DC Circuit Appeals Panel Rebukes House Effort to Enforce Subpoena Compelling Don McGhan Testimony…


In November 2019 activist Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress; however, she also ruled McGahn retained the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The central issue is separation of power.

The White House appealed the ruling to the DC appellate court on constitutional grounds, and on February 28, 2020, a three judge panel from the DC circuit agreed with the White House position.  The House of representatives could have appealed the decision; however, instead, the main lawfare activist, House counsel Doug Letter, took a different approach and sought to argue the case based around their right to enforce a subpoena.

Today a politically divided DC appeals court panel ruled the House can’t go to the judicial branch to enforce legislative subpoenas because there is no statute giving the legislative chamber the authority to force the executive branch to enforce an action against its own constitutional interests.

DC Via Politico – […] “The decision is likely to spark a renewed debate over the House’s power of “inherent contempt” — its long-dormant ability to fine or jail witnesses who refuse to comply with its oversight requests.

Though courts have acknowledged this power exists, it has been in disuse since World War II. The House has emphasized that resorting to such heavy-handed tactics would only worsen government dysfunction. Court proceedings are far more desirable — to the House and to society — House counsel Doug Letter has argued during the House’s legal battles.

The new ruling appears to leave in place one other option for enforcing House subpoenas: the threat of criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. However that option does not seem viable in cases involving fights over demands for testimony or records from the executive branch, since the Justice Department has long taken the position that it will not prosecute in cases where an official or ex-official was complying with a presidential assertion of executive privilege. (more)

The permanent political coup, led by the primary Lawfare activists who have infected the DOJ and all bodies politic, continues…  Everything is tenuous.

All of this judicial turmoil is a downstream result from electing Barack Obama to fundamentally transform America in 2008.  Where we are today can be traced to the continuum that many warned about more than a decade ago.

 

Sunday Talks – Devin Nunes Discusses The Vast Mailbox Conspiracy Theory…


HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the Democrats conspiracy theory about President Trump removing mailboxes.

Additionally, Devin Nunes discusses the contrast between how the FBI gave Hillary Clinton a defensive briefing based on an actual risk of foreign influence, yet the FBI did not give Donald Trump a defensive briefing based on a Russian influence conspiracy they were creating with the Clinton campaign.

 

Sunday Talks – Devin Nunes Discusses Clinesmith and California Taxes…


HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to discuss the recent criminal plea agreement between the DOJ and former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.

 

‘Comma la, Kamalot’, Whatever!


Democrats as they are Sullivan and Goodstein would rather focus on Harris’ first name than her game

Judi McLeod image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 14, 2020

‘Comma la, Kamalot’, Whatever!

The ongoing Coronavirus Lockdown leaves some folk with far too much time on their hands.

This would include Richard Goodstein, an adviser to Democratic campaigns, interviewed on on Tucker Carlson’s prime time Tuesday night Fox show and Margaret Sullivan over at the Washington Post, both in hissy fits all because Carlson got the pronunciation of Harris’ first name wrong.

Both think that there is no bigger sin than mispronouncing the name of Kamala.

Even though stridently anti-Catholic Kamala herself wouldn’t believe in mortal sin, it’s a mortal sin if you bungle the first name of “the first woman of color to be named to a major-party presidential ticket”!

Lordy, Lordy!

This is Sullivan’s blow-by-blow run-down of how Tucker “mangled” Harris’ first name:

“Tucker, can I just say one thing?” said Richard Goodstein, an adviser to Democratic campaigns. (Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2020)

“Carlson: “Of course.”

“Goodstein: “Because this will serve you and your fellow hosts on Fox. Her name is pronounced ‘comma’ — like the punctuation mark — ‘la.’ Comma-la.”

“He went on: “Seriously, I’ve heard every sort of bastardization of her —,” and then Carlson broke in: “Okay, so what?”

“With his familiar mocking laugh, Carlson demanded to know what difference it made if he pronounced it KAM-a-la, with the first syllable like “camera.” Or Ka-MILL-a. Or, properly, Comma-la.

According to Sullivan, “Tucker Carlson’s mangling of Kamala Harris’ name was all about disrespect.”

“When I was a young reporter, I had an editor who was a stickler for getting people’s middle initials correct in news stories.(WaPo)

“If you get the name wrong, there’s no reason for anyone to trust anything else you write,” he’d say.

“An extreme position? Maybe, but it is journalistic bedrock that getting names right really matters.”

The editor’s advice was obviously lost on Sullivan, who went on to work for Fake News WaPo, who get so much more than the middle initials in a person’s name wrong.

Sullivan continued:

“Which is why it was so instructive — if utterly predictable — to watch Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s handling of Kamala Harris’s slightly challenging first name on his prime-time show Tuesday, hours after presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden named the senator from California as his running mate.

“Not only did Carlson mispronounce it, but when a guest went out of his way to politely correct him, Carlson had one of his trademark fits of pique.

“Carlson’s reaction shows he has no interest in such a thing when it applies to Harris, who made history Tuesday as the first woman of color to be named to a major-party presidential ticket.

“Here’s the thing: It’s really not that hard to get Harris’s name right.

“I was pronouncing it wrong myself until sometime last year when a friend corrected me. (The friend happened to share the candidate’s ethnicity, in part, but that certainly wasn’t the only way to find out. Harris goes out of her way in her 2019 memoir to explain the pronunciation, also using the hint that it’s like the punctuation mark.)

Shame on you, if you didn’t read Harris’ 2019 memoir in which she “goes out of her way” to explain the appropriate pronunciation of her name!

“Even Biden himself doesn’t always get the pronunciation just right; he needs to figure that out, and fast. “

Would that be after basement Joe gets the date and place right?

“But with Carlson, it wasn’t really the mistake. It was his indignant refusal to stand corrected. (WaPo)

“And when you act as if proper pronunciation doesn’t matter — or isn’t worth bothering to learn — that sends a strong message.

According to Sullivan, Goodstein “was merely suggesting a modicum of respect, just a basement-level floor a decent person wouldn’t sink below.

“But for Carlson — who specializes in race-baiting, mockery and smarmy nastiness — there’s no such thing.”

Democrats as they are Sullivan and Goodstein would rather focus on Harris’ first name than her game.

Meanwhile, while Sullivan and Goodstein are trying to get Carlson to place the ‘em-fa-sis’ on the right ‘sill-a-ble’ for Harris, he’s already moved on to investigate ‘Comma-a-la’ Harris for her deadly record on the 2nd amendment.

Before this election campaign is brought to a merciful end, ‘Comma-la’s, ‘Kamalot’s’ name will be mud.

Proactive Distancing – The Special Counsel Operation…


With the Clinesmith criminal information at the forefront, a reminder about the Special Counsel motives.  Again, it is important to remember the special counsel had the agenda and responsibility to carry on the resistance operation…. that was their sole function.

As a result, this is just a short article on a singular footnote within the Weissmann/Mueller Report that looks completely different in hindsight.

Kevin Clinesmith was the lead FBI lawyer during the counterintelligence operation called Crossfire Hurricane; origination date July 31st 2016. When Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel (May ’17) he took over the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, adding additional DOJ lawyers to staff but retaining the FBI team which included Peter Strzok and Kevin Clinesmith.

When Kevin Clinesmith manipulated the CIA email to gain the third renewal for the Carter Page FISA (June 29, 2017) he was working on behalf of the Mueller investigation.

Clinesmith was removed from the special counsel team in February 2018 after his biased texts were identified by the inspector general. Clinesmith resigned in/around September 2019 “after the inspector general’s team interviewed him.” (link) Not coincidentally that Sept ’19 exit timeline aligns with the first notification to FISC Judge Collyer. (link)

Obviously, special counsel Robert Mueller would know the issues regarding Clinesmith prior to removing him in February 2018; and well in advance of his report published in March 2019.

Now… take a look at footnote #1, of page 13 from Mueller’s report:

 

From fn 1:

“¹FBI personnel assigned to the Special Counsel’s Office were required to adhere to all applicable federal law and all Department and FBI regulations, guidelines, and policies.”

An FBI attorney worked on FBI-related matters for the Office, such as FBI compliance with all FBI policies and procedures, including the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DOIG). That FBI attorney worked under FBI legal supervision, not the Special Counsel’s supervision.”

Tell me that isn’t a big flashing CYA footnote from the Special Counsel – going out of their way to proactively state that FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith worked under FBI legal supervision, not the Special Counsel’s supervision?

It seems clear in hindsight that Weissmann and Mueller knew the FBI misconduct that was likely to surface, as it has; so they made sure to position blame on FBI Director Chris Wray and FBI Legal Counsel Dana Boente back in March 2019.

It’s 5:00pm…


I am very well aware of events today.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

WASHINGTON – A Former FBI attorney will plead guilty to making false statements in documents used to obtain a surveillance warrant against former Trump aide Carter Page, his lawyer told the Associated Press Friday.

The guilty plea from Kevin Clinesmith is the first legal action taken in an investigation led by John Durham, a U.S. attorney looking into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and other intelligence-gathering activities related to the Trump campaign.

Clinesmith’s lawyer, Justin Shur, told the Associated Press that his client will plead guilty to a single false statements charge as part of a cooperation agreement with the government.  (more)

Tuesday.

Kevin Clinesmith – Criminal Information….


It’s not an indictment, it’s a Criminal Information with no grand jury, which suggests counsel for defendant approached DOJ to structure an agreement.  The plea agreement likely also included an agreement for method of public release. [LINK HERE]  Last year John Spiropoulos explained the Clinesmith information for OAN TV.  WATCH:

 

.

Bill Barr Interview With Sean Hannity….


Bill Barr calls into Sean Hannity for an interview.

 

Devin Nunes Interview With Maria Bartiromo…


Devin Nunes appears on Fox Business News for a discussion on current investigations.

 

The Polls Being Manipulated?


 

We may be witnessing the manipulation of polls once again that show Biden way ahead of Trump as we did in 2016 in the USA and with BREXIT. This time it seems that the manipulation is taking place on Steriods.

According to our models, the support for Republicans looking at the House & Senate combined lies at 40% and resistance at 52% with 2017 coming in at 54.7%. The Democrats have resistance at 58% and support at 47% with 2017 coming in at 44.8%.

The Bullish Reversal stands at 58% for the Democrats and 53% for the Republicans. If the Democrats come in under 44.8% for the combined House & Senate, they will cascade downward into 2027 and split into two parties – left v middle.