Post New

Emphasis on the “could be”, because so far the story doesn’t seem to have reached major news outlets…

“Could be” because more nailing down of sources needs to be done.

“Could be” that nothing surprises anymore when the subject is Donald Trump.

Regardless, the subject is a surveillance op run against Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and a number of other Democrats, apparently with the knowledge and approval of Donald J. Trump while president… at least according to one whistleblower:
https://open.substack.com/pub/grantstern/p/did-tru...

Would this be covered under “official duties?

Correction: Apparently, the whistleblower claims thi op was run from 2020 to the present, so this was after Trump became a private citizen.

Would this be covered under “official duties?

Seems likely. WWtSCD

If I am understanding the piece correctly and the underlying letter sent to the Senators, it is stating that

A) a collection of former intelligence officials (presuming that means ex-employees of CIA, NSA or FBI) acted in concert to conduct "surveillance" of at least three Democratic officials (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff) over an extended period of time

B) these actors also engaged in activities which involved organizing efforts to sow uncertainty into the 2022 elections and beyond

C) the effort was known to "former President Donald Trump."

Unfortunately, the wording of the letter sent to the Senators sounds less like it was written by a lawyer and more by a fourth grader writing a term paper on their home state. Specifically, the letter doesn't explicitly identity when the alleged activities BEGAN. When it references "former President Donald Trump", it isn't clear if the sentence is using the "former" qualifier to reflect the point at which actions were performed or merely the actor's current title.

If this effort was originated in August or September of 2020 by PRESIDENT Trump, outsourced to actors operating OUTSIDE the government and continued even after Trump left office, he would have no immunity because criminal directions given to non-government employees would not qualify under the "Roberts Rule" of criminal Presidential invincibility. If this effort began AFTER Trump left office, it would appear to be an exercise in gathering "dirt" on Trump opponents in anticipation of defending against criminal or civil charges. Such actions would obviously have no Presidential immunity since they were not taken while President and would magnify Trump's criminal jeopardy by at least an order of magnitude.

Clearly, if American cannot react and process to a violent riot triggered by a lame-duck President and come to a proper judicial outcome in forty six months, nothing substantive can come of this allegation in three weeks. Even if one hundred percent true, it is likely to disappear from the public's attention due to the cumulative mental exhaustion generated by Trump's never-ending crime spree.


WTH

Clearly, if American cannot react and process to a violent riot triggered by a lame-duck President and come to a proper judicial outcome in forty six months, nothing substantive can come of this allegation in three weeks. Even if one hundred percent true, it is likely to disappear from the public's attention due to the cumulative mental exhaustion generated by Trump's never-ending crime spree

You are probably, and unfortunately, correct.

These are serious charges. The witness is asking for protection before disclosing further details. Normally this would be handled by DOJ, but Trump has said he is going to polititize DOJ. Congress might need to act. Maybe, the "unlawful, private surveillance program using facial recognition to identify and leverage senior Democratic Party members" will get the attention of Congress.

From the memo in the OP link:
"The agenda of this effort included:
Security breaches and compromises of voting systems, planned out through the election season of 2022 using local officials;
Planned continuation of the program through the 2023 and 2024 general election seasons;"

Donald Trump wants to control the Justice Department and FBI. His allies have a plan, May 29, 2024
"If successful, the overhaul could represent one of the most consequential actions of a second Trump presidency given the Justice Department's role in protecting democratic institutions and upholding the rule of law. It would also mark a dramatic departure from the department's mission statement, which identifies "independence and impartiality" as core values."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trump-want...

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.