Wow – Puerto Rico Governor Fires Emergency Response Director After Massive Warehouse of Unused Aid Discovered…


Folks, this is alarming.  An explosive video from Puerto Rico shows a massive warehouse of emergency hurricane relief supplies discovered highlighting emergency supplies delivered in the aftermath of hurricane Maria that were never distributed.

The warehouse was discovered after the recent earthquake, and the building suffering damage. After CTH initially saw the report, I had to go find the raw video to see just how much 2017 aid was being hidden in this warehouse; and the full video is simply stunning.  First, the report:

(VIA CBS) Puerto Rico Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced fired the island’s emergency management director on Saturday, after a video showing aid sitting unused in a warehouse went viral on social media. Some of the aid has allegedly been sitting in the warehouse since Hurricane Maria struck in 2017.

“There are thousands of people who have made sacrifices to help those in the south, and it is unforgivable that resources were kept in the warehouse,” Vázquez said in a statement.

Garced said in a statement that she has ordered Secretary of State Elmer Roman to conduct a “thorough investigation into the mishandling of emergency aid in a warehouse in Ponce,” CBS News correspondent David Begnaud reports.

“I have given 48 hours for this investigation. The investigation is to include this warehouse and any others which may exist,” her statement read. “In the same vein, I have decided to relieve Carlos Acevedo of his duties as the commissioner of the National Emergency Management and Disaster Relief Agency.”

Vázquez said she would nominate the current Puerto Rican National Guard chief for Senate consideration to replace Acevedo. (read more)

Many CTH readers know I am a CERT response leader for Hurricane relief; and in that capacity I have a pretty good idea of logistics, costs, and the scale of moving supplies into impact zones.   After initially reading the report on twitter, and seeing a portion of the video, I went in search of the raw video to see the size and scale of this ‘warehouse’.

Here’s the longer video:

.

What has been found here is a massive storage facility. I would estimate the size of the warehouse around 200,000 sq ft (minimum) based on video and exterior truck bays.

The video shows thousands of pallets, double and triple stacked, of key and essential emergency supplies. Bottled water, shelf-stable food, diapers, baby formula, blankets, tarps, tents, propane grills, propane, emergency lights, batteries, flashlights, emergency radios, potable water cans and much, much more.

To give you an idea of the scale, there’s at least 100 semi truck loads of supplies in this video, in this single warehouse.

Logistically each trailer would haul 22/24 single stack pallets, or 66/72 triple stack. With more than a dozen staged pallet jacks, this warehouse is holding serious money.

It is unfathomable these supplies were not distributed; and worse yet were likely being re-sold on the black market.

These emergency supplies and materials were delivered in 2017. On December 28th, 2019, a magnitude 4.7 earthquake hit Puerto Rico and President Trump authorized an additional $8.2 billion in aid….

President Trump was correct:

Update on Supreme Court


QUESTION: I heard that several coin dealers conspired with the government in hopes of getting all the coins you ever had. Is that also something the Supreme Court will rule on?

GN

ANSWER: I am sure there are always people who would conspire against their own mother for a buck. I believe that one dealer bought stolen coins and then tried to sell then 20 years later. I would not say he conspired with the government, but against the government.

The government was ordered to reply by December 2nd. They asked for an extension and were granted until January 2nd. They then said they could not make that deadline and were given yet another 30 days. So they will have to respond by February 2nd, we get a reply, and then the decision to hear the case will be made in early March.

The way this works is that the government does not respond to petitions to the Supreme Court for they get thousands. They respond ONLY to cases the Supreme Court is interested in taking which the Court then orders them to respond. Central to the case is the fact that they used a civil parallel case filed after the first case and then used that to intervene and disrupt the parallel case. Judge Owen was notoriously biased. I doubt that many other judges would have done what he did.

The Supreme Court has ruled that before a single court, what they did to me, 240 employees, and my family would have been unconstitutional. So the question is really if a single court cannot act in this manner, then can the government use a parallel case to do what is illegal in a single court?

Then there are numerous Supreme Court cases they just ignored.

 

  1. Grupo Mexicano v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)

(holding that unsecured notes cannot be frozen)

2. Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010)

(held the SEC never had jurisdiction outside the USA)

3. Luis v. United States,  136 S.Ct. 1083 (2016)

(holding that if someone is denied the use of their funds to defend themselves, the judgment is automatically vacated because it is a structural error)

These are only three of the Supreme Court decisions that have been just ignored in my case because it became political. There are several others that were also ignored.

I understand there are people who point their finger at coin dealers, others at prosecutors, others at the CIA, and still others in Japan at their own government because I was not Japanese as they are doing to the head of Nissan. I do not believe it was the CIA. It was not instigated in the USA but on letters from the Japanese government that clients there believed were an intentional error claiming there was $10 billion outstanding when it was $1 which they then corrected only after everything began.

There is plenty of blame to go around. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be a watershed decision that will help so many people who are being abused by the SEC and CFTC. The Grupo decision clearly states that the equitable power of a federal court is confined to the known remedies as they stood in 1789 without statutory authority. The SEC never had any statutory authority to even create a receiver until 2010 when Congress finally granted that authority. So there was never any authority for a receiver either back in 1999.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, and they just affirm their prior decisions, the outcome will be very interesting. Even HSBC, who I believe conspired with the government to steal $400 million of profit in the notes, may find themselves liable for all the funds lost by 240 employees. Anyone else who conspired with the government may suddenly find themselves on the opposite side of the table which may include the receiver and his law firm.

Let’s see what happens

Hillary off the Hook!


An investigation launched into Hillary Clinton in November of 2017 by the DOJ and US Attorney John Huber has ended with no charges.

Former AG Jeff Sessions appointed Huber to investigate the Clinton Foundation.

Huber did nothing.

He never interviewed key witnesses.

Evidence was sent to the Huber investigation three times because they kept “losing it”.

It is a two tier Justice system and the American people are tired of it.

Now the ball is in AG Barr and Durham’s court.

It will be up to Barr and Durham to finally end the two tier Justice system or our Republic is lost.

Will Barr’s DOJ finally do something?  Maybe when they are “hungry’ enough.

Is Hillary Clinton “off the Hook” and exonerated like the Washington Post claims?

Or does this mean that no one will talk to the Washington Post and they are making stuff up…as usual.

Stay Tooned, this is not over!

#LOCKHERUP

Tina

Whistleblower Provides Attkisson New Details to Name Rod Rosenstein and Shawn Henry (Crowdstrike) as Defendants in Lawsuit…


A very interesting development in the ongoing effort of former CBS investigative journalist, Sharyl Attkisson, to resolve the issue of who spied on her, planted spyware and infiltrated her computer systems for illegal surveillance.  [Attkisson website here]

According to a recent court filing [Source Here] a person who was engaged in the “wrongful activity” has come forward to provide Ms. Attkisson with details about the operation.  As a result of those whistle-blower revelations Attkisson is able to name specific individuals who were running the operation:

Former DOJ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is named as the person who was in charge of the operation; and the former head of the FBI DC field office, Shawn Henry is also outlined.

Mr. Henry is the head of Crowdstrike, a contractor for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic company.  Those who have followed the aspects related to the FBI use of the NSA database to illegally monitor U.S. persons; and those who followed the DNC cover story of Russia “hacking”; will be familiar with Crowdstrike.

According to the updated lawsuit (full pdf below) Rod Rosenstein, as the U.S. Attorney for Maryland, was in charge of the Obama 2011 and 2012 operation to monitor journalists specific to Ms. Attkissons reporting on Fast-n-Furious and Benghazi.

What I find additionally interesting is the overall timeline in the bigger picture.

In the April 2017 release from FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer outlining the abuses of the FISA-702 process by FBI “contractors”, where the NSA database was being use for unlawful surveillance of U.S. persons, Collyer specifically noted the findings of her review of the period from November ’16 to May ’17 (85% non compliant rate) was likely to have been happening since 2012. [Go Deep]

The “IRS Scandal” were the DOJ was creating a list of U.S. persons for political targeting, and requested CD ROM’s of tax filings, was the lead-up to the 2012 exploitation of the NSA database. [The Secret Research Project] So there’s a larger picture of government surveillance under the Obama administration that becomes more clear.

Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term “Secret Research Project” originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S. Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the FISA abuse:

The IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The transaction occurred in October 2010 (link)

Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there’s a pre-existing financial crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the surface in early spring 2012.

This is the same time-frame when DNI James Clapper falsely denied to congress about the U.S. government -through the NSA- collecting metadata on all U.S. electronic communication.  This is the same time-frame where CIA Director John Brennan was monitoring the computer networks of congressional intelligence oversight staff.

When you overlay the new information from the Attkisson lawsuit, what emerges is the picture of an intentional effort by the Obama administration to weaponize the ability to collect electronic information on domestic political opposition.  It’s one long continuum.

Here’s the new Attkisson lawsuit (using new information from a whistle-blower):

.

.

Within the lawsuit the DOJ inspector general is identified as adverse to the interests of the case.  Meaning DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was engaged in behavior to help the institution cover-up what independent computer forensic technicians were able to discover.   Employees from the IG’s office also told Ms. Attkisson they had received instructions from the DC offices adverse to the interest of truthful discovery.

In addition to the institutional cover-up effort; it would be worth noting that current DOJ and FBI officials, who have been identified as holding corrupt motives, are still being positioned at key offices.  An example is FBI Supervisory Special Agent David Archey (Mueller Team) being promoted to head up the Virginia FBI field office.

Obviously the DC institutional swamp is very deep and very corrupt.  Current and former politicians and federal officials who have engaged in corrupt behavior, or who have facilitated corrupt -potentially unlawful- surveillance activity, are still working within the system to avoid exposure.

Another recent example is former Christine Blasey-Ford hoax facilitator and Andrew McCabe attorney, Michael Bromwich, being hired by corrupt Chicago prosecutor Kim Foxx in an effort to protect herself from the outcome of the Jussie Smollett hoax in Chicago.  Why does a Cook County, Illinois, State Attorney need to hire a DC-based lawyer?

It was obvious early on the Jussie Smollett hoax was connected to several members of the Obama team and network.  Michael Bromwich is a former DOJ inspector general with ongoing direct contacts with corrupt DOJ and FBI officials inside the institutions.  Chicago State Attorney Foxx hiring Bromwich is yet another example of DC managing the cover.

Whether it’s the identified weaponization of NSA databases; or whether it’s corrupt FBI officials covering for each-other and the DOJ ‘declining to prosecute’; or whether it’s current AG Bill Barr covering for the transparently corrupt former DAG Rod Rosenstein; or whether it’s the institutional need to hide DOJ scope memos which initiated a false investigation of a sitting United States President; one thing remains brutally obvious….

Report: John Huber Completes Review of Clinton Foundation and Uranium One, Finds Nothing…


As with all things MSM it’s worth considering with a dose of salt. However, that said, media are now reporting that U.S. Attorney John Huber has completed his review of the Clinton Foundation and Uranium-One and found nothing worth pursuing.

This would be a major disappointment for Q-decoders and Trusty Planners who claimed John Huber had hundreds of investigators spanning several states and were forecasting: (1) a suspension of Habeas Corpus, (2) military tribunals, (3) mass arrests based on over 60,000 sealed indictments; and (5) pending incarcerations at Guantanamo Bay.

WASHINGTON – A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything.

John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.

As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers, these people said.  (read more)

Reuters

@Reuters

U.S. inquiry into FBI, Clinton spurred by Republicans ends without results: Washington Post https://reut.rs/2QEj3kT 

View image on Twitter
120 people are talking about this

As with all things MSM it’s worth considering with a dose of salt. However, that said, media are now reporting that U.S. Attorney John Huber has completed his review of the Clinton Foundation and Uranium-One and found nothing worth pursuing.

This would be a major disappointment for Q-decoders and Trusty Planners who claimed John Huber had hundreds of investigators spanning several states and were forecasting: (1) a suspension of Habeas Corpus, (2) military tribunals, (3) mass arrests based on over 60,000 sealed indictments; and (5) pending incarcerations at Guantanamo Bay.

WASHINGTON – A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything.

John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.

As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers, these people said.  (read more)

Reuters

@Reuters

U.S. inquiry into FBI, Clinton spurred by Republicans ends without results: Washington Post https://reut.rs/2QEj3kT 

View image on Twitter
120 people are talking about this

Iran!


The latest fireworks in the Middle East involved an Iranian-led attack on our embassy in Iraq.

 

Our military took out their leader shortly thereafter. I’ve heard some say Trump is keeping Americans safe. That’s great, but why are so many Americans still in Iraq after all these years? Why are we in Syria? Why are we allies with a backward kingdom named Saudi Arabia?

That country beheads people for merely questioning their government. They use their oil money to spread Wahhabism, a radical form of Islam that breeds terrorism.

Iran is our enemy because they practice a different form of Islam and they hate us because our CIA conducted a coup against their Prime Minister. Mosaddegh wanted to nationalize the oil companies operating in his country, so he had to go. He was replaced with the Shah, and his brutality led to a revolution in the late 1970s. Iran has been run by Islamic fanatics who hate America since then.

President H. W. Bush and his son W. were both Skull and Bones men and war criminals. They got American troops in the Middle East using false flags and blatant lies. Millions of lives and trillions of dollars lost later—we’re still there—and in Afghanistan as well.

Iranian citizens suffer from a poor economy and harsh repression. They are not happy, and so the ruling Mullahs keep the fires of hate against America burning as a distraction. They must also think America is weak. After all, Obama gave them billions of dollars and John Kerry was happy to genuflect to Iran’s rulers. They made a ridiculous deal in the hopes they could keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check. Of course Iran kept right on going with their nuclear weapons program—just like the North Koreans did after cutting a sweetheart deal with the Clinton administration.

Our founding fathers wanted us to avoid foreign entanglements. Leaders such as the Bushes ignored their advice and so now we have permanent war in an area with a history of tribal warfare going back centuries. Those conflicts will never end. We should not be in the middle of it all—we are supposedly energy independent now. It’s time to let the countries in the Middle East battle it out on their own without us paying for it with American dollars and lives.

Bring the troops home!

—Ben Garrison

Suffer any Wrong Rather than Go to Court


COMMENT: Judge Jackson & the Lack of Judicial Impartiality
Martin in this very illuminating post you say:
“Clearly, the most dangerous flaw appears to be intentional – Congress appoints judges not lawyers”.
You’ve missed an important point here.
At the time of the founding most judges were “appointed” by the people; through elections!
Yes, with the federal courts it doesn’t work that way. But, with the inferior courts at the state and local level it still does; though the right has been assailed and so somewhat curtailed.
Still, it is estimated some 50,000 judge-ships are subject to the ballot; a power, like so many others, fully squandered by the American people.
The implications of an electorate organized to exercise these powers would have serious implications at the federal level just the same and these facts should not be forgotten or dismissed.

H

REPLY: Yes, the state and local levels are varied. My discussion was confined to federal, which is what Ben Franklin was opposed to. There are many regions in the state and local level where the judges are elected by the people. This too I see as wrong for they are still being sponsored by the Republican or Democratic Party and are declared as members. This still intertwines politics and does not eliminate the problem of bias.

I believe that Franklin was correct. The judges should NOT stand for election for that will transform the law into just the will of the majority. There was a case Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) which resulted in changing our constitutional rights because politically they demanded that a black guy be found guilty for killing a white 10-year-old girl. The police could not simply transport him after his lawyer got him to self-surrender. The lawyer warned the police not to question him on the way to the jail. They did any way. The officers began a conversation with respondent that ultimately resulted in his making incriminating statements and directing the officers to the child’s body.

A federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding found that the police had obtained respondent’s incriminating statements through interrogation in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387. They had to put him on trial again using evidence concerning the body’s location. Legally, that should have never been allowed. But because this was a black man who had mental problems and a 10-year-old white girl, the thought of letting him walk was just politically unacceptable. The court thus created a rule known as the Inevitable Discovery Rule meaning that it was irrelevant that he showed the police where the body was buried, because the court ruled that they would have eventually found the body.

The impact of that political decision is that police really do not need a search warrant today, they merely have to sweep an unconstitutional illegal search and seizure under the table and rule that had they obtained a search warrant, they would have inevitably found the same evidence.

This is the problem when you mix politics with law. In order to make sure that this one black guy was punished, the entire society had to be stripped of our absolute right against illegal search and seizure. If the government wants you, you have no Constitutional rights whatsoever. Law has become the justification for legal persecution. Sir William Blackstone, upon whose seminal legal work was to found the foundation of American law, wrote:  It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. That is the way the law is supposed to work. When you mix politics with judges, there is no rule of law that remains. The statue of justice is supposed to be blind symbolizing impartiality. That is merely fiction – like once upon a time.

The corruption of the Rule of Law was always an English past time, which the Americans inherited and greatly improved upon. The idea of justice is merely a fictional dream. Charles Dickens wrote in his introduction to Bleak House;

This is the Court of Chancery ..• Suffer any wrong that can be done you, rather than come here!

 

Pelosi’s New Years Eve Party!


PARTYING WITH PELOSI

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi loves money. That’s why she spends so much of her time fundraising. She is good at hitting up large corporations and wealthy donors.

As for her constituents? She spouts off the usual blue city leftist rhetoric to keep them placated. She represents California’s 12th congressional district, which mostly consists of the city of San Francisco. That city has degenerated under her rule. Its streets are littered with human feces and drug needles. The homeless don’t have money, so they don’t appear on Nancy’s radar.

Pelosi caters to the rich, limousine liberals who can afford to live there. She knows money is power and her wealth bought her a lot of influence in the Democratic Party. Just like Hillary did with her corrupt Clinton Foundation, Pelosi has amassed vast wealth as a politician—she’s worth well over $100 million. Some estimate her wealth is much greater than that. She made sure her son, Paul Pelosi Jr., got paid off, too. Like Hunter Biden, he was involved in kickbacks and Ukraine corruption.

It remains to be seen what Pelosi will do in 2020 to help thwart Trump’s reelection. Her Trump Derangement Syndrome will not be cured any time soon and her endless thirst for money will remain unquenched.

Happy New Year!

—Ben Garrison

Judge Jackson & the Lack of Judicial Impartiality


QUESTION: I get your point that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is predisposed to the Democrats and was considered by Obama for the Supreme Court. How would you reform such political cases? Do you believe she had any basis to honor the Subpoena?

JF

ANSWER: I find it very curious that the Democrats would seek a civil order to compel White House counsel Don McGahn to testify when it should have been a contempt of Congress and handed over to the Department of Justice.  There is such a thing as Attorney Client Privilege. But let’s put that aside. As far back as the 1790s, it was established that contempt of Congress was considered an “implied power” of the legislature, on the basis that such a power existed in the British Parliament despite the fact we had a revolution against British powers. Congress was able to issue contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions without express powers granted to it by the Constitution.

Robert Randal was held in contempt of Congress for an attempt to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina back in 1795. Bribing a politician was then seen as a contempt of the legislative power. If that was applied today with lobbyists, there would not be enough jail space to house everyone.

Then there was William Duane, who was a newspaper editor who had refused to answer Senate questions in 1800. The freedom of the press seems to have been ignored from very early on when it involved something government demanded. They did the same to Nathaniel Rounsavell  who was also a newspaper editor, for publishing sensitive information in the press back in 1812. He was finally released from custody on a house vote which took place on April 7th, 1812 after he agreed to answer the interrogatories.

In Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 204 204 (1821), the Supreme Court held that Congress’ power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was “… not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.” However, the case arose after the House of Representatives punished John Anderson for contempt but it did not identify his alleged offense, It was most likely attempted bribery. The Supreme Court ruled that contempt of Congress would be confined to simply imprisonment and that the person had to be released once the session of Congress was adjourned. They ruled out corporal and capital punishments as the penalty.

The Supreme Court has later warned Congress through its rulings on the use of contempt proceedings that it risked suppressing freedom of speech. Chief Justice Edward White extended protections of the 1821 Anderson v. Dunn ruling in the opinion of the Court in 1917 which ruled a contempt proceeding against a district attorney for statements he made about a House member went “far beyond Congress’ intrinsic power to protect itself.”

The theory that an attempt to bribe a politician was considered contempt of Congress was eventually abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made “contempt of Congress” a criminal offense against the United States (Act of January 24, 1857, Ch. 19, sec. 1, 11 Stat. 155). Actually, the last time Congress arrested and detained a witness was in 1935. Since then, Congress has referred cases to the United States Department of Justice for prosecution. The Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that the President of the United States is protected from contempt by executive privilege. That makes sense whereby Congress could criminally then charge the President and that would then qualify them to be removed from office.

If we turn to Congressional Subpoenas, Congress claims that power is inherent in all of its standing committees as necessary to compel witnesses to testify and produce documents. A Congressional Committee rules provides for the full committee to issue a subpoena, and it authorizes subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States 365 U.S. 399 (1961), a Congressional Committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas. First, the committee’s investigation of the subject matter must be authorized by its chamber. Secondly, any such investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” although it need not actually involve legislation. However, it does not have to specify the ultimate intent of Congress. Thirdly, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

Here is the decision which I believe control. The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975), that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate Clause which provides “an absolute bar to judicial interference” once it is determined that Members are acting within the “legitimate legislative sphere” with such compulsory process.

Under that Eastland decision, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply. Courts tend to rule that such matters are “political questions” unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized.

Here Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in the district court in Washington ruled that McGahn must testify and that the Justice Department’s argument “is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.” The judge ordered McGahn to appear before the House committee and said her conclusion was “inescapable” because a subpoena demand is part of the legal system and was not the political process.

The Supreme Court has made it clear in the Eastland decision, that a Congressional subpoena is NOT judicial (legal) but it involves “political questions” not legal or judicial. I believe her decision is incorrect and it was politically motivated. On the other hand, the proper course of action by Congress should have been to turn it over to the Department of Justice to prosecute criminal contempt. They obviously did not do that and sought to get a judicial decision on a question that is clearly political. She was appointed as a judge by President Obama on September 20, 2012.

I oppose judges being appointed by politicians. I agree with Ben Franklin that the proper system for judges would have been the Scottish system where judges are nominated by fellow lawyers, not politicians to who they may be beholding. While legal scholars tend to look at Article III of the US Constitution as based upon the English legal system modeled on Blackstone’s famous Commentaries on the Laws of England, Franklin argued for the Scottish System that was far superior. Indeed, the Scottish judicial system provided an important, but overlooked, model for the framing of Article III.

Unlike the English system of overlapping original jurisdiction, the Scottish judiciary featured a hierarchical, appellate-style judiciary, with one supreme court sitting at the top and an array of inferior courts of original jurisdiction down below. What’s more, the Scottish judiciary operated within a constitutional framework — the so-called Acts of Union that combined England and Scotland into Great Britain in 1707 retained the independent legal structure of Scotland and prohibited the English courts from interfering with those of Scotland.

The influence of the Scottish judiciary on the language and structure of the US Article III legal framework is clear where there is a Supreme Court with multiple inferior courts that are subordinate to, and subject to the supervisory oversight of, the sole supreme court. The Scottish model thus provides important historical support for the supremacy of the Supreme Court, however, the blending of this with the English system rendered the inferiority in Article III to operate as textual and structural limits on Congress’ jurisdiction-stripping authority from the courts.

Clearly, the most dangerous flaw appears to be intentional – Congress appoints judges not lawyers. This allowed the English legal system to be politically manipulated whereas the Scottish System was really independent. This MUST be corrected to restore the rule of law.

 

Important Discussion – Col Douglas Macgregor Has Suspicions About Pompeo, Esper and Milley…


Well, well, well…. we are not alone in our suspicions of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley.

Tonight Col Douglas Macgregor outlines his own suspicions about the U.S. military attack in Iraq and Syria that parallel our initial gut reaction.  Macgregor states his belief that President Trump is being “skillfully misinformed”.  WATCH:

.

POTUS has yet to make a comment about it.