Trump announcing the indictment on June 8th was NOT what DOJ/SCO wanted. I'll show you.
The very first document on the docket is the motion to seal the indictment. It says that the grand jury returned an indictment on June 8th, 2023. (wish it gave a time, but it doesn't)
The filing says that Trump and Nauta were informed that they were targets of the investigation, but that neither Trump nor Nauta were informed of the decision to seek an indictment.
Citing intense media/public interests, the Special Counsel's Office wanted to keep the indictment sealed and asked the judge to issue a judicial summons to Trump and Nauta for Tuesday, June 13th, at which time they would unseal the indictment.
They, DOJ/SCO, wanted to delay public disclosure of the indictment.
The judge agrees and ORDERS it all sealed until next Tuesday.
So what does Trump do?
He seizes control of the narrative and tells the whole world that he has been indicted, hahaha!
Which causes the Special Counsel to then ask the judge to unseal the indictment, because, well, it's now pointless to keep it sealed.
Judge agrees and unseals it.
Trump's lawyers tell media they received a summons, but have not received an indictment.
He always knows.
Just like with the MAL "Raid" and the Bragg indictment, Trump is the man who informs the world of what is going on.
He controls the narrative.
And Patriots control much more.
😎
Link to docket for anyone who wants to follow the case.
"The sources declined to disclose the exact number or locations of CIA facilities hit by Iranian drones. One source put the number at 'more than one and fewer than a dozen.' A second source said several facilities were hit."
"U.S. intelligence officials have not yet reached firm conclusions about the possible Russian involvement in the attacks on CIA facilities. But they cited the strikes' effectiveness and apparent precision, as well as Russia's broader technical support for Iran, as possible evidence."
"At least two CIA sites were struck in March, Reuters and other outlets have reported. One of the facilities was the CIA station in Saudi Arabia, which is located in the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, and a separate site was located in eastern Iraq. Some of the sources said additional CIA sites had been hit, but they did not disclose details."
🧵Fmr CIA Director Brennon is seeking a court order that would require Blanche, Kash, Ratcliffe, and others to preserve records from the ongoing investigations targeting him.
If indicted, he plans to file motion(s) to dismiss based on vindictive and selective prosecution, so he'll need those records to support such a motion.
The folks named in the lawsuit are already required to preserve such records, but Brennan is asking a judge to tell them they better do it, or else...
The complaint confirms two investigations into Brennan:
When arguing against the Terrorism Enhancement being applied at your sentencing, it's probably best practice that you DO NOT include any letters from a member of Hizballah, even if he is your brother.
Alex Saab will be resentenced on July 10, 2026.
I wrote about Saab, his crimes, and his extraordinary arrest years ago.
Saab was facing about 20 years in prison, but in 2023 the Biden Admin swapped him back to Venezuela in exchange for 10 American hostages plus "Fat Leonard," a corrupt defense contractor at the center of a Pentagon bribery scandal.
Judge McFadden DENIES the defense's motion to disqualify @USAttyPirro and @DAGToddBlanche from the case.
Defense had argued that Blanche and Pirro being at the scene of the alleged crime and publicly commenting on it had created a conflict.
The four main arguments were the following:
(1) Their presence at the WHCA Dinner made them witnesses (both reported hearing the gunshots)
(2) Their presence at the WHCA Dinner made them potential victims of Allen (according to the gov't's theory of the case), (both reported that they were in the “line of fire” and had to be evacuated)
(3) Blanche and Pirro's statements to media about the events at the WHCA Dinner were prejudicial and showed bias
(4) Citing the longtime friendship of Trump and Pirro, Trump being the alleged intended victim, and Pirro being the prosecutor, this created an appearance of impropriety. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Judge McFadden addresses argument (1)—Blanche and Pirro were witnesses.
"...whatever firsthand knowledge they have about Allen’s actions appears limited to what anyone in the ballroom would have..."
"...absent special circumstances, an attorney can “elect in which capacity [he] intend[s] to proceed, either as counsel or as a witness.” Because neither side indicates that it plans to call Blanche or Pirro as a witness, the advocate-witness rule poses no concerns."