The Supreme Court has issued a ruling maintaining the block against House Democrats receiving President Trump’s tax returns. The one paragraph order [pdf here] essentially maintains the stay and requests the Trump administration to file a formal request for review by the court, a “writ of certiorari”, by December 5th (noon).
It seems likely, almost certain, the House Democrat leadership was expecting this outcome; hence their earlier request for the Supreme Court to delay this predictable ruling for ten days.
The administration will almost certainly file the formal request for review by the court; and if the request is granted (very likely considering the wording of the order), the Supreme Court will hear the arguments in the spring of 2020 with a ruling sometime around June 2020 to settle the issue once and for all.
The underlying House case has several defects.
Attorney Ristvan previously provided a good encapsulation of the problems for the House that explains why President Trump would likely win the case:
House Oversight is one of three committees that 26USC§6103(f) requires the IRS to turn over individual returns “upon request”.
They requested (PDJT taxes for 6 years 2013-2018) long before Pelosi announced her impeachment inquiry, way before the House vote on same, to which Pelosi said Sunday, (paraphrased) “We haven’t decided to impeach. We are only inquiring about it.”
The ‘upon request’ is not as absolute as it seems. The request must still be predicated on a legitimate legislative purpose. SCOTUS has held (I skip the rulings, since previously commented on here many months ago) that there are only two valid purposes, both constrained to legislative powers expressly granted by A1§8.
1. An inquiry into making, repealing, or amending an A1§8 law.
2. Oversight of executive administration of an existing law.
With respect to (1), a legitimate legislative purpose would be reviewing real estate tax law for possible changes. BUT then, the request should have come from Ways and Means (Neal) where tax laws originate. AND, it should have included requests for tax returns from other big real estate developers also. Singling out only PDJT is a fatal defect to this purpose.
With respect to (2), after Nixon/Agnew the tax code was amended to require a special IRS audit of annual POTUS and VPOTUS returns, with the results held in the National Archive. Reviewing those special audits by IRS would be a proper Oversight and Reform legislative purpose, BUT ONLY for 2017-2018 after PDJT was inaugurated. The earlier 4 years demanded are a fatal defect to this purpose.
Both these valid points were raised by President Trump and were already on their way to SCOTUS. Now the committee is trying to ‘cure’ these fatal request defects by claiming the returns are necessary for impeachment. This raises four new issues where PDJT can also win.
1. Impeachment is not a legislative purpose within A1§8.
2. Articles of Impeachment have historically been the the province of Judiciary, NOT Oversight.
3. The demand was made BEFORE the impeachment inquiry unofficially started and cannot be retrospectively cured.
4. No tax ‘high crimes of misdemeanors’ have even been alleged. Impeachment fishing expeditions are unconstitutional.
IMO this case has the potential to set a major constitutional precedent about POTUS harassment via political impeachment. The constitutional convention minutes and Federalist #65 both make it clear why ‘maladministration’ (the original third test after treason and bribery, and which WOULD allow for political impeachment) was replaced by ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’. The phrase was borrowed from prior British law, has a specific set of meanings, and DOES NOT allow political impeachment. (link)
There is another Trump taxes case currently stemming from the Southern District of New York. The administration has request the Supreme Court to also take up that prior ruling and there is a possibility that both lower court decisions could be wrapped into one.
If you have liberal family members around for this weeks Thanksgiving feast and celebration it would be wise to understand the scale of their disappointment, even if they have yet to recognize it. Perhaps the best course will be just smiling.
…”I want to discuss this with my constituents and colleagues before I make a final judgment on this,” Schiff said.
Amid diminishing public support for the impeachment fiasco; and with more Americans starting to realize the past two months were an abject lesson in political narrative building and legislative manipulation; HPSCI impeachment committee chairman Adam Schiff transmits a letter today to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler.
If Schiff were in the MMA venue this letter, describing the HPSCI report to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC), would be a double tap to the mat:
Well, there’s a slightly less than strong impeachment position: Impeachment by “inference”.. he says. Previously Mueller and Weissmann attempted to prosecute President Trump, the fictitious horse-thief, for attempting to obstruct his hanging; now Schiff is inferring guilt because President Trump didn’t present alibis for his whereabouts when the fictitious horse wasn’t stolen…. Yup, it’s looking like a fail.
Schiff continues:
Wait,… President Trump has done terrible, horrible, dastardly stuff that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, says makes President Donald J Trump an “imposter” in the office. But now the assembly of the three committees need to figure out whether such imposter behavior is “compatible with the office of the presidency”?
See the obfuscation?
Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are in “political extraction mode”. That is, trying to walk backwards to the impeachment exit and only stepping into their prior footprints so that the left-wing nuts cannot identify their retreat.
Oh man, the Democrat base is going to go bananas if the House doesn’t have an impeachment vote…. and yet Pelosi could lose her gavel if the House has an impeachment vote that results in two foolish House Managers showing up to the Senate chamber with legally limp articles of impeachment.
Earlier today President Trump and Bulgarian Prime Minister Borissov held a press availability in the oval office prior to their bilateral meeting. [Video and Transcript]
.
[Transcript] – PRIME MINISTER BORISSOV: (As interpreted.) The Bulgarians like you so much, and they expect to have the problem with the visas solved — like with Canada.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Ah, okay. Well, we’re going to work on that problem.
I want to just thank the Prime Minister of Bulgaria for being here. It’s an honor to have you at the White House, in the Oval Office. We have meetings coming up in a little while. You have your representatives. I have my representatives. And I think we’re going to have very productive meetings.
They’ve ordered some F-35s and some other things. They buy a lot of military equipment from the United States — the best equipment in the world. And I look forward to our meeting.
PRIME MINISTER BORISSOV: (As interpreted.) We have 3.1 percent of the national — 3.1 percent, instead of 2 —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good.
PRIME MINISTER BORISSOV: (As interpreted.) — the membership requirement of NATO.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s very interesting. We’ll have to think about that, right? That’s very good. You should tell that to Germany. (Laughs.) You understand.
PRIME MINISTER BORISSOV: (As interpreted.) You will say it, sir.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we have a big NATO meeting coming up very soon, as you all know. But we’ve had a very, very good relationship, and now we’re going to formalize some things. We — the relationship we have with Bulgaria has been very strong. Great people.
Okay? Thank you.
Q Mr. President, what was your thinking behind the Navy Secretary this weekend?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’ve been thinking about that for a long time; that didn’t just happen. And I have to protect my warfighters. I’ve been — gotten — a lot of people have — a lot of warfighters and people in the military have thanked us very much. It’s been — it’s about time. They had one young man in jail for six years. He had many years to go. And a lot of people think he shouldn’t have been there. And I gave him a pardon.
With Eddie Gallagher — you know that story very well — they wanted to take his pin away, and I said, “No, you’re not going to take it away.” He was a great fighter. He was the — one of the ultimate fighters. Tough guy. These are not weak people. These are tough people.
And we’re going to protect our warfighters. And I’ve been given a lot thank-yous, including we just had some very great Special Forces people come to the White House, and they brought Conan. But they were here for themselves also. I wanted to see them. I wanted to meet them. They gave us a rundown on what happened with al-Baghdadi. And they were incredible.
But they were very thankful. Somebody has their back, and it’s called the “President of the U.S.” Okay? We’ve got their back.
Q Mr. President — Mr. President —
Q Bulgarian media, please.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Say it?
Q Bulgarian media. What’s the thinking about Bulgarian and USA friendship, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we have a great friendship. They’re great people. You have a lot of people from Bulgaria that are in this country, live in this country. They’ve become citizens of the United States. And we’re going to be talking about the visa program, as per the request of your Prime Minister. But, no, they’re great people. We have a very good relationship.
Q Mr. President, are you at all concerned that with some of your comments about the Navy Secretary and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, that you’re disparaging members of the armed forces?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I think what I’m doing is sticking up for our armed forces. And there’s never been a President that’s going to stick up for them and has, like I have, including the fact that we spent two and a half trillion dollars on rebuilding our armed forces.
And some very unfair things were happening. You let Sergeant Bergdahl go. You let others go, including a young gentleman, now a person who President Obama let go, who stole tremendous amounts of classified information. And you let that person go. But Sergeant Bergdahl — we just lost another man who went after — you know he died last week. He went after — from — he was paralyzed from just about the neck down, and he died last week, going after Sergeant Bergdahl, trying to find Sergeant Bergdahl.
So when you have a system that allows Sergeant Bergdahl to go, and you probably had five to six people killed — nobody even knows the number, because he left — and he gets a slap on the wrist, if that; and then you have a system where these warriors get put in jail for 25 years — I’m going to stick for our warrior. I will stick up for the warriors.
Okay, thank you very much everybody.
Q Mr. President what do you make of —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: The person I’m talking about is Chelsea Manning, by the way, if you had any doubt. So you have Chelsea Manning, who after — after Chelsea Manning was, I assume, pardoned by President Obama, Chelsea Manning went around and badmouthed President Obama, on top of everything else.
So when you have a Chelsea Manning who stole classified information and did many, many things that were not good and gets pardoned — or whatever happened — and you have a Sergeant Bergdahl who gets — virtually nothing happens; a slap on the wrist — and then they want to put these warriors in jail for 25 years. One of them, Lorance, served six years in jail; had many years left as a fighter. No, we’re not going do that to our people.
Q Mr. President, what do you make of Giuliani saying — what do you make of Rudy Giuliani saying he has insurance?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, I don’t know. Rudy is a great guy. Rudy was —
Q Is there any chance he would flip on you?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Rudy was the — and he covered that himself. You know that. Rudy is — Rudy is the best mayor in the history of New York. In my opinion, the strongest mayor, the best mayor. Rudy is a great crime fighter, corruption fighter. Probably the best in 50 years. When he was here, and also when he was at the U.S. Attorney in Southern District, he was phenomenal. Rudy is a great person.
And I think that maybe the press isn’t treating Rudy very well, and I think that’s unfair. But Rudy was a great mayor and a great crime fighter.
Thank you very much.
Q (Inaudible.)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: What?
Q Do you come to Bulgaria? And do you know that the — what do you think about Bulgarian position in (inaudible)?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I might come. I might come. It’s a country where we have a lot in common. And we have a Prime Minister that we like a lot. So, that could happen.
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Q Mr. President, what about USMCA?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: By the way, USMCA, I can tell you it’s sitting on Nancy Pelosi’s desk.
Q Mr. President, when can we travel without visa?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait, please.
Q When can I travel without visa?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Please. Please. Please.
USMCA — that’s the deal — the trade deal, the great trade deal for the farmers, manufacturers, workers of all types, including union. It’s sitting on Nancy Pelosi’s desk. She’s incapable of moving it. It looks like she can’t. Everybody knows it’s a great deal. She knows it’s a great deal; she said it. She keeps saying she wants to get it done, but we’re talking about many, many months sitting on her desk, no votes.
And she doesn’t have to help with the Democrats because they’re going to vote for it — most of them. And, I guess, all of the Republicans are going to vote for it.
But the system is — the way the system works, she has to put it up for a vote. And she hasn’t wanted to do it because I understand a couple of the unions — AF of L-CIO — they are asking her to hold it for a while because maybe you’ll look — make Trump look bad, although I get a lot of votes out of the AF of L-CIO, except for maybe the top, who I actually like. Richard Trumka — nice guy.
But Nancy Pelosi should put it up for a vote because, at some point pretty soon, you’re going to have Canada and you’re going have Mexico say, “What’s going on? Send the agreement back. Let’s not make the deal.” And I wouldn’t blame them at all. And that’s okay. We’ll just blame Nancy.
She’s got to put U.S. — that’s United States-Canada-Mexico trade deal — a phenomenal deal for our farmers, for everybody. It’s a great deal for our country. It replaces one of the worst trade deals ever made — that’s NAFTA. So, we have a great deal. She has to put it up for a vote. She doesn’t have to talk to anybody. All she has to do is say, “We’re putting it up for a vote,” like immediately. And a lot of time is being wasted.
But you’re going to have Mexico and Canada pull it pretty soon. And if they do, it’s her fault, not mine. We gave you a great deal. It’s her fault. And got to get going. Got to get going. She’s really traumatized.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody.
Q How was the dog?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Huh?
Q How was the dog?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good. Cute, huh? Unbelievable. More friendly — more friendly than I thought.
Earlier today President Trump, First Lady Melania and Vice-President Pence welcomed one of the heroes from the special-ops mission to kill/capture ISIS leader al Baghdadi.
“Conan” the special operations Belgian Malinois canine who helped track Baghdadi during the mission, and was wounded during the effort, was honored today at the White House. [Video and Transcript below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. So this is Conan — right now, probably the world’s most famous dog. I don’t think — I have to use the word “probably.” And Conan is an incredible — it’s an incredible story. I learned a lot about this particular type of dog. And it’s trained that, if you open your mouths, you will be attacked. You want to be very, very careful.
But Conan came over from the Middle East — just arrived — with some of the great people from the Special Forces that did the incredible fl- — it was a flawless attack. And al-Baghdadi is gone. But that was a flawless attack. And I just met quite a few of them.
And we just gave Conan a medal and a plaque. And it’s really — and I actually think Conan knew exactly what was going on. But a dog that is very, very special and we could maybe say — Mike, come on over. Maybe you want to say something about the type of dog and —
They were going to put a muzzle on the dog and I thought that was a good idea, but then it gets even more violent, John. So I had a choice. But, no, the dog is incredible. Actually incredible. We spent some good time with it. And so brilliant, so smart — the way it was with the Special Forces people that it worked with. And for obvious reasons, they can’t be out in front of the media.
But they did a fantastic job. Conan did a fantastic job. And we’re very honored to have Conan here and to have given Conan a certificate and an award that we’re going to put up in the White House.
Mike, would you have something to day?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s great to be here, Mr. President. I know you just finished a meeting with some of the very same Special Forces who completed the successful raid that took down the leader of ISIS.
But I recall, Mr. President, when you made the decision, right up there in White House.
THE PRESIDENT: Yep.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The day before the raid, you had talked about measures that were available to protect our soldiers. And it had been described to us, about the fact that they had dogs that could go in, in the event that al-Baghdadi had on him an explosive vest — that you put the premium on the safety of our Special Forces.
And this dog was there; suffered some injury. We were able to complete the raid without any American casualty. And so I think having the Special Forces here today, who obviously can’t come out in the public, but also having this extraordinary dog here today is all a reflection of our armed forces and the great job that they do.
But Conan is really a hero. It’s really a — it’s a real joy to be able to help welcome him here to the White House with you.
THE PRESIDENT: It’s true. And Conan was very badly hurt, as you know. And they thought maybe was not going to recover. Recovered, actually very, quickly and has since gone on very important raids.
As you know, we captured 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate. When I took office, we had almost nothing. It was as though they were just forming again, and now it’s 100 percent. And we have done a lot of work since then. We have done a lot of work since the raid. Certain things have happened that are very important. So we’re in very good shape. We’re in very good shape.
We’ve had a lot of help, too, from other countries. We’ve had a — we’ve really done a job.
I just want to thank you all. So, this is a special time for Conan. And we really appreciate it. And I was told about the breed. I was told about Conan himself. And Conan is a tough cookie. And nobody is going to mess with Conan.
I asked one question. I said, “So, what chance, with Conan…” I got to see how fast Conan can move. I said, “What chance would a strong man have — really strong, tough, a fighter — what chance would this person have against Conan, without the guns? What chance?” And I guess the answer, pretty much, was “none.” He would have no chance. So, it’s amazing.
And yet, you see how beautiful and how calm, during a situation like this, is. And you’re very lucky he doesn’t — he’s not in a bad mood today, Jeff. (Laughter.) Not in a bad mood. You’re safe. Anyway.
So I want to thank you all. Thank you very much. And this is a great honor to have Conan here. A great honor to have the Special Forces here. They’re in the Oval Office.
Q Do you want to adopt the dog, Mr. President?
Q Is Conan retiring?
THE PRESIDENT: I love this dog. No, Conan is not retiring yet. Conan is primetime, age-wise. Primetime. I asked that question.
They go for about six years — like an athlete. Six years. They start — they like to get them at one and a half or two years old, and they’ll go for about six years from that time. After that, it happens where maybe the reflexes aren’t quite as good. You know, things like that happen. It would never happen to us. But the dog, primetime, is those six years after two. And they’re very special dogs. They’re very hard to get. This particular dog is — this is the ultimate fighter, ultimate everything.
Ultimate in terms of sniffing drugs. We have a — we’ve spent a tremendous amount of money on drug equipment at the border. And I was talking to the people, and I say, “Well, is there anything better than this equipment?” “No, sir. The only thing better is a dog.” A dog — this type of dog, exactly, because it’s a certain type of dog. And it’s pretty amazing. But they are really better.
We had a case where we had drugs in a — the cylinder of a car. And it was undetectable by this very expensive machinery, which is really amazing machinery. But still, it was undetectable. The dog came in — wah, jumped on the hood, pointing — you know. Opened the hood and knew exactly. It’s incredible, the sense of smell or whatever it may be — probably sense of smell.
So they’re incredible animals. And thank you all very much.
Q Do you have confidence in Mick Mulvaney, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I do. Yes. Of course.
Q Melania, do you want to adopt the dog for Barron?
This decision (full pdf below) was easily predicted for the past several weeks. The HJC -vs- White House case for McGahn testimony will be appealed and join the HJC -vs- White House case surrounding grand jury information in the DC appellate court.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.
Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson [pictured right] said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)
Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House impeachment authorization vote to try and overcome the current obstacles they are facing. The authority for the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the main issue; but there are other structural/legal issues that also exist.
Here’s the McGahn ruling that will most certainly go to the appeals court next:
Any loss in three currently pending cases will undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s obviously an issue. There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.
♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight. That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court. Written briefs soon, arguments perhaps in early December? Outcome pending. There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.
[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered. (link)
Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.
♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation. The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was stayed by a three member DC Appellate court. Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]
[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing. (link)
Probability of SCOTUS 100%
♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn. Issue: subpoena validity. The HJC asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered her ruling November 25th.:
Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)
Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%
Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS). The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.
Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process. The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.
The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.
If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry” upon which they have built their legal arguments.
Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.
Pelosi and Schiff are racing the SCOTUS for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release which will likely challenge the foundation of their narrative.
There is a very strong likelihood the documentary material that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith falsified was actual communication from Carter Page to the FBI where Page was seeking their help in 2017. This revelation would explain and reconcile two seemingly contrasting points:
Point one – The media have asserted, based on leaks from the principal reviews, the woods file manipulation by Clinesmith did not impact the validity of the original FISA application on October 21st, 2017.
Point two – The material Kevin Clinesmith did manipulate was so egregious and unethical, it stands as one of the most clear examples of corrupt FBI abuse of power in recent history.
This outline will highlight a VERY disturbing picture:
Start by remembering the timeline of the Carter Page targeting through the use of a FISA application to the FISA Court (FISC). The original application was submitted on October 21st, 2016. The first FISA renewal was January 12, 2017 (84 days from origination). The second renewal was April 7, 2017 (85 days from prior renewal). The third renewal was on June 29th, 2017 (83 days from prior renewal).
Avoid the spin, and let’s focus on the facts. According to all reporting on the falsified evidence created by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, the manipulation of the woods file, happened during one of the renewals.
Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an emailthat officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said. (NYT Link)
The renewals were: Jan 12th, April 7th, June 29th, 2017. However, we know from the redacted release of the FISA application there was no material added in the first renewal in January 2017. So that leaves either the April ’17 renewal or the June ’17 renewal.
We know from the Washington Post and the New York Times leaks, again based on principal reviews of the IG report content, that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith modified an email:
…Horowitz found that the employee [Kevin Clinesmith] erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim… (link)
That means Kevin Clinesmith modified an email, which then became part of the woods file evidence (citation by FBI FISA warrant lawyer Sally Moyer) to support either the April renewal or the June, 2017, renewal of the FISA application.
Now we look to Carter Page’s reaction to the reporting on the Clinesmith manipulation:
The stunning likelihood here is that the email Kevin Clinesmith edited and falsified as part of his FISA renewal manipulation was email communication from Carter Page himself.
It is also important to note the phrase: “and his colleagues“; and then overlay what Carter Page says there with an earlier leaked explanation: “Mr. Clinesmith took an email from an official at another federal agency that contained several factual assertions, then added material to the bottom that looked like another assertion from the email’s author, when it was instead his own.”
It is jaw-dropping to think about the FBI team manipulating communication from the target of an unlawful investigation to continue targeting that individual. Yes, this speaks to stunningly criminal intent…. and that criminal exposure would extend to any individual or entity participating in such an egregious, unlawful and unconstitutional violations of Page’s fourth amendment rights with a falsified application to the FISA court.
UPDATE 5:45pm: Techno is in contact with the background participants; he is able to relay information. Carter Page is confirming he emailed with the FBI including Kevin Clinesmith at 07:43:51 EDT on April 6th, 2017, the morning of the day before the second FISA renewal:
This April 6th date confirmation and contact timeline now makes additional sense.
Considering NOTHING was ever changed in the January renewal; and considering the DOJ/FBI legally had to have *something* change in order to get the April renewal; there would have been a great deal of pressure on FBI lawyer Clinesmith to create something if nothing existed.
Important context: The FISA application (and first renewal documentation) was delivered to the SSCI (via James Wolfe) on March 17th, 2017, as requested by democrat Senator Mark Warner. We know this from the release last year. This SSCI delivery is three weeks before the second renewal on April 7th. This SSCI FISA delivery was also leaked by SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed. Keep this in mind.
Carter Page emailing with Kevin Clinesmith on the morning of April 6th prior to Clinesmith manipulating the content of an email to support his falsified documentation for the next renewal, April 7th, highlights the lack of evidence the FBI was able to discover in the seven previous months. However, the FBI team wasn’t going to be deterred by the lack of evidence; instead they just made it up.
The timeline here is critical.
Clinesmith likely manipulated the FISA renewal in April because by law extending the FISA surveillance must be based on new evidence gathered. In the following month Clinesmith transfers to the newly created Mueller probe. According to the New York Times and Michael Horowitz: “[Clinesmith] was among the F.B.I. officials removed by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, after Mr. Horowitz found text messages expressing political animus against Mr. Trump.”
The manipulated evidence FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated was then used by the team of Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller and Clinesmith for the objectives of the special counsel.
Again, another overlay, keep in mind that Robert Mueller asked Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to extend the scope of his investigation twice more after the original appointment of the special counsel.
That means Special Counsel Robert Mueller used a falsified FISA warrant as part of his investigation; and that material exploitation continued after team members within the special counsel became aware the FBI members were compromised and likely the FISA warrant application itself was falsified.
Yeah, depending on what people within the Mueller knew and when they knew it, this IG report on FISA abuses could be much more consequential than the media would currently like to admit.
Within the FBI Kevin Clinesmith was responsible for material evidence that underpinned the FISA warrant. Clinesmith then hands that material to Sally Moyer. Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications.
Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel). Her assembly of the FBI material is to ensure the citations are in place to support the Woods File requirement. Then she hands it off to Main Justice, the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).
Receiving the FISA warrant application in the DOJ-NSD is Tashina Guahar, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) with responsibility over the assembly of FISA applications in Main Justice. In essence, Tashina Guahar is the working Main Justice FISA lawyer.
Shortly after IG Horowitz delivered the draft of his investigative report to AG Bill Barr last September, not only did Kevin Clinesmith leave the FBI but also Tashina Guahar quietly leaves the DOJ-NSD {Go Deep} and is reported to have taken a job with Boeing Corp.
In hindsight the reason for Tashina Guahar’s mysterious exit also makes sense.
QUESTION: Hi Mr. Armstrong.
I’ve learned more reading your blog last 4 years than working in finance for 20 years. As you say, the average employee in finance hasn’t got a clue about what’s going on.
Question: There’s one thing that has bothered me for a long time; uncertainty about numbers regarding GDP, unemployment and so forthcoming from governments; are they trustworthy?
The reason behind the question is what happened during 2007 to 2009, where banks, rating companies as Fitch, Standard & Poor, Moodys, SEC, and all who are supposed to be reliable were lying about the real situation for several months before the bubble popped. Subprime loans didn’t get downgraded for several months even though there were severe defaults all over.
Are the key numbers revealed trustworthy when we know what the finance sector is capable of regarding lying/hiding, and now there are the government’s own bonds at stake?
Best regards
FF
ANSWER: Thank you. They just do not teach international analysis anywhere. It is the foundation of hedge fund management. It is also why we have the largest international client base anywhere. I have been asked now by three universities to teach. I just do not have the time. I keep telling myself I should do a textbook. I think I will get to do it in my next life perhaps. There never seems to be enough time.
Regarding the numbers, I have two factual encounters that have formed my conclusion. Because I have been an international adviser, I had to look at the numbers globally. What I discovered back in the 1980s was that every country had its own formulas. Comparisons were not realistic. I was asked if I would debate the top economist in Canada because my comments on economics were different from everyone else’s. I said sure. I debated him in Vancouver and it was hosted by Michael Campbell. The economist kept trying to compare GDP and inflation for Canada and the USA, and I would just respond that the formulas were completely different. He knew that, but economists only have the government numbers to play with. After I corrected him several times, he lost his cool on stage and said, “I am sick and tired of you Americans coming to Canada and telling us what to do!” At that moment, Mike Campbell stood up and ended the debate. After that, the AAP in Australia asked me if I would debate the top three economists in Australia on national TV. I said sure, why not. They all declined.
I hired a staff member, Lynn, who worked for me before she got married back in the 1980s. She was fantastic. Her job was to analyze the numbers of every country (below is one of her notes on inflation). We tore apart every country and created our own set of numbers that allowed us to actually do real-world comparisons to identify global trends. By the end of the 1980s, I was named the Top Economist in America all because we had the real numbers and not the government’s fake numbers they like to play with.
Going into 1980, just about everything was indexed to inflation basis the CPI. Even private contracts for rents were typically indexed to the CPI. The government discovered that if they could change the formula to reduce inflation, they could reduce expenditures. The CPI revisions began removing real estate and replacing it with rents on the theory that real estate was an investment — not your cost of living. They then reduced the sample to rents where they were controlled, which further reduced inflation. They have altered the number so many times that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever get inflation based on the CPI back to the 20% level of the late 1970s.
One day Lynn came to me and asked me to review her work for she could not find a mistake that was so obvious. In GDP, the government calculates total government spending as a component. They also add total personal income. The mistake stared us in the face. It appeared that GDP was counting workers for the government TWICE: (1) total spending, and (2) total personal income. We searched every calculation to try to find where they were accounting for this blatant era. I knew the top people at the BEA (Bureau Economic Analysis) so I called, explaining the error, and asked for assistance in showing me where it was backed out. They said they would check and get back to me. Several weeks passed and no return phone call. I called my friend again. His response: “No comment.”
Using government numbers is Pandora’s Box we dare not rely on. Zeus presented Pandora a box/jar as a gift and when she opened it, sickness, death and many other unspecified evils and plagues were then released into the world. The only thing which did not escape before she tried to close it was hope.
Notes for our 1986 research project: (N.S.A = not seasonally adjusted: S.A = Seasonally adjusted)
Inflation 11/21/86
What to say? US has many measures. WSJ more or less picks up most of them but seems to emphasize s.a. change in a month.
Best to use year over year for int’l comparisons, probably. Do we or don’t we have seasonal adjustment problems then? IN U.S. we get month over year ago n.s.a.
What about the compound annualized rate for calculation of real interest rates? This way we’d have two forward-looking rates. It’s probably a good idea to work with an average for three months
If we want to talk about GNP growth and consumer price inflation in the same breath, be sure the percentage changes are figured in the same direction: annualized forward, or compared with the same period in the prior year.
BLS says that to look at the trend, it’s best to look at s.a. numbers. If we want to know about actual prices we’re paying, unadjusted numbers are best
Japan’s CPIs seems to be n.s.a. UK RPI is n.s.a. German cost-of-living indexes are n.s.a., but we have s.a. in Supplement on S.A. Economic Data.
Remember that consumer price inflation in Latin American countries is typically reported as changes between the current period and previous period seasonally adjusted at compound annual, rates… i.e. as forward-looking rates. But there’s another twist. They usually say something like “bringing cumulative inflation to 67% so far in 1986.”
QUESTION: You have been silent on the Trump impeachment proceedings. What is your opinion?
HT
ANSWER: It is just a dog and pony show all intent upon trashing Trump for political reasons. In doing so, they are trying to indirectly to pretend what Joe Biden did was ethical, which it was not. Biden admitted he personally withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees unless they fired the prosecutor investigating the company that hired his son. To say Trump should be impeached because he withheld aid unless Ukraine investigated Biden is really amazing. Clearly, Biden personally said he would not provide aid unless they fired the prosecutor investigating the company that hired his son to gain influence with the Obama Administration shows this is all about politics. This was not a decision Obama made, but Biden personally when his family was involved. If Trump should be impeached for asking Ukraine to “investigate” when Biden demanded to end an investigation, then shouldn’t Biden have been impeached as well?
Welcome to the political corruption which has engulfed the world.
COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; I am from Venezuela and became an American citizen 20 years ago. I have brought my father here to live for his pension in Venezuela will not even buy him a cup of coffee as you have mentioned. I can only wish that the democrats would visit Venezuela and witness first hand what their ideas would do to America. You have a country with the largest oil reserves in the world and even gold reserves yet its people are starving. Qatar has the highest net worth per capita which shows that capitalism is so much better than socialism. You are correct. Venezuela proves governments are incapable of managing a bubblegum machine.
HD
ANSWER: It is truly an example to the entire world. The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the largest in the world, totaling 297 billion barrels (4.72×1010 m3). For example, a crude oil contract on the futures market is 1,000 barrels of oil. At $55 per barrel, the notional value of the contract is $55,000. That is 297 million contracts of $16 trillion in reserves. The main coalfields are located in the western Zulia State, on the border with Colombia, and they have known proven reserves of natural bitumen (42 billion tons). On top of all that, they have gold reserves which are estimated to be 10,000 tons (29,166.7 ounces per ton). That is about $40 million per ton or $4 billion. From a resource perspective, Venezuela has more than $20 trillion in reserve values equal to almost the entire US national debt. If they really want socialism, privatize the resources, let professionals manage it, and hand out profits equally to all the people. But no, the government has to control everything.
There is a tiny little country most people have never heard of and assume it is in Africa. In Guyana, they have just discovered oil. This economy is going to explode next year and it will probably be the highest growth in the world. You will quickly see the difference between capitalism and socialism.
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) discusses the upcoming drafting of a partisan report derived from witness testimony and the likelihood of an independent minority report. Unfortunately Rep. Zeldin, just like Adam Schiff and House leadership, is not sure what comes next (other than Thanksgiving).
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 