CSPAN callers respond to President Trump’s indictment. Americans can see what is happening, listen:
.
First, the good news. The judge assigned to the Trump documents case is U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. She is the same judge who handled the lawsuit last year after the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Judge Cannon was the judge who appointed the “special master” to review the documents the DOJ was claiming were classified, but Team Trump was contending that definition.
Now the bad news. The DOJ is no longer legally arguing that Donald Trump held any classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The DOJ is arguing that President Trump held documents vital to U.S. defense security. It’s a farce but that’s their position. The classification status of documents is moot, nonexistent, except to create the predicate for the proverbial FBI nose under the tent.
The DOJ-NSD (that’s Lisa Monaco) got a warrant to look for classified documents, but never intended to use classified documents as a case cornerstone because President Trump had full declassification authority. The DOJ got a search warrant by convincing a judge they were looking for something that wasn’t even a violation of law. That’s why the DOJ would not reveal the probable cause affidavit. The search was built upon a fraudulent pretense. “Classified” is a snipe hunt.
President Trump announced via Truth Social, he has been indicted by the Joe Biden DOJ for documents held in Mar-a-Lago, formerly raided by the FBI.
According to initial media reports, the DOJ has filed an indictment consisting of seven counts. There are no specifics on the charges. President Trump has been told to report to Federal Court in Miami on Tuesday at 3:00pm.
[New York Times] – […] While the nature of a few of the documents found in Mr. Trump’s possession is known — he had held onto letters from the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, for example — it remains unclear what other classified materials were found at Mar-a-Lago and what national security damage his possession of them caused, if any. (link)
Watch to see the silence of the Republican ’24 candidates.
In a good segment of encapsulation, Newsmax host Greg Kelly does a great job outlining how the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) created a double-standard specifically to target President Donald Trump after he left office. {Direct Rumble Link}
Kelly highlights remarks by former Trump attorney Timothy Parlatore who was responsible for trying to reconcile the issues that NARA had created. I’ve also included further context with video segments from Tim Parlatore below. WATCH:
Additional information from Parlatore is below.
Do you remember the prosecution “Witness #8” in the case against George Zimmerman? The person described as Trayvon Martin’s “girlfriend” who was claimed by FOUR state prosecutors to be the star “ear witness” against Zimmerman.
Do you remember how we waited month after month, laughing at how the State of Florida was relying upon their one key witness, and we all knew it was totally made up?
Do you remember the buildup, the drama, the media’s breathless anticipation, and the eventual beverage that flushed out of your nose in laughter when the State called Witness #8, and brought Rachel Jeantel to the stand?
Not only did she have no clue about any detail the prosecution was saying, she didn’t fit any of the profile that was claimed to be her importance in the case. And… not only could she not read the statement the State of Florida claimed she wrote (she didn’t), Jeantel didn’t even know Trayvon Martin. She was completely manufactured by the prosecution because her mom was a friend of Trayvon’s mom. Everyone wondered how the hell the prosecution could even put her on the stand. Remember that?
The reason they put her on the stand was because the prosecution and Trayvon’s family had no choice. For over a year, they had hyped up this imaginary “ear witness” in an effort to convince Zimmerman to take a plea deal. That was the purpose of the fabrication, and when George Zimmerman didn’t take the plea – when he forced the prosecution to put Witness #8 on the stand – the case collapsed, because the case was manufactured.
When people ask me about the DOJ and/or Jack Smith bringing an indictment against President Trump, in many ways I laugh while waiting for the DOJ to bring a proverbial Jeantel to the court. The DOJ has to indict Trump for the same reason Angela Corey had to put Jeantel on the stand. Their political narrative cases have to continue regardless of the evidence. Lawfare is a construct for media consumption intended to manipulate public opinion.
Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen and fellow travelers, wrote an internal prosecution memo for current Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco to use on behalf of their conscripted Special Counsel, Jack Smith. [SEE 186-page Guidance MEMO HERE]
Essentially, what we are witnessing is what skilled researchers would expect to see.
The Lawfare operatives, represented by Weissmann, Eisen and company, are all ideological agents connected directly to the anti-Trump efforts.
I use the term “Lawfare” to describe their general group association, as well as the actual organization funded by the Brookings Institute that carries the same name.
Essentially, Lawfare et al, are the group of current and former Dept of Justice ideologues that we find throughout the deployment of all Main Justice weaponization, activism and corruption.
The Muller team were all Lawfare members. The legal team in/around the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, what Christine Blasey-Ford called “beach friends,” are all Lawfare members. The legal team behind both of Trump’s impeachment efforts were all Lawfare members. It is one large network of legally minded ideologues working toward a common goal; they are inside government and connected to the same DOJ minds outside government.
The second thing they have in common is their collective risk within their action. Many of their activities were/are unlawful (spygate, FISA, Mueller probe, impeachment background etc), so to the extent the Lawfare group can mitigate risk by attacking anyone who would be a threat to them, this is what we see.
People often ask me why I seem to highlight datapoints and background events that do not trend to the media-driven narrative priority of the moment. The answer is simple; everything is connected to the next thing that happens. If you do not outline the originating point, the accurate reference is missed when needed.
This approach is why I have focused significant research on Elon Musk’s financial situation with Twitter {GO DEEP}.
The issue of Twitter’s financial status speaks to the motives of Musk that later surface – like his relationship with Fox News billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Once you see the connections, suddenly everything makes sense. Musk and Murdoch have intersecting interests.
Elon Musk is in desperate need of revenue for his social media platform Twitter. By his own admissions, Twitter is currently in the red on an annual basis between $1.5 to $4.0 billion; that may go as high as $5 billion, depending on what happens over the next six months. Currently losing $100 million/mo, Musk is limited on how much he can pull from his other companies to support Twitter, and with $1.5 billion in debt service alone on the $12.5 billion borrowed for the Twitter purchase, Musk needs an income stream quickly.
Advertising revenue has dropped 50%. This is the motive for Musk to hire Linda Jaccarino, the former head of NBC Universal advertising, to bring urgently needed revenue to a platform currently considered too extreme for the DEI-minded corporate advertising executives. Musk is also captive to contracts with Bezos’ Amazon (AWS) and Google cloud services for platform data processing support. Those very expensive contracts – $1 billion and $2 billion respectively – do not expire until 2025.
In short, Musk needs revenue. For Twitter, this reality drives his decision-making. Enter, Rupert Murdoch.
First, Google via YouTube is reversing its position and allowing content that challenges the results of the 2020 election.
[Per Axios] “In a reversal of its election integrity policy, YouTube will leave up content that says fraud, errors or glitches occurred in the 2020 presidential election and other U.S. elections, the company confirmed to Axios Friday.”
After removing “tens of thousands of videos” (their admission) previously containing content that challenged the 2020 election results, suddenly that conversation is permitted.
“Two years, tens of thousands of video removals, and one election cycle later, we recognized it was time to reevaluate the effects of this policy in today’s changed landscape,” YouTube said in a statement.
So, according to the script, the “threat to democracy” has suddenly diminished as the 2024 election cycle starts to become a topic of increased discussion? Yeah, right.
I read this Google change two ways: (1) This reads like a “mission accomplished and we don’t need this anymore” kind of policy switch; and (2) There’s that probability of Donald Trump winning the 2024 election and they need to be able to question election results again.
Last night on Sean Hannity television show, House Oversight Chairman James Comer made the first admission that both he and Senator Chuck Grassley had seen the FD-1023 form filled out by an FBI agent based on allegations of Joe Biden taking bribes as outlined by an FBI CHS (Confidential Human Source). {Backstory HERE}
FBI Director Christopher Wray refused to admit the document existed until Comer and Grassley informed Wray they had already seen it. However, the FBI is still refusing the release the document to congress. During a Fox News interview today, Senator Chuck Grassley gives his opinion of what is contained within the six-page document {Direct Rumble Link}. The comments about the FD-1023 happen after the 02:00 mark. WATCH:
.
An interesting series of updates to the FBI whistleblower case of Joe Biden taking a $5 million bribe payment which now looks to have originated in Ukraine.
The background claim is pretty basic. A whistleblower approached congress stating the FBI had a report, an unclassified FD-1023, detailing a conversation with a ‘confidential human source’ (CHS) that outlined Vice President Joe Biden taking a $5 million payment from a foreign national to affect a U.S. policy decision. The FBI agent responsible for investigating the CHS claim was FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, a sketchy character from the Trump-Russia probe.
The investigative events took place in June and July 2020 during the presidential election year. The claim is that FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Auten reportedly buried the CHS allegation saying it could not be corroborated, and then wrote an assessment that it was Russian disinformation. However, the FBI investigative team didn’t see any effort by any FBI member to substantiate it. Hence a whistleblower, with specific knowledge of the details in the allegation, surfaces and tells congress the FBI is hiding the FD-1023 that outlines the confidential human source allegation of bribery.
Congress requested the FD-1023, the FBI refused to provide it. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer then set a compliance deadline while he coordinated with Senator Chuck Grassley. The FBI still refused to turn it over, saying they would neither confirm nor deny the FD-1023 existence, and said releasing any information like that would potentially compromise Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s). The proverbial sources and methods excuse.