You’d have to be intentionally looking the other way not to see the alignment of interests between the RFK Jr. operation and the dormant but ever hopeful DeSantis operation.  I’m not necessarily talking about the average supporter, but more akin to the financial backers and background influence operation.

Having erased all preconceptions about honest motives and intents as it pertains to DC swamp dwellers, the aggregate UniParty tribe, I am left reviewing and reconciling visible activity through the prism of constant deceptive motive and anti-Trump corruption.  Honestly, it’s exhausting.

RFK Jr. is reportedly paying right-wing “influencers” to steer favorable opinion of him as a safe Republican alternative to President Donald Trump [SEE ARTICLE HERE].  This paid “influencer” approach mirrors the activity by Ron DeSantis in his failed (currently suspended) bid to win the GOP nomination, and it would appear some of the same characters are participating.

The effort by Kennedy Jr. to peel voters from Donald Trump would also undercut the premise of those who claimed Kennedy’s main target would be Biden supporters.  Additionally, Adam Townsend noted on Twitter several days ago, how it was difficult to find the old speeches, interviews and remarks by RFK Jr., as if there was an effort underway to scrub Kennedy’s extreme leftist positions.

Then, after the internet scrubbing, we see Bill Ackman (CEO Pershing) pushing RFK Jr, and then a seemingly timed rebranding effort and video launch with Woody Harrelson narrating [SEE HERE].   This RFK Jr. rebranding video is then promoted by Elon Musk, who is -not coincidentally- a close friend of Bill Ackman.

Several months ago, I noted the construct around RFK Jr., essentially just noise and opaque activity, felt like we were witnessing an intelligence operation; perhaps driven by the IC effort to steer the election toward a favorable outcome for their interests.   The recent activity only appears to bolster that potential.

(more…)

Those who understand the construct of Lawfare understand the purposes and intents. Lawfare is an outcome of a radical activist pivot point that happened during the Obama administration.

Prior to the Obama-era the radicals tearing down government defended the transparently guilty, their allies and fellow traveling communists. Those who were arrested for violence the radicals supported, were defended, excused and their activity justified.

After the election of Obama, as noted first by author Jack Cashill, something changed; the radicals reversed their position. Instead of defending the transparently guilty, the Obama aligned usurpers -now with actual power at their fingertips- began accusing the transparently innocent.

In the “anger games” era of Barack Obama, the radicals began attacking the innocent and using their allies in media as part of the attack narrative. George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, the Baltimore-six, etc. The list is long; we tracked them all with detailed research; however, the theme amid every story was the same. Isolate, ridicule and marginalize the transparently innocent target and make them appear guilty.

When you think about the construct during the 2016 election and the entirely fraudulent Trump-Russia collusion narrative, you see the same theme continued. Stand back and elevate yourself and you see this era of using completely false accusations transposed over the election.  Essentially, accuse the target, Donald J Trump, of something he was transparently innocent of doing.

After they lost the 2016 election, the radicals did not stop.  They continued constructing entirely false Lawfare stories with the intention to frame the transparently innocent.  This approach had two benefits; (1) radical Lawfare maintained the attack position blocking any reversal of Obama policy, and (2) the Lawfare process covered up their unlawful activity.

Using Lawfare constructed by Main Justice and the FBI, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation became the special counsel Mueller investigation, which became impeachment investigations, which became the Durham investigation, which became the J6 investigation, which became the Jack Smith investigation.  All of it was/is one long Lawfare operation.

(more…)

So far, these ridiculous Lawfare attacks against President Donald Trump have backfired and generated more support.  The reasoning for this reaction from the polled public is simple; the more the weaponized state and judicial system attacks President Trump, the clearer the dynamic of the 2024 election becomes.

The radicals amid the Lawfare operation consistently disregard the intelligence of the average American; however, it should be noted talking down to people is a common trait amid most leftists who consider themselves more intelligent than the people they talk about.  As the operatives use transparently ridiculous Lawfare to attack President Trump, the dynamic of the race changes.

2024 is no longer about Republicans vs Democrats.  The 2024 race is now framed as ‘truthful voting Americans fighting against a corrupt and weaponized government supported by a corrupt political UniParty system – Republicans and Democrats alike.

As Mary McCord, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen design the Lawfare narrative executed by District Attorney Alvin Bragg and NYC activist Judge Juan Merchan, the Lawfare crew underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate. Today, Merchan threatens to jail President Trump [SEE JUDGEMENT HERE] for violating the gag order they need in order to continue their Lawfare attacks.

Today Judge Merchan held President Trump in contempt for one of four statements prosecutors claimed were gag order violations. The ‘infraction’ was a comment Trump made about the jury, April 22 on a radio show called “Just the News, No Noise.”  President Trump responded to a question saying, “That jury was picked so fast — 95 percent Democrats.”  This retort, the judge claims, is a violation:

“Defendant violated the Order by making public statements about the jury and how it was selected. In doing so, Defendant not only called into question the integrity, and therefore the legitimacy of these proceedings, but again raised the specter of fear for the safety of the jurors and of their loved ones.”  [Page 4, pdf]

(more…)

Jason Foster has filed an interesting “motion to intervene” in a court filing against the DOJ effort to keep the legal rationale for a 2017 subpoena hidden. tldr version HERE

Mr. Jason Foster was one of Chuck Grassley’s congressional lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a key Grassley research staffer when the background of the DOJ/FBI Spygate operation against Donald Trump was at its apex.

In a COURT FILING, Jason Foster notes, in September 2017, the DOJ requested and received a court order which it leveraged against Google and Big Tech to gain access to the phone and electronic data of House and Senate staff members. The DOJ then filed Non Disclosure Orders (NDOs) blocking the notification of the target(s), in this example Mr. Foster himself.   Foster wants to know what justification the DOJ gave the judge to get the warrants and subpoena.

I find this motion/filing exceptionally interesting, because the originating DOJ action was in September ’17, when the Mueller cover-up was in full bloom; the Mueller team essentially controlled all of Main Justice (per Rosenstein testimony), and the effort of the DOJ was to keep a bag over the FBI/DOJ activity in the 2016 election.

As Jeff Carlson notes, the “DOJ has kept sealed their “legal rationale” for targeting the communications of congressional staff attorneys for GOP oversight committees.”

Foster notes, this DOJ subpoena appears related to the leak of the “Top Secret” FISA application used against Carter Page.  The media received that leak, in March 2017, and the FBI (Washington Field Office) was investigating how the TS-SCI classified leak originated.  At the same time, the DOJ (“Mueller team”), now in September 2017, had a vested interest monitoring ‘who knew what’ not only about the leak (James Wolfe and Mark Warner), but also about the motives of the special counsel coverup operation.

(more…)

This is a good overall encapsulation by Julie Kelly and to a lesser extent Steve Bannon about what Judge Aileen Cannon is doing with the Jack Smith “documents” case in Florida.

Kelly notes accurately {See Background} that Judge Aileen Cannon is somewhat limited on what she can do about the federal government case due to the DOJ using the false pretense of “national security” to control how the judicial branch can interact with the lawfare construct of the executive branch.  The Lawfare crew intentionally created the “national security” angle to control all sides of the case and limit the release of information to the public.

Judge Cannon has recently been releasing and un-redacting documents and motions filed in the case to allow disinfecting sunlight and transparency to enter. This approach undercuts the prosecution manipulation, the DOJ does not like it.   Julie Kelly outlines some of the details that Cannon’s releases have highlighted.  {Direct Rumble Link}

At the 12:00 minute mark, Steve Bannon highlights his anger as he rails against congress and the staff of multiple committees who participate in the willful blindness and pretending game.

After noticing how congress is mute about the revelations that Cannon is providing, Bannon notes the republicans are essentially anti-Trump and controlled opposition, which is essentially accurate…. However, he’s just now noticing this?

It is a little annoying to see Mr. Bannon discuss outrage as a manipulative tactic {Chaffe and Countermeasures}, considering the years of outrage traps laid by the republicans in the Deep State against President Trump.  The latest effort by congress pretending not to notice, and then staying quiet, is not exactly a surprise.

(more…)

The first part of this interview highlights Alan Dershowitz talking about the history of leftist college campuses in America carrying rabid anti-Jewish sentiments.  Dershowitz walks through a history of specific colleges and the organizations who fund and support the pro-Hamas antisemitic protests.

Toward the end of the interview Professor Dershowitz talks about the dangers of the Alvin Bragg prosecution of President Trump saying, “there is no crime.” WATCH:

(more…)

I’m catching up on perspectives from the talking head class about the ridiculous “hush money” legal case in New York City.  As I watched the review by Jonathan Turley, I noticed the video caught someone on the livestream.

Serendipitous timing – SEE HERE

(more…)

If you have followed law and politics for any length of time, you have probably heard of “speaking indictments.” That’s where the prosecution will write an indictment or court motion with very granular -yet perhaps not pertinent- details of a case against a suspect that highlights a much bigger picture than a singular perspective against the individual defendant.  The intent is to make the public aware of the details within a case by making them part of the court record.

In the Special Counsel Jack Smith constructed Lawfare case against Donald Trump, what is generally called “the documents case”, involving the raid on Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, did something similar to a speaking indictment with an extensive court motion on January 16, 2024.   The 68-page motion is a comprehensive “speaking motion” which outlines a great deal of the fraud and Lawfare manipulation by the special counsel. [SEE DOCUMENT HERE]

In response to the filing, using the pre-established legal narrative about needing to control “national security” information [SEE HERE], the Jack Smith team (essentially Lawfare operatives like Weissman, Eisen and McCord) redacted large portions of the Trump motion specifically to stop the public record from showing the outline.   However, two days ago, April 22nd, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed and more importantly ‘unredacted’ the motion.

[READ THE DETAILS HERE]

Keep in mind, back in the beginning of the pre-trial discovery phase -in response to the filing by Trump- Jack Smith gave the judge the opinion of the DOJ [SEE HERE] toward discovery and documents.  As noted, and summarized well by Julie Kelly:

To clear up any confusion as to what Special Counsel Jack Smith sought to conceal in classified documents case, this is what Smith told Judge Cannon in Feb 2024 in response to Trump’s motion to compel discovery from numerous govt agencies:

1) Defendants are not entitled to discovery of internal government correspondence and memoranda, or to documents that are otherwise privileged.

2) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence of ‘Improper Coordination with NARA’ and of ‘Bias and Investigative Misconduct.’

3) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Trump’s Security Clearance With The Department of Energy.

4) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Secure Facilities at President Trump’s Residences.

5) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Production of Materials Concerning the Search of Mar-a-Lago.

AND FINALLY:

6) Defendants’ Request for Unredacted Discovery of Materials Should Be Denied.

(more…)

This is not going to be a surprise for regular CTH readers; however, Politico is outlining how a group of Lawfare ideologues meet every Friday to discuss their constructed legal filings and the next week of attack angles against President Donald Trump.

In essence, the core group inside the meeting are what Christine Blasey-Ford called the “beach friends” when discussing who constructed the legal avenues for the ridiculous attack against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

As we have noted for the past several years, it’s this same group of Lawfare ideologues, mostly former DOJ administrators and lawyers, who are behind every anti-Trump effort.   The primary trio is Mary McCord, Norm Eisen (left in red tie), and Andrew Weissmann.

These are the three members who write the briefs and court motions that Jack Smith then files.

Mary McCord worked in the DOJ-NSD to secure the first Title-1 warrant against the Trump campaign; then she created the Logan Act violation to use against Michael Flynn; then she went to work with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on both impeachment efforts; then McCord went to work for Bennie Thompson on the J6 committee; then she worked as the liaison between the J6 Committee and Fulton County DA Fani Willis, and now Mary McCord currently works for Jack Smith on the special counsel effort.

Politico outlines how Lawfare operative Norm Eisen organizes the weekly Lawfare meeting and lists the participants who also join in.  Remember, Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann are the primary Lawfare agents.

Via POLITICO – […] Every Friday, they meet on Zoom to hash out the latest twists and turns in the Trump legal saga — and intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system.

The meetings are off the record — a chance for the group’s members, many of whom are formally or loosely affiliated with different media outlets, to grapple with a seemingly endless array of novel legal issues before they hit the airwaves or take to print or digital outlets to weigh in with their thoughts.

The group’s host is Norman Eisen, a senior Obama administration official, longtime Trump critic and CNN legal analyst, who has been convening the group since 2022 as Trump’s legal woes ramped up. Eisen was also a key member of the team of lawyers assembled by House Democrats to handle Trump’s first impeachment.

(more…)

This is more than a little interesting and aligns with my own research and discussions.  House Speaker Mike Johnson was lobbied by former CIA Director Mike Pompeo and current officials from the CIA, DNI and Intelligence Community.

This effort, and his son starting at the Naval Academy, is what changed Johnson’s mind about allowing the U.S. intelligence community to have his full support in the IC war against the American people.

The story is shared by CNN, the official outlet for perspectives and viewpoints held by the U.S. State Dept (CIA), so keep the narrative origination in mind.  Here are the key points as written in the article:

WASHINGTON – […] The speaker’s embrace of Ukraine aid represents a remarkable evolution for Johnson, who voted against funding for the country as a rank-and-file member. But almost immediately after securing the speaker’s gavel, sources say he began to hear directly from critical Republican national security voices – including Donald Trump’s former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, who impressed upon him the urgent need to approve assistance for Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s invasion.

In March, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky lobbied the speaker directly. Within minutes of the House approving a new military aid package for Ukraine on Saturday, Zelensky offered his thanks to US lawmakers, and in particular to Johnson for his decision that “keeps history on the right track.”

And more recently, Johnson received a key intelligence briefing from CIA Director Bill Burns, who painted a picture of the dire situation on the battlefield in Ukraine and the global consequences of inaction, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation. The briefing left a lasting impression, and Johnson became increasingly convinced the fate of Western democracy was on his shoulders, sources close to him said.

(more…)