Reading Jack Smith's response on jury instructions and it's clear that the gloves are off btw DOJ and Judge Cannon.
One defense attorney just told me: "The tone Smith is taking with Cannon is no longer persuasion but outright threats. Unheard of dynamic btw DOJ and the bench."
Jack Smith's response is hysterical (and not in a funny way in a desperate way) bc he knows he has little control over her decision related to final jury instructions.
And he is arguing the basis for Trump's "unauthorized possession" of national defense material rests on Obama exec order not the Presidential Records Act.
So everyone who cried for months that "DRUMPF BROKE THE PRA!" can sit down. Jack Smith says PRA now has nothing to do with the case.
Also reminder of the bait and switch here. NARA sought files based on the claims Trump was violating the PRA. He produced 15 boxes of papers. NARA then claimed they found records with "classified markings" and sent a criminal referral (1st time ever) to FBI.
FBI promptly opened investigation. FBI sent a subpoena to Trump in May 2022 seeking more records with "classified markings." They turned over 38 more files.
Then in August, FBI sought search warrant seeking "national defense information." Reminder too we have not seen full unredacted application for search warrant.
Did DOJ seek warrant under the PRA or the Espionage Act or Obama's Exec Order or....what?
I will separate out Smith's threats to Cannon (unusual and toothless for the most part) later but this is basically the jury instructions DOJ wants to use.
This also might be a problem for DOJ bc it appears Trump still had Q security clearance at Dept. of Energy--one that DOE retroactively rescinded after Smith indicted Trump.
Also during March 14 hearing, DOJ claimed there was no formal process for a president to either receive or lose security clearance. So this might be another area of contention
This is why Smith is so angry--he knows if Cannon proceeds with the proposed scenario presented in her jury instructions order, he is, as one defense attorney told me at the time, f*cked.
He essentially demands that she rule now on jury instructions (she doesn't have to) or dismiss the counts so he can appeal. If she doesn't, he might seek "mandamus" at appellate court--asking 11th Circuit to tell Cannon what to do in the case. Very rare.
A reminder that this is Smith's indictment.
Charged a former president for the first time on violating the Espionage Act.
Now Smith's wants the jury to interpret the language of the law based on Obama's Executive Order not the Presidential Records Act.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While all eyes focus on Comey/Brennan/Clapper related to new disclosures on Russiagate and potential criminal liability, let's not forget lesser known figures who are just as culpable in the decade-long abuse of power against President Trump.
One individual is Lisa Monaco...
Here is part one of my two part series covering Monaco's dirty fingerprints stretching from Russiagate to Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation.
It is not a coincidence Pres Trump's called out Monaco twice by name last month...
According to responses to Judicial Watch FOIA on infamous Jan 5, 2017 White House meeting with Obama, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and Biden--Monaco also attended.
In fact, she kept notes in a notebook from Jan 3 to Jan 20, 2017. Those entries are under seal. Hopefully not for long
So the latest spin against Tulsi Gabbard's release is AKSHULLY NO ONE SAID THE RUSSIANS HACKED ELECTION SYSTEMS AND CHANGED VOTES
But that is EXACTLY what everyone from Pres Obama down--including the media--intimated. So did Brennan's ICA regardless of how he wants to worm out of it.
Further, another reason why this Dec 8 PBD was pulled is because Trump, as president-elect-would have received it.
Following the Dec 9 in the WH after the president's daily briefing was pulled and the conspirators plotted their next move, James Clapper's office produced this outline "per the President's request" on Russian election interference.
Top item: HACKING
Another item: CYBER ACTIVITY AGAINST VOTING SYSTEMS
This is directly from ICA.
Note the sleight of hand. And why would this only be attributed to DHS? Why not a stronger statement given the IC's conclusion the previous month?
This left the door open for Obama, his toadies, and the media to beat the drum about "Russian hacking."
NEW: Tulsi Gabbard just released previously classified Russigate docs including emails and other records giving new info on how the operation materialized
More subterfuge related to alleged Russia hacking of DNC email system. Recall Shawn Henry, CEO of Crowdstrike, the cyber firm hired to allegedly investigate the hack, finally admitted to Congress in 2017 that the firm never had evidence of Russian infiltration.
Wow.
Dec. 8, 2016: "IC officials discuss the draft PDB [presidential daily briefing] which finds that 'Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.'
The group also decides the PDB will be published the following day, due to 'high administration interest.'
A few hours later, after initially coauthoring the PDB, the FBI (led by FBI Director James Comey) inexplicably withdraws from coordinating on the product and notifies other IC officials that the FBI will be drafting a dissent.
Later in the afternoon, a senior PDB official kills the PDB 'based on some new guidance.'
"The post election PDB, which once again assessed that Russia did not hack the election, was never published."
Meeting with all the Russigate perps held in the White House the following day.
Sen Grassley today released emails demonstrating how disgraced FBI agent Tim Thibault grasped for a reason to open an investigation into the president for Jan 6.
But the smoking gun here is not so much Thibault but the involvement of Thomas Windom, who appears to have acted as the conduit between Main Justice and the FBI to concoct the case.
Windom was moved to DC US Atty office from Maryland in late 2021.
According to a June 2022 NYT piece, Windom worked "under the close supervision of Attorney General Merrick Garland's top aides," referring to DAG Lisa Monaco.
She was obsessed with investigating anyone who stayed at the Willard Hotel, the money trail, and their ties to the president. This included people like Roger Stone and individuals with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
So it wasn't really the FBI trying to create a case out of air. It was Monaco and Windom--who later was tasked to Special Counsel Jack Smith's team in the J6 DC case.
Email from March 2022 from FBI DC field office:
Email from Windom, who actually appears to have prepared an outline for the FBI to pursue (which I’ll share in next post)
House Judiciary asked Windom earlier this year to sit for an interview. Unclear of status at this point.
This appears to be the outline Windom—one can only assume based on coordination with Monaco, who also at the time was involved in pushing a classified docs case against the president—forwarded to FBI DC office.
Big hearing about to begin in 5th Circuit related to a preliminary injunction in an Alien Enemies Act case.
Oral arguments will address SCOTUS' ruling in May instructing the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to address:
(1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named plaintiffs’ underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President’s March 14, 2025
(2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class’s due process claims against summary removal. T
ACLUS's Lee Gelernt representing illegal Venezuelans covered by AEA gets started.
Judge immediately interrupts asking if AEA is reviewable by the court. Demands to know on what basis the ACLU can claim the AEA is judicially reviewable. (I have covered this for months.)
Judges continues to push for Gelernt to cite in case law that authorizes the courts to "second guess" the president in determining the main elements of AEA.
Gelernt insists there is no military "invasion" or "predatory incursion" of the US by Venezula or its cut-outs in TdA.
Another judge further pushes Gelernt on the point. (Sorry it is audio only and I am not familiar with the judges on this panel.)
Judge are Leslie Southwick (GWB), John Oldham (Trump) and Judge Irma Ramirez (Biden).
Debate continues between Gelernt and 2 judges over who has authority to determine "invasion" and/or "predatory incursion." One judge seems very skeptical that an "invasion" requires military action.