It would appear U.S. Attorney John Durham digging into the origin of the ‘vast Russian collusion-conspiracy’ has the founders of Fusion-GPS getting twitchy.  The “Mamet Principle”of pretending not to know things was on full display today during a Meet the Press interview with Fusion founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch.

For obvious reasons fellow traveler Chuck Todd avoided the most damning lines of questioning including why they hired Nellie Ohr, why Simpson lied to the House intelligence committee, and why Glenn Simpson invoked the fifth amendment in refusing to testify to the House Judiciary Committee.

It was demonstrably evident that Glenn Simpson was working with Russian operative/lobbyist Natalia Velelnitskaya in a 2016 effort against the Trump campaign. However, during the interview today Glenn Simpson takes the defensive position that he was likely tricked by the Russian.  WATCH:

.

While Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson was domestically working with Russian lobbyist Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin.

Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was assisting her inside the U.S.  Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan died in a mysterious helicopter crash.

Additionally back in 2018 Simpson claimed in testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that he did not have contact with any FBI or DOJ officials regarding the infamous Steele dossier until after the 2016 election. But Bruce Ohr’s emails show that he and Simpson were in contact as early as August 2016.

On Page four of the HPSCI memo (pdf here) under point #3 we see the relationship between Fusion-GPS and the FBI as outlined in contacts between Bruce Ohr (DOJ), Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS), Chris Steele (Dossier Author) and the FBI:

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOl official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein.

Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his  communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files-but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC. (link to pdf)

• Glenn Simpson is in contact with Bruce Ohr on August 22nd, 2016
• Christopher Steele is meeting with Bruce Ohr in September 2016.
• The FISA Application was October 21st, 2016.
• Nellie Ohr passed on research to her husband Bruce, who passed on to the FBI.

Now take a look at the testimony of Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson about contact between Fusion GPS and the FBI.

(LINK to pdf Testimony)

Question:

You’ve never heard from anyone in the U.S. government in relation to these matters, either the FBI or the Department of Justice?

Simpson Answer (under oath):

After the election. I mean during the election, no.

That’s a direct lie to congress.  Hence Mr. Simpson took the fifth amendment position against self incrimination and refused further testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.

Within the only impeachment resolution put forth by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to open an “impeachment inquiry” the resolution outlined a process.  With only eight legislative days left in 2019; and considering the resolution as adopted; the calendar doesn’t match the democrat talking points.  Here is a walk through of the timeline:

Congress returns from the Thanksgiving break on December 2nd and recesses again on December 12th.  That leaves eight days in December to accomplish all the House tasks.

Democrats have said they anticipate an impeachment vote in mid-December, but a review of the House impeachment resolution calls for a transfer from HPSCI “inquiry” (Schiff) to HJC “investigation” (Nadler) as an outcome of a report from Adam Schiff’s intelligence committee.

Even if we assume the HPSCI report is being written during the Thanksgiving break by HPSCI/Lawfare staff there would still need to be a period where the report is reviewed by the congress members on the committee.  Normally there would be a minority section to the report; and under all committee processes there would be a vote to advance the report.

Again, there’s only eight days in December and presumably HPSCI committee members would need to review the report prior to advancing it to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC).  Once the report lands in the HJC, again – according to the prior resolution, that’s when President Trump would be able to call rebuttal witnesses and have White House counsel challenge and cross-examine HJC witnesses.

As noted above, in previous comments by Democrat leadership they have said they are targeting an impeachment vote for mid-December.

There is absolutely no-way the HPSCI can generate a report, have members authorize the report, transfer the report to HJC, schedule witnesses in coordination with the White House, organize opposing counsel, complete a HJC inquiry, assemble articles of impeachment and hold a House vote on those articles in eight days, mid-December.

Even with the partisan railroading on overdrive that schedule is an impossibility. Remember, they still have to pass a budget because they punted a continuing resolution into December.

The best the House could hope for would be a HPSCI report completed and a House vote to send the report to HJC in December; changing the process from an official “inquiry” into an official “investigation”.  If accurate (more sensible) that puts the HJC impeachment process into January 2020.

Given the need for Chairman Nadler and the HJC to coordinate schedules with White House lawyers and rules, etc. etc.   HJC hearings would be mid to late January under the best of circumstances; and article assembly with a House Impeachment Vote in late January to early February 2020.

[Keep in mind throughout this Dec/Jan process the Democrats will be getting pummeled by President Trump and the GOP in media and that will show in polling.]

So now we’re into February, and here comes the Senate…. and things will get even slower.

Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar would now be removed from the campaign trail until further notice (likely six to eight weeks).  That leaves the “three B’s” (Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg) with complete free reign on the campaign trail, while the Democrat Senators are stuck in DC.

[Über-cynically, perhaps that scenario is by design.  Perhaps the DNC Club wants to eliminate the far-left wing-nuts through a process of cooperation with Pelosi on the schedule.   Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg are definitely the DNC donor class favs.]

However, a Feb/March/April impeachment effort is just plain silly from an electoral perspective.  The presidential election is only six months away.  The effort would look like abject stupidity, it just doesn’t make sense.

Walk it through on paper, the legal impeachment process just doesn’t match with the House Speaker’s talking points.   Yet, if they don’t complete the impeachment process in the House it’s arguably worse.  By the end of the year they will have spent four months on this fiasco…. How can they not have a vote?…. and yet what would they be voting on?

…..This schedule just doesn’t add up.

And then consider the legal challenges on a parallel track:

Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House authorization vote to gain the authority for the HJC to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the “official” impeachment investigation.

Any loss in three currently pending cases will undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s obviously an issue.   There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court.  Written briefs soon, arguments perhaps in early December? Outcome pending.  There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.

[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered.  (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was  stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing.  (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100%

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

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

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS).  The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry” upon which they have built their legal arguments.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

Pelosi and Schiff are racing the court for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release which will likely challenge the foundation of their narrative.

The Secretary of Navy, former Wall Street global banking executive Richard V Spencer, holds a press availability to deny threatening the President of The United States.

Secretary Spencer denies a report he threatened to resign if President Donald Trump intervened in the case of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, and said he works at the pleasure of the president. He also refuted a report that Rear Adm. Collin Green also threatened to resign.

The initial jaw-dropping compromise within the Pentagon was first noted when Lt. Col Alexander Vindman, on assignment to the National Security Council, admitted during his deposition to defying White House policy and delivering countermanding instructions to his colleagues in the Ukraine government.

Alex Vindman compromised his position, compromised his leadership, and made himself an issue for National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.  However, it wasn’t what Vindman did per se’, but rather what the Dept. of Defense didn’t do that was more alarming.  Immediately upon notification of the compromise Defense Secretary Mark Esper (above left) was under the obligation to remove the compromise, yet he did nothing.

The Vindman example was/is a concerning lack of action by Defense Dept. leadership, and that situation is made all the more alarming today as the New York Times is reporting Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer is now openly blackmailing CiC President Donald J Trump and rebuking civilian authority and oversight.

New York Times […] The secretary of the Navy and the admiral who leads the SEALs have threatened to resign or be fired if plans to expel a commando from the elite unit in a war crimes case are halted by President Trump, administration officials said Saturday.

The Navy is proceeding with the disciplinary plans against the commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, who counts Mr. Trump as one of his most vocal supporters. After reversing a demotion in recent days, the president suggested on Thursday that he would intervene again in the case, saying that the sailor should remain in the unit.

The threats by the Navy secretary, Richard V. Spencer, and the commander, Rear Adm. Collin Green, are a rare instance of pushback against Mr. Trump from members of the Defense Department. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, scrambled to come up with a face-saving compromise this past week in the hope that Mr. Trump could be persuaded to change his mind.

[…] One argument that officials said may be relied on is the assumption that a tweet does not constitute a formal presidential order. Mr. Esper and General Milley conveyed to the president that if he followed up that tweet with a direct order, there would be huge consequences: Mr. Trump would lose Mr. Spencer and Admiral Green, further infuriate his top military leadership and do untold damage to decades of military justice doctrine, according to administration officials. (read more)

Let’s cut through the chaff and fog.

The military, nor any person therein, does not get to “threaten” the President of The United States. The President is the Commander in Chief of all armed forces. It is not President Trump who would be doing “untold damage to decades of military justice doctrine“, but rather the insubordination of flag officers who are duty bound to carry out legal and constitutional instructions from the President.

The DoD inaction surrounding Lt. Col Vindman was a precursor, a visible symptom few were paying attention to; indicating a political cancer within the unified chain of command. The U.S. Secretary of the Navy threatening the U.S. President is an even more alarming symptom.

A military officer does not get to threaten his leadership with a ‘do what I demand or I will quit’ approach.  Any senior level military officer who would express such a sentiment would be regarded as unstable, compromised and unfit to hold a leadership rank.

Yes, it really is that simple.

.

Rudy Giuliani appears on Fox News to discuss the impeachment nonsense and his request to Lindsey Graham for support in getting visa’s for Ukraine witnesses.  This is a rather extensive interview hitting on a lot of ancillary aspects to the Biden-Ukraine story.