We watched the impeachment debate and nearly every Democrat used the same argument.
President Trump was a ‘tyrant’ who abused his power for personal gain.
He used a foreign country to help him ‘interfere’ with our election process.
He was a threat to our ‘democracy.’
The Democrats also claimed Trump obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate with their witch-hunt.
They used the word ‘solemn’ a lot in combination with the word ‘duty.’
They talked about the founding fathers and how they swore oaths to defend the Constitution. Impeachment was equated with that defense.
They sanctimoniously talked about how they wouldn’t be able to face their grandchildren unless they did the right thing and that was voting for impeachment.
Unlike Clinton’s impeachment, the House vote was evenly split along party lines. The Democrats control the House, so Trump was impeached. It was as simple as that. CNN tried to act somber, but they were nearly bursting with joy. CNN said Trump could never escape the black mark of impeachment. He will go down in history as only our third impeached president. They claimed Trump was red faced with anger and implied he might be breaking down. One ‘journalist’ kept saying his behavior was ‘disgraceful.’ The Democrats finally got him, but they couldn’t really celebrate.
They had to pretend to be sad. Solemn. Pelosi even wore black and glared at the Democrats cheering after Article One passed. It was almost comical.
Trump will be acquitted in the Senate, but for now partisan politics have triumphed over facts. The Democrats’ self-proclaimed love of the Constitution rang hollow. They liked that it allowed them impeach an equal branch of the government, but on other issues the Democrats continue to show a deep contempt for our Constitution.
Democrats have no problem grabbing guns in violation of the 2nd Amendment. They enjoy quelling the free speech of conservatives and enabling a bloated government to trample on our 4th Amendment.
Democrats also want to do away with The Electoral College, which they see as an impediment to big city Democratic rule over the red rural states.
The Democrats are the real tyrants and their Impeachment was a slap in the face to everyone who voted for Trump. They want to nullify his presidency. In a way, the Democrats are the ones interfering with our elections.
The Deep State Swamp, the globalists, and Democrat Party simply could not accept that Trump won in 2016. Their impeachment witch-hunt will only help Trump win in 2020.
Like this cartoon? Order your special limited edition signed print of this cartoon now. Only 100 will ever be made.
Attorney General Bill Barr had an extensive sit down interview with Fox News host Martha MacCallum on Wednesday, December 18th. The interview was broadcast this evening.
Five of those referrals were for specific people who participated in the political scheme against candidate, president-elect and President Trump. The remaining three referrals were not person specific, but rather outlines of “conspiracy”:
One referral was the conspiracy to intentionally falsifying material to the FISA Court in order to gain a Title-One FISA warrant against U.S. person Carter Page; and by extension the political campaign of Donald Trump.
A second conspiracy referral targets the intentional manipulation of intelligence information; and a conspiracy to weaponize the intelligence apparatus against a political party and presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
The third conspiracy referral is less specific and pertains to evidence collected that shows a small group of government officials engaged in “global classified intelligence leaks” to the U.S. media and other entities and/or persons.
On the conspiracy to manipulate the intelligence apparatus. That angle will be interesting to watch because it goes to the origin of activity in early 2016. The issues around how Crossfire Hurricane was officially started… and, more importantly, the earlier use of intelligence assets: Joseph Mifsud (Maltese Professor, FBI/CIA asset), Alexander Downer (Australian Diplomat), Stephan Halper (U.K. Academic and FBI/CIA asset), or Charles Tawil (Israeli CIA asset) to make contact with George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn or Carter Page. Those contacts were covert and (un)official government missions for the weaponized U.S. intelligence apparatus. This is where John Brennan is center-stage.
The last referral relating to specific leaks of classified intelligence – sounds like Nunes is submitting a classified list of only a few people who had access to the direct intelligence product that was leaked. Unfortunately, the ordinary Main Justice approach toward this type of an investigation would be through the DOJ-NSD and FBI Counterintelligence divisions; however, those two intelligence agencies were likely the source of the leaks and the career staff within those sub-agencies are exactly the same as they were when the seditious conspiracy was carried out. That dynamic presents a challenge on a myriad of levels.
[NOTE: •On July 31st, 2016 the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign. They did not inform congress until March 2017. •At the beginning of August (1st-3rd)2016 FBI Agent Peter Strzok traveled to London, England for interviews with UK intelligence officials. •On August 15th, 2016 Peter Strzok sends a text message to DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page describing the “insurance policy“, needed in case Hillary Clinton were to lose the election. That’s where Carter Page comes in.]
However, CIA Director John Brennan didn’t stop with simply originating the FBI investigation, he went on to promote additional material from his knowledge of the Christopher Steele Dossier.
This is the part that John Brennan has denied; however, the evidence proving his lies is overwhelming.
We start by remembering the sworn testimony of John Brennan to congress on May 23rd, 2017. Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan and pay close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video [transcribed below]:
Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight processwe kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…
Notice a few things from this testimony. First, where Brennan says “in consultation with the White House“. This is a direct connection between Brennan’s activity and President Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough, each of whom would have held knowledge of what Brennan was briefing to the Go8.
Secondly, Brennan is describing raw intelligence (obviously gathered prior to the Carter Page FISA Application/Warrant – October 21st, 2016) that he went on to brief the Gang-of-Eight (pictured below). Notice Brennan said he did briefings “individually”.
Brennan also says in his testimony that he began the briefings on August 11th, 2016. This is a key point because former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to James Comey on August 27th, 2016, as an outcome of his briefing by John Brennan. But it is the content of Reid’s letter that really matters.
In the last paragraph of Reid’s letter to Comey he notes something that is only cited within the Christopher Steele Dossier [full letter pdf here]:
This letter is August 27th, 2016. The Trump advisor in the letter is Carter Page. The source of the information is Christopher Steele in his dossier. Two months later (October 21st, 2016) the FBI filed a FISA application against Carter Page using the Steele Dossier.
So what we are seeing here is CIA Director John Brennan briefing Harry Reid on the Steele dossier in August 2016, even before the dossier reached the FBI. However, John Brennan has denied seeing the dossier until December of 2016. A transparent lie.
Brennan goes on to testify the main substance of those 2016 Go8 briefings was the same as the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified intelligence assessments published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA, ie. “The Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA).
We also know from Paul Sperry: “[…] A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok. “Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source.” (link)
♦Summary: During a period early in 2016 CIA Director John Brennan manufactured the material needed to start the FBI investigation on July 31st, 2016. John Brennan also received information from within the Steele Dossier which he put into President Obama’s Daily Briefing and shared with the Gang of Eight.
So it would seem that Brennan was leaking to the media and pushing hard on this same Russia narrative during the transition period. It’s almost bizarre to see Brennan now saying “perhaps he had bad information”… BRENNAN IS THE INFORMATION !!
…and CTH has a pretty good idea exactly what “communications” Durham is looking for. It sounds like U.S. Attorney Durham is looking for what Comey outlined in the “crown material” discussion. First, the article from the New York Times (emphasis mine):
WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.
John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates. (more)
U.S. Attorney John Durham appears to be looking for a very specific email written by John Brennan to James Comey. Because Comey wrote another email saying: ..”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”
Do you remember the “crown material“?
The Christopher Steele dossier was called “Crown Material” by FBI agents within the small group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The “Crown” description reflects the unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.
In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy stated there are emailsfrom former FBI Director James Comey that outline instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the “Crown Material” within the highly political Intelligence Community Assessment.
Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say:
…”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”
However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [@01:54:28]:
GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?
BRENNAN: I don’t.
GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filing, applications?
BRENNAN: I have no awareness.
GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?
BRENNAN: No.
GOWDY: Why not?
BRENNAN: Because we didn’t. It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. Uh … it was not.
.
Video of the exchange [prompted 01:54:28 just hit play]
[…] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?
Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? (read more)
Fox News Maria Bartiromo has more knowledge of the details within the 2016 political surveillance scandal than any other MSM host. Bartiromo has followed the events very closely and now she is the go-to person for those who are trying to bring the truth behind the scandal to light.
On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined the current issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:
.
It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan has exposed himself to perjury. However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.
During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)
Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it’s likely Durham will cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.
Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?
The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.
If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?
Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News after a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office. Senator Graham states President Trump is “mad as hell” and “demanding his day in court” in the Senate.
Earlier today President Trump held a press availability in the oval office to welcome former democrat representative Jeff Van Drew into the republican party. Congressman Van Drew left the Democrat party as a result of the House impeachment fiasco.
[Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. We have a very big announcement, to me. I think it’s been many years — I hear 10 years, maybe more — where Jeff Van Drew, highly respected — in fact, I didn’t know, as a Democrat, how you could have won in that district. I know the district very well. But that is a great tribute to you. But Jeff will be joining the Republican Party.
And we were very fortunate he voted our way yesterday, as you probably know. And we had a totally unified party. I don’t think there’s ever been a time where the Republican Party was so united. But Jeff will be joining the Republican Party. And I really — to me, it’s a very exciting announcement. I think, Kevin, you said it was about 10 years since that’s happened.
LEADER MCCARTHY: Yeah.
THE PRESIDENT: And I don’t even know who the last one was. It would seem to me it was even more than that. But it’s a big deal.
LEADER MCCARTHY: It’s a very big deal because he’s going from the majority to the minority, and it normally doesn’t go that way.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. Yeah, but he’s very smart because he knows it’s not going to be the minority for long. I have a feeling we’re going to do very well in 2020, in November — November 3rd, to be exact. Get out and vote.
But, Jeff, thank you very much. It’s a great honor. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please. Would you like to say something?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: So, I have a few words. And I usually never, ever — I don’t read speeches. And this won’t be very long —
THE PRESIDENT: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: — I promise you, Mr. President. But I had a few bullets. There’s a few points I really wanted to make today.
And I would start with how this started. I’ve been a Democrat for a lot of years. And I actually had a meeting with somebody about two weeks ago, I guess it was. And the individual was a local county chairman in the Democratic Party. And he sat down and he says, “I just want to tell you something.” And he said, “I want to tell you that you can’t vote against impeachment.”
I said, “What do you mean I can’t vote against impeachment?” He says, “You can’t vote against impeachment. You will not…” I have eight counties in my district. “You will not get the line. You will not get the county. I will do everything to prevent that from happening, and everything to destroy you.” This is a pretty young guy, so it was pretty gutsy.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. A wise guy.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And it kind of hurt because, for years, I have given everything that I could to my people and my district.
You know, Mr. President, you asked why I win. Truthfully, because I’m a crazy man, and when people have a problem, when they need something, when we want to help them — I have the best staff in the world, good people around me, and we do everything that we can to make it better.
And that kind of hurt, and it kind of made me think a little bit: Is this what I really want to do? Because there were other times in my life, when I thought about this. I thought about it when I did legislation. And, actually, it was in the state senate.
And I don’t know if this is going to be relatable to not, but I want to say it anyhow because I’ve always wanted to just mention this because I think it’s important, in a way. This is not — it was not a complex bill. It was not something that was, you know, very difficult to understand. It isn’t intellectually stimulating to some people. I understand. But I did two bills, and one of them — it’s unusual for New Jersey — would allow, in any public or private building, to have “In God We Trust” on the wall. And the second one was that you could fly the American flag wherever you wanted to, however you wanted to, as long as it was respectful.
And I thought these were wonderful bills. I mean, I thought everybody was going to be, “This is just a great thing.” And I had some very progressive — and not all Democrats — but these were really progressive Democrats that came to me and said, “We’re really disgusted with you.” And I said, “Why?” “Making such a big deal about the flag. The flag is just not that big a deal.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: “‘In God We Trust’ is not that big deal.”
THE PRESIDENT: That’s where they’re going.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: “And you shouldn’t even mention His name.” And I was shocked. I was shocked. We put them up anyhow, and we did want we wanted to do. But it really —
THE PRESIDENT: That’s a very Republican thing, by the way. (Laughter.)
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: I know. I know.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re not going to find any one of us that — I can tell you, Kevin, Mike, I think you’re okay with it, right?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And I think most folks should be okay with it.
THE PRESIDENT: The whole country should be okay with it.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: You’re right.
I talk about American exceptionalism. This is the greatest country on the face of the Earth. I started out as not a wealthy kid. Had the opportunity to work hard. Got into dental school, graduated. And, my God, I’m sitting here next to the President of the United States. That’s unbelievable. That’s America.
So I don’t want anybody to ever tell me that there isn’t American exceptionalism. I don’t want anybody to ever say that this is the same as every other country in the world, because it is not. It is not. And you know that and I know that. And, hopefully, everybody in this room knows that.
And, again, from certain groups of people that represented certain parts of the party, I was criticized. And they said this country is the same as every other country, and there is no such thing as American exceptionalism.
I’m a capitalist. Socialism, in my opinion, has no place in the United States of America. And I think everyone should know that.
I believe that this country can afford people opportunity and give them that opportunity so that they can succeed. And we all should know that as well.
I love bipartisanship. Do you know that I even had times, quite frankly, being a Democrat — again, not from all folks; there’s some middle-of-the-road folks — but from some of these extreme folks that they said, “Bipartisanship is a bad thing.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: “It’s a bad thing because it’s going to make you more like a Republican.” Again, I don’t believe that. I don’t think you do. I believe in what you’re doing with the economy. It’s a better, stronger economy. I believe it’s going to be even better.
THE PRESIDENT: A new record today, by the way. It’s up 125 points today. So your 401(k)s are way up. But a new record today, Jeff. So, that’s great.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And thank you for that. I believe the New Green Deal is something that we should never, ever even think about doing. I don’t even know how anybody could bring that up. We can have a strong and good environment and we can have a good economy at the same time. And that’s something that I think Republicanism represents.
Lower taxes, balancing the budget, honoring our police, our fire, our rescue, our veterans, our soldiers — these men and women.
I want to tell you one quick story. Chris will have a picture of it. He’s — like I said, he’s a Marine. An older gentleman. Is he a Marine too, that stood out there?
PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.)
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: He’s a Marine, right? An older gentleman, when he heard I announced — in the cold — came in front of my office and stood out there holding the American flag for 12 hours in honor of it.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s great. Wow.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: It’s — it was an amazing thing. And not quite the peop- — the length of time people wait for you, but —
THE PRESIDENT: That’s okay. (Laughter.)
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: — that was still pretty neat. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: That’s okay. They won’t do that if you’re a Democrat, I can tell you right now. Wouldn’t go well.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: So, I guess what I say is, I believe that this is just a better fit for me. This is who I am. It’s who I always was, but there was more tolerance of moderate Democrats, of blue-dog Democrats, of conservative Democrats. And I think that’s going away.
Two more things I want to say: One, you have my undying support.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And always.
THE PRESIDENT: And, by the way, same way.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I’m endorsing him. Okay? We’re endorsing him. I can’t speak for these two gentlemen, but I can say, “I’m endorsing him.”
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you feel about that, Mike? Are you okay?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: You have my support and gratitude, Congressman.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
LEADER MCCARTHY: You have my support as well.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you, Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: We’re together. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And the last thing I will say: One of my heroes — and he’s always hung in my office; I have a bipartisan wall that has a lot of different people on there — Ronald Reagan. And when he said, “I didn’t leave my party. My party left me.”
THE PRESIDENT: That’s true. That’s what he said.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And I’m saying the same thing.
THE PRESIDENT: He was a Democrat and he — he moved over. And he said exactly those words. That’s fantastic. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you very much.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I just — I just want to say: Welcome to the Republican Party.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Congressman, it’s an honor to share this moment with you, with the President of the United States, and with the Republican Leader, with your team and their family, as well as, I know, another public official from New Jersey that will be following your lead.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s right.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: But as I told you before, I also — I just want to tell you how grateful we are for your voice of reason and common sense in the days leading up to your decision. You showed personal and political courage. And I know the people of your district will be as grateful as we are today for your leadership and for the decision you’ve made.
And we look forward — we look forward to serving with you together and working with you on behalf of New Jersey and America for many years to come.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Thank you, Mike. Kevin?
LEADER MCCARTHY: Well, we just want to welcome you to the party, but more importantly, if there’s anybody else that feels like you. If there are other people out there that feel this new socialist-Democrat wing of the party has left them behind, join with us. Because everything you talked about is an American issue, and it shouldn’t — it shouldn’t have to be debated, whether there’s a flag or God or others.
And so we’ve worked together even when you were on the other side of the aisle, but it’s nice to have you on this side now, too.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
LEADER MCCARTHY: And you just changed our number to 18. We only need 18 more to be the majority. And I think we’ll do that soon.
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to do very well. We’re way up in the polls. And we’ve gone up more, I think, proportionately, than we have ever gone up, in the last two weeks. And we’re honored.
Now, I understand, they’re playing games. They don’t want to put in their articles — their ridiculous, phony, fraudulent articles. And I think they’re not allowed to do that. I hear it’s unconstitutional and a lot of other things. But they don’t want to put them in because they’re ashamed of them, because it’s a — what they’ve done is wrong and it’s bad for the country. Very, very bad for the country.
We’re trying to get USMCA done. We’re going to get that done, I think, pretty quickly.
We have our great deal with China. China has already started to buy, with the farmers and with the manufacturers. Tremendous amounts of money are being spent back in the United States. And the farmers are happy. They had to put up with a lot, but we took care of them out of the subsidies that we were getting out of the tariffs that we were getting. But China is now buying very big in the farm belt and in the manufacturing belt also. They’re spending a lot of money. And I said it was going to happen and it happened.
And we’re going to get a lot more. They want to make — they want to keep going. They’re still paying tremendous amounts of tariffs, and they’d like to have the tariffs reduced. And we’ll see if we can get a second part of the deal. But the USMCA — the combination of those two deals will be the two greatest trade deals. You’ll never see anything like it. So we’ve done very much what we’ve said.
You know, Jeff, we rebuilt our military. We spent almost $2.5 trillion on the military. When we came in, the military was totally depleted. I will say, the Democrats did not help. They’re not into the military at all. And we spent $2.5 trillion. We have new planes. We have new everything right now. Much of it’s coming over the next year. But within a year, we’ll be in a position that we’ve never been in, in terms of equipment. And the military will be a strong as it ever was — proportionately, maybe stronger.
So it’s been an amazing period of time. And to have you is a tremendous asset for the party.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And again, thank you very much, my friend.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We’re with you all the way.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: I’m with you.
THE PRESIDENT: Tremendous honor. Thank you.
Q Mr. President, can you speak personally for a moment and just tell us: What does it feel like to be the third President in U.S. history to be impeached?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t feel like I’m being impeached, because it’s a hoax. It’s a setup. It’s a horrible thing they did. They happened to have a small majority, and they took that small majority and they forced people. And, you know, they said, “Oh…” I watched Pelosi out there saying, “Oh, no. We don’t want to talk to anybody.” They put the arm on everybody. They tried to get them to do what they had to do. Many of those people were like Jeff, where they didn’t want to vote that way.
But it doesn’t feel — to me, it doesn’t feel like impeachment. Last night, I said it — I — we had a great time last night. The room was packed. Thousands of people couldn’t get in. A section that, really, is a pretty much 50-50 section, in terms of Democrat-Republican, we had — every one of those people is voting for Trump/Pence. Every one of them. And it’s Michigan — an important state. We brought back tremendous amounts of business, tremendous car companies coming in — everything else.
And I’ll tell you, I was up there and I was thinking about — I actually said it: It doesn’t feel like impeachment. And you know what? It’s a phony deal. And they cheapened the word “impeachment.” It’s an ugly word. But they cheapened the word “impeachment.” That should never again happen to another President.
And I think you’ll see some very interesting things happen over the coming few days and weeks.
But, to me, all I look at: We have the greatest economy in the history of our country. We’ve never done so well. Our military being rebuilt. You take a look at the tax cuts. You take a look at the regulation cuts at levels that nobody has ever seen. We’re protecting our Second Amendment, which other people won’t do.
No, we’re doing things that nobody has ever done before. Nobody has ever seen. We have the strongest economy in the history of our country and our country is doing well.
And, you know, the other thing that I really saw from yesterday that — I think you people have been covering politics for a long time. You’ve never seen a Republican Party — zero negative votes. Zero. That hasn’t happened almost ever. Because the Republicans are not necessarily known for that.
We have better policy. They want open borders — the Democrats. They want sanctuary cities. A lot of bad things happen. A lot of other things they have.
We’re doing tremendously on healthcare. The individual mandate — you know, we won yesterday in Supreme Court. You saw that, in the appellate division. We won yesterday. Individual mandate is now gone. That’s tremendous savings. That was the worst part of Obamacare. We take care of preexisting conditions. They’re not going to be able to do that.
We’re doing things that nobody has ever done before, and our country has never done better. So, we’re really happy about it, and we’re really happy to have Jeff onboard.
And we think, in 2020, based on the polls — I just saw a poll came out in USA Today yesterday where I’m beating every candidate by a lot. I guess most of you saw it. Not that USA Today is a friend of mine, because they’re not. But they had a poll, and it was me against their top candidates on the other side. And I’m beating everybody by a lot. And I think that’s where we’re going.
I mean, we have the best economy in history. And if you remember the famous quote, “It’s all about the economy, stupid.” Well, I don’t — I never believed it was all about the economy. But the economy is a big thing. When you have 401(k)s where people are up 70, 80, 90 — and even more than that — percent. They like Trump, and they like Mike. And we’re going to have a good time.
Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q Can you tell us about your strategy for the Senate, sir? Can you tell us a little bit about your strategy for the Senate trial?
THE PRESIDENT: Uh, we think that what they did is wrong. We think that what they did is unconstitutional. And the Senate is very, very capable. We have great senators — Republican senators. We cut your taxes. We cut your regulations. We did things that nobody else would even think about being able to do.
And I think — you know what one of the things, Jeff, that we’ve done that nobody wants to talk about: This week, I will have signed the 172nd federal judge, including appellate judges. We’ll have 182 by the end of the year. One hundred and eighty-two. It’s unheard of.
Now, President Obama was very nice to us. He gave us 142 empty positions. That’s never happened before. But, as you know, that’s said to be the most important thing that a President has. I happen to think military and defense and all of it is the most important thing, but this is right up there.
We’ll have 172 judges. We’re going to have 182 by the end of the year or shortly thereafter. And it’s the most incredible thing. And two Supreme Court justices — two great ones.
So with all of the things we’ve done, and we’ve done that with the Senate — because what’s never said is that, in the last election, we picked up two Senate seats. Nobody talks about that. And we couldn’t focus on the House. I couldn’t focus on the House. We’ll be very focused on the House this time. But I couldn’t — other than Andy Barr, who won against the same candidate that’s now going against Mitch. And she wasn’t very good against Andy Barr, and she won’t be very good against Mitch McConnell.
But we’ve had tremendous success. So, I’m going to let them decide what to do. That’s going to be up to them.
Thank you all very much. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you.
Q Is Pat going to be your lead attorney in the Senate?
THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yeah. He’s doing a great job. Pat.
Q You think so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
Q Is he going to be your main lawyer in the Senate?
THE PRESIDENT: It looks like that. Yeah, Pat Cipollone. We have a couple of others that we’re going to put in. But Pat has been fantastic as White House Counsel.
As expected the House of Representatives has passed the USMCA trade agreement with an overwhelming 385 to 41 vote. Pelosi’s political objective was to use USMCA to water down the toxic political environment created by her impeachment fiasco:
Also as expected, after passing the USMCA the House went into immediate recess for the Christmas holiday without any movement on the fraudulent impeachment articles.
In the time-frame between today and the return to the next congressional session in January, House lawyers will attempt to use the passage of the articles to support their background court cases: (1) McGahn forced deposition; (2) access to Mueller 6(e) grand jury information; and (3) possible access to Trump family financial records.
[PREDICTION for bookmark: Upon return in January Speaker Pelosi will refuse to allow impeached President Trump to deliver a State of the Union address in the House.]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to questions and concerns about the construct of a heavily partisan impeachment process and her refusal to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Highlighting the tenuous nature of the position now held by her party, a barely coherent Speaker Pelosi attempts to explain. As reporters ask questions, Pelosi becomes frustrated and tells the compliant media no more questions on impeachment will be entertained.
A day after impeaching the President, the Speaker of the House refuses to answer questions. [Video prompted to presser portion at 11:50 – watch until 14:00]
.
As noted by Jay Sekulow, the House portion of the impeachment effort is finished. The constitution does not outline rules, managers, and delivery methods. Once the House votes to impeach, they are finished. The Senate has full control now.
The Senate can begin their trial phase at any time and call for presentation of articles by the House. If no-one shows up, case dismissed. Pelosi/House has no role in next phase.
After the House of Representatives passed two partisan articles of impeachment, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rises to deliver a speech from the upper chamber of congress.
Last night, House Democrats passed the thinnest, weakest presidential impeachment in American history. Now they’re suggesting they are too afraid to even submit their accusations to the Senate and go to trial. The prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country. ~ Mitch McConnell
.
[Transcript] – Last night House Democrats finally did what they decided to do long ago: They voted to impeach President Trump.
‘Over the last 12 weeks, House Democrats have conducted the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.
‘Now their slapdash process has concluded in the first purely partisan presidential impeachment since the wake of the Civil War. The opposition to impeachment was bipartisan. Only one part of one faction wanted this outcome.
‘The House’s conduct risks deeply damaging the institutions of American government. This particular House of Representatives has let its partisan rage at this particular President create a toxic new precedent that will echo into the future.
‘That’s what I want to discuss now: The historic degree to which House Democrats have failed to do their duty — and what it will mean for the Senate to do ours.
‘Let’s start at the beginning. Let’s start with the fact that Washington Democrats made up their minds to impeach President Trump since before he was even inaugurated
‘Here’s a reporter in April 2016. Quote, “Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet… [but] ‘Impeachment’ is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress.”
‘On Inauguration Day 2017, this headline in the Washington Post: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” That was day one.
‘In April 2017, three months into the presidency, a senior House Democrat said “I’m going to fight every day until he’s impeached.” That was three months in.
‘In December 2017, two years ago, Congressman Jerry Nadler was openly campaigning to be ranking member on House Judiciary specifically because he was an expert on impeachment.
‘This week wasn’t even the first time House Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment. It was the seventh time.
‘They started less than six months after the president was sworn in.
‘They tried to impeach President Trump for being impolite to the press… For being mean to professional athletes… For changing President Obama’s policy on transgender people in the military.
‘All of these things were “high crimes and misdemeanors” according to Democrats.
‘This wasn’t just a few people. Scores of Democrats voted to move forward with impeachment on three of those prior occasions.
‘So let’s be clear. The House’s vote yesterday was not some neutral judgment that Democrats came to reluctantly. It was the pre-determined end of a partisan crusade that began before President Trump was even nominated, let alone sworn in.
‘For the very first time in modern history we have seen a political faction in Congress promise from the moment a presidential election ended that they would find some way to overturn it.
‘A few months ago, Democrats’ three-year-long impeachment in search of articles found its way to the subject of Ukraine. And House Democrats embarked on the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.
‘Chairman Schiff’s inquiry was poisoned by partisanship from the outset. Its procedures and parameters were unfair in unprecedented ways.
‘Democrats tried to make Chairman Schiff into a de facto Special Prosecutor, notwithstanding the fact that he is a partisan member of Congress who’d already engaged in strange and biased behavior.
‘He scrapped precedent to cut the Republican minority out of the process. He denied President Trump the same sorts of procedural rights that Houses of both parties had provided to past presidents of both parties.
‘President Trump’s counsel could not participate in Chairman Schiff’s hearings, present evidence, or cross-examine witnesses.
‘The House Judiciary Committee’s crack at this was even more ahistorical. It was like the Speaker called up Chairman Nadler and ordered one impeachment, rush delivery please.
‘That Committee found no facts of its own and did nothing to verify the Schiff report. Their only witnesses were liberal law professors and congressional staffers.
‘There’s a reason the impeachment inquiry that led to President Nixon’s resignation required about 14 months of hearings. 14 months. In addition to a special prosecutor’s investigation.
‘With President Clinton, the independent counsel’s inquiry had been underway for years before the House Judiciary Committee dug in. Mountains of evidence. Mountains of testimony from firsthand fact witnesses. Serious legal battles to get what was necessary.
‘This time around, House Democrats skipped all of that and spent just 12 weeks.
‘More than a year of hearings for Nixon… multiple years of investigation for Clinton… and they’ve impeached President Trump in 12 weeks.
‘So let’s talk about what the House actually produced in those 12 weeks.
‘House Democrats’ rushed and rigged inquiry yielded two articles of impeachment. They are fundamentally unlike any articles that any prior House of Representatives has ever passed.
‘The first article concerns the core events which House Democrats claim are impeachable — the timing of aid to Ukraine.
‘But it does not even purport to allege any actual crime. Instead, they deploy this vague phrase, “abuse of power,” to impugn the president’s actions in a general, indeterminate way.
‘Speaker Pelosi’s House just gave into a temptation that every other House in history had managed to resist: They impeached a president whom they do not even allege has committed an actual crime known to our laws. They impeached simply because they disagree with a presidential act and question the motive behind it.
‘Look at history. The Andrew Johnson impeachment revolved around a clear violation of a criminal statute, albeit an unconstitutional one. Nixon had obstruction of justice — a felony under our laws. Clinton had perjury — also a felony.
‘Now, the Constitution does not say the House can impeach only those presidents who violate a law.
‘But history matters. Precedent matters. And there were important reasons why every previous House of Representatives in American history restrained itself from crossing this Rubicon.
‘The framers of our Constitution very specifically discussed whether the House should be able to impeach presidents just for “maladministration”— in other words, because the House simply thought the president had bad judgment or was doing a bad job.
‘The written records of the founders’ debates show they specifically rejected this. They realized it would create total dysfunction to set the bar for impeachment that low.
‘James Madison himself explained that allowing impeachment on that basis would mean the President serves at the pleasure of the Congress instead of the pleasure of the American people.
‘It would make the President a creature of Congress, not the head of a separate and equal branch. So there were powerful reasons why Congress after Congress for 230 years required presidential impeachments to revolve around clear, recognizable crimes, even though that was not a strict limitation.
‘Powerful reasons why, for 230 years, no House opened the Pandora’s box of subjective, political impeachments.
‘That 230-year tradition died last night.
‘Now, House Democrats have tried to say they had to impeach President Trump on this historically thin and subjective basis because the White House challenged their requests for more witnesses.
‘And that brings us to the second article of impeachment.
‘The House titled this one “obstruction of Congress.” What it really does is impeach the president for asserting presidential privilege.
‘The concept of executive privilege is another two-century-old constitutional tradition. Presidents starting with George Washington have invoked it. Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed it as a legitimate constitutional power.
‘House Democrats requested extraordinary amounts of sensitive information from President Trump’s White House — exactly the kinds of things over which presidents of both parties have asserted privilege in the past.
‘Predictably, and appropriately, President Trump did not simply roll over. He defended the constitutional authority of his office.
‘It is not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up. It is a routine occurrence. The separation of powers is messy by design.
‘Here’s what should happen next: Either the President and Congress negotiate a settlement, or the third branch of government, the judiciary, addresses the dispute between the other two.
‘The Nixon impeachment featured disagreements over presidential privilege — so they went to the courts. The Clinton impeachment featured disagreements over presidential privilege — so they went to the courts.
‘This takes time. It’s inconvenient. That’s actually the point. Due process is not meant to maximize the convenience of the prosecutor. It is meant to protect the accused.
‘But this time was different. Remember: 14 months of hearings for Richard Nixon… years of investigation for Bill Clinton… but 12 weeks for President Trump.
‘Democrats didn’t have to rush this. But they chose to stick to their political timetable at the expense of pursuing more evidence through proper legal channels.
‘Nobody made Chairman Schiff do this. He chose to.
‘The Tuesday before last, on live television, Adam Schiff explained to the entire country that if House Democrats had let the justice system follow its normal course, they might not have gotten to impeach the president in time for the election!
‘In Nixon, the courts were allowed to do their work. In Clinton, the courts were allowed to do their work. Only these House Democrats decided due process is too much work and they’d rather impeach with no proof.
And, they tried to cover for their own partisan impatience by pretending that the routine occurrence of a president exerting constitutional privilege is itself a second impeachable offense.
The following is something that Adam Schiff literally said in early October. Here’s what he said:
“Any action… that forces us to litigate, or have to consider litigation, will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”
‘Here is what the Chairman effectively said, and what one of his committee members restated just this week: If the President asserts his constitutional rights, it’s that much more evidence he is guilty.
‘That kind of bullying is antithetical to American justice.
‘So those are House Democrats’ two articles of impeachment. That’s all their rushed and rigged inquiry could generate:
‘An act that the House does not even allege is criminal; and a nonsensical claim that exercising a legitimate presidential power is somehow an impeachable offense.
‘This is by far the thinnest basis for any House-passed presidential impeachment in American history. The thinnest and the weakest — and nothing else comes even close.
‘And candidly, I don’t think I am the only person around here who realizes this. Even before the House voted yesterday, Democrats had already started to signal uneasiness with its end product.
‘Before the articles even passed, the Senate Democratic Leader went on television to demand that this body re-do House Democrats’ homework for them. That the Senate should supplement Chairman Schiff’s sloppy work so it is more persuasive than Chairman Schiff himself bothered to make it.
‘Of course, every such demand simply confirms that House Democrats have rushed forward with a case that is much too weak.
‘Back in June, Speaker Pelosi promised the House would, quote, “build an ironclad case.” Never mind that she was basically promising impeachment months before the Ukraine events, but that’s a separate matter.
‘She promised “an ironclad case.”
‘And in March, Speaker Pelosi said this: “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.” End quote.
‘By the Speaker’s own standards, she has failed the country. This case is not compelling, not overwhelming, and as a result, not bipartisan. This failure was made clear to everyone earlier this week, when Senator Schumer began searching for ways the Senate could step out of our proper role and try to fix House Democrats’ failures for them.
‘And it was made even more clear last night, when Speaker Pelosi suggested that House Democrats may be too afraid to even transmit their work product to the Senate.
‘The prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country and second-guessing whether they even want to go to trial.
‘They said impeachment was so urgent that it could not even wait for due process but now they’re content to sit on their hands. It is comical.
‘Democrats’ own actions concede that their allegations are unproven.
‘But the articles aren’t just unproven. They’re also constitutionally incoherent. Frankly, if either of these articles is blessed by the Senate, we could easily see the impeachment of every future president of either party.
‘Let me say that again: If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every future president.
‘The House Democrats’ allegations, as presented, are incompatible with our constitutional order. They are unlike anything that has ever been seen in 230 years of this Republic.
‘House Democrats want to create new rules for this president because they feel uniquely enraged. But long after the partisan fever of this moment has broken, the institutional damage will remain.
‘I’ve described the threat to the presidency. But this also imperils the Senate itself.
‘The House has created an unfair, unfinished product that looks nothing like any impeachment inquiry in American history. And if the Speaker ever gets her house in order, that mess will be dumped on the Senate’s lap.
‘If the Senate blesses this slapdash impeachment… if we say that from now on, this is enough… then we will invite an endless parade of impeachment trials.
‘Future Houses of either party will feel free to toss up a “jump ball” every time they feel angry. Free to swamp the Senate with trial after trial, no matter how baseless the charges.
‘We would be giving future Houses of either party unbelievable new power to paralyze the Senate at their whim.
‘More thin arguments. More incomplete evidence. More partisan impeachments.
In fact, this same House of Representatives has already indicated that they themselves may not be done impeaching!
‘The House Judiciary Committee told a federal court this week that it will continue its impeachment investigation even after voting on these articles. And multiple Democratic members have already called publicly for more.
‘If the Senate blesses this, if the nation accepts it, presidential impeachments may cease being once-in-a-generation events and become a constant part of the political background noise.
‘This extraordinary tool of last resort may become just another part of the arms race of polarization.
‘Real statesmen would have recognized, no matter their view of this president, that trying to remove him on this thin and partisan basis could unsettle the foundations of our Republic.
‘Real statesmen would have recognized, no matter how much partisan animosity might be coursing through their veins, that cheapening the impeachment process was not the answer.
‘Historians will regard this as a great irony of this era: That so many who professed such concern for our norms and traditions themselves proved willing to trample our constitutional order to get their way.
‘It is long past time for Washington D.C. to get a little perspective.
‘President Trump is not the first president with a populist streak…Not the first to make entrenched elites uncomfortable. He’s certainly not the first president to speak bluntly… to mistrust the administrative state… or to rankle unelected bureaucrats.
‘And Heaven knows he is not our first president to assert the constitutional privileges of his office rather than roll over when Congress demands unlimited sensitive information.
‘None of these things is unprecedented.
‘I’ll tell you what would be unprecedented. It will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the Senate hands the House of Representatives a new, partisan “vote of no confidence” that the founders intentionally withheld, destroying the independence of the presidency.
‘It will be unprecedented if we agree that any future House that dislikes any future president can rush through an unfair inquiry, skip the legal system, and paralyze the Senate with a trial. The House could do that at will under this precedent.
‘It will be unprecedented if the Senate says secondhand and thirdhand testimony from unelected civil servants is enough to overturn the people’s vote.
‘It will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the Senate agrees to set the bar this low — forever.
‘It is clear what this moment requires. It requires the Senate to fulfill our founding purpose.
‘The framers built the Senate to provide stability. To take the long view for our Republic. To safeguard institutions from the momentary hysteria that sometimes consumes our politics. To keep partisan passions from boiling over.
‘The Senate exists for moments like this.
‘That’s why this body has the ultimate say in impeachments.
‘The framers knew the House would be too vulnerable to transient passions and violent factionalism. They needed a body that could consider legal questions about what has been proven and political questions about what the common good of our nation requires.
‘Hamilton said explicitly in Federalist 65 that impeachment involves not just legal questions, but inherently political judgments about what outcome best serves the nation.
‘The House can’t do both. The courts can’t do both.
‘This is as grave an assignment as the Constitution gives to any branch of government, and the framers knew only the Senate could handle it. Well, the moment the framers feared has arrived.
‘A political faction in the lower chamber have succumbed to partisan rage. They have fulfilled Hamilton’s prophesy that impeachment will, quote, “connect itself with the pre-existing factions… enlist all their animosities… [and] there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” End quote.
‘That is what happened in the House last night. The vote did not reflect what had been proven. It only reflects how they feel about the President.
‘The Senate must put this right. We must rise to the occasion.
‘There is only one outcome that is suited to the paucity of evidence, the failed inquiry, the slapdash case.
‘Only one outcome suited to the fact that the accusations themselves are constitutionally incoherent.
‘Only one outcome that will preserve core precedents rather than smash them into bits in a fit of partisan rage because one party still cannot accept the American people’s choice in 2016.
‘It could not be clearer which outcome would serve the stabilizing, institution-preserving, fever-breaking role for which the United States Senate was created… and which outcome would betray it.
‘The Senate’s duty is clear. The Senate’s duty is clear.
It does not seem accidental the hastily defined two articles of impeachment mirror the arguments needed in two lower court cases brought by the House Judiciary Committee.
It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.
Because the full House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas.
The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority. Additionally downstream consequences from that original flaw have surfaced in cases working through courts.
There is an argument to be made the rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.
This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped. Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that can facilitate pending court cases.
If accurate, that perspective means the grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.
The 6(e) material relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.
Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely. A goldmine of political opposition research.
Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.
We know from the alignment of interests it is likely Jerry Nadler and his legal Lawfare contractors are well aware of exactly what Weissmann and Co. created for them to discover. The problem for the House team(s) is they need legal authority to obtain it and then utilize it to frame and attack President Trump.
With the impeachment articles now approved – the DC Appeals Court is asking Nadler’s team if the purpose of their lawsuit is now moot. Essentially the court believes the prior lawsuit was based on gathering evidence for the impeachment articles:
If my suspicions are correct [SEE HERE] then Jerry Nadler will respond to the court by saying the HJC needs the 6(e) material to support the obstruction article in a Senate Trial. Per the court deadline, we will know by Monday December 23rd. The obstruction article will then become disposable; it will have fulfilled its purpose.
The original lower court ruling approved the HJC request but limited the scope of the material to only that which Mueller included in his final report. So it’s not accidental that Nadler’s crew shaped an “obstruction” article considering two-thirds of Mueller’s report was structured around… wait for it…. yep, obstruction.
Conveniently a pending Senate Trial against President Trump for obstruction paves the way for the DC appeals court to rule in favor of the HJC need for supportive evidence.
While twisted, this approach screams Lawfare…. that is, to make an indictment and then go fishing for the evidence to support that indictment. Evidence that, not accidentally, carries more political usefulness than the indictment it is intended to support.
Also, it is worth remembering HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Mary McCord as part of his contracted team effort. McCord was the DOJ-NatSec Division head who accompanied Sally Yates to the White House to confront Don McGhan about Lt. Gen. Flynn.
“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.”
“That’s why you’re seeing lawyers come out and being very willing to put in extraordinary amounts of time and effort to litigate these cases,” she added. (link)
My suspicion is the articles of impeachment are a means to an end, and not the end itself.
Defeating and destroying President Trump is the goal, by any means necessary.
This severe type of goal is not guaranteed by relying on a republican Senate to remove him. More extreme Lawfare measures are needed…
Join Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott on a Royal Caribbean cruise in May 2020. https://BillWhittleCruise.com —– Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans a speedy impeachment trial that rapidly acquits President Donald Trump of the two charges brought by the House. But why even have the trial? If the Republican-controlled Senate took a vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment, the country could move on. Right Angle comes to you 20-times monthly thanks to our Members. – Become a Member and find your people at https://BillWhittle.com/register/ – Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/billwhittle – Listen to our shows on the go with your podcast app: http://bit.ly/BWN-Podcasts – Watch us now on Amazon’s Fire TV by downloading the Bill Whittle Network app. http://bit.ly/BWN-FireTV – Ask your Amazon smart device, “Alexa, play Bill Whittle Network on TuneIn radio.” – We’re on Bitchute too: http://bit.ly/BWN-Bitchute
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 