A report from the Wall Street Journal outlines a request by lawyers for the fake CIA ‘whistleblower’ that ultimately spells doom for the entire phony construct of the impeachment construction by anonymous complaint.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting the anonymous gossipers’ lawyers are now requesting official impeachment testimony by letters not an in-person appearance. If this is accurate such a request speaks directly to the abject stupidity of the claim:
WASHINGTON—Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person, according to people familiar with the matter.
The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. The intelligence committees haven’t yet responded to the inquiry about potential written testimony, the people said.
Spokeswomen for the House and Senate intelligence committees didn’t respond to requests to comment. (read more)
It was already ridiculous to think a presidential impeachment, to remove the most powerful elected political representative of The United States, could continue based on an anonymous complaint. However, expecting the same complainant/accuser to remain invisible during the process is so far beyond nonsensical, the light from where nonsense emanates wouldn’t reach this narrative for a year.
Yes, feel free to pummel the left-wing nuts based on the absurdity of this request. Only the most raving Moonbat imaginable would think they could impeach a sitting U.S. President via a ‘Dear Sir’ complaint letter to congress.
These are obviously not stable-minded people.
Oh, please, please, please hold that impeachment vote now. It is more clear than ever where this nuttery is heading.
If you thought it was delicious to watch the media meltdowns on election night 2016, just imagine the meltdowns as the media attempts to sell impeachment via a strongly worded letter of complaint to their resistance constituents….
Perhaps he could testify via text messages, or… wait, even better,… via tweets. Too damn funny.
Two years of litigation, thousands of resistance hours used, millions spent on lawyers, and they don’t even get a T-Shirt. Oh dear… too funny.
(New York Times) If investigators are going to get their hands on President Trump’s tax returns, they will have to find them somewhere other than Deutsche Bank.
The German bank has told a federal appeals court that it does not have the president’s personal tax returns, the court said on Thursday. (read more)
You might have noticed today how former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N, Nikki Haley, has grabbed multiple headlines. Apparently within her new book, the former South Carolina republican – who removed historic monuments and then moved her permanent residence to New York, has outlined Rex Tillerson and John Kelly as stealth insiders working to undermine President Trump and attempting to bring Haley into their clique.
This move is so typically Nikki Haley it would almost have been predictable right?
Well, it was.
In 2018 CTH foretold and forewarned of exactly what Nikki Haley would do. She is as predictable as the sunrise. [SEE HERE] Everything about Nikki Haley is opportunistic, political and false. Nikki Haley is the female version of Mitt Romney.
CTH Archives […] Due to the increasing success of the MAGA or Trump Republican apparatus, Haley will need to carefully position herself as a stealth Decepticon and not upset the vulgarian hordes; ie. the new republican party base voter.
As a smart and tactical politician Haley will invest heavily in the optics of supporting the MAGA movement; and embrace President Trump to avoid any conflict. (more)
I’m not going to write about it again. CTH forecast exactly what would happen.
Nikki Haley relies on people with short memories. She is a liar, a manipulator, and a purely political animal. She wants to be president. She will manipulate anyone and everyone in the process in order to achieve her career goals.
Remember in January 2016 when Nikki Haley gave the State of the Union rebuttal so she could attack the outside candidacy of Donald Trump? A month later she endorsed Marco Rubio for president. Or maybe you remember in June 2016 when Nikki Haley blamed Trump supporters for causing violence in San Jose?
Nikki Haley has one priority, Nikki Haley. Everything else is a transaction.
She claimed South Carolina as her home in order to advance her political career. Haley would never have become Governor without the endorsement of Sarah Palin and the help of the Tea Party; months later Haley openly rebuked, dismissed and disparaged Ms. Palin.
Haley enamored herself with the uniparty political ruling class, and after the politically correct and opportunistic response to the Emmanuel Church shooting, including the removal of all confederate flags, civil war monuments and historic South Carolina history….. she bailed out of South Carolina permanently and moved to New York.
Haley is for Haley, and she will do anything, sell-out anyone, and hitch her wagon to any helpful enterprise (ie. MAGA) to attain her political ambitions. In 2016 she thought Marco Rubio was her best play; then she moved to join the Trump administration. Now she has her eyes on the oval office.
She is the worst form of politician.
If Nikki Haley can ride a coup into the White House….
Don’t take my word for it, ask Rex Tillerson and John Kelly.
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. As President Trump departed the White House he paused to take questions from the press pool. [Video and Transcript below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: So, we just completed a negotiation with China. We’re doing very well. We’re having another one tomorrow. I’m meeting with the Vice Premier over at the White House. And I think it’s going really well, I will say. I think it’s going really well.
So, we had a very, very good negotiation with China. They’ll be speaking a little bit later, but they’re basically wrapping it up, and we’re going to see them tomorrow, right here. And it’s going very well.
Q Mr. President, what about the story about former President — Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine, that he received $900,000 to himself, from Burisma Holdings? Do you think that’s true?
THE PRESIDENT: What happened? Who took $900,000?
Q There’s a story out there that your personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said on “Sean Hannity” last night that there is a possibility that Joe Biden took $900,000 out of —
THE PRESIDENT: I hope it’s not true that — Joe Biden took $900,000? I haven’t heard that. I hope it’s not true. For the sake of the country, I hope that’s not true. But I don’t know anything about it.
Q Do you know the whistleblower’s name?
THE PRESIDENT: What?
Q Do you know the whistleblower’s name?
THE PRESIDENT: Who?
Q Do you know the whistleblower’s name?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know. But I know the whistleblower has been very inaccurate because when we released the transcript of the conversation that I had with the President of Ukraine, who — frankly, today, was very good; somewhere in Ukraine, I guess, gave a news conference on unrelated things — was asked a question, and he said, “President Trump behaved in a perfectly fine manner. There was nothing wrong in any way, shape, or form.” Something to that effect. So, I appreciate that.
But the President of Ukraine, that should be case over, because the President of Ukraine said that the call was absolutely fine. I think he said that it resembled very much — and he remembered it — it was just like the transcript.
Now, the transcript is a perfect transcript. There shouldn’t be any further questions. But the President of Ukraine just made that statement, so that’s good.
Q Mr. President, what conversations have you had with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know those gentlemen.
Q You were in pictures with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, it’s possible I have a picture with them, because I have a picture with everybody. I have a picture with everybody here. But somebody said there may be a picture or something where — at a fundraiser or somewhere. And so — but I have pictures with everybody.
Q Have you talked with them?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know if there’s anybody I don’t have pictures with.
I don’t know them. I don’t know about them, I don’t know what they do. But, I don’t know, maybe they were clients of Rudy. You’d have to ask Rudy. I just don’t know.
Q Have you spoken with Rudy Giuliani today, sir? Have you spoken to him?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
Q Mr. President, should the Senate allow a full trial if the House does impeach? The Republican (inaudible) Mitch McConnell said he would.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t know how you can impeach on a conversation with the President of a country — in this case, Ukraine — which was a perfect conversation, where the President of Ukraine just said there was no pressure put on him whatsoever, that we had an absolutely perfect conversation. Then, on top of that, and maybe less importantly, frankly, but on top of that, we have a transcript of the conversation, fortunately, that’s perfect.
And I do think this: I think it’s very unfair to heads of countries when they think every time they make a conversation or have a conversation with the President of the United States, it’s going to be on, you know, all over the world. I think that’s very unfair.
But, in the case — in the case of what we’re talking about, we released a perfect conversation. The President of Ukraine just confirmed that. And that should be case over.
I will say this: Adam Schiff took that conversation before he saw it and fabricated a conversation. To me, that’s criminal. What he did is criminal.
Q Mr. President, do you intend to block Ambassador Yovanovitch from testifying tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: I just don’t think you’re running country — I just don’t think that you can have all of these people testifying about every conversation you’ve had. In this case, we have a transcript. And I’ve given it almost immediately. It’s called “transparency.” Nobody has been more transparent than me. So, you have a transcript. And in this case, you also have the President of Ukraine confirming that, absolutely, it was a perfect conversation.
But the Democrats have committed crimes because they made up the conversation. The whistleblower was wrong. You know, I don’t think people should be allowed. You have to run a country. I don’t think you should be allowed to do that.
Q Mr. President, have you spoken to the U.S. diplomat’s —
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q Have you spoken to the U.S. diplomat’s wife, Anne Sacoolas?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t hear.
Q Have you spoken to the U.S. diplomat’s wife, Anne Sacoolas?
Q Have you spoken with the U.S. diplomat’s wife, Anne Sacoolas?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you talking about in the UK?
Q Yeah.
THE PRESIDENT: They’re in the process of being spoken to. We’re working on that. I did have a conversation yesterday with Boris Johnson, a good one. And we’re talking about diplomatic immunity. It’s a very interesting situation. We are trying to work something out.
Q Will you reconsider the decision?
THE PRESIDENT: So we’re going to work — we’re going to try and work something out. I think we’ll be able to.
Q Mr. President — Mr. President, sir, Secretary Perry was just subpoenaed by the House Intel Committee for documents related to the — to Ukraine, sir. Any response to that?
THE PRESIDENT: How many people can they talk to? We had a simple conversation. Everybody knows what the conversation was because I gave it immediately when I heard about it.
The whistleblower, who seems to be a Democrat that’s involved with a lot of people, gave a false interpretation of the conversation because we have the conversation.
The President of Ukraine just said, just now, that the conversation was absolutely perfect. No problem. It was a very good conversation. So I don’t know why they’d be calling Rick Perry. I don’t know why they’d be calling all these people. It’s a very bad situation for our country.
Q How do you know the whistleblower is a Democrat, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: It was reported.
Q Are you concerned that Rudy Giuliani could be indicted in all of this?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope not. Again, I don’t know how he knows these people —
Q They’re his clients.
THE PRESIDENT: What?
Q They’re his clients.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, well, then, they’re clients. I mean, you know, he’s got a lot of clients. So, I just don’t know. I haven’t spoken to Rudy about it. I don’t know.
I will say this: From what I heard — I just heard about this — they said, “We have nothing to do with it. We’re totally — we have nothing to do with it.”
Q Were you joking when you asked China to investigate the Bidens?
THE PRESIDENT: Was I what?
Q Were you joking when you asked China to investigate?
THE PRESIDENT: China has to do whatever they want. If they want to look into something, they can look into it. If they don’t want to look into it, they don’t have to. Frankly, are far as I’m concerned, if China wants to look into something, I think that’s great. And if they don’t want to, I think that’s great too. That’s up to China.
Yeah.
Q Mr. President, thank you. Is it safe to say that Trey Gowdy is now your Chief Counsel and Rudy Giuliani is moving to the back?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Trey Gowdy is a terrific guy. I think there’s a problem with he can’t start for another couple of months because of lobbying rules and regulations. So, you’ll have to ask about that.
I just heard Trey Gowdy can’t start until sometime after January because of the lobbying rules and regulations. So, I don’t know. So, we’ll have to see.
Q So Giuliani stays on?
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t spoken to him. I haven’t spoken.
Go ahead.
Q Which of the three choices on Syria that you just articulated in a tweet do you think you will follow?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the last one, I hope. I hope the last one. Of the three, I hope it’s going to be the last one.
Look, we have no soldiers in Syria. We’ve won. We’ve beat ISIS. And we’ve beat them badly and decisively. We have no soldiers.
The last thing I want to do is bring thousands and thousands of soldiers in and defeat everybody again. We’ve already done that.
So what we have is really two choices: You have the choice of bringing in the military and defeating everybody again, or you have the choice of financially doing some very strong things to Turkey so that they take it a little bit easy on, really, competition that is — I don’t think it’s being fairly treated in many ways, okay? We have a very good relationship with the Kurds. Or we can mediate. I hope we can mediate, John. I hope we can mediate.
Q Has Turkey gone beyond the limits, in your opinion, so far?
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q Has Turkey gone beyond the limits you set up so far?
THE PRESIDENT: Turkey knows where I stand. And the last thing — okay, very simple: We had a big victory. We left the area. I don’t think the American people want to see us go back in with our military, go back into that area again.
We won. We left the area. I don’t think we want to go back in. Let’s see what happens. We are going to possibly do something very, very tough with respect to sanctions and other financial things.
Q Mr. President, on Minnesota — you’re headed to Minnesota. Do you think you can win in Minnesota? It’s a long-time blue state.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we can win. It’s been a long time since a Republican won. We have a 20,000-seat auditorium. You know, we have the — it’s essentially Madison Square Garden. And it’s sold out. Over 80,000 people requested tickets. It’ll be totally sold out. I don’t know who’s going, but it’ll be totally sold out. If you’re not going to be there, I’m going to miss you. But they have a line now that’s many blocks long. It’s amazing. We have a line, right now in Minnesota, that’s many blocks long. I think I can win in Minnesota.
Q Do you think Ilhan Omar is helping you win in Minnesota?
THE PRESIDENT: I think Omar is helping us win in Minnesota and other places. I’ll see you all — I’ll see you in Minnesota. I’ll see you in Minnesota.
This makes sense on many levels. As a member of the Obama National Security Council, the CIA “whistle-blower” would have held a working relationship with Vice-President Biden who was given the primary authority to oversee Ukraine effort within the Obama administration.
(Via Washington Examiner) The 2020 Democratic candidate with whom the CIA whistleblower had a “professional” tie is Joe Biden, according to intelligence officers and former White House officials.
Lawyers for the whistleblower said he had worked only “in the executive branch.” The Washington Examiner has established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the National Security Council at the White House and has since left. On Sept. 26, the New York Timesreported that he was a CIA officer. On Oct. 4, the newspaper added that he “was detailed to the National Security Council at one point.”
Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, told members of Congress that the whistleblower had a “professional tie” to a 2020 Democratic candidate. He had written earlier that while the whistleblower’s complaint was credible, he had shown “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”
A retired CIA officer toldthe Washington Examiner: “From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president.”
As an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.
A former Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said Biden’s work on foreign affairs brought him into close proximity with the whistleblower either at the CIA or when he was detailed to the White House. (read more)
This rally could be the most epic rally so far this year. The far-left Mayor of Minneapolis has done everything possible to block President Trump from rallying his supporters in Minnesota. However, President Trump is undeterred, resolute, and there are tens of thousands of supporters ‘standing‘ to support the peoples’ president.
President Donald Trump will be holding the Keep America Great Rally at the Target Center. The president is expected to speak at 7:00pm CDT / 8:00pm EDT:
The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.
Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]
Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.
There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.
It has long been well 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, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.
In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raises 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 Judiciary (only) has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.
There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.
As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.
A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.
The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.
The reason judicial enforcement authority is constitutionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).
Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. This is the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.
Pelosi and Lawfare’s plans are designed for public consumption; she/they are creating the illusion of something that doesn’t exist. The purpose of all this fraudulent impeachment activity is to create support for an actual impeachment process.
Because the current Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intends to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process is destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege. That predictable constitutional issue will end up with arguments to The Supreme Court.
THAT appears to be why Democrats and left-wing activists have been working for months to de-legitimize the Supreme Court. They always intended to run into this problem. They planned for it.
The Lawfare impeachment road-map is designed to conflict with the constitution. It is a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their impeachment plan, not a flaw.
If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the media pushing her narrative the impeachment effort would have already failed. In this interview Judiciary committee ranking member Doug Collins states the un-American inquiry is likely to backfire.
As Turkish troops roll into Northern Syria, attacking the Kurds, erstwhile U.S. alllies in the fight against ISIS, did President Trump’s chaotic approach to the growing conflict invite Turk aggression? Can you support President Trump, but oppose his approach to this conflict?
President Donald Trump’s move to disengage American troops from Northern Syria met with near-universal condemnation, including from Kurdish allies in the path of a potential Turkish invasion who feel his decision would betray them after years of fighting I.S.I.S. terrorists as a U.S. partner. Did the Commander in Chief just jeopardize U.S. interests elsewhere, or does moral leadership sometimes demand abandoning longstanding allies? Stephen Green, Bill Whittle and Scott Ott do five Right Angle shows each week, discussing the news of the day, as they have done for more than a decade, thanks to the Members who fund this. To learn more, and perhaps join them, visit https://BillWhittle.com/register/
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
Centinel2012 