Has Schiff Abused the Power of Congress?


QUESTION: The Democrats said that Dershowitz’s argument on the constitutional grounds to impeach Trump is “absurdist.” What is your UNBIASED opinion if you can be unbiased?

HM

ANSWER: Obstruction of Congress is a bogus charge. The purpose of Executive Privilege is to maintain the separation of power. The Democrats had the right to go to the courts and to compel documents they wanted as well as testimony. Adam Schiff did not do that because he knew he would lose. The excuse he offered instead was this impeachment is such an emergency, it could not wait. Sorry, then they held the articles of impeachment for about a month? Look, this is all gamesmanship. They want to be able to then say Trump should have been impeached and the Republicans protected him and use that in the 2020 election.

The Judiciary is the third branch of government with the duty to provide the check and balance to the system. Because of this very gamesmanship, even if Trump was convicted, based upon the evidence in this case and the manner in which the Democrats have proceeded trying to avoid the Judiciary, Trump would be in his right to REFUSE to step down unless so directed by the Supreme Court.

Congress could pass a law that says any president must step down if they committed adultery because it is a crime, although rarely enforced. In 1980, a Massachusetts couple was spotted having sex in a van. They were confronted by police and they admitted they were married but not to each other. They were then arrested for adultery. The man admitted his guilt and paid a fine of $50, but the woman appealed, invoking the same right of privacy defined in landmark contraception and abortion cases. The court rejected the argument and upheld the conviction. Indeed, adultery is a crime in many states and thus could actually be enforced if the police chose to do so.

Therefore, Congress could attempt to impeach a president like Bill Clinton and they would be within their power. The question would then become, is adultery within the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors? Indeed, you would probably be able to impeach most of Congress. Many people do not realize that some states have made even premarital sex a crime. Utah just in 2019 finally repealed a 1973 fornication law punishing sex outside of marriage as a class B misdemeanor with up to $1,000 in fines and six months in jail.

The entire impeachment process needs to really be defined clearly, in my opinion, by the Supreme Court. Indeed, let us look at two former justices of the Supreme Court who both expressed the view that the judiciary indeed has a vital role in reining in Congress were it to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, expressed whether Trump would have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court if convicted like any other person in the country. He wrote:

“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”

Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee, echoed the very same proposition:

“If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results … judicial interference might well be appropriate.”

Legally, Clinton could have been found guilty of adultery, but they did not charge him with that. It certainly would have been legal. Then Clinton could have appealed to the Supreme Court and perhaps then they would have to determine what type of misdemeanor would even warrant removal from office. I would suspect it would have to be at least a class A  misdemeanor which is typically punishable by a jail sentence of no more than one year, and a fine of a certain amount. The lessor class misdemeanor may carry sentences of only months or days.

Had Schiff gone to court to enforce his subpoenas as the law provides, then this entire mess would have been sorted out properly. Instead, we have an impeachment which is designed solely for the election. I BELIEVE Schiff has acted beyond his constitutional power and has indeed abused the power of Congress. He may be regarded by historians alongside McCarth

President Trump Convention Speech to American Farm Bureau – Video and Transcript…


Sunday evening President Donald Trump delivered a key-note speech during the American Farm Bureau National Convention.  [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to thank you very much. And thank you to our great Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue. Thank you, Sonny, very much. You’ve done a fantastic job. (Applause.) Sit down, everybody. Let’s stay for a while. Come on.

We did it. We did it. Remember? (Applause.)

They were all saying, “You’ll never get NAFTA changed.” We were stuck with one of the worst trade deals in history. “We’ll never do it. We’ll never get a deal done with China.” I’ve told everybody, “You got to buy a lot of land, and you’ve got to get much bigger tractors right now.” Because we did a great deal with China — great for our country. And hopefully, it’s great for China, too, because we’re going to sell them the greatest product you’ve ever seen, right? The greatest product you’ve ever seen. (Applause.)

But I am thrilled to be back in this incredible state of Texas. We’ve had a tremendous victory. And from what I understand, those polls are all saying we’re way higher than we were in ’16. Is that correct? That’s right, Dan. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. My Dan. Great. Thank you very much. We’re doing good.

But this is where the people are known for being tough, and strong, and hardworking, loyal, fiercely patriotic — just like America’s incredible farmers.

My administration is fighting for the American farmer, and has been fighting for the farmer and the rancher every single day. And together, we’ve achieved something truly stunning. And, really, it was a historic number of victories — not one; we had numerous victories. A lot of them just — it sort of all came together. What good timing. I said, “Let’s see if we can get it done for this event.” Most Presidents don’t come. And when they do, they come once. This is my third time in a row, and I promise I’ll be here next year, too. (Applause.) We’ll be here next year.

In fact, a poll just came out — Wall Street Journal. It just came out. Look at this: “Farmer Approval of Trump Hits Record, Poll Shows… 83 percent of the farmers and ranchers approve of the President’s job performance.” 83 percent! (Applause.)

But, I want to know, really: Who are the 17 percent? Who are they? (Laughter.) Who the hell are the 17 percent? (Laughter.) Anybody in here from the 17 percent? Don’t raise your hand; it may be dangerous. (Laughter.) That’s pretty good, right?

But, on Wednesday, after two years of hard-fought negotiations, where the farmers and ranchers stood with me all the way — they knew we had to do it. It wasn’t done by other administrations. They didn’t want to do it because it was nasty. We signed a groundbreaking trade agreement with China. (Applause.)

Under this landmark agreement, China will now be purchasing $40- to $50 billion of American agricultural products every single year, tripling our agricultural exports to China.

You know, we had a deal: It was done at $20 [billion] — $20 billion — the most they ever purchased, according to Sonny Perdue. I said, “Sonny, we have to help the farmer because they were targeted.” And I’m not saying I blame China. You know, they want to win; we want to win. We all want to win, right? We like to win.

How is your team doing today, by the way? I don’t know. How is it going? (Applause.) Are they doing okay? We’ll soon find out. I said, “This is wonderful thing. I come to…” Look at this place; it’s packed. It’s sold out. Look at the crowd. It’s sold out. (Applause.) And you have a — you have a game with the team, known as “Texas.” But we’ll see how it does. Let’s — this is right now. This is the thing we have to focus on.

But, on Thursday of this week, we made a really historic — once again, the Senate passed — because this is in addition to China — the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement to replace the catastrophe, the disaster known as “NAFTA.” I’ve been complaining about it for many years. Our jobs left. Our factories closed. Our companies left, opened up. They made product. They sold it into the United States — no tax, no nothing.

We have just the opposite right now. It’s very painful if they want to do that. It’s very hard for them to do that, economically. The “USMCA,” as we call it, will massively boost exports for farmers, ranchers, growers, and agricultural producers from North to South, and from sea to shining sea. It also has tremendous impacts on manufacturers and all of the other things — good for everybody. But we won’t bother; we only care about the farmers today, and the ranchers. Right? So we don’t have to talk about the manufacturers. (Applause.)

But it’s fantastic for manufacturing and lots of other things. And our manufacturing numbers are fantastic. You see that. Remember? Manufacturing. Phil, you remember? “There’s no more manufacturing.” And then we have almost 600,000 jobs. They said, the last administration, “You’d need a magic wand to bring back manufacturing.” So I guess we found the magic wand. (Applause.) We found the magic wand.

Joining us today are a few of your strongest allies in Washington who helped make these achievements possible. Senators Pat Roberts and Cindy Hyde-Smith — where are they? (Applause.) Please. Please. Pat and Cindy Hyde. I’ll tell you: These are two people that love the farmer.

And Pat — I mean, every time I get a call — Pat. That meant like, “Come on. Come on, President. Let’s go, President.” But what a great career you’ve had. What an unbelievable number of election victories you’ve had. We’d love to keep you for a long time, but I don’t think we can talk about him out of it at this point. But, Pat, thank you very much. And Cindy Hyde-Smith, you have a done a fantastic job representing everybody, but representing the farmers and ranchers. Thank you very much. And, Pat, thank you very much. Great job. (Applause.)

And Representatives Randy Weber, Roger Williams, and John Carter. Please stand up. Warriors — they’re warriors. (Applause.)

And also, three friends of mine — Texas leaders at the highest level — Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller. Please stand up. Please stand up. (Applause.) That’s great. Hi, Sid.

I remember 2016 — the election. And the fake news — these people back here — (laughter) — they were going — they were saying, “Trump — going to have a hard time winning Texas.” And we came. We made speeches, Sid. Remember? We’d have 25-, 30,000 people standing on line. Can’t get in. And I said, “Why am I going to have a hard time with Texas?”

And I remember, Sid Miller — I didn’t know Sid. But he was big, and he had the big, beautiful cowboy hat on. I love that hat. I wish we could wear them in Washington or New York because I would be the biggest buyer of that hat. (Laughter.) I just don’t know if it would play there, but I’ll wear them in Texas, I’ll tell you.

But Sid was sitting there with that hat on, and he looked great. And he said, “I don’t know about you, and I don’t know where you’re getting this information about a close race in Texas, but there’s going to be nothing close about this race in Texas. Trump is going to win this race by so much, you’re not going to believe it.” That’s exactly what happened.

So, thank you very much. I didn’t know Sid. He just said, “Trump is going to win by a lot.” And ever since then, I’ve liked Sid a lot, and you turned out to be right. Right, Sid? Thank you very much. Great job. (Applause.) Great job.

I also want to take a moment to send our love and support to the President of the American Farm Bureau — a great guy — Zippy Duvall. Sadly, Zippy’s wonderful wife — a tremendous woman, married for 40 years — Bonnie — passed away last night. And we want Zippy and his entire family to know we are keeping them in our thoughts and prayers. And he was a very — it was a very special relationship, and I just want to wish the family well. And, Zippy, we’re with you 100 percent — 100 percent. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

So, I’m truly honored to be addressing the Farm Bureau’s annual convention for my third straight year. My administration understands that if we want to stand up for America, we must stand up for American farmers. So important. Incredible people. (Applause.) If we want America to thrive and grow, then we must ensure that America’s farms flourish and prosper. And that’s what we’re doing. You feed our people, you fuel our nation, you sustain our land, you uphold our values, and you preserve our cherished American way of life. We want our products made, grown, and raised right here in the USA — and that’s what’s happening. (Applause.)

I hope you all remember that, before I took office, American agriculture was being crushed by an onslaught of massive taxes; crippling regulations; burdensome federal mandates — you know about that. I released it. I released it all. And horrendous trade deals. And they were horrendous indeed. I actually used to say, “Who the hell would have negotiated a deal like this?”

When I ran for President, I vowed to use every power at my disposal to protect American farmers and restore the full strength of American agriculture. I promised that I would always have your back. And unlike the politicians who came before me — they talked a lot; they did nothing for you — I kept my promise. (Applause.)

Under the previous administration, net farm income plummeted by more than 20 percent. Under my administration — and, remember, these trade deals haven’t even really kicked in yet. I told China, a couple of months ago, “Do me a favor. We’re going to make a deal. Start buying. Start buying.” And they did. Not as much as I wanted, but they did. They wanted to wait until they got the signed agreement. Now we have the signed agreement. But they started buying. But it’s also Japan. It’s also other countries. But net farm income has gone up by more than $30 billion dollars –- an increase of nearly 50 percent in just three years. Remember that. (Applause.) And the big stuff is yet to come. The big numbers, in my opinion, are yet to come.

We are fixing problems and cleaning up messes that others have neglected for decades. They’ve treated you very unfairly. They’ve treated you very foolishly. Frankly, they’ve treated you stupidly — stupidly — to put our great farmers in this position. We are winning for our farmers, and we winning like never before. (Applause.)

And don’t forget: When I ran, I said, “We’re going to do this stuff. We’re going to do it.” But it was just words. “We’re going to do it.” Everybody said, “We’re going to do things.” But I did it. We got it done. And this is the time; I couldn’t say it last year. Last year, I said, “Hey…” You know, you were being targeted by China, in all fairness. You were being targeted. They stopped buying, purposely. Then I put the big tariffs on. Then I gave you a lot of the money, out of the tariffs. We had a lot of money left over, but we gave you — Sonny told you — $16 billion, and $12 billion the year before. And that made you do very well.

But, you know, the farmers came to me. They said, “We don’t want anything. We just want a level playing field.” And you have now even more than a level playing field. (Applause.)

The deal with China will tear down market barriers and pry open vast new markets for American beef, pork, poultry, seafood, soybeans, rice, dairy, infant formula, animal feed, biotechnology, and much, much more.

This is an incredible success for our entire country, and it was your fortitude, your perseverance, and your devotion that made it all possible. And I have to tell you, another benefit, and a very big benefit, is we now perhaps have the best relationship that we’ve had with China in many, many years. And China respects us now. They didn’t respect us. They couldn’t believe they were getting away with what they were getting away with. (Applause.)

Having a good relationship with China is good — and Russia, is good; and many other countries, is a good thing. But we don’t people taking advantage of us.

For years, China stole trade secrets from American agri-businesses, and plundered our intellectual property, illicitly subsidized grain procedures, and installed one barrier after another to block out our farmers and to block out our ranchers.

When my administration confronted these abusive and destructive trade practices, China targeted American agriculture for retaliation. They even took ads, saying what a bad person I was. But the farmers — only some of them believe that. And those people have come all the way back, too.

To defend our farmers, I authorized $28 billion dollars. And we’re getting that money, Sonny, to the small farmers also. There were some statements — big farmers — no, we get them to the small farmers. We get them to everybody — big farmers, small farmers. And we have a formula that I think has been working out, Sonny, very well. If it’s not, call me directly, and I’ll call Sonny and give him hell, okay? (Laughter.)

But we’re getting it to the small farmers, the big farmers, and everybody. And that’s a lot of money. And I am delighted to report that the final installment of all of those billions of dollars of that money will be coming very quickly, Sonny, I guess. Is that a correct statement? Yes? Thanks. You never backed down — (applause). Unless you don’t want it, because you’re making so much money now. If anybody would like to give it up, please raise your hand. (Laughter.)

You stayed in the fight. You protected our economy and our security. And, together, we all together — we prevailed. You were always with me. You never even thought of giving up. And we got it done. And there were times when, you know, the — the media was trying to cause trouble. They’d come into Iowa. “Isn’t it terrible with the practices and the trade.” And the farmers would say, “No, the President is doing the right thing. It’s tough, but the President is doing the right thing.”

But then we started doing the big tariffs — taking in literally tens of billions of dollars. And we started giving money back. I went to Sonny Perdue. I said, “Sonny, what did China — what was the number that China did last year?” He said, “Sir, they bought $16 billion.” I said, “Oh, that’s good. What did they do the year before?” “Sir, they bought $12 billion worth of product.” I said, “Good.”

So it’s $12 billion. We gave you the $12 billion. Then, $16 billion. We gave you the $16 billion so you weren’t hurt. And now we have a position that I don’t think the farmers and ranchers have been in this position maybe ever. I don’t think so. And I think it’s going to work out good. And I think China is going to go all out to prove that the agreement that was signed is a good agreement.

And we have very, very strong stipulations in there. But that it’s a — an agreement that is a fair agreement and good for the farmer. I think they’re looking to prove that it’s going to be great for the farmer. But even bigger and better than we ever thought possible — that’s what this agreement is. It’s much bigger and much better than I ever thought we’d get.

And, frankly, there were times when I didn’t think we were going to get anything because I cancelled every meeting — how many times have you seen me cancel with the Iran deal? You didn’t see Kerry cancel ever. He just took one bad point after another bad point, and then he signed a bad agreement, and then we terminated that deal. But that’s a little different than the farmer stuff.

But you didn’t any walking. We walked from this deal a lot. And sometimes, you have to walk from a deal in order to make the right deal. And we walked from this one a lot, didn’t we? Phil was talking to me, and our great past governor. It’s sad to say that, but you have a great new governor. Right, Phil?

But we were talking about it, and he says, “You got to do what you got to do. If you can’t make the right deal, you got to walk.” It’s true. So we walked a lot. And we always got called back. “Let’s do it the way you want.”

On behalf of every American worker and family, thank you for standing strong for America. Thank you very much to the farmers and ranchers for standing with me; for saying, “The President is right. Yes, it’s tough right now, but the President is doing the right thing.” Thank you. (Applause.)

More than anything else, it proved to me that farmers love America. And I just want to tell you that America loves our farmers. Thank you. (Applause.)

Under the deal, China has agreed to spend many billions of dollars on American services, energy, and manufactured goods. China has made substantial commitments regarding the protection of American ideas, trade secrets, patents, and trademarks. China has also pledged firm action to confront pirated and counterfeit goods. Most important of all, the deal is enforceable — very, very powerfully enforceable. In fact, it was probably the thing that we negotiated the most. And rest assured, we will vigorously enforce its terms. Hopefully, we won’t have to. Hopefully, it’ll go just as we anticipate.

In a matter of days, we will achieve another tremendous victory for the American agricultural businesses, when I sign the USMCA into law. So, we just passed it in the Senate, and it was a wonderful vote, and I sign it very soon. It’s being prepared now — beautifully prepared. I’m going to Europe to talk to world leaders and to talk to business people about coming. Everybody wants to come back to America. Everybody wants to come back to the United States. We’re now where the action is. They’re all coming back.

And when I come back, we’ll have a ceremony, probably in the White House. We also may go to some of the farming communities and we’re going to sign the deal.

Under the USMCA, Canada will finally provide greater access for American dairy. You know, Canada was charging us 287 percent tariffs. Nobody knew that. Nobody knew that. I knew it. So, you basically couldn’t even deal with Canada.

But those days are gone. Our dairy exports are set to increase by more than $300 million dollars per year. Poultry exports to Canada could jump by nearly 50 percent. (Applause.) Exports of eggs to both Canada and Mexico could skyrocket by as much as 500 percent, and maybe even 1,000 percent. Very importantly, Canada will finally give fair treatment to American-grown wheat, which is a big deal to you people. What the hell do I know about it? (Applause.) I don’t know anything about it; I just know you had a problem with it.

I said to a couple of the farmers — I’d have a lot of farmers at the White House. They were incredible. I said, “What’s the big thing?” “Wheat, sir.” “Tell me about it.” And they told me about it. I’m a very quick study; I figured it out quickly. I said, “I know nothing about it, but that sounds right to me.” So we got it in the contract. (Laughter.)

The two momentous trade deals we completed last week are just the beginning of a really incredible story. Because nobody thought we’d ever get here. They’d say the deal with China would be impossible to make, and getting rid of NAFTA would be totally impossible. One of the reasons it was totally possible: It was such a bad deal for us — good for the other countries; not good for us.

We’re achieving what no administration has ever achieved before. And what do I get out it? Tell me. I get impeached! That’s what I get out of it. (Laughter.) By these radical left lunatics, I get impeached. But that’s okay, the farmers are sticking with Trump. They’re sticking with Trump. (Applause.) These people. These people. It could have been so much easier.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: In just — (laughs) — thank you very much. (Laughter.) In just the past few months, we persuaded Japan to slash tariffs on $7 billion of U.S. agricultural products. Over 90 percent of our agricultural exports to Japan will now receive preferential treatment. Nobody thought that was possible. And, in many cases, we will be completely duty free — and you’ve never heard that before. (Applause.) That’s a $40 billion deal, by the way. That’s in addition to China, and Canada, and Mexico, and South Korea.

We secured guaranteed access for American beef to the EU — European Union — a deal that will nearly triple our beef exports to Europe in the coming years. And, as you know, Europe has had tremendous barriers to us doing business with them. All those barriers are coming down. They have to come down. If they don’t come down, we’re going to have to do things that are very bad for them. (Laughter.)

No, we’ve been taken advantage of by everybody. There’s nobody that — we — we’ve been taken advantage of by everybody. Europe. Who would think Europe? Europe was, in many ways, more difficult — and is more difficult — than China. Nobody would believe that.

I was saying to Sonny and some of the people before, “Dealing with Europe, in many ways, has been worse and tougher than dealing with China.” Not fair.

We have secured record market access for U.S. rice in South Korea; it was a big one. We won tariff exemptions in Ecuador for wheat and soybeans. They were tariffing us out of business. We opened up Vietnam for American orange growers. We got Brazil to raise its quotas for purchases of our wheat and ethanol. We opened up Guatemala and Tunisia to American eggs. And in November, we ended China’s years-long ban on American poultry. You know that very well — years-long.

And part of it was: I asked. I said, “You got to do this.” They said, “But nobody has ever asked before.” I said, “But I’m asking. Thank you very much.” Nobody ever asked. Half of it, nobody asked. (Applause.)

If we harvest or herd it in the United States, I want to help you sell it all around the world. To make American agriculture even more competitive, we passed the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history, by far. And to help you keep your family farm, and keep it in the family, we virtually eliminated the deeply unfair estate tax, or “death tax.” We got rid of it for small farms, ranchers, and small businesses. (Applause.)

So, if you love your children, you can now leave your farms and your ranches and your small businesses to your children, and you don’t have to pay tax. (Applause.) If you love your children, you don’t have to pay the estate tax or the death tax. If you do not love your children, you don’t really care about that provision. (Laughter.)

Is there anybody here that does not love their children and does not want to leave their beautiful farm to their children? Anybody here? Come on, you have guts. I think farmers have a lot of guts. Come on. You mean there’s not one person that dislikes your children because they’re brats — because they’re spoiled rotten brats? (Laughter.) Okay, well, that’s a pretty good group of people. Well, that’s the farmers for you, right? That’s the farmers. (Applause.)

But think of that. You know, people were wanting to pass along their farm. And they’d pass away, and their children would take it. And then the tax people would come along, and the tax would be monumental. And the income wouldn’t be so good, but the value of the farm was a lot. And they’d go out and they’d mortgage the farm to the hilt. And within a short period of time, the banks are foreclosing on the farm, and taking the farm, and putting the farm up for sale.

You don’t have to worry about that anymore. There’s no more estate tax. There’s no more death tax on those farms. So, good. That’s good. That’s really good. (Applause.) That’s very important. That was a hard thing to get. That was hard to get by the wonderful Democrats that we have to deal with every day.

Thanks to our pro-American tax cuts, trade reforms, and regulatory reductions, America now has the hottest economy anywhere on Earth, and there’s no place even close. Everybody is coming back.

Since my election, the United States has gained more than 7 million jobs — un-thought of. If I would have said that on the campaign trail, the fake news would have gone crazy. (Applause.)

The unemployment rate is now 3.5 percent — the lowest in over 51 years, half a century. (Applause.) The African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American unemployment rates have reached the all-time historic lows — lowest in the history of our country. More Americans are working today than ever before — almost 160 million. Never even been close to that.

Under the so-called “Trump Economy,” the lowest-paid earners are reaping the biggest, fastest, and largest percentage gains. This is a blue-collar boom. Everybody is booming, frankly, but it’s a blue-collar boom. Net worth for the bottom 50 percent of wage earners has grown 15 times more under my administration. Think of that: 15 times. You know, 15 times more than under the three prior administrations.

Wages for the bottom 10 percent are rising faster than for the top 10 percent. And that’s okay for the rich people. Let somebody else enjoy life a little bit, right? Does any rich person — of which we probably have a lot in this room — any rich person have a problem with that? Please stand up. (Laughter.) I don’t think we’re going to see that person standing.

Real median household income is now at the highest level ever recorded. Think of that: highest ever recorded. You know, in the Bush administration, for eight years: $450. In the Obama administration, for eight years: $975. In the Trump administration, for less than three years: almost $10,000, when you include the tax cuts, the energy savings, and the regulation cuts. Nobody can believe it. (Applause.) Nobody can believe it. Think of that — isn’t that amazing? — $450, $975. And that’s been in eight years, eight years. And then you have less than three years — because it was done as of a few months ago — and you have almost $10,000.

To power our future, America is boldly embracing energy independence. The United States is now the number-one producer of oil and natural gas in the world, which means lower prices for farmers and consumers. And you see how the prices are: They’re stable to low. And it means America is no longer reliant on foreign nations. Isn’t that nice? (Applause.)

And we are also proudly promoting American ethanol. Chuck Grassley calls me. Joni Ernst calls me. Deb Fischer calls me. They all call — everybody. Pat calls me. Ethanol. They love ethanol. And I recently approved E-15 to be used all year round, instead of eight months. And that’s a big thing for the American farmer. We’re providing unprecedented support to ethanol — support like they’ve never had before.

Yet, the radical left in Washington wants to demolish these gains. And they, frankly, want to destroy your way of life. They are not for the farmer. They are not for our military. They are not for secure borders. They want open borders. They want sanctuary cities. Essentially, what they’re saying is, “We want crime.” And they don’t want crime, but that’s what you get when you have open borders.

And, by the way, just so you know, the wall is being built at a very rapid pace. We’re over 100 miles now. (Applause.) We think we’ll be over 400 miles by the end of next year. And shortly thereafter, we’ll have a completed wall.

And you probably also — this was a big news story. They saw people — they had to capture them. They couldn’t get over the wall. They had to send trucks and ladders and firepeople because they got stuck on the top of the wall. They couldn’t get down. Loaded up with drugs on their back.

So it’s very successful. It’s going to be very, very successful. It’s having a big impact already because we’re setting records now — what we’re doing, in terms of people coming into our country illegally.

We want them to come into our country, by the way. We want them to come in, though, through merit. We want them to come in legally. And we want them to come so they can help the farmer, just so you understand. Because I want them to be able to come in to help our farmers. (Applause.) And we’re going to give you plenty of help. Because without that, it’s very difficult.

Taking their cues from socialists like Bernie Sanders, or a fake socialist like Pocahontas — (laughter). She’s actually worse than a socialist, but she doesn’t want to admit it. But the far left, they want to massively raise your taxes, crush your — your businesses with regulations, take away your healthcare, and send bureaucrats to interfere with your property and second guess every decision that you make. They want to take it away, and they want to load you up with regulations, so you can’t live, you can’t breathe.

Left-wing politicians want to shut down oil and gas production in the United States. And if they succeed, they will cost our farmers and ranchers billions of dollars per year in royalty payments alone. But more importantly, you’re not going to be able to afford the energy that you need to run your farms. We will never let it happen. (Applause.)

There are no better stewards of our precious natural resources than the American farmers who depend on the land and the environment for their very livelihood. You love your land. You’re going to take care of your land. You don’t need some bureaucrat in Washington telling everybody what the hell to do with your land. You love your land. (Applause.)

When it comes to the environment, I will always trust a farmer over a Washington bureaucrat or a left-wing extremist. (Applause.)

To help producers expand, I signed a Farm Bill that doubles the amount you can borrow to improve your farm. You like that — that Farm Bill. And, Pat — stand up again, Pat. Boy, he was brutal in that Farm Bill. I’d get a call every two minutes from Pat. (Applause.) I’d say, “Tell him I’ll call him back next week.” Great job.

We also protected the crop insurance programs that producers rely on in times of disaster. Through fires, floods, and freezing weather, we will always support our great American farmers. You have my word. (Applause.)

We have liberated American agriculture from an avalanche of federal regulations. In the Trump administration, we know that the role of government is not to harass our citizens; it is to serve our citizens, to make life easy, and to make you hire lots of people, and have a great farm, and have tremendous success, and make lots of money, and send your children to school — be safe, be free.

Our law enforcement — we are going to protect our law enforcement just like they protect us. (Applause.)

When I took office, I issued an order requiring that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. Instead of two for one, we have now cut more than eight for one. Nobody thought that was possible. (Applause.) As a result, the average American household will save $3,100 dollars a year, just on regulation cuts and sensible regulation.

Earlier this month, I took decisive action to slash regulatory and approval times for critical infrastructure used to transport goods and produce. Currently, environmental reviews can take 10 years or more. I’ve been through it myself. You want to build a building, and you fear it’s going to take 12 years to get permits. I say, “Twelve years?” I’ve been through it, so I understand what you go through.

But our proposals will limit the process to two years — and, in many cases, less than one year. (Applause.) And you may get rejected for environmental or safety reasons, but it’s going to go very quickly. We will soon build new roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, railways, and waterways across our land.

I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration’s disastrous Waters of the United States rule. (Applause.) Thank you. It’s gone. That was a rule that basically took your property away from you.

I’ll never forget: At the White House signing, I had probably 30, 35 people behind me — farmers and homebuilders and others — people that haven’t cried in many years. People that weren’t — some of them were so tough, they never cried. They didn’t cry when they were babies. And they were crying. (Laughter.) No, we gave them their life back.

We did it in Minnesota, with the iron ore. We opened it up. They took it away — the Obama administration. Minnesota now has the greatest fields in the world — iron ore. But we did it in a lot of ways.

But, in this case, it had such a beautiful name, right? It was so beautiful. I said, “Oh, this is disaster, but I’m going to do it because I knew it was the right thing to do.” And everybody loved it. And now you’re back in business. You’re doing what you have to do. They really took away your property, and they took away your property rights. (Applause.)

So, this rule gave bureaucrats virtually unlimited authority to regulate stock tanks, drainage ditches, and isolated ponds as navigable waterways and navigable water. You believe that? Sometimes, you’d have a puddle — a little puddle. And they’d consider that a lake. As long as I’m President, government will never micromanage America’s farmers. You’re going to micromanage your own farm, and that’s the way it should be. (Applause.)

And, today, I’m proud to announce that I am taking yet another step to protect the water rights of American farmers and ranchers. Under the previous administration, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed a new Water Supply rule that would give the federal government vast and unlimited power to restrict farmers’ access to water. That’s not a good thing. Is anybody happy with being restricted to water if you have a farm? Please stand up if you are happy about that. Because this authority rightfully belongs to the states, not the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

That is why I am directing the Corps of Engineers to immediately withdraw the proposed rule — just submitted recently, meaning last administration — and allow states to manage their water resources based on their own needs and based on what their farmers and ranchers want. (Applause.) Water is the lifeblood of agriculture, and we will always protect your water supply. (Applause.)

Since my inauguration, we have also devoted nearly $1 billion dollars to rural broadband, connecting a quarter of a million rural households, and we’re moving at a rapid pace. The USDA will soon award another $1.1 billion, and the FCC will soon vote on a plan to direct $20 billion to rural broadband. It’s about time. You know, they take care of their cities, but they don’t take care of you. (Applause.) They take care of their cities, but not you.

In everything we do, we are putting the needs of American workers, families, and farmers first. We are putting America first. (Applause.)

The great men and women in this room are the stewards of a inheritance and a noble tradition that’s unrivaled. It’s handed down from one generation to the next, all the way back to the very beginning of our country. You take pride in your work, joy in your calling, and deep satisfaction in your vital contributions to the life and health and success of our republic.

America has always been a farming nation — founded, built, and grown by people just like you, who pour out their heart, soul, and sweat into this land; who wake up at the crack of dawn; who plow the soil, plant the seed, and tend the fields from the dawn to dusk; and do not rest until that job is beautifully, perfectly done. Does that sound familiar? I think so, right? (Applause.) It’s true. That’s the American farmer, rancher.

You embody the spirit of optimism that has always defined this magnificent country. You look at an empty field in the dead of winter, and you envision the spark of life in the peak of spring. That’s what you see. You see differently than other people.

Farmers have always been the keepers of our great American values. You champion the love of family, the dignity of work, and the glory of God. You teach your children to celebrate our nation, defend our freedom, honor our values, and to always respect and cherish our great American flag. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

THE PRESIDENT: With your faith, your grit, your tenacity, your talent, and your patriotism, the best days for America and the best days for America’s farmers and ranchers are yet to come.

I want to thank everybody. This has been such an incredible turnout, and I appreciate everybody for being here. We’re taking care of our farmers. We’re taking care of our ranchers. We’re taking care of our manufacturers. We’re taking care of our military and our vets. We’re taking care of our country. It’s “Make America Great Again.” It’s “Keep America Great.” It’s whatever you want to call it. We’re the greatest country anywhere in the world, and we’re taking care of you.

So thank you all very much. This is a great honor, and I’m glad we’ve been successful. We got those deals done. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

[End Transcript]

NSC Russia Expert Escorted From White House Under Intelligence Investigation…


CTH held off reporting on this explosive story until we could see if a tell-tale consequence surfaced; perhaps it has.   On Friday the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is currently under a security investigation.

There are few details about why Peek was physically removed and is under a very serious investigation; however, some of Andrew Peek’s professional background details tell a story.  The connection to Gen. John Allen is a MASSIVE warning flare.

Andrew Peek, the senior director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council, has been placed on administrative leave pending a security-related investigation, people familiar with the situation tell Axios.

First the Daily Mail:

[…] Peek had been in the NSC role for just two months, after most recently working as a deputy assistant secretary of state with responsibility for Iran and Iraq.

[…] Peek had been expected to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland next week with Trump and other top aides. However, he is currently on leave pending a security-related investigation, people familiar with the situation told Axios.

[…] Peek served as a U.S. Army intelligence officer who worked under General John Allen in Afghanistan.

[…] Prior to joining the Trump administration, Peek served as a U.S. Army intelligence officer who worked under General John Allen in Afghanistan.

[…] He was also a national security adviser to Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, and Senator Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican.  (link)

From a Bloomberg article:

[…] Peek previously served as a deputy assistant secretary of State for Iraq and Iran, and he was seen as an ally of Robert O’Brien.

Andrew Peek came from the State Department.  Because the appointment happened in the past two months, it would appear Andrew Peek was recommended by the Dept. of State and accepted for the NSC post by National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.

Here’s how it looks:  Andrew Peek was a mole.  A resistance spy sent into the Trump administration as part of the allied deep state resistance effort.  Someone caught him attempting to access something, and here’s how CTH can tell.

The biggest flare that identifies Andrew Peek’s ideology is the connection to former U.S. General John Allen.   CTH has tracked Allen for several years; he was used as part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  He spoke at the DNC convention for Hillary Clinton.

Gen. John Allen, (Ret.) stands with veterans as he speaks during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

John Allen was also used, politically, as part of President Obama’s 2014 false narrative around ISIS; giving the illusion of an effort to confront the radical Islamists.  Obama had been holding leverage over John Allen since 2012 [HERE]

Allen, a four-star Marine general, succeeded Petraeus as the top American commander in Afghanistan in July 2011; but General John Allen had a serious zipper problem.  Allen retired in 2012 when his sexual proclivities surfaced.

However, Obama brought him back when he needed a General he could control in 2014.   Allen’s 2012 zipper problem became Obama’s 2014 political leverage to use General Allen as a tool to present the image of Obama’s faux fight against ISIS.

Andrew Peek coming from the stable of John Allen tells us everything we need to know about the ideology of Mr. Peek.  There’s no doubt in my mind that Andrew Peek is therefore an ideological member of the resistance similar to another NSC appointment, Alexander Vindman.

Keep in mind, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien also comes from inside the Dept of State.   So whether Mike Pompeo and Robert O’Brien set-up Peek as a mole, or whether Peek’s activities were discovered without their foreknowledge is an open question.  However, I find it impossible to believe that NSA Robert O’Brien didn’t know the ideology of Peek prior to the appointment.

Additionally, in the periphery of downstream consequence, and seemingly out of nowhere today, impeachment Lead Manager and HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff said:

The Intelligence Community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration. The NSA in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight.”

Kyle Griffin

@kylegriffin1

Schiff: “The Intelligence Community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine. They appear to be succumbing to pressure from the administration. The NSA in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight.” Via ABC

Embedded video

8,825 people are talking about this

Considering the timeline; and considering the topic(s); and considering the ideology; there’s a strong possibility the person on the other end of Peeks’ communication effort was someone in the network of Adam Schiff, perhaps Mary McCord or similar…

Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD

Sunday Talks: Jim Jordan Discusses FBI, Flynn Prosecution, Rosenstein, Page, Strzok, and How it all Connects…


Ohio congressman Jim Jordan appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the full background of the FBI surveillance impetus and how the bigger picture brings all of the government activity forward to the actions behind an impeachment trial.

In the full picture, the totality of government effort, the arc of all swamp action, has been to remove a president who is everything these administrative state officials oppose.  It is the independence of a Peoples’ President that represents the threat to the system…

Sunday Talks: White House Impeachment Lawyer Robert Ray Interview With Maria Bartiromo…


One of the White House impeachment lawyers, Robert Ray, sits down for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the impeachment trial.

As customary with most high-profile defense team assemblies, it would appear there are three or four of the team who have been selected primarily to articulate the legal arguments in the media arena; while the co-lead counsels (Cipollone & Sekulow) focus on the trial detail and presentations therein.

Sunday Talks: Senator Ted Cruz Discusses Upcoming Week of Impeachment…


Texas Senator Ted Cruz appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo for a lengthy discussion of the upcoming senate impeachment trial.  Senator Cruz does not currently support subpoenas for witnesses; however, if the full senate votes to call prosecution witnesses Cruz would support reciprocal witnesses for President Trump.

Senator Cruz walks through the anticipated process including the “scheduling order” or senate rules within the impeachment process.  Twelve hours of prosecution, twelve hours of defense, sixteen hours of senator questioning, and then possibly a vote.

UPDATE: Puerto Rico Governor Fires Two More Officials Over Hidden Emergency Relief Supplies…


Updating a story we shared last night; and the latest information only makes the situation seem much worse.   To say this story is infuriating would be an understatement.

As an individual with some personal knowledge of how the recovery process works, the actions by these government officials in Puerto Rico are beyond tragic.  There are people in desperate need, and these stupid claims by officials do nothing to ameliorate ongoing suffering.  This is disgusting and heartbreaking at the same time.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Gov. Wanda Vázquez fired the heads of Puerto Rico’s housing and family departments Sunday in the latest fallout over the discovery of a warehouse filled with emergency supplies dating from Hurricane Maria.

The removal of Housing Secretary Fernando Gil and Department of Family Secretary Glorimar Andújar came a day after the governor fired the director of Puerto Rico’s emergency management agency.

[…]  Vázquez said she decided on the additional firings after meeting with leaders of her administration Sunday morning and officials were unable to provide information she requested about other collection and distribution centers.

“They weren’t able to personally tell me specifically where these centers were located, what they contained and whether an inventory was completed,” she said.

Vázquez did not elaborate on why Gil and Andújar were singled out, saying only that she had lost confidence in them. (more)

Inés Rivera, spokeswoman for the city of Ponce, told The Associated Press that the warehouse is owned by Puerto Rico´s Company of Commerce and Export. Officials with the company could not be reached for comment.  “The mayor of Ponce, María Meléndez, said he had not known about the warehouse and its contents.”

These are direct lies, demonstrable lies, and they only serve to make matters much worse.

[Hat Tip to Guyver1]  The discovered warehouse is owned by the government of Puerto Rico, through a govt. run ‘public corporation’ called the ‘Compañia de Comercio y Exportación de Puerto Rico’ (Puerto Rico Trade and Export Company), founded on December 23, 2003.

The Govt. owned ‘Compañia de Comercio y Exportación de Puerto Rico’ (Puerto Rico Trade and Export Company), is headquartered at the south end of the *SAME* warehouse parking lot.

As you can clearly see above, the government offices (above left) literally share a parking lot with the warehouse (above right) at the Port of Ponce. Any Puerto Rico government official, or Ponce local official, who attempts to deny they knew the location of these supplies and that warehouse is simply lying.

The blogger, Lorenzo Delgado, said he had received a tip about the warehouse but did not specify when. A group of people broke into the warehouse and began distributing supplies to those affected by the recent 6.4 magnitude quake that killed one person and caused damage across Puerto Rico’s southern region. More than 7,000 people remain in shelters as strong aftershocks continue.

Ponce Mayor María Meléndez said she was outraged, noting that she and other mayors were trying to find basic supplies since the quake.

“I spent several days requesting cots and water,” she said. “They sent me to Cabo Rojo for the cots and to San Juan for the water. If I had known that those supplies were there, I would have demanded that they be taken out immediately. ”

When asked how it was possible that she did not know about the existence of the warehouse, Vázquez replied, “That’s what the head of agencies are for … to inform the governor.”

Again, here’s the video.

.

My estimate as to the size of the warehouse was correct. It’s over 200,000 square feet.

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, 24hr candles, batteries, flashlights, emergency radios, portable charging stations, potable water cans, cots, mattresses, at least four industrial kitchens designed for mass feeding stations 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, 44/48 doubles, or 66/72 triple stacked. 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.  In January a magnitude 6.4 earthquake hit Puerto Rico and President Trump authorized an additional $8.2 billion in aid….  When inspecting the building for quake damage the hidden relief supplies were discovered.

I did a Twitter Thread [SEE HERE] with some more specific details of what is identified in that warehouse.   Also as a person who has invested a lot of my life in/around these relief efforts it is prudent to be very clear….

The people of Puerto Rico, the actual victims of these terrible disasters, are not to blame for the corruption by government officials.  When those in desperate need receive the basic supplies they need to reestablish their lives I have never witnessed anything except profound thankfulness, kindness and sincere appreciation.

That a government, any government, would intentionally withhold these urgent supplies is a representation of them, not the victims from whom those relief supplies are withheld. It breaks my heart to think of the countless families who have suffered at the hands of corrupt government officials.

There is a basic level of humanity and decency that connects all of us, regardless of our geography.  In the aftermath of natural disasters there is no class distinction.  I have witnessed the very best in people amid relief efforts and seen incredible acts of selflessness from those who -as a daily outlook- have the very least.

What has happened in this example in Puerto Rico does not represent the ordinary people who are doing the best they can each day to keep one foot in front of the other.

I pray those government officials will repent; however, in the meantime just get the supplies distributed…. and if there are more warehouses, get them open and emptied now; deal with the accountability issues later.

First things first – Get the darn help to those who need it.

Sunday Talks: Alan Dershowitz -vs- George Stephanopoulos….


Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is a member of the white house legal team from the perspective of constitutional law.  In this interview George Stephanopoulos was in his old familiar role as a political narrative engineer, trying to get Dershowitz to say he did not agree with the President.  The engineering objective was “Trump Lawyer says President Guilty”.

Background Briefing With White House Counsel…


Re-Posted from The Conservative tree House on  by 

In advance of the formal answer to the Senate summons, the White House counsel held a background press briefing with media.  Here’s the transcript as released:

MR. GIDLEY: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for taking the time to join this background call regarding impeachment.

The ground rules are as follows: Information on this call is on background, and can attributable to “sources close to the President’s legal team.”

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Hogan. I’m going to start, and then I’m sure my colleague is going to want to jump in.

So, from a procedural standpoint, we’re going to be filing in the next — probably next hour or two — our answer to the summons. [pdf Answer Here] This was the summons, which is part of the process that the Senate sent over to us with the articles of impeachment. We are issuing a very detailed response. This is not to be confused with our brief; our brief is not due until Monday.

The response that we will be putting forward will address both the procedural and the substantive issues raised in the articles of impeachment. When I talk about the procedural aspects, I’m referring to the procedural irregularities that took place during the course of the investigation. When we talk about substance, we’re referring to legal threshold standards, as it relates to impeachment under the Constitution. So, that’s going to give you an overview.

The answer — our response — will respond to both of those. I’ll give you a taste of it, a little bit, so that you have a sense of the tone of what we’re going to say. Our first response reads as follows:

The Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, hereby responds: The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away. This highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began even before his election and continues to this day.

We next assert that:

The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone “high Crimes or Misdemeanors.”

That is all required, of course, by the Constitution itself. So that’s why I’m saying both the process and the legal issues are being impacted here. And then we will respond to each and every one of the two articles separately.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, and I — this is [a source close to the President’s legal team]. I think, at the end, there’s a lot of detail in the response. The conclusion, at the end of the day, is that the articles of impeachment violate the Constitution. They are defective in their entirety. They are the product of invalid proceedings that flagrantly denied the President any due process rights. They rest on dangerous distortions of the Constitution that would do lasting damage to our structure of government.

The bottom line is: In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me give you some of the individual responses to the two articles of impeachment. With regard to the first article of impeachment, we are going to assert that they must be rejected because the — and it relates to the first article of impeachment — it fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It alleges no crimes at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, as required by the Constitution. In fact, it does not allege any violation of law whatsoever. We assert that the House Democrats’ abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

We then get into some very specific allegations, regarding the phone call itself, as it relates to this abuse of power claim. I will tell you this: We will address both the April 21st and July 25th phone calls. We will be making it very clear what President Zelensky said, as well as what the President of the United States said on those calls. We will again reiterate that the House record establishes that President Zelensky and his top aides have never said there was a quid pro quo situation, as that issue came up.

And remember: This case started — first it was going to be quid pro quo. Actually, first it would be extortion, then bribery, then quid pro quo, then it becomes abuse of power — with the word “quid pro quo” never showing up in the actual articles of impeachment.

We’re raising it because we’re going to remind the American people of exactly what this is all about and how it started. So that’s how that one is going to start.

We’re going to also take a look at the fact that the bilateral presidential meeting that was so often discussed actually did take place. The security assistance was sent. And all that took place without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: With respect to the second article of impeachment, our answer states very clearly that the second article of impeachment also fails on its face to state and impeachable offense. It does not allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever.

To the contrary, the President’s assertion of legitimate executive branch confidentiality interests, grounded in the separation of powers, cannot constitute obstruction of Congress.
Furthermore, the notion that President Trump obstructed Congress is absurd. President Trump acted with extraordinary and unprecedented transparency by declassifying and releasing the transcript of the July 25th call that is at the heart of this matter.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me add one other thing because this will apply to both — this will apply to both articles, but this is contained in our answer, and I think it’s important for you to have a sense of how that sets forth.

We’re also going to go to the process issue. So we’re going to say that House Democrats ran a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process that denied the President every basic right, including the right to have counsel present, the right to cross examine a witness, and the right to present evidence. And despite all of this, the information that the House Democrats actually assembled disproves their claims against the President. We’re going to then assert — so that’s a process aspect.

Then we’re going to say the President, at all times, acted with full, constitutional legal authority in our own national interests, and continued his administration’s policy of unprecedented support for Ukraine, including the delivery of lethal military aid that was denied to the Ukrainians by the prior administration.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, with respect to article two, obstruction of Congress: We will state that the Trump administration replied appropriately to the subpoena and identified their constitutional defects. And this is an important point: Tellingly, House Democrats did not seek to enforce these constitutionally defective subpoenas in court. To the contrary, when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgement as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The way that this — so, I think what you’re getting at — what we’re giving you — this is about a six-page document, is the answer. It’s going to address both procedural irregularities, and substantive irregularities, including the lack of constitutional support for the position that the House advocated in the articles of impeachment.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And it will address the articles both on the law and the facts.

MR. GIDLEY: Okay. Moderator, we’d like to open for questions now. But I want to remind the group one more time, if I may, that, again, the attribution here is “source close to the President’s legal team.” And, second, is a reminder that the content is embargoed until 5:00 p.m.

With that, if you could open it up for questions, we’d appreciate it.

Q Hi, guys. Thank you so much for doing this. This is Franco Ordoñez, from NPR. In addition to Dershowitz, who says he is going to give an opening statement, will each of you be giving an opening statement? And can you give a flavor of what each of you will be saying? Will you be, kind of, discussing each article, as you just kind of broke down right now, in the opening statement?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So the way that we plan on it happening — of course, we’re coming up second in this process, as the House Managers will go first — is will do the initial opening, where he will address a variety of both substantive and constitutional and procedural position.

I will — as is planned right now, and this could change — I will go next, where I will be addressing more of an overview on the entire process, which will include, from beginning to end, on how we got there.

Now, we may break it up some. We don’t know yet — where, you know, my colleague goes for 45 minutes and I go for 45 minutes, and maybe we come back up later in the afternoon or evening. It’s going to depend on how the day is flowing.

And then, as to the question you’re asking about Alan and Ken Starr and Bob Ray, they will have discrete functions that they will be addressing at particular times. We don’t know what those times are yet; we just got to see how everything plays out.

Q Hey, it’s Zeke Miller, with AP. Thanks for doing the call. First of all, by any chance, is there any way you can move this on the record, since it’s awfully weird to have a call with “people close to a legal team” when we’re talking to the legal team?

And then, substantively, in terms of this response and the legal brief, do we expect this to sort of be the nature of the President’s defense here — sort of a broadside against the process? And are you concerned that that sort of rhetoric might not fly with the senators who have a more staid view of their chamber?

MR. GIDLEY: First things first, Zeke: Let me address the first question. The answer to that is no. You can call me after and we can have that conversation. But as far as the next one is concerned, I’ll turn it back over to the team.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, Zeke, this is [a source close to the President’s legal team]. I think it’s fair to say that this answer addresses both the law and the legal issues and the procedural issues — but also the facts, and takes the facts head on.

So I think it covers all of the issues, not just the procedural issues.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. And the brief — obviously, because we have a lot more we can write in the brief — will cover everything in much more detail.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This is just the answer. But it does cover — as I have said, it’s both procedural and the substantive legal. It also makes the argument that all you really need to look at are the articles of impeachment themselves. That — if you look at them, they allege no violation of law whatsoever. They don’t remotely begin to approach what you would need to begin (inaudible) impeachment.

So that will be an additional argument that we’ll make — we’ll be making.

Q Hi, there. It’s Michael Moates, with D.C. Chronicle. Hey, I was just curious: The statement that you guys are going to be submitting as your answer, will that be made public through — after — are you guys going to pre-release that? Or are we going to be waiting until after that is submitted to Congress?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It’s minutes away.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, the plan is: It’s embargoed until 5:00 p.m., and we expect to send you guys the text at that time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You’ll have the answer, in other words.

Q Good afternoon. This is Jon Decker, from Fox. Thank you for doing this. Republican lawmakers and those speaking on behalf of the President, including yourselves, have repeatedly said that there must be an underlying (inaudible) to meet the standard for impeachment and removal. And you’ve clearly made that point in the answer that you’ve just spoken about.

As you know, yesterday, the Government Accountability Office released a report saying that it was, in fact, illegal for President Trump to withhold military aid from Ukraine to pressure them to interfere in the 2020 election.

Based on this new development, in your view, wouldn’t you each agree that the Republicans’ own standard on impeachment and removal has now been met? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Those aren’t — we’re dealing with discrete articles of impeachment. That’s what this — so, this is not twelve reports later, two week later. It’s a discrete — they brought up two articles of impeachment. That is what’s before the United States Senate.

And we obviously disagree with that conclusion. And, in addition to that, if you look at the articles of impeachment, it’s not only that they don’t allege any crime; they don’t allege any violation of any law whatsoever.

Q Hi, this is Andrew Feinberg, with Breakfast Media. Thanks for doing the call. It sounds a lot like the defense that you’re going to put forth is almost identical to what’s already been said by Republican members of the House, and the President, in his letter just before the vote on the impeachment articles. Is there anything new that we should expect to hear that perhaps addresses the actual allegations being made, rather than the process on these sort of broad brush arguments about the articles of impeachment not mentioning crimes? Anything that hasn’t already been brought up by the House, perhaps?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There’s no question that, during the course of the presentations and the proceedings before the Senate and then the briefs that we’re going to be filing, we will be addressing both procedure irregularities — again, ignore those (inaudible) implications as well. And also, substantive issues that arise, including facts.

So all of that will be addressed. So, don’t — there shouldn’t be not misunderstanding that this is a factual — an attack only on process. We’re not ignoring the tainted process, because it has serious constitutional implications, but we’re going to be — it’s going to be a full throttle address.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We will take the facts head on, and we believe that the facts will prove that the President — and have proven that the President did absolutely nothing wrong.

Q Good afternoon, [sources close to the President’s legal team]. This is Kelly O’Donnell, from NBC. When you look at the arc of how expect this trial to move forward, in terms of its length, your willingness or lack thereof to have witnesses, what is your latest thinking on what we should expect for your strategic ideas, going beyond this initial phase that you’re announcing today with the response to the articles?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think that, first — the first thing we have to look for is actually how the rules come out — the final rules, what the final agreements are. And I don’t think any of us — what we’re hearing is what you’re hearing, which is 24 hours, each side — which was under the Clinton model. That the witness decisions would be made after the presentation of the actual arguments by both counsels — or by the Managers and by our team.

And then, if there’s witnesses, it would proceed to a vote. And if they decide there’s going to be witnesses, there’d be depositions. And, by the way, if there’s witnesses, it means that, you know — Chuck Schumer takes the view that they hear the witnesses they demand. Well, you know, we would get to demand witnesses, too. It’s a two-way street.

So, we’re prepared for all contingencies. We’ll see what happens. It’s like any other trial; you prepare for the contingencies and you see what happens.

Q Hi, it’s Peter Baker, from the New York Times. Thanks for doing the call. Appreciate it. Quick question: You guys now have a lawyer on your team who has made the argument in the past that it is an impeachable offense to improperly invoke executive privilege to block an investigation. How do you — how are you going to square the statements and the positions that Judge Starr has taken in the past now that he’s on your team and will be on the Senate floor in the trial?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, let me address this, because (inaudible) obviously (inaudible). Obviously, the issue of the obstruction of Congress is a significant one, constitutionally. I think he will be very — we will be very pleased with Judge Starr’s presentation on how he’s going to move this forward, what he sees are the issues, and the different aspects of the fact of the activities that we’re involved in, in this situation with Bill Clinton’s, are markedly different than what even the allegations are here.

And remember: It was — Bill Clinton was asserting executive privilege over private conduct. This is markedly different. And I think that that’s a clean distinction and clean (inaudible).

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All right. And, hey, on more thing, if I may address, too. Zeke, I believe you asked the question about the GAO. I just want to make this point. A couple things: First of all, the aid was released, and it was released before the deadline.

Second of all, it’s pretty clear that GAO is just inserting itself in today’s news cycle. Let’s be clear: They made a lot of rulings in the past that they’ve had to go back on, rulings they’ve had to change — and the media didn’t say a word about it when they went after Obama, they went after Clinton, they went after Bush. They’ve done it in the past.

So, this is nothing new from them. The fact is, we’re on strong legal footing, the President has done nothing wrong, and we believe that’s going to be borne out through this process.

Thanks everybody for the call.

[Transcript End]

[IMPEACHMENT ANSWER – pdf]

Cheers Greet Trump at College Championship: Leftists Prove It Never Happened


151K subscribers

When President Trump and First Lady Melania walked onto the Superdome field before the LSU v. Clemson national championship college football game, the students and alumni erupted in raucous applause and cheers. Within minutes Leftists on Twitter and elsewhere had several theories to prove why it never happened. After all, college-educated Americans couldn’t possibly be glad to see Trump. Right Angle is a production of our Members. Join us: https://BillWhittle.com/register/ How’d you like to enjoy three nights sailing the Caribbean with the kind of people who would cheer the President of the United States? Find out how at http://bit.ly/StratoCruise2020