The FBI official who led the team effort to violate the fourth amendment rights of U.S. person Carter Page via unlawful surveillance, is now claiming his first amendment rights to free speech were violated when the FBI fired him for gross misconduct.
WASHINGTON DC – Former FBI agent Peter Strzok, a onetime member of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, is claiming the FBI and Justice Department violated his rights of free speech and privacy when firing him for uncovered texts that criticized President Trump. (link)
Our research indicates the lawsuits filed by Peter Strzok & Lisa Page have an undisclosed purpose. It appears both lawsuits are designed to block the DOJ from releasing the unredacted text conversations. The redactions are hiding evidence of FBI motive.
The “direct evidence” for FBI bias the inspector general says he could not find is likely located behind the redactions; the lawsuits help to block sunlight. However, that said, the complete failure of AG Bill Barr to declassify any of the primary material also highlights an institutional motive cover-up the abuses of power by both agencies.
Almost three years after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave special counsel Robert Mueller investigative authority; and almost a year since that investigation was completed; and We The People are still not allowed to see the underlining justification the DOJ used to authorize and continue that investigation.
Georgia Democrat Congressman John Lewis, 79, the leader of the 2017 Democrat agenda to boycott the inauguration of President Donald Trump, announces he has been diagnosed with stage-4 pancreatic cancer.
“I have been in some kind of fight – for freedom, equality, basic human rights – for nearly my entire life. I have never faced a fight quite like the one I have now.
“This month in a routine medical visit, and subsequent tests, doctors discovered Stage IV pancreatic cancer. This diagnosis has been reconfirmed.
“While I am clear-eyed about the prognosis, doctors have told me that recent medical advances have made this type of cancer treatable in many cases, that treatment options are no longer as debilitating as they once were, and that I have a fighting chance.
“So I have decided to do what I know to do and do what I have always done: I am going to fight it and keep fighting for the Beloved Community. We still have many bridges to cross.
“To my constituents: being your representative in Congress is the honor of a lifetime. I will return to Washington in coming days to continue our work and begin my treatment plan, which will occur over the next several weeks. I may miss a few votes during this period, but with God’s grace I will be back on the front lines soon.
“Please keep me in your prayers as I begin this journey.” (link)
Nancy Pelosi
✔@SpeakerPelosi
.@RepJohnLewis, we are all praying for you following this diagnosis. John, know that generations of Americans have you in their thoughts & prayers as you face this fight. We are all praying that you are comfortable. We know that you will be well.
Senator Ted Cruz appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to break down the likely procedural process for an impeachment trial in the upper chamber.
Senator Cruz walks through the likely scenario based on current Senate rules of impeachment. It should be noted the rules are subject to changes at any time by the Senate.
Additionally, Senator Cruz discusses the specific points of each article of impeachment which make the construct weak; hence, the Pelosi, Nadler and Lawfare effort to delay sending the articles and gather more evidence.
It’s not just what was being said, and how it was being said, but it’s also the chyron to accompany the statements that stands out in this brief panel segment about the goals and objectives of the House impeachment agenda.
Notice “lawyers for House dems suggest”, which is the framework for the broadcast. This is a key point; an absolutely vital point; that we have discussed here at great length but almost no-one is correctly considering. The Lawfare crowd is controlling the political activity, not the moonbat politicians. WATCH:
.
There is a legal network behind all of the political activity; the same network which was behind the weaponization of the DOJ and DOJ-NSD. The same “beach friend” network of corrupt lawyers who initiated and controlled the Mueller investigation. The same legal network who designed and are carrying out the operational objectives of the various House impeachment committees. In totality, this is one big legal continuum of corrupt lawyers.
Names like Douglas Letter, Chief House Counsel. Committee legal contractors like: Barry Berke, Norm Eisen, Daniel Goldman and even former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord are all in this background “House lawyers” network.
•Lawfare founder Benjamin Witte; •Comey’s lawyer, special FBI employee and leaker of Comey memos, Daniel Richman; •former DOJ-NSD lawyer David Laufman who represents FBI friend Monica McLean; •Andy McCabe’s personal lawyer, Michael Bromwich, who also represented Christine Blasey-Ford; and •former FBI legal counsel James Baker are all part of this ongoing legal network.
Some within the network are still inside government; like former DOJ-NSD lead legal counsel Michael Atkinson who is the current Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG); and current Flynn prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, who was also part of the Mueller team. These are all massively corrupt and dirty lawyers.
Even Politico noted the legal team of more than “two dozen” lawyers is involved in the House effort to remove President Trump. All of them have a specific interest in the removal; and some of them like Mary McCord and her former counsel Michael Atkinson, have massive conflicts of interest due to their prior law-breaking activity:
(Via Politico) […] In all, at least two dozen attorneys have come on board to craft both the legal and political arguments that Trump is defying all manner of constitutional norms. A few have become stars in their own right, serving as both lead interrogator and witness during the nationally televised impeachment hearings.
Others have worked behind the scenes, writing legal briefs and trying to convince federal judges that Trump can’t block witnesses or withhold critical evidence. And they’ve been there in private meetings with the party leaders as they wrote the articles of impeachment that that were up for a vote late Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee.
Many are ringers, hired to handle the entirely different kind of workload that comes with impeachment. It’s a task that requires specialized expertise on everything from the constitutional mechanisms for removing a president to arcane legal theories about the balance of power between Congress and the White House that look to be on track to land before the Supreme Court.
They’re pulling long hours alongside veteran full-time Capitol Hill staffers and other newbies plucked from a flood of résumés that poured in after the Democrats won control of the House last November, which offered a rare opportunity for experienced lawyers who wanted to give the Trump presidency a thorough vetting.
“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.” (read more)
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said Speaker Nancy Pelosi has no grounds to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate. He said on Fox News Sunday.: “It’s her duty to turn it over. It’s not some mechanism she can control.” The Constitution is very clear that Pelosi is abusing the process by refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. She is waiting for the courts to compel White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, who defied a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee. His testimony regarded Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into the Russia scandal implying an obstruction of justice. Pelosi knows that the articles of impeachment are a joke. They also open the door to call Joe Biden to testify in the Senate which he has said he will refuse to comply with any such attempt.
The case was heard by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who just happened to have been interviewed as one of Barack Obama’s potential nominees for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. Cases are assigned in the backroom by clerks so the process in a civil case is not transparent, which raises even more questions about the politics behind the curtain in this coup against Trump.
Judge Jackson in the district court in Washington ruled that McGahn must testify and that the Justice Department’s argument “is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.” The judge ordered McGahn to appear before the House committee and said her conclusion was “inescapable” because a subpoena demand is part of the legal system and was not the political process. This is questionable. Nonetheless, — and “per the Constitution, no one is above the law.”
Judge Jackson further wrote in a 118-page opinion no less in short order, that “the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires.” Yet Congress does not have judicial power nor is an impeachment a criminal trial with the full protections of Due Process – it is political. Judge Jackson further wrote: “Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth.”
The Democrats are holding back the articles of impeachment knowing they are bogus and political in hopes of forcing McGahn to testified to change the charges to obstruction of justice. Following this decision that appears to be very political, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal and asked the court to stay Jackson’s order until the case is resolved. Judge Jackson granted the stay issuing just a one-paragraph order stating that her grant of a stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits.”
As the case now moves up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, it is only the second time in history that any court has ordered a senior presidential advisor to testify before Congress. In the previous case, a federal judge similarly found that former George W. Bush White House counsel Harriet E. Miers could not ignore a House subpoena. That case was settled before an appeal was decided, so there is no appellate decision or Supreme Court precedent on this matter.
Make no mistake about it, Trump is not impeached until the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate. Pelosi has no constitutional power to make any demands from the Senate. She is seeking to paint the picture that Trump will not be removed from office and use that as a campaign issue claiming it was biased despite the fact she ordered all Democrats MUST vote for impeachment. She has been hoping to compel McGahn to testify and then stretch the impeachment out closer to the election for political advantage. She also hopes that McGahn will lead to an obstruction of justice change to compel Trump to leave the office.
It looks like the beginning of a united plan for the Senate impeachment trial is in the works. According to a New York Post article the House impeachment managers would present their prosecution case; then President Trump’s designated lawyers will present his defense case; then the Senate will vote.
At least, that’s the plan being reported:
WASHINGTON – After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump’s impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal.
“I’m ready to vote now,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) told The Hill. “I think the articles are a joke.”
But they don’t want to dismiss the House Democrats’ charges out of hand, as some Trump allies have proposed.
“It’s time for him to have his day in court,” Hawley said. “The president deserves to have due process.”
Trump, who was calling for a full-blown trial with multiple witnesses — including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter — just three weeks ago, now supports the Senate leadership’s plan. (read more)
One America News produced a three part series on the Biden family financial attachment to the corruption in Ukraine. Each segment in the series is nearly an hour long; they are presented below for viewer/reader reference and review.
One America News Investigates – Chanel Rion interviews several witnesses who destroy Adam Schiff’s baseless impeachment case against President Trump. In a three part EXCLUSIVE report, Rudy Giuliani debunks the impeachment hoax and exposes Biden family corruption in Ukraine. Starting with Part One:
Oral arguments in the DC Court of Appeals for the House Judiciary Committee to obtain Mueller’s grand jury information, are scheduled for January 3rd, 2020. The HJC is leveraging the Senate impeachment trial in their arguments to gain access to the Mueller material. This approach is by design.
With that in mind it seems likely any House impeachment articles will not be delivered to the Senate until after the DC court arguments, and likely not before the ruling:
In addition to the Mueller evidence, the HJC is seeking judicial enforcement authority to force the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn. Both HJC appeals court arguments are using the Senate trial to bolster their case.
The rushed House articles were/are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.
This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped. Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that could facilitate two pending court cases.
As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place. By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.
What the house crew have assembled is an interesting back-door attempt to position a valid claim for evidence against the accused without having first gained judicial authority for it. The HJC is now arguing to appeals courts, and likely to SCOTUS, the blocked evidentiary material is critical evidence in a soon-to-be-held Senate trial.
The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records. Each of these issues is currently being argued. [The supreme court will hear financials/taxes in April].
House counsel Doug Letter responded to the DC Appeals Court arguing the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn is needed for evidence in the impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here] And the grand jury material is needed to highlight the second article, Obstruction of Congress [Court pdf Avail Here]
Looking at the legal maneuvers from that perspective means the grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.
The 6(e) material relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.
Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely. A goldmine of political opposition research.
Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.
The oral arguments are next Friday, January 3rd, 2020.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) holds confirmation authority over leaders appointed to the intelligence community. Chairman Burr and Vice-Chairman Warner participated in the IC effort to target and remove President Trump from office.
You might remember recently how Burr and Warner would not support Rep. John Ratcliffe for Director of National intelligence under the auspices of Ratcliffe not having enough “experience” within intelligence operations. However, those same “experience” concerns were absent when they approved dirty ICIG nominee Michael Atkinson.
Reminding ourselves how ICIG Atkinson manipulated the ‘whistle-blower’ regulations to permit hearsay from CIA operative Eric Ciaramella; and knowing the primary concern of Senator Warner was to cover his own involvement in the soft coup effort in 2017; it is interesting to go back to the 2018 confirmation hearing of Atkinson and review the focus:
Senator Mark Warner […] You’re also aware that this Committee is leading the review into the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During this hearing I want to hear assurances from both of you that you will fully cooperate with this review and provide this Committee with all the information requested in a timely fashion.
Mr. Atkinson, as the Inspector General of the Intel Community your job is especially critical because of the nature of the material that they handle every day, whistleblowers within the IC generally can’t go public to expose misbehavior and misuse of official resources. We the Congress and the American people will depend upon you as an independent agent of accountability for the Office of the DNI and, for that matter, for the whole intel community.
While you don’t have previous experience as an inspector general, I look forward to hearing your plans for the righting
of the ship at the IC’s IG when it comes to both whistleblower protections and investigations.
I’m very concerned by the significant number of open cases that I believe have lingered too long. If confirmed, I will ask you to make the whistleblower program a priority. This is an area that cuts across party lines and committee jurisdictions. (continue transcript)
The SSCI is compromised. One example of their compromise was how they worked with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the Carter Page FISA application to the media. Other examples include how Vice-Chairman Warner was communicating covertly with Christopher Steele and back-channeling information to Robert Mueller. There are dozens more specific examples if you use the “search function” on this website.
Because of their direct role in confirming the officials who would have access to the evidence of their compromise, the SSCI can block anyone who would be a risk to them.
President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe for the position of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Senator Burr informed the White House that nominee does not align with their interests. President Trump withdrew the nomination.
.
The intelligence apparatus is a key part of the rogue administrative state that operates in direct alignment with a rogue state department and politicians who use their influence to gain material wealth from sales of policy. It is a synergy of DC interests.
In the larger context this reality also explains why Lt. General Michael Flynn had to be eliminated with extreme prejudice from National Security Advisor to President Trump. In 2017 Michael Flynn represented the same type of threat to the SSCI that John Ratcliffe represents in 2019….
The office of the presidency cannot overcome that institutional power dynamic; the only thing President Trump can do it attempt to work around them.
♦ Ipso Facto: If you accept the intellectual honesty behind the process issues above; and if you accept how the SSCI will only permit nominees that are not a risk to their interests; then it becomes of greater importance to consider who they *did* permit:
√ CIA Director Gina Haspel was not a threat to the corrupt state.
√ CIA Director Mike Pompeo was not a threat to the corrupt state.
√ICIG Michael Atkinson was not a threat to the corrupt state.
√ ODNI Dan Coats was not a threat to the corrupt state.
√ NSA Director Paul M Nakasone is not a threat to the corrupt state.
Following the use of the CIA (Ciaramella), DoD (Vindman) and Dept. of State to run the impeachment scam, my evolving contention is now that State Dept. Secretary Mike Pompeo was increasingly handling President Trump.
There is also a massive overlay of corrupt political enterprise, that’s where SSCI comes into play controlling the appointees who would be adverse to their interests.
Logical thought is antithetical to the interests of the coup-plotters. Nuance and obfuscation are their shields; that’s why they, writ large, will not release the classified documents. A common sense American Thinker article cuts through the chaff and countermeasures for many interests:
[…] The implications of intercepting the communications of a U.S. citizen who is associated with the political campaign of a candidate seeking the presidency rings nearly every “bell” in the FBIs and Attorney General’s Guidelines for sensitive investigations. As discussed in the IG report, by regulation, these cases cannot be initiated without the written approval of the Director and the Attorney General.
In addition to the approval obviously granted by the Director and AG, the IGs report identified the following additional high level officials who reviewed and approved the Page FISA affidavit: “NSD’s Acting Assistant Attorney General, NSD’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight over 01, 01’s Operations Section Chief and Deputy Section Chief, the DAG, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Deputy Attorney General responsible for ODAG’s national security portfolio.”
The suggestion that somehow, seventeen significant errors, omissions of fact, falsehoods, or deliberate misrepresentations made their way into a FISA affidavit/s (accidentally, at the hand of an anonymous case agent) and then were not immediately noted and corrected throughout the course of this exceptional review process is simply not believable. ~ Continue Reading
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
The FBI official who led the team effort to violate the fourth amendment rights of U.S. person Carter Page via unlawful surveillance, is now claiming his first amendment rights to free speech were violated when the FBI fired him for gross misconduct.
Centinel2012 