“What Really Happened? An Insider’s Perspective on Representing the President and Claims of Election Fraud” – an interview with Professor John Eastman, scholar of Constitutional law and Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute, moderated by Amber Athey, Washington Editor of Spectator USA and Tony Blankley Senior Fellow with Steamboat Institute:

Professor John Eastman was retained as legal counsel by President Trump following the 2020 election to examine possible fraudulent activities that could have influenced the outcome of the election. In this interview, Professor Eastman describes what it was like to be in the Oval Office with President Trump and Vice President Pence during those tense post-election weeks with the election outcome hanging in the balance.

.

Professor Eastman also explains what he learned about possible election improprieties and what facts are available for the general public to know and to gain a better understanding of what really happened.

Steamboat Institute is proud to present this interview with the hope that it will lead to a better understanding of what really happened in the 2020 election and how we, as citizens responsible for defending our republic, can safeguard the integrity of our electoral process.

(more…)

Earlier today Joe Biden raised some eyebrows when he said “no amendment to the constitution is absolute.”   The first ten amendments to the constitution are commonly known as “The Bill of Rights.”

The occupant of the oval office, and head of the executive branch, saying the Bill of Rights is not absolute, should be challenged immediately to qualify that statement.

.
As a reminder:

♦ Amendment 1
– Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

♦ Amendment 2
– The Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

(more…)

This is long overdue, and worthy of support.  Most CTH readers are now aware what the Lawfare group is all about.  Inside the Lawfare network the far-left political ideologues organize and launch attacks against anything they view as adverse to their interests.  The Lawfare network is made up of Obama ideologues and former DOJ officials who manipulate the legal system for their political agenda.

Many, if not most, of the legal aspects connected to attacks against conservatives stem from inside this Lawfare network.  They operate inside government and outside in the private sector and compliment each other in their unified agenda.  An example was the attack against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh by both groups.

During her Senate testimony Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey-Ford ,called the network her “beach friends” connecting the casual relationship they all carry.  The Lawfare group operate inside the DOJ, inside the FBI, inside the State Department and inside the institutions of government.  They connect ideologically to their allies in the private sector law firms and they share insider information to coordinate their attacks.

The Lawfare group also has a media strategy.  If the inside government group needs to advance a narrative to advance their interests they will leak to media (ex. Lisa Page and Peter Strzok leaking to Devlin Barrett, WSJ); and/or leak to their middle-men outside in the private sector who will leak to media on their behalf (ex James Comey to Daniel Richman who then conveys to the New York Times).

Today, former Senior Advisor Stephen Miller announces his launch of a Lawfare group of his own; a counter force against the conniving leftist objectives.  Miller is calling his MAGA legal network “America First Legal”.

(more…)

Let’s be clear about the motives of a fully weaponized DOJ here.  The DOJ is looking for any way to destroy Donald J Trump.  As long as he exists in the sphere of political influence, he represents a risk to their objectives.

Direct targeting of Donald Trump has not succeeded.  Direct attacks against Donald Trump and his organization and personal finances have not succeeded.  The DOJ is not getting the results they need…. So now they need a backdoor, some leverage, from somewhere, anywhere, where they can use that leverage to destroy their enemy.  THAT is what’s going on.

NEW YORK – New York state prosecutors in Manhattan have subpoenaed the personal bank records of the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer in the investigation into former President Trump and his company, The New York Times reports.

Prosecutors are reportedly looking into gifts Allen Weisselberg, who has been with the Trump Organization for decades, and his family received from Trump. The CFO has not been accused of any criminal activity, noted The Times, which reported earlier this month that the investigation was shifting its focus to Weisselberg.

(more…)

Apparently the creation of the DOJ’s politically convenient “domestic extremist” narrative is starting to come under scrutiny.  After several federal judges initially granted the DOJ the benefit of doubt for their outlandish conspiratorial claims, now with judges ordering the targets to be released the media are catching on.

The 2021 political prosecutions against the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys are essentially akin to former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s 2018 indictments -on behalf of Mueller/Weissmann- for mysterious Russian operatives that never surfaced and were never prosecuted.

As a result, the conspiracy to engage in sedition is to 2021 as the conspiracy to interfere in the Clinton v Trump election was to 2016 (via Facebook memes).

The Associated Press now recognizes something is sketchy about the DOJ shift.  Somebody might possibly do something, at some place, in relation to something discussed with someone about some time; thus people were arrested for thought crimes.  However, the DOJ cannot show who the somebodies, something or sometime were all about.

(more…)

Interesting that Reuters would outline the walk-backs.  Even more interesting that the details of the walk-backs seem to prove the DOJ never actually intended to win any of these cases, but rather wanted to advance a political narrative about extremists through their earlier statements.

The approach of building a political narrative through false accusations and over-charging in the DOJ is the essence of Lawfare.  The government has endless taxpayer resources to fuel their political weaponization of the judiciary.

The process of the charges then becomes the punishment by design.  The targets are drained financially, sometimes physically detained under false pretense, and then the DOJ walks backwards when the judges finally ask for proof.

The process is the punishment for political affiliation.  The DOJ is fully weaponized.  The majority of Americans can clearly see this taking place.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Prosecutors made some serious claims after the deadly U.S. Capitol attack, saying they had evidence rioters planned to kill elected officials, suggesting a Virginia man at the building received directives to gas lawmakers, and accusing another suspect of directing mayhem on Jan. 6 with encrypted messages.

But the Justice Department has since acknowledged in court hearings that some of its evidence concerning the riot – carried out by a mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump to try to overturn his election loss – is less damning than it initially indicated.

(more…)

Glenn Greenwald has a great breakdown of a letter submitted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) about the political weaponization of the intelligence community.  For those who have tracked this issue Greenwald’s article is well worth the read.

GREENWALD – […] “Involvement of the intelligence community in the domestic activities of U.S. citizens is one of the most dangerous breaches of civil liberties and democratic order the U.S. Government can perpetrate. It was after World War II when the CIA, the NSA and other security state agencies that wield immense and unlimited powers in the dark were created in the name of fighting the Cold War.

Legal and institutional prohibitions on wielding that massive machinery against the American public were central to the always-dubious claim that this security behemoth that operates completely in the dark was compatible with democracy. As the ACLU noted, “in its 1947 charter, the CIA was prohibited from spying against Americans, in part because President Truman was afraid that the agency would engage in political abuse.”” (read more)

It is this writers opinion the DOJ has no plan to succeed with guilty convictions in prosecuting defendants connected to the January 6th DC protest.  The process is the punishment. We see this pattern with many of the activities associated with the Lawfare group inside the DOJ.   Using a weaponized justice system for political value is the essence of Lawfare.

As a consequence, the politically weaponized DOJ is engaged in a public narrative building campaign intended to create political value only.  Prosecutor Michael Sherwin appearing on 60 minutes in combination with DOJ officials giving statements to the New York Times is exactly the same historic pattern used by Main Justice in their political attacks against President Trump and his campaign.

AG Merrick Garland takes-over exactly where Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Eric Holder and DAG Rod Rosenstein left off.  However, this time a federal judge is warning the DOJ the actions of the justice department are compromising their case, and he will take action against the department’s lawyers if this continues.

WASHINGTON – U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said during a court hearing conducted by phone and Zoom he was “surprised” to see Michael Sherwin, the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and other officials discussing the pending investigation into the insurrection in interviews with the New York Times and CBS’s 60 Minutes.

(more…)

The DOJ and FBI appear to be maintaining an aggressive posture against their political opposition on behalf of the ongoing ‘domestic extremist’ narrative.  In a remarkable statement prosecutor Michael Sherwin claims that charges of sedition are possible for those who attended the January 6th protest in DC against the outcome of the 2020 election.

Conducting political surveillance, abusing the NSA database by extracting personal information in violation of the fourth amendment, lying to a FISA court to get a title-1 surveillance warrant against Donald Trump’s campaign, fabricating a false Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, pushing knowingly false information to the media to support a fraudulent investigation, initiating a special counsel to hide the trail of wrongdoing; and the FBI conducting political operations against the Trump administration, was apparently no big deal. However, attend a protest against the corrupt interests of the deep state in DC and you are guilty of “sedition.”

The weaponized institutions of government are openly displaying their intent now.

WASHINGTON DC – Michael Sherwin, the federal prosecutor tasked with investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, told “60 Minutes” in an interview that aired Sunday night evidence collected thus far likely meets the threshold to charge some suspects with sedition.

Any person charged with sedition is effectively accused of attempting to overthrow the U.S. government and faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

(more…)

There are numerous reports of the U.S. military engaging in recent political activity that has raised some eyebrows.  Many are wondering what is going on…. and there’s likely an alarming reason.  Considering the specific examples over the past few years, I would argue the Democrats are positioning for use of the military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act -or- by an expressed act of congress.

Following the evidence to its logical conclusion is simple.  The political apparatus of the DC state has framed a fraudulent narrative that “insurrection” against the federal government is an ongoing possibility.

Toward that end the U.S. military national guard troops have been sent to Washington DC indefinitely (current deployment extended through May).

If we consider there is a reasonable argument now surfacing about states choosing to nullify federal laws, it is not a stretch to see the insurrection narrative as a proactive assertion to support the deployment of active military against any state who would be non-compliant.

Would this violate the Posse Comitatus Act? Quite possibly, yes; it would depend on whether congress passed an expressed act authorizing military troops against specific state action.

When we consider that most of the constitutional checks and balances have been deconstructed or usurped by hardline leftist action; including the weaponization of the intelligence community, and specifically the FBI as a federal law enforcement agency; we are left to recognize that any Posse Comitatus violation would likely be supported by a leftist and aligned media arguing that the military is needed in order to stop a rebellion of states.

(more…)