Robert Kennedy Jr. appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss his Democrat campaign for the Democrat presidential nomination.  Within the interview, RFK Jr. outlines his perspective on the national security state control over Washington DC and his campaign platform.  WATCH:

RFK Jr’s positions on the First Amendment (speech) and Fourth Amendment (privacy) are good.  However, do not be lulled into thinking his positions on the Second Amendment (gun ownership) and/or his positions on radical climate change, can be reconciled against the prior two.

As a rabid anti 2nd amendment voice who believes in gun confiscation as a government power over the people, in combination with his radical positions on the urgency of climate change/global warming, a position that by its own nature is anti-economic freedom, RFK Jr. positions himself more to harm liberty and freedom more than protect it.

The corporate agenda behind Fox News promoting RFK Jr. is likely an effort to shave a few more voters away from the America First platform by lulling voters into the position of RFK Jr. as a moderate alternative.  Robert Kennedy Jr. is in alignment with the far left on most issues, other than Speech and Privacy.

To me, it looks like the corporate BIG CLUB agenda is using RFK Jr. as a tool to pull MAGA Democrats away from Trump – not an intent to pull centrist Democrats away from Biden.

(more…)

There are buckets and buckets of legal contingencies in the fabricated case created by Special Counsel Jack Smith, acting on behalf of Andrew Weissmann, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Mary McCord, and the DOJ case against Donald J. Trump.

So many contingencies, there is almost no reason to look at any procedural process with any inclination the date will have consequence.  However, that said, Judge Aileen Cannon has smartly delayed the trial portion of the case until May 20, 2024.  [Full Legal Outline pdf]

I say smartly, because by Mid-May 2024, President Trump will likely have wrapped up the GOP nomination, and that structural reality itself will punt the rest of the gibberish into a time ever more distant.   Smart base-covering and no room for appeal move by Judge Cannon.

Some may see this as a loss or a gain for either side.  Personally, I view this as a structural and procedural win for President Trump, a wrongly targeted American citizen within a process weaponized by a comprehensively corrupt government.

Judge Cannon is no dummy. She knows the stakes, sees the transparency of the effort, and is not an ideologue.  Her earlier rulings, in the document side of the FBI raid, reflected her awareness the system was being manipulated by agents of Lawfare intent.  May 20th, which will never happen, is a good target all things considered.

(more…)

Steve Bannon rages against the regime at the Turning Point Action conference in West Palm Beach. {Direct Rumble Link}

(more…)

Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) expresses a great deal of contempt for FBI Director Chris Wray during questioning today.

From the topic of FBI conduct in the Hunter Biden investigation to the FBI surveillance of American citizens through unauthorized and illegal database searches, Matt Gaetz goes full wolverine on the FBI director.  WATCH: 

.

(more…)

I’m not going to say I toldyaso; I’m just smiling.

After a full media cycle of apoplexy and pearl-clutching, which included Andrew Weissmann appearing on MSNBC to declare “It’s the end of Trump,” CBS is now reporting there is no Defense Department memo about attacking Iran – the foundation of the media claims surrounding the leaked audio tapes from Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Worse still, and exactly as CTH previously outlined, despite the claims by CNN about how this audio would be used as the “central element” by the prosecution of Trump, the audio and mysterious memo are not part of the Special Counsel case.

So, why was the transcript of the audio recording used by Jack Smith in the indictment if the audio and nonexistent memo were never going to be used?  Because it’s Lawfare, that’s why.  Everything, yes including the specific language being deployed (ie “documents containing classification markings“), is hype for public consumption.

(Via CBS) – The Defense Department memo on Iran — at the heart of the now-public audio recording that captured a July 2021 meeting with former President Donald Trump — is not part of the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information charged in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News. 

[…] The document and recording are described in the indictment Smith’s team secured against Trump earlier this month, recounted as an alleged meeting with “a writer, a publisher, and two members of” Trump’s staff, “none of whom possessed a security clearance.”  But according to a source familiar with the matter, Trump was not charged with unlawfully holding onto the Iran-related document discussed in the recording.

(more…)

If you accept a very specific outlook into the mindset of the Lawfare operatives (Weissmann, Eisen, Berke, McCord et al) as strategic thinkers -the brain trust- behind the Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecution, then you might see the dynamic in this story.

Previously, amid his grand prose and proclamations outlining his spectacular and magnificent legal constructs, wunderkind Jack Smith was so confident in his case he strategically announced he would demand a “speedy trial” in order to preserve the great American democracy.

If you see Lawfare as a narrative construct, the pontification made sense.

However, less than two weeks later, suddenly the ever-confident Jack Smith is reversing his position and asking Florida Judge Cannon to delay the trial.

(Via NBC) – Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case to delay the start of his criminal trial until December.

The request came in a series of new motions filed late Friday by the special counsel.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had set a tentative date of Aug. 14 for the start of the trial. (more)

Remember, Lawfare is first and foremost a narrative construct intended for public media consumption.  Lawfare originates from the perspective of an established legal goal, and then all of the activity is structured around supporting that goal.  [A version of find me the man I’ll find you the crime.]

Lawfare is the opposite of following evidence.  In fact, in its purest and most visible form, political Lawfare actually requires the ignoring of evidence.

(more…)

Representative Andy Biggs and Representative Matt Gaetz both confronted John Durham about his role in covering for a politically corrupt and weaponized Dept of Justice and FBI.

Matt Gaetz specifically confronts Durham over his lack of holding people accountable.  The confrontation between Matt Gaetz and John Durham should have been the tone of the entire hearing.  WATCH:

You can like or dislike the approach by Matt Gaetz, personally I appreciate it, but what Gaetz says in this confrontation is factually accurate and true.

The questioning from Andy Biggs is below.

(more…)

Today, for the first time, the broader American public met the face of the four-year investigation into the origin of the Trump-Russia hoax.  Special Counsel John Durham testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

What a larger audience is now recognizing is what people on these pages have been discussing for quite some time.  John Durham was/is the institutional preservation officer hired by Bill Barr to carefully navigate the corruption of the DOJ and FBI without actually holding anyone accountable for the corruption within the DOJ and FBI.  Put succinctly, Bill Barr was the Bondo application and John Durham was the spray paint.

The rotting and corrupt carcass of our justice system is what remains hidden underneath the efforts of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham.  This is their legacy. Congressman Tom McClintock asks high-brow questions of John Durham, WATCH:

.

(more…)

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing today at 9:00 a.m. ET. The hearing will focus on the report of Special Counsel John Durham that examined the origins and justifications of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Crossfire Hurricane investigation against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Following a 316 page report that outlined how the Trump-Russia collusion fraud was created, promoted and then weaponized by government agencies, there are many people very interested in both the questions the Judiciary Committee might ask and the answers from John Durham.  Livestream links below:

House Judiciary Committee Livestream Link – PBS Livestream Link – Alternate Livestream Link 

.

(more…)

Today he testified in classified setting before the House intelligence committee.  Tomorrow is the public version.

Special Counsel John Durham is scheduled to be questioned tomorrow by members of the House Judiciary Committee in a public setting.  The hearing is scheduled for 9:00am ET, Rayburn Office Building [ DETAILS HERE ] – “The hearing will focus on the report of Special Counsel John Durham that examined the origins and justifications of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Crossfire Hurricane investigation against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

Questions have been passed along, and hopefully this summary is timed to avoid giving Mary McCord and her Lawfare team prep-time to construct their defensive talking points.

[Durham Report Here] Questions like:

(1) Mr. Durham, having spent four years investigating, researching, reviewing, interviewing and pouring through files related to the overall Trump-Russia collusion story, your report -like the report of Robert Mueller that preceded it- found no substantive predicate existed to ever open an investigation of candidate Donald Trump for any efforts with Russians or foreign actors to interfere in the 2016 election.  As a result of your time and diligence, you are likely the #1 subject matter expert in the entire series of events.

♦ Question: In your opinion, was President Obama aware there was no reason in 2016 to investigate Donald Trump, who then became President-elect Trump?

(2) You note in your report that you never re-reviewed any of the material evidence that formed the baseline for the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

♦ Question: Why not?

♦ Question: Who made the decision not to review the 2-year Mueller probe activity as part of your investigative review?  Why was that decision made?

(more…)