It looks like the beginning of a united plan for the Senate impeachment trial is in the works. According to a New York Post article the House impeachment managers would present their prosecution case; then President Trump’s designated lawyers will present his defense case; then the Senate will vote.

At least, that’s the plan being reported:

WASHINGTON – After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump’s impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal.

“I’m ready to vote now,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) told The Hill. “I think the articles are a joke.”

But they don’t want to dismiss the House Democrats’ charges out of hand, as some Trump allies have proposed.

“It’s time for him to have his day in court,” Hawley said. “The president deserves to have due process.”

Trump, who was calling for a full-blown trial with multiple witnesses — including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter — just three weeks ago, now supports the Senate leadership’s plan. (read more)

Oral arguments in the DC Court of Appeals for the House Judiciary Committee to obtain Mueller’s grand jury information, are scheduled for January 3rd, 2020.  The HJC is leveraging the Senate impeachment trial in their arguments to gain access to the Mueller material. This approach is by design.

With that in mind it seems likely any House impeachment articles will not be delivered to the Senate until after the DC court arguments, and likely not before the ruling:

[HJC -vs- DOJ full brief link here]

In addition to the Mueller evidence, the HJC is seeking judicial enforcement authority to force the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn.  Both HJC appeals court arguments are using the Senate trial to bolster their case.

The rushed House articles were/are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.

This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped. Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that could facilitate two pending court cases.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place.  By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.

What the house crew have assembled is an interesting back-door attempt to position a valid claim for evidence against the accused without having first gained judicial authority for it. The HJC is now arguing to appeals courts, and likely to SCOTUS, the blocked evidentiary material is critical evidence in a soon-to-be-held Senate trial.

The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records.  Each of these issues is currently being argued. [The supreme court will hear financials/taxes in April].

House counsel Doug Letter responded to the DC Appeals Court arguing the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn is needed for evidence in the impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here] And the grand jury material is needed to highlight the second article, Obstruction of Congress [Court pdf Avail Here]

Looking at the legal maneuvers from that perspective means the grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.

The 6(e) material relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.

Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely. A goldmine of political opposition research.

Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.

The oral arguments are next Friday, January 3rd, 2020.

Full HJC Brief Here

Full DOJ Response Brief Here

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) holds confirmation authority over leaders appointed to the intelligence community.  Chairman Burr and Vice-Chairman Warner participated in the IC effort to target and remove President Trump from office.

You might remember recently how Burr and Warner would not support Rep. John Ratcliffe for Director of National intelligence under the auspices of Ratcliffe not having enough “experience” within intelligence operations.  However, those same “experience” concerns were absent when they approved dirty ICIG nominee Michael Atkinson.

Reminding ourselves how ICIG Atkinson manipulated the ‘whistle-blower’ regulations to permit hearsay from CIA operative Eric Ciaramella; and knowing the primary concern of Senator Warner was to cover his own involvement in the soft coup effort in 2017; it is interesting to go back to the 2018 confirmation hearing of Atkinson and review the focus:

Senator Mark Warner […] You’re also aware that this Committee is leading the review into the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During this hearing I want to hear assurances from both of you that you will fully cooperate with this review and provide this Committee with all the information requested in a timely fashion.

Mr. Atkinson, as the Inspector General of the Intel Community your job is especially critical because of the nature of the material that they handle every day, whistleblowers within the IC generally can’t go public to expose misbehavior and misuse of official resources. We the Congress and the American people will depend upon you as an independent agent of accountability for the Office of the DNI and, for that matter, for the whole intel community.

While you don’t have previous experience as an inspector general, I look forward to hearing your plans for the righting
of the ship at the IC’s IG when it comes to both whistleblower protections and investigations.

I’m very concerned by the significant number of open cases that I believe have lingered too long. If confirmed, I will ask you to make the whistleblower program a priority. This is an area that cuts across party lines and committee jurisdictions. (continue transcript)

The SSCI is compromised.  One example of their compromise was how they worked with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the Carter Page FISA application to the media.  Other examples include how Vice-Chairman Warner was communicating covertly with Christopher Steele and back-channeling information to Robert Mueller. There are dozens more specific examples if you use the “search function” on this website.

Keywords: “SSCI” and “Warner” and “Burr“

Because of their direct role in confirming the officials who would have access to the evidence of their compromise, the SSCI can block anyone who would be a risk to them.

President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe for the position of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).  Senator Burr informed the White House that nominee does not align with their interests.  President Trump withdrew the nomination.

.

The intelligence apparatus is a key part of the rogue administrative state that operates in direct alignment with a rogue state department and politicians who use their influence to gain material wealth from sales of policy.  It is a synergy of DC interests.

In the larger context this reality also explains why Lt. General Michael Flynn had to be eliminated with extreme prejudice from National Security Advisor to President Trump.  In 2017 Michael Flynn represented the same type of threat to the SSCI that John Ratcliffe represents in 2019….

The office of the presidency cannot overcome that institutional power dynamic; the only thing President Trump can do it attempt to work around them.

♦ Ipso Facto:  If you accept the intellectual honesty behind the process issues above; and if you accept how the SSCI will only permit nominees that are not a risk to their interests; then it becomes of greater importance to consider who they *did* permit:

√ CIA Director Gina Haspel was not a threat to the corrupt state.

√ CIA Director Mike Pompeo was not a threat to the corrupt state.

√ICIG Michael Atkinson was not a threat to the corrupt state.

√ ODNI Dan Coats was not a threat to the corrupt state.

√ NSA Director Paul M Nakasone is not a threat to the corrupt state.

Following the use of the CIA (Ciaramella), DoD (Vindman) and Dept. of State to run the impeachment scam, my evolving contention is now that State Dept. Secretary Mike Pompeo was increasingly handling President Trump.

There is also a massive overlay of corrupt political enterprise, that’s where SSCI comes into play controlling the appointees who would be adverse to their interests.

REMINDER:

.