A new federal lawsuit may reveal proof two CIA employees discussed a plot to “get rid of” and “take out” President Donald Trump.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced they filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Defense Department for “reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to ‘get rid’ of then-President Trump.”
“The intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Biden Defense Department’s sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.”
In 2022 Real Clear Investigations reported:
Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues…
At a meeting of National Security Council employees two weeks into the Trump administration, the unidentified military staffer, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump.
“After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’”
Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary…”
Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
“It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”
In response, Judicial Watch file the suit after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for:
Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an “all-hands” NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko regarding trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.
Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.
All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Radical leftists on Twitter have managed to turn the app into something akin to the wild West over the years but Elon Musk’s recent takeover has brought some major changes these liberals aren’t happy with. After managing to go relatively unchecked leftists have doxxed and harassed conservatives for years but now they’re getting a taste of their own medicine.
Watch Amanda break down the controversy below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS –Are Democrats wetting their beds about Joe Biden?As I wrote about earlier, even the New York Times (NYT) is admitting Biden is losing in the polls to Donald Trump in five key electoral states.
And David Axelrod, chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, and a senior advisor to the former president Obama, is sending a message to the elderly Biden – “this is your last chance – get out now.”
This is one of Obama’s top advisors, so it seems like a veiled message from the ex-president himself to Biden that it’s time to quit. We will likely hear this chorus to grow among Democrat movers and shakers.
When questioned about his comments Monday, Axelrod told CNN that it’s a good time for Biden to check if he should keep up his campaign. Sunday marked one year before the election.
“As I’ve said for like a couple years now, the issue’s not — for him, is not political, it’s actuarial. You can see that in this poll and there’s just a lot of concern about the age issue, and that is something I think he needs to ponder. Just do a check and say, ‘Is this the right thing to do?’” Axelrod said.
“Is this the best path? I suspect that he will say yes, but time is fleeting here, and this is probably the last moment for him to do that check, and it’s probably good if he does,” the Obama alum added.
By ‘actuarial,’ Axelrod was referring to Biden’s age, calling it is “his biggest liability” and something he cannot change.
“Among all the unpredictables there is one thing that is sure: the age arrow only points in one direction,” Axelrod wrote on X. Meaning, Biden is only going downhill from here.
The NYT poll found Biden being trounced by Trump in five out of six battleground states including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania by margins of 3 to 10 points.
The poll also found that 71 percent of registered voters said they agree to some degree that Biden is “just too old to be an effective president.” 62 percent of participants said Biden did not have the “mental sharpness to be an effective president.”
The Hill added: “Axelrod told CNN that he’s not reacting to one poll with his comments but has had conversations with people and finds 2024 a unique year considering the threat of Trump — who is leading the GOP primary race — on the other side of the aisle.”
The Hill continued:
“Trump is a dangerous, unhinged demagogue whose brazen disdain for the rules, [norms], laws and institutions or democracy should be disqualifying,” Axelrod wrote in a separate post. “But the stakes of miscalculation here are too dramatic to ignore.”
I would add that maybe the growing GOP impeachment inquiry into the Biden family business – ‘influence peddling’ – and the tax fraud and gun indictments against Hunter Biden, are also worrying Democrats.
Echoing the growing talking points about Biden quitting while he still can, a separate Hill piece reported:
Arguing Biden is “justly proud of his accomplishments,” Axelrod said Biden’s poll numbers will “send tremors of doubt” through the Democratic Party.
“Not ‘bed-wetting,’” but legitimate concern, Axelrod wrote…
“Only @JoeBiden can make this decision,” he continued. “If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it’s in HIS best interest or the country’s?”
I don’t know about you, but I sense there is a lot of Democrat bed-wetting about Biden going around right now.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Conservatives are finally fighting back against the trans agenda being imposed on our children at public libraries and bookstores via ‘Drag Queen Story Times.’
This bizarre and offensive program sends outrageously outfitted cross-dressing men into public libraries to read stories to small impressionable children.
The goal? To indoctrinate, if not groom, these children into accepting and exploring the trans lifestyle.
The secondary effect, exposing children to sexual themes, including mock stripping, they have no right to be exposing them to.
In some cases, these grown men dressed as women have been caught fondling children or acting inappropriately.
And yet, our taxpayer-funded public libraries across the country allow these bizarre events.
And too many ignorant, brainwashed, horrible parents allow their children to attend.
They are also increasingly occurring at other venues as well. But the goals are always the same.
Thankfully, conservatives are finally fighting back.
One way has been by loudly and publicly calling out examples of sexual abuse, and inappropriate touching or sexual behavior by these drag queens, and by protesting their presence in front of small children.
In early December one Trans-friendly venue, The Starlighter, in Texas was forced to cancel a slew of drag queen story hours after a public outcry over the outrageous antics of some of these cross-dressing men.
Most of it was due to video and images taken at an event and widely shared by conservative critics.
The Christian Post reported that this event featured a showing of the 1960s TV classic “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” while a rainbow flag with the number “666” hung on the walls.
What was worse, a video taken at this event showed a young girl no older than 7, who appeared unattended, with these men in drag dancing suggestively and singing lyrics such as, “Under the mistletoe/ Yes, everybody knows/ We will take off our clothes.”
One of the cross-dressing men was also recorded touching and stroking the young girl’s hair. The little girl is also seen handing money to one of the drag performers, as if at a strip club.
Another video clip, reports the Christian Post, “showed the young child visibly shrink back as a drag queen in all black leather, devil horns and face makeup as the man in drag sings, ‘Get your tickets to the freak show, baby / Step right up to watch the freak go crazy.’”
Another way conservatives are fighting back is protesting loudly and aggressively like the Left does, constantly, and at the drop of a hat.
The hosts of a “Drag Queen Story Hour”-style event for children in Columbus, Ohio, on Saturday pulled the plug because of what they described as the intimidating presence of right-wing demonstrators.
The scheduled holiday themed “Holi-Drag Storytime” at the First Unitarian Church of Columbus, which runs the K-5 institution behind the event, Red Oak Community School, was canceled at the last-minute Saturday morning following internal discussions, organizers said.
Members of Ohio’s Proud Boys organization and other right-wing groups made good on promises to make waves outside the venue Saturday. More than 50 demonstrators, including members of the Proud Boys, gathered near the church Saturday morning and shouted, chanted and held up signs. Some were armed with long guns.
This appears to be a very effective technique, learned from the Left. Speak loudly, and carry a big stick.
But then there is another way to counter this insidiously harmful movement’s efforts targeting our children.
That way is to promote a wholesome, Christian, family-focused counter-narrative and events at these same venues. And threaten legal action if they discriminate against you, or refuse to allow it.
As Newsmax reported, actor and author Kirk Cameron said recently: “Conservatives need to stop being on defense against the culture and start going on offense to take it back.
He added:
Just complaining about the culture doesn’t change the culture. We’ve got to get off the defense, to get on the offense. And I think for decades, we as concerned citizens, as people who understand the importance of faith and morality, have been asleep. And when we’re asleep, we’re unaware and we’re unengaged.
Cameron added that now that we’ve woken up, if we remain unengaged, “that’s on us.”
Cameron then called on every parent and grandparent to take their favorite children’s book that has wholesome values, good and godly morals, and call their library if it has hosted a Drag Story Hour and ask if they can read their book during story hour.
“If they say ‘no,'” Cameron said, “they’re likely breaking the law; and you can contact us at Bravebooks.com. We’ll show you how to host your own story hour, will donate to you a free book with all the instructions and guidance.
“And I personally put some of these libraries on notice with a public letter that says, ‘I hope you’ll reconsider; here’s a free book. But if you double down, I’m prepared to assert my constitutional rights in court,'” Cameron stated.
So, the peaceful fight against depravity continues. Pick your fighting style, and get engaged. GAND
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – While the left immediately claimed Donald Trump’s immigration plan for his potential second term is ‘draconian,’ and ‘extreme,’ it really isn’t. It’s essentially a needed dramatic reversal to Joe Biden’s extreme open border insanity.
It’s being referred to as a ‘bolting the hatches’ and ‘bomb the cartels’ strategy. And I’m all for it.
Especially since what we have now is total third-world chaos and thoroughly unacceptable for America.
The New York Post recently reported that Joe Biden has now literally opened the floodgates at the border by welding open 114 gates in Arizona’s border wall near Tucson.
The paper noted that in addition to endangered antelope being free to cross:
…the move is also letting an average of 1,400 migrants from as far away as China casually walk into the country daily — with overwhelmed and outnumbered border agents practically helpless to stop them.
“We thought the agents were going to tell us something,” one Ecuadorian migrant said. “But we just walked in.”
The Post added: “Smugglers are capitalizing on the floodgate blunder, driving migrants by the busload to the border and dropping them off as if they were casual tourists.”
And, unlike the mostly South American migrants who have been stopped crossing illegally into Texas, the immigrants coming to Arizona are from places as far as India, Egypt, and China.
Rather than the disheveled and exhausted South American migrants at the end of a long and arduous trek across Mexico, the migrants at Tucson now look more like folks on vacation.
The libertarian-leaning (generally not liberal) Reason outlet was also harshly critical of Trump’s new proposed immigration policies. But when I read their version of what they thought was horrible, I mostly applauded.
Trump’s plan includes:
Screening out Marxists as well as Communists – check.
Screening out potential terrorists from extremist countries – check.
Ending so-called birthright citizenship so that simply being born here from parents who entered illegally isn’t an option – check.
Quickly deporting criminal migrants – check.
Targeting Mexico’s deadly drug cartels as enemy combatants – check.
Generally making it harder to enter the United States legally (if you are willing to cross Mexico on foot, you can do more paperwork) – check.
I can easily stand behind every item noted above and below.
“Trump’s plan would involve waves of harsh new policies — and dust off old ones that rarely have been enforced, if ever,” writes Kight. One policy would “ramp up ideological screening” for would-be legal immigrants. U.S. immigration law already largely bars Communist Party–affiliated people from immigrating, but Trump would reportedly expand that to reject “Marxist” applicants. Another policy would expand the former president’s “Muslim ban” to “block more people from certain countries from entering the U.S.,” notes Axios. Trump’s platform would also include ending birthright citizenship and carrying out quick deportations of criminal migrants under “an obscure section of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.”
Other aspects of the plan would target drug cartels and smuggling. It would label cartels as “‘unlawful enemy combatants’ to allow the U.S. military to target them in Mexico,” Axios reports, the same designation the government has used “to justify long-term detentions of 9/11 suspects at Guantanamo Bay.” It would also authorize the Coast Guard and Navy to form a blockade in U.S. and Latin American waters to halt boats carrying drugs.
Certain aspects of the plan, if implemented, would likely run into legal challenges. One such aspect is Trump’s reported intent to use the Alien Enemies Act, signed by President John Adams in 1798, “to quickly remove smugglers and migrant criminals…without having to go through legal steps in [Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] deportation process.” Other policies would put hopeful migrants—and even travelers—through invasive and costly procedures to enter the U.S., such as social media searches and paying bonds to come here.
Well, after four years of border violence and chaos, and an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants being practically invited across an open border before being shuttled throughout the country and fed and housed at taxpayer expense, it is time for some cracking down.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Michael J. McCord provide testimony at a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2023. (DoD photo by Chad J. McNeeley)
ANALYSIS – ‘Gold Star’ families of U.S. troops killed in the August 2021 Abbey Gate bombing at the Kabul airport in Afghanistan, are blasting Team Biden excuses over the disastrous retreat. Saturday marked the two-year anniversary of the terrorist attack during Joe Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from the country.
At least 183 people were killed in the attack, including the 13 U.S. service members (12 Marines and a sailor).
Shamefully, Biden allowed the Taliban to retake the country almost 20 years to the day of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on Washington, DC, and New York City.
AND HERE, TWO YEARS AFTER THE AFGHAN COLLAPSE, WE STILL DON’T HAVE ANSWERS, AND NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
As I wrote about earlier, senior Biden defense officials spent the days before and after the deadly 2021 attack in Kabul obsessing on getting Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to sign off on their Climate Change plan rather than focus on the chaos and death in Afghanistan.
Now, several of these Gold Star families spoke at a House Foreign Affairs Committee roundtable where they expressed their anger at the Biden administration, including Chairman of the Chiefs Mark Milley, who they blame, in part, for the bombing that killed 13 service members.
As the hearing was about to commence, Milley released a statement in which he said the U.S. owes Gold Star families “everything.”
“We owe them transparency, we owe them honesty, we owe them accountability. We owe them the truth about what happened to their loved ones,” Milley said.
But the families didn’t appear impressed. Instead, they were angry about the “excuses” and misinformation they received.
Fox News reported on their justified anger and venting. Kelly Barnett, the mother of Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Taylor Hoover, said “I don’t want to hear lies, I don’t want to hear excuses from Joe Biden, from the administration.”
Hoover’s father, Darin Hoover, called on top Pentagon brass to resign.
He poignantly noted: “Today is the date, two years ago, that we received our kids home at Dover. Two years ago today, where we were disrespected with stories of Biden’s son and him looking at his watch. And today, here we sit as their families, begging you two years later, to find these answers.”
Christy Shamblin, mother-in-law of Marine Corps Sergeant Nicole Gee, who was pictured prominently with an Afghan baby in her arms prior to her death, asked why credible warnings were ignored in the days leading up to the attack.
Some even accused the Pentagon of giving them ‘made-up stories’ about their loved ones in the aftermath of the attack.
…[in a Fox interview] Cheryl Rex, whose son, Lance Corporal Dylan Merola, was killed in the Kabul airport attack in 2021 reacted to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley saying that he believes military briefers gave all the information to the families of those killed in the bombing all the information they could by stating that the briefing on her son was completely inaccurate…
…[When Rex was asked] “Do you believe that all the information was there, or do you agree with other families that it wasn’t about the information, it was about the warnings that were ignored?”
Rex answered, “Me personally, he did not — the brief report was not correct. They changed my son’s location a couple of times. They were trying to accommodate his wounds that were not even in the right spots of his body according to his autopsy report. He did not — the brief report is nothing [like] what we were actually told… I feel it was made-up stories that they were trying to cover up the wounds.”
These Gold Star families deserve answers and accountability. And so do the American people.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
Stunner: Documents Many Prove Top CIA Employees Plotted to ‘Take Out’ Trump
A new federal lawsuit may reveal proof two CIA employees discussed a plot to “get rid of” and “take out” President Donald Trump.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced they filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Defense Department for “reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to ‘get rid’ of then-President Trump.”
“The intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Biden Defense Department’s sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.”
In 2022 Real Clear Investigations reported:
Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues…
At a meeting of National Security Council employees two weeks into the Trump administration, the unidentified military staffer, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump.
“After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’”
Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary…”
Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
“It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”
In response, Judicial Watch file the suit after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for:
Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an “all-hands” NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko regarding trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.
Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.
All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.