Oral arguments in the DC Court of Appeals for the House Judiciary Committee to obtain Mueller’s grand jury information, are scheduled for January 3rd, 2020.  The HJC is leveraging the Senate impeachment trial in their arguments to gain access to the Mueller material. This approach is by design.

With that in mind it seems likely any House impeachment articles will not be delivered to the Senate until after the DC court arguments, and likely not before the ruling:

[HJC -vs- DOJ full brief link here]

In addition to the Mueller evidence, the HJC is seeking judicial enforcement authority to force the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn.  Both HJC appeals court arguments are using the Senate trial to bolster their case.

The rushed House articles were/are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.

This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped. Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that could facilitate two pending court cases.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place.  By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.

What the house crew have assembled is an interesting back-door attempt to position a valid claim for evidence against the accused without having first gained judicial authority for it. The HJC is now arguing to appeals courts, and likely to SCOTUS, the blocked evidentiary material is critical evidence in a soon-to-be-held Senate trial.

The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records.  Each of these issues is currently being argued. [The supreme court will hear financials/taxes in April].

House counsel Doug Letter responded to the DC Appeals Court arguing the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn is needed for evidence in the impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here] And the grand jury material is needed to highlight the second article, Obstruction of Congress [Court pdf Avail Here]

Looking at the legal maneuvers from that perspective means the grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.

The 6(e) material relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.

Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely. A goldmine of political opposition research.

Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.

The oral arguments are next Friday, January 3rd, 2020.

Full HJC Brief Here

Full DOJ Response Brief Here

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) holds confirmation authority over leaders appointed to the intelligence community.  Chairman Burr and Vice-Chairman Warner participated in the IC effort to target and remove President Trump from office.

You might remember recently how Burr and Warner would not support Rep. John Ratcliffe for Director of National intelligence under the auspices of Ratcliffe not having enough “experience” within intelligence operations.  However, those same “experience” concerns were absent when they approved dirty ICIG nominee Michael Atkinson.

Reminding ourselves how ICIG Atkinson manipulated the ‘whistle-blower’ regulations to permit hearsay from CIA operative Eric Ciaramella; and knowing the primary concern of Senator Warner was to cover his own involvement in the soft coup effort in 2017; it is interesting to go back to the 2018 confirmation hearing of Atkinson and review the focus:

Senator Mark Warner […] You’re also aware that this Committee is leading the review into the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During this hearing I want to hear assurances from both of you that you will fully cooperate with this review and provide this Committee with all the information requested in a timely fashion.

Mr. Atkinson, as the Inspector General of the Intel Community your job is especially critical because of the nature of the material that they handle every day, whistleblowers within the IC generally can’t go public to expose misbehavior and misuse of official resources. We the Congress and the American people will depend upon you as an independent agent of accountability for the Office of the DNI and, for that matter, for the whole intel community.

While you don’t have previous experience as an inspector general, I look forward to hearing your plans for the righting
of the ship at the IC’s IG when it comes to both whistleblower protections and investigations.

I’m very concerned by the significant number of open cases that I believe have lingered too long. If confirmed, I will ask you to make the whistleblower program a priority. This is an area that cuts across party lines and committee jurisdictions. (continue transcript)

The SSCI is compromised.  One example of their compromise was how they worked with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the Carter Page FISA application to the media.  Other examples include how Vice-Chairman Warner was communicating covertly with Christopher Steele and back-channeling information to Robert Mueller. There are dozens more specific examples if you use the “search function” on this website.

Keywords: “SSCI” and “Warner” and “Burr“

Because of their direct role in confirming the officials who would have access to the evidence of their compromise, the SSCI can block anyone who would be a risk to them.

President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe for the position of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).  Senator Burr informed the White House that nominee does not align with their interests.  President Trump withdrew the nomination.

.

The intelligence apparatus is a key part of the rogue administrative state that operates in direct alignment with a rogue state department and politicians who use their influence to gain material wealth from sales of policy.  It is a synergy of DC interests.

In the larger context this reality also explains why Lt. General Michael Flynn had to be eliminated with extreme prejudice from National Security Advisor to President Trump.  In 2017 Michael Flynn represented the same type of threat to the SSCI that John Ratcliffe represents in 2019….

The office of the presidency cannot overcome that institutional power dynamic; the only thing President Trump can do it attempt to work around them.

♦ Ipso Facto:  If you accept the intellectual honesty behind the process issues above; and if you accept how the SSCI will only permit nominees that are not a risk to their interests; then it becomes of greater importance to consider who they *did* permit:

√ CIA Director Gina Haspel was not a threat to the corrupt state.

√ CIA Director Mike Pompeo was not a threat to the corrupt state.

√ICIG Michael Atkinson was not a threat to the corrupt state.

√ ODNI Dan Coats was not a threat to the corrupt state.

√ NSA Director Paul M Nakasone is not a threat to the corrupt state.

Following the use of the CIA (Ciaramella), DoD (Vindman) and Dept. of State to run the impeachment scam, my evolving contention is now that State Dept. Secretary Mike Pompeo was increasingly handling President Trump.

There is also a massive overlay of corrupt political enterprise, that’s where SSCI comes into play controlling the appointees who would be adverse to their interests.

REMINDER:

.

Logical thought is antithetical to the interests of the coup-plotters.  Nuance and obfuscation are their shields; that’s why they, writ large, will not release the classified documents. A common sense American Thinker article cuts through the chaff and countermeasures for many interests:

[…] The implications of intercepting the communications of a U.S. citizen who is associated with the political campaign of a candidate seeking the presidency rings nearly every “bell” in the FBIs and Attorney General’s Guidelines for sensitive investigations. As discussed in the IG report, by regulation, these cases cannot be initiated without the written approval of the Director and the Attorney General. 

In addition to the approval obviously granted by the Director and AG, the IGs report identified the following additional high level officials who reviewed and approved the Page FISA affidavit:  “NSD’s Acting Assistant Attorney General, NSD’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight over 01, 01’s Operations Section Chief and Deputy Section Chief, the DAG, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Deputy Attorney General responsible for ODAG’s national security portfolio.”

The suggestion that somehow, seventeen significant errors, omissions of fact, falsehoods, or deliberate misrepresentations made their way into a FISA affidavit/s (accidentally, at the hand of an anonymous case agent) and then were not immediately noted and corrected throughout the course of this exceptional review process is simply not believable. ~ Continue Reading

Natasha Bertrand is the stenographer for Fusion-GPS smear activities with a reputation for egregious lying and narrative engineering.  As a result it doesn’t come as a surprise to see Bertrand writing a collaborative article in Politico taking swipes on behalf of a thoroughly corrupted intelligence community.

Consider this paragraph using another vile creature from the political swamp:

[…]  When it comes to Durham, Haspel is likely “confident there has been no serious wrongdoing, and will therefore find a means to cooperate” with the investigation, said John Sipher, a 28-year CIA veteran.

Too funny.  The spooks and scribes live a life so deeply enmeshed in the world of fraud and lying they cannot even see themselves exposing their own character.  Put another way: ‘if Haspel was confident of serious wrongdoing, she wouldn’t cooperate with the investigation’. 

See, they just can’t help exposing themselves. If it wasn’t serious, it would be funny.  These inherently vile liars cannot stop themselves from exposing their nature…. it just flows out.

The good news in the article; and there is a lot of accidentally placed good news within it for those who follow closely; comes from these paragraphs:

[…] Haspel’s plight, though, may depend on how deeply Durham investigates an uncorroborated theory pushed by Trump allies that a key player in the Russia probe, a Russia-linked professor named Joseph Mifsud, was actually a Western intelligence asset sent to discredit the Trump campaign — and that the CIA, under Brennan, was somehow involved.

Haspel was the CIA’s station chief in London in 2016 when the U.S. Embassy there was made aware of Mifsud’s contact with a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, by Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. Haspel was briefed on Downer’s outreach to the embassy, according to a person familiar with the matter, but it’s unclear whether she was then made aware of the FBI’s plans to interview him or knew about the bureau’s use of an informant in London.

[…] “It is unprecedented and inappropriate to do this via Justice Department prosecutors, who will tend to apply the standards of a courtroom to the more nuanced, and often more challenging world of intelligence analysis,” said John McLaughlin, who served as both deputy director and acting director of the CIA from 2000 to 2004.

Sipher asked why such a review would be “done over the head of” the intelligence community’s inspector general.

[…]  Another issue former officials have flagged: It isn’t clear whether Durham has consulted with the intelligence community inspector general, Michael Atkinson, as part of his review, which reportedly evolved into a criminal probe in October.

Normally, potential intelligence community misconduct is reviewed by an agency’s internal watchdog, who would then recommend criminal charges if warranted to a U.S. attorney with jurisdiction, noted Greg Brower, a former FBI assistant director. (read more)

Tammy Bruce is filling in for Sean Hannity. Refreshing. Congressman Louie Gohmert discusses the status of the political impeachment effort and Speaker Pelosi’s refusal to send the articles to the Senate.   Ms. Bruce notes the DC reaction to an outsider administration was predictable; President Trump is adverse to their self-interests.

Today the DC U.S. Attorney requested a one week delay prior to submitting a second briefing for the sentencing of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

According to the filing, the DOJ is seeking a one week delay, from Dec 30th to January 6th, in order to gather more material for a new sentencing memorandum.  Due to Flynn’s non-cooperation, it is anticipated the DOJ will enhance the prior memo from December 2018 and ask for a more severe sentence.

In their sentencing memo of December 2018 the DOJ (Mueller ongoing) did not request prison time, arguing for a sentence “at the low end of the guidance range.”

However, with AG Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu; and given the events over the past year, including 6(e) grand jury information; there is a possibility the DOJ will now request a much more harsh sentence to include time in prison