Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appears with Steve Bannon to discuss the results of last night’s primary election in the lone star state. {Direct Rumble Link Here}.
CTH has stated several times that Texas is not as politically solid red as most believe; in part this is driven by the nature of how Texas politics are organized. The open primary in Texas is part of the political construct that permits Democrats to influence Republican races, and as a result controls the outcomes of legislative policy. AG Ken Paxton talks about how the Republican speaker of the house is decided by Democrats.
At the 7:00 minute mark of the video (prompted), AG Paxton begins discussing his own interactions with the Federal Bureau of Investigation as it pertains to his federal targeting by them. Attorney General Paxton does not pull punches as he describes a totally rogue FBI institution that is now fully weaponized against the interests of the American people. For us this is not a surprise {GO DEEP}; however, for the average person who is not as dialed in to the details of the corruption, these comments by Ken Paxton are a big trumpetsiren.
.
[TRANSCRIPT] – […] “AG Ken Paxton: Steve, I’m telling you, they are the Gestapo. We’re in Venezuela. We might as well be in China. We might as well be in Germany during the ’30s and ’40s. It is corrupt. It is the Gestapo. They don’t follow any laws anymore, and no one can stop them. And because of what happened to me, these other AGs are afraid to do anything anyway. So there’s a lot of fear because what can you do? How do you stop them?
HatTip The Gateway Pundit – These remarks by former Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant are somewhat shocking to hear said out loud.
Governor Phil Bryant: “I’m the campaign finance director for Donald Trump in Mississippi, so we raise money. I’ve talked to a number of very wealthy individuals that God has blessed that say I can’t give money to Donald Trump because the FBI will show up at my door.”
One of the more sad, albeit predictable, aspects to the politicization of American justice institutions is that there’s less and less shock associated with the dropping of pretenses. Many people on these pages and in the discussions across the internet warned several years ago that downstream from the weaponized government was going to be an end-point era where all trust was dissolved. We are essentially at that point now.
While both wings of the UniParty apparatus in DC played together in the creation of the post 9-11 surveillance state, it was the Obama administration who added the weaponization knob based on political ideology.
Weaponizing the DOJ and FBI via the Intelligence Community (2012 and beyond) was an outcropping of the previous weaponization of the IRS and regulatory system (2009 to 2012). When I discuss this issue with people, I like to draw attention to the Obama and Eric Holder continuum.
The National Security Division of the DOJ (DOJ-NSD) was created by Eric Holder specifically to function as a weaponized agency, using FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) as the tool for the surveillance and targeting. While the NSD system was being put into place (2009/2010), Main Justice requested the CD ROMs from the IRS containing the Schedule-Bs of every 501(c-4) political organization. The DOJ quickly settled the class action lawsuit brought by conservative groups.
With the spotlight on the Cincinnati office (Louis Lerner), Obama moved his Chief of Staff Jack Lew into position as Treasury Secretary. The DOJ under Eric Holder then moved away from using the IRS and began to using the NSA database (weaponized FISA-702 authority) in 2012.
Judge Aileen Cannon has rejected the request by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to ban President Trump from talking about the DOJ/FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, and/or the circumstances that led to the Biden administration approving the use of deadly force.
FLORIDA – […] U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon turned down the gag order request Tuesday as she delivered another sharp warning to prosecutors that they need to make more concerted efforts at dialogue with Trump’s counsel before bringing disputes to the court.
“The Court finds the Special Counsel’s pro forma ‘conferral’ [with the defense] to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy,” wrote Cannon, a Trump appointee. “It should go without saying that meaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise.”
After it was revealed that Attorney General Merrick Garland, the FBI and DOJ added language to their search warrant permitting the FBI to use deadly force against President Trump and/or his security detail during the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, President Trump responded with shock.
Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a motion to amend the bail conditions for President Trump on Friday night. Prosecutor Smith wants Judge Cannon to forbid President Trump from talking about the FBI agents who conducted the armed raid and used the search warrant. [PDF Court Motion Here]
There is a profound irony in Jack Smith seeking to block President Trump from talking about the FBI conduct, as the former president’s remarks might create “misleading impressions” about the details of the raid. The DOJ and FBI have been leaking “misleading impressions” to the media for almost 9 years about the FBI operation investigation of Donald Trump.
For nine years, more than 40 highly political assigned FBI agents have been fabricating stories and leaking them to the media; yet, it is President Trump who the DOJ worries might create “misleading impressions.” The issue would be farcical if the lying FBI topic was not so serious.
I mean seriously, think about it. There was never any merit, not even a scintilla of plausible merit, to the FBI baseline that Donald J. Trump was colluding with Russians to win the 2016 election. There was ZERO evidence of any type of coordination, collusion or creation of any assistance by Trump officials and any Russian people about manipulating the election. However, despite that reality, more than 40 FBI agents worked on the case(s), first with Crossfire Hurricane then with Robert Mueller for over 4 years.
Some people are expressing shock that the FBI was prepared to use deadly force against President Trump and his Secret Service security detail during the DOJ raid on Mar-a-Lago. Julie Kelly has the DETAILS HERE.
I am not surprised in the least. Remember, the objective of the FBI raid was to resecure the physical evidence that President Trump had showing how the DOJ and FBI action in 2016 was targeting him using the power of their law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The origination of all the DOJ/FBI/IC issues goes back to the ’15/’16 FBI exploitation of the NSA database; this is not a contested discussion issue – it’s just continually forgotten.
The FBI was using their access to the NSA metadata of all Americans, to conduct surveillance on political candidates that might be a threat to the power structures that exploited the secrets within the electronic records of all Americans. The FBI was/is conducting domestic surveillance and tracking just like the German Stasi or Soviet KGB. It’s still happening, but we are not supposed to remember or something.
The raid on Mar-a-Lago, just like the Robert Mueller investigation, was part of the long standing coverup operation. The FBI was looking for what Trump took with him as evidence of the weaponized system that targeted him. The FBI wanted that back. The FBI was willing to use deadly force to get it back if that’s what it took.
The raid involved 25 Miami FBI agents, four Washington FBI agents, one unidentified individual from FBI Headquarters, one DOJ attorney, and the assistant U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of Florida. (MORE)
Yes, apparently the FBI was prepared to engage in a gun battle or kill people in Mar-a-Lago in order to retake the evidence against them. I know it sounds scarey, but that’s the reality of our modern FBI. These are not good people. Remember also that AG Merrick Garland said he authorized every facet of the raid.
I keep trying to drive the point home, these are not good people…. yet, many refuse to accept, pretend it just can’t be that bad, or keep forgetting the real examples that prove how bad the FBI is.
Judge Aileen Cannon has issued an order [SEE HERE] canceling the original trial date and suspending the trial proceedings pending resolution of multiple pre-trial issues. Lawfare is big mad.
(Via Politico) – […] The date had been widely expected to move amid a tangle of pretrial conflicts between special counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s attorneys. Smith had urged Judge Aileen Cannon to reschedule the trial to begin on July 8, but an order from the judge on Tuesday afternoon suggested that she is unlikely to even decide on a new trial date before late July.
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.
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.
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.]
If you have followed law and politics for any length of time, you have probably heard of “speaking indictments.” That’s where the prosecution will write an indictment or court motion with very granular -yet perhaps not pertinent- details of a case against a suspect that highlights a much bigger picture than a singular perspective against the individual defendant. The intent is to make the public aware of the details within a case by making them part of the court record.
In the Special Counsel Jack Smith constructed Lawfare case against Donald Trump, what is generally called “the documents case”, involving the raid on Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, did something similar to a speaking indictment with an extensive court motion on January 16, 2024. The 68-page motion is a comprehensive “speaking motion” which outlines a great deal of the fraud and Lawfare manipulation by the special counsel. [SEE DOCUMENT HERE]
In response to the filing, using the pre-established legal narrative about needing to control “national security” information [SEE HERE], the Jack Smith team (essentially Lawfare operatives like Weissman, Eisen and McCord) redacted large portions of the Trump motion specifically to stop the public record from showing the outline. However, two days ago, April 22nd, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed and more importantly ‘unredacted’ the motion.
Keep in mind, back in the beginning of the pre-trial discovery phase -in response to the filing by Trump- Jack Smith gave the judge the opinion of the DOJ [SEE HERE] toward discovery and documents. As noted, and summarized well by Julie Kelly:
To clear up any confusion as to what Special Counsel Jack Smith sought to conceal in classified documents case, this is what Smith told Judge Cannon in Feb 2024 in response to Trump’s motion to compel discovery from numerous govt agencies:
1) Defendants are not entitled to discovery of internal government correspondence and memoranda, or to documents that are otherwise privileged.
2) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence of ‘Improper Coordination with NARA’ and of ‘Bias and Investigative Misconduct.’
3) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Trump’s Security Clearance With The Department of Energy.
4) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Secure Facilities at President Trump’s Residences.
5) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Production of Materials Concerning the Search of Mar-a-Lago.
AND FINALLY:
6) Defendants’ Request for Unredacted Discovery of Materials Should Be Denied.
