Christ the King Alone Has One Set of Laws That He Will Apply to Everyone When They Die

The men and women of the United States intelligence community and our armed forces dedicate their lives to protecting our nation and its people. Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States and they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country at risk.

Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. Applying those laws. Collecting facts. That’s what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more. Nothing less. (Special Counsel Jack Smith Delivers Statement.)

Special Counsel Jack Smith is a self-righteous, hypocritical political hack who had the audacity to utter those words seven years ago then Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Brien Comey, without any legal authority to do so, “absolved” former First Lady/former United States Senator/former United States Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton of criminal wrongdoing concerning her arranging to home a home-brewed internet server installed in her home in Chappaqua, New York, on which she stored over 30,000 emails, many of which were marked confidential, from her four years as Secretary of State in full violation of Federal law. Comey also did not find Mrs. Clinton’s use of bleach bit to wipe clean a computer disk or her aides’ destructions of cellular phones and other records to be in the least bit legal problematic.

Comey admitted, however, that it is possible any not named Clinton might have faced “security or administrative sanctions” over the mishandling of classified information regardless of intention:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. (Comey Transcript.)

What Director Comey did decide to do, however, was to rewrite the laws governing the mishandling of classified information and the failure of a Federal official to keep copies of his records and communications as there is nothing in the governing statutes that require a prosecutor to prove an intention to violate the law. The fact that there is evidence at that laws have been violated is enough to warrant a prosecution, especially in such serious matters relating to the legitimate national security interests of the United States of America, something that an editorial in Investors’ Business Daily noted at the time seven years ago before Comey announced a decision that was never his to make:

When FBI Director James Comey laid his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office on September 4, 2013, swearing to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office ... without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion," he probably didn't expect he might have to move against the heir apparent leader of the party under which he would serve.

The facts known about actions taken by Hillary Clinton while secretary of state surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting government business show that she violated 10 federal statutes. Several are national-security-related felonies, just three of which include: 1. disclosure of classified information (22 documents were Top Secret), 2. unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents, and 3. destruction of evidence (erasure of the hard drive and deletion of some 30,000 emails by Secretary Clinton) after a government investigation had commenced (Benghazi hearings began Oct. 10, 2012).

Comey knows of a related but lesser law violation in handling classified material by General David Petraeus that was recently adjudicated. Petraeus was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years' probation for providing his personal notebooks containing classified information to his biographer, although no classified information was ever exposed. Hillary Clinton's email server containing more voluminous classified and Top Secret information was reportedly breached and exposed by notorious Romanian hacker "Guccifer" and by the Russians (who have 20,000 Clinton server emails in their possession). So Comey can't easily give Secretary Clinton a pass and at the same time be true to his oath of office.

The fact that the administration under which Mr. Comey serves has conducted itself with unprecedented partisanship and lawlessness makes it even more important for him to uphold the law and recommend indictment. The American people need to see that both lawlessness and dereliction of duty are not given a pass and that no one is above the law.

The country is now at the edge of an abyss from years of obfuscation, unaccountability, subterfuge and law evasion by the Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry into an acceptance of government corruption and abuse of power. Resetting Americans' trust in government needs to start with holding people in high office, like Hillary Clinton, accountable.

But there is another reason this step is necessary. Hillary Clinton has been an integral part of the Clinton Foundation, which is unprecedented in size and global scope as an influence-peddling political slush fund. According to the foundation's own recent tax returns, just 10% of expenditures go to charitable grants, with the bulk of the balance spent on salaries and benefits, lavish travel and conference organizing. The record shows that the Clinton Foundation took large contributions from several business magnates who soon thereafter received clearance for controversial international business deals. Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary became secretary of state. A few years later the Hillary Clinton State Department formally cleared the largest single sale of military aircraft to the Saudis.

The most plausible explanation for Hillary Clinton's circumventing longstanding federal rules on secure communication -- and for her insistence on implementing a private email server -- was simply to conceal a conflict of interest in continuing a role in the Clinton Foundation while also serving as secretary of state. It is instructive that Secretary Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin, was simultaneously on payrolls of both the State Department and the Teneo Group, an influence-peddling consulting operation founded by a Clinton confidant. Additionally, a private email server would protect disclosure of fund-raising activities for Hillary Clinton's anticipated run for president.

As the FBI investigation nears its completion, Comey can find solace in the words of the 26th U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who declared: "We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity."

A central issue of the November election is to choose new leadership to disabuse the American citizenry of accepting dishonesty and abuse of power in government. If Comey can rise above political pressure and just do his job, he has a unique opportunity to press the reset button on government corruption and bring about an essential course correction in these troubled times. That would be a historic and truly heroic accomplishment. (Comey Can't Give Hillary A Free Pass.)

Not only did James Brien Comey not do his job he then, acting upon a scheme concocted entirely by the Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton Crime Syndicate, launched “Operation Hurricane” in an effort to prevent the election of candidate Donald John Trump in 2016 and, after being fired by President Donald John Trump, who had unwisely retained him in office after his election and who, in of his egomaniacal self-assurance, believed he could “work” Comey into becoming “loyal” to a man who had shown him that Steele Dossier that Comey knew had been discredited, took his own memorialized documents in violation of Federal law to manipulate the appointment of his friend and predecessor as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, as Special Counsel. That sequence of events helped, albeit with much help from the loudmouth Trump on so many occasions, to undermine the Trump presidency prior to the FBI’s efforts to protect the “Big Guy,” Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., in 2020 and since.

“One Set of Laws” Jack Smith was bold enough and arrogant enough to make that assertion even though the recent report issued by Special Counsel John Durham proved conclusively the facts summarized above about how the United States Department of Justice was weaponized against Trump and how completely innocent people had their names and reputations tarnished as several faced jail time principally for being associated with the man whom the denizens of the false opposite of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” believed was an illegitimate interruption of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s “transformative” politics that the Big Guy, who falls down a lot when not taking bribe money from Chicom front men and Ukrainian oligarchs, has carried on with abandon in the past two years, five months.

Then again, “One Set of Laws” Jack Smith has just a bit of history in the business of deliberately targeting political opponents, and his track record is nothing if consistent in its brazenness that was even too much for the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of former Robert McDonnell, the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia:

Former President Donald Trump's Make America Great Again PAC is ripping into the special counsel, Jack Smith, claiming he has a "sordid history of targeting conservatives."

In a statement issued Friday, the Trump team pointed to a number of examples of Smith's "troubling history" with conservatives:

The Washington Examiner reported in November, 2022, that Lois Lerner, as director of the IRS' Exempt Organizations Unit, led an IRS effort targeting Tea Party groups and other conservative nonprofits. The Trump team noted Smith "was involved in the Lois Lerner IRS scandal."
"Congressman Jim Jordan had said [on Fox Business] that while at the Obama DOJ, Smith worked with the IRS to find ways to target conservative non-profits," the statement said.
"Guess who was the lead person at the Justice Department looking for ways to target and prosecute the very people looking into who Lois Lerner went after? Jack Smith, the guy Merrick Garland just named as special counsel to go after President Trump," Jordan said.

And, the Trump PAC said that "Smith also has a history of targeting a Republican presidential candidate."

The PAC said: "As Mike Davis, president of Article III Project, put it: 'In 2010, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder picked Jack Smith to run Public Integrity Section. Smith took out VA Gov. Bob McDonnell as a potential Republican presidential candidate — on bogus corruption charges. Supreme Court reversed, 9-0.

"Now Smith is back — to take out Trump."

The statement continued: "Gov. McDonnell gave an interview to Newsmax in which he said he's 'very concerned about this person heading it up.' "

The statement also said Smith's wife donated $2,000 to support Joe Biden's presidential campaign and donated to progressive Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

The Trump team said Smith's wife also "produced a glowing documentary about Michelle Obama for Netflix."

And it said: "Ted Cruz summed it up well: '5 facts about Trump Special Counsel Jack Smith: 1 — Picked by Garland 2 — Led debacle of a prosecution of Bob McDonnell, reversed 9-0 by SCOTUS 3 — Involved in the IRS targeting of conservatives 4 — Wife is a Biden donor 5 — Wife produced a Michelle Obama doc & anti-Citizens United film.' " (Trump Team: Smith Has 'History of Targeting Conservatives'. Although unrelated to McDonnell, efforts were made in the past by local Texas prosecutors in Travis County to bring down former House Majority Leader Thomas DeLay, who was convicted in 2011 of taking illegal money laundering before the conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of the State of Texas in 2013—see Tom DeLay conviction reversed by Texas court; Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was accused of taking in 2012 because of charges he took illegal campaign donations prior to a 2012 recall election he was forced to face because of the opposition to him by state employee unions before the Wisconsin Supreme Court ended a criminal inquiry in 2015—see Scott Walker: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules campaign didn't violate finance laws; and it was simultaneously in the State of Texas that the then Democratic district attorney in Travis County, Texas, Rosemary Lehmberg, had then Texas Governor indicted on “abuse of power” charges stemming from Perry’s efforts to force her from office after she had been arrest for drunk driving and for being belligerent upon her arrest—see Charges against Rick Perry dismissed in abuse of power case. Yes, yes, yes. One set of laws for everyone, right, Jack Smith?)

Yes, “One Set of Laws” Jack Smith just happened to announce the indictment of former President Donald John Trump for doing much, if not a bit more, of what Madame Defarge (aka Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) did seven years ago the day after that current head of the Federal Biden Protectorate formerly known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Christopher Wray, finally permitted, in his infinite largesse of spirit, you understand, to permit members of the Government Oversight Committee of the United States House of Representative to view an FBI document, based upon evidence provided by an FBI source with a proven track record of credibility, alleging that the Big Guy took a direct bribe to the tune of five million dollars from an Ukrainian oligarch:

“All rise” calls the court to order, but Americans should not stand to honor what passes for “justice” in the fresh prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

The indictment of Mr. Trump by his political enemies in the Democratic Party reveals a level of lawlessness that no explanation can validate. As determined as Washington’s governing elites are to shield their power, the people whom they serve are now called to demonstrate matching grit in annunciating the hijacking of justice has gone too far.

President Biden’s Department of Justice has ordered the arrest and appearance of Mr. Trump on Tuesday in federal court in Miami.

There can be no mistake that the move is meant to take out Mr. Biden’s most potent rival in the 2024 presidential election.

Mr. Trump has reportedly been indicted on seven counts involving a violation of the Espionage Act related to his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office. The post-presidency possession of classified material — a common occurrence until now — is Democrats’ most recent cudgel for beating back Mr. Trump’s attempt to reenter the White House.

The Trump indictment coincided with the very day that FBI Director Christopher Wray surrendered to Republican lawmakers — under threat of contempt of Congress — a whistleblower statement alleging knowledge of a bribery scheme meant to net Mr. Biden $5 million while he was vice president.

No one would regard the timing as coincidental but a naif so utterly clueless as to notice no connection between the end of the night and the sunrise in the morning.

Summing up the juxtaposition of injustice, former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker told Fox News on Friday, “This proves there is not equal justice under the law.”

The particulars of the double standard are breathtaking. In recent months, it has been discovered that Mr. Biden secreted boxes of political records, including classified material, at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, his home in Wilmington, Delaware, and the office of one of his attorneys in Boston. In addition, nearly 2,000 boxes of Biden documents stored at the University of Delaware have been declared off-limits for inspection.

In contrast to the authority Mr. Trump acquired as president, any failure on Mr. Biden’s part to relinquish classified documents he possessed following his tenure as a senator and vice president would have violated the law. Where is a matching Biden indictment? Likely it is lodged where lost socks are never found.

The federal indictment generated by special counsel Jack Smith is simply the latest act in a seven-year campaign to halt Mr. Trump’s efforts to disrupt the inner workings of the permanent state. It is of a piece with the FBI’s unwarranted Trump-Russia collusion inquiry and Democrats’ twin Trump impeachment failures, which nonetheless wounded the Trump presidency; the agency’s underhanded Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, which shielded his father’s 2020 presidential run from ballot-box blowback; and the Justice Department’s cynical exoneration of Hillary Clinton, which held her untouchable for well-documented mishandling of classified information.

The Trump indictment confirms Democrats have commandeered the legal system. As Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican, tweeted: “If the president in power can jail his political opponents, which is what Joe Biden is trying to do tonight, we don’t have a republic anymore.”

His view should be echoed in a nationwide crescendo. (EDITORIAL: Trump indictment confirms Democrats have commandeered our legal system.)

Noting, of course, that secular republic must degenerate to the levels of authoritarianism and totalitarianism that we have witnessed over the course of the past twenty-two years since the tragic events, as yet fully explained of September 11, 2001, as men who do not seek the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End and who do not have belief in, access to, or cooperation with Sanctifying Grace nor believe that it is necessary to subordinate all things pertinent to the good of souls to binding precepts of the Divine and Natural Laws as entrusted to the infallible authority of the Catholic Church will wind up arguing over the inarguable and, ultimately, seeking to eliminate dissenting voices in the name of forged “unity” based upon the suppression of legitimate human liberties that these republics were supposed to foster and protect. Alas, the standard of the Holy Cross is the only standard of true liberty and those who do not recognize this must come under both the personal and social tyranny of the adversary. It is really that simple.

The indictment of former President Donald John Trump, which will be discussed in a bit of specificity shortly, is indeed intended to deflect attention from the fact that Grifter-in-Chief, apart from being an enabler of baby-killing and the sort of perversity that would have made some of the Roman pagans of antiquity blush with shame and blanche with revulsion, not only kept his own set of classified documents from his thirty-six years in the United States Senate and eight years as Vice President of the United States of American but stands accused credibly now as the recipient of a direct bribe to influence the course of American foreign policy:

As the media clamors about Donald Trump being indicted in the classified materials probe, more details about the alleged Joe Biden bribery scheme have come to light. Of course, none of this will see the light of day. It’s the Hunter Biden laptop story all over again. We’ve noted how the timing of the Trump indictment is too good to be true. A damning document about Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in being paid $5 million by a foreign national is turned over by the FBI, and then Trump is slapped with new federal charges. There’s incriminating evidence of Biden's corruption again, but Donald Trump will squeeze that out of the broadcast.

The FBI informant is also reportedly fearful that he or she could be killed if revealed to the press. This person also not only has information about this bribery operation stemming from Biden’s shady arrangements in Ukraine but quite possibly knows the man who bribed Biden. There’s a ledger of these payments. The stars are aligning on this ongoing probe into Joe Biden. What’s peculiar is that the subject who allegedly gave Biden the cash referred to the president by a familiar nickname (via Washington Examiner) [emphasis mine]:

President Joe Biden was referred to as the “big guy” by the Ukrainian oligarch who owned the Hunter Biden-employing energy giant Burisma, sources say an FBI record reveals.

Mykola Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian owner of Burisma, was the "foreign national" involved in the alleged "criminal bribery scheme" detailed in an FBI confidential human source form, and Zlochevsky referred to Joe Biden as the “big guy” during a conversation a number of years before the June 2020 date of the bureau form, according to sources familiar with the FBI record who described its contents to the Washington Examiner.

The sources told the Washington Examiner that the Ukrainian oligarch discussed an alleged bribe of $5 million to Joe Biden and of $5 million to Hunter Biden, according to the paid FBI informant who said he heard this from Zlochevsky. The sources said Zlochevsky said he believed it would be difficult to unravel the alleged bribery scheme for at least 10 years because of the number of bank accounts involved.

Zlochevsky’s alleged reference to Joe Biden as the “big guy” appears independent of the apparent reference to the now-president as the “big guy” by a Hunter Biden business associate during negotiations with Chinese intelligence-linked businessmen. The China-related reference occurred in a May 2017 email not made public until October 2020.

The existence of the Ukraine-related FD-1023 appears to have been revealed to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) by whistleblowers in 2022, and Grassley told the Justice Department and FBI back in October to hand over “all records,” including “FD-1023” documents that “reference Mykola Zlochevsky, Hunter Biden, James Biden, and Joe Biden.”

Amid the threat of being held in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena, FBI Director Christopher Wray allowed members of the committee to review the FD-1023 on Thursday.

ep, it’s not the first time we’ve heard Biden referred to by this name. It was plastered all over the place in the waning days of the 2020 election that the liberal media expertly suppressed.

Before the Trump indictment news, Democrats and the media were working overtime trying to sell a fake narrative about this investigation, including the lie that then-Attorney General William Barr shut down the probe after finding no incriminating findings. Barr did no such thing, referring the matter to the US attorney’s office in Delaware.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, even went so far as to lie about the origins of the FD-1023, the report filed by the FBI regarding information taken from confidential human sources. He said that the report derived from allegations brought up by Rudy Giuliani. Again, that’s a lie, which was dispensed with within hours. The sidebar here is that the old operation from which the FBI, the media, and the Democrats used to fan the flames of Russian collusion no longer works. They’ve been neutralized after the whole narrative was exposed as a fake, weaponized by anti-Trump public servants to hamstring and boot a duly elected president. With nowhere to pivot, this cadre of liars is probably relieved that the Trump indictment has allowed them to move onto something else, at least for now. (Joe Biden's Alleged Briber Had a Familiar Nickname For Him.)

“One Set of Laws” Jack Smith said he was proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who worked on the case of former President Donald John Trump’s mishandling and “unauthorized” retention of classified documents, including some said to deal with the “highest levels” of American national security and bear “top secret” markings, which means that he, given his own track record as a political hack, is probably proud of the way the Federal Biden Protectorate has been stonewalling Congress about Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr’s corruption to the point of angering the senior United States Senator from the State of Iowa, Charles Grassley:

Stop leaking to the media, peddling false narratives, and obstructing congressional oversight into the FBI’s handling of allegations that President Joe Biden was part of a criminal bribery scheme, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told FBI Director Christopher Wray in a floor speech Tuesday.

“Quit playing games,” Grassley said. “The Justice Department and FBI no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt,” he added, pointing to the FBI and Department of Justice’s track record of deception from the Russia-collusion hoax to the present.

Wray “made one excuse after another to not produce” the document detailing the bribery allegation against Biden, Grassley said, even refusing to admit it existed until Grassley revealed to him that he’d already seen a copy. The existence of the explosive allegation, which reportedly describes a Ukrainian energy concern seeking to pay then-Vice President Biden $5 million in return for a policy decision during his time as Ukrainian point man for the Obama administration, was revealed to Grassley by multiple FBI whistleblowers.

The continued practice of leaking false narratives to friendly media outlets instead of complying with constitutional oversight requests particularly bothered Grassley, he said. Everyone knows the “FBI has a penchant for leaking classified information to the media and producing documents to the media,” Grassley said.

Instead of complying with congressional requests, including a subpoena for the document, the FBI and its associates began leaking to Democrat media, in some cases to the exact same media figures they had worked with to spread the false Russia-collusion narrative. Grassley mentioned a May 18 article in The New York Times, likely the one by Adam Goldman, in which the noted Russia-collusion hoaxer wrote a glowing profile of Timothy Thibault that appeared to be sourced to Thibault and the FBI. The profile attempted to discredit decorated FBI agents who opposed his political handling of sensitive investigations.

Thibault was one of the FBI agents who reportedly shut down legitimate investigations into the Biden family business and spoke openly of his animus toward President Trump and former Attorney General Bill Barr. He was reportedly forced out of the bureau last year after questions about his conduct became public. Brian Auten is another FBI official under scrutiny, reportedly for pushing Trump-Russia collusion and inappropriately discrediting Hunter Biden stories.

Other examples of FBI leaks abound. CNN’s Evan Perez was used to push the FBI’s spin on the document Grassley seeks. He famously joined with Jake Tapper and Jim Sciutto to launder the Steele dossier to the American public on Jan. 12, 2017.

To mislead investigators, anonymous sources peddled to Perez the idea that the document was related to allegations supplied by Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and Republican operative.

“The document has origins in a tranche of documents that Rudy Giuliani provided to the Justice Department in 2020, people briefed on the matter said,” Perez asserted without evidence. It turns out it’s not true. Not only is the document, which details information from a longtime trusted confidential human source, unrelated to the information Giuliani brought to the FBI, it includes information from a previous interview of the source in 2017, three years before the Giuliani inquiry.

Jamie Raskin Is the New Adam Schiff

Still, the unsubstantiated story was enough for Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., to spread the falsehood even further. Raskin is the ranking Democrat on the House’s Oversight Committee, which is investigating FBI mishandling of investigations into the Biden family business. He serves a similar role to the one Adam Schiff played when Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was attempting to unravel the FBI’s Russia-collusion hoax. Schiff’s office was known for misleading leaks to CNN and other Democrat media outfits. He also falsely claimed for years to have evidence of treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., is the House member overseeing the attempt to get information from Wray’s FBI. After threatening to hold Wray in contempt, the FBI director had a staffer brief Raskin and Comer on the document.

FBI briefings, leaks to friendly media outlets, and official statements include a frustrating mixture of unsubstantiated insinuations that the documented allegation was legitimately “closed,” contrary to whistleblower claims, were coupled with a refusal to answer questions about the documented allegation or its closing because it is part of an ongoing, “open” investigation. Grassley referenced the Kafka-esque situation in his jeremiad against Wray’s game-playing.

In any case, following his briefing, Raskin came out and claimed his FBI briefing showed him, “[i]n August 2020, Attorney General Barr and his hand-picked U.S. Attorney signed off on closing the assessment, having found no evidence to corroborate Mr. Giuliani’s allegations.”

First off, that’s not true in any way. Not only were these allegations not Giuliani’s, but Barr himself has also stated on the record to The Federalist that the investigation of the allegation was not closed and was in fact sent to the Delaware U.S. attorney for further investigation.

But the lie from Raskin was credulously reported by the Post for further dissemination to left-wing audiences.

Washington Post Joins the FBI Info Op

The Washington Post won a Pulitzer for its role in pushing the information operation the FBI and other malign actors orchestrated against President Donald Trump, in which he was falsely accused of being a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. The widespread information operation was so effective that it led to the appointment of a damaging special counsel, the derailing of the Trump administration’s effectiveness, and a large majority of Democrats still believing the falsehood even years after it has been soundly and repeatedly debunked. One of the reporters who shared in the prize was Devlin Barrett, who reportedly spent time with Wray last week.

Along with Perry Stein and Jacqueline Alemany, Barrett helped the FBI and other Democrat operatives attempt a cover-up of the dispute with Congress. They claimed the FBI and Department of Justice, under the guidance of Barr, “reviewed allegations from a confidential informant about Joe Biden and his family, and they determined there were no grounds for further investigative steps,” according to Raskin and “other people familiar with the investigation.”

We already know Raskin’s claims are false. Whether the “other people” mentioned include Wray or other anonymous FBI officials is unclear. What is clear is that the spin is deceptive.

The media and other Democrats ignored the claim that a documented allegation existed. Once Wray finally admitted the document did, in fact, exist, the spin machine worked to say it had been investigated and found lacking. The issue is that Grassley and Comer are not as willing to believe the FBI’s unsubstantiated claims as The Washington “Democracy Dies In Darkness” Post’s operatives are.

Not only do they have whistleblowers telling them in detail that the investigation was not handled properly, but journalistic common sense says the same.

We know that the document, which has repeatedly been described by those who have seen it as “detailed,” was dated June 30, 2020. We also are told that Auten closed the investigation in early August 2020. To believe that the details of a complicated criminal enterprise allegation were fully and legitimately investigated and closed by the FBI in four weeks is almost impossible. It’s particularly difficult to believe given that the FBI is apparently leaking false narratives and refusing to substantiate the implausible claim with anything other than a request that they be trusted to tell the truth.

For comparison, the completely idiotic claim that Carter Page was a Russian spy was investigated for years, including securing four invasive warrants to spy on the individual, using extensive electronic surveillance, deploying human sources against Page, and more. Literally no one believes that the detailed claim from a highly trusted confidential human source who had specifics that matched up with verified Biden shell companies was fully investigated and put to bed in a matter of four weeks. Not even Devlin Barrett believes that, even if he pretends to.

No More FBI Lies

The Russia-collusion hoax perpetrated against the American people by the FBI, Democrats, and the media was remarkably effective. But because it was evil and false, the FBI, Democrats, and the media will have a much more difficult time running the operation with the same level of effectiveness again.

Still, Republicans on the Hill must be much savvier this time around, refusing to go along with the FBI’s misleading leaks for even a moment before they demand full compliance with congressional oversight. The good news is that any patience that Grassley and Comer seemed to have for Wray’s game-playing has already run out. (Russiagate Redux: Grassley Calls Out FBI For Leaking Lies.)

One Set of Laws for all?

No.

Not in the United States of America, not now nor at any other time in its history. A nation based on a set of anti-Incarnational, Judeo-Masonic and Pelagian principles is incapable of applying a single standard of justice to all as most of her citizens do not realize that they will be held to but single standard of justice when they meet the Divine Judge, Christ the King, at the moment of their Particular Judgment.

Just look at the way that the likes of Addison Mitchell McConnell, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, and Senators Willard Mitt Romney, John Thune and, among others, Lisa Murkowski, have been deaf, dumb, and blind about the John Durham Report and about all the allegations of criminal wrongdoing that have been leveled against the enabler of statism and globalism named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., to say nothing of how they have ignored the current administration’s efforts to proactively censor and punish “dissenters” as “domestic extremists” (see, for example, Billionaire Biden Donor Bankrolled 2020 Election Social Media Censorship Effort and Biden Administration Censoring Dissenting Voices).

No, McConnell, Romney, Thune, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, a creature of the national security state who is delusional enough to think that he has a chance of winning the 2024 presidential nomination of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” former New Jersey Governor Christopher William Christie, who does not believe that the “social issues” should matter in elections, and ubiquitous Never Trump likes of George Conway and William Kristol are always ready to bludgeon Trump, who deserves bludgeoning for his poor governance, his sloppy and lazy re-election campaign, for his support of the full panoply of the homosexual agenda, and for his outsourcing of this entire country to the petty dictator named Anthony Fauci, for doing things that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., have done and are, at least in the case of Biden, still doing. What does censorship and the active persecution of political opponents mean to such useless tools of careerism and elitist self-protection?

Although he does not realize why, secular commentator Michael Goodwin is entirely correct when stating that justice is not blind in Jack Smith’s “One Set of Laws for all” America:

The indictment of Donald Trump is a detailed recounting of his decisions to keep classified documents and to involve others in his alleged refusal to come clean about everything he had.

Based on a grand jury search warrant, federal agents raided Mar-a-Lago and the evidence they gathered was bolstered with FBI interviews of Trump aides, employees and even his lawyers.

Weaving in seized texts and emails from key moments, prosecutors have created a compelling picture of their case, with Trump’s personality and habits of deception coming through loud and clear in the 49-page charging document.

However, I believe that if federal prosecutors had empaneled a grand jury and obtained a search warrant for Joe Biden’s properties and if FBI agents had put his aides, employees and lawyers under oath, scoured their phones and emails and confronted them with evidence to get them to talk, agents would have found that Biden knowingly kept classified documents for many years in his homes and offices, including in the four years between his being vice president and president.

Honest agents unencumbered by any political bias of their own or their bosses’ might also have discovered that Hunter Biden and other family members and associates had access to the supposedly secret documents and possibly used them in drawing up their lucrative business schemes with foreign officials and businesses.

Instead, a special counsel assigned to the case appears to be about as vigorous as Joe.

I also believe that had the Department of Justice empaneled a grand jury and executed a search warrant on Hillary Clinton’s home and offices in 2013 or 2014 and seized her private computer server, phones and electronic devices, along with the devices of her aides and interviewed her lawyers under oath, FBI agents would have found many thousands of unsecured critical documents that were still in her possession long after she left the Department of State.

As it was, more than 2,000 documents deemed to be classified, top secret or confidential were recovered from her devices in 2015 and 2016, despite the fact that Clinton deleted some 33,000 emails she claimed were not work-related.

Although the FBI oddly accepted her claim, then-Director James Comey said Clinton was wrong to use a private server and there was evidence she and aides were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

“None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system,” Comey said before suddenly changing course and adding: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Comey was out of line in publicly recommending against prosecution, but got away with it — and so did Clinton.

It probably didn’t hurt either one that Attorney General Loretta Lynch worked in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton and that Bill and Loretta just happened to meet during the probe in an Arizona airport and have a private conversation about, you know, golf and grandkids.

Tale of three candidates

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

For my money, that neatly sums up the challenge presented by the Trump indictment.

While his case will ultimately rise or fall on its merits, it is indisputable that Trump is being treated far more harshly than either Biden or Clinton were under very similar circumstances.

All three kept classified documents where and when they shouldn’t have.

Only one is being prosecuted.

All three ran for president, but only one had his campaign spied on by the FBI, an action later found to be unwarranted.

And only one was the victim of nonstop FBI leaks to the media alleging collusion with a foreign power that helped undermine his presidency, even though many of the leaks were found to be misinformation.

Does it matter that the one person subjected to these extreme measures by the government and media is a Republican, while the other two are Democrats?

Only a fool or a liar would deny the obvious.

Trump haters, some of whom call themselves journalists, justify that sordid history of misconduct against him by calling him every vile epithet under the sun.

He had it coming, they say, and believe he had no right ever to be president.

There is no concern of the unprecedented nature of the charges, only jubilation that he is the first former president in American history to be charged with federal crimes.

Many fantasize he will die in prison.

The New York Times, which never fails to reveal its agenda, moaned that the Miami judge assigned to the case was appointed by Trump and “has shown him favor.”

The assumption seems to be that a Biden appointee would be more fair.

Really?

One does not have to think Trump is an angel, or even innocent in the current case, to believe there is something very rotten in Washington.

Two standards of justice, open and notorious, are doing more harm to American democracy than Trump could do in two lifetimes.

The decline of trust in government, including the once-hallowed FBI, mostly reflects actions taken by Democrats in recent years to gain or keep power.

As special prosecutor John Durham recently concluded, there was no justification for the FBI to open a case against Trump’s 2016 campaign, even as it inexplicably delayed or ignored potential avenues of investigation against Clinton’s family foundation.

And don’t forget that the phony Steele dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign, helped fuel the FBI’s zeal to nail Trump.

Think what that means: The Justice Department, with the knowledge of the Democratic White House, meddled in a presidential election with the aim of electing the Democrat and defeating — and perhaps prosecuting — the Republican.

And here we go again.

The federal case against Trump now, even if it meets the standard of the law, cannot be divorced from the recent history of election meddling, given that he is the leading GOP candidate against Biden.

In five years, perhaps a future Durham will look back on these events and write another report chronicling how the party in power again weaponized law enforcement to control an election.

In a brief statement defending the 37 charges against Trump, special counsel Jack Smith insisted there was nothing unusual about the case, saying, “We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everybody.”

Please, save it for civics class.

In reality, Biden appointed Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appointed Smith.

Whether he likes it or not, the buck stops on Biden’s desk, especially because Biden let it be known more than a year ago he wanted Trump prosecuted.

Does anyone really believe it’s just a coincidence that Smith, under Garland’s guidance, has delivered what the boss wanted?

Meanwhile, Biden has a lot of dirty laundry himself, but Garland is protecting him.

Consider the evidence.

The Hunter Biden probe, now in its fifth year, reeks of favoritism, a charge leveled against it by IRS and FBI whistleblowers.

The evidence of various crimes has been public for years, and Joe’s connection is provable.

Nearly three years ago, he was identified as the “big guy” scheduled to get a secret 10% cut in a multimillion-dollar family deal with Chinese communists.

Those charges, based on The Post’s stories about the contents of Hunter’s abandoned laptop, were censored by Big Tech at the direction of the FBI.

The Ukraine $torm

Then there’s the newest dimension to Joe’s likely misconduct — the discovery that the FBI has been sitting on a charge since 2017, and renewed at least twice since by an informant, that he accepted a $5 million bribe from a Ukrainian businessman.

Reports say Hunter also got $5 million in the same deal, and there are suggestions the money came from the head of Burisma, the corrupt energy company that hired Hunter for its board of directors and paid him millions while Joe was Obama’s point man for Ukraine.

Where’s the grand jury on that case?

Where are the subpoenas for Biden’s bank records and a house raid searching for evidence?

Where is the media firestorm?

Nowhere, that’s where, because Garland and the FBI have been sitting on the Biden bribe allegation without either confirming it or dismissing it.

We know the allegation exists only because a tipster told congressional Republicans, who demanded to see the FBI report of the informant’s story.

The possibility of Joe Biden’s guilt has many implications, including the specter that Congress impeached the wrong man in 2019.

House Democrats impeached Trump over a phone call with the president of Ukraine, in which Trump asked for help investigating whether the Bidens engaged in corrupt actions there when Joe was vice president.

It was an unfair, purely partisan impeachment under any circumstances, but even more so if Biden really was guilty of corruption.

Had that been discovered then, Trump would have been re-elected and Biden would be the one facing criminal charges. (Justice is hardly blind in the federal case going against Donald Trump.)

Although with all the ballot harvesting in 2020 that was made possible by Anthony Fauci’s needless lockdowns during the plandemic that Fauci, Deborah Birx and a host of wannabe commissars (Andrew Mark Cuomo, Thomas Wolf, John Carney, Philip Murphy, Gavin Newsom, Michelle Luhan Grisham, J, B. Pritzker, Ned Lamont, Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, Kate Brown, Jay Inslee, Stephen Sisolak, Philip Brian Scott, Gina Raimondo, Thomas Barrett, Asa Hutchinson, and Gretchen Whitmer, et al.) used to emply ballot harvesting (which had no impact on the 2020 election results, of course) and to censor dissenting medical and scientific judgments concerning the nature of the coronavirus and how to treat it, I do not think that then President Donald John Trump would have been reelected in 2020 even if all the facts about the corruption of the Biden Crime Family had been known, suffice it to say the ballot harvesting in and of itself, especially in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of Michigan and Wisconsin was enough to throw the election to Biden.

Obviously, justice is not blind in the United States of America and, as noted above, there has never been “one set of laws for all” in its history.

Donald John Trump Has No Regard for His Own Salvation nor That of His Subordinates

Alas, there are deeper, supernatural dimensions of this dirty business that must be discussed in order to help readers rise above the agitations of the moment and to have such sympathy for Donald John Trump in light of the many ways he has been the victim of state-sponsored and media driven persecution in the last eight years that they forget the simple fact that the former president of the United States of America is a moral reprobate in his own wretched right and that he has no regard for the salvation of his own immortal soul, a concept that I think he is constitutionally incapable of entertaining, and of asking his subordinates to lie to Federal investigators for him, thereby being complicit in seeking to corrupt them and thus to put their own immortal souls in jeopardy.

This is why I, for one, feel pity—not sympathy—for the persecuted former president as he gives no thought to the inherent immorality of what he proposes others to do for him and is arrogantly stupid enough to do what he rightly criticized Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton of doing and then having the temerity to praise one of her attorneys who assisted the fiend from Chappaqua, New York, by way of Wellesley College, Yale Law School, the United States House Judiciary Committee investigating President Richard Milhous Nixon in 1974, and First Lady of Arkansas of the United States of America in destroying the evidence of her mendacious cover-up during her email scandal. Only a man whose mind is warped by delusions of self-grandeur, invincibility, and infallibility could be so utterly stupid as to praise the cover-up of a scandal that he rightly criticized to exhort one of his attorneys to do the same:

Former president Donald Trump stashed sensitive intelligence secrets in a bathroom, his bedroom and a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago, according to a scathing 49-page indictment unsealed Friday against him and a loyal servant who is accused of lying to cover up his boss’s alleged crimes.

The grand jury indictment tells a story of hubris and hypocrisy, describing a wealthy former president living among neck-high stacks of boxes with classified documents scattered inside them, sometimes literally spilling out of their containers. In the prosecutors’ telling, neither Trump nor any of his aides or lawyers appeared bothered by the sprawl of sensitive papers until government agents came calling. Then, the former commander in chief allegedly set out to hide some of what he had.

The document, complete with color photographs and witness accounts of breathtaking criminal conduct, lays down a marker for a legal and political battle to come that could reshape the 2024 presidential race, the politics of national security, and the public’s perception of the Justice Department and the 45th president of the United States.

“Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” Trump allegedly asked when his lawyers told him in May 2022 that they had to comply with a grand jury subpoena seeking the return of any documents marked classified. In that same conversation, he praised a lawyer for Hillary Clinton for what he claimed was the act of deleting 30,000 of her emails when she was in government.

“He did a great job,” Trump allegedly said.

Such private comments stand in stark contrast to Trump’s public statements as a 2016 candidate and as president about the importance of protecting classified information. As recounted in the indictment, Trump often used the issue as a rhetorical dagger against Clinton, declaring in September 2016 that “one of the first things we must do is enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.” (Trump said on tape he didn't declassify secret Iran documents.)

Now, before commenting further on former President Donald John Trump’s rank utilitarianism and abject amorality as he gave no consideration to his own salvation nor that of the lawyer he was trying to convince to tell Federal investigations that he, Trump, did not have the documents that were in his possession, it is, I believe important to note that government bureaucrats have an insatiable appetite to classify and thus keep from the public as much information as possible. There may even have been some over the years who have tried to classify weather reports from the National Weather Service. Obviously, that is a facetious observation, but the commentary below does speak to the fact that the classification of government documents is indeed meant to keep the government’s dirty business out of public view but a lot of the documents marked as classified are very innocuous:

Decades from now, when the government belatedly releases the Trump and Biden purloined records, Americans may well wonder what all the fuss was about.

The document cases tied to the president and his predecessor dramatize what national security experts of every political stripe have known for decades: Far too many government records are classified. Most are classified not to protect sources and methods – the standard intelligence community rationale – but to protect intel analysts against embarrassment or to protect government "secrets" that the public should know.

A famous example is the classification of millions of documents ostensibly tied to President John F. Kennedy's assassination: Each release of a new trove, most recently last month, has prompted questions about why most of the documents were classified in the first place.

An issue of national security

In examining another American tragedy, the bipartisan 9/11 commission found that far from protecting the United States, excessive classification had left our country vulnerable to the 2001 terror attacks by restricting important intelligence findings about al-Qaida and other jihadist groups to too few essential U.S. security figures.

“What we have learned is that overclassification can also be damaging to national security, or at a minimum, it can lead to second-guessing what might have been if we were only able to get the information in the right hands at the right time,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at a 2016 House oversight hearing.

Chaffetz, who retired in 2017, said the government had spent $100 billion over the previous decade on “security classification activities” – much of them unnecessary, and some of them harmful.

When I came to Washington as a correspondent, I was surprised to cover Sens. Patrick Moynihan, a liberal Democrat from New York, and Jesse Helms, a conservative Republican from North Carolina, co-sponsoring legislation to streamline the classification system. At a 1997 Senate hearing, each senator dramatically brandished and then read from recently declassified documents that were so innocuous, their readings elicited audience guffaws around the committee room.

The rise of overclassification

You can draw a direct line from the needless classification of material stretching back well over a half-century, deep into the Cold War, to today’s toxic distrust of the government among tens of millions of Americans.

In supporting the Moynihan-Helms bill, The Washington Post editorialized: “Government keeps too many secrets. It keeps material classified far too long. Excessive secrecy is expensive, breeds popular distrust of government and withholds from historians, researchers and the voting public information that is important.”

The rise of overclassification

That measure failed to pass, instead giving rise to a new bureaucracy now at the center of the Trump and Biden imbroglios – the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA for short.

The late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover bears some responsibility for the damage done by overzealous classification. As the first head of the nation’s primary domestic intelligence agency, he turned it into a vast, Soviet-like collection fiefdom that too often had more to do with his personal proclivities and animosities than with the nation’s security.

To cite just one of many examples, belatedly released records show that he paid informants and planted listening devices to gather evidence of alleged extramarital affairs and communist ties of Martin Luther King Jr.

In July 2021, USA TODAY quoted a Senate report’s conclusion that the Commerce Department had acted as “a rogue, unaccountable police force across multiple presidential administrations” in targeting its Asian American employees. The report found that a departmental division called the Investigations and Threat Management Service had used “overclassification of documents to protect the unit from external scrutiny.”

Three tiers of classification

The federal classification system has three main tiers: Top Secret, Secret and Confidential. The most highly sensitive records are stamped Top Secret and truly need to be closely guarded, seen by a limited number of vetted officials with high-security clearances, in order to protect the United States against real harm by foreign or domestic enemies.

They can be viewed only in SCIFs – Sensitive Compartmented Information facilities that look like giant bank vaults and normally can be accessed only by accredited individuals using eye scans, fingerprints or complex entry codes. But far too many Secret or Confidential documents protect the individual reputations of analysts whose forecasts proved disastrously wrong.

An example is the lead-up to the Iraq War debacle when Vice President Dick Cheney made unprecedented personal visits to Langley to pressure senior CIA officials to alter intel assessments in order to support a U.S. invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The Moynihan-Helms initiative led to the creation of the deliciously named Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. That panel, in turn, helped establish the National Declassification Center as part of NARA – the agency that has exploded in the news in recent months since the FBI search of Mar-A-Lago in Florida.

Each quarter the center dutifully releases thousands of boxes – boxes, not individual documents – of newly declassified material. Even a cursory look at its most recent release in November might elicit new guffaws: For instance, 15 boxes of "foreign media summaries" from Sweden, Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Other newly released records long ago lost whatever sensitivity they once had, such as 150 boxes from 14th Air Force records tied to World War II and the Cold War between 1943 and 1968.

As a Moscow correspondent, I would share lunch or drinks with U.S. Embassy diplomats who confided that much of the information they weren't allowed to tell journalists came from reading those journalists' articles! Later, as a Pentagon reporter, I was frustrated by military or civilian officials who would tell me things off the record or on background that were either common knowledge, available online or had no possible intelligence value.

In addition to frustrating journalists, the overclassification and extended retention of government records stifle academic research – the very research government policymakers depend on to make informed decisions. A major problem with today's classification system is that it was created in the pre-internet era when information was much less fungible.

The problem with former President Donald Trump's response to FBI inquiries of the Mar-a-Lago documents, as with his responses to so much scrutiny of him, is that his overwrought, accusatory declarations make them appear more sensitive than most of them probably are.

Far savvier is President Joe Biden's apparent response of disclosure and cooperation to the more recent discovery of classified records at the Penn Biden Center in Washington and at his home in Delaware.

History suggests that the bulk of the restricted documents found in both presidents’ personal possession contain information already in the public domain – or information that should be in the public domain. Unfortunately, Americans likely won’t learn this key fact until it is much too late to matter. (Biden, Trump classified documents show too many records are secret.)

This all very accurate, but it does not help former President Donald John Trump, who knew that the documents he possessed were classified and that they had been subpoenaed by his lawless enemies. Why, then, give his enemies the ammunition they wanted to do what they are doing at this time, namely, to put him in prison for the rest of his life? Why go to all the efforts to make others legally vulnerable in his quest to keep documents he did not need, including one that he admitted was marked “top secret” but boasted to an author conducting research for a book he was writing about former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows?

Text messages. Phone records. Photos.

The 37-count federal indictment of former president Donald Trump unsealed Friday provides a vivid account of Trump’s actions at his homes in South Florida and New Jersey, and is based on information from a coterie of close aides, household staffers and lawyers hired to serve Trump in his post-presidency.

The account from Trump insiders in the 49-page indictment provides a thorough rebuttal to many claims made by Trump about his handling of classified material, including that he may have kept some material by accident or may have considered the material declassified by him.

A secretary — identified in the indictment as “Trump Employee 2” — told prosecutors that Trump himself had been packing and looking through boxes, contrary to assertions from his own lawyers. A young political aide, referred to as “the PAC representative” in the indictment, told prosecutors that Trump showed him a classified map about a military operation in a foreign country and told him to stand back because it was a secret document. At a recent CNN town hall, Trump said he did not remember doing such a thing.

Key parts of the indictment are based on one of his lawyer’s detailed notes about Trump’s wishing to obstruct justice by not responding to a subpoena — contradicting the 45th president’s claims that he was always cooperative with the Justice Department and the National Archives and Records Administration. And Trump’s valet was indicted alongside him, after prosecutors obtained the aide’s text messages and accused him of lying about moving boxes at Trump’s request.

Over a lengthy investigation, special counsel Jack Smith and his team interviewed dozens of Trump’s staffers, including his secretary, groundskeepers and political aides. The interviews gave Smith a close-up look at how Trump had structured his unorthodox post-presidential life — and made Trump and his advisers deeply angry and uncomfortable, according to people familiar with the matter, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive topics or the ongoing criminal investigation.

Trump never spoke to prosecutors in the case, but his actions, idiosyncrasies and thoughts were relayed in documents and text messages provided by staffers. Many accounts were provided reluctantly under subpoena, people familiar with those exchanges have said. Other aides’ phones were seized, giving prosecutors access to texts, photos and more.

Security video footage also was taken from Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida home and private club, showing the movements of boxes after prosecutors sent a subpoena demanding the return of documents marked classified. Photos in the indictment show Trump’s bathroom, complete with a dangling chandelier, where he stored dozens of boxes of documents. Additional photos show other places where documents were stored, including his ballroom and a storage room.

Phone records detailed calls between Trump and his valet that coincided with boxes being moved.

Some of the most compelling testimony comes from people who were hired to help Trump.

Evan Corcoran, a lawyer brought onto Trump’s staff in 2022, is the person described as “Attorney 1” in the indictment, according to a person familiar with the situation. Corcoran, a Maryland lawyer, was a former U.S. attorney who represented Trump ally Stephen K. Bannon in the past and was introduced to Trump by Trump’s longtime aide and legal adviser Boris Epshteyn.

Corcoran fought vigorously against testifying in court, citing attorney-client privilege, but was compelled by a judge, who said prosecutors were entitled to Corcoran’s notes and recollections about conversations with Trump because the exchanges may have taken place in furtherance of a criminal act — in this case, withholding documents and deceiving the government.

His testimony rattled Trump.

Through his own lawyer, Corcoran declined to comment.

Corcoran to search through the material in a folder and indicated that he should remove any problematic documents before handing the folder over, the indictment alleges.

Corcoran provided a detailed summary of Trump’s comments that indicate he was looking to avoid returning documents. In Corcoran’s telling, Trump was determined to keep the boxes even though he knew he had received a grand jury subpoena.

“I really don’t want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don’t, I don’t want you looking through my boxes,” he said, according to Corcoran.

He allegedly also said: “Well, what if we, what happens if we just don’t respond at all or don’t play ball with them?” and “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything there?”

Information prosecutors appear to have obtained from Corcoran also indicates that Trump repeatedly claimed that a lawyer for Hillary Clinton, his 2016 presidential rival, had taken the blame for Clinton’s misuse of emails, and he allegedly said the lawyer’s willingness to do so was a trait he admired.

Another key aide, described in the indictment as “Trump Employee 2,” matches information confirmed to The Washington Post about former Trump executive assistant Molly Michael. Michael and a lawyer representing her did not respond to requests for comment.

Michael sat outside Trump’s office, connected his calls, kept his schedule and often translated his moods to visitors and other Trump advisers. She was deeply involved in all aspects of his life, Trump advisers said, until she left his employ last year. Michael was rattled by the extensive attention from federal authorities conducting the investigation, people familiar with the situation have said.

Michael provided text messages and photos to federal investigators, the indictment shows, and kept close tabs on Trump’s packing of boxes himself — contrary to the claims made by some of his lawyers.

“Box answer will be wrenched out of him by tomorrow,” Michael said in a text message to Alex Cannon, a Trump lawyer trying to get him to return materials to the Archives. Cannon is referred to in the indictment as a “Trump Representative,” according to a person familiar with the situation. He declined to comment.

At another time, Michael updates another Trump aide on the former president’s efforts to sort through boxes and is said in the indictment to help Trump valet Walt Nauta move boxes. Her text messages appear frequently throughout the indictment, often in exchanges with Nauta.

Nauta was charged alongside Trump, but Michael was not, and people familiar with the matter have said she cooperated with the Justice Department. Nauta, on the other hand, is accused of lying during the investigation.

As Trump tried to avoid complying with a May 11, 2022, subpoena that required him to produce all documents with classification markings that were in his possession, Nauta was the person he relied on to help conceal the boxes he wanted to keep, the indictment alleges.

In the time between the issuing of the subpoena and Trump’s attorney’s review of boxes in the storage room on June 2, 2022, to find documents being sought, Nauta moved approximately 64 boxes to Trump’s residence at Trump’s request, according to the indictment.

The indictment shows the valet’s movements — along with phone calls he received from Trump.

On the afternoon of May 22, 2022, it says, Nauta entered the storage room and emerged 34 minutes later carrying one of Trump’s boxes. On May 24, 2022, “between 5:30 p.m. and 5:38 p.m., Nauta removed three boxes from the Storage Room” at Trump’s direction, the indictment reads.

A few days passed, and on May 30, 2022, after a 30-second phone call with Trump, Nauta removed 50 boxes from the storage room, according to the indictment. Later that day, a member of Trump’s family texted Nauta that the person had seen that he put boxes in Trump’s room.

“I think he wanted to pick from them,” Nauta wrote to the “Trump family member” in a text message obtained by prosecutors. The indictment does not identify the family member, but it would be a woman who has access to Trump’s private quarters at Mar-a-Lago.

“He told me to put them in the room and he was going to talk to you about them,” Nauta writes, after the “family member” says there will not be room for the boxes to go on the plane to Trump’s home in Bedminster, N.J., because the aircraft will be “full with luggage.”

On June 1, 2022, at 12:52 p.m., Nauta visited the storage room once again and removed 11 boxes, the indictment says.

Nauta made one more trip before Trump’s attorney arrived on June 2, 2022, to review the boxes in the storage room. After Trump and Nauta spoke on the phone at 9:29 a.m. that day, according to the indictment, Nauta, along with another club employee, moved 30 boxes from Trump’s residence back to the storage room.

The government alleges that Nauta lied in an interview with the FBI about moving boxes.

“Are you aware of any boxes being brought to his home — his suite?” the FBI agent asks.

Nauta responds decisively: “No.”

A lawyer for Nauta did not respond to a request for comment.

In two other instances in the indictment, unidentified Trump aides witness the former president’s mishandling of classified information. At Bedminster in 2021, the indictment says, Trump showed a picture of a classified map related to a military operation of another country to an unidentified aide working for his political action committee.

Trump “told the PAC representative that he should not be showing the map to the PAC representative and to not get too close,” the indictment says.

A recording mentioned in the indictment describes a different meeting at Bedminster during which the former president talks about knowing a document related to Iran is classified. “See as president I could have declassified it,” he says to an unidentified staffer.

“Now I can’t you know,” he says.

“Now we have a problem,” the unknown staffer says.

“Isn’t that interesting?” Trump responds. (Where Trump's indictment got insider info: A secretary, valet and lawyer.)

A man who had suffered through the injustices visited upon by the Russian Collusion hoax and the overreach of the Mueller investigation as well as by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s extensive efforts to protect both Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and his Assistant Grifter, Hunter Biden, should have realized that the Minister of Injustice, egged on by the Big Guy himself, course, wanted to use Trump’s collection of classified documents to harm him politically and personally in the most vindictive manner possible. Should have realized. Donald John Trump is nothing if not hubristically intent on helping his sworn political enemies to destroy him while, at the same time, he put his aides into both legal and moral jeopardy about which he is not in the least bit concerned and is representative of, truth be told, sociopathic behavior.

This is not the first time that Donald John Trump has played with innocent people’s lives. He did so when calling thousands upon thousands of his supports to attend the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021, the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as the Congress of the United States of America was about to certify the electoral vote count in favor of the head of Biden Crime Family Syndicate as his successor. There were certainly irregularities, if not lots of outright illegalities, during the 2020 election, something that I discussed at length in Put Not Your Trust in Princes: In the Children of Men in Who There is No Salvation. However, much evidence had been amassed that Trump knew he lost the election, admittedly by underhanded means (not the first time that this had happened as I noted in the just cited commentary), and, as is the case now, stubbornly persisted in a course of self-destructive actions that may yet be used by “One Set of Laws for All” Jack Smith to indict him on bogus charges of leading a nonexistent “insurrection.” Trump does not care about the damage he inflicts on others, and he puts his own good above even that of the nation, something that then Vice President Richard Milhous Nixon, not exactly a paragon of virtue and one who was prone to his own acts of amorality, refused to when he demurred from challenging the results of his bogus loss to then United States Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) on Tuesday, November 8, 1960.

The former president has no sense of self-reflection and believes that he never does anything wrong, something that he has claimed repeatedly about his ten-month relationship with Karen McDougall shortly after Barron Trump was born that he has never denied and about which he has said, “I have done nothing wrong.” Well, adultery happens to be wrong no matter who commits it. Trump remains unrepentant about that, and he remains unrepentant about directing the moving of boxes of “classified” materials after they had been subpoenaed and heedless of how some of those he was directing to cooperate with them were being placed, as noted earlier, in both legal and moral jeopardy.

Sure, the Jack Smith indictment is as reckless as it is blatant in its efforts to further Sovietize jurisprudence here in the United States of America. However, Trump did hand his head over to his persecutors, something that he could have avoided by surrendering the documents and then fighting civilly to get them back by going to court over his right to them most of them under the provisions of the Presidential Records Act, something that even the notably anti-Trump Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial. The National Archives chose not to engage in negotiations with the former president, which is how the matter was referred to Merrick Garland’s Ministry of Injustice:

Whether you love or hate Donald Trump, his indictment by President Biden’s Justice Department is a fraught moment for American democracy. For the first time in U.S. history, the prosecutorial power of the federal government has been used against a former President who is also running against the sitting President. This is far graver than the previous indictment by a rogue New York prosecutor, and it will roil the 2024 election and U.S. politics for years to come.

Special counsel Jack Smith announced the indictment in a brief statement on Friday. But no one should be fooled: This is Attorney General Merrick Garland’s responsibility. Mr. Garland appointed Mr. Smith to provide political cover, but Mr. Garland, who reports to Mr. Biden, has the authority to overrule a special counsel’s recommendation. Americans will inevitably see this as a Garland-Biden indictment, and they are right to think so.

***

The indictment levels 37 charges against Mr. Trump that are related to his handling of classified documents, including at his Mar-a-Lago club, since he left the White House. Thirty-one of the counts are for violating the ancient and seldom-enforced Espionage Act for the “willful retention of national defense information.”

But it’s striking, and legally notable, that the indictment never mentions the Presidential Records Act (PRA) that allows a President access to documents, both classified and unclassified, once he leaves office. It allows for good-faith negotiation with the National Archives. Yet the indictment assumes that Mr. Trump had no right to take any classified documents.

This doesn’t fit the spirit or letter of the PRA, which was written by Congress to recognize that such documents had previously been the property of former Presidents. If the Espionage Act means Presidents can’t retain any classified documents, then the PRA is all but meaningless. This will be part of Mr. Trump’s defense.

The other counts are related to failing to turn over the documents or obstructing the attempts by the Justice Department and FBI to obtain them. One allegation is that during a meeting with a writer and three others, none of whom held security clearances, Mr. Trump “showed and described a ‘plan of attack’” from the Defense Department. “As president I could have declassified it,” he said on audio tape. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

The feds also say Mr. Trump tried to cover up his classified stash by “suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents,” as well as by telling an aide to move boxes to conceal them from his lawyer and the FBI.

As usual, Mr. Trump is his own worst enemy. “This would have gone nowhere,” former Attorney General Bill Barr told CBS recently, “had the President just returned the documents. But he jerked them around for a year and a half.”

***

That being said, if prosecutors think that this will absolve them of the political implications of their decision to charge Mr. Trump, they fail to understand what they’ve unleashed.

In the court of public opinion, the first question will be about two standards of justice. Mr. Biden had old classified files stored in his Delaware garage next to his sports car. When that news came out, he didn’t sound too apologetic. “My Corvette’s in a locked garage, OK? So it’s not like they’re sitting out on the street,” Mr. Biden said. AG Garland appointed another special counsel, Robert Hur, to investigate, but Justice isn’t going to indict Mr. Biden.

As for willful, how about the basement email server that Hillary Clinton used as Secretary of State? FBI director James Comey said in 2016 that she and her colleagues “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” According to him, 113 emails included information that was classified when it was sent or received. Eight were Top Secret. About 2,000 others were later “upclassified” to Confidential. This was the statement Mr. Comey ended by declaring Mrs. Clinton free and clear, since “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

This is the inescapable political context of this week’s indictment. The special counsel could have finished his investigation with a report detailing the extent of Mr. Trump’s recklessness and explained what secrets it could have exposed. Instead the Justice Department has taken a perilous path.

The charges are a destructive intervention into the 2024 election, and the potential trial will hang over the race. They also make it more likely that the election will be a referendum on Mr. Trump, rather than on Mr. Biden’s economy and agenda or a GOP alternative. This may be exactly what Democrats intend with their charges.

Republicans deserve a more competent champion with better character than Mr. Trump. But the indictment might make GOP voters less inclined to provide a democratic verdict on his fitness for a second term. Although the political impact is uncertain, Republicans who are tired of Mr. Trump might rally to his side because they see the prosecution as another unfair Democratic plot to derail him.

***

And what about the precedent? If Republicans win next year’s election, and especially if Mr. Trump does, his supporters will demand that the Biden family be next. Even if Mr. Biden is re-elected, political memories are long.

It was once unthinkable in America that the government’s awesome power of prosecution would be turned on a political opponent. That seal has now been broken. It didn’t need to be. However cavalier he was with classified files, Mr. Trump did not accept a bribe or betray secrets to Russia. The FBI recovered the missing documents when it raided Mar-a-Lago, so presumably there are no more secret attack plans for Mr. Trump to show off.

The greatest irony of the age of Trump is that for all his violating of democratic norms, his frenzied opponents have done and are doing their own considerable damage to democracy. (A Destructive Trump Indictment.)

This is, quite surprisingly, a remarkably balanced editorial for the Wall Street Journal to have published. However, once again it is important to note that a nation whose founders believed that they did not have to obey Christ the King as He has revealed Himself exclusively to us through His Catholic Church and that they did not have subordinate themselves and their policies in that pertains to the good of souls that same Church’s infallible teaching authority set the United States of America on the course of its own self-destruction wherein totalitarianism of the sort we are witnessing at present was made inevitable and where the open, public worship of the adversary and the celebrations of the evils he inspires in the lives of reprobated men is considered a constitution “right” in the name of religious and civil “liberty.”

We are still, astronomically speaking, still in the season of Spring and there have already between two indictments leveled against former President Donald John Trump. A third is likely to come out of the People’s Republic of Fulton County, Georgia, next month and Jack Smith may yet produce charges based on the events of January 6, 2021, all the while Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Hunter Biden smile and wave as they board Air Force One to travel hither and yon in search of more filthy lucre.

Concluding Remarks

As I have noted so many scores, if not hundreds of times, on this website, we must rise above these agitations, upon which our salvation does not depend. The agents of the false opposites of the Judeo-Masonic naturalist “right” and “left” will be, barring a miraculous conversion before they die, something for which, of course, we must pray, cursing each other in hell for all eternity for being so stupid as to stoop to the levels of immorality and amorality in this passing, mortal vale of tears to win for themselves supposed treasures here in defiance of the very plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? (Matthew 26:27.)

To be contrasted with the spirit of worldliness exhibited by the likes of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr, and the man he, a supposed Catholic, hates, Donald John Trump, is the spiritual greatness of the great Irish patriot Daniel O’Connell (1775-1847), about whom Pope Pius IX himself authorized a eulogy to be offered on his behalf as a testament of O’Connell’s virtues and his love of Christ the King and Holy Mother Church:

Pius IX, anxious that due honor should be done to the memory of O'Connell, gave orders for the celebration of a solemn funeral service, and intimated his will and command that it should be celebrated in his name. "the achievements also of his wonderful existence I desire to be commemorated and made known to the world" -- not that this is necessary, "because," said the Pontiff with a sublime look and gesture, "his grand career was ever in the face of heaven -- he always stood up for legality -- he had nothing to hide; and it was this, with his unshaken fidelity and reverence for religion, that secured his triumph," It is only justice to the people of Rome to state that they vied with the Sovereign Pontiff, the magnates of their country and the representatives of European nations at the Holy City, in doing honor to O'Connell. "From the Campus Martius," writes Dr. Miley, "and the Roman Forum, from both sides of the Tiber and from all the seven hills and their interjacent valley, this people, who grow up from infancy with the trophies of thirty centuries of greatness around them on every hand, assembled with enthusiasm to supplicate heaven for the eternal happiness of Ireland's liberator, and to exult in the wonders he had achieved, as if he had been their own." The greatest homage paid by Rome on this melancholy occasion, was undoubtable, the funeral oration, which was spoken by the Bossuet of Italy, the celebrated preacher Father Ventura, the friend and fellow student of Pius IX. This most eloquent discourse was listened to with attention and delight by the vast congregation that had gathered round the cenotaph of the immortal patriot. Let a passage or two here suffice to give an idea of the magnificent panegyric:

"It is, then, because these two loves -- the love of religion and the love of liberty, common to all good Princes, to all great minds, to all truly learned men, to all elevated souls, to all generous hearts might be said to be personified in Daniel O'Connell -- because in him they manifested themselves in all the perfection of their nature -- in all the energy of their deeply felt conviction -- in all the potency of their strength -- in all the splendor of their magnificence, and in all the glory of their triumph; it is because of all this that this singular man-- who was born and has lived at such a distance from Rome-- is now admired, is now wept for by you, as if he had been born in the midst of you. hence it is that this great character, this sublime nature, has awakened all your sympathies."

O'Connell had studied for some time at the College of Saint Omer, in France. What he saw and learned in that country is ably described by the Italian orator:

"He saw with his own eyes monarchy compelled to degrade itself, and to inflict its death-wound with its own hand' he saw the throne that base courtiers had dragged through the mire defiled by the grip of parricidal hands, and buried fathoms deep, beneath a sea of blood; he saw the best of kings expire upon a scaffold, the victim not less of other men's crimes that of his own weakness; he saw that vice was hailed, as if it were virtue, wickedness uplifted, as if it were morality atheism, proclaimed aloud, as if it were religion; that the 'Goddess of Reason ' (or rather a vile strumpet) was recognized as the only Deity, and honored with hecatombs of human victims; the people decimated and oppressed by cruel tyrants, in the name of the people; whilst beneath the shade of the tree of liberty was instituted universal slavery; and that the most Christian, as well as the most civilized of all nations, had fallen down to the lowest limits of impiety and barbarism.

"Now, God having so disposed that the young O'Connell should be witness of these events -- the most celebrated and most instructive to be found in the annals of history -- they served to inspire him with the greatest horror for tumults and rebellion; they persuaded him that there is nothing more insane, and, at the same time, more pernicious than to proclaim the rights of man, in trampling upon those of heaven -- in establishing liberty on the ruins of religion -- in making laws, under the dictation of passion, or through the inspiration of sacrilege -- and, finally, they convinced him, that to regenerate a people, religion is omnipotent -- philosophy of little or no avail."

In alluding to the well known piety of O'Connel, the preacher said:

"What more moving spectacle than to see the greatest man in the United Kingdom -- to see him, who was the object of Ireland's devotion, of England's fear, and of the world's admiration, kneeling with the people before the altar, practicing the piety of the people, with that humble simplicity, that recollection, that devoutness, and that modesty, which supercilious science and stolid pride abandon as things fit only to be followed by those whom they disdain as the people?"

It is matter of notoriety that the Tory party, whose death-knell was soon to be tolled constantly poured on the great Irish Tribune the most scurrilous abuse. One of the mock titles with which they honored him was that of "King of the Beggars." Such pitiful ribaldry awakened the highest powers of the Roman orator. "Poor, miserable, and most pitiful fatuity which, while intending to mock, actually did him honor. For, what sovereignty is more beautiful than that whose tribute is not wrung from unwilling fear, but that is a voluntary, love-inspired offering? What sovereignty is more glorious than that whose sword is the pen, and whose only artillery the tongue; whose only couriers are the poor, and its sole bodyguard the affection of the people? What sovereignty more beneficent that that which, far from causing tears to flow, dries them; which far from shedding blood stanches it; which, far from immolating life, preserves it; which, far from pressing down upon the people, elevates them; which far from forging chains, breaks them: and which always maintains order, harmony and peace, without ever inflicting the slightest aggression on liberty? Where is the monarch who would not esteem himself happy in reigning thus? Of such a sovereignty, we may with truth say what was said of Solmon's that none can equal its grandeur, its glory and its magnificence."

So favorable an opportunity for instructing the Italians was not thrown away. False liberty was already strewing their path with its meretricious allurements. "As true liberty diffuses around it peace and grace and calm, so does false liberty disseminate, wherever it is implanted, terror dismay and horror. The brows of one are illuminated with the splendid halo of order, and those of the other are covered with the red cap of anarchy. One holds in her hand the olive-branch of peace; the other waves the torch of discord. One is arrayed in robes white as those of innocence, and the other is enveloped in the dark, blood-stained mantle of guilt. One is the prop of thrones; the other a yawning abyss beneath them. One is the glory and the happiness of nations; the other their disgrace and their punishment. The latter bursts out of hell as if it were a poisonous blast issuing from the jaws of the devil himself; whilst true liberty descends sweetly and gently upon the earth, as is spiritus Domini ibi Libertas. (The Rev. Æneas MacDonell Dawson, Pius IX. And His Time, London: Thos. Coffey, Catholic Record Printing House. 1880.)

The virtues and holiness of Daniel O’Connell and his concern for genuine liberty by means of the advancement of the Catholic Faith contrast sharply with the worldliness, deceit, and amorality of the likes of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Donald John Trump, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Peter Strzok, James Brien Comey, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch, Eric Himpton Holder, Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Andrew Weissman, Charles Schumer, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi and practically everyone else in public life today.

Indeed, archenemies Biden and Trump are epic blasphemers whose mouths are every ready to spew profanely obscene words shamelessly in public settings, and we must ever remember that, calling to mind the following words of Pope Pius IX, that such men are eternally reprobated:

Pius IX, although deeply occupied with affairs of State that would have commanded all the attention and energy of any ordinary mind, found time nevertheless, for the discharge of duties still higher order. He never forgot that he was the Bishop as well as the Sovereign of Rome. The Romans, although inhabiting the Holy City, like all other people, stood in need of the instructions and warnings of religion. The Pope was aware, beside that bad habits prevailed, such as profane swearing, luxurious living, the neglect of parent in the training of their children. The knowledge of such things grieved him exceedingly. He now resolved to have recourse to a measure which was as striking as it was unexpected. in the trying days of the Crusaders, and moved by their zeal for the safety of Christendom, the Popes of an earlier time had addressed, as the ministers of God, immense public assemblages. No Pope, however, had appeared in the pulpit since Gregory VII. The Church of Saint Andrew, where the eloquent Father Ventura was accustomed to preach, was selected, but, lest there should be too great a crowd, no notice of the Pope's intention was published. At half-past three o'clock on a Sunday afternoon, just as the congregation were expecting to see Abbot Ventura enter the church, the Pope himself made his appearance. The sermon was not a long one; but it was memorable, and to be long remembered. "In this city," said the Holy Father, "which is the centre of Catholicity there are men who insult the holy name of God by profane and blasphemous language. On all those who now hear me I lay this charge: publish everywhere that I have no hope for such men. They cast in the face of Heaven the stone which will, one day, recoil upon them and crush them. I would also most earnestly exhort you as regards the duty of fasting. Many fathers and mothers come to me in order to impart me the sorrow which they escape their observation, that the demon of uncleanness exercises a destructive empire over the youth of Rome. Our Lord, Himself in the Holy Gospel assures us that, by no other means that prayer and fasting, is it possible to overcome this demon who poisons the sources of life and works the ruin of immortal souls." The sermon, although comparatively short, spoke of the chief obligations of a Christian life. It was delivered with great unction, and the Holy Father concluded with a fervent prayer for Rome and the Roman State. "Look down upon this vine, O Lord, which Thy right hand hath planted! Look upon it in mercy and remove from it the hand of iron which weighs so heavily upon it. Pour into the bosoms of the rising generations those two most precious attributes of youth,-- modesty and a teachable mind. List to my prayer, O Lord and bestow upon this city and all people, Thy most precious blessings.:

Appropriate gesticulations added to the power of words. Another influence, also came in aid, -- influence peculiar to Pius IX, --that indescribable expression of goodness which lighted up his countenance as he spoke. The people, whose feelings are naturally fine, were moved even to tears and sighs. The occasion itself was well calculated to move the minds of a Catholic audience. It was an element, no doubt, which, together with the eloquence of the preacher, and the power of apostolic preaching, could not fail to produce a profound impression. And, indeed, the whole congregation were filled with enthusiasm. (The Rev. Æneas MacDonell Dawson, Pius IX. And His Time, London: Thos. Coffey, Catholic Record Printing House. 1880.)

We must always look at the world through the eyes of the true Faith and not through the natural eyes of the body. We must pray to Our Lady to rise about the agitations of the moment that prompt so many Catholics to lose their capacity to reason clearly as Catholics and thus to start rooting for a particular “hero” who, though he has been persecuted endlessly, has no fear of God and His just judgment upon his immortal soul and who, when all is said and done, is a supporter of the cancerous advance of perversity that is spreading so rapidly before our very eyes and bears great responsibility for the destruction of many small businesses that were not able to sustain themselves during the supposedly “two-week lockdown to bend the curve” of the coronavirus. This “hero” also bears great responsibility before God for his warped “Operation Warp Speed” that developed poisons from the stem cell lines of aborted babies and has forever changed the RNA structure of those who took the jab, to say nothing of the countless numbers of people those jabs have killed and/or given life-altering conditions such as myocarditis.

Finally, we must always be aware of our accountability before Christ the King for our own many sins of word and deed, of omission and commission. If we are honest with ourselves, you see, we many of us must admit that we, who have been so merciless and impatient with others on so many occasions, can no longer abuse the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

We must pray to Our Lady, she who is the Treasurer of the infinite merits of her Divine Son’s Most Sacred Heart that was formed out of the depths of her own Immaculate Heart, will pray for us to her Divine Son so that the mercies that we do not deserve and which have abused, if not cast way entirely, in the past may be given to us anew with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to that same Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Remaining ever reliant upon Our Lady as we pray her Most Holy Rosary with fervor every day of our lives, let us look forward not to the triumph of mere men against other mere men but of her own Immaculate Heart once a true pope is restored to the Throne of Saint Peter.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint John of San Facundo, pray for us.

Saints Basilides, Cyrinius, Nabor, and Nazarius, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

You are here

Christ the King Alone Has One Set of Laws That He Will Apply to Everyone When They Die

Support Christ or Chaos