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…)

I am deep in the weeds and assembling notes for outlines to be delivered in the next several articles.  However, that said, perhaps the only time Mark Levin’s shouting was tolerable was last night as he responded to the indictment of President Trump.  WATCH:

.

NOTE:  Sixty nine documents in a Deep State rabbit hole!  ~Sundance

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

(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…)

….At a certain point Lawfare fails.

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.

(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…)

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.

(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…)