As President Donald Trump stands with his legal team to defend himself against political prosecution, his spokesperson Alina Habba delivered a statement and addressed reporters outside the federal courthouse in Miami.
Habba accurately noted the people currently in control of our government do not love this country. They are trying to tear this country apart and Donald J Trump is a tool to achieve that objective. This is their goal. This is the fundamental change they desire. Isolation, ridicule and fear are their goals as they use the weaponized power of the full governmental apparatus against their opposition. WATCH:
Keep in mind, the powers that seek to control the American political system, and ultimately the lives of every person in this nation, need the average person to feel despair, isolated and alone. Those who use weaponized power to isolate, ridicule and marginalize, need to control the mechanisms of social life in order to stop people from connecting to the majority.
We are in an abusive relationship with our government. The people running the Biden administration need to ensure the American people do not assemble against them. Every mechanism and institution are being leveraged toward that objective. When you understand that larger goal that underpins their power, you can make earnest effort to defeat this psychological war by engaging in purposeful fellowship.
As history is a guide, when the abused take to the streets, villages and hamlets, they realize they are not alone. Defeating the abuser starts first by destroying the dark imaginings of fear the abuser creates in order to retain control. Ultimately this is the purpose behind the message, ‘live your best life.‘
Attorney Robert Barnes appeared on a podcast yesterday to give his analysis of the political indictment of President Trump. It’s a long deconstruction of the Lawfare effort, and contains numerous defenses therein; however, it is a very good encapsulation of the ridiculous issues created by the Biden administration’s efforts to target their political opposition on behalf of the Deep State. WATCH:
Things are certainly getting interesting on the Biden bribery story. Apparently, in the unclassified interview with the Confidential Human Source, the FBI redacted the source alleging he has audio recordings of himself speaking to Joe Biden.
Senator Chuck Grassley revealed this little bit of information today from the security of the Senate floor. WATCH:
[Grassley] […] Let me assist for purposes of transparency.
The 1023 produced to that House Committee redacted reference that the foreign national who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden allegedly has audio recordings of his conversations with them. Seventeen total recordings.
According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses fifteen audio recordings of phone calls between him and Hunter Biden. According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses two audio recordings of phone calls between him and then-Vice President Joe Biden. These recordings were allegedly kept as a sort of insurance policy for the foreign national in case he got into a tight spot. The 1023 also indicates that then-Vice President Joe Biden may have been involved in Burisma employing Hunter Biden. (read full transcript)
Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.
As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents. When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process. Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.
Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part. You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment. However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.
This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment. Again, pay close attention. WATCH:
.
What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023{citation}. What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.
Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.
First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things.
Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings. Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.
Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved. In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}
Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed. Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.
Nothing shouts “complicity” quite like paying $290 million to make the issues disappear. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, fortunately ““The U.S. Virgin Islands will continue to proceed with its enforcement action to ensure full accountability for JPMorgan’s violations of law,” said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general.”
In one of the biggest settlements within the banking industry relating to sexploitation, JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pay the victims of Jeffrey Epstein $290 million in damages in order to settle a class action lawsuit against the bank. Epstein used JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank as the financial mechanisms to pay for the sex trafficking operation he ran. There are other civil and legal cases still ongoing, but JPMorgan hopes to extricate themselves from the collateral damage of Epstein’s horrific exploits.
Wall Street Journal – JPMorgan Chase JPM -0.25%decrease; red down pointing triangle agreed to pay $290 million to settle a lawsuit over its ties to Jeffrey Epstein, said lawyers for Epstein accusers, shortly after top executives were questioned about the bank’s years of dealings with the convicted sex offender.
The lawsuit on behalf of women who accused Epstein of abuse helped expose details about the bank’s relationship with Epstein for years after his conviction, forced Chief Executive Jamie Dimon to answer questions under oath, and led the bank to turn around and sue a former top leader, Jes Staley.
Dimon said in his deposition last month that he had never discussed Epstein or his accounts. Staley was deposed over the weekend.
The lawsuit was brought by an unnamed accuser who claimed the bank ignored red flags about Epstein until 2013 because he was bringing wealthy clients to the bank. JPMorgan has denied any wrongdoing. The bank still faces a related lawsuit from the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein had a residence.
I have been reviewing interviews, looking at discussion, and some of them I will share in the next few articles. However, for a solid representation of the state of our current dynamic, as it relates to the targeting of President Donald J. Trump, this interview below is a solid outlook from the detractors.
CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman and CBS News investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge join “Face the Nation” to discuss what’s in the indictment — and what it means for Trump. [Transcript Here]
Before getting to the video, it’s valuable to see Rikki Klieman representing the interpretation of the media outlook toward the indictment handed down by Special Counsel Jack Smith. It is also valuable to see CBS’s Catherine Herridge represent the defenders of the institutions, from the outside vulgarian personage of Trump.
Klieman buys the Lawfare narrative completely, including the framework of classified documents as opposed to documents containing classified markings. She sells the Lawfare outline as gospel and makes all assertions from that position. Herridge looks at how the bureaucracy responds to Trump, including how the institutions hold power of determination higher than a President of the United States.
As Bill Barr said emphatically earlier today, “The documents do not belong to Trump,” continuing with “The documents belong to the government who created them, not the man for whom they were created.” So sayeth the defender of the omnipotent Dept of Justice. This is where a sharp intellectual knife to cut through the chaff and countermeasures is needed, and notice no one brings up the visible and practical deconstruction point.
If the documents did not belong to President Donald J. Trump, then why did the government dump them in the parking lot of the White House and tell him to deal with them?
If the documents belonged to the government, and not to the man for whom they were created, then why did that same government give them to him and force him to take them to a location of his choosing? Can you see the obtuse argument fall apart when simple pragmatic questions are raised?
The institutions are presented, by the sellers of the Lawfare narrative, as higher than the authority of the President of the United States. This is how ridiculous our government has become.
Yes, it’s true, according to the information contained in the Jack Smith indictment of President Donald John Trump, The Conservative Treehouse likely holds similar “classified documents” as outlined in the case by the special prosecutor.
Once you understand how, you then understand one of the most overlooked nonsensical aspects to the insufferable DOJ and FBI case that has been pushed in the media for the past year.
The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists. It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”
There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.” When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.
You might think this is a one-off use of the “documents with classification markings” lingo, but it’s not. This language is the underpinning of the entire DOJ/FBI framework that predicated the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Specifically, neither NARA nor the DOJ-NSD requested President Trump or his team to return Classified Documents. The DOJ demanded the return of any documents that contained “classified markings.” [SEE BELOW]
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.
In the Trump indictment 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.
According to the Trump indictment, COUNT #7 – page 29, a document “concerning communication with the leader of a foreign country” is considered a document in violation of US Code 793, vital to national defense interests.
Do you want a historic example of this exactU.S. Code § 793(e) violation taking place?
