FBI agents raid Trump's Florida home

[TargeT]

Posted by 7he5ource (here)
i think it's your own bias showing here as i've never voted in my life,
so my research spans 53 yrs of experience and thousands of yrs research .

ok, well.. I love logical fallacies as much as the next person... but I'm not sure how you not voting nor your "53 years and thousands of years research" are relevant either, just seems like dodging facts for an "appeal to authority" precursed by a "straw man".. both of which are not useful in finding out what's actually happening.

Posted by 7he5ource (here)
don't paint my words as political im neither for or against any politician

politics from etymological root polite or a pretense or act fools engage in.

the truth isn't politically correct, nor political in nature.

I agree, Politics can be / is currently a leverage of tribalism... I'm not saying you are political, I'm saying you are incorrect. (also, Etymology is my passion, I'd love to discuss the origins of phrases and words etc... but I think you might not be using that word correctly)

Posted by 7he5ource (here)
if i were FBI i would have NO PROBLEM STORMING ANY POLITICIANS HOUSE
this includes many non-politicians too.

Hopefully based on probable cause at least? Maybe a scrap or two of evidence? what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Posted by 7he5ource (here)
only intel operations interest me.

Well, I suppose you are talking to the correct individual.


AFAIK I'm the only (titled by some of this forum's members) spook here. (I can do the appeal to authority thing too!)

I dunno, you asked me to review your post history... I did, what happened between Aug1 and Aug3? you became very interested in politics and not your usual posting patterns... have you reviewed my post history (haha, i'd never ask that... far too many examples of who I am and how I think..........)

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Satori (here)

I just saw that the WSJ has an opinion piece today titled: “The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis”. I have not read it as I do not subscribe to the WSJ

I don't subscribe to the WSJ either, but I found it. The WSJ article itself is here.

~~~

The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis

A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Aug. 22, 2022 12:51 pm ET

Wonder Land: The first Trump presidency began with the Russian collusion narrative. Now we have its offspring—the classified-documents narrative, which like its predecessor, is heavy on insinuation and light on facts.

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added).

These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.

Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites. . . .

Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based. Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”

Nothing is said about the former president himself, but applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced PRA statutory scheme. Thus if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House, he should be in the clear, even if some of those records are classified.

In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Biden Admin Was Directly Involved with the Mar-a-Lago FBI Raid:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Im_N1W1hbb8

It was coordinating with DOJ and the archives as early as May: https://archive.ph/GciN3

[Ratszinger]

None of the records Trump took can be considered classified. By his act of taking them he declassified them period! This from a Law Professor at Harvard. There is nothing here that is to do anything to hurt Trump! It is only helping him and it has become a massive springboard of money inflow to his campaign! Amercans on both sides of the aisle are pissed off! You should see the republican primary lines forming today in Oklahoma!!

[mountain_jim]

https://justthenews.com/politics-pol..._campaign=twjs

Biden White House facilitated DOJ's criminal probe against Trump, scuttled privilege claims: memos

by John Solomon

"I have therefore decided not to honor the former President's 'protective' claim of privilege," acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote Trump's team in May.

Long before it professed no prior knowledge of the raid on Donald Trump's estate, the Biden White House worked directly with the Justice Department and National Archives to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents, allowing the FBI to review evidence retrieved from Mar-a-Lago this spring and eliminating the 45th president's claims to executive privilege, according to contemporaneous government documents reviewed by Just the News.

The memos show then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ and National Archives as early as April, shortly after 15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned to the federal historical agency from Trump's Florida home.

By May, Su conveyed to the Archives that President Joe Biden would not object to waiving his predecessor's claims to executive privilege, a decision that opened the door for DOJ to get a grand jury to issue a subpoena compelling Trump to turn over any remaining materials he possessed from his presidency.

The machinations are summarized in several memos and emails exchanged between the various agencies in spring 2022, months before the FBI took the added unprecedented step of raiding Trump's Florida compound with a court-issued search warrant.

The most complete summary was contained in a lengthy letter dated May 10 that acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall sent Trump's lawyers summarizing the White House's involvement.

"On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel's Office — affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum — formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes," Wall wrote Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran.

That letter revealed Biden empowered the National Archives and Records Administration to waive any claims to executive privilege that Trump might assert to block DOJ from gaining access to the documents.

"The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported 'protective assertion of executive privilege,'" Wall wrote. "... I have therefore decided not to honor the former President's 'protective' claim of privilege."

The memos provide the most definitive evidence to date of the current White House's effort to facilitate a criminal probe of the man Joe Biden beat in the 2020 election and may face again as a challenger in 2024. That involvement included eliminating one of the legal defenses Trump might use to fight the FBI over access to his documents.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and the committee's likely chairman if the GOP win control of Congress in November, called the Biden White House's involvement and privilege waiver "amazing news" with implications for past and future presidents.

"Look, the left, they've been out to get President Trump because President Trump's a threat to the clique, to the swamp, to the bureaucracy, to the deep state," Jordan told the "Just the News, Not Noise" television show Tuesday night. "Whatever term you want to use. And they all know it.

"That's why they were out to get him before he was in office, and they set up the whole Russia collusion hoax. It's why they tried to get him while he was in office. And of course, obviously they continue to do so now that he's left. It's just never going to end."

Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard law professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat, reviewed some of the correspondence at Just the News' request. He said the Biden White House's eagerness to waive Trump's claims of privilege could have future implications for generations of presidents to come.

"I was very surprised," Dershowitz said after reading the text of Wall's letter. "The current president should not be able to waive the executive privilege of a predecessor, without the consent of the former president. Otherwise, [privilege] means nothing. What president will ever discuss anything in private if he knows the man who beat him can and will disclose it."

While some courts have upheld the notion of a successor president waiving privilege for a predecessor, Dershowitz said the matter remains to be decided definitively by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The best thinking is that an incumbent president cannot waive the right of the previous president," he said in a phone interview with Just the News. "It would make a mockery of the whole notion of privilege."

In her letter, Wall told Corcoran the Biden administration believes a Watergate era ruling suggested Biden had the authority to waive Trump's privileges.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege 'against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked,'" she wrote. That ruling, however, was issued under an earlier predecessor law for presidential records and in the immediate aftermath of one of America's worst presidential scandals.

The correspondence reviewed by Just the News also provides a contemporaneous window into what the National Archives (NARA) found when it first got boxes of documents returned from Trump's compound in February 2022. Those boxes had been packed up by the General Services Administration as Trump was leaving the White House on Jan. 20, 2021.

"In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials," Wall wrote. "NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them."

The correspondence and emails show Corcoran had a phone conversation with Su about privilege claims in the spring, with Trump's lawyers raising concerns that some of the materials were subject to Trump's claims of executive privilege.

"We have requested the ability to review the documents," Corcoran wrote National Archives General Counsel Gary Stern on April 29, copying Su on the letter. "That review is necessary in order to ascertain whether any specific document is subject to privilege. We would respectfully request that you restrict access to the documents until we have had the opportunity to review the documents and to consult with President Donald J. Trump so that he may personally make any decision to assert a claim of constitutionally based privilege."

But a dozen days later, Wall informed Corcoran that she had the blessing of Biden to overrule those privilege claims and share all materials requested by the DOJ and FBI.

"The White House Counsel's Office acquiesced in an extension of the production date to April 29, and so advised NARA," she wrote. "In accord with that agreement, we had not yet provided the FBI with access to the records when we received your letter on April 29, and we have continued to refrain from providing such access to date.

"It has now been four weeks since we first informed you of our intent to provide the FBI access to the boxes so that it and others in the Intelligence Community can conduct their reviews. Notwithstanding the urgency conveyed by the Department of Justice and the reasonable extension afforded to the former President, your April 29 letter asks for additional time for you to review the materials in the boxes.

"Accordingly, I have consulted with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to inform my 'determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege.' ... I have therefore decided not to honor the former President's 'protective' claim of privilege."

Within a couple of weeks of Wall's letter to Corocoran, the DOJ sent a grand jury subpoena to Trump's team demanding the return of any remaining national security documents, which precipitated a voluntary visit by the FBI to Mar-a-Lago on June 3, when agents picked a small amount of materials Trump's lawyers said were responsive to the subpoena

Two months later, the FBI escalated again, seeking a search warrant to raid the Trump estate on Aug. 8.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Biden Knew The Whole Time?

• source

[mountain_jim]

sometimes you just need to laugh (to keep from crying)

https://twitter.com/stevenvoiceover/...7MMt1mVzLADcbA

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Mar-a-lago FBI Raid Classified Material Astroturf Leak:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hN_mT6xVx0M

[mountain_jim]

@intheMatrixxx
Forwarded from
TheStormHasArrived17


Funny how the fake news always debunks themselves if you search hard enough.

Here is an excerpt from an NPR article from 2019 admitting that President Trump has “absolute power” when it comes to classified secrets.

“He therefore has the authority to decide unilaterally what will be disclosed, what will be declassified and what will not.”

If 45 says something is declassified, it’s declassified. Period.

Full article: https://tinyurl.com/ymvt9238

///

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/05/75803...oto-yep-he-can

NATIONAL SECURITY
Can President Trump Really Tweet A Highly Classified Satellite Photo? Yep, He Can
September 5, 20195:27 PM ET


This image tweeted by President Trump is believed to have come from a highly classified U.S. reconnaissance satellite known as USA 224.
Donald J. Trump Twitter account via AP

The first thing Melissa Hanham did when she saw President Trump's tweet last week was take a screen grab.

"My reaction was to immediately save the image to my phone just in case it got taken down," she says.

The wording on the tweet was cryptic: "The United States of America was not involved in the catastrophic accident during final launch preparations for the Safir [space launch vehicle] Launch at Semnan Launch Site One in Iran," the president said. "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."

But it was the photo that left Hanham, a satellite imagery expert, gobsmacked. The day before, on Aug. 29, a rocket had exploded at the Imam Khomeini Space Center in northern Iran. Trump's tweet contained an incredibly sharp image of the aftermath. Visible were burned-out vehicles and lettering around the edge of the pad that couldn't be seen clearly in commercial satellite photos.

Hanham, deputy director of the Open Nuclear Network in Vienna, says she has seen lots of images over the years but never anything like this. "It was so crystal clear and high-resolution that I did not believe it could have come from a satellite," she says.

There are still few details about how the image made its way to Trump's Twitter account. The president received his daily intelligence briefing at 11:30 a.m. ET, about two hours before the tweet.

CNBC reported that Trump was shown the photo during the briefing. A flash visible in the center of the image suggests Trump or someone else took a photo of the original image — which Hanham says might have been the intelligence briefing slide. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence referred questions about the image to the White House.

"We had a photo and I released it, which I have the absolute right to do," Trump told reporters late Friday.

Such a disclosure of classified information by anyone but the president would end in jail time, says Bruce Klingner, a former CIA officer now at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"Anyone else who revealed it would be sitting in Leavenworth prison, serving out a prison term," Klingner says.

But in the world of classified secrets, the president of the United States has absolute power. "The classification system for national security information is not based in a law, it derives from the president's own status as commander in chief of the armed forces," says Steven Aftergood, who studies government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

The rules about classification are laid out in very detailed presidential orders as part of a system run by the executive branch, and Trump is the boss.

"He therefore has the authority to decide unilaterally what will be disclosed, what will be declassified and what will not," Aftergood says.

Past presidents have used this power sparingly. President Bill Clinton authorized the release of some satellite images during the Balkans conflict in the 1990s. In 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell used satellite photos in his speech at the U.N. to build a case for war with Iraq.

But Aftergood thinks the images in those instances were deliberately blurred to hide what U.S. satellites could really do. There's a good reason for that: "These satellites are in the billion-to-multibillion-dollar range; they are worth more than their weight in gold," he says. The photos they produce are so good, they're at the limits of the laws of physics — it's the best picture you can possibly take from space. Aftergood thinks the president's decision to tweet what looks like an unblurred photo of the Iranian accident was a bad idea.

"In chess terms, he has sacrificed a bishop for a pawn or less," he says.

"What the president did is pretty sporty," says Rebeccah Heinrichs with the conservative Hudson Institute. But she also thinks it was done deliberately. The text of the tweet was clearly written by or vetted by someone with an intelligence background, Heinrichs says, noting the use of abbreviations such as SLV for "space launch vehicle." And she thinks the tweet sends a powerful message to Iran.

"He is communicating that we are carefully watching and that we are using restraint, and that if we wanted to do more, we could," she says.

At least some experts agree. "Nations are not suddenly going to say, 'Oh no, we had no idea they could watch us this closely!' " says one senior satellite imaging expert who asked to remain anonymous because of the furor around Trump's tweet. "Yes, there is clearly more detail, but not a whole lot of useful information beyond what the best commercial imagery provides."

But Aftergood thinks Iran will be able to learn from the image. A group of independent satellite spotters says it has already determined which U.S. satellite took the picture. USA 224, one of America's most advanced spy satellites, passed over the launch site shortly after the accident.

Now that the satellite has been pinpointed, Aftergood worries that Iran can evade it. For example, he says, in the runup to an Indian nuclear weapons test in 1998, India tracked U.S. satellites and made sure not to move any major equipment while they were overhead. The U.S. intelligence community was caught off guard by the test when it happened.

And Klingner, the former CIA officer, notes that Iran wasn't the only one that saw the tweet.

"Our adversaries — Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria and others — will be looking at this, trying to figure out how good our capabilities are," Klingner says. He worries they just might learn something.

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...tional-lawyers

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-ma...s_4685637.html

FBI Mar-a-Lago Warrant Had 'No Legal Basis': Constitutional Lawyers

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Two constitutional lawyers who worked in the Bush and Reagan administrations say that the warrant used to search former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence had no legal basis.

A former president’s right under the Presidential Records Act supersedes the statutes the Department of Justice and FBI used to carry out the raid earlier this month, wrote David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, who both served under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

“The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid,” they wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

Earlier this month, federal Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart unsealed the warrant and property receipt, showing that it allowed FBI agents to obtain all “physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519.”

And the materials that could be seized are “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021,” which encompasses all of Trump’s presidential term.

As a result, the two scholars said that “virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category” but “federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them.”

“His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant,” Rivkin and Casey wrote.

“Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978,” they said, adding that a Supreme Court decision in 1974 affirms their argument. “The former president’s rights under the [Presidential Records Act] trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.”

The 1978 law, which was passed two years after former President Richard Nixon resigned, “lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access,” they added. “Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.”

In their opinion piece, the authors stated that because the FBI and Justice Department were satisfied with an additional lock being installed on a Mar-a-Lago storage room, the federal agencies “could and should have sought a less intrusive” method than a search warrant.

Read more here...

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/DefiyantlyFree/s...Nl16ajYfL-rEqg

[TargeT]

Posted by Satori (here)
Was the warrant legal? Versus. Was the warrant obtained legally?

Yes, the warrant was legal. That is why Trump’s people on the scene abided by it. Trump no doubt required they do so and they probably did not need to be told.

No, the warrant was not obtained legally. What the DOJ/FBI did, and failed to do, to obtain the warrant, violated civil law, if not criminal law. At a minimum, Trump’s civil rights were violated. This is because the wrongdoers violated clearly established law governing standards applicable to obtaining a lawful search warrant.

This is to say nothing of what they did in the course of the search and seizure at the residence. Or since then.

Trump has a Bivens lawsuit available to him. This is true as a matter law, not politics.

Edit. I just saw that the WSJ has an opinion piece today titled: “The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis”. I have not read it as I do not subscribe to the WSJ

What is your take on the PRO-SE move? I wonder if there is a discrimination case for his (apparent) lack of availability to counsel? Just another tactic or a tell that the system is completely biased (and a bit terrifying).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQX3jz3Vzxw

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://twitter.com/DefiyantlyFree/s...Nl16ajYfL-rEqg

So,,, commit crimes with a blue shirt on = your good.

Act in a way blue shirt wearing guys don't like = get raided.

good times.

[Satori]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Satori (here)
Was the warrant legal? Versus. Was the warrant obtained legally?

Yes, the warrant was legal. That is why Trump’s people on the scene abided by it. Trump no doubt required they do so and they probably did not need to be told.

No, the warrant was not obtained legally. What the DOJ/FBI did, and failed to do, to obtain the warrant, violated civil law, if not criminal law. At a minimum, Trump’s civil rights were violated. This is because the wrongdoers violated clearly established law governing standards applicable to obtaining a lawful search warrant.

This is to say nothing of what they did in the course of the search and seizure at the residence. Or since then.

Trump has a Bivens lawsuit available to him. This is true as a matter law, not politics.

Edit. I just saw that the WSJ has an opinion piece today titled: “The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis”. I have not read it as I do not subscribe to the WSJ

What is your take on the PRO-SE move? I wonder if there is a discrimination case for his (apparent) lack of availability to counsel? Just another tactic or a tell that the system is completely biased (and a bit terrifying).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQX3jz3Vzxw

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://twitter.com/DefiyantlyFree/s...Nl16ajYfL-rEqg

So,,, commit crimes with a blue shirt on = your good.

Act in a way blue shirt wearing guys don't like = get raided.

good times.

I’ve only watched a part of this video. I stopped because I do not think these guys are correct. I doubt very much that Trump filed any lawsuit pro se. Show me the court endorsed, filed lawsuit with his signature line as a pro se litigant. Then I’ll have a conversation about this. Meanwhile, this is pure unsubstantiated hearsay.

There are many, many qualified lawyers who would represent Trump. Sure, there are many law firms that would not allow an attorney in the firm to bring the case in to the firm, because firm management is woke and/or not aligned with Trump politically or otherwise. But there are many firms that would jump on this case. He does not need to proceed pro se.

On a personal note, Naomi Wolfe first asked me to be her lawyer in the lawsuits that she and Dailyclout currently have pending re the poisonous jab. I was honored she asked me to do so. But, regrettably, I had to decline. Because I knew that the management of my firm would nix it on the spot. I wanted very much to take the matter on, but I knew it was not possible and that I would be wasting her time to try. I also knew that she would find qualified lawyers that were enthusiastic and wanted to help her in pursuit of a very important and highly just cause. She did.

Trump would likewise have no trouble finding qualified lawyers. If there is any such lawsuit, I’m sure he did and that he is not pro se.

I call this story BS.

[TargeT]

Posted by Satori (here)
Trump would likewise have no trouble finding qualified lawyers. If there is any such lawsuit, I’m sure he did and that he is not pro se.

I call this story BS.

I agree, I have not had as much time as I used to; I should have spent more researching.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...st-doj-1736230

[ExomatrixTV]

• Of Course, RINO Pence Defends FBI Despite Long List Of Its Failures:

Media Malfeasance: Pence Defends Politicized FBI Despite Long List Of Its Failures
Featured: Brian Stelter îs OUT, update on FBI raid, immigration invasion, Pence defense vs. reality, Liz Cheney's delusions, and CDC reckoning.

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Absurdity of the Trump Mar-a-Lago Raid:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zz1oTqhyeok

[Ratszinger]

It is absurd and what is funny is that the left don't even appear to realize what they've opened the door to! Trump when elected can now do the same to Biden and Harris and Pelosi and Schiff for brains and more because of this making a mochary of the executive privelege. None of them have it now. I don't think they even realize what will be coming to bite their own in the behind now after this move by this admin

[ExomatrixTV]

• "NO CONSPIRACY": Trump Vindicated by Barr's Russiagate Memo

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xh541TGdiNo

• archive.ph/PII1W

[norman]

This is going to get interesting . . . .


Media FLIPS, sets stage to blame Trump for widespread VACCINE INJURIES and deaths

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/0cc5974e-784b-4631-8fb8-8f1680a0bd82

[Satori]

Posted by norman (here)
This is going to get interesting . . . .


Media FLIPS, sets stage to blame Trump for widespread VACCINE INJURIES and deaths

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/0cc5974e-784b-4631-8fb8-8f1680a0bd82

While this hypothesis is plausible, it will fall flat on its face and fail, just as all other strategies of Biden’s global handlers have failed.

The only people who will believe this bogus assertion are those who already will vote against Trump. Trump’s supporters—who vastly out number the woke who may have actually voted for Biden and even more so the fascists criminals who lie to the woke—will not fall for this crap.

“MAGA” may to some extent not be happy with Trump’s heretofore position on the Covid jab criminal scam about the jab, but most of the patriots, MAGA or not, realize the whatever his faults the alternatives are woefully worse and utterly unacceptable. They also understand Trump was duped and misled.

Never, never, never trust a so-called expert who is being paid for, or benefitting from, his or her opinions!

This crap is just another variation of whatever they can conceive of to try to stop we, the people, of the USA, who see through the lies and are determined to prevent the destruction of the USA.

These murdering criminals will have to figure out another way to steal the 2022 midterms and the 2024 [s]election. The Trump-killed-all-these-people-with-the-warp speed-jab angle will not work. It’s another one of their endless lies. Plain and simple. Don’t fall for it.

Mike Adams, who I frequently listen to, like and respect, needs to settle down and come up for some air on this one.