Why was spec. prosecutor's report SO DEVASTATING to creepy Joe?--because it reveals the CONSPIRACY to frame Trump whom they false-charged

More lies and lying fm Jewwy FOX News and Ingraham who will not name what is ultimately behind the persecution of Trump--the globalist-satanist powers behind the US Federal Reserve, WEF, CFR, Trilaterals, and Bilderbergers

 
Last edited:

(READ) Republicans ask why 9 boxes of Biden records were omitted in Special Counsel report​

By Sharyl Attkisson | February 18, 2024

Link: https://sharylattkisson.com/2024/02...cords-were-omitted-in-special-counsel-report/

Department of Justice (DOJ) Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents omitted nine boxes of potentially classified records, according to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin).
The senators made the existence of the records public after the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) responded to their oversight queries. NARA reportedly confirming that, at DOJ’s urging, it retrieved the 9 boxes out of concern for the sensitivity of their contents.
NARA further acknowledged to the senators that the FBI had reviewed the contents of the boxes. But it is unclear if NARA or the FBI shared their findings with Hur.
Grassley and Johnson are pressing Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Hur on this “significant factual omission.”
Specifically, the senators are asking for a description of the boxes’ contents and an explanation of what the agencies did with them. “…[W]e publicly revealed last year that NARA had retrieved nine boxes of Biden records from the Boston office of Patrick Moore, one of Biden’s personal counsels,” the senators wrote.
“Oddly, Special Counsel Hur’s report did not mention NARA’s retrieval of the nine boxes from Mr. Moore’s office… t is unclear if Special Counsel Hur had any awareness of or reviewed the information contained in these nine boxes.” “DOJ, FBI, and the Special Counsel’s office owe Congress and the American people a complete explanation regarding this apparent omission in Special Counsel Hur’s report, a detailed description of the contents of the nine boxes, and what was done with them,” the senators concluded.
Background information from the senators: Grassley and Johnson were the first in Congress to probe Biden’s mishandling of government records in an initial inquiry to then-White House Counsel Dana Remus in July 2021. Notably, Hur’s report makes clear that several months after Grassley and Johnson kicked off their oversight, Remus began “gathering materials to prepare for potential congressional inquiries” relating to Biden’s files.
A timeline of the senators’ oversight is below.
July 2021: Letter to White House Counsel Dana Remus
June 2022: Letter to White House Special Counsel Richard Sauber
January 2023: Letter to White House Special Counsel Richard Sauber
January 2023: Letter to NARA Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall
February 2023: Response from NARA
January 2023: Letter to Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle
February 2023: Response from Secret Service
February 2023: Letter to NARA Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall
March 2023: Response from NARA
March 2023: Letter to NARA Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall
April 2023: Response from NARA
August 2023: Letter to NARA Archivist Colleen Shogan
September 2023: Response from NARA

Read Grassley and Johnson’s letter here. [ck site link, above]
 

I was punished under the Espionage Act. Why wasn’t Joe Biden?​

Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/3/5/joe-biden-the-espionage-act-and-me/

Just like me, Biden kept classified information outside a secure facility and shared that information with the press to express concern over US policy. But the prosecutors treated us very differently.

  • Daniel Hale
    Daniel Hale
    Former intelligence analyst who was sentenced to 45 months in federal prison under the Espionage Act
Published On 5 Mar 20245 Mar 2024

Special Counsel Robert Hur said in a report released released in February that Biden would not face criminal charges for removing classified documents at the end of the Obama presidency because he had cooperated with investigators and would appear sympathetic to a jury [Leah Millis/Reuters]
In February, I was released from federal prison, having served 33 months for a violation of the Espionage Act, after I disclosed classified information detailing what I saw as the high moral cost of America’s drone assassination program. Before having time to adjust to the world beyond concrete walls, I was struck by the news of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report [PDF] wherein he lays out the reasons he decided not to charge President Joe Biden for alleged violations of the same law.
I am always encouraged to hear whenever the Justice Department decides against using the Espionage Act. By the time the ink of the 1917 law had dried, it was already being used to silence voices of dissent across the country. Thousands were rounded up and summarily convicted for their opposition to America’s involvement in the bloodiest conflict in human history at the time.

KEEP READING​

list of 4 itemslist 1 of 4

‘Grand slam’: How US diplomat Manuel Rocha spied for Cuba; was then caught​

list 2 of 4

China broadens law on state secrets to include ‘work secrets’​

list 3 of 4

Australian writer Yang Hengjun sentenced to death on China spy charges​

list 4 of 4

China accuses UK of sending spy to access state secrets​

end of list

While some of the worst aspects of the law have since been amended, the Espionage Act remains the premier criminal statute for prosecuting government sources who rely upon the press to expose secret government abuses to the public. The decision by Justice Department officials to go after government whistleblowers with the Espionage Act has been a part of a concerted effort to signal clearly that the next person who dares speak with a reporter could find themselves facing decades of incarceration.
After reading Special Counsel Hur’s report, I was curious to find the similarities between my case and that of the investigation into the president. According to the report, President Biden kept classified information outside of a secure facility at his home and office – as did I. The president later spoke with a reporter about the classified information he retained – again, as did I.
Both President Biden and I expressed to our respective reporters the concerns we had about official US policy – his about the failed 2009 surge in Afghanistan (as vice president) and mine about the consequences of that policy. So why the decision to prosecute one and not the other?
According to Hur, the president would have been seen as too sympathetic to convince a jury of fault in this case. That Hur believes Biden is a well-meaning individual who did not intend any harm by his actions is a good reason for not charging him. Now contrast that with what the government said about me at my sentencing, accusing me of endangering the public and likening me to a heroin dealer. I was portrayed not as someone with good intentions, but as someone who tried to “ingratiate himself with reporters” for the sake of notoriety, as opposed to acting in the public interest.
Hur goes on to cleverly dodge the matter of intent where the Espionage Act is concerned. Counterintuitively, the law does not require proof of intent to harm the United States – only evidence that the unauthorised possessor of national defence information knowingly retains it and wilfully communicates it to someone not entitled to receive it.
Prosecutors usually prove this by pointing to the stacks of nondisclosure agreements every clearance holder must sign in order to remain employed. Being elected, Biden might never have had to sign such an agreement, but – his degree of sympathy aside – it would not have taken much to prove that he knew the disclosure of classified information to be unlawful.

Nevertheless, Biden is let off the hook because he did not mean any harm. In contrast, the government’s pre-trial motions in my case argued that I not be allowed to present evidence of what it called my “good motives”. Afraid my motives might make me appear too sympathetic to a jury, I – like every other whistleblower before me – was rendered effectively defenceless because of a legal technicality in the way the law is written. Given no other choice, I was forced to plead out to avert a costly, unwinnable trial.
All told, the guilt I professed for wilfully delivering national defence information to a journalist was nothing compared to the immense shame I felt for wilfully participating in the drone programme. In 2021, scarcely weeks after I was sentenced to federal prison, Zemari Ahmadi and nine members of his family, most of them small children, were the victims of a mistaken US drone strike. The Pentagon called it a “righteous strike” before the truth forced them to quietly back away and conduct an internal investigation in which it found no one to be at fault for the innocent lives that were taken.

To this day, I am the only person to have worked in the drone programme to have been held responsible. Not for my role in it, but for my effort to reveal the deadly truth of it to the public with the help of a journalist.
I am sincerely glad President Biden was able to receive what so many others in the crosshairs of the Espionage Act have been denied – the benefit of the doubt. But if Joe Biden truly wishes to convey the kind of ideals that helped secure his presidency in the first place, he would utilise his power as president to pardon the whistleblowers and cease the global war on terror policy of “targeted” killing.
 
Here, Cong.-man Jordan goes over what the special counsel wrote about what creepy Joe did w. classified documents, how he handled them, and why--creepy Joe wanted to publish a book about his heroic exploits as top-doggie-dog among all the politicians

 

House Judiciary GOP Demands Answers on Biden DOJ Official Working with Bragg to Prosecute Trump​

by Jamie White
May 1st 2024, 1:03 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/hous...ficial-working-with-bragg-to-prosecute-trump/

[see vids at site link, above]

AG Merrick Garland must explain why a top Biden ex-DOJ official is leading the prosecution of Biden's top political rival ahead of 2024 election, says House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.

The House Judiciary Committee is demanding answers from Attorney General Merrick Garland over what many Americans perceive to be a politically motivated prosecution against former President Donald Trump in New York.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in a letter to Garland on Tuesday asked for clarification over the close coordination between Biden’s Justice Department (DOJ) and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in the “hush money” case against Trump.

The letter focuses on Alvin Bragg’s enlisting of Matthew Colangelo, a former senior official at the DOJ under Joe Biden, to help prosecute the case against Trump — who is currently leading Biden in the polls.
“Since last year, popularly elected prosecutors—who campaigned for office on the promise of prosecuting President Trump—engaged in an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority: the indictment of a former President of the United States and current leading candidate for that office,” Jordan wrote. “New York County District Attorney (DANY) Alvin Bragg is engaged in one such politicized prosecution, which is being led in part by Matthew B. Colangelo, a former senior Justice Department official.”

“Accordingly, given the perception that the Justice Department is assisting in Bragg’s politicized prosecution, we write to request information and documents related to Mr. Colangelo’s employment.”
Jordan then pointed out Colangelo’s employment history “demonstrates his obsession with investigating a person rather than prosecuting a crime.”
“At the New York Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Colangelo ran investigations into President Trump, leading ‘a wave of state litigation against Trump administration policies.'”

“On January 20, 2021, the first day of the Biden Administration, Mr. Colangelo began serving as the Acting Associate Attorney General — the number three official in your department,” Jordan wrote.
“Bragg hired Mr. Colangelo to ‘jump-start’ his office’s investigation of President Trump, reportedly due to Mr. Colangelo’s ‘history of taking on Donald J. Trump and his family business.’ Mr. Colangelo is now a lead prosecutor in President Trump’s trial.”
“That a former senior Biden Justice Department official is now leading the prosecution of President Biden’s chief political rival only adds to the perception that the Biden Justice Department is politicized and weaponized,” Jordan added.
The letter then demands Garland provide documents and information pertaining to Colangelo’s communication with “the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, the New York Attorney General’s Office, or the Department of Justice’s Special Counsel’s Office” related to Trump or any entity associated with Trump.
Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree related to alleged hush money payments made before the 2016 presidential election to porn star Stormy Daniels. Trump pleaded not guilty.
In opening statements last week Colangelo presented the case against Trump to the jury on behalf of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.
The letter comes days after the Committee released a 300-page report laying out evidence of Bragg’s “partisan aim” to prosecute Trump.

Specifically, the report claims Bragg brought a weak case against Trump because he succumbed to pressure from former special prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, citing media reports, Pomerantz’s book, and his deposition last year with the committee.
Notably, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has been accused of suppressing the Judiciary Committee’s report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top