UKRAINE SCANDAL EXPLAINED: Chalkboard on DNC Collusion, Joe Biden, Soros, Trump & More


205K subscribers

Glenn explains EVERYTHING you need to know about the Ukraine scandal. And it goes MUCH further than Hunter and Joe Biden, and their involvement there. This timeline gives you all the facts and proof you need to show that there was DNC collusion, not collusion with President Trump, during the 2016 election. Democrats worked with Ukrainian officials to investigate “dirt” on Trump, and Glenn shows you EVERYTHING — including how even George Soros is involved — in a way that’s easy to understand. Watch the FULL Ukraine special here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvfY…

Democrats Fall Into Impeachment Trap: Can Constitution Survive the Charade?


148K subscribers

Did Democrats fall into an impeachment trap with President Trump like Republicans did with President Bill Clinton, whose power and influence increased in the wake of their failure to convict and remove him from office? Can the Constitution survive the charade of using impeachment as Plan B when your party loses the election? Stephen Green leads Bill Whittle and Scott Ott in analyzing the pitfalls to the Democratic party, and to our federal republic. Right Angle is a production of the Members who fund some four dozens shows each month and run their own vibrant, private, blog. Find your people today at https://BillWhittle.com/register/

 

Attorney for Impeachment ‘Whistleblowers’ Actively Sought Trump Admin Informants


Whistleblower Aid is heavily tied to far-left activist organizations and Democratic politics.

ABC News broke the story on Sunday about the existence of the second so-called whistleblower speaking about Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The network reported:

Zaid tells ABC News’ Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that the second person — also described as an intelligence official — has first-hand knowledge of some of the allegations outlined in the original complaint and has been interviewed by the head of the intelligence community’s internal watchdog office, Michael Atkinson.

Zaid says both officials have full protection of the law intended to protect whistleblowers from being fired in retaliation. While this second official has spoken with the IG — the internal watchdog office created to handle complaints — this person has not communicated yet with the congressional committees conducting the investigation.

The New York Times on Friday cited anonymous sources in reporting that a second intelligence official was weighing whether to file his own formal complaint and testify to Congress. Zaid says he does not know if the second whistleblower he represents is the person identified in the Times report.

In a tweet on Sunday, Zaid confirmed his firm is representing another so-called whistleblower. This one “has firsthand knowledge,” he tweeted without elaborating.

Mark S. Zaid

@MarkSZaidEsq

GeorgeStephanopoulos

@GStephanopoulos

BREAKING: Attorney representing whistleblower who sounded the alarm on Pres. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine tells @ABC News he is now representing a second whistleblower who has first-hand knowledge of events. https://abcn.ws/30PZ4BF 

In his twitter profile, Zaid describes himself as a “non-partisan” attorney “handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing.”

Missing from his twitter profile and from much of the the news media coverage about Zaid’s role representing the so-called whistleblowers in the impeachment scandal is that he co-founded Whistleblower Aid. That detail is also not mentioned in Zaid’s bio on his attorney website.

This even though Whistleblower Aid has been actively helping the first whistleblower also being represented by Zaid by setting up a GoFundMe page seeking to raise funds for the purported whistleblower’s defense. The page already brought in some $210,066 with a goal of raising $300,000.

Whistleblower Aid was founded in September 2017 in the wake of Trump’s presidency to encourage government whistleblowers to come forward.

The group did not sit around waiting for whistleblowers. Upon its founding, Whistleblower Aid actively sought to attract the attention of Trump administration government employees by reportedly blasting advertisements for its whistleblower services on Metro trains, using mobile billboards that circled government offices for 10 hours a day, and handing out whistles on street corners as a gimmick to gain attention.

When Whistleblower Aid was first formed, the main banner for the mission statement of its website contained clearly anti-Trump language.

“Today our Republic is under threat. Whistleblower Aid is committed to protecting the rule of law in the United States and around the world,” read the previous statement which can still be viewed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

That part of the mission statement received attention in the conservative media.

The sentence “today our Republic is under threat,” has since been scrubbed from the website. The mission statement now only reads, “Whistleblower Aid is committed to protecting the rule of law in the United States and around the world.”

Speaking to the Washington Post just after Whistleblower Aid’s founding, John Tye, who co-founded the organization with Zaid, claimed, “This is not a partisan effort,” and then went on to express seemingly partisan alarm about Trump.

Tye continued, “At the same time, yes, the rule of law starts with the office of the president. Like many other people, we are definitely concerned about things that are happening in the administration. The decision to fire [FBI Director] James Comey. The lack of transparency. A lot of people have questions about whether this administration respects the rule of law.”

Far-left ties, Democrat links

Zaid doubles as Executive Director and founder of the James Madison Project, which says it seeks to promote government accountability. The Project features on its four-person advisory board John Podesta, who led Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, served as Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and founded the Soros-funded Center for American Progress pushing a progressive agenda.

Whistleblower Aid co-founder Tye himself is a whistleblower. He is a former State Department official who went public in 2014 about U.S. government electronic surveillance practices.

Tye’s bio on Whistleblower Aid’s website brandishes his work for far-left groups.

The bio reads:

Mr. Tye has worked at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Avaaz, and also Southeast Louisiana Legal Services as a Skadden Fellow. He was on the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is known for its anti-conservative stance and controversially publishes a “hate map” listing groups that warn about radical Islam such as Jihad Watch, the Clarion Project, the Center for Security Policy. On that same “hate map” are racist extremist organizations like Global Crusaders: Order of the Ku Klux Klan and United Klans of America.

Tye’s other former employer, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is financed heavily by billionaire activist and Democratic Party mega-donor George Soros and is known for its hyper-partisan liberal activism.

Avaaz, a radical group where Tye served as campaign and legal director, describes itself as a “global web movement to bring people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere.” The group has repeatedly engaged in anti-Israel activism.

Channeling the mantra of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, Avaaz says it aims to “organize citizens of all nations to close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want.”

Avaaz was founded in 1997 by the Soros-funded, partisan MoveOn.org organization and by the Soros-funded Res Publica activist group.

Tax forms from Soros’s Open Society document donations to Res Publica specifically earmarked for support to Avaaz. Res Publica oversees Avaaz activism.

The same year that Whistleblower Aid was founded, Avaaz’s former general counsel and campaign director, Ian Bassin, in 2017 formed United to Protect Democracy. The latter is a grouping of former top lawyers for the Obama administration working to utilize legal advocacy methods to oppose Trump’s policies.

Bassin’s United to Protect Democracy works in partnership with the Brennan Center for Justice, located at NYU School of Law. The Brennan Center is heavily financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations and is the recipient of numerous Open Society grants.

Common funding themes

Whistleblower Aid’s ties to Soros funding and far-left groups furthers a theme of such organizations being closely linked to numerous aspects of the so-called whistleblower’s complaint.

Some of those common threads run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint and are tied to CrowdStrike, the outside firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.

CrowdStrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

The Atlantic Council is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

Breitbart News reported that a staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a trip to Ukraine last month sponsored and organized by the Atlantic Council think tank. Schiff’s office denied any impropriety.

The Schiff staff member, Thomas Eager, is also currently a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Congressional Fellowship. Burisma in January 2017 signed a “cooperative agreement” with the Council to sponsor the organization’s Eurasia Center.

Besides Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by Google as well as Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and the U.S. State Department.

Google Capital also led a $100 million funding drive that financed Crowdstrike directly.

Google, Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint alleging Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 presidential race.

The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the so-called whistleblower’s document and released by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower’s own claims, as Breitbart News documented.

One key section of the so-called whistleblower’s document claims that “multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov.”

This was allegedly to follow up on Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in order to discuss the “cases” mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower’s narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.

Even though the statement was written in first person – “multiple U.S. officials told me” – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

That footnote reads:

In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.

The so-called whistleblower’s account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does so to:

Write that Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko “also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters.” Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani “had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani.” Bolster the charge that, “I also learned from a U.S. official that ‘associates’ of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.” The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, “I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.” The OCCRP report repeatedly referenced is actually a “joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine.”

BuzzFeed infamously also first published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.

The OCCRP and BuzzFeed “joint investigation” resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals.

The so-called whistleblower’s document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.

Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

Together with Soros’s Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are “disputed.”

Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute’s so-called news fact-checking project is openly funded by not only Soros’ Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National Endowment for Democracy.

CrowdStrike and DNC servers

CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky.

According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people…The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

In his extensive report, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not “obtain or examine” the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked by Russia.

The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server and shared details with the FBI.

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the FBI registered “multiple requests at different levels,” to review the DNC’s hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a “highly respected private company”—a reference to CrowdStrike—would carry out forensics on the servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.

A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official was quoted by the news media as saying.

“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier,” the official continued.

The toxic dialectic of Dem aggressors vs. GOP pacifists


Re-Posted from Canadian Free Press (CFP) By  Bio and ArchivesOctober 6, 2019

The toxic dialectic of Dem aggressors vs. GOP pacifists“By 1939, the French had been preparing for and were content to fight a total, defensive, attritional war. They could see no other way to defeat a German offensive; this was, after all, how they had emerged victorious from the terrible conflict twenty years earlier….[T]here was neither the strength of leadership nor the political stability to indulge in the sort of long-term thinking that was required for a bespoke, flexible military machine that perfectly fitted the country’s strategic requirements” (pp. 382-383, “Blitzkrieg: Myth, Reality, and Hitler’s Lighting War: France 1940,” Lloyd ClarkAtlantic Monthly Press, ©2016.)

Collectively, GOP politicians are pacifists. They strive to be deft in the art of compromise.

Their opposition, the Democrat Party, presents a unified, aggressive front. They aim to win.

Collectively, the two parties make up a political dialectic that has turned toxic for America

The result is a mismatch.

Not all Republican pols wuss-out—just most of them.

Some, particularly among the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, resist the onslaught of the far-left Democratic Party. But among Republicans in the House, they’re the exception, not the rule.

Likewise, not all Democrats have gone stark-raving mad in their hatred of President Trump. Though it’s hard to find any who don’t tacitly support their colleagues with silence.

Democrats play offense. They attack. Supremacy is their goal.

Republicans play defense. They demur. Survival satisfies them.

Collectively, the two parties make up a political dialectic that has turned toxic for America. That toxicity finds the nation’s Chief Executive fighting against the Democratic Party and its allies, with little help from his own party.

Trump is pitted against the Democrat pols in the House and Senate, the entire media and half of the FOX News “on-air talent,” plus a group of GOP Trump-hating pols.

Anti-Trump elephants

Anti-Trump elephants include, to name a few:

  • Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (now a FOX board member who is now trying to convince the other half of FOX to also distance itself from Trump);
  • U.S. Senator Willard Romney (who failed to win the Presidency by being a nice guy);
  • Former U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (who, appropriately, heralds from Snowflake, Arizona);
  • Fred Barnes (who works for Bill Kristol and, therefore, is required to offer tepid support, at most, for Trump);
  • Senator Susan Collins (Maine, who kept the nation in suspense about whether she’d support Judge Kavanaugh);
  • Karl Rove (still shocked that Trump won); and,
  • Bill Kristol (even more shocked than Rove, and Hillary).

Focusing on Romney: On October 4, 2019, he tweeted this: “By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.”

Mittens wasn’t “appalled” during his campaign against Obama’s second term in 2012 when Democrats accused him of torturing puppies, cutting off a gay boy’s hair, being anti-female, and wanting to put blacks in chains. He responded silently, with his half-smile—pacifist that he is.

Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, who posts at Instapundit, three years ago defined the appeal of Trump to supporters that emerged from the Tea Party:

“It [the Tea Party] was hopeful and enthusiastic, open to anyone—and the Left treated it like the KKK merged with radical anarchists. The Republicans took their support and generally did nothing.

So, people tried something different. Romney was the ultimate nice-guy candidate. Unimpeachable ethics, a proven record of success, and moderate credentials. The Left chewed him up and spat him out.

Thus, after you send in friendly folks with SUVs and pickups, then a philanthropist in a limo, might as well send in a tank. Trump refuses to just take it like a proper Republican; he’s not a model of civility and noble citizenship; he’s a brawler. This is why TEA Party conservatives are flocking to his banner.”

And still are—flocking to his banner.

It’s not by accident that a portrait of President Andrew Jackson hangs in the Oval Office today.

 

Trump, Jackson

The two Presidents have much in common. In an article in The Daily Signal by Jarrett Stepman, entitled ‘Here’s How Andrew Jackson Stood Up to Unaccountable ‘Elites’,’ the author summarizes the three planks of Jackson’s political philosophy:

  • “The first plank of Jackson’s political philosophy was that entrenched interests in places of power can become dangerous to the liberties of the American people.
  • The second major plank of Jacksonianism was an intense opposition to crony capitalism, the symbiotic relationship between big government and big business, in which the government interferes with the free market to pick winners and losers.
  • The third essential plank of the Jacksonian agenda was an aggressive military and foreign posture in the world—something that differentiated Jackson from earlier members of his Jeffersonian Democrat party.”

Jackson scandalized the political world of his time. But he was not without support from his own party.

While Trump’s support from his own party remains where it began. Lukewarm.

The Trump Impeachment Heating Up


QUESTION: Do you think this impeachment will succeed in overthrowing Trump?

SK

ANSWER: The key to this affair is a threat – you do this or I will not provide aid. This is what has to be established. Asking the leader of Ukraine to investigate if there is anything by itself is not interference in the 2020 election. Nevertheless, they can turn this issue into the headline every day as they did with Russiagate. But there is more going on behind the curtain.

The Saturday Night Live skit on the Democrats hit too close to home. It really showed that the Democrats have no viable candidate. Meanwhile, we have Mitt Romney considering a challenge to Trump. That will not get off the ground unless the Democrats can turn the Impeachment into ammunition for Mitt Romney.

Without the actual threat, the best the Democrats can hope for is to try to force Trump to resign. The likelihood of him actually being removed from office by the Senate is a long-shot. The more covert goal behind the curtain is to encourage Romney to oppose Trump. The Democrats are willing to lose to Romney and may prefer that because Bernie and Warren are the self-destruct button in the Democratic Party. Romney is a career politician and that is what they want in the White House regardless of party.

So the real goal may be more covert than anyone suspects. The Democratic candidates offer nothing and a ticket with Bernie or Warren at the top will split the party. The more mainstream liberals are not about to accept either of them and they have a very hard time even listening to AOC and the squad fearing that they are reshaping the image of the Democrats.

The donations in the 3rd quarter saw Trump blow everyone away raising $145 million with over 300,000 new people donating for the first time. Bernie raised $25.3 million and Warren $24.6 million with Joe Biden at $15.2 million. Following the money, the Democrats know they are in trouble. They have to get rid of Trump and Romney will do just fine.

Can this impact the Markets into October/November in line with our computer arrays? Absolutely!

Sunday Talks: Senator Lindsey Graham Discusses Impeachment by “Anonymous” Complaint…


Lots of people, lots of analysis, lots of obfuscation, and lots of pundits stuck deep in the forest losing perspective…..  This interview with Senator Lindsey Graham doesn’t help.  If you are cynical of politicians, avoid the confirmation bias and don’t watch this interview.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can impeach a president for just about anything, because impeachment is a political process.  The offenses are supposed to entail “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” However, ultimately a majority House vote is all that’s needed for a technical impeachment. If Speaker Pelosi wants an impeachment vote against President Trump because he’s OrangeManBad, she can do that.  All she technically needs for any impeachment vote is a majority agreement.

Technically, Speaker Pelosi can tear the country apart, and destroy her political party with a brutally obvious political ploy to defend life in the swamp.   As a result Speaker Pelosi can also hold an impeachment vote framing an impeachment resolution, based on manufactured ‘articles of impeachment’, created by hearsay, rumors, gossip and innuendo.

However, a President should not be “removed from office” because some anonymous complaint makes an accusation.  The removal from office is another kettle-o-fish entirely…. Unless, well, unless the Senate concurs with Speaker Pelosi.

Anyone who thinks Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get his hands dirty amid this highly partisan political process is very much mistaken. Watch Graham hoping the entire impeachment operation collapses before it reaches a UniParty Senate… Wait for Barr…. Wait for Durham…. Wait for Horowitz…. Wait, Wait, Wait, bottom line, for 2020:

Finally – John Ratcliffe Explains Why Pelosi’s “Impeachment Inquiry” is Being Run From House Intel Instead of House Judiciary…


Good grief it’s taking the republicans f.o.r.e.v.e.r to explain to the American electorate what is going on behind the thoroughly corrupted political impeachment process.  In this interview John Ratcliffe finally explains why the “official impeachment inquiry” is not being run by the House Judiciary Committee that holds impeachment jurisdiction.

Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process.  It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction.  {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} to understand why.

The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment, is not within the jurisdiction of either committee.  So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.  WATCH:

Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn’t exist.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.  Pelosi is burning a constitutional process.

Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court.

The judiciary would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“.  Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review.

This is a carefully constructed subversion of the constitutional processes and procedures.

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.

As a result of the need to create the optics of something that doesn’t exist; and following the roadmap they outlined in 2018 [See Here and Here]; the Lawfare contractors within the committees’ needed to construct a penalty mechanism that benefits the impeachment agenda but avoids the court system.  As a result we see this:

Nice Lawfare trick huh?…

Nancy Pelosi is “Grubering” The American Electorate on Impeachment – Committee Requests, aka “Subpoenas”, Constructed to Manufacture “Obstruction”…


Several years ago the architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, admitted on camera the Democrats who were assembling healthcare legislation were “relying upon the stupidity of the American voter”….  Fast forward to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019 and her “official impeachment inquiry” by decree; she’s doing the exact same thing.

Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn’t exist.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.

In the last week you’ve probably heard the media sell a narrative that Speaker Pelosi’s House Committee teams are sending out subpoenas to the State Department and White House.  However, has anyone actually looked for those “subpoenas”, or read the language of the written communication from those committees’?

Using the House Oversight Committee as the example (because that’s the one most citedand all of the letters are formatted identically), take a careful look at how they frame their undertaking.

As you read this, remember: these carefully chosen words come from the Lawfare Alliance:

(Source)

Notice the phrase “sent a letter conveying a subpoena“?

That statement is not the same as ‘sent a subpoena’; actually, it’s not even close – it is pure parseltongue.  You can call any car a Ferrari, but that doesn’t make it so.

Things get a little technical and wonky but essentially the term “subpoena” literally means “under penalty“.  A subpoena duces tecu, requires you to produce documents.  In this example a congressional subpoena literally, and only, means: a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance.  Read the letter HERE:

(Page 1 – screengrab, source pdf)

The House has no independent enforcement mechanism, so each time the House of Representative wants to send a subpoena with an enforcement bite – they need to go to the judicial branch (court system) for an enforceable order.  However, notice in these letters the enforcement mechanism is internal. It is a self-fulfilling ‘obstruction‘ scheme.

Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court.

The judiciary would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“.  Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review.

Remember when Democrats were recently delegitimizing the Supreme Court through attacks against Justice Kavanaugh?   Well, how likely is it that any legal test of this arbitrary “impeachment inquiry” is going to end up at SCOTUS?  Things making more sense now… I digress.

As a result of all the above these are political subpoenas, demand letters as weapons;  constructed for optimal political value, and framed to create obstruction articles of impeachment.

This is a carefully constructed subversion of the constitutional processes and procedures.

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.

As a result of the need to create the optics of something that doesn’t exist; and following the roadmap they outlined in 2018 [See Here and Here]; the Lawfare contractors within the committees’ needed to construct a penalty mechanism that benefits the impeachment agenda but avoids the court system.  As a result we see this:

Nice Lawfare trick huh?

The failure to comply with a non-official subpoena (essentially a letter); for documents relating to a fake “official impeachment inquiry” (Pelosi decree); that the House specifically never intends to enforce in any court (because they would fail); results in the House committee finding of “obstruction.” An enhancement for their impeachment articles.

Gee, where did the House Committees’ come up that that idea?

(LAWFARE Direct Link – DATE September 2018)

Anyone noticing a consistent pattern yet?

In 2018 we noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {Go Deep}  That impeachment plan was made at the same time as the “Lawfare Obstruction Roadmap” was drawn up.

With the framework of the current effort, those changed rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment.  Without a vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry, the articles of impeachment can now be drawn up in committee without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive branch. This was always the plan visible in Pelosi’s House rules.

These letters from congress, they are calling ‘subpoenas’, are specifically designed to avoid the courts because of the unilateral nature of the investigations which underpin their content.  Quite a scheme:

  • The House Committee impeachment investigations are structured around unilateral rule changes made by Pelosi’s scheme team in 2018 designed to block republicans.
  • In 2019 Speaker Pelosi then launches a unilateral “official impeachment inquiry” by decree.  Again designed to block republicans.
  • Then Pelosi combines the unilateral rule changes with unilateral committee assignments, and designs an obstruction path within a unilateral investigation, again completely carving out republicans.

There will likely be more articles other than just “obstruction of justice” (Muh Russia) and “corruption of office” (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible.  Emoluments may also play a role.

Once the committees’ have assembled their evidence, assuming the public becomes aware of the partisan construct, Pelosi will likely initiate the full House vote to proceed with the assembly of articles of impeachment.  However, the committees’ will have already done the investigative work without republican involvement, so the full House vote will essentially be a moot point.

You are detained and questioned extensively. You answer all the questions. At the conclusion of your inquisition you are read your rights. Your attorney shows up; questioning stops.  A week later you are indicted and the material evidence against you is your statements.  This is what Pelosi/Lawfare are constructing. It doesn’t matter that the trial judge will throw it out, what mattered was the indictment.

This is why there is such a massive narrative push by Pelosi, committee leaders and their media allies right now… they need to assemble evidence while republicans remain locked out of the process and committee staff (hired Lawfare) construct the articles.  The goal is impeachment.  They achieve that goal via a majority House vote on any individual article.

The ‘Resistance‘ and ‘Deep State‘ facilitators (writ large) are all-in on this impeachment effort.  Additionally, impeachment as an offense is their best defense to anything being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham, Attorney General Bill Barr and DOJ-IG Michael Horowitz.

Yes, this entire group is also racing the clock. They need the Trump indictment, aka ‘impeachment‘, to construct a retaliation narrative that protects them -all of them- from any downstream consequences of Barr, Durham or, to a lesser extent, Horowitz.

References:

Pelosi Rule Changes

Wage Growth for Low Income Workers Doubles Wage Growth for High Income Workers…


An interesting article within The Atlantic draws attention to one of the more intended consequences of Maganomics: wages for the middle-class Americans are rising twice as fast as wages for high-income earners.

(Source)

Yes, President Trump is closing the wealth gap.

This dynamic is directly attached to President Trump’s MAGAnomic policy that focuses wage and income benefit directly to Main Street, “production economy”; and reverses the process that was driving benefit to U.S. multinationals on Wall Street, the “service-driven” economy.   As noted in The Atlantic:

[…]  According to analysis by Nick Bunker, an economist with the jobs site Indeed, wage growth is currently strongest for workers in low-wage industries, such as clothing stores, supermarkets, amusement parks, and casinos. And earnings are growing most slowly in higher-wage industries, such as medical labs, law firms, and broadcasting and telecom companies. (more)

While there are not technically going to be direct losers in a Main Street economy, there will undoubtedly be some amid the investment class who will be lesser-winners.

The reasoning is really quite simple.  There are many people attached to the Wall Street economy who ran-up wealth via the process of de-industrialization of America.

Anyone who gained income through the process of multinational export of investment and jobs, specifically U.S. based multinationals, are naturally going to see negative impact as the reverse takes place.

Multinational investment assets held overseas are precariously positioned, as the Trump’s ‘America-First’ trade policy starts to get teeth.  Any U.S. corporation who attempts to fight against the tariff process will find themselves expending a large amount of money while simultaneously losing the ‘price’ advantage;…. And they will be simultaneously positioned to lose market share to U.S-based, or North American-based, competition.

This is why the USMCA becomes important.  Once the USMCA is ratified it gives U.S. multinationals a definitive long-term position, from which they can calculate their costs.

A tenuous supply chain/manufacturing position in China or Asia, with unknown short-term risks to rising production costs, can be reconciled against a North American supply chain and/or manufacturing position that is well defined and predictable.

It is within this policy dynamic where the ultimate MAGAnomic winners and losers will be found.   Right now the multinationals are trying to keep prior Asia investments viable; however, the clock is ticking.   Those unknown variables have a cost.

The first loss is the best loss“… and right now President Trump is pressuring U.S. corporations to consider this truism carefully.

.

Guess Who’s Coming…


Someone is coming to the United States next week.  Can you read this tweet and predict who it is?…

Seriously, given that we have watched this dynamic play out, over-and-over, for more than two years, it seems almost silly that China continues to play this tactical negotiation card.

Alas, :::heavy sigh::: this stupid dance continues…

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump said on Thursday a delegation from China would come to the United States next week for more trade talks.

“China’s coming in next week. We’re going to have a meeting with them. We’ll see. But we’re doing very well,” Trump said before leaving on a trip to Florida.

“I have a lot of options on China. But if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power,” he added. (link)

Seriously, can Beijing possibly be blind to how transparently obvious the connective tissue between U.S-China trade talks and their ridiculously overused DPRK-nuclear leverage canard is?

China is coming to the U.S. for another round of trade discussions and here we go again with the North Korean captives of Kim Jong-un, entirely controlled by Beijing, pulling out that same page from the worn-out playbook and trying to sell North Korea as leverage to gain favorable trade position… It’s just silly at this point.

Does Xi Jinping rely solely on headlines of the New York Times to analyze the position of the Trump administration?

TODAY – North Korea claimed Saturday that negotiations with American diplomats over the totalitarian country’s nuclear program had broken down Saturday, though the State Department later said the comments “do not reflect the content or the spirit” of the discussions.

North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator, Kim Myong Gil, told reporters through a translator outside Pyongyang’s embassy in Stockholm that working-level talks between officials from Washington and Pyongyang in Stockholm “have not fulfilled our expectation and finally broke off.”

“The U.S. raised expectations by offering suggestions like a flexible approach, new method and creative solutions, but they have disappointed us greatly and dampened our enthusiasm for negotiation by bringing nothing to the negotiation table,” Kim added, according to Reuters. (read more)

A Jeanne in the Kitchen

I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!

True the Vote

A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.

Zeee Media

Share the truth at whatever cost.

thefoghornexpress

De Oppresso Liber

De Oppresso Liber

The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

America-Wake-Up

This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America

TOTT News

Australia's Front Line | Since 2011

CherriesWriter - Vietnam War website

See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors

Murray Report

Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News

Scott Adams Says

De Oppresso Liber

Stella's Place

Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com

livingbyathread

Exposition and Encouragement

Disrupted Physician

The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction

Easy Money Martin

Real Estate Lending