Is The Washington Post, New York Times and CNN Now Declaring Professor Mifsud is *NOT* A Russian Asset?…


The CIA primarily leaks PR spin to the Washington Post.  The FBI primarily leaks PR spin to the New York Times; and the State Dept. primarily leaks PR spin to CNN.  This narrative distribution model is the one constant in an ever changing universe.

Cue the audio visual…  Obviously the prior Washington Post effort to conflate the Durham investigation with the Horowitz investigation didn’t get the desired result.  As a consequence it only took a few days before the Washington Post was back at it (Matt Zapotosky and Devlin Barrett again) to try obfuscation 2.0; this time with Joseph Mifsud.

For three years the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN have sold the FBI claim that Professor Joseph Mifsud was a Russian operative passing information about Clinton’s emails to George Papadopoulos.

That essential point underpins their defense of the predicate for the CIA and FBI to open the July 31st investigation of the Trump campaign.   Again, for three years Joseph Mifsud was sold as a Russian operative; working on behalf of Russian interests.

That “Mifsud is a Russian asset” claim is the fulcrum of Crossfire Hurricane.   Mifsud has to be a Russian asset, or else…  George Papadopoulos talking to Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer about Mifsud is simply political gossip without merit, value or bearing.

The key point is Mifsud has to be a Russian operative in order for all of the downstream FBI activity to be justified.   If Mifsud ain’t Russian, the CIA and FBI have a problem.

It doesn’t matter if Mifsud is Maltese, Taiwanese, Sicilian, Italian, British, Canadian, Chinese, or a half-breed Congolese migrant from Morocco… for the CIA and FBI justification to stick Professor Joseph Mifsud has to be a Russian operative.

Yet for some reason the PR outlet for the CIA and FBI are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to say Mifsud isn’t an American intelligence asset.   A ridiculous amount of energy spent on a claim that no-one has ever made.  The question remains: Is Joseph Mifsud a Russian Operative?

If no, the CIA and FBI have a world of sh!t on their hands.  Period.

Perhaps that’s the reason why the Washington Post are again trying to create and conflate an issue that doesn’t exist.  Example:

[…]  Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office contacted U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor Barr personally tapped to lead a separate review of the 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the people said. The inspector general also contacted several U.S. intelligence agencies.

Among Horowitz’s questions: whether a Maltese professor who interacted with a Trump campaign adviser was actually a U.S. intelligence asset deployed to ensnare the campaign, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the inspector general’s findings have not been made public.

But the intelligence agencies said the professor was not among their assets, the people said. And Durham informed Horowitz’s office that his investigation had not produced any evidence that might contradict the inspector general’s findings on that point. (more)

No sh!t.. !!    Mifsud isn’t “a U.S. intelligence asset”…  and caterpillars never ever wear brown boots….  What’s the point?

No-one has ever said Mifsud was a U.S. intelligence asset.  However, for three years the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN have claimed Mifsud was a Russian intelligence asset.

Are these outlets now denying that point?

Or is this media group trying to distract people from remembering their claim of Mifsud being a Russian asset, by shifting the story to disprove something no-one ever claimed… so they don’t have to admit they told a false story for three years?

The problem the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN has is that we do not forget their claims.   If Mifsud is not a Russian asset then the primary evidence sold by the FBI and their complicit media -to justify the FBI origination- was all a bunch of horse-pucky.

…”Western Intelligence”

ABOVE (L-R) Joseph Mifsud, Boris Johnson and Prasenjit Kumar

If, as FBI Director James Comey and the FBI investigators have claimed, Joseph Mifsud was a Russian asset… then every intelligence agency in the Western Intelligence Alliance has been compromised…. including our own State Department who invited Mifsud to lecture in Washington DC in January 2017; right before he “disappeared.”

Devin Nunes Discusses Impeachment and Schiff’s New Found Authority – Congressional Subpoenas for Private Phone Records…


Devin Nunes appeared on Tucker Carlson to discuss the impeachment events of the day.  However, thankfully they also discussed the revelation that HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff randomly started issuing subpoenas for telephone information.  That’s the part I find very troubling.  Notice how the media simply ignores it?  This is a pretty big damn deal.

Under what authority can congress arbitrarily send subpoenas for the private phone records of citizens, journalists, and fellow politicians?  Can Nunes now start sending subpoenas for the phone records of Michael Isikoff around the time of the Flynn phone call leak?… and can congress publish those call records as a part of some possibly inquiry into the leak… and we can cross reference to identify the FBI leaker?….

Righteous Matt Gaetz Stands the Gap – Eviscerates Impeachment Sanctimony and Defends President Trump’s Family…


Representative Matt Gaetz confronted the jaw-dropping level of political bias and Trump Derangement Syndrome exhibited by Chairman Nadler’s panel of left-wing experts.

With a visible display of righteous indignation Mr. Gaetz dressed down the pompous liberal law professor, Pamela Karlan, and cut right to the heart of the matter with the entire panel.  WATCH:

Stanford Professor Becomes Face of “Resistance TDS” With Ridicule of President Trump’s Son…


Professor Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School became the pompous face of the academic impeachment panel today when she ridiculed the son of President Trump in an effort to highlight her resistance bona-fides.   Imagine the hate that necessarily exists in the heart of a witness who would rehearse such a line to gain tribal cheer.

.

Professor Karlan’s tone-deaf effort is a result of a life in an echo-chamber of far-left liberalism. However, the exhibited hatred did more to support the argument of the impeachment opposition than a thousand hours of granular testimony.  Karlan’s disposition during her diatribe is a case study in Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Personified

Professor Jonathan Turley Opening Statement – Video and Transcript…


Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and not a supporter of President Trump, warned House lawmakers today against impeaching a President without merit. Mr. Turley said that to impeach Trump based on the current evidence “would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”

[Opening Remarks Below]

.

[Transcript] Chairman Nadler, ranking member Collins, members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law.

It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most solemn and important constitutional functions bestowed on this House by the Framers of our Constitution: the impeachment of the President of the United States.

Twenty-one years ago, I sat here before you, Chairman Nadler, and other members of the Judiciary Committee to testify on the history and meaning of the constitutional impeachment standard as part of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. I never thought that I would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. Some elements are strikingly similar.

The intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same. It was an atmosphere that the Framers anticipated. Alexander Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” As with the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment has again proven Hamilton’s words to be prophetic.

The stifling intolerance for opposing views is the same. As was the case two decades ago, it is a perilous environment for a legal scholar who wants to explore the technical and arcane issues normally involved in an academic examination of a legal standard ratified 234 years ago. In truth, the Clinton impeachment hearing proved to be an exception to the tenor of the overall public debate. The testimony from witnesses, ranging from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Laurence Tribe to Cass Sunstein, contained divergent views and disciplines. Yet the hearing remained respectful and substantive as we all grappled with this difficult matter.

I appear today in the hope that we can achieve that same objective of civil and meaningful discourse despite our goodfaith differences on the impeachment standard and its application to the conduct of President Donald J. Trump. I have spent decades writing about impeachment and presidential powers as an academic and as a legal commentator. My academic work reflects the bias of a Madisonian scholar. I tend to favor Congress in disputes with the Executive Branch and I have been critical of the sweeping claims of presidential power and privileges made by modern Administrations. My prior testimony mirrors my criticism of the expansion of executive powers and privileges.

In truth, I have not held much fondness for any president in my lifetime. Indeed, the last president whose executive philosophy I consistently admired was James Madison. In addition to my academic work, I am a practicing criminal defense lawyer.

Among my past cases, I represented the United States House of Representatives as lead counsel challenging payments made under the Affordable Care Act without congressional authorization. I also served as the last lead defense counsel in an impeachment trial in the Senate. With my co-lead counsel Daniel Schwartz, I argued the case on behalf of federal judge Thomas Porteous. (My opposing lead counsel for the House managers was Adam Schiff).

In addition to my testimony with other constitutional scholars at the Clinton impeachment hearings, I also represented former Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation over privilege disputes triggered by the investigation of Independent Counsel Ken Starr. I also served as lead counsel in a bill of attainder case, the sister of impeachment that will be discussed below.

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.

To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment.

President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.

If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

Although I am citing a wide body of my relevant academic work on these questions, I will not repeat that work in this testimony. Instead, I will focus on the history and cases that bear most directly on the questions facing this Committee. My testimony will first address relevant elements of the history and meaning of the impeachment standard. Second, I will discuss the past presidential impeachments and inquiries in the context of this controversy. Finally, I will address some of the specific alleged impeachable offenses raised in this process. In the end, I believe that this process has raised serious and legitimate issues for investigation.

Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature. It comes down to a type of constitutional architecture. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.

The physics are simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy has not offered such a foundation and would easily collapse in a Senate trial.

Before I address these questions, I would like to make one last cautionary observation regarding the current political atmosphere. In his poem “The Happy Warrior,” William Wordsworth paid homage to Lord Horatio Nelson, a famous admiral and hero of the Napoleonic Wars. Wordsworth began by asking “Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he what every man in arms should wish to be?” The poem captured the deep public sentiment felt by Nelson’s passing and one reader sent Wordsworth a gushing letter proclaiming his love for the poem. Surprisingly, Wordsworth sent back an admonishing response. He told the reader “you are mistaken; your judgment is affected by your moral approval of the lines.” Wordsworth’s point was that it was not his poem that the reader loved, but its subject.

My point is only this: it is easy to fall in love with lines that appeal to one’s moral approval. In impeachments, one’s feeling about the subject can distort one’s judgment on the true meaning or quality of an argument. We have too many happy warriors in this impeachment on both sides. What we need are more objective noncombatants, members willing to set aside political passion in favor of constitutional circumspection.

Despite our differences of opinion, I believe that this esteemed panel can offer a foundation for such reasoned and civil discourse. If we are to impeach a president for only the third time in our history, we will need to rise above this age of rage and genuinely engage in a civil and substantive discussion. It is to that end that my testimony is offered today.

Divining the intent of the Framers often borders on necromancy, with about the same level of reliability. Fortunately, there are some questions that were answered directly by the Framers during the Constitutional and Ratification Conventions. Any proper constitutional interpretation begins with the text of the Constitution. Indeed, such interpretations ideally end with the text when there is clarity as to a constitutional standard or procedure. Five provisions are material to impeachment cases, and therefore structure our analysis:

Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. U.S. Const. art. I, cl. 8.

Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 6.

Article I, Section 3: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to the Law. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 7.

Article II, Section 2: [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. U.S. Const., art. II, 2, cl. 1.

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, 4.

For the purposes of this hearing, it is Article II, Section 4 that is the focus of our attention and, specifically, the meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

It is telling that the actual constitutional standard is contained in Article II (defining executive powers and obligations) rather than Article I (defining legislative powers and obligations). The location of that standard in Article II serves as a critical check on service as a president, qualifying the considerable powers bestowed upon the Chief Executive with the express limitations of that office.

It is in this sense an executive, not legislative, standard set by the Framers. For presidents, it is essential that this condition be clear and consistent so that they are not subject to the whim of shifting majorities in Congress. That was a stated concern of the Framers and led to the adoption of the current standard and, equally probative, the express rejection of other standards. (continue reading via pdf)

.

House Judiciary Committee – Academic “Groundwork” Hearing on Impeachment – 10:00am Livestream…


At 10:00am ET the House Judiciary Committee will hold an “impeachment groundwork” hearing with a panel of left-wing resistance academics scheduled to help democrats justify their urgent partisan efforts to remove President Trump from office.

HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler will be aided by contracted Lawfare attorney Norm Eisen for the effort.  Chairman Nadler promised his peers he will be very aggressive toward any opposition questioning that seeks to undermine the predetermined enterprise. The academic panel is scheduled to begin testifying to Mr. Eisen at 10:00am ET

C-SPAN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream Link

.

.

A Republic if You Can Keep It!


The Democrat Progressives led by Pelosi and her donners have not got the end game of their battle with Trump in their sights. Their Joker Adam Schiff has now produced a 300 page document, The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report that has been sent to the House Judiciary committee to start the process of impeaching Trump. There is no chance that Nadler will not turn that Schiff report in to articles of impeachment that will be voted on with around 224 votes +/- of support and sent to the Senate before the end of the year.

What is in the first paragraph, above, is of no surprise to most of those following this process. However, the prevailing view that the Senate will not find Trump guilty on all counts is false. I say this will some degree of certainty as I have been following what is going on politically since the end of the Bush administration. In particular in 2010 when the Tea party movement started and was immediately attacked by the progressive wings of both parties it became obvious that something was not right.

Over the next 6 years there appeared to be coordination between the two parties to stop any populist movement in the country. When Trump decided to run for president, both political parties made an effort to prevent him from winning the 2016 election.  But it was a halfhearted movement as they saw Hillary wining was a sure thing. This view was based on two factors number one she was needed to completed the Obama goal of neutering the US and number two all the power brokers and the media were for her so how could she loose she was a Clinton?

She may have been a Clinton but she was not Bill and worse she was so full of herself that she wouldn’t even listen to his advice; which was very sound. The result was that she probably ran the most inept campaign for president ever; and thereby lost.  With that all hell broke loose and it’s not over.

Now which switch gears and look at the Senate and the Republicans? The Republicans also have Progressives and their leader is Mitch McConnell. Now republican progressives are somewhat different then the Democrat progressives but the differences are not large. For example the McConnell faction is for open borders, Climate Change and government run Health Care. McConnell engineered the McCain vote that blocked the repeal of Obama Care and was all for the Immigration reform that was eventual stopped in 2014 with the defeat of Republican Eric Cantor in the House, by the Tea Party.

McConnell was also instrumental in getting Progressive Republicans into the Senate by running anti Tea Party ads and/or supping the Democrat candidate i.e. Doug Jones in Alabama. Then we have Mitt Romney in Utah and now Kelly Loeffler in Georgia just to site a few examples. Some of the rest are: John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Joni Ernst, Todd Young, John Thune, Mike Lee, Cory Gardner, Mike Crapo, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, Susan Collins, Jerry Moran, Rob Portman, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Roger Wicker, Lisa Murkowski. And the biggest snake of them all Lindsey Graham.

McConnell has more than enough Trump haters in is collation such that he could convict Trump if the Senate gets the Articles of Impeachment. I suspect that McConnell with try to blackmail Trump to either back off on the border issue and the trade issues which the Republican money suppliers to not want.  How open, in the public, this gets is a question and I hope Trump tells McConnell to stuff it.

For purposes of clarity the previously mentioned Republicans and most of the Democrats are in league with the bureaucrats and together with the State Department, the CIA the DNI the FBI and the NSA make up the Deep State.

The enemies of the people are legion but we have the numbers and so it should be made very clear in the next few weeks that if anything is done to remove Trump or make Trumps second term ineffective, by a close impeachment vote in the Senate, that in November of 2020 We will vote for Trump but no other Republican. I will vote Libertarian and if they impeach Trump he should run as a libertarian.

That would split the power for if we put in the House and Senate enough people that no one at a majority then we would have real power.

 

House Republican Leadership Hold an Impeachment Rebuttal Press Conference – DC Media Ignore…


The republican leadership from the U.S. House of Representatives held a press conference today as a rebuttal to the democrat impeachment inquiry report.  House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins joined GOP leadership to discuss the significant issues with the impeachment process.  WATCH:

.

Everything We The People ever needed to know about media bias is completely visible at the end of the press conference.  Few DC media attended.  Apparently the republican rebuttal message is antithetical to the DC media objective.

Seconds after the presser concluded we witness the lack of media interest….

Schiff Team Subpoena’d Call Records from Trump Attorneys Along With Devin Nunes, John Solomon….


AT&T provided the call records, likely under subpoena. (link)

Let’s hope Schiff received them under subpoena, because the alternative is much worse. The alternative is a criminal leak from an outside interest.

There’s a particular type of anger that surfaces when you realize the Schiff team who coordinated the origination effort with the CIA whistleblower; and then vehemently hide their coordination; are the same crew simultaneously using the power of their position to subpoena private phone call records from President Trump’s lawyers, members of congress, and journalists.  [See Schiff Report pages 157, 158, 159 – pdf]

Yes, in essence Adam Schiff weaponized his committee authority toward the goal of removing President Trump in an identical way the prior administration intelligence officials, DOJ and FBI weaponized their authority toward removing candidate Trump, president-elect Trump and President Trump.

It is one long continuum of political corruption, weaponization, and fabrication of evidence to achieve a political objective.  It is also disgusting in construct.

This crew doesn’t care one bit how much they have to destroy this country, so long as they can advance a left-wing political agenda based on an unquenchable thirst for power.  I never thought we would see the possibility of a hot civil war in my lifetime.  I was wrong.

The cattle cars are on the horizon, and the full Schiff report pdf is below.

.

Chairman Schiff Issues House Impeachment Report – Full Links to PDF


While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains out of the country, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has extended the House legislative calendar through December 20th in order to rush a full House impeachment vote before Christmas.

Today the Chairman of the House ‘impeachment inquiry’, Adam Schiff, publishes the Democrat House impeachment inquiry report with a partisan vote on the report -nobody has read- expected later today.  [Press Release] – [Schiff Report]

LINK to Report HERE

Democrat Press Release Here