The Power of Truth® has been released for sale and assignment to a conservative pro-American news outlet, cable network, or other media outlet that wants to define and brand its operation as the bearer of the truth, and set itself above the competition.

In every news story the audience hears of censorship, speech, and the truth. The Power of Truth® has significant value to define an outlet, and expand its audience. A growing media outlet may decide to rebrand their operation The Power of Truth®. An established outlet may choose to make it the slogan distinguishing their operation from the competition. You want people to think of your outlet when they hear it, and think of the slogan when they see your company name. It is the thing which answers the consumer's questions: Why should I choose you? Why should I listen to you? Think:

  • What’s in your wallet -- Capital One
  • The most trusted name in news – CNN
  • Fair and balanced - Fox News
  • Where’s the beef -- Wendy’s
  • You’re in good hands -- Allstate
  • The ultimate driving machine -- BMW

The Power of Truth® is registered at the federal trademark level in all applicable trademark classes, and the sale and assignment includes the applicable domain names. The buyer will have both the trademark and the domains so that it will control its business landscape without downrange interference.

Contact: Truth@ThePowerOfTruth.com

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress are pressing the Pentagon's top two leaders to ensure the military is not swept up in politics during the presidential election and that active-duty troops are not used illegally as a domestic police force.

The concerns come as the campaign heats up — the first presidential vote since the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, aimed at preventing Joe Biden's victory from being certified.

Former President Donald Trump continues to claim that fraud cost him the 2020 election even though his own attorney general[1], recounts[2] and investigations[3] found no evidence of that. And he still faces charges[4] of illegally conspiring to undo the results of the election.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. CQ Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lawmakers asked the defense leaders to reaffirm that U.S. law prohibits forces from being used for civilian law enforcement and that they should not carry out unlawful orders.

The letter, written by Democratic Reps. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, mirrors questions posed in the run-up to the 2020 election when Trump was already suggesting that he might not accept the results of the election if he lost.

They point to Project 2025, the ultraconservative blueprint[5] for the next Republican White House, in underscoring fears that the military will be used to actively police the southern border. The nearly 1,000-page document includes startling proposals such as firing large swaths of the federal government workforce and disassembling longstanding agencies, including the Justice Department.

While the document was organized by many of Trump's former aides, it is not a part of his campaign, which has its own series of proposals. Trump and his campaign have distanced themselves from the project[6] and he's called some of the proposals extreme.

“In 2020, when the former President and others disrupted the peaceful transfer of power, principled military leaders made it clear they would not help that effort and took an important stand for democracy,” Slotkin said. “Now, prominent leaders are once again declaring that if given a chance, they will use the military for their own political ends.”

In the letter, she and Sherrill said they "feel compelled to look ahead to decisions that you, as the most senior defense officials, may be called upon to make in the next six months.” Slotkin is a former senior defense policy official, and Sherrill served as a Navy helicopter pilot.

When similar questions were posed to former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley[7] just a few months before the 2020 election, he responded bluntly, “I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military.” And he added that, "In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military.”

Austin hasn't spoken much about the issue, but told reporters during a July 2021 press conference at the Pentagon, that “it’s really important to me that this department remain apolitical.” He said he would do everything in his power to ensure that the military did not become “part of the political apparatus.”

Federal law — under the Posse Comitatus Act — prohibits using active-duty military for law enforcement purposes. But the Insurrection Act allows presidents to call on reserve or active-duty military units to suppress an insurrection or rebellion against the nation.

Trump has spoken openly about his plans should he win the presidency, including using the military at the border[8] and in cities struggling with violent crime[9].

© Copyright 2024 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

The Pentagon is seen in this aerial view

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A judge ruled Tuesday over prosecutors' objections that a Defense Department civilian employee who is a U.S.-Turkish dual citizen can remain free on home detention while he awaits trial on accusations he mishandled classified documents.

Gokhan Gun, 50, of Falls Church, was arrested Friday outside his home and charged with mishandling classified material.

When he was arrested, Gun was on his way to the airport for trip to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, according to an FBI affidavit. He was carrying papers including a document that was marked Top Secret.

Gun told authorities he was going to Mexico on a fishing trip. Prosecutors say he agreed to a search of his home. Inside they found other classified documents.

At a detention hearing Tuesday in federal court in Alexandria, prosecutors asked that Gun remain jailed while awaiting trial. They said they may bring additional charges, including possible charges under the Espionage Act, if the ongoing investigation can prove that he not only mishandled classified documents but sought to disseminate documents relevant to the national defense to a foreign power.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Rodregous said the fact that Gun was arrested carrying classified documents, as well as his intelligence-community credentials, on the way to the airport for a purported Mexican fishing trip was circumstantial evidence of his intent to distribute the documents.

“You don't need your intelligence-community credentials to go fishing,” Rodregous said.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis said it was “too far of a leap” to assume that his trip to Mexico was connected to his mishandling of documents. He said until the government provides stronger evidence, the case is no different than any other classified-documents case and the presumption is that Gun should be free while he awaits trial.

Despite Davis' ruling, it appears unlikely Gun will go free any time soon. Prosecutors indicated they will appeal Davis' ruling to a district court judge, and as a result Davis delayed implementing his order.

Davis also required that Gun be subject to home detention and GPS monitoring if and when he is released pretrial.

Gun is a electrical engineer with the Joint Warfare Analysis Center and has worked there since September. He holds a Top Secret security clearance.

In court papers, prosecutors say he printed out classified documents at his office, often late in the day when co-workers had left, and took them home.

He was born in Turkey and became a U.S. citizen in 2021, according to court papers. In the past 20 years, he has taken 15 overseas trips, including seven trips to Turkey, where his parents live, according to the affidavit.

Gun's attorney, Rammy Barbari, declined comment after Tuesday's hearing.

© Copyright 2024 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

A teenage boy smiles while standing behind a lectern and three people in the background look on.Each year, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, in partnership with the Department of Defense, selects a member from the military youth center community as the National Military Youth of the Year.   

The program was created in 2013 to celebrate

Read more

Then U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. Lloyd Austin III

When the Pentagon announced last month that military prosecutors had entered into a plea deal with three accused Sept. 11 terrorists that would spare them the death penalty, the political blowback was fast and furious. 

"Unthinkable," said Speaker of House Mike Johnson about the deal in a posting on X.   "A disgrace," thundered Sen. Ted Cruz. "We need a president who kills terrorists, not negotiates with them," proclaimed Ohio Sen. JD Vance,  Donald Trump's vice presidential running mate.   

It didn't take long for Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to respond as well. Two days after the deal became public, and in the aftermath of the fierce congressional criticism, Austin,  in a surprise move,  threw out[1] the negotiated plea bargain with 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants and removed the Pentagon official, retired Brig. Gen. Susan K. Escallier, who green lighted the deal, from authority over the matter. 

The decision by Austin may well have headed off a potential political problem for the White House, and by extension Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris,  defusing charges by the GOP -- and some 9/11 family members[2] -- that the Biden administration was "soft" on murderous terrorists. 

But now, the secretary's move--and the GOP attacks that preceded it--are the focus of a new court challenge that threatens to throw yet another legal monkey wrench into the seemingly endless 9/11 cases. According to a top legal expert, it could also force Austin himself to take the witness stand.

In still sealed court papers filed on Monday, the lawyer for one of the 9/11 defendants argues that Austin's extraordinary intervention in the case must be overturned because it was taken in response to political pressure from Congress and therefore constitutes "unlawful" command influence over a military proceeding. 

"This is a clear example of political influence," said James Connell, the lawyer for Ammar al Baluchi, one of the accused 9/11 defendants who allegedly helped finance the attack and also happens to be KSM's nephew. (The motion is not yet public -- it first must be cleared by military authorities -- but Connell confirmed the filing to SpyTalk and said it includes a demand that Austin and the convening authority who the secretary removed, retired Brig. Gen. Escallier, testify about how and why key decisions about the plea bargain were made.) 

The prohibition on "unlawful" command influence -- essentially barring military commanders from improperly influencing judicial proceedings -- is enshrined in the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice[3] and was written into the law[4] passed by Congress in 2009 creating the military commissions overseeing the 9/11 case in Guantánamo.  

But establishing exactly what constitutes "unlawful" influence or the appearance of unlawful influence can be tricky and is currently at issue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a case involving former U.S. Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl. (Bergdahl, who walked off his post in Afghanistan in 2009 and was held captive by the Taliban for five years, was prosecuted after Senator John McCain, who was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time, said[5] he was "clearly a deserter" and threatened to hold a committee hearing if he was not punished. ) 

Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School and has represented Bergdahl since 2014, said the issue of whether unlawful influence occurred in the 9/11 military commission case is serious and could require live testimony from Austin and others, as well as the production of pertinent documents, to determine what influenced his decision to intervene. 

"You can't tell whether there was unlawful influence without discovery," Fidell said in an interview. "Based on what is currently known, defense counsel certainly have strong reason to pursue the issue and get to the bottom of things." 

Asked for comment on the motion alleging "unlawful" command influence by the secretary, and whether Austin or his staff had communications with members of Congress or the Biden White House about his decision, a  Defense Department spokesperson emailed: "We are not going to respond to any potential court filing directly, as the  9/11 military commissions case is in active litigation and we will let that process play out. Nor are we going to get into the background of who said what, when. But, as we have said, the Secretary believes that a decision of this magnitude should rest with him, and he acted accordingly. He exercised his own independent judgment in making this decision."

The spokesperson continued: "Remember, the Secretary has long believed that the families of the victims, our service members, and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out in this case. The White House and Department of Defense were of course in touch, as we are on a variety of issues every day, as appropriate."

But if Austin's goal is to see the military commission case against KSM and his co-defendants carried to trial it remains far from clear when, or even whether, that can take place. The case accusing them of committing the worst terror attack in U.S. history has dragged on for well over a decade, in large part because of endless complications arising from the fact that KSM and some of the other defendants were  tortured at CIA black site prisons, making their subsequent confessions legally problematic at best.  

Faced with multiple legal hurdles in bringing the case to trial, prosecutors at Guantánamoinitiated plea negotiations with lawyers for the 9/11 conspirators last year, finally agreeing last month to a deal[6] under which KSM and two of his co-defendants, Walid bin Attach and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, would plead guilty to the murder of 2,976 people in exchange for the government's agreement not to pursue the death penalty. 

But by revoking the agreement, Austin has now given the defense lawyers yet another avenue to further prolong the case given that any ruling by the military commission court in Guantánamo on unlawful command influence can later be appealed by either side to the federal courts in Washington. 

"You've tacked on another year or two" to legal challenges over the case, said Fidell. (In another potential sign of further delays, the judge overseeing the case, Col. Matthew McCall, asked the parties on Monday to file briefs on whether Austin, as the "superior convening authority" overseeing the casehad the authority to take the action he did.) 

Austin's move to block the plea deal also cuts off one opportunity that had been opened up under the proposed agreement: a chance for the families of 9/11 victims to pose questions to the terrorist conspirators about why and how they pulled off their hijacking of commercial airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. 

That prospect has taken on new significance in recent weeks amid disclosures that lawyers for the 9/11 families have obtained new evidence -- unavailable to the federal commission that investigated the attacks two decades ago -- pointing to a possible Saudi support structure[7] for two of the 9/11 hijackers in Southern California. 

But Austin's intervention essentially removes "the best chance" the 9/11 families would have had to get answers from KSM and the other co-conspirators about what they might have known about such help from possible Saudi actors, said Connell, the defense lawyer who filed the motion this week on "unlawful" command influence. "It's a terrible irony" that now won't happen -- unless Austin's decision is reversed, he said. 

This article first appeared on Spytalk.co[8].

© Copyright 2024 SpyTalk. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

More Articles …