Tag Archives: Glenn Simpson

Nov 27 2019

HJC Chairman Nadler Attempts to Reframe “Impeachment Inquiry” With “Groundwork Hearing” – Before Receiving Impeachment Inquiry Report – Violating Their Own Resolution Process…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 26, 2019 by 

House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler, together with Lawfare contracted impeachment agents Barry Berke and Norm Eisen (pictured below), are attempting to reframe a collapsing impeachment and pull-in White House participation.

Chairman Nadler has announced a December 4th hearing with a panel of democrat selected constitutional lawyers and legal ‘experts’, to discuss the procedural framework of an impeachment process. As Nadler states: “Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct”. So the HJC initial objective to build their narrative is to explain what the impeachment process is about.

This is transparently an attempt by Nadler/Lawfare to give legitimacy to an illegitimate political exercise. The hearing purpose is framed as a trap to pull the White House in, and thereby create the optics of constitutional legitimacy.  Strong caution is advised and I would not be surprised to see the White House refuse to participate.  Here’s why:

With the House investigative portion of resolution 660 complete, per Adam Schiff and a yet invisible report from the HPSCI committee submitted, either the House Judiciary should follow their own process or not.  The White House and the minority have not even seen the one-sided report mandated by the House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.

My advice to the White House would be to respond to Nadler’s letter by informing him the House “Impeachment Report” authorized by resolution 660 has not yet been delivered; therefore, without a basis for the HJC to consider the validity of the first phase, it would be presumptuous to engage in a second phase framework exercise without the origination material described by the House Democrats’ own procedure.

The HJC is putting the proverbial illegitimate cart before the invisible horse.  Hammer them with this ! How can the HJC construct a hearing on the framework of impeachment without the results from the impeachment inquiry report?

Here’s the Nadler Letter:

(Source – pdf)

Obviously Lawfare is rushing.  They are rushing to push out this hearing on December 4th before the DOJ Inspector General drops a report on December 9th that would weaken their impeachment narrative.

HJC Press Release Link

Here is the originating House Resolution 660:

.

Nov 26 2019

Federal Government Protected Species


SOME SPECIES ARE MORE PROTECTED THAN OTHERS

Some political creatures like the “Stone Frog” (Roger Stone) are mercilessly hunted to the edge of extinction.

While others like the money sniffing Biden hound must be protected at any cost.

The DemocRAT (Political Vulgarus) must be keep away from Congress, the White House and State government.

They are easily caught in traps because of their incredible greed for power and cash!

Tina

 

Nov 26 2019

HJC -vs- White House – Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Predictably Rules White House Counsel Don McGahn Must Testify….


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree house on November 25, 2019 by 

This decision (full pdf below) was easily predicted for the past several weeks.  The HJC -vs- White House case for McGahn testimony will be appealed and join the HJC -vs- White House case surrounding grand jury information in the DC appellate court.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson [pictured right] 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)

Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House impeachment authorization vote to try and overcome the current obstacles they are facing.  The authority for the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the main issue; but there are other structural/legal issues that also exist.

Here’s the McGahn ruling that will most certainly go to the appeals court next:

.

Any loss in three currently pending cases will undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s obviously an issue.   There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦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.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.

[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered.  (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 ruling. Judge 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)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS).  The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

Remember, 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 legal arguments.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

Pelosi and Schiff are racing the SCOTUS for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release which will likely challenge the foundation of their narrative.

 

Nov 26 2019

UPDATED: Disturbing Likelihood – FBI Lawyer Manipulated Carter Page’s Own Communication With FBI to Target Him…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 25, 2019 by 

There is a very strong likelihood the documentary material that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith falsified was actual communication from Carter Page to the FBI where Page was seeking their help in 2017.   This revelation would explain and reconcile two seemingly contrasting points:

  • Point one – The media have asserted, based on leaks from the principal reviews, the woods file manipulation by Clinesmith did not impact the validity of the original FISA application on October 21st, 2017.
  • Point two – The material Kevin Clinesmith did manipulate was so egregious and unethical, it stands as one of the most clear examples of corrupt FBI abuse of power in recent history.

This outline will highlight a VERY disturbing picture:

Start by remembering the timeline of the Carter Page targeting through the use of a FISA application to the FISA Court (FISC).  The original application was submitted on 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).

Avoid the spin, and let’s focus on the facts.  According to all reporting on the falsified evidence created by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, the manipulation of the woods file, happened during one of the renewals.

Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an emailthat officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said. (NYT Link)

The renewals were: Jan 12th, April 7th, June 29th, 2017.  However, we know from the redacted release of the FISA application there was no material added in the first renewal in January 2017.   So that leaves either the April ’17 renewal or the June ’17 renewal.

We know from the Washington Post and the New York Times leaks, again based on principal reviews of the IG report content, that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith modified an email:

…Horowitz found that the employee [Kevin Clinesmith] erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim… (link)

That means Kevin Clinesmith modified an email, which then became part of the woods file evidence (citation by FBI FISA warrant lawyer Sally Moyer) to support either the April renewal or the June, 2017, renewal of the FISA application.

Now we look to Carter Page’s reaction to the reporting on the Clinesmith manipulation:

(Source)

The stunning likelihood here is that the email Kevin Clinesmith edited and falsified as part of his FISA renewal manipulation was email communication from Carter Page himself.

It is also important to note the phrase: “and his colleagues“; and then overlay what Carter Page says there with an earlier leaked explanation: “Mr. Clinesmith took an email from an official at another federal agency that contained several factual assertions, then added material to the bottom that looked like another assertion from the email’s author, when it was instead his own.”

It is jaw-dropping to think about the FBI team manipulating communication from the target of an unlawful investigation to continue targeting that individual.  Yes, this speaks to stunningly criminal intent…. and that criminal exposure would extend to any individual or entity participating in such an egregious, unlawful and unconstitutional violations of Page’s fourth amendment rights with a falsified application to the FISA court.

  UPDATE 5:45pm: Techno is in contact with the background participants; he is able to relay information.  Carter Page is confirming he emailed with the FBI including Kevin Clinesmith at 07:43:51 EDT on April 6th, 2017, the morning of the day before the second FISA renewal:

(source)

This April 6th date confirmation and contact timeline now makes additional sense.

Considering NOTHING was ever changed in the January renewal; and considering the DOJ/FBI legally had to have *something* change in order to get the April renewal; there would have been a great deal of pressure on FBI lawyer Clinesmith to create something if nothing existed.

Important context:  The FISA application (and first renewal documentation) was delivered to the SSCI (via James Wolfe) on March 17th, 2017, as requested by democrat Senator Mark Warner.   We know this from the release last year. This SSCI delivery is three weeks before the second renewal on April 7th.  This SSCI FISA delivery was also leaked by SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed. Keep this in mind.

Carter Page emailing with Kevin Clinesmith on the morning of April 6th prior to Clinesmith manipulating the content of an email to support his falsified documentation for the next renewal, April 7th, highlights the lack of evidence the FBI was able to discover in the seven previous months.  However, the FBI team wasn’t going to be deterred by the lack of evidence; instead they just made it up.

The timeline here is critical.

Clinesmith likely manipulated the FISA renewal in April because by law extending the FISA surveillance must be based on new evidence gathered.  In the following month Clinesmith transfers to the newly created Mueller probe. According to the New York Times and Michael Horowitz: “[Clinesmith] was among the F.B.I. officials removed by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, after Mr. Horowitz found text messages expressing political animus against Mr. Trump.”

The manipulated evidence FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated was then used by the team of Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller and Clinesmith for the objectives of the special counsel.

Again, another overlay, keep in mind that Robert Mueller asked Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to extend the scope of his investigation twice more after the original appointment of the special counsel.

That means Special Counsel Robert Mueller used a falsified FISA warrant as part of his investigation; and that material exploitation continued after team members within the special counsel became aware the FBI members were compromised and likely the FISA warrant application itself was falsified.

Yeah, depending on what people within the Mueller knew and when they knew it, this IG report on FISA abuses could be much more consequential than the media would currently like to admit.

Within the FBI Kevin Clinesmith was responsible for material evidence that underpinned the FISA warrant.  Clinesmith then hands that material to Sally Moyer.  Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications.

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel).  Her assembly of the FBI material is to ensure the citations are in place to support the Woods File requirement.  Then she hands it off to Main Justice, the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).

Receiving the FISA warrant application in the DOJ-NSD is Tashina Guahar, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) with responsibility over the assembly of FISA applications in Main Justice.  In essence, Tashina Guahar is the working Main Justice FISA lawyer.

Shortly after IG Horowitz delivered the draft of his investigative report to AG Bill Barr last September, not only did Kevin Clinesmith leave the FBI but also Tashina Guahar quietly leaves the DOJ-NSD {Go Deep} and is reported to have taken a job with Boeing Corp.

In hindsight the reason for Tashina Guahar’s mysterious exit also makes sense.

Nov 25 2019

Governments Playing with Numbers


Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics

Re-Posted Nov 25, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hi Mr. Armstrong.
I’ve learned more reading your blog last 4 years than working in finance for 20 years. As you say, the average employee in finance hasn’t got a clue about what’s going on.
Question: There’s one thing that has bothered me for a long time; uncertainty about numbers regarding GDP, unemployment and so forthcoming from governments; are they trustworthy?
The reason behind the question is what happened during 2007 to 2009, where banks, rating companies as Fitch, Standard & Poor, Moodys, SEC, and all who are supposed to be reliable were lying about the real situation for several months before the bubble popped. Subprime loans didn’t get downgraded for several months even though there were severe defaults all over.
Are the key numbers revealed trustworthy when we know what the finance sector is capable of regarding lying/hiding, and now there are the government’s own bonds at stake?
Best regards
FF

ANSWER: Thank you. They just do not teach international analysis anywhere. It is the foundation of hedge fund management. It is also why we have the largest international client base anywhere. I have been asked now by three universities to teach. I just do not have the time. I keep telling myself I should do a textbook. I think I will get to do it in my next life perhaps. There never seems to be enough time.

Regarding the numbers, I have two factual encounters that have formed my conclusion. Because I have been an international adviser, I had to look at the numbers globally. What I discovered back in the 1980s was that every country had its own formulas. Comparisons were not realistic. I was asked if I would debate the top economist in Canada because my comments on economics were different from everyone else’s. I said sure. I debated him in Vancouver and it was hosted by Michael Campbell. The economist kept trying to compare GDP and inflation for Canada and the USA, and I would just respond that the formulas were completely different. He knew that, but economists only have the government numbers to play with. After I corrected him several times, he lost his cool on stage and said, “I am sick and tired of you Americans coming to Canada and telling us what to do!” At that moment, Mike Campbell stood up and ended the debate. After that, the AAP in Australia asked me if I would debate the top three economists in Australia on national TV. I said sure, why not. They all declined.

I hired a staff member, Lynn, who worked for me before she got married back in the 1980s. She was fantastic. Her job was to analyze the numbers of every country (below is one of her notes on inflation). We tore apart every country and created our own set of numbers that allowed us to actually do real-world comparisons to identify global trends. By the end of the 1980s, I was named the Top Economist in America all because we had the real numbers and not the government’s fake numbers they like to play with.

Going into 1980, just about everything was indexed to inflation basis the CPI. Even private contracts for rents were typically indexed to the CPI. The government discovered that if they could change the formula to reduce inflation, they could reduce expenditures. The CPI revisions began removing real estate and replacing it with rents on the theory that real estate was an investment — not your cost of living. They then reduced the sample to rents where they were controlled, which further reduced inflation. They have altered the number so many times that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever get inflation based on the CPI back to the 20% level of the late 1970s.

One day Lynn came to me and asked me to review her work for she could not find a mistake that was so obvious. In GDP, the government calculates total government spending as a component. They also add total personal income. The mistake stared us in the face. It appeared that GDP was counting workers for the government TWICE: (1) total spending, and (2) total personal income. We searched every calculation to try to find where they were accounting for this blatant era. I knew the top people at the BEA (Bureau Economic Analysis) so I called, explaining the error, and asked for assistance in showing me where it was backed out. They said they would check and get back to me. Several weeks passed and no return phone call. I called my friend again. His response: “No comment.”

Using government numbers is Pandora’s Box we dare not rely on. Zeus presented Pandora a box/jar as a gift and when she opened it, sickness, death and many other unspecified evils and plagues were then released into the world. The only thing which did not escape before she tried to close it was hope.

Notes for our 1986 research project: (N.S.A = not seasonally adjusted: S.A = Seasonally adjusted)

Inflation  11/21/86

 

What to say?  US has many measures.  WSJ more or less picks up most of them but seems to emphasize s.a. change in a month.

Best to use year over year for int’l comparisons, probably.  Do we or don’t we have seasonal adjustment problems then?  IN U.S. we get month over year ago n.s.a.

What about the compound annualized rate for calculation of real interest rates? This way we’d have two forward-looking rates.  It’s probably a good idea to work with an average for three months

If we want to talk about GNP growth and consumer price inflation in the same breath, be sure the percentage changes are figured in the same direction: annualized forward, or compared with the same period in the prior year.

BLS says that to look at the trend, it’s best to look at s.a. numbers.  If we want to know about actual prices we’re paying, unadjusted numbers are best

Japan’s CPIs seems to be n.s.a.  UK RPI is n.s.a.  German cost-of-living indexes are n.s.a., but we have s.a. in Supplement on S.A. Economic Data.

Remember that consumer price inflation in Latin American countries is typically reported as changes between the current period and previous period seasonally adjusted at compound annual, rates… i.e. as forward-looking rates.  But there’s another twist. They usually say something like “bringing cumulative inflation to 67% so far in 1986.”

 

Nov 25 2019

Political Corruption & Trump Impeachment


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Nov 25, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
Error
This video doesn’t exist

QUESTION: You have been silent on the Trump impeachment proceedings. What is your opinion?

HT

ANSWER: It is just a dog and pony show all intent upon trashing Trump for political reasons. In doing so, they are trying to indirectly to pretend what Joe Biden did was ethical,  which it was not. Biden admitted he personally withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees unless they fired the prosecutor investigating the company that hired his son. To say Trump should be impeached because he withheld aid unless Ukraine investigated Biden is really amazing. Clearly, Biden personally said he would not provide aid unless they fired the prosecutor investigating the company that hired his son to gain influence with the Obama Administration shows this is all about politics. This was not a decision Obama made, but Biden personally when his family was involved. If Trump should be impeached for asking Ukraine to “investigate” when Biden demanded to end an investigation, then shouldn’t Biden have been impeached as well?

Welcome to the political corruption which has engulfed the world.

Nov 25 2019

Sunday Talks: Congressman Lee Zeldin Discusses “Where we go from here”….


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree house on November 24, 2019 by 

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) discusses the upcoming drafting of a partisan report derived from witness testimony and the likelihood of an independent minority report.   Unfortunately Rep. Zeldin, just like Adam Schiff and House leadership, is not sure what comes next (other than Thanksgiving).

Nov 25 2019

Sunday Talks: Representative Elise Stefanik -vs- Maria Bartiromo…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree house on November 24, 2019 by 

Representative Elise Stefanik appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss her perspective on the impeachment inquiry.  As with all other republican members, including ranking member Devin Nunes and interim member Jim Jordan, Mrs. Stefanik has no idea where the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare goes from here.   Everything seems up-in-the-air.

.

Having listened to three interviews with Adam Schiff today as well as Shiff’s little toady, Eric Swalwell; and watching them also say they don’t actually have an outlined plan of what will come next from their “impeachment inquiry”, it all seems rather odd.

It appears Democrat leadership are taking a climate assessment of the electorate before returning to the next, and final, House session on December 2nd.  Pelosi, Schiff et al  previously committed themselves to a semi-formal process in the House resolution that began the impeachment inquiry.  However, they no longer discuss that process.

Nov 25 2019

Blackmail Confirmed, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer Removed by Defense Secretary Mark T Esper…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree house on November 24, 2019 by 

If you’ve followed our CTH review, research and analysis of the issues at hand, you will understand our position was that this situation, if true, had a very clear command expectation from U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

It has just been announced that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has requested the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer (pictured below) for violating the unified chain of command, blackmailing the President of the United States with an ultimatum, and hiding the threat from the Secretary of Defense.

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper asked for the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer on Sunday after losing confidence in him over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq, the Pentagon said.

Spencer’s resignation came in the wake of the controversial case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was accused of war crimes on a 2017 deployment. He was acquitted of murder but convicted in July of posing with the corpse of a captive.

Esper asked for Spencer’s resignation after learning that he had privatelyproposed to White House officials that if they did not interfere with proceedings against Gallagher, then Spencer would ensure that Gallagher was able to retire as a Navy SEAL, with his Trident insignia.

Spencer’s private proposal to the White House — which he did not share with Esper over the course of several conversations about the matter — contradicted his public position on the Gallagher case, chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.

Esper said in the statement that he was “deeply troubled by this conduct.”

“Unfortunately, as a result I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position,” Esper said. “I wish Richard well.”

Spencer’s spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Esper and Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of Spencer’s private offer to the White House when they spoke with President Trump on Friday, Hoffman said. (read more)

Allow me to reassert, this is exactly the required outcome.

The military, nor any person therein, does not get to “threaten” the President of The United States. The President is the Commander in Chief of all armed forces. It is not President Trump who would be doing “untold damage to decades of military justice doctrine“, but rather the insubordination of flag officers who are duty bound to carry out legal and constitutional instructions from the President.

The DoD inaction surrounding Lt. Col Vindman was a precursor, a visible symptom few were paying attention to; indicating a political cancer within the unified chain of command. The U.S. Secretary of the Navy threatening the U.S. President is an even more alarming symptom.

A military officer does not get to threaten his leadership with a ‘do what I demand or I will quit’ approach.  Any senior level military officer who would express such a sentiment would be regarded as unstable, compromised and unfit to hold a leadership rank.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Jennifer Griffin

✔@JenGriffinFNC

 · 

US official tells me when Sec Navy went to WH to ask POTUS to let Navy review board go forward he promised the board would in the end allow Gallagher to keep his Trident and rank. In other words he promised to fix the results of the board which is usually a board of peers.

Jennifer Griffin

✔@JenGriffinFNC

I am told Navy Secretary Spencer blindsided Defense Secretary Esper and Gen Mark Milley who had gone to the WH to defend Navy decision and ask that Trident review board be allowed to proceed. WH then told them about back deal Spencer tried to cut…

999

Twitter Ads info and privacy
440 people are talking about this

Jennifer Griffin

✔@JenGriffinFNC

 · 
Replying to @JenGriffinFNC

which did not gibe with what Spencer had told the Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It also was counter to Spencer’s public statements. In other words Spencer was not honest with them or the public so Esper asked for his resignation.

Jennifer Griffin

✔@JenGriffinFNC

In the end Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was not fired for standing up for military justice but for dishonesty and undermining the military justice system, according to a senior US official. He was fired for “lack of candor.”

3,541

Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,652 people are talking about this

Jennifer Griffin

✔@JenGriffinFNC

 · 
Replying to @JenGriffinFNC

Official: Esper then decided that given all of the messy issues surrounding Chief Eddie Gallagher’s case that it would be impossible for him to get a fair hearing from military so he has decided to allow him to keep his Trident and retire at current rank from Navy.

Jennifer Griffin

✔@JenGriffinFNC

I am told by Navy source that they “can’t see a world where they go forward” with the other 3 SEALs peer review board hearing. “We need to move on.”

Twitter Ads info and privacy
497 people are talking about this

Navy Secretary Richard V Spencer compromised his position within the unified command structure.  There is no room for insubordination at this level, and gross manipulation of command authority for an independent agenda that is against the expressed will of the President of the United States; the Commander in Chief of all Armed Services.

The worst, absolute worst thing, a military officer can do is to compromise the position of his leadership.   Once that compromise is identified it must be removed, with extreme prejudice.

In this type of leadership compromise the chain-of-command does not request permission from the President who -in this example- is the Commander targeted by the compromise.  The immediate commanding officer (Def Sec Esper) has a duty to remove the compromise without conversation (regarding corrective action) with his superior officer, in this case President Trump, until such time as the compromise has been relieved, and subordination issue corrected.  Then the corrective action is discussed with the President.

Defense Secretary Esper made exactly the right decision.

Esper has suggested to Trump that Kenneth Braithwaite, a retired Navy rear admiral who is currently the U.S. ambassador to Norway, be considered as the next Navy secretary.

One issue still remains, what about the compromise remaining from the conduct of Lt. Col Alexander Vindman?

Defense Secretary Mark Esper (right), with President Donald Trump.

Nov 25 2019

Sunday Talks: Steve Bannon -vs- Maria Bartiromo on Political Pros/Cons of Impeachment…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 24, 2019 by 

Steve Bannon appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the pros and cons of a partisan impeachment.  Bannon was one of the early political observers who identified the likely entry of Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the 2020 race.

Bannon notes that Bloomberg has enough money to outlast the field; however, I doubt Bloomberg can fill a venue. If there’s no connection to the base party voter, candidate Bloomberg just can’t win the primary.