this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
Morrison, who was formerly the NSC Senior Director for European Affairs, was present for the Trump phone conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky on July 25th. In his testimony Morrison:
Affirmed that the transcript of the call was “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.” He also stated that he was concerned about leaks of the call.
Stated that he had no concerns about illegality with regard to anything mentioned in the call.
Contradicted Bill Taylor's testimony, stating that Taylor's claim "that Ambassador Gordon Sondland demanded a public statement from the Ukrainian president committing to investigate Burisma" was not true and that Taylor's claim that Morrison himself had met in a hotel room with the Ukrainian National Security advisor was also false.
Testified that Ukraine officials were unaware of any question of aid being delayed until at least August 28, 2019.
The House approved the Impeachment Theater resolution mostly along party lines. However, two Dems--Collin Peterson (MN) and Jefferson Van Drew (NJ)--joined the GOP. They come from districts that voted for Trump.
New polls from several 2020 battlegrounds show more people oppose than support using impeachment to remove President Trump from office, a potential danger sign for Democrats.
Support for impeachment is under water in new surveys of Wisconsin and Florida, two key states in next year’s fight for the White House.
Trump won both in 2016, turning Wisconsin red for the first time in decades and returning Florida to the GOP column after former President Obama carried it twice.
In New Hampshire and Arizona, two more swing states, most voters oppose impeachment. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton narrowly won the Granite State in 2016, and Democrats believe they have a chance to win Arizona after securing a Senate race last year.
A New York Times–Siena College battlegrounds poll released Wednesday found that majorities in Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Florida oppose removing the president from office through impeachment. Majorities or pluralities do support an investigation of Trump, however.
Trump’s reelection campaign is emboldened by the polling, which it believes shows that Democrats are running against public opinion in the states that matter the most.
“We’ve known for a long time that everybody in California and New York want Trump to be impeached, they’ve wanted that since the day he came into office,” said one Trump campaign official who is not authorized to speak on the record. “But in these states where the election is really going to be fought, we’re seeing that voters oppose impeachment, and there’s an intensity to that opposition.”
Apparently Bolton wants to keep the door open for a return to public life. That door would have slammed shut forever had he appeared before Schiff's Kangaroo Court voluntarily.
Notably, Bolton has the same attorney as does Charles Kupperman. Kupperman was the United States Deputy National Security Advisor for President Trump from January to September 2019. Kupperman was "subpoenaed" by the House, however:
The Trump administration, through White House counsel Pat Cipollone, directed Kupperman in writing not to comply with the House subpoena claiming "constitutional immunity" would protect him. Subsequently, Kupperman filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to decide whether or not he must comply with the House subpoena or the Trump Administration's request to not testify. Kupperman's lawyer argued that he is faced with "irreconcilable commands" between the legislative and executive branches of government which can only be decided by the judicial branch.
Since the House is currently not attempting to enforce these "subpoenas" it's likely that Bolton will not be testifying.
In an article at Real Clear Investigations, long time White House reporter Paul Sperry has confirmed what everyone has long known. Eric Ciaramella, former NSC staffer, is the Dem operative whose narrative started the current Impeachment Theater. In the article, How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc., Sperry discloses further details, including some that tie Ciaramella to the Russia Hoax's origins. Sperry confirms what was believed about the circumstances in which Ciaramella left the White House:
Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.)
However, what to me is an explosive revelation has to do with Ciaramella's ties to a Ukrainian and political operative who is a US citizen and was an oppo researcher for the Hillary Clinton campaign: Alexandra Chalupa:
Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
In line with those connections Sperry reveals that Ciaramella also attempted to spin anti-Trump fantasies:
I really like that Lee Smith calls the Impeachment Theater cabal a cult, engaged in a ritual presided over by priestess Pelosi and high priest Schiff. As he says, none of the Russia Hoax and its continuation into Impeachment Theater--which he rightly views as a continuum--bears any similarity to reality. It can only be explained as a cult:
Not long ago I asked: Is McConnell Falling Into Line? This morning the Majority Leader provided evidence, in a speech on the floor of the Senate, that he and the Senate GOP may have come to agreement on a strategy with regard to the House Dem Impeachment Theater. Lindsey Graham's resolution condemning the ongoing Impeachment Theater for its lack of basic fairness--which means Due Process--garnered near unanimous GOP support (50 signatories, so far) and prepared the way for Senator McConnell's remarks this morning. McConnell's words reflect the position that the Graham resolution sets out in general terms. That's important, because building a majority position in the Senate is always a complicated business, and the Majority Leader has only a limited amount of leverage to exert--even in so important a matter as this.
In assessing McConnell's words and his resolve there are two factors to consider.
The first is, obviously, party loyalty and the strengthy of Trump's support. The idea that even anti-Trump senators would vote to commit political suicide has always been a fantasy.
The second factor is loyalty to the Senate as an institution. The Senate is faced not just with an out of control partisan political theater in the Dem controlled House. It is also faced with an aggressively Imperialist House that is, in effect, attempting to dictate to the Senate. The outrageous conduct of the House Dems asserts that the House is the leading half of Legislative Branch and that the Senate must conduct a trial if the House instructs it to do so. McConnell is not about to lay down for that. The Senate, as we are told, is steeped in tradition, and senators are unlikely to allow the Pelosis and Schiffs of Washington to relegate them to a ceremonial role.
“They have denied President Trump basic due process and are cutting his counsel out of the process in an unprecedented way. House Democrats' new resolution does not change any of that,” McConnell said.
“The draft resolution that has been released does nothing of the sort. It falls way short, way short,” he added.
By slamming the lack of basic fairness, of due process--a Constitutional standard--McConnell is, I believe, drawing a clear line. He is warning that the Senate will not be a party to a proceeding that makes a mockery of the Constitution. No doubt he and others in the Senate are working out strategy, now that their position has been decided upon. Of course he will be working within Senate rules and will need to tailor his strategy to that framework.
Another thing to keep in mind is the state of polling. There's a new poll out should give nervous Dems even more pause to reconsider Impeachment--and even the ongoing Impeachment Theater. The news for Dems gets worse the deeper you dig, but even allowing for the widespread misunderstanding of the issues the results of the poor are very bad for the Dems. When you consider that bringing all this to a vote could lead to more awareness of what's behind it all, the news should be quite disturbing: Impeachment Poll to Democrats: Put Up or Shut Up
There have been two lengthy stories recently at TGP that deserve attention--but don't seem to have received much. Although I read both stories I haven't tried to cover them here because the details are somewhat complex, and because I'm hoping to see further reporting on both stories.
Commenter Mike Sylwester linked the most recent story yesterday in a comment. The title tells it all, as far as the conclusion goes: Fired FBI Director Comey Likely Doctored His Memos In Effort to Take Down President Trump and the US Senate May Have the Evidence! The idea is that Comey may have altered some of his famous memos that he wrote after meetings with Trump, in order to heighten the impression of "obstruction." In fact, it is suggested that this move on Comey's part may have been a leadup to the appointment of Mueller as Special Counsel--may have been the true focus of Team Mueller pretty much going back to the original post election FBI operations. The argumentation is detailed and, as I said, complex. However, I found it at least persuasive. It certainly shows how much ground Barr/Durham have to cover.
It has long been known that Downer was instrumental in funneling at least $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Smith's investigation suggests that the total amount reached $130 million--Australian government that was, of course, funded by Australian taxpayers. That's not chump change, and yet no one seems interested in learning what Australia was supposed to receive in return.
From that start, Smith's reporting goes in considerable detail into the connections between Australia and all the major players with whose names we're all familiar: Mifsud, Brennan, Comey, and many more. As I said at the beginning, it's too complex to easily summarize but well worth the read. The takeaway is that there was far more going on between the Australian branch of the Globalist Deep State (Five Eyes) and the American British branches than Downer's meeting with Papadopoulos. The closing of the TGP write up graphically illustrates the suspicious nature of it all, with the emphasis on the Clinton Foundation. The caption in the photo below was obviously added:
Aussies got nothing from the Clintons in return –
What did Australian taxpayers get in return for these millions of dollars? Our [Australian] media are not even asking the question.
Instead it’s left to bloggers like Michael Smith to point out that the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Australia is a suburban shack in outer Melbourne and all the nominated directors have fled the country.
Fox is carrying this story today. Note that Michael Baden is not some "out there" conspiracy theorist. Rather, in his 50 year career he was known as "a pioneering forensic pathologist." Below is the core of the report in Fox.
The body of disgraced money man and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his Manhattan federal prison cell in August, bore telltale signs of homicide despite an official ruling that he killed himself, a pioneering forensic pathologist revealed to “Fox & Friends” in an exclusive interview Wednesday.
The bombshell claim by Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner who has worked on high-profile cases during a five-decade medical career, is certain to reignite suspicions that surfaced immediately after Epstein, ..., was discovered dead in his cell on Aug. 10. Baden, who was hired by Epstein’s brother and observed the autopsy, told Fox News its findings are more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicidal hanging. He noted that the 66-year-old Epstein had two fractures on the left and right sides of his larynx, specifically the thyroid cartilage or Adam’s apple, as well as one fracture on the left hyoid bone above the Adam’s apple, Baden told Fox News.
“Those three fractures are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation,” Baden, who is also a Fox News contributor, said.
While there’s not enough information to be conclusive yet, the three fractures were “rare,” said Baden, who's probed cases involving O.J. Simpson, President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, record producer Phil Spector, New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez and many others.
“I’ve not seen in 50 years where that occurred in a suicidal hanging case,” the 85-year-old medical legend told Fox News.
Baden, who's examined more than 20,000 bodies and hosted HBO's "Autopsy," explained that if a person weighed 120 pounds and their head weighed 10 pounds, there would be 110 pounds of pressure on the neck at the jaw during a hanging. But, if someone put a hand around a person's neck and squeezed, that could double or even triple the pressure on the neck, Baden said.
There were also hemorrhages in Epstein’s eyes that were common in homicidal strangulation and uncommon, though not unheard of, in suicidal hangings, the forensic pathologist said.
“The prominent hemorrhage in the soft tissues of the neck next to the fractures is evidence of a fresh neck compression that could have caused the death,” Baden said.
Baden stressed his independent study was not complete. “The investigation is not completed until all the information has come in,” he said.
...
The ligature, or item used to tie something tightly, allegedly was made from a sheet that had been twisted and put around Epstein’s neck, Baden said. Evidence on the cloth material could help prove whether or not someone else was involved in Epstein's death.
“Whoever it is would have their DNA all over the ligature,” he said. “We don’t have those results yet,” he added, saying those results “should be reported quickly to give an idea and lessen the speculation.”
New York City Medical Examiner Barbara Sampson ruled Epstein’s cause of death to be a suicide by hanging.
“It appears that this could have been a mistake,” Baden said. “There’s evidence here of homicide that should be investigated, to see if it is or isn’t homicide.”
...
UPDATE: In the interests of impartiality, I offer a dissenting view:
ATLANTA, GA – According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control released on Thursday, people with inside, compromising knowledge of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s financial and political dealings are 843% more likely to commit suicide.
[Judge Sullivan] is canceling the scheduled hearing because he considers that the briefing the two sides have provided is comprehensive enough that he can make a ruling based on the briefing, without additional arguments.
The hearing was for oral arguments regarding Flynn's motion to compel discovery, but that whole concept was blown sky high by Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell, filing of extensive evidence that the government--both the FBI and DoJ prosecutors--have engaged in extensive misconduct, including criminal acts such as altering documents. I offered a positive assessment of the meaning of Judge Sullivan's action in two UPDATES:
UPDATE 1: Understand this--the judge doesn't have to dismiss at this point. The motion is to compel discovery of "stuff" that the government--basically, Team Mueller--is withholding. From my point of view, however, dismissal for the grotesquely obvious prosecutorial misconduct is the easy way out for Judge Sullivan. If he wants to, that would allow him to wash his hands of a real can of worms, avoid refereeing an incredibly complex discovery process. Of course, that would also give Barr/Durham the perfect rationale to turn Team Mueller inside out--drag them all in front of Durham's Grand Jury, etc.
UPDATE 2: Paul Mirengoff at Powerline:
The cancellation of oral argument tells us that Judge Sullivan is ready to rule, but not what his ruling will be. I understand, though, that Gen. Flynn’s legal team considers today’s order by Sullivan good news. Its comprehensive discussion of prosecutorial abuse in this matter stands unrebutted.
I followed up on that in a comment:
if [the Flynn case] gets dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct then Barr is under an obligation--one that I'm sure he's only too eager to take up--to examine what happened. And no one can say it's politically motivated because it will be a Dem judge who instigated it. It will be an open invitation, even a mandate, to absolutely turn Team Mueller inside out. Plus, Powell is one person, with two others to help. Barr has, relatively speaking, unlimited resources. It would be the ultimate best solution, IMO. And probably what Powell has in mind.
Today the government prosecutors requested--and were granted--permission to file a "surreply" to Sidney Powell's bombshell filing.
My take is this. I think the Team Mueller proscutor, Brandon van Grack, is scrambling--he's between a rock and a hard place and is desparately seeking a way out. He doesn't dare allow Powell's filing to go unrebutted, but thus far his replies have avoided the substance of Flynn's complaints of misconduct. Unable to deny Powell's factual allegations--which are undeniably true--he has tried to claim that it's all irrelevant and can't affect Flynn's guilty plea. To me that claim simply doesn't wash.
Tonight a seemingly very confident Powell was interviewed by Lou Dobbs. I'll embed the interview, but the important part comes up front:
Well, Judge Sullivan's just actually giving them a chance to file a sur-reply. They are claiming that we alleged any number of new claims in our reply brief. That is going to be easily refutable by the record--including some of their own filings. But they're gonna hafta deal with that. And Judge Sullivan is simply being judicious there in allowing them further opportunity for briefing. He also directed us to file a sur- sur-reply by Monday at noon, so we will get the last say on the issue.
Yesterday’s filing by federal prosecutors also read as the judicial version of working the refs, with the government suggesting the court may be intending “to strike any arguments or claims raised for the first time by the defendant in his Reply,” or planning “to require the defendant to raise any new claims for relief in a properly pled motion to which the government can respond fully.” The government then asked the court for “guidance,” and the chance “to file a surreply that concisely addresses only newly-raised Brady issues, such as those identified above.”
The government got what it wanted—and then some.
Late yesterday, Judge Sullivan entered an order directing the government to file a surreply brief by November 1, 2019, but in doing so instructed prosecutors to address not just the Brady issues, but any “new relief, claims, arguments, and information raised in Defendant’s Reply Brief.” The order also gave Flynn a chance to respond to the government’s arguments by November 4, 2019. ...
... that Judge Sullivan did not limit the additional briefing to specific Brady issues, but instead directed the government to respond broadly to any “new relief, claims, arguments, and information,” suggests the long-time federal judge’s concern has been piqued by what he’s read so far.
I'm feeling free to quote TGP on this one, since they seem to have freely quoted Newsweek. Newsweek seems to specialize in Florida stories--an increasingly popular sub-category of the news:
A Florida man has been arrested after confronting a 67-year-old man, spitting on him and slapping his “Make American Great Again” hat at a restaurant on Friday evening.
Robert Youngblood, 67, was sitting at the bar at Hurricane Grill in Vero Beach when he was confronted by Matthias Ajple, 43.
Newsweek reports that “Youngblood told an Indian River County Sheriff’s Office deputy he was sitting at the bar of Hurricane Grill on 943 15th Place with two friends, when Ajple walked over and said: ‘You should go back to Russia you f*cking communist.'”
The police report says that Ajple then slapped the man’s MAGA hat, leaned over a gate, and spit on him — before fleeing the scene. Youngblood’s friends witnessed the incident, according to the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office.
...
Following his arrest, Ajple bizarrely told the police that Trump supporters are “communists” and “racists.” He added, “I don’t even care that I’m going to jail, this is actually exciting, plus I have more time on this earth than he does anyway, he probably feels so good about himself.”
There's a serious point, of course. The story illustrates the effect that the Dem Russia Hoax has on non reality based people--what's known in politics as "the Democrat base."
It's easy to say, well, that's just Florida, but that's not the case. Follow the link to read about how liberals behave in Oak Park, IL. For those not acquainted with Oak Park, IL, it's a very, very upscale and very, very liberal suburb of Chicago. To give you some idea, Oak Park is a pilgrimage destination for people wanting to see all the Frank Lloyd Wright houses there. Or to see the birthplace of Ernest Hemingway. Highly, highly recommended:
The Washington Examiner is reporting that things are up in the air: Democratic leaders walk back Thursday impeachment vote. This is based on statements by Steny Hoyer, the Dems' #2. Hoyer made it clear that this would not be a vote on an impeachment inquiry. Instead, he stated that it would be a vote to move from talking to people behind closed doors to bloviating in public. But he wouldn't actually commit to there being a vote on Thursday. Since Hoyer is the Majority Leader, the suspicion is that there's a concern that the Dem leadership could lose that vote--apparently "moderate" Dems have been consulting the polls:
But Democrats are suddenly wary of calling it an official vote to open an impeachment hearing and aren’t even promising a vote on Thursday.
Hoyer said the resolution “addresses moving from the investigatory phase to the hearing phase,” of the impeachment proceedings, entering the public phase. Hoyer, who controls the floor schedule, would not fully commit to holding the vote on Thursday. “We are going to have to consider whether or not it is ready to go on Thursday,” Hoyer said. The resolution will be drafted and advanced Wednesday by the House Rules Committee, whose Democrats operate as an essential arm of the speaker.
Hoyer described the resolution as one that would establish a process for ending the closed-door investigatory phase of the impeachment proceeding, which has so far involved depositions taken in a secure room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol.
According to the resolution, the three Democratic-led impeachment panels are directed to continue their probes into the Trump administration's interactions with the Ukrainian government to determine whether a quid pro quo or other impeachable offenses have been committed.
It also allows the GOP to "question witnesses for equal specified periods" as the Democrats for up to 90-minute sessions, thus depriving Republicans of the argument that they're being denied due process during the proceedings. Still, it will be up to the Democrats to approve or deny witnesses.
So, nothing changes except that the GOP gets equal questioning time--but can't call witnesses without Dem approval.
The concerns are raised because the "witness"--Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was born in Ukraine--was sought out by Ukrainian officials for advice on how to "deal with" Rudy Giuliani. As Laura Ingraham points out, this is a current NSC official giving advice to a foreign power on how to "deal with" the US government. One wonders who he cleared that with. As Laura says, it sounds a bit like ... espionage. Note that Vindman will state that he is "concerned" with how Ukraine was being treated by Trump. One wonders--exactly where do Vindman's loyalties lie?
Oh my God, look at the spin they are using right now, actually saying that Vindman is a Ukrainian double agent....this is so freaking bananas pic.twitter.com/Oxpju5W23N
"While Colonel Vindman’s concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English."
UPDATE: I think I know the answer to this:
I have significant concerns about whether an active duty officer deliberately leaked top secret information as part of a deliberate effort to subvert the authority of his military command and potentially overthrow the elected commander-in-chief. https://t.co/BZDiq4Qpiq
This will be brief. Nick Sandmann's attorneys filed an amended complaint and the judge who initially dismissed Sandmann's suit is allowing three counts to go ahead to the discovery stage. Big win for media accountability.
CINCINNATI - A federal judge is allowing a portion of Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann's lawsuit against The Washington Post to continue after first dismissing the case. After reviewing an amended complaint, Judge William Bertelsman ordered Monday that the case could enter the discovery phase and hence a portion of the lawsuit against the newspaper could continue. Nick and his attorneys had alleged that the gist of a Washington Post article conveyed that Nick had
And as to the implications:
This is a huge win. Now #NickSandmann will be able to start discovery and find out exactly what the reporters were thinking when they attacked Nicholas and the #CovingtonCatholic kids.
However, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an ‘austere religious scholar’.
This could also be huge for the 2020 election season that's coming up. If discovery uncovers bigoted texts and emails, you can count on Trump being all over it--reminding the rest of America why they hate the liberal media.
Observers of the Flynn case, such as Margot Cleveland, believe that what Judge Sullivan's new order means is this: He is canceling the scheduled hearing because he considers that the briefing the two sides have provided is comprehensive enough that he can make a ruling based on the briefing, without additional arguments. We'll see:
BREAKING: Judge Sullivan canceled hearing because of "comprehensive briefing." He's going to rule on the briefs. pic.twitter.com/u7goXIqjbQ
UPDATE 1: Understand this--the judge doesn't have to dismiss at this point. The motion is to compel discovery of "stuff" that the government--basically, Team Mueller--is withholding. From my point of view, however, dismissal for the grotesquely obvious prosecutorial misconduct is the easy way out for Judge Sullivan. If he wants to, that would allow him to wash his hands of a real can of worms, avoid refereeing an incredibly complex discovery process. Of course, that would also give Barr/Durham the perfect rationale to turn Team Mueller inside out--drag them all in front of Durham's Grand Jury, etc.
The cancellation of oral argument tells us that Judge Sullivan is ready to rule, but not what his ruling will be. I understand, though, that Gen. Flynn’s legal team considers today’s order by Sullivan good news. Its comprehensive discussion of prosecutorial abuse in this matter stands unrebutted.
Right now there's not enough information to properly assess this move. I'm gonna go out on a bit of a limb and say that this is probably window dressing, forced because the Dems are feeling the pressure of public opinion against their Impeachment Theater. My guess is that this vote will largely attempt to legitimate the current process as it is, with a few cosmetic changes. As such it might:
1) Allow for the release of transcripts and a few other measures, moves that they will call "transparency" for PR purposes, but
2) They will continue to conduct the "inquiry" as essentially a Kangaroo Court that denies due process to the President and denies any significant role to GOP Representatives.
We'll probably find out soon.
UPDATE 1: The statement by Pelosi claims that the President will be provided "due process rights." In other words, those due process rights have been denied up till now. What those rights will consist of remains to be seen. For example, will the President be provided with the identity of his primary accuser, the "whistleblower"? Will the President be allowed to call witnesses? Will counsel for the President be allowed to cross examine?
UPDATE 2: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appears to confirm that this is all a game, that the "due process" is "going forward," and Trump or the GOP Representatives won't be allowed to recall past witnesses for public cross examination.
“It’s been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry. Today’s backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment,” McCarthy said.
UPDATE 3: William McGurn at the WSJ points out two things that are relevant to what's going on with Impeachment Theater.
First, Pelosi has still not threatened to go to court to enforce the "subpoenas" in the "inquiry." Clearly, she fears a ruling that the "inquiry" is not an authorized proceeding. If Pelosi were truly determined to get to the truth she would need to use the subpoena power, but that would drag the hearings out all through the primary season at a minimum. That could well be a dagger at the heart of Dem election hopes--such as they may be.
Second, while the ruling by Judge Beryl Howell that the House is entitled to portions of Team Mueller's grand jury information may seem like a victory for Pelosi and the Dems, it also carries a significant threat. That ruling is being appealed by DoJ, and it invites higher courts--potentially, and even probably--right up to the SCOTUS, to consider the argument that the entire Impeachment Theater inquiry is illicit, lacks constitutional status. This is the argument that House Republicans are making and that DoJ is also entitled to make: The Constitution gives power to initiate impeachment proceedings to the House of Representatives as a whole--not to the Speaker. While a vote to initiate proceedings isn't mentioned in the Constitution, voting is the means by which any legislature acts. Therefore, the presumption should be that the House must vote to begin impeachment proceedings. No vote, no authority, and it's all a game with no cognizable standing--neither the Senate nor any court would be required to pay any attention to Impeachment Theater.
While Pelosi's vote may appear to be a remedy for that argument, it isn't. To remedy that argument the Dems would need to start the inquiry all over again in order to afford standard due process rights. But this vote only purports to authorize what's already going on, without any vote on initiating impeachment proceedings. The problem remains.
UPDATE 4: Here's a really good video of Laura Ingraham interviewing John Yoo and Alan Dershowitz on the events of yesterday. I earlier posted a snatch from the video the Ukrainian spy in the White House, but this is the full interview and it features these two top notch law professors going into Constitutional issues on impeachment. Laura, of course, is no slouch herself on these matters, so it's well worth watching for 7-8 minutes:
UPDATE 5: And here's a good article, not too long, by a guy who's been teaching law at Yale since 1981. In it he describes the stakes--will the US Constitution be tossed overboard and the US government transformed into a sort of EU West?
Back in July, 2018, I wrote about What The Carter Page Case Tells Us About The Flaws In FISA. While researching that topic I came across an article by Judge Robert Bork in which he criticized the proposed FISA law--Bork was writing in March, 1978, before the law was actually enacted. Among other incisive comments by Bork was the observation that FISA would amount to a stay out of jail card for government bureaucrats--investigators and prosecutors. Here's the last part of my blog, in which I quote Bork in part--do yourself a favor and follow the link to his full article:
--------------------------
ADDENDUM: Since writing the above, on Monday, I've become aware that Judge Robert Bork--way back in March, 1978--wrote an article for the WSJ in which he expressed serious reservations about the very nature of the court envisioned by FISA, which was then being pushed through Congress: 'Reforming' Foreign Intelligence. Bork's views have been referenced twice by William McGurn in the WSJ, most recently on 7/23/18, Abolish the FISA Court, and previously on 3/6/17, Robert Bork and the FISA Follies. Here is a sampling of Bork's views on the proposed FISC, which appear in light of developments to have been quite prescient. The entire article is well worth the read:
Re the role of FISC judges:
"The job is managerial, not judicial, and the two should not be mixed."
"judges cannot become adequately informed about intelligence to make the sophisticated judgments required."
"The element of judicial secrecy is particularly troubling. Because it reverses our entire tradition, it is difficult to think of secret decisions as 'law' ... it would set apart a group of judges who must operate largely in the dark and create rules known only to themselves. ... it debases an important idea to term it the rule of law ..."
“the law would almost certainly increase unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information simply by greatly widening the circle of people with access to it.”
“When an attorney general must decide for himself, without shield of a warrant, whether to authorize surveillance, and must accept the consequences if things go wrong, there is likely to be more care taken. The statute, however, has the effect of immunizing everyone, and sooner or later that fact will be taken advantage of.”
Indeed, take an examination of the battleground states that Democrats almost certainly need to make inroads into in 2020. The New York Times and Siena College, 2018's most accurate pollster, took a poll of voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Arizona. These were closest states in the country that cast their electoral votes for Trump in 2016.
Just 43% of voters in these six states want to impeach and remove from office at this point. The majority, 53%, do not. This means that the margin for not impeaching and removing Trump in these states (+10 points) is running well ahead of Trump's margin in these states of about 1.5 points. Put another way, impeaching and removing Trump from office in these states is not a popular position.
Moran comments:
Consider this: The longer this impeachment drive goes on, the more angry people are going to get. It is not inconceivable that the more cautious Democrats, who didn't want to start this drama in the first place, may have been right; impeaching Trump could very well be their electoral undoing in 2020.
I've used material from Larry C. Johnson regularly. Johnson is a former CIA analyst turned pundit. His track record, in my opinion, has been variable. For what it's worth he is writing that Gina Haspel, CIA Director is cooperating with Barr. He starts this blog out with some news that's simply not news, but finishes with scuttlebut about Haspel. Again, FWIW--Exposing John Brennan's Secret CIA Trump Task Force?
I was chatting last night with a retired CIA colleague, a person well connected to many folks still working at our former employer, and he dropped a bombshell--he had learned that John Brennan set up a Trump Task Force at CIA in early 2016.
...
I am also hearing that CIA Director Gina Haspel is cooperating. She was the CIA Chief of Station in London when this Task Force was up a running but my friend says she was kept out of the loop. She and Brennan have a history and it is not friendly. Brennan blocked her from getting a top assignment in what used to be known as the "Directorate of Operations." So no love lost between the two.
This goes somewhat counter to what we've been hearing, which is that Haspel and Brennan were close. Of course, it's also possible that for her own reasons Haspel has turned on Brennan. That's acceptable, too.
ADDENDUM: That was just too short, so ... from Babylon Bee
Motorcyclist Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record
October 25th, 2019
NEW YORK, NY—In an inspiring story from the world of professional cycling, a motorcyclist who identifies as a bicyclist has crushed all the regular bicyclists, setting an unbelievable world record.
In a local qualifying race for the World Road Cycling League, the motorcyclist crushed the previous 100-mile record of 3 hours, 13 minutes with his amazing new score of well under an hour.
Professional motorcycle racer Judd E. Banner, the brave trans-vehicle rider, was allowed to race after he told league organizers he's always felt like a bicyclist in a motorcyclist's body.
"Look, my ride has handlebars, two wheels, and a seat," he told reporters as he accepted a trophy for his incredible time trial. "Just because I've got a little extra hardware, such as an 1170-cc flat-twin engine with 110 horsepower, doesn't mean I have any kind of inherent advantage here."
Banner also said he painted the word "HUFFY" on the side of his bike, ensuring he has no advantage over the bikes that came out of the factory as bicycles.
Some critics say he needs to cut off his motor in order to make the competition fairer, but he quickly called these people bigots, and they were immediately banned from professional cycle racing.
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley have authored what amounts to a primer on impeachment, and an incisive critique of the ongoing Impeachment Theater in the House. The article appears behind the WSJ paywall, but it also appears free of charge at MSN: This Impeachment Subverts the Constitution. In my opinion they do a fine job of explaining exactly that--that the House's Impeachment Theater goes far beyond disgraceful partisanship and really does threaten our constitutional order. Here are their credentials:
Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. She is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.
Before getting to some extended excerpts from the article to illustrate their approach and hopefully entice one and all to read the full article, I'll insert the relevant portions of the Constitution--all from Article I, and edited for relevance. I'll also add some comments of my own:
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Here the Congress is identified as a legislative body, separated into two chambers. The important point is that by its very nature a legislative body acts by voting. That's the first assault on the Constitution that we see in Impeachment Theater. The House is not acting as a legislative body but rather as an assembly of a political party which tolerates, but only barely, the presence of non-members, without affording them equal status. Of course the House sets its own rules, as does the Senate, but in doing it must act with the framework of the Constitution. That means that the House cannot renounce its essential nature as a legislative body--yet that appears to be what is happening. This is simply the way that Leftists operate, whether in a legislature or sitting as judges in a court.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Which is to say, that the power of impeachment is vested in the House as a whole, not in the Speaker and not in the majority. Further, a legislative body acts by voting--not by staging press conferences.
Section 3. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
My reading of this may be slightly different from the view of the eminent authors. I take this to mean that no other body than the Senate may try any impeachment, but the Senate is not necessarily obligated by its possession of this power to conduct a trial solely upon the referral to it of articles of impeachment by the House. The authors arrive at a similar conclusion, but I'd have preferred that they stated this as above and had thought better of using the word "obligation."
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Section 9. No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
You'll see the relevance of this as you read. The authors liken Impeachment Theater to a proceeding under a "bill of attainder," which is something that we see is proscribed by the Constitution. A bill of attainder is "a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person." What we see in Impeachment Theater is that no specific impeachable offense has been alleged--only general allegations are made. Shockingly, in alleging grounds for investigation Speaker Pelosi has falsified a clear record of the events that are supposedly in question: Pelosi's Outrageous Fake Narrative Of Impeachment.
Fox's Ed Henry interviewed a former US Attorney, Brett Tolman, regarding the Flynn case and the Russia Hoax in general. You can find a portion of the interview and some of Tolman's remarks here: Michael Flynn's claim against FBI is 'chilling'. What I want to do here is to point out those remarks that show the importance of predication, and how that lead to further investigation of the investigators, as well as the prosecutors:
A defense claim that FBI agents manipulated official records, leading to Michael Flynn being charged with lying to investigators, is "chilling," former Utah U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman said Saturday.
The former national security adviser's legal team filed an explosive motion Thursday, alleging that FBI agents manipulated records of Flynn’s 2017 interview.
This comes as U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation.
Appearing on "Fox & Friends: Weekend," Tolman told host Ed Henry that what's interesting about Flynn's conviction is that the government "has to prove that it was knowingly and willfully a misrepresentation by Flynn."
"So, now what you have are allegations that may suggest this couldn't have been knowingly and it couldn't have been willfully if it was staged or if there was manipulation," Tolman said.
"How was it willful if he thinks he's having a conversation that is not an interview with a federal agency?" he asked.
Yesterday I did a short blog on how the Republicans are wiping the floor with the Dems from the standpoint of fundraising and organization: Why The Republican National Committee Has Dems "Freaking Out". Today the indispensable Don Surber reviews an article by Ed Kilgore. Surber begins by examining the absurd Lefty fantasy that Trump is an "authoritarian"--it's pure projection, of course: Emperor Trump? Why not? But then Surber goes on to conclude by presenting some interesting data that Kilgore presents regarding voter enthusiasm, and what that data portends:
Kilgore wrote, "For me the recent benchmark of voter enthusiasm was the 2008 election that lifted Barack Obama to the presidency (I will never forget the citywide street celebration that broke out in Washington the minute he was forecast as the winner). Just before that election, 37 percent of registered voters said they were extremely enthusiastic about voting, with 32 percent very enthusiastic. That’s right: More than a year out, we’re at or above 2008 levels of voter enthusiasm. And the percentage of extremely enthusiastic folks is a lot higher."
That is a good sign for President Trump, and a bad sign for the resistance.
Kilgore wrote, "79 percent of registered voters who give Trump a positive job-approval rating are either extremely (53 percent) or very (26 percent) enthusiastic about voting in 2020. Among registered voters who disapprove of Trump, 66 percent are extremely (43 percent) or very (23 percent) enthused. All the other cross-tabs tell a similar story: White folks are more enthusiastic about voting than nonwhite folks; old folks are more psyched than young folks; Republicans are more whipped up than Democrats."
79% of Republican voters are pumped. 66% of Democrat voters are.
President Trump won 30 states with 63 million voters in 2016. Democrats must peel some percentage of those voters away.
Does anyone have a link to a story about any Trump voters regretting their vote?
Didn't think so.
Four more years of President Trump. We choose to remain a republic, not an empire.
So, Republicans are killing it on fundraising, organization, and voter enthusiasm. In fact, the more Dems talk impeachment the greater those advantages become for Republicans. Sounds good to me.
Back in May, 2019, we learned that John Durham, US Attorney for Connecticut, had been picked by the relatively recently appointed Attorney General, Bill Barr, "to examine the origins of the Russia Hoax." I wrote about that event here: US Attorney John Durham To Examine Origins Of Russia Hoax. We were told something vague about this. Durham was "examining" things, or "reviewing" them. Whatever that means. Not the type of thing that prosecutors do.
At that time I pointed out the significance of Barr's pick, and then added some additional details. In this excerpt from the linked post please note, among other things, the word "predication." Barr suspected "something criminal" in the very origin of the investigation, which means in the "predication," which distills that origin. And that criminal taint flows from Crossfire Hurricane to the Team Mueller Witchhunt. Barr has always understood that (as have readers here):
-------------------
ADDENDUM: Will Chamberlain says the appointment of Durham--who has a history of having jailed a dirty FBI agent--may have spoiled the day for Comey, McCabe, Strzok. He calls this a "serious escalation" on Barr's part.
If I were the Democrats I would be quite worried. And the reason why is by appointing a US attorney Attorney General Barr is essentially signaling that he thinks it’s possible that criminal violations occurred in the start of the whole investigation into any kind of Trump-Russia collusion. As Judge Starr said there is already an inspector general investigation that’s been going on that’s going to come to a conclusion. [An inspector general investigation is] what you’d do if you were just interested in reforming… But you wouldn’t go with a US attorney like Durham or someone of his stature unless the Attorney General thinks actually something criminal might have happened.
In other words, Barr suspects criminality in the predication--the very foundation of the Russia Hoax on which everything else rests.
UPDATE 2: For those wondering "when's Barr gonna do something," it turns out that, according to Fox News, Durham has been at work on the origins of the Russia Hoax "for weeks." So Barr hit the ground running. Or to put it slightly differently, he's operating on the principle that a rolling stone gathers no moss. Question: What happens to someone who finds himself in front of that rolling stone?
-------------------------
The next thing to note is that, in the UPDATE, we learn that, although this news is coming in May, Durham has been at work on the origins of the Russia Hoax "for weeks." So, Barr became AG on February 14, 2019, and we learn in mid-May that Durham has been on the job "for weeks." Note that: not "for a few weeks," just "for weeks." How many weeks is that, exactly?
The other day we learned that Durham's "review" (or whatever) had morphed into a criminal investigation, with Grand Jury powers. At that time I expressed the view that I would be surprised if Durham's investigation hadn't been a criminal investigation for some time, whether or not a Grand Jury had been empanelled. That was speculation. Today I've come across a twitter thread by Greg Rubini dating back to mid-August which provides fascinating evidence that John Durham may have been on the case not just "for weeks" but "for months." As in, since September of 2018 at the latest!
Just to correct some reports I saw yesterday, Andrew McCabe has NOT dismissed his wrongful dismissal lawsuit against the DOJ and FBI - at least not yet. He dismissed his related *FOIA* lawsuit.
I've been saying for months that the Team Mueller Witchhunt was based on the same bogus predication as the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The Flynn case is similar. If an investigation is fraudulently started--in other words, based on invented predication, predication that's known to be untrue--then there is a strong case for suppressing all information that is gathered from the ensuing investigation. This is all the more true when the investigation fails to turn up any wrongdoing or when the wrongdoing is strictly of a "process" type.
With that in mind, consider the ruling of Obama judge Beryl Howell. You can get the details at CTH: Federal Judge Beryl Howell Grants House Judiciary Committee Access to Mueller Grand Jury Material. Sundance makes the point that the whole point of Mueller's Grand Jury investigation was to gather evidence for impeachment, to hand over to Jerry Nadler. They found nothing on "Russian collusion." And Barr said, look, firing Comey was not illegal, so you can't claim that that firing obstructed the collusion investigation. And nothing else that Trump did amounted to obstruction.
Well, shouldn't that Grand Jury material remain secret? I think it should, and the ruling will surely be appealed.
But there's another angle to this, and it's one that comes to the fore now with the revelations in the Flynn case of egregious misconduct in the Team Mueller prosecution of Flynn. And then there's Powell's contention that I cited as "key": That the FBI had no basis in the first place to investigate Flynn at all.
We also know that "predication"--or, more specifically, the lack thereof--is at the heart of Barr's investigation. He's said so himself. That means he's questioning whether there was any basis for opening Crossfire Hurricane, and that must also mean that he questions the predication for its continuation: The Team Mueller Witchhunt.
If that's true, and if Barr has evidence at this point to make that argument, then he has a very strong argument to ultimately overturn Judge Howell's politically motivated ruling. Because the Grand Jury material produced by Mueller's witchhunt was based on a fraudulent investigation. Remember: Lead investigator Peter Strzok said just before the Witchhunt started up, we know there's "no there there." It was illegal, and the GJ material should be the fruit of a poisonous tree--and should be suppressed. Even destroyed.
Smart move if true. Baker, of course, was Comey's in-house counsel at the FBI:
BREAKING: Former FBI general counsel James Baker has reportedly ‘flipped’ and is now cooperating with the Barr-Durham investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation - @OANN
“Andrew McCabe was offered a pre-indictment plea agreement and turned it down. So US attorney Durham has impaneled a grand jury...John Brennan and James Clapper should be put under oath and questioned too.” — @marklevinshow
Before we get to Larry Johnson, I want to briefly recap the core of Dan Bongino's show today (h/t commenter Cassander). The core of Bongino's show, Why is John Brennan Melting Down? is the big picture of the Russia Hoax. I've written about much of this at one time or another, as have others, but Bongino gathers all the threads together into a coherent presentation. Here's how it works, in outline:
The Russia Hoax was an operation of the Hillary campaign.
As such, it was largely the brainchild of Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, with help from Nellie Ohr.
But a major role was played by George Soros. Soros wanted to run Ukraine as a private fiefdom and, of course, enrich himself further. To that end, Soros, as usual provided lots of money to the Dems running the US government, who obligingly harassed Soros' rivals in Ukraine. In return, Soros ensured Ukrainian cooperation against Trump.
John Brennan provided Christopher Steele. The reason Steele was needed was that, in order to instigate an FBI investigation of Trump/his campaign, a frontman with credibility was needed--an ex-MI6 spook was perfect. An oppo research firm like Fusion GPS would never have worked.
The buck for all of the US government cooperation with Soros stops, of course, in the Oval Office. We know that Obama was in on the planned coup. All the rest of what we've been following falls under this umbrella. Some of this may take a bit of a different shape, but I believe that as a big picture it works.
One last thing before Larry Johnson. Many of you saw John Ratcliffe on Fox last night. Ratcliffe stated as fact that the nearly simultaneous announcement from IG Horowitz that his report would be coming out shortly with minimal redaction and from DoJ that Barr/Durham was now a criminal investigation with Grand Jury powers was not a coincidence. The announcements were related.
That's the theme of an article at RCP: Dems Beware -- the RNC Is Crushing It. If you thought the Flynn case was as much good news as you could handle in a day, read on:
... the Republican National Committee’s formidable operation has Democrats freaking out.
For months Democrats have worried about a potentially lethal combination of Trump’s incumbency advantage coupled with the unparalleled strength of the GOP organization -- and that was before their newfound fear that they may not end up with a suitable nominee to take on even a deeply embattled Trump. While he rants on Twitter and holds campaign rallies, Democrats in a primary race get little notice or coverage. Meanwhile the Trump campaign is carpet-bombing Facebook with ads and the RNC is spreading a volunteer army across key swing states, all while breaking fundraising records allowing them to deploy critical resources nearly a year before a Democrat is nominated.
Whoever thought this fight would start in the general election campaign had it all wrong. This terrifying realization is now causing allies of former Vice President Joe Biden to mull the creation of a super PAC since he is not only struggling to raise adequate sums but has been forced to fend off attacks by Trump months before the first votes in the primary contest will even be cast.
In August, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez acknowledged the threat after the RNC tripled the amount the DNC raised in July. In an email he sent supporters sounding the alarm, he wrote that “our eventual nominee won't stand a chance against Trump and the GOP’s fundraising machine unless we start making strategic, early investments right now.”
It was clear in September, when the RNC quadrupled the DNC total, that those investments have yet to materialize. September was the best non-election-year month for the RNC in history for either party, raising $27.3 million to the DNC’s $6.9 million. The RNC is carrying no debt; the DNC is carrying $7.2 million. The RNC has $59.2 million cash on hand while the DNC has $8.6 million. The RNC’s 2019 total is $168.7 million while the DNC has raised only $66.5 million this year.
The combined total raised online from small donors in the third quarter between the RNC, the Trump campaign and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee was $45 million, with a surge of 313,000 first-time small-dollar donors just in that quarter.
Impeachment has been a boon to GOP fundraising and grassroots organizing. Since the official start of impeachment, $10.3 million has been spent between the RNC and the Trump campaign in ads on air and online and the RNC has held 60 events in swing or Trump districts held by Democrats, and in Senate and gubernatorial races, just since Sept. 30.
Yes, I highlighted this in red, but I'll repeat it: Impeachment has been a boon to GOP fundraising and grassroots organizing. And it will only get better with the steady drumbeat of revelations about the Russia Hoax.
The big story of the day, and the big story until IG Horowitz's FISA report comes out, is of course the latest filing by Sidney Powell in the Michael Flynn case. And, of course, the shockwaves from this filing aren't about to fade away, because they go to the very heart of the Russia Hoax--the targeting of "four Americans" associated with the Trump campaign, the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane "enterprise counterintelligence investigation," and the continuation of the entire hoax in the Team Mueller Witchhunt.
The first section of Powell's reply in support of her motion to compel the production of Brady (exculpatory) material is shocking, of course. It had long been known that the FBI and prosecutors had engaged in egregious misconduct--criminal misconduct--to secure the conviction of Flynn and compel him to cooperate against President Trump to force Trump from office. Expected as these revelation were, nevertheless, speaking from the perspective of nearly 30 years as a Special Agent of the FBI, I still find myself stunned by these revelations. These were not the rogue actions of a lone agent. This was a conspiracy that involved, essentially, the entire top management of the FBI and large elements of the DoJ.
Still, for me the key is the second section, in which Powell makes the point that--all other misconduct aside--the FBI had no legitimate reason to be investigating in the first place. Here is the beginning paragraph, with its associated footnote, which sums it up:
What was going on here is that, in the words Powell uses to describe the way in which the FBI prepared to interview Flynn:
high-ranking FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview of the new president’s National Security Advisor, not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity—they already had tapes of all the relevant conversations about which they questioned Mr. Flynn—but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they could allege as false.
Yes, that presumes that Flynn will have all charges dismissed--I can't see that not happening at this point.
Flynn will have a lot to talk about, a lot of payback to dish out, and it will all be directed at Democrats. Think about it. A decorated general whose career was gratuitously destroyed by Leftists of the Deep State--FBI, CIA, DoJ--sworn enemies of President Trump, touring the country and speaking about what the Dems did to his life, his son, etc. Ugly. Very ugly.
And there's another group I hope he takes on--military types speaking out for the Dems, interfering in politics: Now the Generals Speak Up? The Left has trotted them forward to attack Trump, and I definitely want to see Flynn calling them out by name.
Big losers? All Dem candidates, starting with Biden, who was at the Oval Office meetings when the coup was being plotted.
Top questions to come out of the Flynn case, which--remember--goes back to 2014: Obama, Biden, Hillary--What did they know and when did they know it.
Mueller and Weissmann should be in the crosshairs over this, along with many others in the top levels at DoJ and FBI.
Anyone seen or heard from Rod Rosenstein recently? Wanna bet he's been singing like a bird to Barr/Durham? I hope he's done a Mifsud and put it all on tape.
Follow this link for a good Geraldo interview that ends up focusing on 'How High Does It Go?'
Here's another really big loser: James Clapper, last heard from urging David Ignatius of the WaPo to take the "kill shot" on Flynn by publishing highly classified information that was leaked to Ignatius. How would you like to go in front of a jury to explain that--urging a "kill shot" on a decorated general who has been put through hell on known to be false charges? Clapper better have something really good to offer Barr/Durham.
And speaking of David Ignatius ...
The media--Big Losers. David Ignatius revealed as a Dem hitman? Wanna bet that's not the last similar revelation.
Apologies in advance. I've got lots of reading today. I think we all know the implications, we've known all along, but now it's happening.
For a few hours I'll try to enable comments regularly. However, I do like to respond to people who take the time to comment, and that may be slower than usual today.
It wasn't available before bedtime (mine) last night, but is now. It's long and detailed and will take time to digest. Early reviews appear totally devastating. I have some reading to do.
ADDENDUM: I've only read the summary at CTH so far, will spend the morning reading the whole thing. "Totally devastating" seems a pretty fair initial assessment.
This strikes at the heart not only of the original Russia Hoax but it's Team Mueller continuation.
WASHINGTON — For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.
Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.
I'm not sure how much of this is really true or not. I've been saying all along that the whole big deal in the Russia Hoax is--PREDICATION. What predication really was there to open Crossfire Hurricane at the end of July, 2016. But as I've also been saying endlessly, given that the Mueller Witchhunt was explicitly a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane--we have Rod Rosenstein's word in writing for that--then you can't investigate the one without impacting the other. If Crossfire Hurricane's predication was bogus, then so was the predication for the Mueller Witchhunt bogus.
The only two questions are: Who knew that, and when did they know that? Conveniently, we have two of the founding members of Team Mueller texting each other--Strzok and Page, the dynamic duo--and Strzok says they both know there's "no there there." If Strzok, the lead agent for Crossfire Hurricane, knows that it's all a hoax immediately before the startup of the Mueller Witchhunt, then how could it possibly be that McCabe, Rosenstein, and Mueller wouldn't also know that? Either Strzok was playing them and is the evil genius behind it all, or they were all in on it. And, anyway, each of them had an independent duty to determine whether the predication was good or not, so I'm betting that they were all in on it.
Bill Barr gets this, and always has. The NYT article quotes him to that effect:
The Hill is reporting that Mitch McConnell has come out in support of Lindsey Graham's resolution condemning the ongoing Impeachment Theater. The Graham resolution, according to Salon, claims that Impeachment Theater is "unconstitutional" as regards actual impeachment. More interestingly, he suggested, as I have, that if the House should now forward an impeachment article to the Senate the Senate should dismiss it without a trial:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., claimed that any impeachment article against President Donald Trump should be “dismissed in the Senate without a trial."
Graham, who recently criticized Trump for abandoning America’s Kurdish allies in Syria, appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Tuesday to defend the president against the ongoing impeachment inquiry. (Hannity is known as an informal adviser to the president.)
"What the House of Representatives is doing is a process of political revenge. It is alien to American due process,” Graham said. "It should be dismissed quickly in the United States Senate."
Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the probe was “unconstitutional” and “illegitimate,” because Republicans have allegedly [!] been prevented from calling witnesses. Graham said he would introduce a resolution condemning the impeachment inquiry, which will state that any impeachment articles should be dismissed “without a trial.”
“We cannot allow future presidents and this president to be impeached based on an inquiry in the House that has never been voted upon, that does not allow the president to confront the witnesses against him, call witnesses on his behalf and cross-examine people that are accusing him of misdeeds,” Graham said.
Obviously, the resolution won't get the needed 60 votes, but it's still of interest in putting GOPers on record in a significant way. One theory would welcome a Senate trial as an opportunity to garner greater public attention for a wide ranging inquiry into the entire plot against Trump--starting with the Russia Hoax. The other view is that as a constitutional matter these House Dem shenanigans shouldn't be dignified by a Senate trial. That would be a public rebuke that could have political impact.
