Senator Ron Johnson, in a letter to Devin Nunes, has provided a lengthy outline of his contacts, discussions and perspectives surrounding U.S-Ukraine foreign policy as it relates to the current democrat impeachment narrative. [Cloud Link to Johnson letter]

Senator Johnson, attended the inauguration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky along with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and shared his concerns that National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was running a rogue and independent foreign policy toward Ukraine expressly against the intents of President Trump.

CTH readers will note we identify Vindman as a very sketchy character within the entire construct of the impeachment fiasco.  It is virtually certain Vindman is the primary source for the CIA ‘whistleblower’ dossier (complaint).  Beyond the rogue Vindman foreign policy, there is an even more sketchy affiliated network that surround him. First, here’s the letter:

Lt. Col Alexander Vindman is likely a central character within the entire impeachment hoax.  As Diana West points out, his connective tissue to the U.S. intelligence apparatus and their rogue efforts to remove President Trump cannot be ignored:

[…] The questions begin with Vindman’s activities as a staffer on the president’s National Security Council. Alarming reports indicate Vindman served as a source for the Ukrainian government inside the White House. This news may be padded by his protectors and muted by our general ignorance of the intelligence wars waged against this country, typically masterminded by the Kremlin, but it’s nonetheless deeply concerning.

Further, given the sophisticated penetration talents of the Russian intelligence services, it’s the height of foolhardiness to assume that Vindman’s Ukrainian connections end in Kyiv.

[…] We need more information about Vindman, his relationship to the Ukrainian government, and whatever “advice” he may have offered it, whether “typically communicated” in English or any other language. That’s because, if The New York Times is accurate, Vindman’s loyalties are divided between two governments. At a minimum, this disqualifies Vindman from serving the American people in the sensitive field of national security ever again.  (read more)

Over time it has become clear the first confidential human source for the CIA Ukraine dossier, written by CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella and also known as the “Whistleblower report”, is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman a Ukraine expert inside the National Security Council on assignment from the Dept of Defense intelligence unit.

Within his deposition the ideology of Lt. Col Vindman is clear. Vindman’s mission focus was/is to shape U.S. policy toward Ukraine (and by extension NATO) regardless of the actual policy view of President Trump.  Within his deposition Vindman admitted to giving countermanding instructions to his Ukraine counterpart two weeks after understanding opposite policy objectives from his commander-in-chief.

During his deposition Lt Col Vindman also admitted -with considerable angst and attempts to deflect from his legal advisors provided by the Dept. of Defense- that he was intentionally usurping the chain of command in an effort to follow his own ideological agenda; and perhaps that of his DoD leadership.

By itself that level of admitted and direct insubordination should be alarming for many reasons; not the least of which is his lineage within the U.S. Military.  Indeed Vindman’s intent and purpose explains why he appeared for his deposition in full military uniform.

When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved, including Vindman’s divided loyalties toward a foreign power; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.

I would encourage all readers to think long and hard those factual data-points.

CIA Agent Eric Ciaramella never delivered his dossier briefing to the upward chain-of-command within the CIA.  Instead Ciaramella subverted the formal process and transmitted his hearsay complaint, derived from material provided by Vindman, directly to principal officials who could assist in the removal of the President.  Again, often we get caught in the weeds, but think long-and-hard about this impeachment process as it is being discovered.

President Trump released the call transcript from an April 21st conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky.  Reporters noted there was a disconnect between the call transcript and a separate summary of the call sent to reporters in April.

[…]  In response to questions from reporters, the White House said in a Friday statement that “the NSC’s Ukraine expert” prepared the April summary.

“The president continues to push for transparency in light of these baseless accusations and has taken the unprecedented steps to release the transcripts of both phone calls with President Zelensky so that every American can see he did nothing wrong. It is standard operating procedure for the National Security Council to provide readouts of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders,” deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said. “This one was prepared by the NSC’s Ukraine expert,” he added. (link)

That “NSC Ukraine expert” was Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

For emphasis let me repeat a current fact that is being entirely overlooked.  Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC does not lay at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; and upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political; the necessary obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.

In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances… The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military appears to be collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication. The Secretary of Defense has done nothing to remove the conflict that Vindman represents within the National Security Council.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of an agenda toward the removal of President Trump.

This is not a complex issue.

No-one in the foreign policy group is going to take any advice or opinion from Vindman.  No-one is going to allow him to engage in material of a sensitive or confidential nature.  Lt. Col. Vindman has compromised himself; and therefore eliminated any usefulness to his prior assignment.  Yet his command does nothing?

This statement by Defense Secretary Mark Esper doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Esper was asked about potential retribution for Lt. Col. Alexander Vindmanduring a trip to New York City. The defense secretary said the Pentagon “has protections for whistleblowers” who report waste, fraud or abuse.

Keep in mind congressman John Ratcliffe questioned Vindman from the perspective of an Article 92 violation {READ IT}, coupled with an Article 88 violation {READ IT}. President Trump, is Lt. Col Vindman’s superior. President Trump sets the foreign policy.

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [Article 88, UCMJ]

Two weeks after President Trump has established an agreement with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, and established the policy direction therein, Lt. Col. Vindman is now giving contrary instructions to the Ukranian government. Vindman’s lawyer recognizes where the questioning is going and goes absolutely bananas:

Here’s the Full Transcript

At 9 a.m. Eastern, tomorrow Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, will be testifying publicly in front of the impeachment committee.

This is one set of Questions and Answers that no-one should miss.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has announced that Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify About the 500+ page FISA report on Wednesday December 11th, 2019.

WASHINGTON – Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify before the Committee on Wednesday, December 11, 2019.

The Inspector General will discuss the findings of his investigation into DOJ and FBI’s conduct during the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant process as it relates to the 2016 presidential election. (link)

Considering the end of the principal review phase on Friday November 22nd; and considering the Thanksgiving holiday of November 28th; this likely puts the publication date for the report on/around Monday December 2nd, with testimony the following week.

It is possible the FISA report release, and the 12/11 Horowitz senate testimony will come at the same time the House of Representatives moves the impeachment inquiry into the House Judiciary Committee.  According to the Pelosi calendar the last day for the House of Representative is Thursday December 12th.

Pelosi December Schedule

Jim Jordan appears on Fox News to highlight four central and unwavering facts that run counter to the Democrat impeachment narrative:

1. We have the call transcript, there’s no discussion of linking aid to any investigation.
2. The two principals on the call, President Trump and President Zelenskyy, have both stated there was no linkage of any aid to Ukraine dependent on any investigation.
3. The Ukraine government had no idea that aid was being held-back pending confirmation of the stable intent -no corruption- within the new Ukraine administration.
4. President Zelenskyy didn’t announce, didn’t start, and didn’t acknowledge he was going to start any investigation to get the aid released; and it was released without contingencies.

The Supreme Court has halted a lower court ruling that granted the Committee on Oversight and Reform access to President Trump’s tax returns.  However, that’s not necessarily the lede.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers. The House issued a subpoena in February for eight years of the president’s tax returns, which the Committee then later argued was part of the September House impeachment investigation.

All of the surrounding court rulings are predicated on accepting a constitutional process for an official impeachment investigation is underway.  However, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that will likely challenge that assertion.  To wit, within the buried lede to the background issue we find this paragraph:

On Monday, 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)

The general counsel for the House, Doug Letter, knows that a SCOTUS ruling against the House endeavor could severely damage the legal and constitutional framework of the entire impeachment enterprise.  Therefore it is in Speaker Pelosi’s best interests to instruct Doug Letter to defer or stall a SCOTUS review until the impeachment crew has framed their partisan impeachment process.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the House impeachment process.

There is an important granular aspect to the validity of the House impeachment process that few are paying attention to.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.  The House of Representatives does not want the Supreme Court to hear any case that touches on the impeachment “inquiry”.

In addition to the Trump Tax Case, there is another case from the HJC where they are attempting to use the framework of a constitutional impeachment process as the underlying authority for their endeavors.  That case surrounds the Grand Jury (6e) material from the Mueller investigation.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS or the HJC case in the DC Appellate Court, or SCOTUS, it means there is no constitutional foundation recognized to the “impeachment inquiry.”

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch then: (a) Pelosi/Lawfare have to restart the process with a genuine House vote; or (b) the ongoing impeachment process will have no recognized constitutional standing; and (c) the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote, cast without recognized constitutional standing.

That is why Nancy Pelosi and Doug Letter do not want SCOTUS to weigh in.

BACKSTORY to HJC case: On October 25th DC Judge Beryl Howell granted the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) request for legal authority to receive 6e grand jury material underlying the Mueller report.

Additionally, and most importantly, within the Howell decision she officially recognized the HJC effort was predicated on a constitutional impeachment process.  In essence Howell’s opinion granted the HJC with “judicial enforcement authority.”

The DOJ moved to appeal the decision and requested a “stay” pending appeal.  Judge Howell rejected the DOJ “stay” motion.

The DOJ then appealed to the DC Court of Appeals.  A panel of three judges issued an “administrative stay”, blocking enforcement of the Howell ruling while the appeal was reviewed.  The DC Appellate Court heard arguments within the appeal.

Right now; and considering the House voted on a ‘resolution’ to support Nancy Pelosi’s unilaterally decreed “impeachment inquiry”; and due to the lack of structural specifics within the constitution surrounding the impeachment process; I would put the odds at 50/50 the House Judiciary Committee could win this case based on lower court rulings.

It is critical that AG Bill Barr sends his best constitutional lawyers to defend the interests of the executive branch.  The DOJ has a solid constitutional argument to make; and if they end up losing the decision the verbal arguments will be a key factor in whether the Supreme Court would take up the issue (after en banc appeal exhausted).

The HJC objective is simple.  They seek judicial enforcement authority for their subpoenas so their targets cannot legally refuse to give testimony; and by extension the constitutional premise of the House process is affirmed.

The premise for both fronts: (1) document subpoena 6e material, and (2) testimony from White House Counsel Don McGahn, is predicated on penetrating a constitutional firewall that exists within the separation of powers.

Under existing SCOTUS precedent, the White House can be compelled to deliver Executive Branch documents and testimony so long as an official legislative branch impeachment process is underway.

Judge Beryl Howell was the first person in the judicial branch to recognize and accept the HJC position that such an official impeachment process was ongoing.  At the heart of this appeal is that recognition.

If the DOJ can successfully argue the House has not followed the traditional and constitutional process that authorizes impeachment investigation; and allows the HJC to penetrate the separation of power firewall; it will be a major blow to the Lawfare scheme.

A ruling in favor of the DOJ would invalidate the narrative of the House.

A ruling in favor of the DOJ would also allow the Senate to dismiss any results from Schiff and Nadler’s investigation, because their process would not be predicated on constitutional provisions for impeachment.

In short, this is a pretty important ruling.

Representative Lee Zeldin appears on Fox News to discuss the ongoing House impeachment inquiry and how HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff is manipulating the release of transcripts that are adverse to his political agenda.

As a reminder John Ratcliffe is one of only four members of congress who has reviewed all of the classified documents that surrounds the current background for the Inspector General report on FISA abuse.  That said, the quoted comment from Ratcliffe, while it will be overlooked by most, is the first visible sign reconciling a fundamental challenge previously highlighted.

In the 2018 IG report on FBI conduct in the 2016 election, the IG stated there was no evidence of any FBI activity being taken for political intents.  Yes, there was a tremendous amount of politically motivated evidence noted within the report; but the top-line statement by Horowitz was counter to the underlying evidence.

A year ago that led us to ask: how could the IG outline political motives in the FISA investigation, if he previously stated there was no politically motivated action by the FBI?

The statement today by Rep. John Ratcliffe seems to speak to this issue.  The implication within the words is that the evidence is so overwhelming the IG has few options.

[2018 IG Report Link]

Former Vice-President Joe Biden doesn’t necessarily write his tweets.  The political careerists within his campaign are the ones who construct his messaging; however, the content is an accurate representation of where Biden stands on the specific issue:

Note: I was a Special Forces officer in Vietnam in 1967 and we had the same problem their with Government rules of Engagement that meant my troops could be needlessly killed. I support what president Trump did 100%.  Biden is an idiot!

(Tweet Link)

The Joe Biden campaign objective is to delegitimize President Trump.  Aside from the reality that Biden has just positioned himself outside the mainstream military, his position serves purposefully in using the military as a political weapon.

Politicizing the military is the same sentiment behind the impeachment crew instructing Lt. Col Alexander Vindman to wear his uniform for an impeachment hearing.  Same goals; same intents; same purpose.  {Go Deep}

(White House) – Executive Clemency for Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance and Army Major Mathew Golsteyn, and the Promotion of Special Warfare Operator First Class Edward Gallagher

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Grant of Clemency (Full Pardon) for Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, an Executive Grant of Clemency (Full Pardon) for Army Major Mathew Golsteyn, and an order directing the promotion of Special Warfare Operator First Class Edward R. Gallagher to the grade of E-7, the rank he held before he was tried and found not guilty of nearly all of the charges against him.

♦ In early July 2012, only days after Lieutenant Lorance had taken command of his platoon in one of the most dangerous battle zones in Afghanistan, a motorcycle with three men approached him and his men with unusual speed. Under difficult circumstances and prioritizing the lives of American troops, Lorance ordered his men to engage, and two of the three men were killed.

Following these events, Lorance was convicted of several charges. He has served more than six years of a 19-year sentence he received. Many Americans have sought executive clemency for Lorance, including 124,000 people who have signed a petition to the White House, as well as several members of Congress, including Senators Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy, and Representatives Steve Scalise, Garret Graves, Duncan Hunter, Paul Gosar, Adam Kinzinger, Scott Perry, Brian Babin, Neal Dunn, Michael Waltz, Louie Gohmert, Daniel Webster, Steve King, Ralph Norman, Mark Meadows, Clay Higgins, Ralph Abraham, Mike Johnson, and Jody Hice.

♦ Major Mathew Golsteyn, an officer of the United States Army and graduate of West Point, is currently set to stand trial for an allegedly unlawful killing in connection with one of the largest battles of the Afghanistan War.

As our forces cleared the Taliban from the city of Marjah, an Improvised Explosive Device detonated, killing two Marines. The terrorist bombmaker, as identified by an Afghan informant, who had killed our troops, was detained and questioned. Golsteyn was compelled to release him, however, due in part to deficiencies within the fledgling Afghan detention system. Golsteyn has said he later shot the terrorist because he was certain that the terrorist’s bombmaking activities would continue to threaten American troops and their Afghan partners, including Afghan civilians who had helped identify him.

After nearly a decade-long inquiry and multiple investigations, a swift resolution to the case of Major Golsteyn is in the interests of justice. Clemency for Major Golsteyn has broad support, including from Representatives Louie Gohmert, Duncan Hunter, Mike Johnson, Ralph Abraham, and Clay Higgins, American author and Marine combat veteran Bing West, and Army combat veteran Pete Hegseth.

♦ Before the prosecution of Special Warfare Operator First Class Edward Gallagher, he had been selected for promotion to Senior Chief, awarded a Bronze Star with a “V” for valor, and assigned to an important position in the Navy as an instructor. Though ultimately acquitted on all of the most serious charges, he was stripped of these honors as he awaited his trial and its outcome. Given his service to our Nation, a promotion back to the rank and pay grade of Chief Petty Officer is justified.

The United States military justice system helps ensure good order and discipline for our millions of uniformed military members and holds to account those who violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Due in part to this system, we have the most disciplined, most effective, most respected, and most feared fighting force in the world.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the law is enforced and when appropriate, that mercy is granted. For more than two hundred years, presidents have used their authority to offer second chances to deserving individuals, including those in uniform who have served our country. These actions are in keeping with this long history. As the President has stated, “when our soldiers have to fight for our country, I want to give them the confidence to fight.”

~ White House ~

Representative Doug Collins appears with Maria Bartiromo and points out a position on FISA reauthorization that is hopefully carried by the majority of Republicans.  Collins states an approach where he, perhaps others, would advance a “short-term” FISA extension pending a full review of the upcoming FISA report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, prior to any longer term reauthorization.

FISA-702 authority, bulk U.S. person metadata collection, storage and surveillance, is set to terminally expire December 15th.  The last FISC report from Judge Boasberg stated that all violations of FISA law are still ongoing and there have been no substantive corrections by the intelligence community to fix the abuse issues. The Judge Boasberg report was written in September of 2018 but not released (redacted) until last month. {Go Deep}

The Intelligence Community (writ large), the FBI and the DOJ are all seeking a permanent reauthorization.  In my humble opinion this FISA reauthorization is the cornerstone motive for an IG report delay.  There is an alignment of interests.

.

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?

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate the Steele Dossier in the second scope memo (August 2017). If my 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] More importantly, as a result, all previous FBI exploits using FISA(702) database searches would be authorized.

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.

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.

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 their database access 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 would be so important. The Dossier formed the basis to continue making the Mueller investigation a counterintelligence operation, Title-I authority. 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 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 all of this exploitation is why ODNI Dan Coats sat on this Boasberg ruling for a year. Boasberg presented this FISC opinion in October 2018, but 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.

Keep in mind ICIG Michael Atkinson has dirty hands here.  Within the ongoing OIG FISA investigation by Michael Horowitz and John Durham, Atkinson has a conflict of interest that has not yet been disclosed and could very likely be influencing his decision-making.

The CIA ‘whistle-blower’ Eric Ciaramella had no first-hand knowledge; everything within his originating complaint was based on hearsay. The CIA operative never informed the ICIG about prior contact and coordination with the House Intelligence Committee (Adam Schiff). The CIA operative never disclosed congressional contact on the complaint form; and the complaint forms were changed specifically to accommodate this CIA operative.

ICIG Michael Atkinson never reviewed the Trump-Zelenskyy call transcript and facilitated the complaint processing despite numerous flaws.  Additionally Atkinson ignored legal guidance from both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that highlighted Atkinson’s poor decision-making.

This makes the activity of ICIG Atkinson very questionable.  What exactly is his purpose within this enterprise?  Well… given the nature of Atkinson’s background, it appears his prior work in 2016, during his tenure as the lead legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, likely played a role in his decision.

The center of the 2016 Lawfare Alliance election influence was/is the Department of Justice National Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016 operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.

Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.

Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective.  Sketchy!

ICIG Michael Atkinson is the link that connects Spygate to the Schiff Impeachment Effort – An alignment of interests…

The people defending President Trump against impeachment are also people who do not want the intelligence apparatus to lose their bulk data collection (FISA-702) authority.

This is an interesting situation…

Representative Jim Jordan appears on CBS Face The Nation to discuss the ongoing impeachment fiasco. Ms. Brennan struggles to define a new journalistic concept for “first-hand” information as she claims David Holmes, who claims to have overheard half of a phone conversation that two other people were having, is a “first-hand” witness.

Jordan points out that Ms. Brennan is quoting from a seal transcript given to her by Adam Schiff that has not been released. [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re back now with Republican Congressman Jim Jordan. Good morning to you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN: Morning. Good to be with you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s good to have you here in person. And- and before we get going, the cut above your eye. You didn’t get into a fistfight. This was just a run in–

REP. JORDAN: No I- I- I got between Adam Schiff and a camera. How bout that? No, actually, it’s somewhat embarrassing. But the door to the Intelligence Committee hearing room–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

REP. JORDAN: –in the bunker in the basement where- where we’ve been doing these depositions, it opens and it stays open all the time and then it closes on its own. I stepped out to say something to my colleague, Mr. Meadows. It started to close and I didn’t realize I turned and bumped into the door so yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So just so we clear that up–

REP. JORDAN: Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –right out of the gate.

REP. JORDAN: Exactly. That’s real important.

MARGARET BRENNAN: As you heard from the speaker in that interview, she argues that the aid to Ukraine was only released because of the whistleblower. What reason were you given that the aid to Ukraine–

REP. JORDAN: Five–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –was eventually released?

REP. JORDAN: Because President Zelensky met five times with senior U.S. officials. One, of course, was the phone call with President Trump. And then four meetings, actually face to face meetings, with U.S. senators, ambassadors, with Vice President Pence. And in each of those meetings, never was it talked about linking the security assistance dollars to any type of investigations. But what did happen in those meetings is they all became convinced Zelensky’s the real deal. Remember, we’re talking about Ukraine. One of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. And we’re talking about the hard earned tax dollars of the American people. So, they became convinced that this media star, this new guy to politics, his party just won an overwhelming majority in their parliament, was the real deal. And he was legit and he was worth the risk–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So that September 9th complaint–

REP. JIM JORDAN: –and they said we’ll release the aid.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –and then the September 11th release of the aid, you’re saying that’s just- just the calendar just happened to happen that way?

REP. JORDAN: Well, it did and plus, remember, the aid didn’t have to be released till September 30th.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REP. JORDAN: So it gets released on the 11th and most importantly–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Got it.

REP. JORDAN: –most importantly, the Ukrainians did nothing to, as- as far as investigations goes, to get the aid release. So there was never this quid pro quo that the Democrats all promise existed before President Trump released the phone call.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I want to get to some new testimony. An American diplomat named David Holmes testified before- behind closed doors on Friday. And I want to know, do you think, because he now has firsthand knowledge in which he explains he overheard a conversation between the president of the United States and Gordon Sondland, isn’t he credible? This was first hand.

REP. JORDAN: Well, I mean, look, he overheard a conversation–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Specifically, mention of the Bidens–

REP. JORDAN: We don’t know if the other two people–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –and investigation into the Bidens.

REP. JORDAN: –at the table are gonna vouch for his story. We’ll see, because there was four people at the table and–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are they coming to testify? Those other two?

REP. JORDAN: That’s Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff controls the witness list. We gave our list. He doesn’t give us the witnesses we want and he can call witnesses anytime he wants. We had to give our list last Saturday. Just one of the many problems and- and unfairness of this process. So I’m sure Mr. Holmes will get called by the Democrats. He’ll come in and we’ll have him under oath in front of the committee, in front of the cameras and we’ll ask him questions, and we’ll see how his story holds up.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the EU is a ally of the president. He was a financial donor to the president’s campaign, but he’s changed his testimony already. Do you think he’s credible?

REP. JORDAN: His- his addendum to his testimony, never forget he said, ‘I presume this happened.’ So, again, this is- he’ll be in front of us this week as well, as will Mr. Morrison, as will Mr. Vindman, as was Ms. Williams. And we’re gonna have a host of witnesses. So, again, we’ll see how his testimony plays out. What I also know is he said there was never any quid pro quo in the text message responding to others on that text chain. So, we’ll have him in front of us and we’ll find out.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That text chain- you’re, you’re right, but then in this conversation that David Holmes has testified about, he says he heard the president ask, “So he’s going to do the investigation.” And Sondland replied, “He’s going to do it.” Holmes then said he spoke to Sondland, who told him Trump was interested in the Biden investigation, that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.

REP. JORDAN: It’s interesting you’re talking about all these details from a deposition that hasn’t been released, that just happened Friday night that we’re not supposed to even talk about, is it? This is, again, an example of the unfair process. He’ll be under oath–

MARGARET BRENNAN: You want him to testify under oath–

REP. Jordan: He’ll be- well–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –in the public eye?

REP. JORDAN: I- I- I assume Adam Schiff–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –Holmes?

REP. JORDAN: –is going to call him. And remember this, based on what Mr. Taylor told us in the open hearing earlier this week as their first witness, he said that this happened with- with a- a conversation that he wasn’t a part of, Mr. Holmes, and he’s listening in on a conversation between Ambassador Sondland and the President of the United States. So we’ll have questions for him. We’ll see how it stands out.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think Gordon Sondland was acting on his own? He says he talks to the president all the time.

REP. JORDAN: He’s the Senate confirmed ambassador to the European Union. Mr. Volker is- is the special envoy, distinguished career serving our country in the diplomatic corps.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, but Sondland–

REP. JORDAN: We had- we had–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –is who I was asking about.

REP. JORDAN: –Rick Perry. We have Secretary Perry, Senate confirmed, working. This whole- this whole irregular channel I find interesting because they’re all Senate confirmed individuals, respected individuals, accomplished individuals–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REP. JORDAN: –working on a diplomatic mission, and somehow that’s- that’s- that’s crazy. I just don’t follow- here’s the- here’s the bottom line–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you think that the project that Gordon Sondland was working on here, when he said, ‘the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing,’ was that with the president’s ‘OK’?

REP. JORDAN: Here’s what I understand. We haven’t heard from Kurt Volker yet. The first witness the Democrats call, the special envoy, Ambassador Volker, he said everything that was done here, there was no quid pro of any kind and it was all done in a way that was consistent with the mission of making sure the aid ultimately gets to the- to Ukraine and that things are done in the best interests of the United States, done in the best interests of Ukraine. And that’s all- that all happened. And Ambassador Volker’s testimony, I think, will be particularly good and particularly powerful when we get to hear from him later this week.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Specifically, Volker said he didn’t know there was a quid pro quo.

REP. JORDAN: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That none was ever communicated to him. Not that there was definitively no quid pro quo, just that he was not aware of it.

REP. JORDAN: No one’s testified that there’s been a quid pro quo. Everyone’s got second, third hand, fourth hand information. Mr. Morrison, who was on the call, said he didn’t think anything was improper or illegal on the call. Ms. Williams didn’t think anything improper or illegal on the call. So–

MARGARET BRENNAN: She said inappropriate.

REP. JORDAN: So, but that- that’s- those are the facts. Four facts will never change. Will never- that’s a funny thing about facts. They don’t change. The fact that the- that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of a search- security assistance dollars for investigations–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REP. JORDAN: –on the call. We have the two guys on the call–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you–

REP. JORDAN: –President Trump and President Zelensky said no pressure, no linkage–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, just to be clear, though, are you okay–

REP. JORDAN: The Ukrainians didn’t know that their aid was held at the time of the call, and most importantly, they didn’t do anything. Any specific actions on investigations–

MARGARET BRENNAN: I- I understand you’re saying that the aid was released–

REP. JORDAN: –to get the aid released.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand you’re saying the aid was released, but to- to put a fine point on it, are you comfortable with the investigation that was requested?

REP. JORDAN: The investigation that- that- that was requested? Look, the president–

MARGARET BRENNAN: That the president spoke to Gordon Sondland–

REP. JORDAN: –I thought that–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –about this request to have–

REP. JORDAN: –I thought the–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –the Biden’s investigated.

REP. JORDAN: I thought we were supposed to be looking–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you comfortable with that?

REP. JORDAN: –into potential impact on the 2016 election in- in- in foreign countries involvement in 2016 election. So, I’m comfortable with that. I think everyone is–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, this is the 2020 election. Does that make you uncomfortable?

REP. JORDAN: Well, I don’t think that’s what took place here, because there was never an investigation undertaken. There was never an announcement from President Zelensky–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the request for one that was overheard and testified to.

REP. JORDAN: But it didn’t happen. There’s- there’s all kinds of talk about things, but they- it didn’t happen. And well, remember when this all broke? What the Democrats tell us?

MARGARET BRENNAN: And the attempt itself doesn’t bother you?

REP. JORDAN: What the Democrats tell us? There was a quid pro quo. The scary thing is the Democrats have been out to get this president. I was struck by listening to Speaker Pelosi’s comments, her answer to your second question. She used the word impostor. I’m talking about the president of the United States, who 63 million people voted for, who won an Electoral College–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REP. JORDAN: –landslide. And yet these Democrats have been trying to get him- the start of this Congress, Congresswoman Tlaib said–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

REP. JORDAN: –she wants to impeach him before any evidence. Five members, think about this–

MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand.

REP. JORDAN: –five members of the Dem- of the Democrat- five Democrat members on the Intelligence Committee have voted to move forward with impeachment even before the whistleblower complaint was filed.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’ve got to go to a commercial break. Thank you very much, Congressman.

REP. JORDAN: Thank you

[END TRANSCRIPT]