Rather than write 10,000 highly specific and legally granular words to deconstruct the Trump indictment, I will share the opinion of others with supporting analysis and add some substance to the issues. Later I will compile all the various points of analysis into one very granular article.

First, it is important to always remember why this indictment is taking place.  The DOJ, specifically Lisa Monaco, are continuing the offensive against Trump in large part to cover for the actions of the Obama administration in the originating targeting of their political opposition.  Originating Spygate operations (’15-’16), Russiagate (’16-’17), Mueller (’17-’19), Impeachment #1 (’19-’20), Durham (’19-’23) and Jack Smith ’22-present, are all part of one long continuum of weaponized DOJ and FBI operations.  The entirety of the effort is to protect the actions taken by the Obama administration. [Note to congress: Questioning Durham this month is defense key #1]

In this interview {Direct Rumble Link} Jeff Clark gives his opinion of the statutory weaknesses that exist in the case as outlined in the indictment.  The first two defense approaches will likely be: (1) the Presidential Records Act supersedes the issues of document holding as noted in the use of the Espionage Act. (2) However, if the Espionage Act [Statute 793(e)] has to be defended, the originating issue of “unauthorized possession” will be the second approach heading to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  WATCH:

Granular note, putting aside the fact that classification is irrelevant to the statute being used, within the indictment please notice how the DOJ states 102 classified documents [pg 27], some that were never marked classified as noted in the indictment [count 11, page 30] but defined as classified after DOJ review, were discovered after the Trump affirmation of compliance in July 2022.  This is the predicate for the FBI raid.  Again, a total of 102 documents were identified as classified by the FBI/DOJ.

They were unable to use classification status as a legal mechanism to attack President Trump; instead, they use the non-production as an evidence enhancement to the ridiculous claim that Trump lied to them (sec 1001); but notice how there are only 31 documents [31 counts] outlined as national defense security issues.  This would mean approximately 70 classified documents are memory holed by this special counsel.

70 defined “classified” documents retrieved, no description provided, those documents not a part of any legal contention – they just disappear.   I suspect we know what those sets of documents pertained to, and they have everything to do with DOJ and FBI conduct in Russiagate.

(more…)

CSPAN callers respond to President Trump’s indictment.  Americans can see what is happening, listen:

.

(more…)

Good news, bad news and granular news..

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.

(more…)

I would strongly urge people, especially those who walk the deep weeds, to READ THE INDICTMENT carefully, before watching the remarks by special counsel Jack Smith as delivered today.  What you will notice is that 31 of the 37 counts alleged in the indictment are individual counts, one per document, specific to Statute 793(e) which pertains to defense department information.

There were, as claimed in the justice department prior court arguments, and again affirmed today in the indictment itself, 100 classified documents located by the FBI and DOJ after the Trump certification of compliance.  Of those 100 documents, 31 of them were specifically selected to represent the baseline for the 793(e) charge. Listen to Smith emphasize Defense and Defense Intelligence, and soon you will see why.  WATCH:

~ READ INDICTMENT HERE ~

Jack Smith is relying on 18 U.S. Code 793, a law created in 1948 intended to stop contractors to the Defense Dept from stealing, selling, or copying U.S. defense system secrets, or patents on defense products. [READ THE LAW] The premise of 31-counts [each an individual document] pertain to “National Defense Security.”  The subsequent six counts are predicated around the claimed 793(e) violations.

The DOJ is not, repeat NOT, arguing a classified documents case.  The entire legal framework is centered around documents they define as vital to the defense security of the United States.  EVERYTHING is predicated on this 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation:

18 U.S. Code § 793 (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it. 

Despite the verbose language in the indictment, a key element of Lawfare, the case is weak. The prosecutors know it. I will explain.

(more…)

Everything is connected to the economics and financials of the thing.  This is the one guiding truth that underlines every curiosity of human nature.  If you want to understand behavior, follow the money.

An example surfaces today [SOURCE HERE] highlighting the background hands of those who seek to control public opinion.  This is the psychological operation that we see through every mechanism under the command and control of interests who have vested financial stakes.  Notice the disclaimer.:

“Visibility limited: this Tweet may violate Twitter’s rules against Hateful Conduct”

Yeah, we can’t have people sharing honest, albeit softly critical, opinion of Ron DeSantis because they become a threat – ergo, hateful conduct.

Comrade, wrong thoughts require reeducation.  In the bigger picture, this is all part of the control mechanisms operating to influence the 2024 election.  And yes, Elon Musk is very much a part of it just like the DHS operatives that controlled the platform before he arrived.

(more…)

On June 2nd former Mueller special counsel and impeachment operative, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen respectively, published their current Trump prosecution memo [Read Here] using a novel and arcane interpretation of US Code 793. Four days later media began reporting from leaks within the Jack Smith special counsel of the main legal approach they were going to use against President Trump [citation].  What approach is Jack Smith taking, US Code 793!   This is not coincidental. 

[Weissmann to DOJ Prosecution Memo, page 36 – pdf]

Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen wrote this memo last week.  Special Counsel Jack Smith is using it now.

At the time the 186-page Weissmann & Eisen guidance was completed, CTH drew attention to it [HERE] because we track the way the Lawfare operatives work.

In addition to protecting the interests of corrupt former Obama officials, organizing, supporting and coordinating with the Lawfare network is the purpose for Deputy AG Lisa Monaco to exist in current Main Justice operations.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is a tool, vessel and willing participant in one long Lawfare continuum that originates back in the Obama administration when they weaponized the DOJ to target their political opposition.  Andrew Weissmann writing the guidelines for Jack Smith to deploy is simply a visible example of how this operation is being conducted.

(more…)

Some people reviewing the latest articles [SEE HERE] about the potential indictment framework of President Trump are stunned by this section regarding former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:

[…] Mr Meadows has already given evidence before the grand jury and is said to be cooperating with the investigations into his former boss. It is understood that the former North Carolina congressman testified as part of a deal for which he has already received limited immunity in exchange for his testimony.

[…] It is not yet known whether the testimony or the charges in question relate to the documents probe, or a separate investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Both investigations are being overseen by a Department of Justice special prosecutor, Jack Smith. According to ABC News, Mr Meadows has given evidence in both the documents matter and the January 6 investigation. (read more)

First, President Trump did nothing wrong.  Meadows can give no testimony that is damaging to President Trump in any ordinary construct.  The targeting of Trump is apex Lawfare, which is the manipulation of the law, including new and novel concepts of law, as weapons against opposition.

There, but for the grace of God, stand any one of us.  I say this from armored experience against these creatures.

Second, removing the unsubstantiated claim about Meadows reportedly pleading guilty to some charge, which is directly and strongly called “bullshit” by his lawyer, some people are wondering about Mark Meadows. I am not one of those who wonder about Meadows; I have always viewed him as a sketchy self-interested conniving Republican, and I retain that disposition through today.

Mark Meadows and Mike Pompeo were part of the “approved” Republican group who operated inside the Trump administration with loyalty to the right-wing of the UniParty apparatus.  Meadows and Pompeo were/are about as trustworthy as Rupert Murdoch and Ron DeSantis, which is to say, they ain’t.  They are DeceptiCons, and this isn’t a new position about them.  I have previously used the testimony of Mark Milley to show just how Machiavellian this entire tribe of  ‘acceptable Republicans’ was/is.

Keep in mind, as President, Donald Trump had few options on administration personnel.  He hired what everyone said at the time were solid republicans, only to see those same people undermine his efforts whenever possible.  Jeff Sessions, Dan Coats, Mark Meadows, Mick Mulvaney, Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, the list is long, including his Vice President, Mike Pence.

In essence, this was the GOPe control within the Trump administration, the exact same dynamic would happen in any disruptive administration that came from outside the beltway.  This is why those same DeceptiCons are embracing Ron DeSantis – he’s in the club, Trump wasn’t.

(more…)

Last year, CTH outlined a four-part series of articles going deep into the background of the DOJ-FBI raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, along with the outline into why it was important to them.  It doesn’t matter how many different legal angles and Deep State justifications the DOJ attempts to deploy in order to divert away from what took place; the background of who, what, when and why they raided Mar-a-Lago will not change.

In Part One, we outlined the background of the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. In Part Two we outlined the specifics of how President Trump was targeted by political operatives using tools created by the DC system {Go Deep}.  In Part Three we outlined how and why President Trump was blocked from releasing documents {Go Deep}.  And then finally, as below in Part 4, we assembled the specifics of what documents likely existed in Mar-a-Lago.

It is important to remember, the Presidential Records Act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute.  An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.

The DOJ-NSD warrant, and the subsequent raid on Mar-a-Lago can only be related to records the U.S. government deems “classified” and material vital to national security interests.  Hence, DOJ National Security Division involvement.

In prior outlines, we have exhaustively covered the details of President Trump’s desire to publicly release information about DOJ and FBI conduct in their targeting of him during the fabricated Trump-Russia claims.  However, to understand the nature of the documents he may hold, we first review the declassification memo provided by President Trump to the DOJ upon his departure from office.

(more…)

~ The Background is HERE ~

A brief post just to emphasize a point about DC and how the power centers protect themselves.  You might remember when Attorney Jeff Sessions was told he needed to recuse himself from anything to do with the Trump-Russia investigation.  We know from FOIA requests of schedules, the participants in the meeting on the date of those discussions:

Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself at the conclusion of a meeting involving Jody Hunt, Dana Boente, Jim Crowell, Tashina Guahar and Scott Schools; an apparent conflict of interest.  Now consider….

Mary McCord was Acting Asst. Attorney General for the National Security Division, when she submitted the fraudulently constructed FISA application used against Carter Page. Mary McCord, knowingly and with specific intent, defrauded the court and broke the law.  Mary McCord then went on to join Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler in the construction of the articles of impeachment. She did not recuse herself. 

(more…)

I’m going to go into the deep weeds on this story, because many people are missing a key facet.  The names behind the Trump targeting operation are included, along with citations for independent checks by House congressional investigators.

Inside the recently released report by John Durham [CITATION], the special counsel outlines how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application.  Durham notes that Comey kept asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA.”  However, John Durham never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe.  The former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to John Durham.  So, how did John Durham have details about the demands of Comey?

The answer is found in the footnotes.  Durham reviewed transcripts of interviews given by Andrew McCabe to the Office of the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who previously investigated FBI conduct in the origin of the Carter Page FISA.  Durham pulled quotes from that transcript. [Footnote #1207, page 199 – Durham Report]

♦QUESTION: If Andrew McCabe gave testimony to the OIG about the motives and impetus of FBI Director James Comey in pushing for the Carter Page FISA application, why did the OIG report never outline those transcribed interviews?  Why was the interview transcript never included in the 2019 OIG report?

[ NOTE to Congress.  Now that you know a transcribed interview of Andrew McCabe exists in the OIG office, request the transcription and release it to the public.]

Let me answer those questions without the customary pretending from the DC professional political class.  The short version is that OIG Michael Horowitz was trying to protect the DOJ and FBI. The longer version is a coverup that includes Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr and yes, John Durham.  I will share that story below.

(more…)