Blizzard Bans Blitzchung: Can China Stand Against a World of (Virtual) Warriors?


148K subscribers

Esports gamer Chung Ng Wai, who goes by Blitzchung, wears a gas mask and goggles and ends an interview saying “Liberate Hong Kong: Revolution of our times.” Hearthstone tournament sponsor Blizzard Entertainment bans him for a year and strips him of $10,000 in 2019 winnings. Is this just a case of an American company enforcing its legal contract and protecting its reputation? Or did parent company Activision Blizzard cave to minor investor Tencent Holdings Ltd., a massive Chinese conglomerate? Will global corporations ever stand up to the communist Chinese government and allow free speech? Can China stand against a world of (virtual) warriors who #BoycottBlizzard ? Longtime gamer Bill Whittle oversees creation of some four dozen new shows each month, evaluating the news of the day in the context of time-tested principles. You can see most of our shows at https://BillWhittle.com Members can see all of our shows, engage in discussions, and post to the Members-only blog. Stand for free speech with people who are not dependent upon cowardly corporations. Join us today at https://BillWhittle.com/register/

The Big Yang Theory: Study Shows $500/Month Free Money Makes People Happy


148K subscribers

First results from a universal basic income (UBI) study in Stockton, California, shows that free money makes people happy, and that they spend most of it on basic needs like food and utilities, rather than on drugs, alcohol or gambling. Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs wants his $500 per month stipend experiment done statewide. Do these early results in a small-scale study bolster Democrat presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s White House run as he campaigns on a nationwide $1000 per month UBI plan? If you listen to the news and ask questions that reporters seem to ignore… If you wonder why the other side of the argument never seems to get equal representation… If it seems to you that the mainstream media live in a bubble (or on another planet)… If your ideas have stood the test of time, your principles remained steady throughout history, and you think that civility and rational thought should suffuse our public discourse, then you’re the kind of person who should consider joining us as a Member. Find your people at https://BillWhittle.com/register/

Figures – Report: IG Report Delayed Release – Ongoing “Classification Review”…


Maria Bartiromo had initially reported the IG report on the Carter Page FISA situation was going to be released around the end of this week.  Ms. Bartiromo is now reporting a delay:

It’s the “classifications being made” part that raises concern.  President Trump granted Attorney General Bill Barr with declassification authority on May 23rd, 2019, so that any classification issues could be minimized and maximum transparency afforded.

WHITE HOUSE: (MAY 23rd) “Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 Presidential election.

The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information. Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions.” (read more)

Memorandum for Agency Guidance below:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

SUBJECT: Agency Cooperation with Attorney General’s Review of Intelligence Activities Relating to the 2016 Presidential Campaigns

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

♦Section 1. Agency Cooperation.

The Attorney General is currently conducting a review of intelligence activities relating to the campaigns in the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The heads of elements of the intelligence community, as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3003(4), and the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review.

♦Sec. 2. Declassification and Downgrading.

With respect to any matter classified under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 (Classified National Security Information), the Attorney General may, by applying the standard set forth in either section 3.1(a) or section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence that relates to the Attorney General’s review referred to in section 1 of this memorandum. Before exercising this authority, the Attorney General should, to the extent he deems it practicable, consult with the head of the originating intelligence community element or department. This authority is not delegable and applies notwithstanding any other authorization or limitation set forth in Executive Order 13526.

♦Sec. 3. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) The authority in this memorandum shall terminate upon a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, unless expressly extended by the President.

(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(e) The Attorney General is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Rep Lee Zeldin Discusses Fiona Hill Testimony and Schiff’s Conspicuous Attempt to Drop the Whistleblower…


There is something very damaging about the CIA operative -turned gossiper- that Adam Schiff used to launch his Ukraine dossier (aka “whistleblower? report).  If the gossiper wasn’t sketchy, the Democrats would be heralding his heroism; instead they are trying to sweep away any mention of their CIA ally, and drop the ‘whistleblower’ angle completely.

In this interview Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin discusses the shady tactics of the impeachment committees against the appearance today by President Trump’s former Russia aide Fiona Hill.  Rep. Zeldin also notes the conspicuous bull-schiff.

.

There was a mid-day presser (below) with Zeldin and Jim Jordan that also provides good information.

.

Judicial Watch Reveals Surveillance Targets Requested by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch and State Department – But Bigger Question is Missing…


There are times during research when searching for details leaves the obviously immediate questions unanswered.  This is one of those examples.  Judicial Watch is hot on the trail of a State Department effort to monitor domestic political opposition.

Specifically former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, initiated a request for State Dept. officials to conduct surveillance on: Jack Posobiec, Donald Trump Jr., Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia), Dan Bongino, Ryan Saavedra, Rudy Giuliani, Sebastian Gorka, John Solomon, Lou Dobbs, Pamella Geller and Sara Carter.

More details:

(Via JW) Judicial Watch has obtained information indicating Yovanovitch may have violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to target certain U.S. persons using State Department resources.

Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: Biden, Giuliani, Soros and Yovanovitch. Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department and will continue gathering facts from government sources.

Prior to being recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in the spring Yovanovitch reportedly created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means. Ukraine embassy staff made the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.

After several days, Yovanovitch’s staff was informed that the request was illegal and the monitoring either ceased or was concealed via the State Department Global Engagement Center, which has looser restrictions on collecting information.

“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” according to a senior State Department official. If the illicit operation occurred, it seems to indicate a clear political bias against the president and his supporters.

Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who has also led American embassies in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016. She was recalled by the State Department in May and remains a State Department employee in Washington D.C. (read more)

Judicial Watch is on an honorable and righteous mission; and I do not mean to diminish the importance of their work. However, I find myself slightly annoyed at this issue because a simple question is not being asked.

Obviously Maria Yovanovitch was aware of some pre-existing process that facilitated the surveillance of U.S. persons adverse to the interests of the U.S. State Department; and obviously some process was initiated in order for it to be “ceased or concealed”, right?

Well, the simple question is “HOW”?

How exactly does the U.S. State Department monitor people or persons they define as adverse to their interests?

Unfortunately I think we might have the answer to that question: SEE HERE

And also unfortunately, within that explanation there is another obvious question that doesn’t require thousands of pages of evidence, testimony and FISC debate.

Despite all of the extensively legally written scripts describing the process no-one, including the judges outlining the problem, pauses to ask the simple question “WHY“?

One of the weird aspects to both Collyer and Boasberg is that both FISC judges did not ever seek to ask the “why” question: why are all these unauthorized database searches taking place? Instead, both judges focus on process issues and technical procedural questions, seemingly from a position that all unauthorized searches were done without malicious intent. (more)

  • How does the state department monitor their adversaries?
  • Why is the NSA FISA(702) database used to monitor non-foreign persons?

Simple questions that should not require years of investigations to answer.

Frustrating….

Trump’s Syrian Maneuver Works – President Erdogan Asks for Negotiations With Kurds in Syria…


President Trump has played this out perfectly.  By isolating Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and effectively leaving him naked to an alliance of his enemies, Erdogan is now urgently asking for the U.S. to mediate peace negotiations with Kurdish forces.

This request happens immediately after President Trump signed an executive order [See Here] triggering the sanction authority of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.  Erdogan called the White House requesting an urgent phone call with President Trump.

After President Trump talked to Kurdish General Mazloum Kobani Abdi, the commander of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, President Trump then discussed the options available to President Erdogan.  As a result of that conversation, Erdogan requested the U.S. mediate negotiations.  Vice-President Mike Pence announces he will be traveling to the region with National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien to lead that effort.  WATCH:

[Executive Order]

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the situation in and in relation to Syria, and in particular the recent actions by the Government of Turkey to conduct a military offensive into northeast Syria, undermines the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, endangers civilians, and further threatens to undermine the peace, security, and stability in the region, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby determine and order:

Section 1.

(a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(i) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, any of the following in or in relation to Syria:

(1) actions or policies that further threaten the peace, security, stability, or territorial integrity of Syria; or

(2) the commission of serious human rights abuse;

(B) to be a current or former official of the Government of Turkey;

(C) to be any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Turkey;

(D) to operate in such sectors of the Turkish economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State;

(E) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(F) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

Sec. 2.
(a) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and other officials of the U.S. Government as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign person any of the sanctions described in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, upon determining that the person, on or after the date of this order:

(i) is responsible for or complicit in, has directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, or financed, any of the following:

(A) the obstruction, disruption, or prevention of a ceasefire in northern Syria;

(B) the intimidation or prevention of displaced persons from voluntarily returning to their places of residence in Syria;

(C) the forcible repatriation of persons or refugees to Syria; or

(D) the obstruction, disruption, or prevention of efforts to promote a political solution to the conflict in Syria, including:

(1) the convening and conduct of a credible and inclusive Syrian-led constitutional process under the auspices of the United Nations (UN);

(2) the preparation for and conduct of UN-supervised elections, pursuant to the new constitution, that are free and fair and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability; or

(3) the development of a new Syrian government that is representative and reflects the will of the Syrian people;

(ii) is an adult family member of a person designated under subsection (a)(i) of this section; or

(iii) is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, the expropriation of property, including real property, for personal gain or political purposes in Syria.

(b) When the Secretary of State, in accordance with the terms of subsection (a) of this section, has determined that a person meets any of the criteria described in that subsection and has selected one or more of the sanctions set forth below to impose on that person, the heads of relevant departments and agencies, in consultation with the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall ensure that the following actions are taken where necessary to implement the sanctions selected by the Secretary of State:

(i) agencies shall not procure, or enter into a contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from the sanctioned person; or

(ii) the Secretary of State shall direct the denial of a visa to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude from the United States, any alien that the Secretary of State determines is a corporate officer or principal of, or a shareholder with a controlling interest in, a sanctioned person.

(c) When the Secretary of State, in accordance with the terms of subsection (a) of this section, has determined that a person meets any of the criteria described in that subsection and has selected one or more of the sanctions set forth below to impose on that person, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take the following actions where necessary to implement the sanctions selected by the Secretary of State:

(i) prohibit any United States financial institution that is a U.S. person from making loans or providing credits to the sanctioned person totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period, unless such person is engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or credits are provided for such activities;

(ii) prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned person has any interest;

(iii) prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between banking institutions or by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of the sanctioned person;

(iv) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in;

(v) prohibit any United States person from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of the sanctioned person;

(vi) restrict or prohibit imports of goods, technology, or services, directly or indirectly, into the United States from the sanctioned person; or

(vii) impose on the principal executive officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities, of the sanctioned person the sanctions described in subsections (c)(i)–(c)(vi) of this section, as selected by the Secretary of State.

(d) The prohibitions in subsections (b) and (c) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

Sec. 3.
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign financial institution the sanctions described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining that the foreign financial institution knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction for or on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order.

(b) With respect to any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in accordance with this section, to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by such foreign financial institution.

(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

Sec. 4.
The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in subsection l(a) or 2(a) of this order, or aliens for which the sanctions under subsection 2(b)(ii) have been selected, would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except where the Secretary of State determines that the entry of the person into the United States would not be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives.

In exercising this responsibility, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such persons shall be treated in the same manner as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility for implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.

Sec. 5.

I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 6.
The prohibitions in sections 1 and 2 of this order include:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 7.
(a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 8.
For the purposes of this order:

(a) The term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(b) the term “foreign financial institution” means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. The term includes depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels, and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. The term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North American
Development Bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by the Secretary of the Treasury;

(c) the term “knowingly,” with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result;

(d) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(e) the term “United States person” or “U.S. person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and

(f) the term “Government of Turkey” means the Government of Turkey, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or any person owned or controlled by or acting for or on behalf of the Government of Turkey.

Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.

Sec. 10.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.

Sec. 11.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)), and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 12.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 14, 2019.

ABC News Busted Creating “Fake News Propaganda” Surrounding Syrian Conflict…


Last night and again this morning ABC News aired shocking footage supposedly from the frontline battle between Syrian Kurds and the invading Turkish troops.  The report and footage was described in shock-filled breathless language, intended to provoke the audience.  ABC News anchor Tom Llamas aired the allegedly shocking footage, claiming it showed a fierce Turkish attack on Kurdish civilians.

However, there is a very big problem. The footage is 100% fake…. it never happened.

The footage ABC News used in their broadcast comes from a nighttime machine gun demonstration at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky.  The stunning propaganda effort was first caught by Twitter user PolishPatriot.  WATCH:

.

Again, this footage is 100% fake.  The Washington Examiner’s journalist Becket Adamscalled ABC and asked them what was going on.

“We’ve taken down video that aired on World News Tonight Sunday and Good Morning America this morning that appeared to be from the Syrian border immediately after questions were raised about its accuracy,” a network representative told the Washington Examiner. “ABC News regrets the error.”  (read more)

Let’s be clear about this.  This is ABC international News using footage from a Kentucky gun exhibition and passing it off as attack footage in Syria.  That is not a mistake.

This production had to pass through several layers of ABC News editorial review prior to broadcast.  This is not a simple mistake of the wrong footage….  ABC News was caught purposefully creating “Fake News”.

Wojciech Pawelczyk 🇵🇱🇺🇸@PolishPatriotTM

Wow! ABC News is trying to pass gun range videos as combat footage from Syria

Embedded video

24.3K people are talking about this

World News Tonight

@ABCWorldNews

CORRECTION: We’ve taken down video that aired on “World News Tonight” Sunday and “Good Morning America” this morning that appeared to be from the Syrian border immediately after questions were raised about its accuracy. ABC News regrets the error.

Breaking911@Breaking911

FAKE NEWS: ABC ‘slaughter in Syria’ footage is actually from a Kentucky gun range; the network has since taken down the video & says they ‘regret the error’

Embedded video
8,622 people are talking about this
ABC getting caught manufacturing Fake News should be an additional concern because ABC news is also promoting this:

“Hunter Biden sits down for an exclusive interview with ABC News”:

Tony Shaffer

@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y

Hunter Biden sits down for exclusive interview with ABC News

Hunter Biden sat down with ABC News anchor Amy Robach over the weekend at his home in Los Angeles for an exclusive interview, and no questions were off limits. Tune in to “Good Morning America,”…

abcnews.go.com

Mark Meadows Discusses Fraudulent Impeachment Process and Upcoming IG Report…


North Carolina republican Mark Meadows has been one of the key republican leaders who have remained in Washington DC during the recess break so that he can quickly attend the secret back-room hearings being held by Chairman Adam Schiff.  In this interview Mr. Meadows discusses the current status of the impeachment effort.

Additionally, Meadows discusses what he knows of the documents provided to Inspector General Horowitz for his pending release of the FISA investigation.   Meadows predicts the IG report will be a “scathing rebuke” of the FBI; however, Meadows also predicts the accountability aspect will only end with recommendations for FISA process changes.

Ranking Member Doug Collins Discusses Pelosi-Schiff and Lawfare Impeachment Scheme Progress…


Representative Doug Collins appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the specific strategy behind the Pelosi-Shiff and Lawfare ongoing impeachment effort.

Collins explains why Adam Schiff is holding hearings behind closed doors so they can selectively leak out information that supports the Democrat narrative of impeachment, while also hiding the evidence that refutes their construct.  Additionally, Rep Collins explains his expectations for the upcoming FISA review by Inspector General Horowitz.

Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process.  It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction.  {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} to understand why.

The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment inquiry, is not within the jurisdiction of the three committees. So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.

The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2

Hey, but you do you. 😉

View image on Twitter
162 people are talking about this
Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been well 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, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.

In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose.  So that raises 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 Judiciary (only) has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims. 

There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.   The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority.  This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

The reason judicial enforcement authority is constitutionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. This is the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plans are designed for public consumption; she/they are creating the illusion of something that doesn’t exist.  The purpose of all this fraudulent impeachment activity is to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the current Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intends to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process is destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege. That predictable constitutional issue will end up with arguments to The Supreme Court.

THAT appears to be why Democrats and left-wing activists have been working for months to de-legitimize the Supreme Court. They always intended to run into this problem. They planned for it.

The Lawfare impeachment road-map is designed to conflict with the constitution. It is a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their impeachment plan, not a flaw.

Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn’t exist.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.  Pelosi is burning a constitutional process.

Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court.

The judicial branch would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did toJudiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“.  Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review.

This is a carefully constructed subversion of the constitutional processes and procedures.

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.

As a result of the need to create the optics of something that doesn’t exist; and following the roadmap they outlined in 2018 [See Here and Here]; the Lawfare contractors within the committees’ needed to construct a penalty mechanism that benefits the impeachment agenda but avoids the court system.  As a result we see this:

Nice Lawfare trick huh?…

Ridiculous Shift – Adam Schiff No Longer Requires CIA Gossip for Impeachment Testimony…


Well, this was entirely predictable.  First the impeachment strategy needed the anonymous CIA gossiper to testify.  Then it leaked about how HPSCI Chairman Adam Shiff and his Lawfare staff actually created the “gossiper’s” silly third-hand complaint to an inspector general; who then changed ‘gossip’ rules to allow second and third-hand hearsay.

It was all becoming more brutally sketchy, and the impeachment jenga blocks were tenuous at best.  As a result, republicans were going to inquire about how the CIA gossiper constructed his complaint; and then the complaint attorney’s started saying the gossiper would not appear in person, but rather write more complaint letters instead of testifying.

The shift from sketchy testimony to “Dear Sir” letters was ridiculous in the extreme. So what happens next?  Well, this is predictable…. Chairman Adam Schiff now says there will likely be no gossiper testimony because now he doesn’t need it.  [@4:52 video]

[Transcript]  REP. SCHIFF: You know and I think initially, before the president started threatening the whistleblower, threatening others calling them traitors and spies and suggesting that you know we used to give the death penalty to traitors and spies and maybe we should think about that again. Yes we were interested in having the whistleblower come forward. Our primary–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Not anymore?

REP. SCHIFF: Well our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected. Indeed, now there’s more than one whistleblower, that they are protected. And given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that. We do want to make sure that we identify other evidence that is pertinent to the withholding of the military support, the effort to cover this up by hiding this in a classified computer system. We want to make sure that we uncover the full details about the conditionality of either the military aid or that meeting with Ukraine’s president. It may not be necessary to take steps that might reveal the whistleblower’s identity to do that. And we’re going to make sure we protect that whistleblower.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You know who was on that July 25th call? You know all the participants?

REP. SCHIFF: I can’t say that I do. But we now know what took place on that call. We are bringing in witnesses this coming week from the National Security Council, other State Department officials, to find out what they can tell us about the conditionality of this vital military assistance to an ally. The conditionality of this vital meeting between the two presidents and the president’s effort to dig up dirt on his opponent.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Quickly, do you regret saying that we, the committee, weren’t in touch with the whistleblower?

REP. SCHIFF: I should have been much more clear and I said so the minute it was brought to my attention that I was referring to the fact that when the whistleblower filed the complaint, we had not heard from the whistleblower. We wanted to bring the whistleblower in at that time. But I should’ve been much more clear about that. (read more)