At 10:00am ET the House Judiciary Committee will hold an “impeachment groundwork” hearing with a panel of left-wing resistance academics scheduled to help democrats justify their urgent partisan efforts to remove President Trump from office.

HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler will be aided by contracted Lawfare attorney Norm Eisen for the effort.  Chairman Nadler promised his peers he will be very aggressive toward any opposition questioning that seeks to undermine the predetermined enterprise. The academic panel is scheduled to begin testifying to Mr. Eisen at 10:00am ET

C-SPAN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream Link

.

.

The republican leadership from the U.S. House of Representatives held a press conference today as a rebuttal to the democrat impeachment inquiry report.  House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins joined GOP leadership to discuss the significant issues with the impeachment process.  WATCH:

.

Everything We The People ever needed to know about media bias is completely visible at the end of the press conference.  Few DC media attended.  Apparently the republican rebuttal message is antithetical to the DC media objective.

Seconds after the presser concluded we witness the lack of media interest….

AT&T provided the call records, likely under subpoena. (link)

Let’s hope Schiff received them under subpoena, because the alternative is much worse. The alternative is a criminal leak from an outside interest.

There’s a particular type of anger that surfaces when you realize the Schiff team who coordinated the origination effort with the CIA whistleblower; and then vehemently hide their coordination; are the same crew simultaneously using the power of their position to subpoena private phone call records from President Trump’s lawyers, members of congress, and journalists.  [See Schiff Report pages 157, 158, 159 – pdf]

Yes, in essence Adam Schiff weaponized his committee authority toward the goal of removing President Trump in an identical way the prior administration intelligence officials, DOJ and FBI weaponized their authority toward removing candidate Trump, president-elect Trump and President Trump.

It is one long continuum of political corruption, weaponization, and fabrication of evidence to achieve a political objective.  It is also disgusting in construct.

This crew doesn’t care one bit how much they have to destroy this country, so long as they can advance a left-wing political agenda based on an unquenchable thirst for power.  I never thought we would see the possibility of a hot civil war in my lifetime.  I was wrong.

The cattle cars are on the horizon, and the full Schiff report pdf is below.

.

While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains out of the country, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has extended the House legislative calendar through December 20th in order to rush a full House impeachment vote before Christmas.

Today the Chairman of the House ‘impeachment inquiry’, Adam Schiff, publishes the Democrat House impeachment inquiry report with a partisan vote on the report -nobody has read- expected later today.  [Press Release] – [Schiff Report]

LINK to Report HERE

Democrat Press Release Here

A Washington Post spin article attempts to defend the DOJ/FBI “small group” 2016 campaign effort by claiming vindication from IG Horowitz and U.S. AG Barr not accepting the finding.   But not so fast…

Before getting to the WaPo narrative construction a little background review is worthwhile; starting with the original investigative purpose of the IG review.  The Horowitz review was initiated to look into how the DOJ and FBI secured a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page:

IG Horowitz was never investigating the predicate claims that initiated the CIA/FBI operation known as “Crossfire Hurricane”.  So how exactly would AG Barr and IG Horowitz be diverging on an aspect to a predicate that Horowitz was never reviewing?

Additionally, IG Horowitz was never tasked or empowered to interview CIA officers who are known to have been at the heart of the pre-July 2016 operation.  Horowitz was/is focused on the DOJ and FBI compliance with legal requirements for the FISA application that was assembled for use in October 2016, and renewed throughout 2017.

So what we are seeing in the Washington Post framework is the intentional use of a narrow IG review to obfuscate, provide cover, and conflate a larger investigation undertaken by U.S. Attorney Durham. The media attempt to conflate two narratives is not accidental.

Going back to the apropos statement by David Mamet: ‘in order to succeed in their endeavors leftists have to pretend not to know things’; never is this more clear than when you consider the status of U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Obviously the investigation by Durham is the key investigation of the political activity of the intelligence community during the 2016 election; but have you ever seen a single media journalist attempting to interview Durham about the progress?  Think about it.

You know what it looks like, you’ve seen it a thousand times on television.

…The U.S. attorney is walking into the office from his car and a half dozen cameras and reporters are rushing alongside and asking questions.   Have you seen that customary media effort even once since U.S. Attorney Durham was announced as investigating the origins of the Trump campaign surveillance?   No, why not?

Have you witnessed a single reporter even attempting to ask cursory questions to U.S. Attorney Durham?  The reason for the void is within what Mamet described… the need to pretend not to know things.  Combine that ideological need with intentional leaking to Washington Post reporters like Devlin Barrett and you discover the strategy, reason and purpose for a conflation of investigative findings.

This crew of corrupt and political FBI, DOJ and IC officials, hang out socially with same network of media journalists, friends and spouses who cover them.  These are like-minded travelers who together with political operatives all collate in the same tribal circles.

Think of what would happen on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or a Sunday talk show if a person were to ask the pundit: Hey, Chuck Todd how come you never see an NBC news crew and satellite truck trying to get a comment from John Durham?…

Within the WaPo article they note: “Barr or a senior Justice Department official could submit a formal letter as part of that process, which would then be included in the final report.”  Why is that sentence placed within the WaPo chaff and countermeasures?

The answer is simple.  The described AG letter is transparently going to be included, because Barr has to explain -with an ongoing investigation- that Horowitz did not have access to CIA, DIA, ODNI and ancillary contributory information that builds out on the FISA aspect to his IG 2016 election review.  The Horowitz report is a fact-finding investigation for one important part, but it is only one part.

Understanding that Durham is looking at the July 31st, Crossfire Hurricane predicate; and the intelligence activity that preceded that predicate; it makes sense for AG Bill Barr to qualify the parameters of the Inspector General FISA report.

Additionally, understanding that Durham is looking at the preceding 2015 and 2016 predicate, it makes sense within the collective network of interests we would see this type of political priority resurface:

U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origin of the James Clapper and John Brennan initiated Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) is a risk to all of the interests who assembled the 2016 vast Russian collusion-conspiracy.   Again, Horowitz was not tasked to go anywhere near this.  Horowitz is looking at whether the DOJ and FBI complied with internal DOJ/FBI rules and processes during their FISA application and use within the FISA court.

The Washington Post wants to sell a narrative that AG Bill Barr is not accepting the inspector general finding on the origin of the Russia investigation; but the inspector general did not investigate the origin of the Russia investigation. The purpose of the WaPo report is to intentionally conflate the two issues.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler has announced the four selected representatives for the committee “groundwork” hearing on political impeachment.

The hearing takes place Wednesday, December 4th at 10:00am EST and includes:

• Noah Feldman – Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, Harvard Law School
• Pamela S. Karlan – Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School
• Michael Gerhardt – Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, The University of North Carolina School of Law
• Jonathan Turley – J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School

In advance of the Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare Committee releasing a highly partisan HPSCI report to facilitate a political impeachment effort, the House republicans have provided a proactive 123 page rebuttal report [pdf link here] the media will ignore.

A good encapsulation paragraph within the executive summary: “The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system. The Democrats are trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes. They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats were discomforted by an elected President’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats chafed at an elected President’s “outside the beltway” approach to diplomacy.”

[link to House pdf version of report]

1. President Trump has a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.

2. President Trump has a long-held skepticism of U.S. foreign assistance and believes that Europe should pay its fair share for mutual defense.

3. President Trump’s concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board are valid. The Obama State Department noted concerns about Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma in 2015 and 2016.

4. There is indisputable evidence that senior Ukrainian govt officials opposed President Trump in 2016 and did so publicly. It has been reported that a DNC operative worked with Ukrainian officials, including the Ukrainian Embassy, to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump.

5. The evidence does not establish that President Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election for the purpose of benefiting him in the 2020 election.

6. The evidence does not establish that President Trump withheld a meeting with President Zelensky for the purpose of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.

7. The evidence does not support that President Trump withheld U.S. security assistance to Ukraine for the purpose of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.

8. The evidence does not support that President Trump orchestrated a shadow foreign policy apparatus for the purpose of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.

9. The evidence does not support that President Trump covered up the substance of his telephone conversation with President Zelensky by restricting access to the call summary.

10. President Trump’s assertion of longstanding claims of executive privilege is a legitimate response to an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.

SUMMARY – The evidence does NOT prove the Democrats’ allegations that President Trump abused his authority to pressure Ukraine to investigate his potential political rival, Vice President Joe Biden, for President Trump’s benefit in the 2020 presidential election.

Here’s the full report:

.

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins appears on Fox News to debate the insufferable gatekeeper of the swamp, Chris Wallace.

Despite the necessary obfuscation by Wallace, who is professionally trained to pretend not to know things, Collins points out the ridiculous proposition that republicans and the White House are required to respond to participation demands when the HPSCI impeachment report hasn’t even been produced.  The process construct therein highlights the purely political motive of the partisan Democrat agenda.  At this point it’s transparent.

On November 8th of this year Lawfare founder Benjamin Wittes sent a rather curious tweet proclaiming his undying devotion to former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.  At the time it seemed rather odd and out of no-where; but today it makes sense.

At the time of Witte’s tweet Lisa Page would have been scheduling her coming out narrative, and consulting with the DOJ/FBI “beach friend” community for PR advice.  After several weeks of planning and careful roll-out organization, noted by several weeks of contact with mutually aligned journalists, today Ms. Page steps into the spotlight with her introductory article in the Daily Beast, aptly titled: “Lisa Page Speaks“.

Yes, yes, of course Lisa Page says she’s a victim to the horrible President Trump and the exposure of “private affair”, and the exposure of her “political texts and biases” etc. etc.  However, that’s not what is really interesting….

Within the article there’s a very specific and very familiar type of victim narrative construct.

When you read the article it jumps out at you. The victim narrative is from the exact same acting coaches hired by the FBI and used by Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford; it’s a little spooky how both Ms. Ford and Ms. Page could sound so identical, until you realize the same FBI and media people have constructed both victim storyboards.

Ms. Page decries what she has seen happen to her beloved FBI, that as she said “she grew up in“.  Now, if that institutional attachment sounds a little over-the-top considering a grown woman started at the FBI in 2013 and resigned in 2018, well, it helps to remember this is the Public Relations advice from the DC-based FBI committee.

The DOJ/FBI ‘above the law’ crowd of beach friends assemble in the Lawfare conference room; look at the latest storyboards and plan the Lisa Page marketing, advertising and branding campaign.   The resulting media strategy started tonight:

(Daily Beast) […] That was the moment Page decided she had to speak up. “I had stayed quiet for years hoping it would fade away, but instead it got worse,” she says. “It had been so hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back.”

She is also about to be back in the news cycle in a big way. On Dec. 9, the Justice Department Inspector General report into Trump’s charges that the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign will come out. Leaked press accounts indicate that the report will exonerate Page of the allegation that she acted unprofessionally or showed bias against Trump.

[…] “I’m someone who’s always in my head anyway – so now otherwise normal interactions take on a different meaning. Like, when somebody makes eye contact with me on the Metro, I kind of wince, wondering if it’s because they recognize me, or are they just scanning the train like people do? It’s immediately a question of friend or foe? Or if I’m walking down the street or shopping and there’s somebody wearing Trump gear or a MAGA hat, I’ll walk the other way or try to put some distance between us because I’m not looking for conflict. Really, what I wanted most in this world is my life back.”

[…] “The thing about the FBI that is so extraordinary is that it is made up of a group of men and women whose every instinct is to run toward the fight. It’s in the fiber of everybody there. It’s the lifeblood. So it’s particularly devastating to be betrayed by an organization I still care about so deeply. And it’s crushing to see the noble Justice Department, my Justice Department, the place I grew up in, feel like it’s abandoned its principles of truth and independence.” (read more)

~ This tweet was November 8th ~

Tonight: