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.”

[SOURCE page 41]

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]

(more…)

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…)

Amid all the furor of the corrupt and political indictment against President Trump, Congress was permitted to read the witness statement from a Confidential Human Source who outlined allegations of bribery in testimony to FBI agents.

The FD-1023 report was written by FBI investigators in July of 2020.  It became an issue after the FBI seemingly took no action, and then recently claimed to be “investigating” the claims of the “highly credible” FBI source.  Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) reviewed the report and then gave her impression to the media.  Video and Transcript below. WATCH:

Transcript: Reading this form (FBI’s FD-1023) today shows the pure distinction.

This information this source that came forward. It’s a paid informant by the FBI. This has nothing to do with Giuliani. This has nothing to do with the information that he brought forward in 2020. It’s totally separate and it’s extremely incredible because he’s a paid informant.

I made some notes after I left the skiff based on the information and I’ll share that with you guys right now.

(more…)

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 exact U.S. Code § 793(e) violation taking place?

Whose hands are those? [SOURCE] 

(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…)

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…)

….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…)

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…)