Lawfare was part of ‘Secret Campaign Group’ Coordinating to Influence 2020 Election
“CABAL“: the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also: a group engaged in such schemes…
In a rather remarkable article today [Time Article Here] there is an interesting outline of several leftist groups who aligned to influence the 2020 election. One of the interesting aspects is their admission to secret and close coordination with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; a notorious Wall Street-focused multinational lobbying outfit.
According to the article the U.S. CoC (Tom Donohue Inc.) had an agreement with big labor (AFL-CIO Richard Trumpka etc.) to coordinate their efforts to remove the “America-First” agenda represented by President Trump. Their alignment was essentially a predictable outcome as both groups rely on Big Government and multinational corporate favoritism.
TIME – […] “the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day.”
Joining with the Corporate effort were left-wing activist groups, and specifically mentioned is Norm Eisen, ie. “Team Lawfare”. Eisen was the lead democrat surrogate amid the original impeachment effort.
[…] Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.
[…] “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats… (read more)
The article solidifies our previous CTH research on the influence of the Lawfare group amid the cabal effort. After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff.
In 2018 Chairman Adam Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link). You probably saw Goldman doing the questioning for Schiff during the first public impeachment hearing (above). Meanwhile Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link).
After Goldman, Eisen and Berke were brought on board Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hired Douglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.
This move -to allow House Counsel to bring on additional legal assistance for the impeachment effort- means Doug Letter will be able to hire more lawyers.
Many people surmised that Pelosi and Schiff moved to utilize the Ukraine/NSC impeachment angle *after* the Mueller angle for impeachment ran into trouble. However, CTH research never reflected the Whistle-blower impeachment plan as an ‘add-on’.
Instead, what we saw was the use of the HPSCI; and the use of embeds within National Security Council staff; by design. The Schiff events were always part of a prior planned design.
Only two committees hired Lawfare staff in 2018: Judiciary (Eisen & Berke) and HPSCI (Goldman). This evidences a 2018 plan to use the Judiciary and HPSCI for the impeachment process as designed by the Lawfare contractors. This design is also outlined in the year of public advice from the mother-ship, Lawfare.
The impeachment crew always planned to use the House Intelligence Committee; and they always planned to use activated sleeper cells within the National Security Staff. None of this was organic; none of the action was contingent upon a Trump phone call. The whistle-blower approach was always going to be used; the only issue was: ‘how’?
What Pelosi/Schiff et al assembled was a format for a highly controlled public spectacle prior to a predetermined transfer of evidence to Jerry Nadler (Judicary); with the intent to construct a pantomime for public absorption in mind, the impeachment rules were written for maximum narrative construction. [ex. Lawfare lawyers questioning witnesses]
Post a Comment