8-27-22

A compelling new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting American social media giant Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, beyond shockingly admitting that his companies deliberately censored news about the “Laptop From Hell” of Hunter Biden prior to the 2020 presidential election because the FBI lied and said it was Russian disinformation, says in response to this socialist Western colonial repugnant assault on free and open elections, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed the socialist Biden Regime saying: “The men in black convinced Mark Zuckerberg that these were all Russian fakes...This kind of excuse for censorship was sufficient to have made Facebook’s CEO comply with the request...The subsequent suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story helped pronounce Biden senior as the winner in the election...The world has learned that the US social media played a decisive role in this performance of the FBI and other American security services to control digital giants, with social media platforms leadership only too happy to participate in dirty political games in Washington...There are no democratic standards in the American electoral system: neither in theory nor in practice”.

Upon learning that FBI secret police forces repugnantly assaulted the free and open election process, this report notes, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the most watched newsman in America, factually assessed that if the “Laptop From Hell” story wasn’t deliberately censored, it may have prevented Biden from becoming president—an assessment quickly joined by The Federalist article “CONFIRMED: FBI Colluded With Big Tech To Prevent Voters From Learning About Hunter Biden’s Laptop”, wherein it cites top Repupublican Party lawmaker US Senator Ron Johnson revealing about an FBI whistleblower complaint: “After the FBI obtained the Hunter Biden laptop from the Wilmington, Delaware computer shop, these whistleblowers stated that local FBI leadership told employees, “you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop”—a stunning revelation of FBI election rigging that follows top Repupublican Party leader US Senator Chuck Grassley releasing the damning report “Whistleblowers’ Reports Reveal Double Standard in Pursuit of Politically Charged Investigations by Senior FBI, DOJ Officials”, wherein it revealed:

Multiple FBI whistleblowers, including those in senior positions, are raising the alarm about tampering by senior FBI and Justice Department officials in politically sensitive investigations ranging from election and campaign finance probes across multiple election cycles to investigative activity involving derogatory information on Hunter Biden’s financial and foreign business activities.

The legally protected disclosures to Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) suggest a political double standard has influenced and infected decisions in matters of paramount public interest.

Whistleblowers allege that Washington Field Office Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault disregarded agency guidelines requiring substantial factual predication to trigger investigations, while declining to move forward with other investigations despite proper predication.

Thibaultand Richard Pilger, director of the election crimes branch within the FBI’s public integrity section, reportedly were instrumental in the opening of an investigation into the Trump campaign and its associates based in substantial part on information from left-aligned organization.

Thibaultallegedly scrubbed and diluted details of the sources’ political bias from a memo seeking the full investigation, which was ultimately approved by FBI Director Chris Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Whistleblowers claim that Thibault, Pilger and others didn’t always adhere to agency policies in their supervision of various election-related matters, including campaign finance investigations across multiple presidential election cycles.

These claims comport with testimony from former acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who previously told the committee that leadership within the public integrity section and election crimes branch frequently asserted authority they did not have, which frustrated and discouraged investigations.

Whistleblowers further allege that Thibault and other FBI officials sought to falsely portray as disinformation evidence acquired from multiple sources that provided the FBI derogatory information related to Hunter Biden’s financial and foreign business activities, even though some of that information had already been or could be verified. In August of 2020, FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment, which was used by a team of agents at FBI headquarters to improperly discredit and falsely claim that derogatory information about Biden’s activities was disinformation, causing investigative activity and sourcing to be shut down.

That same month, FBI agents provided an unsolicited and unnecessary briefingto Grassley and Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who were also investigating Biden’s foreign business deals.

Details about that briefing were later leaked to the news media in an apparent effort to falsely cast the senators’ investigation, which was based on U.S. government records and testimony from Obama administration officials, as tainted with foreign disinformation.

The FBI headquarters team allegedly placed their assessment findings in a restricted access subfolder, effectively flagging sources and derogatory evidence related to Hunter Biden as disinformation while shielding the justification for such findings from scrutiny.

Thibaultalso reportedly ordered the closure of a stream of information related to Hunter Biden and sought to improperly mark the matter within FBI systems in a way that would prevent it from being re-opened in the future.  The FBI headquarters team allegedly claimed that reporting from the stream was at risk of disinformation.  However, whistleblowers claim that all of the information obtained through that stream was already verified or verifiable.

If these allegations are true and accurate, the Justice Department and FBI are – and have been – institutionally corrupted to their very core to the point in which the United States Congress and the American people will have no confidence in the equal application of the law.

At the exact same time prior to the 2020 presidential election when the FBI was furiously keeping the American people from leaning about Hunter Biden’s “Laptop From Hell”, this report continues, they were also secretly scouring the entire nation for information about the lost diary of Supreme Socialist Leader Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley, wherein she horrifyingly revealed that her father took naked showers with her to sexually molest her, and exactly wrote: “I have always been boy crazy...Hyper-sexualized @ a young age...I remember somewhat being sexualized with a family member; I remember having sex with friends @ a young age; showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate)”—in factual reality, was a diary Ashley Biden left behind in the halfway house she was in for drug addiction treatment—an abandoned diary found by two other halfway house patients, Robert Kurlander, 58, and Aimee Harris, 40, who this week were forced by the FBI to plead guilty to stealing and selling it to the Project Veritas whistle blowing organization for $40,000—and today sees articles appearing like “FBI Sets Sights on James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas with Ashley Biden Diary Conviction”, where it’s revealed: “The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intends to use the guilty plea of two defendants Thursday over the theft of Ashley Biden’s diary to pursue journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, which reportedly gave the diary to law enforcement in 2020”.

With Socialist Leader Biden having turned the FBI into his personal retrieval service for the property abandoned by his drug addicted children Hunter and Ashley, this report details, one can imagine the fury he felt upon discovering that the Trump Campaign turned down Ashley Biden’s diary, and urged those offering it to turn it over to the FBI—a discovery that President Donald Trump had nothing to do with drug addict Ashley Biden’s abandoned diary quickly followed by Socialist Leader Biden ordering the FBI to review what records Trump had—an order then joined by Socialist Leader Biden denying President Trump’s executive privilege claim, which the FBI used to raid the Mar-a-Lago home of President Trump in Florida—an FBI raid responded to by world renowned American constitutional expert Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University, who factually assessed: “One thing that clearly is wrong is the Biden White House should not be able to waive the executive privilege of President Trump…That would make the executive privilege annulled…It would mean that no president could ever speak with confidence without knowing two years from now or three years from now all of it will be revealed by the current president…That’s just not the way executive privilege was supposed to operate”—and in the just published Wall Street Journal article “The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis”, unimpeachable American constitutional law experts David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, who served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, factually state:

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it.

But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added).

These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office.  Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category.

Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.

Those statutes are general in their text and application. 

But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978.  It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” 

The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

The PRA dramatically changed the rules regarding ownership and treatment of presidential documents.  Presidents from George Washington through Jimmy Carter treated their White House papers as their personal property, and neither Congress nor the courts disputed that.

In Nixon v. U.S. (1992), the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that Richard Nixon had a right to compensation for his presidential papers, which the government had retained under the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 (which applied only to him). “Custom and usage evidences the kind of mutually explicit understandings that are encompassed within the constitutional notion of ‘property’ protected by the Fifth Amendment,” the judges declared.

The PRA became effective in 1981, at the start of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.  It established a unique statutory scheme, balancing the needs of the government, former presidents and history.  The law declares presidential records to be public property and provides that “the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records.”

The PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access.

Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed.

Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

The only exceptions are for National Archives personnel working on the materials, judicial process, the incumbent president and Congress (in cases of established need) and the former president himself.  PRA section 2205(3) specifically commands that “the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative,” regardless of any of these restrictions.

Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based.

Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”

Nothing is said about the former president himself, but applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced PRA statutory scheme. 

Thus if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House, he should be in the clear, even if some of those records are classified.

In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified.

That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present—making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access.

The government obviously has an important interest in how classified materials are kept, whether or not they are presidential records.

In this case, it appears that the FBI was initially satisfied with the installation of an additional lock on the relevant Mar-a-Lago storage room.

If that was insufficient, and Mr. Trump refused to cooperate, the bureau could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a search warrant—a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access.

Surely that’s what the government would have done if any other former president were involved.

As the leftist media propaganda fake news circus about President Trump’s legally possessed documents nears Russiagate hoax proportions, this report concludes, the just published Wall Street Journal article “The Mar-a-Lago Affidavit: Is That All There Is?” today assessed: “A federal judge on Friday released a heavily redacted version of the FBI affidavit used to justify the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, and we can’t help but wonder is that it?...This is why agents descended on a former President’s residence like they would a mob boss?...The redacted 38-pages add to the evidence that the FBI search really was all about a dispute over documents”—an assessment joined by top American constitutional law expert Mike Davis, who factually stated: “The President has the absolute Constitutional authority to declassify anything he wants for any reason he wants and he doesn’t have to get permission from any bureaucrat at the National Archives to do that, so there goes the underlying potential charge for espionage that was in this warrant...The second point, the President has the sole statutory authority to make the determination whether a record is a personal record that belongs to him or a Presidential record that goes to the bureaucrats at the National Archives and almost certainly gets sent back to the President...So what is left?...They’re looking at obstruction...Well it is legally impossible for a former President to obstruct investigations into non-crimes...The Justice Department did not have the power to even look at these crimes because it doesn’t matter what the affidavit discloses in the affidavit, no matter what that shows, as a matter of law it is legally impossible for President Trump to have committed espionage or have violated some Presidential records act”—and while viewing this latest socialist Biden Regime, leftist media and FBI fake news circus swirling all around him, President Trump hilariously responded with one of his shortest statements ever (posted below), that comically said: “They missed a page!”. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

August 27, 2022 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

[Note: Many governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagree with in believing that it is every human being’s right to know the truth. Due to our mission’s conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit us, and others like us, that is exampled in numerous places, including HERE.]

[Note: The WhatDoesItMean.com website was created for and donated to the Sisters of Sorcha Faal in 2003 by a small group of American computer experts led by the late global technology guru Wayne Green (1922-2013) to counter the propaganda being used by the West to promote their illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.]

[Note: The word Kremlin (fortress inside a city) as used in this report refers to Russian citadels, including in Moscow, having cathedrals wherein female Schema monks (Orthodox nuns) reside, many of whom are devoted to the mission of the Sisters of Sorcha Faal.]

SEE VIDEOS

 

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index4018.htm