used to increase the number of illegal aliens.  By this design the bill makes things worse.

Link to thread taking the bill apart section by section – SEE HERE

(more…)

In the ridiculous federal election interference case in D.C., President Trump’s attorneys argued to the DC Circuit appellate court that President Trump holds inherent constitutional immunity. In essence, because President Trump was acquitted by the Senate of claims he incited or instigated the January 6, 2021, events, lawyers arguing under the constitution that only impeached and removed presidents can be criminally prosecuted.

The initial 3-judge panel of the court has taken up the appeal, and all subsequent lower court activity was suspended until the constitutional issue is resolved. Again, if President Trump does not have immunity, then all preceding and future presidents can be criminally prosecuted for any/all events and decisions while holding office. This is a core issue, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has to tread very carefully with these ramifications at the forefront.

The decision of the 3-judge panel could also be followed by a full en-banc review by all judges in the circuit. Then, depending on their decision, it could -likely will- go even higher to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this takes time, and the initial 3-judge appeals court have not provided any hints on their timeline.

Apparently, as a consequence, the entire trial of the case has been removed from the lower DC court docket. The removal took place within the last few days, and the Washington Post noticed the removal. This removal means the timing of the case, if at all, is completely unknown now.

WASHINGTON – Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal.

(more…)

In his own words, Senator James Lankford says if President Trump was president today the border crisis would not exist, because the existing law would be enforced.  Simultaneous to this, the same Senator Lankford says the new law he proposes will create significant border enforcement.

If the executive branch can ignore the current border enforcement law (they can and do), what makes Lankford believe new legislation will not be ignored by the same executive branch (they will)?  This non-pretending reality frames the essential point:  the element of “enforcement” is not within the legislative branch, so the entire effort is a moot exercise. WATCH:

Margaret Brennan is especially annoying in this interview.

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by Oklahoma Republican James Lankford. He’s in Oklahoma City this morning. Good morning to you, sir, it has taken you two months to get this bipartisan deal. Do you have the support of your fellow Republicans to actually vote this through?

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD: Well, actually, I wish it would have taken only two months. It’s taken about four months to be able to go through this, we started in October. Everyone’s looking to be able to read the bill at this point. That’s the key aspect, we’re working on the final aspects of it to try to be able to get it out. So everyone can get a chance to read it. Right now, they’re all functioning off of internet rumors of what’s in the bill, and many of them are false. So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it. And to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes and how we handle our immigration system, and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That’s been the simple request of Americans, whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or independent, people just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we’re not promoting illegal immigration. And that’s what we’ve seen in the last three years.

(more…)

Texas Governor Greg Abbott calls in for an interview about the federal -vs- state conflict on border security.  Gov. Greg Abbott says ten other states have already sent national guard to the Texas border, and others will follow. Abbott says he is “prepared” for a conflict with federal authorities.

Following the Abbott interview, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joins Carlson in the larger legal discussion. WATCH:

.

(more…)

Boy howdy… when things get interesting, they REALLY get interesting.

In an effort to deflect attention from the gross corruption she initiated in the prosecution of Donald Trump, Atlanta District Attorney Fani Willis stepped into the middle of a contentious divorce between Willis’s married lover and appointed Special Prosecutor, Nathan Wade, and his wife, Joycelyn Wade.

After discovering details of the relationship between Nathan Wade and Fani Willis, lawyers representing Mrs. Joycelyn Wade wanted a deposition of Fani Willis.  At issue are the finances in the marriage and Mrs. Wade’s discovery that her husband, Nathan Wade, and Fani Willis had been living a life of indulgence from the marital income received (more than $650, 000) as a result of DA Willis hiring Nathan Wade to prosecute Donald Trump.

In an over-the-top court filing trying to avoid the deposition, the Fulton County’s district attorney accused the estranged wife of conspiring to undermine the Trump prosecution by seeking her testimony.  Fani Willis does not deny the affair; instead, she accuses Joycelyn Wade of coordinating with Trump people and co-defendants to interfere with the prosecution.

(VIA AJC Politics) – Fulton County’s district attorney on Thursday fired back at allegations she has engaged in an “improper” relationship with her top deputy, accusing his estranged wife of trying to obstruct her prosecution of Donald Trump and his allies. (more)

That approach by Fani Willis opened up a can of worms the district attorney likely didn’t expect.  Because Mrs. Jocelyn Wade has credit card statements and receipts showing how her husband booked and paid for lavish travel, expenses and indulgences using Fani Willis’s real name as his companion. [pdf response motion].

[Source pdf, with attachments]

The details and credit card statements are attached to the filing, which substantiates and supports the originating court filing by one of the co-defendants who made the allegation against Fani Willis and Nathan Wade.

(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…)

NBC published an extensive article outlining how the DC administrative state is responding to the potential for another President Trump victory [SEE HERE].

Once again, a very specific name surfaces who is part of the organizational effort to stop Donald Trump.  {EMPHASIS mine}

(NBC) – […]  Now, bracing for Trump’s potential return, a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power, which could include pressuring the military to cater to his political needs.

Those taking part in the effort told NBC News they are studying Trump’s past actions and 2024 policy positions so that they will be ready if he wins in November. That involves preparing to take legal action and send letters to Trump appointees spelling out consequences they’d face if they undermine constitutional norms.

“We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to,” said Mary McCord, executive director of the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law.

Part of the aim is to identify like-minded organizations and create a coalition to challenge Trump from day one, those taking part in the discussions said. Some participants are combing through policy papers being crafted for a future conservative administration. They’re also watching the interviews that Trump allies are giving to the press for clues to how a Trump sequel would look. (more)

There she is again, Mary McCord, the former head of the DOJ National Security Division, and the one specific functionary that is found at the epicenter of every single deep state Lawfare operation against President Trump.   However, that citation is not the biggest reveal in the past several days….

(more…)

Everything about the case in New York City against the Trump Organization business operations is ridiculous.  There are no victims.  There was no fraud.  All of the lenders did their own due diligence.  All of the loans were paid back without issue, and the statement of financial condition was factual and accurate.  There were no defaults or banking interests adversely impacted. There are no victims of what the State calls “fraud.”

New York Attorney General Latisha James campaigned for office with promises to target the Trump Organization and Donald Trump himself.  This is malicious Lawfare in the extreme.  Additionally, the statute being used as the predicate for the case is a consumer fraud statute, intended to protect borrowers from predatory lenders. In the four corners of this case, Trump is the borrower, and the banks were the lenders.  New York is flipping the statute to claim the borrower defrauded the lenders, despite the lenders denying there was any fraud and there was no harm.   The entire case is ridiculous.

Appearing on CNN, O’Leary Ventures Chairman Kevin O’Leary outlines, to a perplexed Laura Coates, why Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York is political nonsense. WATCH (prompted):

TRANSCRIPT – O’LEARY: Well, let’s leave out Trump for a minute, and let’s leave out politics, and just talk about what happens in real estate development anywhere. So, if you’re a developer and you’ve got a building on the block, anywhere in America, and it’s worth, let’s say, $500 million, and you want to build a building right beside it, you go to the bank and say, “This building is worth $500 million. I’d like to borrow a construction finance loan against this asset, and I want you to tell me it’s worth $500 million too.”

(more…)

President Donald Trump’s lawyer was asked about presidential immunity on Tuesday, by Federal Judge Florence Pan.  The specifics of the question surrounded if President Trump could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate an American citizen (or presidential candidate) and if Absolute Immunity would apply.

President Trump’s attorney was prepared to answer the hypothetical question with a “qualified yes“; however, unfortunately the lawyer was not prepared to give Judge Pan a real-world example of this action that recently took place.   It’s not a hypothetical; it was done recently.  President Obama did exactly this.

CITATION – “Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; (April 1971 – 30 September 2011) was an American Islamic scholar and lecturer who was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a U.S. government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a drone strike from the U.S government.

President Barack Obama had absolute immunity for ordering the intentional killing of American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaqi.  The issue of him being a presidential candidate is a non sequitur.

If Presidents did not have absolute immunity, or if the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals removes absolute immunity from President Trump, then Barack Obama can immediately be charged and arrested for killing al-Awlaqi. There is no statute of limitations for murder.  Yes, this is the cold truth of the matter.

Additionally, 16-year-old American Citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was killed in the same military assassination.  Abdulrahman, a child, was standing next to his father; he was never accused of any wrongdoing; he was never charged with any unlawful conduct; he was an innocent bystander.

In 2011 when the Obama administration was questioned about killing the teenager, White House Spokesperson Robert Gibbs said, “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

(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…)