Chairman Nadler Announces House Presenters for Monday Impeachment Inquisition…


Planning for impeachment right after the 2018 mid-term election, HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link).  You probably saw Goldman doing the questioning for Schiff during the first public impeachment hearing.  Around the same time in 2018 Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link).

In addition to changing the House rules to align with the plan, the impeachment process we have been witnessing for two months was mapped-out in the congressional lame-duck session between November 2018 and January 2019.   Today Chairman Nadler announceswho will present the impeachment file during the House hearing on Monday:

(Source Link – pdf)

According to the visible structure Lawfare Counsel Barry Berke (representing the majority) and Republican Counsel Stephen Castor (representing the minority) will make opening arguments to the House Judiciary Committee. 

Lawfare Counsel Daniel Goldman & Lawfare Counsel Barry Berke will then present the evidence for impeachment.  House judiciary member questioning will look like last week’s questioning of academic impeachment experts.

Stephen Castor – Republican minority counsel

Contracted Lawyers Barry Berke (left) and Norm Eisen (right)

President Trump Delivers Remarks During IAC Summit – 8:00pm ET Livestream….


Tonight President Trump travels to Florida to deliver a speech at the Israeli American Council National Summit.  The President is scheduled to deliver remarks at 8:00pm ET.

White House Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – NBC News Livestream

.

.

Devin Nunes: “My phone records don’t match what Schiff, Dems put in report”…


HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes discusses his review of phone records, and how the mysteriously collected phone data that Chariman Schiff put into his impeachment report doesn’t match with his own review.

NANCY EXPLOSI


DEMOCRATS, THE UNHINGED PARTY OF TRUMP HATE

At a recent news conference, Nancy Pelosi was asked if she hated Trump. She blew up and acted angrily while claiming she was only protecting the Constitution. She added, “Our democracy is at stake.” What she really meant was, “Our Deep State is at stake.” 
Of course Nancy hates Trump. She can’t hide it.

Elaborating on this matter is our guest poster, “J” in Florida:

Question:  Ms. Pelosi, do you hate Donald Trump?

Answer:  What?  What did you ask?  Do I hate Donald Trump?  I don’t hate anybody!  How dare you accuse me of hating anyone! Yeah, I may have been trying to impeach that “orange bastard” and have him impeached at regular intervals for the past three years but that was just business. It’s like organized crime. We don’t hate the bastard. We just whack him because it’s the right thing to do and the necessary thing to do. But hate? No way. Yeah, maybe I hate you for posing that question and putting me on the spot, a pointed rebuke that my actions may be derived from animosity and insane rage and Trump Derangement Syndrome, but that’s not the case in this case. This is the case of the missing case.  Even if I did hate Trump, do you really think I’d admit that to you?


Let me tell you something, little man. You aren’t as important as me. You don’t make as much money as me. You don’t have benefits equal to mine which has nothing to do with Congress exempting itself from the ACA, and therefore you can’t even begin to fathom the smallest inkling of what hate constitutes. You can’t fathom hate at my level. We may despise Trump, loath him, rage against him, find unrelenting fault with everything he does or attempts to do, but hate?  No way. There are things I do hate and I’ll admit to that. I hate Trump’s policies. I hate his family. I hate the mere sight of his face on TV. I hate the comments that emanate from that mouth of his but there’s no way you can conclude from that that I hate Trump. I may detest him but you can’t interpret that as hate.

Hate. Spell it. H-A-T-E. That spells hate. You know things I do hate as House Speaker? I’ll tell you. I hate it when my car doesn’t start which causes me to be late for a meeting no one cares about. I hate stupid reporter questions about whether or not I hate something. I hate republicans, conservatives, traditionalists, the Tea Party types, rhinos, dumbass media who question me and my motives, who question me about hate, and everyone who remotely disagrees with me. I have a duty, an obligation, a commitment, and a responsibility to do what’s best to retain power and privilege.

Hate would be what I’d feel with Donald Trump being reelected to a second term. Now that might constitute hate. But hate now? Not me. Not here. 

Don’t you ever ask me about hate again, you hear me? You sorry, slimy reporter! I detest you and your question but I don’t hate it. I’m just clarifying my thoughts and feelings for the record.  I hope this makes things clear as crystal.

Next question?

White House Responds to Nadler’s Impeachment Deadline…


President Trump responds to today’s deadline set by House Democrats for the White House to say whether it would participate in the impeachment proceedings:

In summary:

“Nuts!”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Places Administrative Stay on Congressional Subpoena For President Trump’s Financial Records…


Shortly after 6pm this evening Supreme Court Justice Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put a prior 2nd Circuit ruling on hold until next Friday, December 13, at 5 p.m.

President Trump went to the Supreme Court after the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One seeking President Trump’s tax records. In his request to the court [Read Here] Trump asked SCOTUS to block the subpoenas on the ground they go beyond the committees’ powers.

Justice Ginsburg’s order tonight gives the justices time to rule on Trump’s request for a longer stay of the lower court’s decision while he files a petition for review. Ginsburg ordered the House of Representatives to file a response to Trump’s request by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11.

At their private SCOTUS conference next week, the justices are scheduled to consider President Trump’s original petition for review of a lower-court ruling that would require him to turn over tax records to the SDNY who are seeking them as part of a grand-jury investigation. The SCOTUS decision today, placing a hold on a similar House effort, essentially allows the court to receive arguments relating to the second request for tax records and contemplate the merit of both.

The first request to the Supreme Court resulted in them issuing a ruling maintaining the block against House Democrats receiving President Trump’s tax returns.  The one paragraph order [pdf here] essentially maintained the stay and requested the Trump administration to file a formal request for review by the court.   The Trump filing today is a response to that SCOTUS request:

FULL PDF AVAILABLE HERE

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 could 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)

The quest for President Trump’s financial records is essentially a legislative fishing expedition in an attempt to gain opposition research for their Democrat candidate in the 2020 election.

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 original legal arguments.

♦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.

Ginsburg placed a hold on the order on Friday, according to Reuters. The 2nd District Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Tuesday ordering Deutsche Bank and Capital One to turn over financial documents on Trump, members of his family, and his business.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put the 2nd Circuit’s ruling on hold until next Friday, December 13, at 5 p.m. Ginsburg’s order gives the justices time to rule on Trump’s request for a longer stay of the lower court’s decision while he files a petition for review. Ginsburg ordered the House of Representatives to file a response to Trump’s request by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11. (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 rulingJudge 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)

However, two days later Judge Brown-Jackson stayed her own ruling...

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, an Obama appointee on the district court in D.C., granted McGahn’s request for a temporary stay while she deliberates on whether to issue a lengthier one to allow him to appeal her decision.

The House Judiciary Committee, which had asked the court to enforce its subpoena for President Trump‘s former legal adviser, said it would not oppose a temporary stay. (read more)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are now rushing toward a full House impeachment vote while simultaneously attempting to stall any judicial decision (Appeals or SCOTUS) that would undermine their manufactured impeachment authority.

The Goo Crew Coup!


IMPEACHMENT AT ALL COSTS

I’ve been watching the ongoing farce known as the impeachment hearings and I realized their Star Chamber circus was never going to end. The Democrats will continue to invent and spew slime toward Trump no matter what. They accuse the president of interfering with next year’s election, yet THEY are the ones who are trying to negate the will of the American people who lawfully put Trump into office–and they are already interfering with his reelection in 2020.

President Trump is not part of the Deep State. He was elected as an outsider—an America-first populist and he promised to drain the swamp and end the corruption. The swamp is fighting back. Everyone is onto their tiresome game, but that makes no difference. They all have severe cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The Democrats have contempt for the will of the American people. The Deep State Swamp will never stop spewing slimy lies as they continue to make a mockery of the Constitution. 

—Ben Garrison

 

JAK AMERICA! GET READY FOR TRUMP 2020 LANDSLIDE REMIX!


 

Devin Nunes Responds To Adam Schiff “Subpoenaing” Private Phone Records….


HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes responds to the possibilities of how HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff gained private phone records for use in his impeachment effort.

.

One of the possibilities is that Lev Parnas is a foreign national. SDNY gets a subpoena from the FISA court.  Rudy Giuliani is in contact with Parnas (1-hop). They then unmask and pull Giuliani’s records and get Nunes and Solomon (2-hops).

The question would then be how did the unmasked information in an active investigation that started in the FISC end up being sent to the House Intel Committee to be disclosed to the public?

Chairman Nadler Schedules Next Impeachment Hearing Dec. 9th – Same Date IG Report is Released…


House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has announced the date for the next impeachment hearing.   The date is Monday, December 9th – 2019 It appears from the announcement the HJC hearing will be set up to receive the impeachment recommendation(s) from Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee:

(HJC) The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Presentations from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and House Judiciary Committee  (link)

Monday December 9th, is also the same date that IG Horowitz is expected to release the results of the 21-month-long FISA investigation.

Two days later on Wednesday December 11th, Michael Horowitz will be testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his investigation…. Therefore we can expect Nadler, Pelosi and Lawfare to schedule another House event for Wednesday Dec. 11th.