Of course he does. Because even the most entrenched ideological Attorney General can see the absurdity of pushing the “new democratic norms” to the scale of jailing the leading presidential candidate in the United States.

During the opening segment of an interview with Obama “wingman” Eric Holder, the former attorney general admitted there is no likely scenario where DC Judge Tanya Chutkan would jail President Trump for violating a transparently motivated gag order.

Then again, this is Lawfare not necessarily any constitutional application of law.  The entire case is a manipulated interpretation of arcane law, twisted and manipulated to give the appearance of a law being broken simply by protesting the results of a transparently fraudulent election.  [First Two Minutes]

.

(more…)

At this point, I am writing this for a whole bunch of people, and it’s ridiculous.

(1) – No, Mark Meadows never told Jack Smith that President Trump didn’t declassify records.  That was the Lawfare leak to ABC News in August – intended to dilute the defense of declassification in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  It was made up by Jack Smith, and leaked to ABC for a specific purpose.

(2) – No, Mark Meadows never told the DC grand jury (under immunity) that he informed President Trump that Joe Biden’s election was legitimate. Again, that was a Lawfare leak to ABC News this week – intended to undermine President Trump’s DC defense (mens rea, know it) that Trump’s state of mind was such that he knew he was violating the law by saying the election was stolen.  This story was made up by Jack Smith and leaked to ABC for a similar specific purpose.

In reality, Meadows was questioned under oath, during the grand jury, and asked if Joe Biden was the legitimate President.  Meadows responded (encapsulated), “Well, he’s president isn’t he”?  The rest is a manufactured narrative.

(3) – No, Mark Meadows never wore a wire as a confidential informant while he was President Trump’s Chief of Staff.  Again, yet another Lawfare fabrication to the alt-right media, via layers of plausible deniability – intended to get President Trump to attack Mark Meadows and provide fuel for Jack Smith to request the reinitiation of a currently suspended gag order against President Trump.  The ABSURD story is pure Lawfare bait.  The absurdity of the story is why even ABC News couldn’t be used.

And right on cue….

(NYP) – Special Counsel Jack Smith has implored a judge to revive the partial gag order in the federal election interference case against Donald Trump — citing the ex-president’s “threatening” social media posts about former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Smith’s team argued in a filing late Wednesday that Trump, 77, is capitalizing on a stay in the gag order “to send an unmistakable message to a foreseeable witness in this case… with knowledge that it would reach him.” (read more)

(more…)

A few thoughts about the letter itself before getting to the substance.  {pdf link Here}

First, as you are likely aware, the Senators and Committee heads/ranking members do little of the investigative effort themselves. This is where the value of exceptional staff comes into play, along with the background battle between a small group of congressional aides and assistants -vs- an army of Lawfare operatives. The battle to reveal truth takes place deep in the trenches of hidden government, and the only weapon on the side of the righteous is the ultimate weapon – the truth.

Second, again with a familiar approach, this letter is not penned to the recipient FBI Director Christopher Wray, in as much as it is an alarm sounded by Senator Grassley’s office to the larger American audience.  This is essentially Grassley saying to We The People, here’s the evidence of how inherently corrupt and politicized the FBI has become. The motive appears to be providing damaging information the media will avoid mentioning, discussing or outlining.

DC FBI Building, left – Main Justice DOJ Building, right. 

In summary of the 7-page letter, it describes a national effort by the FBI to cover up the activity of Hunter and Joe Biden’s illicit financial dealings.  Because the Biden family essentially operated a network of financial schemes that touched on multiple areas and interests, the activity itself was tracked by the FBI through a series of several dozen Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s) and informants in multiple jurisdictions throughout the U.S.

Because the various field offices and CHS/Informant networks were diverse and widespread, the DC FBI needed a control mechanism that would throw a bag over all the activity coast to coast.  The mechanism they chose was the familiar “Foreign Influence Disinformation” designation.  The FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force was the DC organization -an institutional tool per se’- used to block, impede and eliminate sunlight upon the information that was surfacing from multiple investigations of the Biden family.

Grassley walks through examples of how the central HQ of the FBI deployed the label of “disinformation” in order to get various field offices to discredit their own investigative tools, CHS’s and informants.   The way it worked would be central FBI command would label an investigative lead as “disinformation”, and that would throw a bag over the field office outcome.  The CHS’s and informants were then undermined, discredited and cut loose from the record keeping of the FBI.

(more…)

Justice Arthur Engoron is truly one of the most ridiculous judges on the bench.

During a break in the courtroom theatrics, following testimony by Michael Cohen, President Trump told the media, “This judge is a very partisan judge with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside of him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is.”  President Trump was clearly remarking about Michael Cohen who was on the witness stand.

However, Moonbat Judge Engoron then demanded President Trump take the witness stand so he could ask him who those comments were directed toward.  With Trump on the witness stand, the judge asked: “To whom were you referring?”  “You and Cohen,” Trump replied.

The judge then said he did not believe Trump, “as the trier of fact, I find the witness is not credible“, he decreed from his perch; preferring to believe that President Trump was talking about Judge Engoron’s clerk.    The idiot in a robe then levied another $10,000 sanction based on his wrongful assumption of President Trump’s thinking.

This is all far too ridiculous at this point.

(more…)

Too many people continue falling for this Lawfare nonsense.   CTH has been outlining what Lawfare operations are all about since we deconstructed the Trayvon Martin narrative.  Perhaps a reminder is useful.

Lawfare, in its most obvious construct, is not a legal approach per se’, it is the intentional manipulation of the legal system to create the optics around information that is intended to be used by media to influence public opinion. {link}

That’s what Lawfare is all about, manipulating public opinion through leaks to the media.  The leaks do not need to be truthful, accurate or directly in line with the prosecution of the case; they are intended exclusively to manipulate public opinion.

Remember, on August 21st, in another ridiculous Lawfare operation, Special Counsel Jack Smith told ABC that Mark Meadows testified that President Trump never attempted to declassify any information {Go Deep}.   That report was transparently false, yet the media ran with it and multiple alternative media promoted it.  Pure nonsense.

In this latest Lawfare effort, again from Special Counsel Jack Smith, again to ABC news, again about former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the claim is the Special Counsel granted Meadows immunity (that’s the hook), and that Meadows told President Trump the 2020 election was not rigged or stolen.

Now remember, Mark Meadows wrote about the rigged and stolen 2020 election in his book, so why would he undermine his own story by saying something completely the opposite to Jack Smith that is only coming out now?   The Occam’s razor answer is, he didn’t.  This lawfare story is all made up, fictitious, anonymous sources, manufactured to create a public impression.

Bolstering the likelihood that Meadows gave no such testimony, Meadows lawyers, when contacted by media, said the story is fake news.   Yet again, everyone falls for it.  This is how Lawfare succeeds, and this is how Trayvon Martin’s fake and fabricated ear-witness girlfriend becomes the key witness and embarrasses the prosecution on the stand.

(more…)

Against the backdrop of Douglass Mackey (aka Ricky Vaughn) being sentenced to seven months in prison for a Twitter meme, and with the state having unlimited financial resources to drag the Lawfare trial out for months, and with a stacked jury likely in Fulton County, GA, lawyers representing Sidney Powell negotiated a misdemeanor plea deal which Powell has accepted.

The Fulton County DA drops all seven felony charges and with the plea Ms. Powell will serve probation, no jail time.

(VIA AP) – […] Powell, who was charged alongside Trump and 17 others with violating the state’s anti-racketeering law, entered the plea just a day before jury selection was set to start in her trial. She pleaded guilty to six misdemeanors accusing her of conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties.

As part of the deal, she will serve six years of probation, will be fined $6,000 and will have to write an apology letter to Georgia and its residents. She also recorded a statement for prosecutors and agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials.

Powell was initially charged with racketeering and six other counts as part of a wide-ranging scheme to keep the Republican president in power after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden. Prosecutors say she also participated in an unauthorized breach of elections equipment in a rural Georgia county elections office.

(more…)

President Trump and Alina Habba speak to the media following another day of nonsense testimony in the New York civil case against Donald Trump.

President Trump again reiterates the construct of the case against him as a political effort with no foundational premise in legal statute.  The lending institutions did their own due diligence; there are no victims, all the banks and finance offices were repaid with interest and ahead of schedule; there were no defaults and all lenders were satisfied with the terms, conditions and results.   WATCH:

BELOW: President Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, then reads the first page of the lending agreement to the media so they can better understand the nature of the fraudulent case being attempted by the State of New York.

(more…)

In one of the most disingenuously undefined judicial rulings in recent memory, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan says President Trump may not “target” a member of the court or prosecution in his rebuke of their official offices against him. [3-page pdf HERE]

[SOURCE]

Obviously, Judge Chutkan intends to give herself the most latitude possible when defining what terms of speech may end up being considered “targeting.” However, criticism is not a possible definition in ordinary parlance. So, we’ll see.

Additionally, Chutkan did not outline what -if any- punishment would be levied in the event she considers any statement to be considered “targeting.” The lawfare games continue…

(more…)

The media and punditry are saying it’s the pressure of Jordan, but really, it’s the pressure of the voters that’s scaring the crap out of the Republicans in the House.

The block of opposition to Jim Jordan’s nomination in the House is crumbling, as their phones, emails and fax machines are being lit up by voters demanding support and threatening a removal primary against any House member who tries to stand in the way of the people.

Jordan has vowed to take his nomination to a House floor vote and force the Republican Party to take a stand. This is a solid strategy that puts any no vote against the will of the electorate.

WASHINGTON – Twenty-four hours before the full House will vote on whether to hand Jordan the gavel, the Judiciary chair and his allies have managed to chip away at a significant bloc of opposition that many in the House GOP saw as insurmountable just days ago.

That includes two lawmakers who had publicly vowed not to support Jordan: Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.), who had publicly railed against Jordan’s behavior towards Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who had also backed Scalise’s bid and has been critical of the House Freedom Caucus’s tactics in recent years.

Another holdout, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), posted on X Monday that he would be “offering my support on the House floor” to Jordan. Buchanan, a senior member of the Florida GOP delegation, is another significant get, given three Republicans from the Sunshine state are still holding out.

(more…)

Good luck with this effort!  That’s my thoughts.

Yes, DC Judge Tanya Chutkan can decree from her perch that President Donald Trump is not permitted to criticize his persecution, the court, the witnesses who will testify against him or the political prosecution that is targeting the leading 2024 presidential candidate, but executing that decree is another kettle of fish entirely.

It is one thing to decree your control over independent speech, it is another thing entirely to try and enforce that decree.  Thankfully, and standing firm in his position, President Trump said in response he is “willing to go to jail, if that’s what it takes for our country to win and become a democracy again.”

(Washington DC) – […] Trump, who opted to campaign in Iowa rather than attend the hearing Monday, has also in recent weeks pointedly attacked several known witnesses in the case. He suggested that one of them, retired Gen. Mark Milley, would have warranted the death penalty in another era, and he repeatedly blasted another, former Attorney General Bill Barr.

Acknowledging Trump’s broad right to weigh in on public policy issues as he pursues a second term in the White House, Chutkan said nevertheless that Trump could not launch a “pretrial smear campaign” against those who might testify against him. She said she would consider “sanctions” if she observes any violations. She did not elaborate on those sanctions, although she said she planned to issue a written order with further details.

The pronouncement raises the prospect that Trump could face punishment — ranging from restrictions on his use of social media all the way up to potential pretrial incarceration — if he continues to mount public attacks on Smith and his team or witnesses likely to testify in his March trial. (read more)

Any restrictions against President Trump’s ability to defend himself from political prosecution can be appealed and let the Supreme Court of the United States go on record for or against the rights of the accused.

(more…)