George Stephanopoulos Caught on Camera Telling ABC Studio to Cut-Off Trump Defense Attorney…


A good reminder of what we can expect when President Trump’s defense team has their first opportunity in five months to defend him.  During a broadcast segment on ABC news reporters in the Capitol were interviewing President Trump defense attorney Jay Sekulow.

Back in the ABC studio, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos did not want to see ABC broadcasting statements from the defense and he is caught on camera using hand signals to tell the producers to cut-off the broadcast.   Stephanopoulos realized he was caught:

Also visible at 47 seconds of the tweet video:

Tim Graham@TimJGraham

Shortly after 3 pm Eastern this afternoon, @AoSHQ noted Stephanopoulos was shown on camera making the slit-the-throat “kill” gesture to cut away from Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow taking press questions. These guys are NOT going to like hearing the Trump side of this trial.

Embedded video

3,820 people are talking about this

Jim Jordan: “Adam Schiff’s ‘Abuse of Power’ is What The Founders Called ‘Separation of Power’”…


Representative Jim Jordan appears on Fox News to discuss the latest day of impeachment trial proclamations, noting: “what Chairman Schiff calls abuse of power is what the founders called separation of power”.  So true.

Elise Stefanik – Improperly Constructed House Articles are No Excuse for New Senate Witnesses…


Representative Elise Stefanik is a member of President Trump’s defense team.  In this interview the issue of the deficient articles is raised surrounding witnesses.

House witnesses who gave testimony when the articles were framed could be considered appropriate, if needed, when debating those articles in the Senate.  However, witnesses not called by the House; and therefore not used in the assembly of the articles being debated in the Senate; are not valid for consideration.

.

It is not the responsibility of the Senate, nor is it constitutionally valid, for the Senate to attempt to rehabilitate improperly constructed articles simply because the House refused to assemble with due diligence.  Any evidence, including witnesses, that falls outside the originating assembly of the two House articles should be considered null and void.

Lee Zeldin Challenges Media and Debunks Schiff’s Claim that Ukraine 2016 Interference is “Conspiracy Theory”…


Lee Zeldin, Mike Johnson, Mark Meadows and Elise Stefanik appear for a quick presser during the impeachment hearings.

Zeldin notes that Adam Schiff has claimed Ukraine interference in the 2016 U.S. election is “conspiracy theory“; then Zeldin cites specific examples of Ukraine activity the media are well aware of.  After calling out the media examples, Mr. Zeldin challenges them to debunk him….. the media are silent. WATCH:

Second Session – Day Three – Senate Impeachment Trial – 7:15pm EST Livestream…


There will be 24 hours of presentation by House Impeachment Managers (over 3 days); 24 hours of presentation by Defense team (over 3 days); 16 hours of Senate questioning; 4 hours of closing arguments, equally divided; and then a Senate debate/vote on further motions to include witnesses. If there are going to be witnesses, they will first be deposed prior to testimony. No witness testimony will be permitted without first being deposed.

The Senate Trial continues with the second session today at 7:15pm EST. McConnell announced the evening session will last until approximately 10:30pm.

PBS Livestream Link – Fox10 News Livestream Link – Fox Business – CSPAN Link

.

.

.

.

.

DOJ Admits Two FISA Applications Lacked Cause – FISA Court Requests Information on Consequences: What Other Prosecutions Relied on the Invalid Warrants?…


An interesting ruling, brief and order from the FISA Court (Judge Boasberg) released today [pdf here] reflects an admission by the DOJ the 2nd and 3rd FISA renewal against U.S. person Carter Page were invalid.

The “DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in [April and June 2017] “if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter]Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.””

The original FISA application was 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).

The DOJ has now attested to the FISC the FISA application on April 7, 2017, and the FISA application of June 29th were invalid.  However, the DOJ has not taken a position on the validity of the original application, Oct 21, 2016, or the first renewal of January 12, 2017.

As with almost everything in the world of FISA there is a great deal of interesting language surrounding how the FISC brief & order by James Boasberg is written.  Each paragraph and sentence should be reviewed carefully to avoid making cursory mistakes in analysis.

The FBI has agreed to “sequester” all information and evidence received as an outcome of all the FISA warrants issued against Carter Page.  Meaning, all material, in any court proceeding or subsequent secondary warrant on another target, application, filing, motion, prosecution or downstream use of the information gathered and obtained; the FBI will now assemble all materials, from any location, that stemmed from the Carter Page FISA warrants.

In essence, the FBI will now look and retrieve any evidence that stemmed as an outcome of the Carter Page FISA warrant.  Some of this material *may* (perhaps likely) will be in the Special Counsel Mueller investigation.

[ie. a proverbial search for the fruit of a poisonous tree.  Where is it?]

Once the sequestration has taken place, the DOJ will then be able to determine to the court what collateral impacts they have identified.

The DOJ has yet to inform the court how exactly they plan to do this, or when they anticipate to have completed the task.  However, the FBI has agreed to undertake this sequestration for ALL of the FISA applications, not just the two renewals they now admit are invalid. READ:

The issue of the validity for the October 21st, 2016, originating FISA application; and/or the issue of the validity for the first renewal January 12th, 2017, is not yet determined.

The FISC brief outlines the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), who is currently doing a review of all FISA applications, will be the one assist the DOJ in reaching that conclusion.

Worth noting in the second paragraph (above): “pending further review of the OIG report and the outcome of any investigations or litigation.”   This was a statement made by the DOJ in response to the FISC.  It is possible the ongoing investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham is part of this encompassing statement.

The second page of the order by Judge Boasberg is essentially him relaying the law surrounding FISA applications; warning the DOJ that false material submissions -which the DOJ has just admitted- are illegal; and Boasberg wanting to know answers to the same questions many of us have.

Essentially, Judge Boasberg is asking: what did the FBI do with the Title-1 surveillance warrant they received from the court?   What material did they collect?  Was that material then used in other proceedings and: “disseminated to DOJ prosecutors and other persons outside the FBI”?

The presiding fisa judge also wants to know what the DOJ is doing.  Explain what “further review of the OIG report” means?  Inform the court what “related investigations and litigation” pertains to, etc:

[Link to Court]

A note of caution.  It seems incredulous the DOJ cannot apply the same determination of invalid construct to the original FISA application and first renewal.  However, the key issue is with the Steele Dossier – the essential evidence underpinning the FISA itself; and the key question is when did the FBI and/or DOJ know with certainty the Steele Dossier was unfounded and did not merit legal inclusion for the warrant?

By their current admissions, as outlined by Judge Boasberg, the DOJ is admitting that between January 12th and April 7th current investigators are certain there was sufficient information debunking the Steele Dossier, known to the former FBI and DOJ officials, such that no further application (renewal) should have taken place.

Interestingly this timeline and DOJ admission would include the Mueller investigation use of any FISA derived material or evidence when it began May 17, 2017; that is, if the Mueller probe used the Carter Page FISA evidence for any derivative warrant therein.

It seems likely the Mueller probe did use the Page warrant, as former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former DOJ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein authorized the June 29, 2017, final renewal AFTER the special counsel was in place.  That renewal has been admitted as invalid.  There could be considerable consequences.

Day Three – Senate Impeachment Trial – 1:00pm Livestream…


There will be 24 hours of presentation by House Impeachment Managers (over 3 days); 24 hours of presentation by Defense team (over 3 days); 16 hours of Senate questioning; 4 hours of closing arguments, equally divided; and then a Senate debate/vote on further motions to include witnesses. If there are going to be witnesses, they will first be deposed prior to testimony. No witness testimony will be permitted without first being deposed.

The Senate Trial continues today with the third day opening session at 1:00pm EST.  Today is the second 8 hr day of arguments by House Impeachment Managers.

PBS Livestream Link – Fox10 News Livestream Link – Fox Business – CSPAN Link

.

.

.

.

.

Ranking Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein Left Senate During Schiff Testimony – Said “Goodnight” and Went Home…


Many people are becoming aware the Senate impeachment trial is an exercise in politics, nothing more.  The votes are already decided; the trial is simply a pantomime.

To highlight the point, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, simply walked out during the trial when Adam Schiff was testifying; said “goodnight” and just went home.

Washington Post congressional reporter Paul Kane noted:

(LINK)

(WaPo) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) walked out of the Senate chamber, said “good night” to two reporters standing nearby, and left the Capitol. Senators are expected to stay in the chamber for the entirety of the arguments. (link)

‘The Origin of The Feces’ – White House Lawyer Patrick Philbin Explains House Circumvention of Constitution During Impeachment…


As 21 different state attorneys general noted earlier today, there are several reasons why the impeachment effort is unconstitutional.  These are not process arguments; they are factual arguments central to the constitutional framework of our government.

The failure of a full House vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to pursue evidence -via enforceable subpoenas- was a defect by design of Nancy Pelosi’s decision to initiate an impeachment inquiry by her decree, not an authorizing vote.  White House lawyer Patrick Philbin explains the legal issue; this could be the lead argument in the defense case when it starts.  [Video prompted to 03:20]

.

CTH noted this structural issue last August, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings. None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.

The House was not issuing subpoenas, it was issuing letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production. Recently the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion.

.

BACKSTORY – Last year House Democrat leadership took a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they would not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

(Source)

“Lawful subpoenas”, literally require an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word. The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry, and charged the House Judiciary Committee with the authority therein.

Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempted to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) were only sending out request letters. The compliance was discretionary based on the outlook of the recipient.

Nancy Pelosi did not have the vote or political capital to start by initiating a full House impeachment authorization. Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings had to rely on the duplicity of the media to help them hide their scheme; and the media complied.

Speaker Pelosi & Lawfare’s impeachment scheme could only succeed with a compliant media protecting it. The media was entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct.

If the media would have ever asked questions the fraud would have collapsed.

Adam Schiff had to hide his hearings because the foundation of the impeachment fraud was to create a public impression. There was no structural impeachment process or guideline being followed. The committee leadership used the closed door hearings to leak information to the media to create a needed narrative.

A legislative “letter” or demand request needed to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There was no penalty that can be associated with the House demands because the Legislative Branch did not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they worked through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

There is an elevated level of subpoena, a power made possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. However, that level of elevated House authority required a full House authorization vote, and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee as empowered.

In 2019 the Legislative Branch was NOT expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raised the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the constitutional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

There was NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House did not create a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.

The House needed to vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee would have gained judicial enforcement authority. That would have created a penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. This was the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plan was designed for public consumption; she/they were creating the illusion of something that did not exist. The purpose of all their fraudulent impeachment activity was to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intended to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process was destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege.

The Lawfare impeachment road-map was designed to conflict with the constitution. It was a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their sketchy impeachment plan, not a flaw.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies changed House rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi and Lawfare changed House impeachment rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi/Lawfare changed committee rules (SEE HERE); and in doing so they removed House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did. However, what Lawfare and Pelosi could not change was The U.S. Constitution, which they were destined to collide with.

Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ could not supersede the constitutional separation of powers. She was well aware of this. Nancy Pelosi could not decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

Pelosi’s impeachment scheme required a compliant media to support her construct…

They did exactly that.

Jay Sekulow Discusses Current Status of House Impeachment Case…


President Trump’s co-lead counsel, Jay Sekulow, discusses his perspective on the opening arguments for the House impeachment case.   As Sekulow notes, so far the House appears to be attempting to leverage impeachment for a difference in foreign policy outlooks: