>>18318495 lb
>Morning, frenz
>Hunter
>Hunter
Federal judge refuses Trump request to block Jan. 6 records
By NOMAAN MERCHANTNovember 10, 2021
FILE - President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally in Washington, on Jan. 6, 2021. A federal judge has rejected former President Donald Trump’s request to block the release of documents to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday, Nov. 9 declined to issue a preliminary injunction sought by Trump’s lawyers. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
1 of 2
FILE - President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally in Washington, on Jan. 6, 2021. A federal judge has rejected former President Donald Trump’s request to block the release of documents to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday, Nov. 9 declined to issue a preliminary injunction sought by Trump’s lawyers. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge rejected former President Donald Trump’s request to block the release of documents to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
In denying a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said Tuesday that Congress had a strong public interest in obtaining records that could shed light on a violent insurrection mounted by the former president’s supporters. She added that President Joe Biden had the authority to waive executive privilege over the documents despite Trump’s assertions otherwise.
Barring a court order, the National Archives plans to turn over Trump’s records to the committee by Friday. But Trump’s lawyers swiftly promised an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case probably will eventually head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chutkan late Wednesday denied another request from Trump’s attorneys to order the National Archives not to turn over records while an appeal is pending.
“At bottom, this is a dispute between a former and incumbent President,” Chutkan said in her Tuesday order. “And the Supreme Court has already made clear that in such circumstances, the incumbent’s view is accorded greater weight.”
Trump “does not acknowledge the deference owed” to Biden’s judgment as the current president, Chutkan said. She noted examples of past presidents declining to assert executive privilege and rejected what she said was Trump’s claim that executive privilege “exists in perpetuity.”
“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” she said.
According to an earlier court filing from the archives, the records include call logs, drafts of remarks and speeches and handwritten notes from Trump’s then-chief of staff, Mark Meadows. There are also copies of talking points from then-press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and “a draft Executive Order on the topic of election integrity,” the National Archives has said.
>Hunter
>Hunter
>Federal judge refuses
top kek
Politics
Supreme Court rejects Trump request to shield release of records to January 6 committee
By Melissa Quinn
January 20, 2022 / 7:36 AM / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday spurned a request from former President Donald Trump to block the release of documents from the Trump White House to the House select committee investigating the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.
The order from the high court clears the way for the National Archives to turn over to House investigators records they requested related to the breach of the Capitol by scores of Trump's supporters. President Biden waived executive privilege over the documents.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he would have granted Trump's request.
Trump asked the high court last month to stop the transfer of records to the select committee after a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia rejected his efforts to shield the documents from lawmakers.
Capital Breach Records
At issue in the legal fight between the former president and the House select committee are reams of records related to the events of January 6, including presidential diaries, visitor logs, handwritten notes from then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, binders from then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, and a draft executive order on election integrity, according to a filing from the National Archives.
Trump asserted executive privilege over more than 750 pages of these documents, which are at the crux of his lawsuit against the National Archives and select committee. But Mr. Biden declined to uphold the former president's claims of executive privilege over the documents sought by the panel, and Trump filed suit in October to prevent their disclosure.
In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court said "the questions whether and in what circumstances a former president may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent president to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns."
Still, the high court noted that because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Trump's privilege clams would have failed even if he were the incumbent president, "his status as a former president necessarily made no difference to the court's decision."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a separate statement respecting the court's decision that he believes a former president should be able to successfully shield communications from his presidency, even if the sitting president does not support the privilege claim.
"Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for presidential communications," Kavanaugh, who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush, warned.
He further said there would be "severe" consequence for the presidency if presidents and White House advisers thought their privileged communications could be released when the president left office.
In asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court rulings against the former president and stop the National Archives from handing the records over to the committee Trump's attorneys argued investigators' request is "strikingly broad" and "untethered from any valid legislative purpose."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supreme-court-january-6-document-release/
>is "tarmac" on the clock since many days now?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia found dead in Texas
By Rebecca Kaplan
Updated on: February 13, 2016 / 8:22 PM / CBS News
>FBI was "in on it"
>well, whadya know?
"no evidence"
674
Feb 06, 2018 1:34:50 AM EST
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 975911 No. 283394
Public interest [keep high].
U1 FBI INFORMANT.
AWAN/DWS/Paki intel/MB.
Tarmac meeting [SC/LL deal AS 187].
Q
Democrats say Uranium One whistleblower provided no evidence against Clintons
Jeremy Herb
By Jeremy Herb, CNN
Updated 4:08 PM EST, Thu March 8, 2018
Democrats say a whistleblower who has been a key component of a Republican-led investigation that’s targeted Hillary Clinton’s role in the approval a uranium sale to a Russian state energy company provided Congress with no evidence of wrongdoing involving Clinton, President Bill Clinton or the Clinton Foundation.
And they say the Justice Department confirmed to Congress that the whistleblower,William Campbell, was an FBI informant who had credibility issues as a witness that ultimately led the DOJ to pursue other charges in a corruption case against a Russian energy official.
Campbell was interviewed last month by staff of the House Intelligence, House Oversight and Senate Judiciary Committees over what he knew about Russian influence in the Obama administration’s decision to approve the 2010 sale of Canadian uranium mining company Uranium One to Russia’s Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom.
The deal had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a committee that comprises representatives from several US government agencies, including the State Department, which at the time was led by Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic pushback against the whistleblower, which was released Thursday in a memo summarizing Campbell’s interview, is the most aggressive attempt yet by Democrats to undercut the Republican allegations of wrongdoing in the Uranium One case. Democrats made some similar claims in a letter last month from Rep. Elijah Cummings and Rep. Adam Schiff to two GOP chairmen of those committees and requested a transcribed interview with Campbell.
A spokeswoman for House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy said that the committee’s investigation into Uranium One was focused on what the FBI knew when the deal was approved and improving the inter-agency process for greenlighting similar mergers in the future.
“We appreciate Mr. Campbell’s service to our country and his willingness to appear before the Committee to answer questions related to our core investigative mission: to determine what the FBI did or did not know at the time CFIUS approved the Uranium One deal, and how we can improve the CFIUS process and agency coordination moving forward,” the spokeswoman Amanda Gonzalez said in a statement.
President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have alleged that Rosatom donated to the Clinton Foundation in an effort to sway Clinton to sign off on the deal. Those allegations are unproven, although the Justice Department has said it’s reviewing whether to appoint another special counsel to probe the matter, as many Republicans have demanded.
Democrats and Clinton say the allegations are false and an attempt to distract from the Russia investigation.
Three congressional committees — House Intelligence, House Oversight and Senate Judiciary — are investigating the Uranium One case, and their staffs interviewed Campbell last month. The Democratic committee staffs released the joint summary of Campbell’s four-hour interview on Thursday, as well as a summary of Justice Department briefings on the matter.
The memo said that Justice Department officials confirmed Campbell had “serious credibility concerns” when he was an FBI informant in the 2015 case against Vadim Mikerin, a Russian energy official who worked for a Rosatom subsidiary, Tenex. Campbell’s company had been hired by Tenex, and he provided the FBI with evidence of a kickback extortion scheme.
But Justice Department officials told Congress they had concluded that inconsistencies between Campbell’s statements and documents in the FBI’s investigation led the Justice Department to pursue other charges against Mikerin.
“Justice Department officials stated that it was a ‘godsend’ that they had another avenue to charge Mr. Mikerin that relied on evidence other than this individual’s testimony,” the Democratic memo stated.
The Democrats also said that in Campbell’s interview, he “identified no evidence that Secretary Hillary Clinton, President Bill Clinton or anyone from the Obama administration took any actions as a result of Russian requests or influence.”
>U1 FBI INFORMANT.
Need to rewatch Chuck from yesterday.
Compare to Q drops. He gave a fairly detailed timeline
49
Nov 02, 2017 1:54:59 PM EDT
Anonymous ID: zGyR4tyi No. 147641320
Follow Sen Grassley.
What is different effective this week?
What do you notice?
Why does Sen Grassley (one example) have a higher than normal amount of security detail?
Why is Grassley and others held in a secure location?
When did this start?
What has been different this week?
U1 FBI INFORMANT.
Have secret sessions been underway?
How could this be discovered?
What must be reported even if filed under 'State Secrets'?
It's a name recognized around the world.
Alice & Wonderland.
>U1 FBI INFORMANT.
>Follow Sen Grassley.
675
Feb 06, 2018 1:46:30 AM EST
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 975911 No. 283537
Feb 06, 2018 1:41:04 AM EST
Anonymous ID: 1c46f1 No. 283468
Feb 06, 2018 1:34:50 AM EST
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 975911 No. 283394
Public interest [keep high].
U1 FBI INFORMANT.
AWAN/DWS/Paki intel/MB.
Tarmac meeting [SC/LL deal AS 187].
Q
>>283394
Lynch offered a SC position if Hillary got through?
>>283468
Build timeline.
AS 187.
HRC investigation pivot points.
JC dismiss letter.
#2.
PS.
WL comms.
Q
689
Feb 07, 2018 8:55:18 PM EST
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 5aa63d No. 299350
Feb 07, 2018 8:48:59 PM EST
Anonymous ID: c4cbd0 No. 299248
Feb 07, 2018 8:45:08 PM EST
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 5aa63d No. 299164
CBFE279C-FAD2-403C-A11C-E….jpeg
Goodnight.
Q
>>299164
https:// twitter.com/seanhannity/status/961415975626330112
@2046
FBI INFORMANT on Uranium One Breaks Silence Today
https:// saraacarter.com/fbi-informant-uranium-one-breaks-silence-today/
>>299248
What a coincidence.
Re_read recent drop re:U1/informant.
Why did we re-focus energy on this when out of the news cycle?
Critical thinking.
Q
> https://archive.is/Bbw2o
FBI informant on Uranium One Breaks Silence
Testified to three committees on Capitol Hill
Sara Carter • February 7, 2018 61
Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Pinterest Share via Email Print
An informant who spent years gathering information on the Russian energy and uranium market industry for the FBI, met staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight, and House Intelligence Committees on Wednesday. He gave explosive testimony on his years as an undercover informant providing information to the FBI on Russian criminal networks operating in the United States. He also contends in his testimony, and written briefs, to the FBI that Russia attempted to hide its ongoing aid to help sustain Iran’s nuclear industry, at the time the Obama administration approved the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium mining rights to Russia.
William D. Campbell, an American businessman, provided extensive information on other counterintelligence issues to the FBI for decades and he had also provided information to the CIA on various issues during his time overseas.
“For several years my relationship with the CIA consisted of being debriefed after foreign travel,” Campbell noted in his testimony, which was obtained by this reporter. “Gradually, the relationship evolved into the CIA tasking me to travel to specific countries to obtain specific information. In the 1990’s I developed a working relationship with Kazakhstan and Russia in their nuclear energy industries. When I told the CIA of this development, I was turned over to FBI counterintelligence agents.”
The informant’s attorney, Victoria Toensing partner at the firm DiGenova & Toensing, said the following:
“Mr. Campbell testified for over four hours until he answered every question from three Congressional committees; the Senate Judiciary, House Oversight and House Intelligence committees.
He recounted numerous times that the Russians bragged that the Clintons’ influence in the Obama administration would ensure CIFIUS approval for Uranium One. And he was right.”