Mark Meadows Discusses Fraudulent Impeachment Process and Upcoming IG Report…


North Carolina republican Mark Meadows has been one of the key republican leaders who have remained in Washington DC during the recess break so that he can quickly attend the secret back-room hearings being held by Chairman Adam Schiff.  In this interview Mr. Meadows discusses the current status of the impeachment effort.

Additionally, Meadows discusses what he knows of the documents provided to Inspector General Horowitz for his pending release of the FISA investigation.   Meadows predicts the IG report will be a “scathing rebuke” of the FBI; however, Meadows also predicts the accountability aspect will only end with recommendations for FISA process changes.

Ranking Member Doug Collins Discusses Pelosi-Schiff and Lawfare Impeachment Scheme Progress…


Representative Doug Collins appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the specific strategy behind the Pelosi-Shiff and Lawfare ongoing impeachment effort.

Collins explains why Adam Schiff is holding hearings behind closed doors so they can selectively leak out information that supports the Democrat narrative of impeachment, while also hiding the evidence that refutes their construct.  Additionally, Rep Collins explains his expectations for the upcoming FISA review by Inspector General Horowitz.

Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process.  It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction.  {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} to understand why.

The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment inquiry, is not within the jurisdiction of the three committees. So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.

The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2

Hey, but you do you. 😉

View image on Twitter
162 people are talking about this
Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been well 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, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.

In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose.  So that raises 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 Judiciary (only) has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims. 

There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.   The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority.  This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

The reason judicial enforcement authority is constitutionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

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

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plans are designed for public consumption; she/they are creating the illusion of something that doesn’t exist.  The purpose of all this fraudulent impeachment activity is to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the current Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intends to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process is destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege. That predictable constitutional issue will end up with arguments to The Supreme Court.

THAT appears to be why Democrats and left-wing activists have been working for months to de-legitimize the Supreme Court. They always intended to run into this problem. They planned for it.

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

Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn’t exist.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.  Pelosi is burning a constitutional process.

Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court.

The judicial branch would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did toJudiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“.  Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review.

This is a carefully constructed subversion of the constitutional processes and procedures.

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.

As a result of the need to create the optics of something that doesn’t exist; and following the roadmap they outlined in 2018 [See Here and Here]; the Lawfare contractors within the committees’ needed to construct a penalty mechanism that benefits the impeachment agenda but avoids the court system.  As a result we see this:

Nice Lawfare trick huh?…

Ridiculous Shift – Adam Schiff No Longer Requires CIA Gossip for Impeachment Testimony…


Well, this was entirely predictable.  First the impeachment strategy needed the anonymous CIA gossiper to testify.  Then it leaked about how HPSCI Chairman Adam Shiff and his Lawfare staff actually created the “gossiper’s” silly third-hand complaint to an inspector general; who then changed ‘gossip’ rules to allow second and third-hand hearsay.

It was all becoming more brutally sketchy, and the impeachment jenga blocks were tenuous at best.  As a result, republicans were going to inquire about how the CIA gossiper constructed his complaint; and then the complaint attorney’s started saying the gossiper would not appear in person, but rather write more complaint letters instead of testifying.

The shift from sketchy testimony to “Dear Sir” letters was ridiculous in the extreme. So what happens next?  Well, this is predictable…. Chairman Adam Schiff now says there will likely be no gossiper testimony because now he doesn’t need it.  [@4:52 video]

[Transcript]  REP. SCHIFF: You know and I think initially, before the president started threatening the whistleblower, threatening others calling them traitors and spies and suggesting that you know we used to give the death penalty to traitors and spies and maybe we should think about that again. Yes we were interested in having the whistleblower come forward. Our primary–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Not anymore?

REP. SCHIFF: Well our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected. Indeed, now there’s more than one whistleblower, that they are protected. And given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that. We do want to make sure that we identify other evidence that is pertinent to the withholding of the military support, the effort to cover this up by hiding this in a classified computer system. We want to make sure that we uncover the full details about the conditionality of either the military aid or that meeting with Ukraine’s president. It may not be necessary to take steps that might reveal the whistleblower’s identity to do that. And we’re going to make sure we protect that whistleblower.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You know who was on that July 25th call? You know all the participants?

REP. SCHIFF: I can’t say that I do. But we now know what took place on that call. We are bringing in witnesses this coming week from the National Security Council, other State Department officials, to find out what they can tell us about the conditionality of this vital military assistance to an ally. The conditionality of this vital meeting between the two presidents and the president’s effort to dig up dirt on his opponent.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Quickly, do you regret saying that we, the committee, weren’t in touch with the whistleblower?

REP. SCHIFF: I should have been much more clear and I said so the minute it was brought to my attention that I was referring to the fact that when the whistleblower filed the complaint, we had not heard from the whistleblower. We wanted to bring the whistleblower in at that time. But I should’ve been much more clear about that. (read more)

FISA Judges Collyer and Boasberg Both Identified NSA Databases Used for Political Surveillance…


There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.

Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.

Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]

With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.

Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.

One of the weird aspects to both Collyer and Boasberg is that both FISC judges did not ever seek to ask the “why” question: why are all these unauthorized database searches taking place?  Instead, both judges focus on process issues and technical procedural questions, seemingly from a position that all unauthorized searches were done without malicious intent.

Accepting that neither judge had the purpose of benefit to overlay any other information upon their FISA review, their lack of curiosity is not necessarily a flaw but rather a feature of a very compartmentalized problem.

Boasberg and Collyer are only looking at one set of data-points all centered around FISA(702) search queries.   Additionally, the scale of overall annual database searches outlined by Boasberg extends well over three million queries by the FBI and thousands of anonymous users; and the oversight only covers a sub-set of around ten percent.

As a result of the number of users with database access; and as Boasberg notes in his declassified opinion there is no consistent application of audit-trails or audit-logs; and worse yet, users don’t have to explain “why”, so there’s no FISC digging into “why”; the process is a bureaucratic FUBAR from a compliance standpoint; perhaps that’s by design.

All of that said, and accepting the FISC review is not engaged in the ‘why’, here’s the part where seemingly disparate dots start to connect and things are concerning.

REMINDER from the Mueller Report:

My strong hunch is that behind this process we will find the reason why the ‘Steele Dossier” was so relevant to Mueller.  You see, investigating the dossier made the 2017 Mueller investigation an extension of a 2016 counterintelligence investigation and not a criminal investigation (later, those were spun off).

By maintaining the counterintelligence process for Mueller, the FBI was able to continue exploiting the NSA database as a FISA(702) tool for their investigation.  The foreign actors played a key role in this process.  So long as the Mueller investigation was targeting foreign actors they could collect downstream evidence on the “702” (American persons) returns.

In essence, the “small group” was stretching the NSA database rules to conduct electronic warrantless searches and massive electronic surveillance on targets direct (“to/from”) and indirect (downstream).

The violations that Boasberg is identifying (March 2017 through March 2018) must also include FISA database searches conducted by Mueller’s FBI team.  It is all within the same system of electronic surveillance.  The pattern, frequency and specifics of the Boasberg report are identical to the 2017 Rosemary Collyer report. Same violations. Same processes.

Against what we see more visible every day; and thinking about how corrupt we already know the Mueller investigation to be; now consider that without going to federal courts to gain legal authority, warrants, taps etc….  using the database Mueller’s team could continue to exploit the FISA(702) process.

They could gather material for their criminal cases through the NSA database and then transfer those results to their spun off prosecutions.

That’s why the Steele Dossier was so important. The Dossier formed the basis to continue making the Mueller investigation a counterintelligence operation, Title-I. Without the Dossier creating the foreign construct, Mueller’s team would have had to follow Title-III.

There is a better than strong possibility the Mueller team monitored all of their targets, extracted the evidence they needed, transferred it to prosecutors and proceeded to construct cases. They didn’t need to do too much actual investigation because: (a) they knew the Russian-collusion/conspiracy was false; and (2) they could just access the NSA database and pull all the material they needed.

My hunch is that’s why the DNI, Dan Coats, sat on this Boasberg ruling for a year.  Boasberg presented this opinion in October 2018, it wasn’t released until October 2019. That could also be a motive why Dan Coats left right before Boasberg’s opinion was released.  Perhaps IC interests did not want anyone putting 2+2 together if this judicial review was released during the ongoing Mueller probe.

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate the Steele Dossier in the second scope memo.  If these suspicions are accurate, the reason Mueller wanted the dossier included would be to maintain Mueller’s investigation as a counterintelligence operation. [An extension of Crossfire Hurricane] As a result, all previous FBI exploits using FISA(702) database searches would be authorized.

To get the Dossier moved from “political opposition research” into valid “investigative evidence” the FBI needed to find a way to get it into the investigation…. Hence, Carter Page and the FISA warrant became the unwitting target and vehicle to carry it.

That explanation also reconciles why Rosenstein signed-off on the 3rd renewal of the Carter Page FISA.  Rosenstein authorized a counterintelligence operation (2nd scope) and simultaneously re-authorized the cover story, the Carter Page FISA renewal.

The ramifications here are actually bigger than the original FISA database abuse. It means the Mueller group had secret ongoing background surveillance on all of their targets; and they did not need court authority (Title-III warrants) to get evidence.  Maybe, just maybe, this is part of the reason why John Durham has expanded the time-frame for his review.

Now, bear with me….  Again, just to be prudent, we don’t have the supportive material yet to see through the Boasberg ruling, so there is some conjecture here.  However, if we  stand back and think about the bigger picture described; and we also think about current headlines continuing to surface; a whole bunch of sketchy new things start to reconcile.

Example:  Listen to the video here for a minute as Chris Ferrell explains how people were being monitored by a State Department “war room”.

TrumpSoldier@DaveNYviii

Disgraced Pro Biden/Obama Ambassador Yovanavitch directed elements within the State Dept to conduct a monitoring mission that targeted U.S. Citizens. @JudicialWatch pursuing documents via FOIA

Embedded video

542 people are talking about this
Remember all of the State Department “unmaskings” that were taking place?  Hundreds of unmaskings assigned to U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, and yet no-one could identify who was doing them?

One of the significant changes between the Collyer report (covering 2016) and the Boasberg report (covering 2017) was an institutional inability to track who was doing the actual database searches.  Some internal process was modified to create IC anonymity.

Well, against the backdrop of Ambassador Yovanovitch in 2017 and 2018 “monitoring” American persons in/around her Ukraine interests; and considering all of these database search queries identified by Boasberg in 2017 and 2018 “incidentally” captured Americans; perhaps this explains how the Yovanovitch “monitoring” was taking place.

Burisma Leadership Meeting With Ambassador Yovanovitch in October 2018 – Link

We know what the FBI and “contractors” were doing in 2016; and given how invested the intelligence community is within the current stop-trump operations (writ large); and given the political stakes for the intelligence community, well, would there be a reason they would just stop electronic surveillance in January 2017 when President Trump was inaugurated?

I suspect this NSA database is being continually data-mined by ongoing institutional operatives and contractors who are working against the Trump administration.  I suspect the surveillance of their political opposition is ongoing….

.

Devin Nunes Discusses ‘whac-a-mole’ Chaos Amid Partisan House Impeachment Hearings – Predicts Marie Yovanovitch Will Build Narrative…


House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes discusses former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifying to her friends in congress during the Democrats’ “chaotic circus” of an impeachment inquiry.

TrumpSoldier@DaveNYviii

Kyiv Marie Yovanovitch was FIRED in disgrace. The next “star” witness is literally a Trump hater removed from office for anti Trump bias, among other irregularities.
A disgruntled employee that hates Trump! That’s all they got right now!

View image on Twitter

TrumpSoldier@DaveNYviii

There is a truckload of stuff on her. Her coming forward is a desperation move to get out in front of documents that are looming over her head.

NBC News

@NBCNews

BREAKING: Former Ukraine Amb. Yovanovitch says she was informed by a top State Dept. official that she was removed under a “concerted campaign against me … as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/after-uncertainty-yovanovitch-arrives-capitol-hill-testify-trump-impeachment-inquiry-n1064996 

After uncertainty, Yovanovitch arrives to testify in Trump impeachment inquiry

It had been unclear right up until the ousted ambassador arrived whether she would appear, because she still works for the State Department.

nbcnews.com

NBC News

@NBCNews

BREAKING: Former Ukraine Amb. Yovanovitch: “Today, we see the State Dept. attacked and hollowed out from within. State Dept. leadership, with Congress, needs to take action now to defend this great institution, and its thousands of loyal and effective employees.”

REPORT: Joe Biden Had Working Relationship With ‘Whistle-blower”…


This makes sense on many levels.  As a member of the Obama National Security Council, the CIA “whistle-blower” would have held a working relationship with Vice-President Biden who was given the primary authority to oversee Ukraine effort within the Obama administration.

(Via Washington Examiner)  The 2020 Democratic candidate with whom the CIA whistleblower had a “professional” tie is Joe Biden, according to intelligence officers and former White House officials.

Lawyers for the whistleblower said he had worked only “in the executive branch.” The Washington Examiner has established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the National Security Council at the White House and has since left. On Sept. 26, the New York Times reported that he was a CIA officer. On Oct. 4, the newspaper added that he “was detailed to the National Security Council at one point.”

Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, told members of Congress that the whistleblower had a “professional tie” to a 2020 Democratic candidate. He had written earlier that while the whistleblower’s complaint was credible, he had shown “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”

A retired CIA officer toldthe Washington Examiner: “From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president.”

As an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.

A former Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said Biden’s work on foreign affairs brought him into close proximity with the whistleblower either at the CIA or when he was detailed to the White House. (read more)

Another Day, Another Phony “Subpoena” Impeachment Narrative – Rick Perry Edition…


The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been well 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, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.

In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose.  So that raises 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 Judiciary (only) has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims. 

There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.   The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority.  This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

The reason judicial enforcement authority is constitutionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

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

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plans are designed for public consumption; she/they are creating the illusion of something that doesn’t exist.  The purpose of all this fraudulent impeachment activity is to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the current Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intends to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process is destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege. That predictable constitutional issue will end up with arguments to The Supreme Court.

THAT appears to be why Democrats and left-wing activists have been working for months to de-legitimize the Supreme Court. They always intended to run into this problem. They planned for it.

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

Doug Collins: “Impeachment Inquiry Will Backfire”….


If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the media pushing her narrative the impeachment effort would have already failed.    In this interview Judiciary committee ranking member Doug Collins states the un-American inquiry is likely to backfire.

The Cost of a Political Divide


QUESTION: Trump Impeachment. Y’know Marty, since the Democrats have tried unsuccessfully for so long to find some dirt on Trump, the guy must be squeaky clean, no?

NMM

ANSWER: Impeachment occurs when someone does something while in office. It is not based on what they did before. All the stuff they bring up from his past, such as tax returns to pictures with Epstein, are all an attack upon his character in hopes that it will persuade some to vote against him, but they are preaching to the choir. Both Republicans and Democrats bash the opposition to keep their constituents happy, for they are just biased and would never vote for the other party because they lack any ability to think objectively. I get emails that are always claiming Trump is a prior crook or something and how he should be impeached, but that only reveals their bias.

They are going after the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh again. This is a pointless effort and highly damaging to the entire political system. What he did or did not do in college 40 years ago is absurd. No one’s entire life should be judged based on an incident they were involved in at a drunken party in college. It is rare to find someone who can even believe what they once did back in their school days.

Brett Kavanaugh cannot go to many places in Washington, according to the Washington Post. He is isolated by these personal attacks to this day. The allegations have scarred him and his family for life. As reported, at the La Ferme restaurant in Chevy Chase, a woman yelled at him and his wife insulting him in public, and on a different night, one customer stood to applaud him. He simply cannot go out in many parts of Washington for people are no longer respectful or civil.

The Democrats want to hold impeachment proceedings to try to remove him from the Supreme Court. Good luck with that. Again, you cannot impeach someone for what happened 40 years before. Only a fool does not learn from their mistakes. We all change as we mature. It is called wisdom.

Christine Blasey Ford who made the unsupported allegations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her and in the process destroyed him and his family’s life forever, has herself been subjected to the new world where respect has vanished and people are no longer civil in public. She relocated four times and has been unable to return to teaching. She too cannot go out to dinner without being harassed. Welcome to the new world of political fragmentation. What she has experienced is not much different from the person she accused. Making such public accusations that are exploited for political purposes is something that will change your life forever. You will never convince the core of the opponent so your life will be destroyed in the process. You might as well move out of the country.

Worse still, Ford’s testimony exposed a gender war simmering below the surface. There were women who supported Ford ONLY because she was a woman. Their position was that women tell the truth and all men were scum and should not be believed. That was a raw feeling which also emerged in addition to the political divide. I am sure Ford would never testify if she knew the real cost of what has truly changed her life. This is society. There is no changing the way people will react in such a politically charged environment. Some women will say she has a right to tell her story. The difference is only between a local setting and one that will be plastered on the front pages of the entire world. Life is not fair — we just have to get used to that.

The fallout has been seriously damaging to the point that this will impact people who would normally be willing to take positions in government. There are people I know who would have been interested in being president, but they have no desire to put their family through such an ordeal.

The same is now true about any position from Federal Reserve to Supreme Court. What was done to Kavanaugh was such a violation of personal dignity that NOBODY who is qualified will want to subject their family to such nonsense. And as for Trump, he is probably the PERFECT person for president BECAUSE he has thick skin. It takes a rare person to be able to handle such personal attacks constantly.

This is the destruction of our government. All this hatred and demands to go after anyone you disagreed with defeats the very purpose of civilization. Years ago, if the opposition won you simply moved on. Today, they spill out such hatred there is no longer any point to being one nation under God. Divide the country, build a wall down the center, and FORCE everyone to move to the side where they politically agree or just leave. The day is coming when there will be no returning to normal.

 

Multiple Reports: Trey Gowdy Joins Trump Legal Team – Impeachment Defense…


The initial reports came last night indicating that former South Carolina republican congressman Trey Gowdy has joined President Trump’s legal team. Reporting todayconfirms that Trey Gowdy is no longer a Fox News contributor.

Specifically it appears Mr. Gowdy has joined the team as a proactive measure before a House impeachment vote which then leads to a trial in the Senate.

Given Gowdy’s specific legal skillset, and considering he is well known amid Senate chambers, I would surmise Gowdy would be the primary defense orator during a senate trial.

In that regard this is a good pick.

We do not yet know who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will select to be the House “Impeachment Managers”, for all intents and purposes the House impeachment prosecutors.  However, given recent court positioning it seems possible Lawfare member Douglas Letter -current House counsel- will be one of the two impeachment managers.

Mr. Gowdy has a rather mixed past in the political sphere. Heck, to be direct, his history of purple ties and political fence-positioning has been more than a little annoying. However, the 55-year-old former prosecutor is a strong litigator known for skilled oration and quick thinking in verbal arguments.

A smart chap with a disarming southern drawl is an asset in court. Considering the public spectacle of a Senate trial, this strength outweighs his prior shortcomings.

Additionally, another benefit to Trey Gowdy is there’s no need to bring him up-to-speed on the central issues. Mr. Gowdy was one of two House members who has reviewed every bit of classified documentary evidence gathered during the republican congressional investigations of the DOJ and FBI conduct.

House member John Ratcliffe and former member Trey Gowdy were selected by their colleagues to represent their interests. As a result Gowdy has seen all of the classified intelligence that lay behind all of the known events; and as a consequence all security clearances are pre-established. That could become an important benefit considering where this ridiculous impeachment path is heading.

CTH would not expect to see too much of Mr. Gowdy as the House impeachment battle continues.  In the background Gowdy will likely be absorbing information, reviewing every document, process and witness, along with helping coordinate the aggregate defense strategy.

My hunch is Gowdy’s profile strength will be saved in the event a Senate trial becomes a reality.

.