Latest charges against Trump ("insurrection," etc.) by corrupt DOJ are amazingly fake, phony, incompetent, utterly lacking in foundation--especially in view of the actual, brazen guilt of creepy Joe, son Hunter, and corrupt DOJ
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reportedly lost track of a significant number of its paid undercover informants present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as per a former bureau official's statement reported by the New York Post.
Steven D'Antuono, the former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office, testified to the House Judiciary Committee that the agency had to resort to a "poll" to ascertain the exact number of "Confidential Human Sources" (CHSs) present at the Capitol protest.
In a letter dated Tuesday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R) voiced concerns regarding the bureau's management and vetting of its paid undercover informants. "We recently learned from a former senior FBI official that there was internal ambiguity about how many FBI CHSs were present at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, so much so that the FBI had to put out a 'poll' to determine the exact number of FBI sources present that day," the committee informed Wray. The letter also revealed that "at least one FBI CHS was in communication with his handler that day as events unfolded."
According to D'Antuono's testimony, the FBI had prior knowledge that some of its CHSs would be attending the protest. However, several unknown CHSs attended independently. He stated that while his field office was aware of some of its informants' presence at the event, it was not informed about CHSs from other field offices attending.
D'Antuono reported that the Washington Field Office requested FBI headquarters to "do a poll or put out something to people saying w[ere] any CHSs involved" to determine the number of CHSs present. After reaching out, the FBI "started getting responses back," D'Antuono added.
The former FBI official disclosed that a CHS from the Kansas City Field Office attended the protest and communicated with his handler. The CHS reportedly told his handler "while they were in the crowd, I think, saying that they were going in. They were trying to stop some of the action happening and they left or whatnot," D'Antuono elaborated.
The bureau's audit, as per the former FBI officials, revealed that "a handful" of informants were present at the rally.
The committee expressed that these revelations were "extremely concerning" and cast doubt on the FBI's use of CHSs and their credibility as informants. The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General reports that the bureau spends $42 million annually on payments to its CHSs.
"These revelations reinforce existing concerns, identified by Special Counsel [John] Durham, about the FBI's use of, and payment to, CHSs who have fabricated evidence and misrepresented information," stated Jordan's letter to Wray. "The Justice Department Inspector General also identified critical problems in the FBI's CHS program, including the FBI's failure to fully vet CHSs and the FBI's willingness to ignore red flags that would call into question an informant's reliability."
Jordan requested that Wray provide the committee with a "substantive briefing" detailing the bureau's use of informants on January 6 and the debriefing documents provided by the CHSs after the rally.
"He can’t criticize the prosecutors. He can’t criticize witnesses. And Special Counsel Jack Smith just asked for this order to be expanded in an equally unconstitutional way," says law professor.
The Washington, D.C., court’s gag order against former President Donald Trump is unconstitutional, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” host Laura Ingraham asked Turley about the gag order and whether the temporary freeze on it issued by a DC appellate court bolster’s the Trump legal team’s argument that it violates his First Amendment rights.
“[L]et’s start with the D.C. Circuit,” Ingraham said Friday. “Now, does this temporary freeze signal that there is likelihood of success on the merits with the Trump legal team’s First Amendment claims for lifting that gag order?”
“Well, Laura, it’s hard to say because we have to wait to see how the panel reacts in its review, particularly the oral argument. They are essentially freezing any action here,” Turley said.
“They could have left it to continue, to continue while they reviewed it. But, they decided, perhaps in an abundance of caution, to order this stoppage until they can give it a full review. The reason I think this could be quite significant is I think that the order is unconstitutional. I said that when it was first issued.” https://www.infowarsstore.com/vitam....video&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=D3banned
“It’s a very odd concept of an order because the court here insisted on having this trial before the election sort of shoe-horned it in before Super Tuesday,” he continued. “And everyone in this election is going to be talking about these cases, except one person under this gag order. And that is Donald Trump. He can’t criticize the prosecutors. He can’t criticize witnesses. And Special Counsel Jack Smith just asked for this order to be expanded in an equally unconstitutional way.”
“That has drawn the criticism, even of the ACLU, which is a staunch critic of Donald Trump, but the ACLU has said look, this is flagrantly unconstitutional,” he added.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday paused the gag order issued by District Judge Tanya Chutkan to give them more time to consider Trump’s request to pause the order while his appeal plays out before the court.
“The prosecution’s request for a Gag Order bristles with hostility to President Trump’s viewpoint and his relentless criticism of the government—including of the prosecution itself,” Trump’s attorneys told the appeals court in a filing Thursday. “The Gag Order embodies this unconstitutional hostility to President Trump’s viewpoint. It should be immediately stayed.”
Trump faces criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith alleging he sought to overturn the 2020 election on January 6, and faces up to 55 years in prison if convicted.
Deutsche Bank might have just blown up Letitia James’s civil fraud case against President Trump.
Radical Marxist New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking $250 million in ‘damages’ when there is no victim in this fraud case and she is also seeking to ban Trump and his sons from operating any businesses in New York. She accused Trump of inflating his assets and defrauding lenders and insurance companies.
A Deutsche Bank executive who worked to approve at least one of Trump’s loans testified on Tuesday that it is “atypical, but not entirely unusual” to reduce a client’s asset values and still approve a loan.
This type of lending is typical in high net-worth, high-profile clients like Donald Trump. Anyone with basic knowledge of banking, lending, portfolio and credit risk management knows this. 7 Reasons to Stock Up on Long-Term Storage Premium Beef Right Away
“A Deutsche Bank AG executive gave testimony that could bolster Donald Trump’s defense in his civil fraud trial, telling a New York judge that prospective clients can get loans even after reporting a net worth far higher than the lender’s own calculations.” Bloomberg reported.
“David Williams, who worked on at least one of three loans Deutsche Bank made to Trump in the years before he was elected president, testified Tuesday that it’s “atypical, but not entirely unusual” for the bank to cut a client’s stated asset value by 50% and approve a loan anyway, as it did with Trump,” Bloomberg reported.
Williams testified that Trump’s stated assets are merely an opinion and a difference of opinion in asset values does not disqualify the potential borrower from a loan.
“It’s just a difference of opinion,” Williams said, according to Bloomberg.
Late last month far-left New York Judge Arthur Engoron blasted Trump’s lawyers and said fining Trump for ‘illegal profits’ is an ‘available remedy’ – in a fraud case with zero victims.
Engoron said fining Trump for ‘illegal profits’ is an available remedy…even though there are no victims and a Deutsche Bank executive testified that loaning Trump was a “good credit decision.”
Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, a convicted felon, testified last month.
Last month, Michael Cohen, a known liar, told the court that Trump inflated his assets. He continued his testimony later that week where he admitted in court that Trump never ordered him to inflate his financials.
“So Mr. Trump never asked you to inflate the numbers on his financial statement,” Trump attorney Cliff Robert asked Michael Cohen, according to CNN.
“Correct,” Michael Cohen said.
Trump’s lawyer Cliff Robert immediately asked the judge to dismiss the trial because Cohen, the key witness, just told the court that Trump never instructed him to inflate his assets.
Judge Engoron denied the motion to dismiss and it was at this point that Trump got up and abruptly walked out of the courtroom.
“The witness just admitted that we won the trial and the judge should end this trial immediately,” Trump said after he stormed out of the courtroom last month.