Mark Meadows and Trey Gowdy appear on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss their perspectives on the ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump. Both Meadows and Gowdy point out the important aspect in HPSCI Chairman and Lead House Manager Adam Schiff constructing false information to continue an ongoing effort; that has never ceased since the original fraudulent claims around the Russia collusion conspiracy.
Mr. Gowdy notes the unusual 2020 narrative that running for office makes you immune from any federal investigative inquiry; and contrasts that position against 2016 where candidate Donald Trump was considered a viable target by the Obama administration.
Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the fraudulent construct of the House impeachment articles. Ratcliffe highlights how the ‘whistle-blower’ (CIA Eric Ciaramella) and the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, have conflicting testimony in the House and that’s why Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff will not release those transcripts. WATCH:
Senator James Lankford appears on ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss his perspective around the ongoing senate trial of President Trump.
During the interview DNC operative Stephanopoulos attempts to retain an opposition false narrative and Senator Lankford just fillets the arguments with facts. Stephanopoulos is visibly upset with his inability to upend Lankford.
.
*Posting late today because I’ve been deep in the weeds, assembling years of data, and solving a nagging question about Chris Steele’s primary sub-source [SEE HERE]. I’m now comfortable in predicting who that PSS is. I will outline more on that soon.
Alan Dershowitz will present a constitutional argument against senate impeachment during arguments next week. This weekend he appears on Fox News with Chris Wallace to discuss the impeachment trial so far.
Republican Senators James Lankford and Mike Braun appeared on Fox News with Judge Jeanine Pirro to discuss their impressions of the Senate impeachment trial, and the opening day of President Trump’s defense.
Senator Braun (Indiana) noted he previously kept close tabs on the details in the House and felt the impeachment managers offered nothing new. Both Lankford and Braun felt the two-hour defense opening session was strong enough to deconstruct three days of fabricated and manipulated evidence from the House.
.
After three solid years of ridiculous accusations, false claims and lies about President Trump… yeah, it’s good to see the White House fight back.
Within the House impeachment construction, one of the most egregious examples of fabricating evidence was when the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, completely made-up a version of the Trump-Zelensky phone call and read it into the congressional record as if it were factually true.
During opening statements today by the Trump defense team, attorney Mike Purpura highlighted that ridiculous moment for the Senate to review. WATCH:
Several days ago we anticipated a potentially important point we hoped would start the impeachment defense for President Donald Trump. Today, attorney Patrick Philbin delivered. The issue is a critical constitutional component that needed emphasis, and it is good to see pundits finally starting to realize the significance.
White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explains why House subpoenas were illegitimate: the subpoena power was never authorized; the initiating subpoena power was never voted on.
.
Additionally, and specifically by design, absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no constitutional pathway or process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. Make no mistake, this was a pre-planned purposeful trick within the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare road-map.
The House motive here, the forethought within their design, is very important now because it explains why they are vociferously demanding witnesses in the Senate. The House plan was to work around the ability of the executive branch to go to court. The managers are now attempting to execute that plan, along with a manufactured political talking point, in the Senate trial.
The House intended for this to unfold exactly as it is happening.
Chad Pergram
✔@ChadPergram
Schumer: If you’re a Republican, and you think that the case was that was made today was strong, then why not have witnesses and documents?
CTH noted the 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.
“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.
Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and their Lawfare staff’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.
Mary McCord joined the House effort to impeach President Trump; as noted in this article from Politico:
“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.”
“That’s why you’re seeing lawyers come out and being very willing to put in extraordinary amounts of time and effort to litigate these cases,” she added. (link)
Former DOJ-NSD Head Mary McCord is currently working for the House Committee (Adam Schiff) who created the impeachment scheme.
National Security Council resistance member Alexander Vindman starts a rumor about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, which he shares with CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (a John Brennan resistance associate). Ciaramella then makes contact with resistance ally Mary McCord in her role within the House. McCord then helps Ciaramella create a fraudulent whistle-blower complaint via her former colleague, now ICIG, Michael Atkinson….
…And that’s how this entire Impeachment operation gets started.
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 on day five at 10:00am ET. Today is the first day of the Trump defense and will only be three hours long by request/agreement with the Senate.
This is a hot mess. Remember, IG Horowitz said he only found evidence of a FISA warrant against Carter Page, no other Trump campaign or Trump administration official was investigated using a FISA application. That statement is a little more important now.
As I go back through my notes seeing if I can identify the downstream consequences impacted by a rather stunning sequestration effort, I find myself wondering if the HJC case(s) for 6(e) material and Don McGahn testimony might even be part of the pull-back material as a derivative of the special counsel probe’ use of the Carter Page Title-1 surveillance warrant. After all, there had to be an investigative reason for Mueller to want the renewal on June 29, 2017, long after Carter Page was gone from the Trump orbit.
Remember, the special counsel team used some form of pre-existing warrant authority to capture all of the Trump transition team emails and communication from the GSA, and then lied about it to the Trump White House. Perhaps National Security Letters (NSL’s).
The DOJ/FBI previously agreed to “sequester” all information and evidence received as an outcome of all four 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 DOJ and FBI stated they 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.
Worth noting in the second paragraph of the original order: “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. The DOJ/FBI now have until February 5th to respond:
Schiff spent endless hours before the Senate repeating his lies, and many Americans tuned him out. He once again brought up Russia! Russia! Russia! Even though the Mueller Report was an utter flop that proved Trump’s innocence.
Schiff also ignored the fact that Joe Biden is guilty of gross corruption and quid pro quo when it came to the graft received by his son, Hunter Biden. If it was mentioned, it was labeled a Republican ‘conspiracy theory.’
Schiff often wrapped himself up in the Constitution. He cited the Founding Fathers and quoted Alexander Hamilton, who warned George Washington about the possibility of an unprincipled, despotic president, but what Schiff left off was another warning from Hamilton when he said impeachment could be abused by party partisanship, which would override real demonstrations of guilt or innocence. Schiff is a party hack with Trump Derangement Syndrome. He called Trump a ‘rogue’ president, even though he was lawfully elected. Trump is only rogue because unlike Schiff, he’s not part of the Deep State Swamp.
When Schiff lies, his eyes bulge. His eyes are always bulging. His impeachment presentation was called ‘powerful’ by CNN and the fake news media, but in actuality it was a howler.
The joke is on the Democrats. They’ve all but guaranteed the reelection of president Trump.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 