God Bless You, Donald
we are praying for you constantly
(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11 has been public information for decades, with numerous sources documenting how Saudi officials Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi allegedly assisted at least two of the hijackers ahead of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
But were Thumairy and Bayoumi rogue criminal religious zealots, or were they operating under the direction of the Saudi Arabian government?
A bombshell court filing in a long-running 9/11 lawsuit makes the case for the latter argument. Families of 9/11 victims argued in a 71-page brief filed on May 7 that Thumairy and Bayoumi operated under the directions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
“The evidence is clear that Saudi Arabia deployed its officials and agents to serve in an illegal government enterprise that was extensively intertwined with terrorism, so that the agents were acting within their core mission when they helped integrate the hijackers into the United States,” plaintiffs said in their May 7 brief, which is in response to Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss.
“The evidence also shows that Bayoumi and Thumairy acted at all times in accordance with the directives of more senior Saudi officials, which separately establishes that they were acting within the scope of their agencies and employment.”
The 71-page, partially redacted court filing compiles evidence that has been trickling out over the last several years about Saudi’s involvement in 9/11. That includes a 2017 FBI report that said Bayoumi was operating directly under then Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan Alsaud—a close friend of the Bush family.
“Omar Albayoumi was paid a monthly stipend as a cooptee of the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency (GIP) via then Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan Alsaud,” said the FBI report, which is quoted in the May 7 filing.
“Allegations of Albayoumi’s involvement with Saudi intelligence were not confirmed at the time of the 9/ 11 Commission Report. The above information confirms these allegations.”
Saudi Arabia, for its part, continues to deny any involvement in 9/11.
Meanwhile, new evidence in recent years has suggested that not only was Albayoumi a Saudi agent working for Bandar—he was also an asset of the CIA, which was, of course, once headed by George H.W. Bush. That information has been coming from the proceedings against 9/11 defendants at Guantanamo Bay.
According to Office of Military Commissions investigator Don Canestraro, at least two FBI agents told him that the CIA had attempted to recruit two of the hijackers as informants. The CIA was directing its recruiting efforts through Bayoumi, according to Canestraro.
https://headlineusa.com/george-bushs-saudi-cronies-accused-of-plotting-9-11-in-bombshell-court-filing/
she highly intelligent and very well spoken, imho
Days before Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith to investigate former President Donald Trump, experts who had been following the Justice Department investigations questioned its necessity. Mr. Smith was appointed on Nov. 18, 2022.
On June 22, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon will hear arguments on a motion to dismiss the classified documents case against President Trump based on the unlawful appointment of the special counsel. Experts who advanced this legal theory have told The Epoch Times they plan to participate as amici curiae, or friends of the court.
When President Trump appealed his presidential immunity defense to the Supreme Court, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III was quick to submit an amicus brief arguing that before the case could proceed, the high court should settle the matter of whether a private citizen can lawfully be given the authority to impanel a grand jury, investigate, and prosecute a former president.
Mr. Meese, arguing together with constitutional law scholars and professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, holds the position that Mr. Garland had no authority to grant Mr. Smith such “extraordinary criminal law enforcement power,” as attorneys general lost that power in 1999.
Mr. Meese, incidentally, was himself investigated by an independent counsel when the law was still in effect. The professors are experts in this niche matter, and in 2019 authored a paper arguing that the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller was unlawful for the same reasons.
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution states that the president has the authority to appoint a number of officers that courts have come to deem “principal” or “superior” officers, whose appointments have to be established by Congress through law, and have their appointments confirmed by the Senate. It also states that Congress can, through law, allow department heads to appoint “inferior” officers.
The correct avenue would have been to appoint a currently serving U.S. Attorney as special counsel, or to appoint an outside special counsel that serves under a U.S. Attorney, Mr. Meese, Mr. Calabresi, and Mr. Lawson argue.
“Smith is the classic ‘emperor with no clothes,’” their Supreme Court brief reads.
Attorneys for President Trump in a second case picked up on this argument, filing a motion in the Southern District of Florida. They argued that Mr. Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause, and there is no permanent funding allocated to a special counsel office, therefore the indictment should be dismissed.
Mr. Meese, Mr. Calabresi, and Mr. Lawson filed another amicus brief in support of the motion in this case, as did other experts.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jack-smiths-appointment-violated-constitution-some-legal-experts-argue