On July 23, 2023, Eisen published a far longer 264 page report, titled "Trump on Trial: A Model Prosecution Memo for Federal Election Interference Crimes Second Edition" justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…
Eisen: This model prosecution memorandum (or “pros memo”) assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election.
Eisen states it outright: This document provides a basis for prosecutors handling the case and their supervisors to assess whether the case meets the standard set forth in the Principles of Federal Prosecution, which permit charges only when there is “evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”
We know that Eisen was at the forefront of pushing obstruction charges against Trump during Mueller's investigation.
We also know that following his Brookings Reports on "Obstruction", Eisen was later retained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (as special oversight counsels to the Democrat majority staff during Trump's first impeachment.
Eisen claimed that he drafted ten Articles Of Impeachment a month before Pelosi announced an official impeachment inquiry into Trump. npr.org/2020/07/27/895…
Now it appears that Eisen is working - directly or indirectly - with BOTH Jack Smith and Fani Willis.
As he did with the Mueller Investigation, he appears to be acting as outside counsel to both investigations.
Eisen has also been hard at work on a massive "Jan 6th Clearing House"
Although the date is July 20, 2023, the effort began publicly on June 29, 2021. The private effort had likely begun much earlier
Solomon went to WH on evening of Jan 19, 2021 where he reviewed docs.
Plan was to fully disseminate to public on morning of the 20th.
But Solomon received a call late that night from someone w/in WH asking for their return for "additional redactions."
Here's what happened next
"On his initiative and without the President’s knowledge or consent, one of the President’s subordinates decided that redactions consistent with the standards of the Privacy Act should be applied to the binder before it was publicly released, the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion notwithstanding."
We know from an email sent by George Kent, deputy chief of mission in Kyiv, that a $7mm bribe was paid to the office of Ukrainian chief prosecutor Vitaly Yarema some time in latter part of 2014.
Yarema's office issued a Dec 25, 2014 letter to the UK Courts - who had been investigating Zlochevsky - stating there was no longer an active Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky.
This letter forced the UK Court to drop case.
Yarema and his staff were fired ~one month later.
Yarema's replacement was Viktor Shokin - who reopened the Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky & Burisma.
At the time of the bribe, Hunter was — per Burisma — in charge of Burisma’s legal affairs. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…
Two days after Joe Biden's newly disclosed Dec 4, 2015 conference call w/Hunter & Burisma owner Zlochevsky, Biden's staff crafted answers to potential questions Joe might get re: Hunter's involvement w/Burisma
One of those questions:
Do you think Zlochevsky is corrupt?
Biden's defenders like @RepDanGoldman have claimed Joe Biden didn't know these individuals - or anything about them.
But Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine wrote to Biden's staff on Dec 6, 2015, "I assume all have the DoJ background on Zlochevsky."
It's beyond any doubt that Joe Biden knew exactly who Zlochevsky was - and the significance of participating in a conference call w/Zlochevsky.
Biden's staff was obviously worried - and it's unlikely they even knew of the conference call w/Zlochevsky less than two days prior.
Here, Kent describes UK Investigation - and how it ended in late Dec 2014 because Yarema told UK Courts "there was no active case open on Zlochevsky"
Kent also mentions the $7mm bribe paid to Yarema's office.
Yarema resigned shortly after on Feb 9, 2015. Shokin replaced him.
There's another big problem as well. Goldman makes crazy claim that Shokin was an asset to Burisma - therefore Joe Biden's actions to fire Shokin ran counter to Burisma's interests:
"as Goldman articulated it...Shokin’s ouster put Burisma and Zlochevsky at more risk, not less."
2) Most are familiar w/sequence of events leading to the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Víctor Shokin - as the direct result of political and financial pressure from then-VP Joe Biden.
This thread, which focuses on Shokin timeline, is a good refresher:
1) There has been ongoing confusion surrounding the timing and actions of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin - the man whom Biden pressured Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire.
One of the ways this has been done — intentionally or otherwise — has been to conflate the actions of Shokin's predecessor, Vitaly Yarema, with Shokin.