….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…)

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…)

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:

.

(more…)

According to NBC and confirmed by Politico, former Indiana Governor Mike Pence is scheduled to launch his bid for the GOP nomination in Iowa on June 7th.

Oddly, and speaking to the framework of the larger GOPe operation, Pence isn’t making his announcement in his home state; instead, he is going to launch his campaign during a speech in Des Moines, Iowa.

Mike Pence is a well-known name to voters having previously been vice-president to Donald Trump, and he is currently polling around 3% support according to Monmouth.

In his biggest role as Vice-President, Mike Pence was in charge of the federal COVID-19 emergency response as head of the White House COVID taskforce in 2020.

Pence is a well-known traditional Republican who identifies with voters primarily on social issues.  Pence will make an appeal to the evangelical community in Iowa and is organized in that effort by GOP brand consultant Chip Saltsman, the architect of former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s 2008 Iowa caucuses victory.

(Via NBC) – Mike Pence plans to enter the GOP presidential nomination fray June 7 with a campaign video and a kickoff speech in Des Moines, Iowa, according to a person familiar with his launch schedule.

The former vice president, a longtime advocate of the priorities of traditional conservatives on social and economic issues, will join the race at a time when his onetime boss, former President Donald Trump, claims a majority in most national polls and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is in a clear second place.

(more…)

…. “There are Trillions at Stake!”

2,600 people at $15/hr is $39,000 per hour. Anticipating 1,000 hrs per campaign worker, that’s $39 million. At $25/hr that’s $65 million. At $40/hr that’s $104 million.

This is the scale of spending that Ken Cuccinelli and Jeff Roe have for the Never Back Down SuperPAC to support Governor Ron DeSantis in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada on behalf of the Sea Island billionaires who want to manipulate the 2024 election.  That’s just payroll for new hires.

Overall, the New York Times is reporting a campaign support spending plan of more than $200 million. Essentially, these are payments from the billionaire Wall Street donors and multinationals, funneled through the SuperPAC, to influence the ’24 election. The context of the New York Times report sounds accurate.

NYT – A key political group supporting Ron DeSantis’s presidential run is preparing a $100 million voter-outreach push so big it plans to knock on the door of every possible DeSantis voter at least four times in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — and five times in the kickoff Iowa caucuses.

The effort is part of an on-the-ground organizing operation that intends to hire more than 2,600 field organizers by Labor Day, an extraordinary number of people for even the best-funded campaigns.

Top officials with the pro-DeSantis group, a super PAC called Never Back Down, provided their most detailed account yet of their battle plan to aid Mr. DeSantis, whom they believe they can sell as the only candidate to take on — and win — the cultural fights that are definitional for the Republican Party in 2024.

The group said it expected to have an overall budget of at least $200 million, including more than $80 million to be transferred from an old DeSantis state political account, for the daunting task of vaulting the Florida governor past former President Donald J. Trump, who has established himself as the dominant early front-runner.

(more…)

Last night I participated in a conversation. This article is written as an outcome of that conversation, as requested by those who participated.

Essentially, the framework of the conversation, as I initially listened, is best described as a series of questions amid a group of smart intellectual types who are very understanding of the nature of our current situation.

In various forms they were asking each other the same question.  What happened in the last several years that caused Democrats, leftists and the traditional political left to switch positions on their advocacy?

Liberalism literally went from railing against Big Govt, to embracing corrupt Big Govt. Why and how did this happen?

In short, it was the same line of questioning I have seen asked by Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Tulsi Gabbard and various traditionally liberal people as well as people on the right side of the continuum.

Why and how did traditional liberalism so suddenly flip from being, big picture – ‘anti-government’, to suddenly embracing corrupt government enterprise, and supporting the intelligence apparatus, federal govt (writ large), institutional oppressive law enforcement and FBI etc.?  What happened?

After listening to this conversation quietly, as I am prone to do, my remarks -with citations and examples- silenced the room.

At the conclusion of my remarks, everyone asked me if I had ever written about this, and if not – why not?   I did not have an answer, so consider this a promise fulfilled.  Perhaps you might find value.

(more…)