Ranking Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein Left Senate During Schiff Testimony – Said “Goodnight” and Went Home…


Many people are becoming aware the Senate impeachment trial is an exercise in politics, nothing more.  The votes are already decided; the trial is simply a pantomime.

To highlight the point, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, simply walked out during the trial when Adam Schiff was testifying; said “goodnight” and just went home.

Washington Post congressional reporter Paul Kane noted:

(LINK)

(WaPo) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) walked out of the Senate chamber, said “good night” to two reporters standing nearby, and left the Capitol. Senators are expected to stay in the chamber for the entirety of the arguments. (link)

‘The Origin of The Feces’ – White House Lawyer Patrick Philbin Explains House Circumvention of Constitution During Impeachment…


As 21 different state attorneys general noted earlier today, there are several reasons why the impeachment effort is unconstitutional.  These are not process arguments; they are factual arguments central to the constitutional framework of our government.

The failure of a full House vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to pursue evidence -via enforceable subpoenas- was a defect by design of Nancy Pelosi’s decision to initiate an impeachment inquiry by her decree, not an authorizing vote.  White House lawyer Patrick Philbin explains the legal issue; this could be the lead argument in the defense case when it starts.  [Video prompted to 03:20]

.

CTH noted this structural issue last August, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings. None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.

The House was not issuing subpoenas, it was issuing letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production. Recently the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion.

.

BACKSTORY – Last year House Democrat leadership took a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they would not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

(Source)

“Lawful subpoenas”, literally require an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word. The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry, and charged the House Judiciary Committee with the authority therein.

Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempted to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) were only sending out request letters. The compliance was discretionary based on the outlook of the recipient.

Nancy Pelosi did not have the vote or political capital to start by initiating a full House impeachment authorization. Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings had to rely on the duplicity of the media to help them hide their scheme; and the media complied.

Speaker Pelosi & Lawfare’s impeachment scheme could only succeed with a compliant media protecting it. The media was entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct.

If the media would have ever asked questions the fraud would have collapsed.

Adam Schiff had to hide his hearings because the foundation of the impeachment fraud was to create a public impression. There was no structural impeachment process or guideline being followed. The committee leadership used the closed door hearings to leak information to the media to create a needed narrative.

A legislative “letter” or demand request needed to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There was no penalty that can be associated with the House demands because the Legislative Branch did not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they worked through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been 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, a power made possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. However, that level of elevated House authority required a full House authorization vote, and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee as empowered.

In 2019 the Legislative Branch was NOT expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raised 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 the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

There was NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House did not create a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.

The House needed to vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee would have gained judicial enforcement authority. That would have created a penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

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

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plan was designed for public consumption; she/they were creating the illusion of something that did not exist. The purpose of all their fraudulent impeachment activity was to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intended to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process was destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege.

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

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies changed House rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi and Lawfare changed House impeachment rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi/Lawfare changed committee rules (SEE HERE); and in doing so they removed House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did. However, what Lawfare and Pelosi could not change was The U.S. Constitution, which they were destined to collide with.

Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ could not supersede the constitutional separation of powers. She was well aware of this. Nancy Pelosi could not decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

Pelosi’s impeachment scheme required a compliant media to support her construct…

They did exactly that.

Jay Sekulow Discusses Current Status of House Impeachment Case…


President Trump’s co-lead counsel, Jay Sekulow, discusses his perspective on the opening arguments for the House impeachment case.   As Sekulow notes, so far the House appears to be attempting to leverage impeachment for a difference in foreign policy outlooks:

Zeldin, Jordan, Ratcliffe and Meadows Debunk Media Spin…


Unfortunately, one of the necessities of this ridiculous impeachment effort is to have fact-based advocates who can debunk impeachment lies before the narrative engineers (media) has a cycle to run with them.  That’s one of the reasons why Lee Zeldin, Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe and Mark Meadows are so important.

In this quick media briefing, the truth tellers quickly debunk the narrative (story) being spun within the upper chamber by Adam Schiff’s lying House Managers.  John Ratcliffe hones-in on the timeline and rattles-off the dates as an experienced litigator.  WATCH:

21 State Attorneys General Submit Legal Brief – Urging Senate to Reject Articles of Impeachment…


It is not a process argument, but rather a matter of constitutional preservation.

Twenty-one State Attorneys’ General submit a brief to the Senate (full pdf below) in support of complete rejection for the House articles of impeachment.

…”If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers’ design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers”…

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson along with twenty additional State AG’s, submit a 14-page briefing (download here) to the United States Senate warning of the danger of not rejecting a purely partisan political impeachment effort. The Attorneys’ General note the current impeachment proceedings are “fundamentally flawed as a matter of constitutional law.” Their concerns are echo points starting to be realized by Senators.

During a press conference in front of the U.S. Capitol Wednesday, South Carolina AG Alan Wilson said the group was urging the Senate to “reject these articles” as a matter of constitutional law. WATCH:

Here’s the Brief:

.

“Because the legal theories underlying both Articles I and II are legally flawed and factually insufficient, as well as inherently destructive of separation of powers, the Senate should explicitly reject them to protect both the institution of the Presidency and the Constitution.

A close examination of the legal theories and stipulations of fact accompanying Articles I and II reveal their fatal flaws.2 It is important to note that the focus of this legal analysis will be on the stipulations of fact relied upon by the House at the time of the impeachment vote because this is the precedent upon which all future impeachment proceedings will rely.”

It is a well written brief and exactly on point.

Second Session – Day Two – Senate Impeachment Trial – 3:50pm Livestream…


To assist in page-load-time we’re breaking up the Senate Impeachment discussion threads.

There will be 24 hours of presentation by House Impeachment Managers (over 3 days); 24 hours of presentation by Defense team (over 3 days); 16 hours of Senate questioning; 4 hours of closing arguments, equally divided; and then a Senate debate/vote on further motions to include witnesses. 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.

The Senate Trial continues today with the second session at 3:50pm EST, continuing with with opening arguments by House Impeachment Managers.

PBS Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – Fox Business – CSPAN Link

.

.

.

The Senate Exists For Moments Like This….


Awesome video from the National Republican Senatorial Campaign motivating all U.S. Senators to hold the line and dispatch this attack on the constitution.  WATCH:

.

UPDATE – First Schumer Rules Amendment Defeated – House Managers Attempt To Rectify Inherent Impeachment Flaws…


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is attempting to rescue two legally and structurally deficient articles of impeachment rushed from the Lawfare community in the House of representatives.   However, in his first effort to introduce new documents and force the Trump administration to hand over new executive branch information, related to President Trump foreign policy decisions and delayed foreign aid to Ukraine, the Schumer amendment was defeated.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moved to table the amendment, dismissing the request, and won a floor vote as all republican senators stayed united 53-47.

It is anticipated that Schumer will next move for another amendment making the same request for new State Department documents the House committees did not seek.

The primary reason Chuck Schumer has to make this ridiculous effort for more evidence, is how the House never established their ability to enforce subpoenas via “Judicial Enforcement Authority”.  The failure of a full House vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to pursue evidence -via enforceable subpoenas- was a defect by design of Nancy Pelosi’s decision to initiate an impeachment inquiry by her decree, not an authorizing vote.

CTH noted this structural issue last August, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings.  None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.

The House was not issuing subpoenas, it was issuing letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production.  Recently the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion.

.

BACKSTORY – Last year House Democrat leadership took a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they would not hold a House impeachment authorization vote.   As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

(Source)

“Lawful subpoenas”, literally require an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word.  The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry, and charged the House Judiciary Committee with the authority therein.

Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempted to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) were only sending out request letters. The compliance was discretionary based on the outlook of the recipient.

Nancy Pelosi did not have the vote or political capital to start by initiating a full House impeachment authorization.  Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings had to rely on the duplicity of the media to help them hide their scheme; and the media complied.

Speaker Pelosi & Lawfare’s impeachment scheme could only succeed with a compliant media protecting it.  The media was entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct.

If the media would have ever asked questions the fraud would have collapsed.

Adam Schiff had to hide his hearings because the foundation of the impeachment fraud was to create a public impression.  There was no structural impeachment process or guideline being followed.  The committee leadership used the closed door hearings to leak information to the media to create a needed narrative.

A legislative “letter” or demand request needed to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There was no penalty that can be associated with the House demands because the Legislative Branch did not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they worked through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been 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, a power made possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  However, that level of elevated House authority required a full House authorization vote, and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee as empowered.

In 2019 the Legislative Branch was NOT expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose.  So that raised 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 the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims. 

There was NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House did not create a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.  

The House needed to vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee would have gained judicial enforcement authority.  That would have created a penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

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

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plan was designed for public consumption; she/they were creating the illusion of something that did not exist.  The purpose of all their fraudulent impeachment activity was to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intended to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process was destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege.

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

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies changed House rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi and Lawfare changed House impeachment rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi/Lawfare changed committee rules (SEE HERE); and in doing so they removed House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did.  However, what Lawfare and Pelosi could not change was The U.S. Constitution, which they were destined to collide with.

Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ could not supersede the constitutional separation of powers.  She was well aware of this.  Nancy Pelosi could not decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

Pelosi’s impeachment scheme required a compliant media to support her construct…

they did.

Day One – Senate Impeachment Trial – 1:00pm Livestream…


The U.S. Senate Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump begins today at 1:00pm Eastern.  The first series of anticipated events includes the framework for Senate rules for impeachment which will come in the form of a final resolution for Senate vote.

The formation of the impeachment rules, and any amendments therein, will likely take up the majority of the afternoon in the Senate.  Anticipated start time 1:00pm EST.

Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – RSBN Livestream Link

.

.

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