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…)

Acting Attorney General James McHenry has fired more than a dozen career prosecutors from Main Justice citing their work with the Special Counsel Jack Smith targeting of President Trump.  This is an exceptionally valuable non-pretending approach toward eliminating the weaponization of the DOJ, the history of the manipulation of the DOJ/FBI serves as the backdrop.

Remember when Robert Mueller spent 2 years investigating the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense, and it was later discovered the investigative team (5o FBI agents) knew in January 2017, the Trump-Russia collusion claim was false.  Why did those 50 FBI agents remain employed, when it was clear they knew there was no basis for the accusations?  The simple non-pretending questions are always the starkest.

That’s the sentiment behind current Acting AG James McHenry, firing the lawyers who worked with Jack Smith.  In addition to the fabrication of a prosecutorial predicate, the deployment of Lawfare is not based on factual law.  The prosecutors showed their political bias by willingly engaging in a prosecution they understood was without merit.

(WASHINGTON AP) – […] The abrupt termination targeting career prosecutors who worked on special counsel Jack Smith’s team is the latest sign of upheaval inside the Justice Department and is consistent with the administration’s determination to purge the government of workers it perceives as disloyal to the president.

(more…)

CBS’s Margaret Brennan is desperate to secure her role as an established leader of the media resistance; in part, due to her peers losing their jobs, positions and relevance in the aftermath of President Trump’s reelection and the collapse of the business model for multiple media outlets.

Vice President JD Vance is interviewed by Brennan in part due to her intent going in.  Vance was very well prepared in substance and structure to confront the insufferable media narrative represented in the tone, content and construct of Brennan’s activist and contrarian position.

The majority of Americans hate the media; Margaret Brennan showcases why.  However, the interview (or transcript – below) is well worth reviewing, because JD Vance took her narrative talking points, wound them into a tight intellectual cloth and slapped her across the face for almost 20 solid minutes. WATCH: 

The part about Tulsi Gabbard is really good.

…”She recognizes the bureaucrats have gotten out of control, and we need somebody there who’s going to rein them in and return those services to their core mission of identifying information that’s going to keep us safe.“

Not identifying or outlining “action.” Not “actionable priorities.” Not articulating targeted “stakeholder” interests. Not creating action. Simply “identifying information“… Yes. Yes. Yes. Let the executive, the commander in chief, determine outcome. Just provide clear, raw, factual, intelligence information. Full stop. Core mission. Nothing more. He knows.

[TRANSCRIPT] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Vice President, if you’re ready, we’ll dive right in.

VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Ready to go.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, both defense secretaries from President Trump’s last term were confirmed overwhelmingly, 90 percent of the vote. Pete Hegseth, it was a tie, bipartisan opposition, smallest margin since the job was created. You had to break that tie. If the nominee can’t unite your party, how is he going to lead three million people?

(more…)

Last week Florida Judge Aileen Cannon outlined her skepticism about the motive and timing of the Biden-Garland DOJ seeking approval to send congressional representatives a volume II report outlining the Jack Smith investigation of President Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  Today in a 14-page ruling [SEE HERE] Judge Cannon blocked the DOJ effort.

While Jack Smith and the DOJ dropped the case against President Trump, there are still two defendants in the defunct case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.  Judge Cannon saw through the political Lawfare motive behind the report and noted there were numerous references to grand jury evidence and other materials that should never reach the public or violate the legal protections still afforded in the case.

WASHINGTON DC – […] In blocking lawmakers from seeing the documents report, Cannon wrote that Congress hadn’t subpoenaed it, requested a confidential review or identified legislation that would be aided by accessing Smith’s findings. Though the department has, in recent years, quickly shared the findings of special counsel investigations with lawmakers, Cannon said doing so in this case would result in a “reasonable likelihood” of “public dissemination.”

Cannon repeatedly slammed Garland and his subordinates, saying their claims about the need to show the report to Congress don’t hold water.

(more…)

Kash Patel has been nominated to the position of FBI Director.  Patel’s nomination is strongly opposed by a full spectrum of Senate UniParty members; however, many of those same senators are fearful of the sunlight the denial of position would bring with it.

During President Trump’s confirmation celebration at Capitol One Arena in Washington, D.C., nominee Kash Patel spoke to the audience about the restoration of the American dream.

.

(more…)

Literally minutes before he leaves office, Joe Biden just issued blanket pardons for his closest family.  Having previously pardoned Hunter Biden, the departing executive just pardoned his brothers, James and Frank, along with his sister Valerie, and their spouses.

The Biden family crime syndicate, those who engaged in the benefit of Joe Biden selling the influence of his office for financial gain, are attempting to preemptively pardon themselves from any investigation or prosecution of their criminal conduct.

White House – […] That is why I am exercising my power under the Constitution to pardon James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden. The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense. (read more)

Recent legal debate has surrounded the issue of a prosecutor who may bring an indictment against a person after they have been issued a pardon. The state may present evidence of the crime. The defendant may (or may elect not to) present exculpatory evidence or a defense and also plead the pardon.

The court might (or might not) proceed to render a verdict or judgment. If convicted, the defendant may (or may not) invoke the pardon, which prevents any criminal sentence from being issued. (i.e., the defendant may prefer obtaining a verdict of “not guilty” to a pardon.)

(more…)