President Trump’s most recent impeachment presents a very problematic set of circumstances that could directly and detrimentally affect the 2024 election. The analysis indicates that 2024 is in the process of being stolen, as has been the case with the “elections” since the 2020 elections included. Circumstances arrive at a confluence of policies and analytical positions that become problematic in aggregate form. This is how this will go…
Immediate analysis of the Capitol “uprising” made it clear that it was a trap operation.
Go ad-free, get exclusive shows and content, go Premium today – $1 trial
The evidence and analysis are also clear that they are remarkably intelligent in their design and where we review that criminal constructs almost always have parallel and overlapping goals, and rarely have a singular purpose.
The ruse of the Capitol’s “insurgency” entrapment operation is driven by the timing of Jack Smith’s latest accusation against President Trump in relation to two tactical goals: 1-remove Trump as a candidate for 2024 and 2-conceal and cover up the stolen 2020 election and all evidence therein.
When we’re done here, we can see how prosecuting the victim of a stolen election is used to contest that stolen election to cover up that theft while facilitating the theft of the next election.
Smart, really.
Our analytical stance on investigations and prosecutions frames our lens for understanding.
At Moonshine, we maintain and frequently review such research [prosecutions] they open for one of two reasons: for expose and process oh hide and cover
We focus on the latter because, at the Department of Justice, it is the modus operandi in the appointment of its special prosecutors, as a cover-up. Dead End Durham.
That is unless you are Donald J. Trump, a part of his inner circle, or about 100 million conservative Americans who collectively amount to the political enemies of a Marxist Biden regime and where the former becomes the focus, albeit on a basis of fraud. and cooked charges.
The macro focus here it is elections and, specifically, 2024.
More specifically, it is that 2024 is in the process of being stolen [most of the same election theft mechanisms, many of which were borne out of COVID-19, still remain largely in place.]
The micro focus is twofold: 1-The routine practice of the Biden Administration divert difficult questions to another source [“I’ll refer you to the Department of (insert most convenient department here)” and 2-US Department of Justice policy of refraining from remarking on ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
The problematic aspect of this becomes an endless cycle of deflection, resulting in a dearth of any reliable information on one of the most important criminal events in our nation’s history.
The more problematic aspect, and at a wholesale level, is this: by indicting Trump on election matters, the conceal and cover-up mechanism now envelops the stolen 2020 election.
Consequently, this substantively kills the drive for legitimate and honest elections in the run-up to an election that, by all indications, will be stolen.
DOJ and its Elections Crimes Branch will simply take its favorite escape routes.
For one, “In voting matters, the Division also complies with the Department’s long-standing policy not to make announcements or take action that could influence the outcome of an election. That policy is described in the Criminal Division’s manual of Federal Prosecutions of Election Offenses.”
Like leveraging a special counsel to indict the clear front-runner in the run-up to an election?
For another, DOJ’s longstanding general policy of “election non-interference” contained in the ‘Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Eighth Edition, December 2017’ and in its ‘Justice Manual’ ‘Protection of Government Integrity’ section.
From the latter,
9-85.300 Non-Interference in Elections When Conducting Federal Criminal Investigations Involving Ballot Fraud
Ballot fraud is crime involving the process by which voters are registered, votes are cast, or votes are tabulated. The Department has long recognized that the States – not the federal government – are responsible for administering elections, determining the validity of votes, and tabulating the results, with challenges handled by the appropriate election administrators, officials, legislatures, and courts. The Department has a limited role in these processes and should generally avoid interfering or appearing to interfere with election administration, tabulation, validation, or certification. See§ 9-85.500. The Department’s role is limited to investigating and prosecuting violations of federal election laws and deterring criminal conduct. Accordingly, the Department should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded. Doing otherwise runs the risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities and of interjecting the investigation itself into ongoing campaigns and the adjudication of any ensuing election contest. It may, however, often be appropriate, in consultation with the Public Integrity Section, to share information and allegations involving such matters with state or local authorities where an immediate need for overt measures exists. Exceptions to this policy may be recognized, but only with the approval of the Public Integrity Section. [added August 2022]
‘Handbook of Justice’ ‘Protection of Government Integrity’
That means special counsel Jack Smith’s operation can vacuum up all evidence of voter fraud and stolen elections to shut them down.and I wrote about it in my recent article arguing discovery and tests
And no one should talk about it outside of the canned propaganda we are constantly inundated with.
Aggravating and aggravating these circumstances is this the Obama-appointed judge presiding over Trump’s trial, asked Chutkan, it is the gatekeeper placed to serve as a guardrail against evidence admitted in court to become part of the public record [read the article for all of the details.]
Chutkan is located between what evidence of the stolen 2020 election We i won’t do it I will see.
This is a problem.
This social network publication from a few days ago summarizes the likely devastating circumstances:
With Trump’s latest indictment, the stolen 2020 election is now being litigated by the US Department of Justice.
As a result, the DOJ inherits the comfort of refraining from commenting on ongoing litigation. [and investigations] according to its permanent policy.
That means the DOJ doesn’t have to discuss the 2020 election until the Trump prosecution ends, which won’t be until after 2024.
This comes as election thieves prepare to steal in 2024, with most of the theft mechanisms still in place.
How convenient
Something to think about.
Political Moonshine on ‘Xwitter’
this it’s from the DOJ’s “Justice Manual” recalling it prosecutions are derived from investigations, so the policy begins during the investigative phase and continues through the end of the trial phase. [emphasis added]:
1-7,400 – Disclosure of information on ongoing criminal, civil or administrative investigations
- Any communication by DOJ staff to a member of the media related to a pending investigation or case must be approved in advance by the appropriate United States Attorney or Deputy Attorney General, except in emergency circumstances. For administrative investigations not overseen by a United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, the approval of the Assistant Attorney General for Administration must be obtained. Where the investigation is under the Inspector General, approval must come from the Inspector General.
- The DOJ generally will not confirm the existence of or comment on ongoing investigations. Except as provided in subparagraph C of this section, DOJ staff will not answer questions about the existence of an ongoing investigation or comment on its nature or progress before charges are made public.
- When the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter or when the release of information is necessary to protect public safety, comments or confirmation of an investigation may be necessary ongoing, subject to the approval requirement of subsection. A.
US Department of Justice/Justice Handbook
Remember that all DOJ lawyers and judges are law officers and cannot practice without a license subject to passing the bar exam administered by The American Bar Association.
As a short sidebar and to exemplify the point I’m making about the bar and its impact on a supposedly impartial judiciary, our team followed a path of Constitutional law in ours request and subsequent litigation for federal grand jury corresponding to our case that COVID-19 is a business fraud.
Taking the Constitutional path avoids aspects of the influence of the legal profession in a case rooted in constitutional law; the First Amendment is an example.
digress, this is from the American Bar Association’s “Rules of Criminal Justice” on “Prosecution Function”:
(i) A prosecutor not involved in a matter he is commenting on as a media source may offer generalized comments about a specific criminal matter that serve to educate the public about the criminal justice system and do not risk prejudicing a specific criminal proceeding. A prosecutor acting as a media commentator should make reasonable efforts to be well informed about the facts of the matter and the applicable law. The prosecutor should not offer comment on the specific merits of an ongoing criminal trial or investigation, except in exceptional cases to address manifest injustice, and the prosecutor is reasonably well informed about the relevant facts and law.
The American Bar Association/Prosecution Func
The specific merits here will be the direct evidence that 2020 was stolen, Biden is a busy fraud in the Executive and Mr. Trump was the legitimately elected president.
For anecdotal evidence of this ongoing cover-up operation, Consider that in the run-up to an election and in stark contrast to the activities of clear favorite Trump, incumbent Joe Biden, who has had the most disastrous first term of any president, is not campaigning, spending campaign money, or fundraise aggressively.
Occam’s tells us why: they’ll just steal it like last time, but it won’t be for Biden because its utility value is gone.
I put writing in February, that the intelligence community was actively engaged in eliminating Biden in a full “Uniparty” reset, with Trump being the obvious other.
In short, and while the public may believe that Jack Smith may have made a mistake in ascribing jurisdiction over the stolen 2020 election by indicting Trump with charges surrounding it, and why discovery allows Trump finally and present this evidence publiclythe DOJ has its Obama-appointed gatekeeper of evidence in Judge Tanya Chutkan well positioned as a rail against it.
By all indications, the analysis shows how Trump’s impeachment serves as a mechanism 1-Hiding and covering up the theft of the 2020 elections while 2-remove him simultaneously as a candidate for 2024.
On 1 Jan 20 and pretty much alone, I put in writing that John Durham would be an unsuccessful dead end because it was the cover-up operation set up by a compromised AG, William Barr.
There are only a few of us with this notch in our gun belts.
Barr was never going to appoint a special counsel who would undo himself, and if you understood Barr, you understood Durham.
I understood Barr.
On August 5, 23, I write that Trump’s trial for the Capitol “insurgency” entrapment operation and the stolen 2020 election is a cover-up operation to hide the stolen election.
George HW Bush is the head of the snake.
Obama is probably serving his fourth term.
William Barr is a traitor.
John Durham is a cover-up.
Jack Smith is Public Enemy #1.
Joe Biden is an impostor and a Chinese proxy.
Donald J. Trump is the rightful president.
And Trump’s next trial for his most recent impeachment is the cover-up operation of the stolen 2020 election.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Red Voice Media. contact with us for guidelines for submitting your own comment. Red Voice Media would like to clarify why we do not refer to any vaccine related to COVID-19 as a “vaccine”. According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine requires that the vaccine has a lasting effect of at least one year to prevent contracting the virus or disease it is intended to combat. As all the available COVID-19 vaccinations so far have barely offered six months of protection, and even that is not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision from now on to stop referring to the substances Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson as vaccinations. .
English 
Español de Venezuela