Moments ago, 900+ career DOJ lawyers signed an open letter in support of ongoing Lawfare operations against President Trump and the American judicial system.

[SOURCE – w/ pages of signatories]

Put another way, 900 career DOJ lawyers, who used Main Justice as their platform to participate in corrupting and weaponizing the American judicial system for their own financial benefit, have now publicly self-identified.

These are the legal abusers within the system. The professional gaslighters, Lawfare activists and legally trained abusers of trust, who twist, distort and tear at the foundational fabric of our constitutional republic, while claiming moral superiority and cloaking their efforts under the guise of victimhood.

They are self-identifying and self-deporting from the system.  America is winning again.

(more…)

When Elon Musk asked how Norm Eisen could be financed, I replied, “If the United States govt gave money to Qatar, knowing Qatar was going to send that money to organizations within the USA intended to carry out an objective of a small group in U.S. govt., what would that be called?”

Qatar is a major source of funding for the Brookings Institute.  Brookings funds various Lawfare operations, including Norm Eisen.  The extended process is quite simple. If elements within the U.S. Govt., wanted to indirectly fund Brookings, could they do it by sending funds to Qatar?

The question is not supposition, because this was the exact process Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta used for the State Dept to send weapons to the Libyan “rebels,” aka Operation Zero Footprint.

Operation Zero Footprint was the State Dept/CIA sending funds to Qatar, and the Qatari govt then purchasing missiles from the CIA to give to al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya.  We can consider the historic Iran-Contra scandal under a similar framework. However, the nuanced difference is about sending money toward a foreign govt (via USAID), while knowing the money would return to fund a domestic agenda inside the USA.

Example: USAID sends money to the U.K, and then British political allies send political operatives into the USA to support Kamala Harris.  We know the latter part of that sentence happened.  So, did the Biden administration (Samantha Power) fund the Labour Party operation?

Are the various political NGOs and activist groups in the USA actually funded, indirectly, by U.S. taxpayers?  Many signs point to, yes.

Against this high likelihood, it becomes just a natural extension of the process if U.S. politicians are beneficiaries of the circular laundry operation. That is what Representative Tim Burchett believes will surface if the DOGE team follow the money trail.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

With an appeal to the Supreme Court to stop the unconstitutional Lawfare restraining orders, and with support from growing district appellate court reviews, earlier today federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan surprisingly refused to issue another temporary restraining order.

Hours before, President Trump announced his nomination of Ed Martin to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.  It appears the Lawfare pushback operation is actively underway.

President Trump – “It is my honor to nominate highly respected Edward R. Martin, Jr., for the full and permanent term of United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Ed has led a distinguished career of service, including as Human Rights Office Director for the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, where he supervised legal clinics for low-income residents. He later worked as judicial clerk to Judge Pasco M. Bowman, II, of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, and launched his own successful Law practice. He has also invested his expertise in other roles, but always with the same goal, of serving his community, and creating a brighter future for all.

Since Inauguration Day, Ed has been doing a great job as Interim U.S. Attorney, fighting tirelessly to restore Law and Order, and make our Nation’s Capital Safe and Beautiful Again. He will get the job done.

Congratulations Ed!” [Truth Social]

(more…)

The background here is interesting.  Late last night, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan called for an unusual hearing on a federal holiday to hear the arguments of 14 states who are seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Elon Musk and the Dept of Govt Efficiency (DOGE).

It’s interesting because Judge Chutkan called for the hearing today just 45 minutes after Trump’s U.S Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to intervene on the matter of judicial TRO’s issued against President Trump’s Title II authority.  Last night in another case, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed an “APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY” with the Supreme Court. [pdf HERE] 45 minutes later Chutkan called for today’s TRO hearing.

District Judge Chutkan refused to issue the TRO today, saying she would take up the matter later.

(Via Politico) – […] the judge said granting the temporary restraining order sought as part of a lawsuit brought by Democratic attorneys general required much clearer evidence that DOGE’s actions were causing grave, permanent damage. Instead, she said, states had relied primarily on news reports that speculated about the risks of Musk and DOGE’s actions, some of which she said could potentially be remedied in further litigation.

“I’m not seeing it so far. … It’s sort of like a prophylactic TRO and that’s not allowed,” Chutkan said, adding that she hoped to issue a ruling within 24 hours. “The courts can’t act based on media reports. We can’t do that.” 

(more…)

On Sunday, when CBS’s Margaret Brennan shockingly claimed that “free speech” was the cause of the German holocaust and rise in Naziism, a stunned Secretary of State Marco Rubio simply replied, “I have to fundamentally disagree with you, Margaret.”  The reaction from American observers toward the interview, and in particular Vice-President JD Vance, was much less diplomatic. “This is a crazy exchange,” Vance said.

However, a few hours later the background context for Brennan’s position surfaced, when CBS 60 Minutes broadcast a defense of German laws that make it illegal to say something that can be construed as “insulting.”  The CBS segment is naturally alarming to people who will not accept definitions of approved speech determined by government officials; especially for most Americans who have experienced the extreme online control operations by govt interests around the COVID-19 fiasco.  Watch (prompted):

This is the mindset that JD Vance encountered following his honest remarks to the Munich Security Conference.  The Vice-President outlined in his remarks that Europe was devolving into a totalitarian state, destroying democracy and using the power of government against the freewill and liberty of the European people.

Vance was pointing out the big picture of liberty, freedom and the value of democracy.  After citing examples of oppressive EU action that included the nullification of the Romanian election, Vice-President Vance noted in his comments, “there is no security if you are afraid of the voices of your own people,” he said.  Continuing, “if you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing the American people can do to assist you.”  The EU collective, and specifically the German political leadership immediately decried the brutally honest remarks.

There is a particular irony in Germany saying that controversial speech is not protected speech, arresting people for what the state considers online antagonism, and then decrying Vice-President Vance for calling them out.  The need for control is a reaction to fear (inherent insecurity), and the actions by the German government are extreme.  However, for Germany this is particularly ironic.

(more…)

The Trump administration is experiencing an unprecedented move by federal judges who are overstepping their constitutional limits and ordering Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against President Trump.  The judicial activism is in support of ongoing Lawfare operations within the deepest ranks of the administrative state.

Remember, Lawfare in its purest form is not designed to win the final legal battle. Instead, it is a construct to use the law to create obstacles that will eventually fall under higher judicial review; but the larger intent is to impede the presidency, stall the inevitable, and maintain morale for the political activists and their media support systems.  Lawfare is a political construct intended to manipulate public opinion.

In the Dellinger v Bessent case, where President Trump has fired Hampton Dellinger at Treasury, a three-judge District of Columbia, Circuit Court, have intervened and maintained a TRO against President Trump blocking him from removing Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, at the Treasury Dept. [CASE pdf HERE]

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C. issued a temporary restraining order on February 12, restoring Dellinger to his position pending a further, preliminary order.  The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the administration’s appeal in a 2-1 decision on Saturday, saying it was premature, given that Jackson’s order was only temporary.

Judge Florence Pan and Judge J Michelle Childs, both activist robed women, ruled to maintain the TRO and deny injunctive appellate relief.  Judge Gregory Katsas dissented from the Lawfare decision saying while TRO’s are not usually appealable, in this instance the TRO violates the Article II constitutional power of the President to conduct his official duties.  [Dissent Outlined Below]  Katsas would have granted the government’s stay.

Regardless of the DC Circuit Court decision, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has now filed an “APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY” with the Supreme Court. [pdf HERE] The application by Acting SG Harris relies heavily on the dissenting opinion of Judge Katsas.

(more…)

I’ve been a little quiet on the Lawfare challenges to the DOGE mission in part because we’ve been sending CTH research files up through the silo to the legal eagles who need it.  Additionally, few -if any- of the outside legal filings against the administration are going to survive judicial review.

Quite simply, most of what the public is witnessing, almost entirely driven by funded media outlets, is simple Lawfare.  Remember, “Lawfare” in its purest form is not a legitimate legal challenge; it is a construct to create optics, frame narratives and fundraise for desperate leftists.

The underpinning of Lawfare is not designed to withstand legal scrutiny; it is a ruse, simply narrative and public opinion shaping. That’s it.

Interestingly a familiar name surfaced last night when District Judge John Bates essentially destroyed three of the legal challenges against Musk and DOGE when he determined that DOGE was acting as an “agency of government” appointed by President Trump.  Executive agencies have the ability to detail their employees to other agencies to conduct review and audits at the request of the executive, Trump.

“For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency. If that is so, [DOGE] may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act,” Judge Bates wrote.

This ruling opens up the Labor Department, Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to review by the DOGE employees.

This gets interesting because Judge John Bates was a previous presiding judge of the FISA court and has spoken at length about supporting the FISA-702 process.  Judge Bates has defended the FBI/DOJ/Contractor use of the NSA database.

(more…)

Leftist journalist Jason Leopold filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ/FBI a few years ago, seeking the documents and background material assembled by the DOJ, FBI and Special Counsel Jack Smith in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  With the Mar-a-Lago case against Trump dismissed by a Florida judge, and effectively dropped by Special Counsel Jack Smith.  The justification for withholding the responsive material is no longer valid.

This has resulted in anti-Trump U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, now ruling that anti-Trump journalist Jason Leopold should be given the FOIA documents by the FBI and DOJ. [Ruling pdf here].  Essentially, Howell is saying, angrily, that with President Trump immune from criminal liability (SCOTUS immunity decision), the only public recourse for accountability is sunlight from within the evidence the FBI assembled.

Here is where it gets interesting.

The DOJ/FBI Special Counsel, previously said to the Florida court they would not reveal the content of the information because it was “classified” under “national security” grounds.  You might remember President Trump’s legal position was to make the content public because Trump said there was no classified material.

To reconcile the issue, during discovery phase Florida Judge Cannon appointed a Special Master to review the “classified” documents.  The FBI and Jack Smith balked at the demand and filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit to keep the Trump defense from reviewing what Jack Smith said were “documents marked classified.”  Smith didn’t want the documents made public or revealed to President Trump, so the DOJ/FBI position was that the documents were too sensitive (TSCI) with “national security” implications.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government position that any documents defined as “classified” by the executive branch (now Biden) that claimed, “national security,” should not be disclosed to the defendant, Trump.  The court of appeals essentially determined that all definitions by the executive branch, are not questionable by the judicial branch.

(more…)

Lawyers representing President Trump and the office of the presidency have filed an urgent response motion to remove a court order by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer that blocked the Treasury Secretary and “political appointees” from accessing Treasury Department systems. [SEE ADMINISTRATION FILING HERE]

The filing is in response to District Judge Engelmayer’s blatant effort to engage in judicial activism and violate the Article II separation of power.  The Chief executive cannot be limited in scope or activity by the judicial branch, let alone a single circuit court judge within the regional judicial branch who is attempting to block the executive branch nationally.

[Source pdf]

“Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency’s work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the president,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in the 11-page filing, calling the order “impermissible” and “anti-constitutional.”

(more…)

In a stunning and sweeping emergency injunction that has even stunned the people who demanded it, a Manhattan-based District Judge has just removed Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent from his authority over the Treasury Department; blocked any political appointee from accessing records within the Treasury Department; blocked any “special appointee” of President Trump from records within Treasury; and demanded that all information previously extracted be destroyed.

The emergency injunction was signed by District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan, {Ruling pdf Here} determined without any input from the Trump administration and applies until Friday, February 14, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas will hear the full arguments of the lawsuit.

The emergency ruling comes as a result of 15 (Soros installed) attorneys general from New Jersey, New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Vermont, all filed suit in New York seeking to block Elon Musk and DOGE from access to information that would reveal how activist groups in their states have been funded by the U.S. government. [Link to Press Release Here]

WASHINGTON – […] The lawsuit said Musk and his team could disrupt federal funding for health clinics, preschools, climate initiatives, and other programs, and that Republican President Donald Trump could use the information to further his political agenda.

DOGE’s access to the system also “poses huge cybersecurity risks that put vast amounts of funding for the States and their residents in peril,” the state attorneys general said. They sought a temporary restraining order blocking DOGE’s access.

(more…)