Press "Enter" to skip to content

TRUMP INDICTMENT: Here’s How This Is Going To Go and It’s Problematic – Election Theft Cover-up Operation

The most recent indictment of President Trump presents a highly problematic set of circumstances that stands to directly and detrimentally impact the 2024 election. Analysis indicates that 2024 is in the process of being stolen as has occurred in ‘elections’ forward from and including the 2020 election. The circumstances arrive in a confluence of policies and analytical positions that become troublesome in aggregate form. Here’s how this is going to go…

Immediate analysis on the Capitol “insurrection” made it clear that the matter was an entrapment operation.

The evidence and analysis is also clear that it is remarkably clever in its design and where we revisit that criminal constructs almost always have paralleling and overlapping objectives; rarely serving a singular purpose.

The cleverness of the Capitol “insurrection” entrapment operation is driven by the timing of Jack Smith’s latest indictment of President Trump relative to two tactical objectives: 1-removing Trump as a candidate for 2024 and 2-concealing and covering-up the stolen 2020 election and all of the evidence therein.

When we’re done here, we’ll be able to see how prosecuting the victim of a stolen election for contesting that stolen election is being used to cover-up that theft while facilitating the theft of the next election.

Clever, indeed.

Our analytical position on investigations and prosecutions frames our lens for understanding.

At Moonshine, we maintain and often revisit how investigations [prosecutions] are opened for one of two reasons – to expose and prosecute or to conceal and cover-up.

Our focus is on the latter because at the Department of Justice, it is the modus operandi in the appointment of its special prosecutors, like cover-up artist Dead End Durham.

That is unless, you’re Donald J. Trump, a part of his inner circle or about 100 million conservative Americans that collectively equate to the political enemies of a Marxist Biden regime and where the former becomes the focus albeit on a foundation of fraud and cooked-up charges.

The macro focus here is elections and specifically, 2024.

More specifically, it’s that 2024 is in the process of being stolen [most of the same election theft mechanisms many of which were borne out of COVID-19 still remain largely in place.]

The micro focus is two-fold: 1-the Biden Administration’s routine practice of deflecting difficult questions to another source [“I’ll refer you to the Department of (insert most convenient department here)” and 2-US Department of Justice policy of refraining from remarking on ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

The problematic aspect of this becomes an endless cycle of deflection resulting in a dearth of any reliable information on one of the most important criminal events in our nation’s history.

The more problematic aspect; and at a wholesale level, is this: by indicting Trump on election matters, the conceal and cover-up mechanism now envelops the stolen 2020 election.

Consequently, this substantively kills the drive for legitimate and honest elections in the run-up to an election that by all indications, will be stolen.

DOJ and its Elections Crimes Branch will simply take its favorite escape routes.

For one, “In voting matters, the Division also complies with the Department’s long-standing policy not to make announcements or take action that could influence the outcome of an election. That policy is described in the Criminal Division’s manual of Federal Prosecutions of Election Offenses.”

Like leveraging a special counsel to indict the clear front-runner in the run-up to an election?

For another, DOJ’s longstanding general policy of “election non-interference” contained in the ‘Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Eighth Edition, December 2017’ and in its ‘Justice Manual’ ‘Protection of Government Integrity’ section.

From the latter,

9-85.300 Non-Interference in Elections When Conducting Federal Criminal Investigations Involving Ballot Fraud

Ballot fraud is crime involving the process by which voters are registered, votes are cast, or votes are tabulated.  The Department has long recognized that the States – not the federal government – are responsible for administering elections, determining the validity of votes, and tabulating the results, with challenges handled by the appropriate election administrators, officials, legislatures, and courts.  The Department has a limited role in these processes and should generally avoid interfering or appearing to interfere with election administration, tabulation, validation, or certification.  See§ 9-85.500The Department’s role is limited to investigating and prosecuting violations of federal election laws and deterring criminal conduct.  Accordingly, the Department should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded.  Doing otherwise runs the risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities and of interjecting the investigation itself into ongoing campaigns and the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.  It may, however, often be appropriate, in consultation with the Public Integrity Section, to share information and allegations involving such matters with state or local authorities where an immediate need for overt measures exists.  Exceptions to this policy may be recognized, but only with the approval of the Public Integrity Section.  [added August 2022] 

‘Justice Manual’ ‘Protection of Government Integrity’

This means that Jack Smith’s special counsel operation can vacuum-up all of the evidence of election fraud and a stolen election to seal it away; and I wrote about this in my recent article discussing discovery and evidence.

And no one has to talk about it outside of the canned propaganda with which we are relentlessly inundated.

Compounding and aggravating those circumstances is that the Obama appointed judge presiding over Trump’s trial, Tanya Chutkan, is the gatekeeper positioned to serve as a guardrail against what evidence is admitted into court to become a part of the public record [read the article for all of the details.]

Chutkan stands between what evidence of the stolen 2020 election we will and will not see.

That’s a problem.

This social media post from days ago summarizes the likely devastating circumstances:

With Trump’s latest indictment, the stolen 2020 election is now being formerly litigated by the US Department of Justice.

As a result, DOJ inherits the comfort of refraining from remarking on ongoing litigation [and investigations] as per its standing policy.

This means DOJ doesn’t have to discuss the 2020 election until Trump’s prosecution ends, which will not be until after 2024.

This occurs as elections thieves prepare to steal 2024 with most of the theft mechanisms still in place.

How convenient.

Something to think about.

Political Moonshine at ‘Xwitter’

This is from DOJ’s ‘Justice Manual’ remembering that prosecutions are borne out of investigations and so the policy begins during the investigative phase and continues through the end of the trial phase [emphasis added]:

1-7.400 – Disclosure of Information Concerning Ongoing Criminal, Civil, or Administrative Investigations

  1. Any communication by DOJ personnel with a member of the media relating to a pending investigation or case must be approved in advance by the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, except in emergency circumstances. For administrative investigations not overseen by a U.S. Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, approval must be obtained from the Assistant Attorney General for Administration. Where the investigation is being handled by the Office of the Inspector General, approval must come from the Inspector General.
  2. DOJ generally will not confirm the existence of or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations. Except as provided in subparagraph C of this section, DOJ personnel shall not respond to questions about the existence of an ongoing investigation or comment on its nature or progress before charges are publicly filed.
  3. When the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter, or where release of information is necessary to protect the public safety, comments about or confirmation of an ongoing investigation may be necessary, subject to the approval requirement in subparagraph A.
US Department of Justice/Justice Manual

Recall that all DOJ attorneys and judges are functionaries of the bar and can’t practice without licensure that is contingent upon passing the bar exam administered by The American Bar Association.

As a brief sidebar and to exemplify the point I’m making about the bar and its impact on a supposedly impartial judiciary, our team pursued a lane of Constitutional law in our petition and subsequent litigation for a federal grand jury respective to our case that COVID-19 is enterprise fraud.

Taking the Constitutional lane circumvents aspects of the bar’s influence in a case rooted in Constitutional law; the First Amendment as one example.

Digressing, this is from The American Bar Association ‘Criminal Justice Standards’ on ‘Prosecution Function’:

(i) A prosecutor uninvolved in a matter who is commenting as a media source may offer generalized commentary concerning a specific criminal matter that serves to educate the public about the criminal justice system and does not risk prejudicing a specific criminal proceeding. A prosecutor acting as such a media commentator should make reasonable efforts to be well-informed about the facts of the matter and the governing law. The prosecutor should not offer commentary regarding the specific merits of an ongoing criminal prosecution or investigation, except in a rare case to address a manifest injustice and the prosecutor is reasonably well-informed about the relevant facts and law.

The American Bar Association/Prosecution Function

The specific merits here will be direct evidence that 2020 was stolen, Biden is a fraud squatting in the Executive and Mr. Trump was the legitimately elected president.

For anecdotal evidence of this ongoing cover-up operation, consider that in the run-up to an election and in complete and stark contrast to the activities of the clear front-runner Trump, the incumbent Joe Biden, who has had the most disastrous first term of any president ever, isn’t campaigning, isn’t spending campaign money and isn’t aggressively fundraising.

Occam’s tells us why: They’re just going to steal it like last time, but it won’t be for Biden because his utilitarian value is gone.

I put in writing in February that the intelligence community was actively engaged in removing Biden in a complete reset of the ‘Uniparty;’ Trump being the obvious other.

In short and whereas the public may believe that Jack Smith might have erred by casting his jurisdiction over the stolen 2020 election by indicting Trump with charges enveloping it; and whereby discovery permits Trump to finally and publicly present that evidence, the DOJ has its Obama-appointed evidentiary gatekeeper in Judge Tanya Chutkan keenly positioned as a guardrail against that.

By all indications, the analysis evidences how Trump’s indictment serves as a mechanism to 1-conceal and cover-up the theft of the 2020 election while 2-simultaneously removing him as a candidate for 2024.

On 01 Jan 20 and virtually standing alone, I put it in writing that John Durham was going to be a fruitless dead end because he was the cover-up operation put in place by a compromised AG William Barr.

There are only a few of us with that notch on our gun belts.

Barr was never going to appoint a special counsel that would undo himself and if you understood Barr, you understood Durham.

I understood Barr.

On 05 Aug 23, I’m putting it in writing that Trump’s trial over the Capitol “insurrection” entrapment operation and the stolen 2020 election is a cover-up operation to conceal that stolen election.

George H.W. Bush is the head of the snake.

Obama is serving arguably is fourth term.

William Barr is a traitor.

John Durham is a cover-up artist.

Jack Smith is Public Enemy No. 1.

Joe Biden is an imposter and Chinese proxy.

Donald J. Trump is the legitimate president.

And Trump’s forthcoming trial for his most recent indictment is the cover-up operation for the stolen 2020 election.



  1. Mark A. August 5, 2023

    Bill Barr is not a traitor. He has made some appearances lately that show he is on MAGA’s side. Badlands Media has discussed this a few times.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply