Will Adam Schiff Lose in 2020? Will He be Compelled to Testify?


There has been an interesting cyclical movement back and forth in The California 28th District from which Adam Schiff resides. While he represents West Hollywood, Burbank,
Glendale, Northeastern Los Angeles suburbs, as well as parts of Central Los Angeles, Schiff has held that position since 2013 and the Democrats have held that district since 2003.

There has been a swing back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans. The year 2020 will be the 17th election year. There should be a change this time around. The Republicans held that district from 1952 until 1975 for 23 years. It was the Nixon resignation that led to the backlash and the flip to the Democrats which lasted for 18 years until 1993.

The Republicans then took the district back in 1993 and held it until 2003 for 10 years. We are now approaching another 18-year run which means there is a risk that Schiff may lose here in 2020, but absolutely in 2022.

His personal animosity toward Trump really should disqualify him from being a prosecutor. The real risk for Schiff will be if he is compelled to answer questions himself by the Chief Justice. These will be tough questions about his involvement with a White House whistleblower. A prosecutor cannot preside in a case any more than a judge if he is himself a witness to any portion of the case on trial. Senators should be able to question Schiff about the House case and his role in starting the impeachment effort. It was revealed in October that Mr. Schiff’s staff met with the whistleblower before he even filed his complaint that is the basis of the impeachment charges was filed.

Mr. Schiff spearheaded the impeachment inquiry. He repeatedly denied knowledge of the whistleblower and worked to keep the whistleblower’s identity secret. Behind the curtain, the story goes that this whistleblower had personal contacts with Biden and was a supporter. Because of the law, I cannot even repeat his name.

Schiff told the senators that the president abused his power by coercing Ukraine to interfere in the election this year by investigating former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, a top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, the very same charges could be made about the FBI and Obama no less Biden for spying like Watergate on Trump during the 2016 election. The hypocrisy is so openly blatant they assume the American people are just too stupid to pay attention.

Schiff went as far as to say that Mr. Trump “demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if he is allowed to remain in office.”

Many assume that Trump is all but guaranteed acquittal in the Republican-majority Senate, where it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the 100-member chamber to convict and remove him from office. These charges seem to fail since he only asked Ukraine to investigate, not falsely swear that Biden did anything at all.

The House impeachment inquiry was simply a party-line vote to impeach Trump whereas the motion to impeach Clinton was bipartisan as was the case with Richard Nixon, which is why he resigned instead. The damage of pushing this to the limit of Congressional power is that it may only further divide the country beyond any possible hope of returning to civility.

The rules will most likely follow the same course as the 1999 impeachment trial of President Clinton, meaning they will be established by a majority vote. The Democrats have been demanding more witness testimony for the trial, but that could actually backfire. I for one would be calling Biden and his son to put them on trial demonstrating that there was probable cause to investigate what they had pulled off in Ukraine.

The question of calling witnesses will most likely not surface until after the first phase of the trial is complete. That will include arguments from the House impeachment managers prosecuting Trump and then arguments from Mr. Trump’s legal team responding to the charges. That alone should be good for some wild headlines going into the end of the month.

If the Clinton rules prevail, which the Democrats object to, it would mean that the senators will be able to submit written questions to the House impeachment managers and the president’s legal team through Chief Justice Roberts. Schiff would have to explain himself under oath about his contacts with the whistleblower and the appearance that he or his staff told him what to include in the complaint.

Democrats in the House managed to protect the whistleblower preventing him from testifying. They have even protected his identity, which is really against Due Process of Law since you have a right to confront your accuser. That means in a Senate trial, the whistleblower can be called. Between calling the whistleblower and Schiff, this could turn into a real historical circus.

Schiff’s office has refused to comment on him having to answer questions he has refused to answer previously. If the whistleblower is compelled to testify and he was coached in any way, this is going to become a real constitutional crisis.

A whistleblower, who is said to be a CIA official assigned to the White House, accused the president of abusing his power for personal gain on the call, including withholding $391 million of U.S. military aid from Ukraine as leverage.

The preliminary transcript of the call center to this affair did not show the president presenting a quid pro quo deal for the investigations. The entire case of the Democrats rests on their claim that the threat was IMPLIED. Even the evidence that House Democrats have obtained since the two articles of impeachment were passed concerning Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine has not changed the absence of a direct threat.

Mr. Trump has acknowledged that he wanted an investigation into suspected corruption involving the Bidens and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

The prosecutor Biden demanded to be fired or he would not release funds for Ukraine was looking into corruption allegations against Burisma and Mykola Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch running the company which had hired Biden’s son.

Trump also was asking for Ukraine to look into a missing Democratic National Committee server that was hacked by Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. The Democrats refused to turn over the server to the FBI and instead hired the American cybersecurity company called CrowdStrike to examine the server who then claimed it was hacked by Russia with no independent proof.

To say that these Impeachment Proceedings can go either way is an understatement. It appears that we are fighting the 2020 election in the Senate Chamber for that is the objective at this point – score points for the election

Mitch McConnell Presents Draft Senate Rules Resolution…


Earlier today Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell presented a “draft resolution” for Senate impeachment rules to be debated and voted tomorrow on Day One of the impeachment trial.  Day #1 will likely be filled as the Senate creates rules via resolution.

The draft resolution tracks closely with previous expectations: 24 hours of presentation by House Impeachment Managers; 24 hours of presentation by Defense team; 16 hours of Senate questioning; 4 hours of closing arguments; and then a Senate debate/vote on further motions to include witnesses.

As noted in the draft resolution it appears the Majority Leader will keep the Senate in 12 hour sessions to speed up the events.  This would conclude the House case and the defense case within four days (24 hrs, or two days per side).

According to the draft, the legal teams for each side will decide who makes the verbal arguments over their two days of presentation.  At the conclusion of the four days the Senators will ask questions for a total of 16 hours.

At the conclusion of the Senators questions the House Managers and White House defense will have two hours each to rebut and/or present additional (closing) arguments.

At the conclusion of the 4 hour final remarks the Senators will debate whether to call for witnesses.  The outcome to that debate will be decided by a majority of 51 votes.

If there are going to be witnesses, they will first be deposed prior to testimony.  No witness testimony will be permitted without first being deposed.

Again, this is a draft resolution.  There will be a debate and amendment process tomorrow to create the final resolution.  It will take 51 votes to create the rules.

 

President Trump Adds MAGAnificent Seven to Impeachment Defense Team…


The gang is getting back together again.  Representatives Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Mark Meadows, Debbie Lesko, Elise Stefanik, Lee Zeldin and Doug Collins have been selected as additions to President Trump’s impeachment defense team. UPDATE: and Mike Johnson

The MAGAnificent Seven

WHITE HOUSE – Today, President Donald J. Trump announced that the following Members of the House of Representatives will serve as part of his team working to combat this hyper-partisan and baseless impeachment. This initial list includes the following Members:

♦ Congressman Doug Collins
♦ Congressman Jim Jordan
♦ Congresswoman Debbie Lesko
♦ Congressman Mark Meadows
♦ Congressman John Ratcliffe
♦ Congresswoman Elise Stefanik
♦ Congressman Lee Zeldin
♦ ¹Congressman Mike Johnson

Throughout this process, these Members of Congress have provided guidance to the White House team, which was prohibited from participating in the proceedings concocted by Democrats in the House of Representatives. The President looks forward to their continued participation and is confident that the Members will help expeditiously end this brazen political vendetta on behalf of the American people. (link)

UPDATE – Oh man, they messed up my “MAGAnificent Seven” slogan by unexpectedly having eight. LOL.  Oh well, “Elite Eight” (pictured below) because it makes sense to include an actual constitutional attorney ¹Mike Johnson.  This is a big honor.  These names will appear in history books generations from now.

…And not Matt Gaetz LOL

“The Elite Eight”

President Trump Legal Team Respond to Impeachment Trial Motion – Trial Memorandum (pdf)….


The lawyers representing President Trump and lawyers representing the Office of the Presidency collectively file a response briefing, a trial memorandum, to the Senate (full pdf below).  The 170-page rebuttal to the House articles is HERE and embedded below:

The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution and to our democratic institutions. The Articles themselves—and the rigged process that brought them here—are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected.

They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the solemn responsibility that power entails. Anyone having the most basic respect for the sovereign will of the American people would shudder at the enormity of casting a vote to impeach a duly elected President.

By contrast, upon tallying their votes, House Democrats jeered until they were scolded into silence by the Speaker. The process that brought the articles here violated every precedent and every principle of fairness followed in impeachment inquiries for more than 150 years.

Even so, all that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the President did absolutely nothing wrong. All of this is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.

[LINK to Trial Memorandum]

Has Schiff Abused the Power of Congress?


QUESTION: The Democrats said that Dershowitz’s argument on the constitutional grounds to impeach Trump is “absurdist.” What is your UNBIASED opinion if you can be unbiased?

HM

ANSWER: Obstruction of Congress is a bogus charge. The purpose of Executive Privilege is to maintain the separation of power. The Democrats had the right to go to the courts and to compel documents they wanted as well as testimony. Adam Schiff did not do that because he knew he would lose. The excuse he offered instead was this impeachment is such an emergency, it could not wait. Sorry, then they held the articles of impeachment for about a month? Look, this is all gamesmanship. They want to be able to then say Trump should have been impeached and the Republicans protected him and use that in the 2020 election.

The Judiciary is the third branch of government with the duty to provide the check and balance to the system. Because of this very gamesmanship, even if Trump was convicted, based upon the evidence in this case and the manner in which the Democrats have proceeded trying to avoid the Judiciary, Trump would be in his right to REFUSE to step down unless so directed by the Supreme Court.

Congress could pass a law that says any president must step down if they committed adultery because it is a crime, although rarely enforced. In 1980, a Massachusetts couple was spotted having sex in a van. They were confronted by police and they admitted they were married but not to each other. They were then arrested for adultery. The man admitted his guilt and paid a fine of $50, but the woman appealed, invoking the same right of privacy defined in landmark contraception and abortion cases. The court rejected the argument and upheld the conviction. Indeed, adultery is a crime in many states and thus could actually be enforced if the police chose to do so.

Therefore, Congress could attempt to impeach a president like Bill Clinton and they would be within their power. The question would then become, is adultery within the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors? Indeed, you would probably be able to impeach most of Congress. Many people do not realize that some states have made even premarital sex a crime. Utah just in 2019 finally repealed a 1973 fornication law punishing sex outside of marriage as a class B misdemeanor with up to $1,000 in fines and six months in jail.

The entire impeachment process needs to really be defined clearly, in my opinion, by the Supreme Court. Indeed, let us look at two former justices of the Supreme Court who both expressed the view that the judiciary indeed has a vital role in reining in Congress were it to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, expressed whether Trump would have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court if convicted like any other person in the country. He wrote:

“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”

Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee, echoed the very same proposition:

“If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results … judicial interference might well be appropriate.”

Legally, Clinton could have been found guilty of adultery, but they did not charge him with that. It certainly would have been legal. Then Clinton could have appealed to the Supreme Court and perhaps then they would have to determine what type of misdemeanor would even warrant removal from office. I would suspect it would have to be at least a class A  misdemeanor which is typically punishable by a jail sentence of no more than one year, and a fine of a certain amount. The lessor class misdemeanor may carry sentences of only months or days.

Had Schiff gone to court to enforce his subpoenas as the law provides, then this entire mess would have been sorted out properly. Instead, we have an impeachment which is designed solely for the election. I BELIEVE Schiff has acted beyond his constitutional power and has indeed abused the power of Congress. He may be regarded by historians alongside McCarth

NSC Russia Expert Escorted From White House Under Intelligence Investigation…


CTH held off reporting on this explosive story until we could see if a tell-tale consequence surfaced; perhaps it has.   On Friday the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is currently under a security investigation.

There are few details about why Peek was physically removed and is under a very serious investigation; however, some of Andrew Peek’s professional background details tell a story.  The connection to Gen. John Allen is a MASSIVE warning flare.

Andrew Peek, the senior director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council, has been placed on administrative leave pending a security-related investigation, people familiar with the situation tell Axios.

First the Daily Mail:

[…] Peek had been in the NSC role for just two months, after most recently working as a deputy assistant secretary of state with responsibility for Iran and Iraq.

[…] Peek had been expected to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland next week with Trump and other top aides. However, he is currently on leave pending a security-related investigation, people familiar with the situation told Axios.

[…] Peek served as a U.S. Army intelligence officer who worked under General John Allen in Afghanistan.

[…] Prior to joining the Trump administration, Peek served as a U.S. Army intelligence officer who worked under General John Allen in Afghanistan.

[…] He was also a national security adviser to Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, and Senator Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican.  (link)

From a Bloomberg article:

[…] Peek previously served as a deputy assistant secretary of State for Iraq and Iran, and he was seen as an ally of Robert O’Brien.

Andrew Peek came from the State Department.  Because the appointment happened in the past two months, it would appear Andrew Peek was recommended by the Dept. of State and accepted for the NSC post by National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.

Here’s how it looks:  Andrew Peek was a mole.  A resistance spy sent into the Trump administration as part of the allied deep state resistance effort.  Someone caught him attempting to access something, and here’s how CTH can tell.

The biggest flare that identifies Andrew Peek’s ideology is the connection to former U.S. General John Allen.   CTH has tracked Allen for several years; he was used as part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  He spoke at the DNC convention for Hillary Clinton.

Gen. John Allen, (Ret.) stands with veterans as he speaks during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

John Allen was also used, politically, as part of President Obama’s 2014 false narrative around ISIS; giving the illusion of an effort to confront the radical Islamists.  Obama had been holding leverage over John Allen since 2012 [HERE]

Allen, a four-star Marine general, succeeded Petraeus as the top American commander in Afghanistan in July 2011; but General John Allen had a serious zipper problem.  Allen retired in 2012 when his sexual proclivities surfaced.

However, Obama brought him back when he needed a General he could control in 2014.   Allen’s 2012 zipper problem became Obama’s 2014 political leverage to use General Allen as a tool to present the image of Obama’s faux fight against ISIS.

Andrew Peek coming from the stable of John Allen tells us everything we need to know about the ideology of Mr. Peek.  There’s no doubt in my mind that Andrew Peek is therefore an ideological member of the resistance similar to another NSC appointment, Alexander Vindman.

Keep in mind, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien also comes from inside the Dept of State.   So whether Mike Pompeo and Robert O’Brien set-up Peek as a mole, or whether Peek’s activities were discovered without their foreknowledge is an open question.  However, I find it impossible to believe that NSA Robert O’Brien didn’t know the ideology of Peek prior to the appointment.

Additionally, in the periphery of downstream consequence, and seemingly out of nowhere today, impeachment Lead Manager and HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff said:

The Intelligence Community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration. The NSA in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight.”

Kyle Griffin

@kylegriffin1

Schiff: “The Intelligence Community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration. The NSA in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight.” Via ABC

Embedded video

8,825 people are talking about this

Considering the timeline; and considering the topic(s); and considering the ideology; there’s a strong possibility the person on the other end of Peeks’ communication effort was someone in the network of Adam Schiff, perhaps Mary McCord or similar…

Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD

Sunday Talks: Jim Jordan Discusses FBI, Flynn Prosecution, Rosenstein, Page, Strzok, and How it all Connects…


Ohio congressman Jim Jordan appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the full background of the FBI surveillance impetus and how the bigger picture brings all of the government activity forward to the actions behind an impeachment trial.

In the full picture, the totality of government effort, the arc of all swamp action, has been to remove a president who is everything these administrative state officials oppose.  It is the independence of a Peoples’ President that represents the threat to the system…

Sunday Talks: White House Impeachment Lawyer Robert Ray Interview With Maria Bartiromo…


One of the White House impeachment lawyers, Robert Ray, sits down for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the impeachment trial.

As customary with most high-profile defense team assemblies, it would appear there are three or four of the team who have been selected primarily to articulate the legal arguments in the media arena; while the co-lead counsels (Cipollone & Sekulow) focus on the trial detail and presentations therein.

Sunday Talks: Senator Ted Cruz Discusses Upcoming Week of Impeachment…


Texas Senator Ted Cruz appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo for a lengthy discussion of the upcoming senate impeachment trial.  Senator Cruz does not currently support subpoenas for witnesses; however, if the full senate votes to call prosecution witnesses Cruz would support reciprocal witnesses for President Trump.

Senator Cruz walks through the anticipated process including the “scheduling order” or senate rules within the impeachment process.  Twelve hours of prosecution, twelve hours of defense, sixteen hours of senator questioning, and then possibly a vote.

Sunday Talks: Alan Dershowitz -vs- George Stephanopoulos….


Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is a member of the white house legal team from the perspective of constitutional law.  In this interview George Stephanopoulos was in his old familiar role as a political narrative engineer, trying to get Dershowitz to say he did not agree with the President.  The engineering objective was “Trump Lawyer says President Guilty”.