CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan floated a “plea deal” for First Son Hunter Biden while asking former Attorney General Eric Holder how he would handle the case if he were still in charge of the Justice Department.
On Sunday’s edition of Face the Nation on CBS, Brennan referenced an October report that FBI agents claim they’ve gathered sufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden criminally. In asking for Holder’s take, Brennan raised the possibility of a plea bargain for President Joe Biden’s son:
MARGARET BRENNAN: As someone who’s been an attorney general, I wonder as well, how you think about the case before the U.S. District Attorney in Delaware regarding President Biden’s son Hunter. CBS has reported the FBI has sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun related crimes. How would you handle this? A plea deal? Is the Attorney General boxed in to take a hard-line position because of working for the President?
HOLDER: No, I mean, you have- they left in place, the Republican, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney in Delaware to consider the case. You’ve got career lawyers working on it, career FBI agents. You want to listen to their recommendations and then again, make a determination based on the facts and the law. The defendant should not be treated any more harshly because of who he is, who he is related to, should not be given breaks because of who he is or who he is related to. He should be treated as former President Trump should be treated, just like any other American citizen. If there is culpability, that person should be held liable for his or her acts. And if there is not a basis for a case, a case should not be brought.
Appearing on CBS with Margaret Brennan, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama’s fellow traveler and wingman in the fundamental change process, stated his belief the progressive movement and Biden administration has adequately prepared the nation to “absorb” the political violence that may surface as the result of an arrest of former President Donald Trump.
The rather remarkable admission and statement comes at approximately 06:30 of the video interview below where Margaret Brennan reads her prepared script and questions Eric Holder about such a divisive decision by a comprehensively corrupt U.S. justice system. The statement also comes on the heels of an 11th circuit appeals court ruling that removed the court ordered ‘Special Master’ in the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents case.
In the Mar-a-Lago case the 11th circuit court stated if the search warrant was legally predicated, and if the search warrant was legally executed, then all of the proceeds from the search warrant were legally valid as investigative outcomes – and no special master is needed. However, President Trump is not allowed to see the search warrant, nor are his lawyers allowed to see the predicate affidavit that underpins the search warrant, and they are not permitted to see what documents were seized by the FBI.
In essence, if the secret and general warrant was legal, then all seizure is legal, but you are not allowed to see the secret and general warrant. Former AG Eric Holder rejoices in this judicial ruling as he evaluates the ability of the nation to “absorb” an arrest of Donald Trump based on that justice system position.
WATCH:
If you read between the lines, and know how Holder (Obama Inc) operate, you can see what Obama structured Deputy AG Lisa Monaco has to do. Monaco will coordinate the timing of the arrest and indictment of Hunter Biden to coincide with the arrest and indictment of President Trump. This will provide the narrative of blind justice the DOJ will attempt to leverage to stop national reaction.
There’s actually a lot in this interview. Eric Holder doesn’t surface accidentally; he is preparing the Lawfare landscape.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to former Attorney General Eric Holder. He now heads up the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. And he has a book, “Our Unfinished March,” which examines the current state of America’s democracy. Welcome back to the program.
ERIC HOLDER: Good to see you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have a number of things I want to get to with you. But I want to start on something I know is immediate this week. An organization that you run that we mentioned here that focuses on redistricting is involved in a Supreme Court case, Moore v. Harper. It’s going to be heard on the seventh of this week. And it boils down as I understand it to the question of what the Constitution means when it assigns state legislatures the task of regulating elections. That sounds really wonky, but you phrased it as the future of democracy being at stake. What are you worried is actually going to happen here?
HOLDER: Yeah, this case is all about something called the independent state legislature doctrine. It’s a fringe theory that North Carolina Republicans are trying to use to make sure that the North Carolina Republican legislature has the sole responsibility of doing redistricting in the state and excluding from that determination the state court system. It is something that if the Supreme Court goes along with it, would really upend our system of checks and balances. And it’s for that reason that I am extremely concerned. It is a fringe theory, this is something that if the Court I think does the right thing, you should have a nine to zero opinion by the court that rejects this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine that has been rejected by conservative scholars, by practicing Republican lawyers, by former Republican judges, and by this conference of state supreme court justices, as well. This is a very, very dangerous theory. It would put our system of checks and balances at risk.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there were a number of Democratic senators who actually filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not even to hear the case. So there are some heavy hitters here saying don’t even talk about it. What does that tell you about the potential harm here? I mean, is there value in the Supreme Court hearing this and striking it down? Or does them hearing it at all indicate something more to you?
HOLDER: Yeah, it’s hard for me to see how this case was ever taken by the Court. I think the better thing would have been for the court to simply have rejected it. But now having taken the case, I would hope that the Court would drive a stake through this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine and get it off the- off the books and out of our consideration, once and for all. It truly is, I cannot emphasize this enough. It truly is a fringe theory that should result in a nine to zero rejection of the- of the theory.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So we mentioned you’re working on redistricting. Democrats are suing to overturn congressional maps in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio and Texas. I read a quote from you in the Washington Post that said the work you’ve been doing on redistricting has paid off in the most recent midterms. Do you think that your legal battles will help Democrats make gains in 2024? What are you trying to say there?
HOLDER: Yeah, I think that what we have seen, there been studies that said that we have had the most fair redistricting process in the last 40 years as a result of the work that we’ve done. 75% of the redistricting is considered to be fair, which also means that 25% of it is unfair, and that is still problematic. I think, for instance, the House of Representatives is going to be in play for the entirety of this decade, very contrary to where it was in the past decade where after the successful Republican gerrymandering that occurred in 2011 and in 2012, it was really difficult for Democrats to take the House back. I think Democrats will be able to take the House back as early as 2024. But it doesn’t ensure what we have done doesn’t ensure the Democrats are going to hold on to the House for the entirety of the decade. It will be for the American people to decide. Fairness will reign in that determination.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When you were last on this program in May you shared at the time that you had changed your mind recently that you did believe that the Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland should hold former President Trump accountable for his actions. You previously thought it would be too divisive for the country. Now, where we are with this special counsel, what is your assessment? And how should Merrick Garland, who has to ultimately decide, weigh the question of a risk to political violence in this country from any decision he makes regarding the former president?
HOLDER: Well, I think the Attorney General has said it quite well, that he’ll make the determination without fear or favor. There is- Everybody has to be held accountable for the same system. The determination that he’s going to have to make will have to be based on the facts and the law. And we’ll just have to deal with the consequences. The reality is that if he makes a determination one way or the other, it is going to be divisive. And so the best thing simply is to make sure that everybody who is under consideration for possible criminal treatment, including the former president, is treated just like every other American. And that’s what that opinion out of the Circuit Court this week essentially said that you can’t craft things. As a district court judge you can’t craft things for a former president that don’t exist for regular American citizens. Treat everybody in the same way, make the determination based on the facts and the law. And the United States, I think, has the capacity to absorb a possible indictment and to deal with it fairly and to get on with the business of the country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: As someone who’s been an attorney general, I wonder as well, how you think about the case before the U.S. District Attorney in Delaware regarding President Biden’s son Hunter. CBS has reported the FBI has sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun related crimes. How would you handle this? A plea deal? Is the Attorney General boxed in to take a hard-line position because of working for the President?
HOLDER: No, I mean, you have- they left in place, the Republican, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney in Delaware to consider the case. You’ve got career lawyers working on it, career FBI agents. You want to listen to their recommendations and then again, make a determination based on the facts and the law. The defendant should not be treated any more harshly because of who he is, who he is related to, should not be given breaks because of who he is or who he is related to. He should be treated as former President Trump should be treated, just like any other American citizen. If there is culpability, that person should be held liable for his or her acts. And if there is not a basis for a case, a case should not be brought.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But it will ultimately come to the Attorney General’s desk.
HOLDER: That’s certainly the way I would have run the Justice Department. And my guess is also that that would be something that Merrick Garland will be doing as well. That determination will be made I suspect in Washington, D.C.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. General Holder, thank you very much for your time today. [End Transcript]
On the election stuff…. Holder is moving to phase 2
REFERENCE and CONTEXT is critical to understanding.
PHASE 1 – After Eric Holder left the Obama administration as Attorney General, he was hired by the State of California to defend against the Trump administration in early January 2017 (LINK).
Why?
When Eric Holder left the Obama administration, his firm was contracted by California during a process of linking the motor vehicle registration files to the Secretary of State voter registration system. Holder was advising on part of a technology system being constructed to bridge the DMV and SoS offices. You might know this as a “Motor/Voter” process. However, former AG Eric Holder had a very specific function in the construction of this technology bridge.
The process of adding voters to the registration rolls when they receive or update their driver’s license was seen as an opportunity to expand the voter rolls. Making the voter rolls as big as possible is the key to the utilization of mass mail-out balloting. I will skip the part where California started giving illegal aliens drivers licenses for a moment – you can obviously see how that would play with motor/voter rolls – instead I am choosing just to focus on the specifics of the Holder aspect.
The DMV needed to connect to the SoS office. This was simply a part of a tech system that needed to be built. CTH has previously spoken with the lead engineer, a member of a very small technology group, who worked in the California information technology (IT) unit that was tasked with building the system that connected the DMV to the SOS.
[NOTE: I invite the state of California to sue me as they will likely claim what you are about to read is not true.]
In the process of connecting the two state networks together, there needed to be a “flag”, essentially a check box, where the applicant to the DMV would attest to being legally authorized to vote. It is a positive affirmation, a check box, that says the Driver’s License holder affirms they are legally eligible to vote. That affirmation (the technical flag in the process), when affirmed, then transmits the information to the SoS office with the DL operator identity, and the California driver is automatically added to the SoS rolls and registered to vote.
During the time when Eric Holder was the legal counsel for the California Secretary of State, the technology team was constructing the internal data processing systems.
The lead engineer in the unit was instructed to code the data transfer in such a way that even if the “check box” was left unchecked, the registration data would transmit from the DMV to the SoS office.
Essentially, instead of only those who affirmed their legal eligibility by checking the box, everyone -including those who did not check the box- would get a DL and would automatically have their information transmitted to the SoS office. Everyone who received a driver’s license or state issued id was automatically going to be registered to vote, regardless of their legally authorized status. That request led the engineer to contact me.
I wrote about it, published the details, then the engineer freaked out as he/she realized there was only a very limited number of people who could expose the issue. He/She was worried about his/her safety and family and asked me to remove the article. This background is how I know the details of who, what, when and why the California mass mailing ballot process was being constructed.
In the 2018 midterm elections we all watched the outcome of that process surface in the weeks following election day. As each day passed more and more California mail-in ballots were being counted and day-by-day Republicans who won on election day 2018 watched their lead evaporate.
What happened in the California 2018 midterm election surrounding state-wide ballot distribution, collection (harvesting) and eventual presentation to the counting and tabulation facilities, was the BETA test for the 2020 covid-inspired national ballot mailing process.
The outcome we are seeing from the 2022 midterm ballot collection program was not just similar to the 2020 general election ballot collection program, it is a direct outcome of the refined BETA test from 2018. Now we have multiple states following the California mass distribution of ballots approach. Washington state, California, Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, there’s a long list.
In many states mass mailing of ballots is now codified in election law. Activist election lawyer Marc Elias now coming in behind the construction team of Eric Holder with the legal arguments to support the ballot collection programs.
The Importance of Election Rolls – As you can see from the California initiation point (Motor/Voter), in order to most effectively use the mass distribution of ballots as an electioneering process you first need a massive state secretary voter file in order to generate, then mail, the physical ballots.
Remember, votes require people – ballots require systems.
Any institutional system that can link people into the SoS system to generate a larger registration file for ballot distribution is a net positive. The key point is not to generate voters, the key is to generate ballots – the more the better. Mass printing of ballots is the origin of the electioneering process.
Any state or federal system that links a physical identity to the secretary of state voter rolls is good. Any system, like the USPS postal change of address system, that would remove physical identities from the state voter rolls is not useful. The goal is to maximize the number of systems that generate registration, that eventually generates ballots.
Beyond the Driver’s License issue, it’s everything. Sign up for public assistance, get registered to vote. Sign up for state benefits, get registered to vote. Sign up for a state id, get registered to vote. Sign up for state college, get registered to vote. Sign up for a grant, get registered to vote. Sign up for unemployment, get registered to vote. Sign up for any state system and get registered to vote. Get married, change names, change addresses, etc, that’s how the voter rolls expand and that’s how the massive distribution of ballots is created.
The states then fight against anything, any effort, any process, that would purge voter rolls or fix incorrect voting rolls. To use the new electioneering system, the system operators need ballots created, they no longer need votes. They need ballots.
Downstream from this process that’s where you find the “ballot submission assistance” programs. This is where the local community networks, regional activist groups and widespread community organizers come into play. Instead of advertising or the previous electioneering systems around candidate promotion and Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts, the majority of donations to the DNC are now used in the ballot assistance programs. This was phase 1.
PHASE 2 – What Eric Holder is describing as his “victories so far”, is the codification of phase 1 together with controlling the geographic process for ballot collection.
Forget votes. Congressional districts (CD’s) need to be looked at as ballot gateways.
Zip codes are where the importance exists for phase 2.
On a congressional district level, the problem for ballot use is the lack of ballots in certain areas. Moving forward, ballots that DNC activists can gather and control need to come from geographic regions where they can impact congressional representation. CD’s now need to be looked at as district mail regions to modify so that zip codes can determine election outcomes.
With ballot collection and assembly as the new process, congressional districting maps are no longer important from a representation standpoint, now the priority needs to be zip code representation.
Mass distribution ballots need to go to addresses in zip codes in order for them to be harvested to change the congressional district representation.
Now that elections are based on ballots and not votes, zip code control is where the action is.
Keep watching.
