Last week we outlined the likely schedule for all of the rapidly surfacing DC issues to include: (A) Pelosi and Schiff’s impeachment effort; (B) the IG FISA abuse report being released; and (C) the narrowing timeline of court decisions for all three of Pelosi’s impeachment committees.

Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race.  Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.

Effective at the end of business today the House is now in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday.  CNN is reporting:

The House returns on December 3rd and recesses again for Christmas break on December 12th.  That is the window for Pelosi to cram in all of the House needs; eight days.

Remember, the House Democrats punted the budget with a short term CR so that has to get done.  We were hopeful Pelosi would put the USMCA ratification up for a vote; however, that now appears to be off the table until 2020.  So the budget and impeachment vote are inside this eight day window.

But that is not all that is inside this window.

Eight Legislative Days in December

On December 9th the IG report on FISA abuse and DOJ/FBI corruption will be released.  On December 11th Michael Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So there are two races.

♦ One race within the Trump impeachment is for the narrative:  Trump Impeachment -vs- DOJ/FISA corruption against Trump.  This is the race everyone is discussing.

♦ The second race within the Trump impeachment is legal: Pelosi, Schiff and ultimately Nadler -vs- the Judicial branch.   This is the race few are watching, but actually could be far more consequential because it could invalidate the entire HPSCI process.

The aforementioned mid-December House Impeachment Vote is not a vote to impeach President Trump.  It is a vote at the end of their “inquiry”; and a vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin their “official” impeachment hearings.

The mid-December vote will be to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin the “official” impeachment hearings.  Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff need this vote fast; they need this vote before they lose any court case that could make the “impeachment inquiry” invalid.

Additionally, Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need this full House authorization vote to gain the authority to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the “official” impeachment investigation. And they are hoping that any loss in the three pending cases will not undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s an issue.

That’s why Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler need to get that mid-December House vote before they lose any SCOTUS ruling.  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; 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% – Probability of loss to Pelosi 80%

♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC has asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has announced she will deliver her ruling on Monday November 25th.

The House’s letter to federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in Washington points out that it is considering impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice, for which McGahn would be a key witness since he spoke to special counsel Robert Mueller for the obstruction investigation, and for lying to Mueller, after testimony at Roger Stone’s criminal trial raised questions about Trump’s written answers to investigators about Russian interference in the 2016 election. (link)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90% – Probability of loss 50%

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”, and the committee approach therein.

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.

This is why Pelosi and Schiff are racing the court for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release for their narrative foundation.

Today begins day five of the House impeachment hearings.  Testimony today will include Fiona Hill, President Trump’s top adviser on Russia; and David Holmes, a very sketchy State Department fellow whose wife, Stephanie Holmes, also works at the State Dept; holding a previous assignment with former Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovitch.

The foreign service office is one big internecine anti-MAGA network of mutually aligned career interests, and hard-core political operatives.  The fiasco starts at 9:00am EDT

Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – PBS News Livestream

.

.

Earlier today President Trump presented a challenge.  “Try it live“:

CNN’s Fredo decided to take the challenge.   After failing miserably, the panel of pundits needs to start a round of conspiracy theory to cover the epic fail. WATCH:

Attorney General Bill Barr has vociferous praise for FBI Director Christopher Wray and his team at the premier investigative agency in the world.  The FBI previously dispatched seven agents, three snipers, a full SWAT unit, two MRAP armored vehicles and an amphibious assault unit for a 5:00am raid on the home of Roger Stone.

Meanwhile the AP is reporting today how the FBI politely requested an interview through CIA agent/whistle-blower Eric Ciaramella’s lawyers last month, and the interview never happened:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI last month requested an interview with the whistleblower whose complaint fueled the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and Ukraine, a person familiar with the situation said Wednesday.

An agent from the FBI’s Washington field office reached out to the whistleblower’s lawyers last month to seek an interview about the substance of the complaint, according to this person, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the request with The Associated Press.

The person said it was clear from the FBI that the whistleblower was not regarded as the target of any investigation but rather a potential witness. It was not immediately clear what specifically the FBI might be looking into. The requested interview has not taken place.  (read more)

Paul Manafort received a no-knock FBI raid at 2:00am for unregistered lobbying.  The law offices of Michael Cohen were raided for Taxi medallion abuse.  Roger Stone got the SWAT treatment for bragging to congress…. and the Deep State CIA “whistleblower” gets a politely worded letter that can be ignored.

Imagine that?

They’re laughing at us now…

After careful use of breaks to extend testimony; provide mid-morning and mid-day press statements by impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff; and maximize the manipulation of Ambassador Sondland’s testimony, the impeachment committee gavels back into session late in the day to continue their construct.

For this late evening session two deep state operatives, Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs and David Hale, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, continue the impeachment effort:

Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – PBS Livestream Link

.

.

Representatives Michael Turner, Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe and Elise Stefanik question the multitude of contradictions present in the testimony of Ambassador Gordon Sondland.

Michael Turner called Sondland’s testimony “somewhat circular,” and questioned the ambassador’s assertion that “everyone was in the loop.”

.

Additionally, Rep. Jim Jordan questioned Gordon Sondland about his testimony there was a “quid pro quo” in which U.S. aid and a White House meeting were contingent on Ukraine agreeing to investigate the 2016 elections and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, questioned Gordon Sondland.

.

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., questioned Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, on Nov. 20, in a public hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

.

Last month Nikki Haley purchased a $2.4 million home in Kiawah Island, Charleston county, South Carolina (link).   Nikki Haley released her book “With All Due Respect” on November 12th (link).  Mrs. Haley also took a position on the board of directors for Boeing Co, likely an extension of success for her prior efforts recruiting Boeing to the state. (link)

The board position, home purchase and book tour follows a very predictable pattern for those who follow GOPe politics closely.  Indeed, there is speculation Nikki Haley was/is positioning for a 2024 presidential bid; speculation that generally aligns with the pattern.

However, there are some recent Big Club moves that indicate a slightly different timeline; perhaps a dual-purposed timeline.  [All citations embedded] Ambassador Haley has launched a Super-PAC [FEC Registration ID C00679472]  called “Stand For America“.  SuperPAC’s are not required to file extensive information.

In addition Haley has launched a similarly named Stand For America website (LINK) with the accompanying 501-c(4) non-profit status; and launched the accompanying traditional source & social media affiliates [ YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram ] you would expect to see with an advanced political campaign.

It appears the registration for most of the activity is currently in New York, NY.   In combination with the board and book it takes a team to manage the totality of the political network as constructed.  That team means financing. The network has to get paid.

Now, at first blush – to the casual observer, this level of political apparatus would generally indicate an aspiring campaign infrastructure.  However, two parts of the assembly are too advanced to be projecting a position five-years into the future.

(1) Putting a SuperPAC together, “Stand For America”, immediately requires a legal assembly while affording the benefit of unlimited donor contributions.  Only at the point where the candidate declares an intent to run for office does a leadership PAC (more traditional) become the vehicle for limited campaign contributions; and a disconnect between the candidate and the SuperPAC becomes legally required.

(2) The more interesting aspect, that indicates a more earlier timed entry into elections, is the visibility of the RNC sharing the Trump donor base with Nikki Haley allowing Stand For America to start contacting Trump donors and requesting preliminary “registration” for support.  If you have contributed directly to Donald Trump you are likely receiving email contacts from Nikki Haley via Stand For America right now.

Nikki Haley, via Stand For America’s initial use of the RNC provided database, appears to be requesting recipients to sign up or “register their support”; they are also providing the opportunity to donate directly to the SuperPAC.  The infrastructure for donations is fully assembled.  [Donations to qualified SuperPAC’s do not need to be reported to FEC]

It would be almost too proactive to have this advanced infrastructure for a 2024 race.  The RNC data-sharing of the MAGA voter/donor files is also curiously early for a 2024 race.

Considering the abject lack of activity from RNC President Ronna McDaniel in actual electioneering work; and considering the failures (inactivity) of the RNC in the 2018 mid-terms and the 2019 elections; Ms. McDaniel’s only significant accomplishment has been the fundraising….

…And that fundraising is entirely because of people donating to President Trump.

The RNC is riding the coattails of President Trump’s ability to generate small donor support.  The RNC database has grown ONLY because of the historic scale of small grass-roots donors to President Trump.  Nothing RNC President Ronna McDaniel has done independently has contributed to the success of RNC fundraising.  The RNC is notably absent in the actual ground-level work for local candidates; heck, many local races don’t even have a republican candidate (see Virginia).

So the questions are: Why is the RNC sharing the data-file of President Trump’s donors right now?  Why is Ronna McDaniel giving future candidate Nikki Haley access to those valuable donor lists four years ahead of a Nikki Haley campaign?

One concerning answer to that question might be the current status of the impeachment effort.   The email from Nikki Haley’s PAC actually seems to lean in that direction.  They don’t mean to expose themselves, but they do.

Notice the contact subject line: “I will always stand with our president”…  Then notice how the body of the contact has nothing to do with Nikki Haley supporting President Trump:

…Instead the body of the information is entirely about promoting Nikki Haley, it doesn’t mention President Trump even once.

If you decide to click on the link to “become a founding member”, again it takes you to the registration for Nikki Haley’s SuperPAC. Screengrab below:

Put it all together and there is a very nefarious picture from the Club.

As we said earlier; Haley would be crushed if she came out to challenge President Trump or was seen to be positioned against the MAGA voters.  So Haley is doing what Haley does best, she is positioning her most immediate political self-interest to receive maximum benefit by riding in the Trump passenger seat.

If the DC UniParty is successful in eliminating, or fatally wounding President Trump, Haley will proclaim her support in an effort to replace him.

That’s how Haley works.

Haley is the female version of Mitt Romney.

Haley has a plan.

2024 if necessary, but 2020 if possible.

The RNC Club supports the plan.

Chopper pressers are the best pressers. Earlier today President Trump delivered impromptu remarks to the media as he departed the White House traveling to Austin, Texas.

The President Trump is traveling to Austin, Texas to tour the Apple Manufacturing Plant. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Ambassador Gordon Sondland testifies before the House Intel Committee. [Video below, Transcript Added]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: So, thank you very much. We’re going to Austin, Texas. Apple is opening up a fantastic facility. They’re spending a tremendous amount of money. And I’ve been asking Tim Cook from the day I got elected — from the campaign, I’ve been asking Tim Cook to, if they would, we want to see Apple build here; that way, you have no tariffs. There’s no tariffs. When companies come to our country and they build, there’s no tariffs.

The economy is doing unbelievably well. We continue to talk to China. China wants to make a deal. The question is: Do I want to make a deal? Because I like what’s happening right now. We’re taking in billions and billions of dollars.

I’m going to go very quickly — just a quick comment on what’s going on in terms of testimony with Ambassador Sondland. And I just noticed one thing, and I would say that means it’s all over. “What do want from Ukraine?” he asks me, screaming. “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories.” This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me. Just happened. To which I turned off the television.

“What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories…What do you want?” “What do you want?” “It was a very short and abrupt conversation” that he had with me. They said, “He was not in a good mood.” I’m always in a good mood. I don’t know what that is. He just said — now he’s talking about what my response.

So, he’s going: ‘What do you want? What do you want? I hear all these theories. What do you want?’ Right?

And now, here’s my response that he gave — just gave. Ready?

You have the cameras rolling?

“I want nothing.” “That’s what I want from Ukraine.” That’s what I said. “I want nothing.” I said it twice. So, he goes — he asks me the question: “What do you want? I keep hearing all of these things. What do you want?” He finally gets me — I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. Seems like a nice guy, though. But I don’t know him well. He was with other candidates. He actually supported other candidates — not me. Came in late.

But here’s my response. Now, if you weren’t fake news, you’d cover it properly.

I’d say to the Ambassador in response: “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky” — President Zelensky — “to do the right thing.” So here’s my answer: “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” Then he says, “This is the final word…from the President of the United States.” “I want nothing.”

Thank you, folks. Have a good time. I’m going to Texas.

END 11:40 A.M. EST

[White House] Ambassador Sondland’s testimony made clear that in one of the few brief phone calls he had with President Trump, the President clearly stated that he ‘wanted nothing’ from Ukraine and repeated ‘no quid pro quo over and over again.’ In fact, no quid pro quo ever occurred. The U.S. aid to Ukraine flowed, no investigation was launched, and President Trump has met and spoken with President Zelensky. Democrats keep chasing ghosts.”  ~Stephanie Grisham

Day four of the public impeachment hearings again takes place in two parts. Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, will testify first at the public hearing before the House Intelligence Committee at 9am ET.

In the afternoon session Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs and David Hale, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, will be testifying at 2:30pm ET

Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – PBS Livestream Link

.

.