How Deep Will Durham Go?

If Adam Housley is to be credited, the Durham investigation will go beyond the Russia Hoax and may get into issues that ultimately relate to the fake impeachment. Here's my reasoning.

Today Housley tweeted:

The corruption runs deep and through both parties and it ain’t gonna look good when it’s all said and done. 

It ain’t about Republican and Democrat anymore…it really isn’t. People were given the opportunity to do the right thing and some chose wrong. It’s about right versus wrong. 

Names to watch…McMaster. Rosenstein….McCain. This crosses party lines and you all need to be prepared. This isn’t about being pro Trump, or anti Trump. You ALL need to understand that….and you need to be willing to call it out irrespective of party. 

Major issues within the FBI. An agency that I love as you guys know. But major issues. Sides being taken and even amongst former agents, a lot of frustration. Especially outside of headquarters. 

Wray should have cut out the cancer and didn’t.

The key here, I think, is McMaster. With Rosenstein and McCain we're basically talking about the Russia Hoax, pure and simple. True, Rosenstein's involvement in the Mueller Witchhunt leads to impeachment, but not directly. I think we can distinguish Rosenstein from McMaster in that regard.

While it's true that with McMaster we could be dealing with leaks, nevertheless the fact that McMaster took Eric Ciaramella as his personal aide is highly suggestive. It's a far more direct link to fake impeachment than anything else we can come up with.

If Durham is seriously looking at McMaster--as I very much hope--then Barr's characterization of the Durham investigation as "sprawling" takes on a whole new meaning.

What Will Barr Do About Rosenstein?

It's no secret that Rod Rosenstein is one of the chief villains in the unraveling of truth, justice, and the American Way that we call The Russia Hoax. But for Rod Rosenstein's despicable conduct, his betrayal of the nation, virtually none of this would have gotten past square one.

I was pleased to read Michael Goodwin's article today--Piecing together the ‘phony’ case against Michael Flynn--and to see that he devoted the last part of a fine article to the important issue of Barr's unfinished business with Rosenstein. I assume that Rosenstein is cooperating, having turned on those he enabled in the first place. Goodwin nicely summarizes the effects of Rosenstein's perfidy:

Barr also must resolve the conduct of former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. When former AG Jeff Sessions recused himself, Rosenstein took over the Russia probe and appointed Mueller as special counsel. 

A highly questionable move then, it now looks far more sinister, given the misconduct by Mueller’s team on the Flynn case and other issues. 

Moreover, Rosenstein himself was involved in the FISA court abuse, having signed an extension of the Page warrant without admitting that the FBI failed to verify the Steele dossier or that Clinton’s campaign commissioned it. 

Any of these was sufficient reason to pull the plug on Mueller by early 2018. Yet Rosenstein allowed the probe to continue into 2019. 

The impact was enormous. It is possible, for example, that Dems would not have taken the House if voters knew by the fall of 2018 that the collusion charge was false. 

In that case, Nancy Pelosi would not have become Speaker and Schiff would not have had the power to conceal the 2017 testimonies. 

Flynn would not have lost two more years of his life and there would have been no phony Ukraine impeachment last year. In short, America would have been a very different place politically. 

So as the hunt for pieces of the puzzle continues, add Rosenstein to the list of those who have some serious explaining to do.

Jim Jordan Goes After Chris Wray

Congressman Jim Jordan appeared on Fox and Friends this morning. Probably the most notable aspect of the exchanges was the ferocity with which Jordan attacked waste of space FBI Director Chris Wray. He ridiculed Wray repeatedly, focusing on Wray's pathetic attempts to soft peddle FISA abuse, but also on the Flynn case. Here are some excerpts--mostly out of context--that TGP ran that will give a flavor:

Rep. Jim Jordan: “And now we learn that they set up the General Mike Flynn just days into the administration! What I want to know is why didn’t Bob Mueller tell us this? Remember we were told… this is the greatest guy who ever came to Washington. This is the greatest thing since sliced bread. He’s the most honest guy since George Washington. Why didn’t he tell us this and more importantly, where’s Christopher Wray? Why didn’t we learn any of this from him? Thank goodness for Sidney Powell or Bill Barr or we would have never got this information… Again why didn’t we hear this from Chris Wray? ... Again if they can do this to a three star general, if they can do this to the President of the United States, imagine what they can do to you and me?

Here are a few more excerpts that I liked. Steve set up the context for the Flynn case admirably:

Steve: It now looks ... somebody at the FBI, somebody at the Department of Justice, was out to get Flynn, essentially entrap him, ... so that they could get rid of him, embarrass the Trump administration--a *gut punch* just at the time of the inauguration.

Exactly. The Flynn setup wasn't just about Flynn. It was intended at a minimum to cripple the Trump administration, but the more likely maximum intent was to create a public firestorm to force Trump to resign or be impeached right at the start.

Jordan returns to the main point:

Jordan: Christopher Wray needs to tell us what he's been up to these last two and a half years he's been Director of the FBI.

Jordan: But the people at the top [of the FBI], remember what Bill Barr said a year ago? He said there was 'a failure of leadership at the upper echelon of the FBI'. That may be the greatest understatement ever. Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page ... 

Steve: Explain how this [the Durham investigation, the Jensen review, etc., all put in place by Bill Barr] could be part of a bigger picture ... 

Jordan: Well said. ... The big question: What 'they' did before him [Barr].
Jordan: All these things happening ... The only thing we had wrong is, it was worse than we thought.

I think Jordan gets the scope of the Durham investigation: Everything that happened before Barr took over as AG. That means the Mueller Witchhunt, and the Mueller Witchhunt was no more than the prelude to impeachment. While it fizzled in that regard, for the most part, some of the same important players were involved in the impeachment hoax as were involved in the Russia hoax and the Flynn setup--notably Mary McCord.

I think this is why Durham's investigation keeps extending. He's making real progress and increasingly believes he can get to the end of that road: Mueller and fake impeachment.

A mark of disgrace in all this goes to sundance at CTH, who chose to run a lengthy screed attacking Bill Barr. Sundance makes the moronic claim that the Jensen review of the Flynn case occurred only because the FISC demanded that a review be done of all cases connected to the Carter Page FISA. The Jensen review was totally unconnected to the Carter Page FISA. The US routinely conducts electronic surveillance of Russian establishments. The Flynn case had no need to rely on the Carter Page FISA--the intercept of Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was pure routine.

MAJOR FAKE NEWS UPDATE: Early Intel Warnings Of Potential Danger Of Pandemic

ABC News is running with an important story that provides detail on the US Intel Community's (IC) early knowledge of the Wuhan Virus' potential for catastrophic impact on the world--or, at a minimum, on US miltary forces in Asia: Intelligence report warned of coronavirus crisis as early as November. Obviously this story--and it is obvious, if you read the whole thing--is trying to pin the blame for what's happening currently in the US on Trump. So, before I provide some excerpts from ABC, I'll lead with the intro to Zerohedge's coverage--US Intelligence Warned Of "Cataclysmic" Coronavirus Crisis As Impeachment Dominated Headlines:

While Congressional Democrats dominated headlines with their impeachment of President Trump - who was ultimately acquitted by the Senate, US intelligence officials were sounding the alarm that a serious illness was sweeping through China's Wuhan region.

The idea of the ABC reporting seems to be that a president who is being impeached shouldn't miss a beat in anticipating potential--not actual--disease threats. And the perpetrators of what was clearly a constitutionally fraudulent impeachment--indeed, an Impeachment Theater event--should bear no responsibility. In my view that will be a losing narrative, just as the Russia Hoax was. OTOH, it will require skill and determination to turn it aside.

Beyond that, however, another bit of context may be helpful. Apparently the CDC is saying that they were basically misled by the Chicoms and by the WHO. They thought that what was happening in China was another SARS-Classic event that, while serious, could be contained. While wrong, that was not a totally misguided assessment, given the history of past SARS outbreaks in China, from 2003 on. Thus they remained focused on the developing flu season. What CDC didn't yet realize was that SARS-CoV-2 was, in epidemiological terms, a decisive development over SARS-Classic that gave the new virus much greater potential for a pandemic breakout. The thinking at CDC reflected informed epidemiological thinking as found in Michael Osterholm's 2017 book, which classified SARS as a regional epidemic threat but new flu strains as potential pandemic threats--potential global threats.

Thus, Trump--besides being greatly occupied with all the resistance shenanigans and the Impeachment Theater throughout the months of the Covid19 buildup and breakout--from November, 2019, to the end of January, 2020--would have been receiving conflicting accounts of the novel virus: those from the IC and those from the CDC.

All that said, there is definite material of interest in ABC's reporting, mostly IMO with regard to what it tells us about China. Here are the opening paragraph's from ABC, which cover the essential details:

Is Adam Schiff Our Sovereign?

If he's not, then he shouldn't be able to get away with claiming Sovereign Immunity to avoid turning over to Judicial Watch the records pertaining to Schiff's secret subpoenas for phone records that Schiff issued during his Impeachment Theater. Those subpoenas led to the publication of the private phone records of Rudy Giuliani, Congressman Devin Nunes, journalist John Solomon, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow, attorney Victoria Toensing, and others.

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the common-law right of public access to examine government records after it received no response to a December 6, 2019, records request (Judicial Watch v. Adam Schiff and U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (No. 1:19-03790).

Judicial Watch announced today [March 19, 2020] that Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the lawsuit against them for the controversial impeachment-related subpoenas for phone records, including those of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer. Schiff and the Committee are being represented by the Office of General Counsel for the House of Representatives. 

In their 14-page motion Schiff and the Committee claim “sovereign immunity;” “Speech or Debate Clause” privilege; immunity from FOIA and transparency law; that the records are secret; and that Judicial Watch and public do not need to see them. 

... 

“Schiff’s new court filing to try to avoid disclosing his abusive subpoenas of confidential phone records suggests he and Congress can secretly subpoena and publish the phone records of any American with zero accountability under law to the people,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Speaker Pelosi and every House member should be asked if they agree that they are above the law and can spy on any American.”

To me, I think Fitton has a strong case against a claims of an increasingly imperial minded Dem House. Congress undoubtedly has investigative powers, but it is not a law enforcement branch of the government. We'll see whether the courts are intimidated.

Let The Appeals Continue!

Today a three judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals, led by a Clinton judge, ruled that DoJ must provide the House Judiciary Committee with the secret Grand Jury material from the Mueller Dossier. Judge Judith Rogers argued that:

the House Judiciary Committee can obtain the information for impeachment investigations of President Trump under an exception for “judicial proceedings,” per the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

“[B]ecause that exception encompasses impeachment proceedings and the committee has established a ‘particularized need’ for the grand jury materials, the order of the district court is affirmed,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the court’s opinion.                

The lower court had claimed that precedent supported the idea that an impeachment trial is akin to a judicial proceeding, citing a case that allowed the disclosure of grand jury material for the impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon. 

Rogers noted that the exception to the grand jury secrecy rule applies in cases “preliminarily [sic] to or in connection with a judicial proceeding,” and that the party requesting it must show a “particularized need.”

I'm going to step right out on the limb and say that this will go to the Supreme Court and will be overruled. I doubt that the SCOTUS will buy the idea that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have anything at all to do with impeachment. Beyond that, however, there's a fascinating article on this topic at SCOTUSblog today by W. Burlette Carter: No. The founders did not want Congress doing criminal investigations – even of Trump. This is who Carter is:

More Winning? WH Counsel And DNI Version

Two developments late today. CTH has pretty good coverage of both, but I'd like to offer a few additional comments.

First, President Trump got a nice victory in court. A three judge panel of the DC Circuit--the most influential in the country--held 2-1 that former White House Counsel Don McGahn did not have to testify for the Impeachment Theater. It's true that the Dem House can appeal to the full Circuit as a next step. I found the panel ruling to be pretty much a no-brainer, and so I regard further appeals as ultimately more losing for Nadler, Pelosi, and Schiff. I just don't see the federal judiciary as about to put the House in charge of the US Government--which would be the strong tendency if the courts should rule in favor of the Dem House's various legal initiatives. As I've said before, Pelosi has openly stated that her Dem House is superior to the Senate, and it doesn't take a legal genius to figure out that she also thinks her Dem House is superior to the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch.

The opinion notes some of those raminfications--from Politico:

Friday's majority opinion, written by GOP appointee Thomas Griffith, goes to the heart of long-running battles over the power balance between Congress and the White House that have played out during Trump’s tenure. 

Echoing arguments Justice Department attorneys had made in the case, Griffith warned that allowing the House to use the courts to enforce the subpoena against McGahn would lead to a flood of hard-to-resolve suits pitting congressional imperatives against executive branch interests. 

“The walk from the Capitol to our courthouse is a short one, and if we resolve this case today, we can expect Congress’s lawyers to make the trip often,” wrote Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush. 

Griffith said opening the courts to that kind of litigation would also discourage lawmakers and the executive branch from the more traditional method of resolving such subpoena fights: negotiation. Congress has long used several tools — cutting off funding, holding up presidential nominees, even impeachment — to help persuade the executive branch. 

“Adjudicating these disputes would displace this flexible system of negotiation, accommodation, and (sometimes) political retaliation with a zero-sum game decided by judicial diktat,” Griffith wrote.

Would You Buy A Book From This Woman?

Or perhaps more to the point, If you were a publisher, why would you advance this woman a seven figure amount of money to write a book?

"This woman" is erstwhile US ambassador to Ukraine and sundry other countries (Somalia is about as sundry as a country can get): Marie Yovanovitch, last seen participating in the Dem's Impeachment Theater. We learn from the NYPost:

Marie Yovanovitch is cashing in with a book deal. 

The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who testified against President Trump at House impeachment hearings is getting seven figures from publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 

The book, a memoir that remains untitled, is expected to be released in spring 2021. 

“Yovanovitch’s book will deliver pointed reflections on the issues confronting America today, and thoughts on how we can shore up our democracy,” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt said in a statement. 

Yovanovitch is represented by the Javelin literary agency, which has handled books for other #resistance icons such as ex-FBI director James Comey and former national security adviser John Bolton.

A lot of people think that "book deals" are really a means to buy people off, or pay them for services rendered--past or future. For example, President Trump has repeatedly pointed to the Obama "book deal"--worth $60 million with Penguin Random House. Also the Obama Netflix deal. Who knows? And of course, that's the point.

But, really, Marie Yovanovitch? Who would want to bet that even a hundred legitimate people would buy her book? That seems like a pretty transparent payoff. Which just goes to show that there's some real money behind Impeachment Theater.

What a country we've become.

Sebastian Gorka: The Counter-Coup Has Begun

Writing at American Greatness today, Sebastian Gorka argues that, in the wake of the Impeachment Theater, President Trump has moved decisively to take control of personnel within his administration. His primary focus, naturally enough, is on the NSC. Whether Trump previously believed he could work with Establishment Deep State figures, or whether he was constrained by the Senate confirmation process to accept such figures in sensitive positions (or a combination of the two possibilities) is difficult to determine. What does seem clear is that Trump appears to be acting on the conviction that personnel is policy. I take note of this article because I don't believe Gorka's pro-Trump credentials have ever been questioned and undoubtedly knows many of the persons involved. 

Toward the end of the article Gorka offers some observations regarding the investigations into the Russia Hoax which are worth considering. He doesn't add anything that hasn't been discussed here, but his previous closeness to Trump lends credibility to these observations:

While many in the MAGA community are still smarting from the Barr Department of Justice’s recent decision not to prosecute corrupt FBI agent Andrew McCabe, they miss the point. The charges in question were related exclusively to his lying to officials over his leaking details to the media about the Clinton email investigation. They have nothing to do with the current, and far, far larger investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax by U.S. Attorney John Durham. No one has been exonerated or had charges dropped against him when it comes to the greatest political conspiracy in modern American history, the use of the FBI, NSA, and CIA to spy on a presidential campaign and White House, Operation Crossfire Hurricane. No one, not McCabe, not Comey, not John Brennan, not Jim Clapper, not Rice, and not Barack Obama. 

Lastly and most promising to those who believe in Lady Justice truly being blindfolded, nothing—and I mean nothing—has leaked from the Durham investigation. In fact the only time that Barr’s handpicked team has said anything on record in relation to its work is to correct the sweeping claims made by the Justice Department’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz that there was no detectable political bias at the highest levels of Obama’s Department of Justice and that the rules for predication were followed. 

Attorney General William Barr may not like the president tweeting about cases that are sub judice, but he is clearly a man on a mission to clean to Augean Stables that are the post-Obama Department of Justice, and in the most under-reported story of the last four years, his man Durham’s mandate was changed from heading an administration review, to heading a criminal investigation, which means he has found evidence of felonious acts and can (is?) impaneling secret grand juries.

UPDATED: Arrests Monday! Or Maybe Tuesday! Or ...

So Lindsey Graham went on with Judge Jeanine last night, and here's what he had to say:

LINDSEY GRAHAM: The Russia investigation, what happened? Half the people behind the Russia investigation are gonna go to jail and Trump was cleared. Hang tight! They come after Trump on Ukraine, and BIDEN blows up! So every time they throw a rock at Trump, THEY get hit. 

So here's what we should look at. Why did the State Department not act when they were told about the conflict of interest with Hunter Biden regarding the Ukraine, right? Who was the "whistleblower"? Does he have contacts on Schiff's staff? Did Colonel Vindman leak information to the "whistleblower"? And as to the FISA warrant, how could you sign the warrant four times and not know the whole thing was off the rails? That's where I come in. 

JUDGE JEANINE: OK, so you're gonna do something. Cuz even the head of the FISA court said it was wrong ... 

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Stay tuned. 

JUDGE JEANINE: ... it was not predicated on probable cause. You know the whole thing. So you're gonna do something. Wanna tell us what you're gonna do? 

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yeah, I'm gonna give a list of witnesses to the Department of Justice that I wanna call. It's gonna be the Case Agent. I wanna find out how this thing got so screwed up. Why didn't they tell about the Russian source who said, 'The dossier's not reliable,' how could it be possible that it never goes up to the top [to Loretta Lynch]? I don't believe--I wanna know what Obama knew about this investigation. I wanna call Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Comey and McCabe, and all the people who worked on this case to find out how it got so off the rails and make sure it never happens again. And I wanna know who in the White House knew about this counterintelligence investigation against the Republican nominee.

Sounds good! Call the case agent, Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Comey and McCabe, and all the people who worked on the Russia Hoax. Where was Loretta during all this? Shoot, call Obama, too!

MORE WINNING: Trump Beats Democrats' Emoluments Lawsuit

Via Zerohedge:

Trump's 'best week' has just gotten a little better, after the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit tossed out Congressional Democrats' third attempt to nail Trump after claiming he is in violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.

In a Friday decision, the court vacated a district court judge's ruling that the Democrats had standing to sue Trump for accepting foreign payments at his Washington DC hotel, according to law.com - adding that the court would not participate in a political debate.

"Because we conclude that the Members lack standing, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss their complaint," said Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Thomas Griffith and David Tatel in a per curiam opinion.

UPDATED: Will Ciaramella Pay A Price? Here's Hoping.

Rand Paul's tweet during the Senate Impeachment Theater repays a close reading. George Parry, former prosecutor does just that this morning

Saving Private Ciaramella

The alleged “whistleblower” may get the whistle blown on himself.

This morning I commented to Ray-SoCal that I wouldn't be surprised if crimes were committed during the Impeachment Theater. Of course, that doesn't mean those crimes would be easy to prove. However, one important revelation during the Impeachment Theater that points in that direction was that we learned that Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko were overheard at the NSC talking about taking President Trump out. As Senator Paul slyly notes, that happened before any talk of a "whistleblower," and in retrospect looks very much like the beginnings of a conspiracy. A conspiracy to do what? Possibly a conspiracy to submit false statements to the Federal government--that's right, it's not just a crime to the FBI, it's a crime to lie to the federal government generally.

Let's see how this could work, following Parry:

Investigate Eric Ciaramella?

Paul Sperry has an interesting take:

Despite making noises of investigating the whistleblower, SSCI Chair Burr wont follow thru, will continue to be coopted by Warner. Trump will have to leverage McConnell to push Burr off SSCI. McConnell is facing reelection vs a Marine w big war chest. He needs Trump & his rallies

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) February 6, 2020

Codevilla On The Revolt Of The Ruling Class

Angelo Codevilla has a good article today about the revolt of the American ruling class. It's a revolt against America's constitutional order. However, before we get into it, I want to raise a point of terminology.

Codevilla repeatedly uses the word "autarchy," especially in the phrase "moral autarchy." Thus:

society’s most influential people have retreated into moral autarchy 

the ruling class’s moral autarchy 

as clear an example as any of that moral autarchy and its grip on institutions

I think the word he really wants is a homophone of autarchy: autarky. In either case, Codevilla would be using the word in a figurative sense, but here's the difference:

autarchy

1. :: noun

Absolute rule or power; autocracy.

1. :: noun

A country under such rule.

1. :: noun

Variant of autarky.

autarky

1. :: noun

A policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports or economic aid.

1. :: noun

A self-sufficient region or country.

I submit that what we'll see is that, when he uses the phrase above, Codevilla is describing "moral autarky." A condition not of absolute power, but of a moral self-sufficiency and nonreliance on moral norms "imported" from the society that they rule. They regard their own norms as self-sufficient.

In any event.

Codevilla's article is at American Greatness: Facing Up To the Revolution. Codevilla is concerned that conservatives may mistakenly think that just because Trump appears to be winning, that means that the ruling class has been defeated. We need to realize that the ruling class--what is referred to as the Establishment, and its Deep State instrumentalities for wielding power--are now in a state of revolt against America itself.

And so he writes:

OMG! For My Next Trick ...

John Solomon's Laptop

You've probably heard or read about this story--John Solomon's laptop being stolen "near the White House." My first reaction was, I can't believe he left the laptop in his car, even if it was backed up. The excerpt below from Zerohedge helps explain that--although there's a lesson in this for all reporters, official or otherwise:

John Solomon's Laptop Stolen Near White House Using 'Sophisticated Device'; Contained Sensitive Data On Ukraine, Bidens 

A thief absconded with John Solomon's laptop on the eve of the Senate impeachment trial, snatching the evidence-filled device out of the investigative journalist's car which was parked near the White House, according to RealClearInvestigations, citing a report by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. 

Solomon told RCI's Paul Sperry that the laptop - which has since been recovered - contained 'notes on Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden and other sensitive information.' 

The case is currently under investigation by a MPD detective. 

     The Secret Service is also involved in the matter, which appears suspicious. Break-ins are rare in the high-security area where the crime occurred, just outside the White House perimeter, and a sophisticated device appears to have been used to get into the vehicle. 

     In the early evening of Jan. 20, the police report states, Solomon’s Apple MacBook laptop and computer bag, valued at around $1,800, were stolen from his 2019 Toyota SUV parked at 1776 F St. NW, across from the White House’s Eisenhower Executive Office Building. No windows were broken, and there were no other signs of forced entry. Authorities suspect the thief or thieves used an electronic jamming device to open the car door lock. 

Nothing else was stolen from the vehicle, according to Solomon, including his US Capitol press security badge. 

The computer bag was discovered the next day a block away from where his car was parked, with the contents dumped out on a picnic bench near the FDIC building - a location with no security cameras which authorities described as one of the rare "dark spots" in the area. 

Solomon says he is working with a computer forensics expert to determine whether any of the information on his laptop was exploited, or if his hard drive was scanned. 

"It's a pretty professional job," said Solomon, adding "but it's probably just a coincidence."

I'd say it's WAY too early to say it's just a coincidence.

Sick People

But you have to believe this is exactly what Trump is hoping for:

WATCH: Democrats are now bragging "This is not going to be the last time this President is impeached."

Democrats are OBSESSED with removing @RealDonaldTrump from office and undoing the 2016 election at any cost. That's what this scam is really about! pic.twitter.com/dIz1OmSey4

— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) February 2, 2020

JUST BECAUSE:

About The Vindmans--And Bolton

I didn't know this, and maybe some regular readers weren't aware of this either. According to an article at American Greatness,

The Vindman Twins Are Creatures of John Bolton

The American people have the former national security advisor to blame for the presence of the self-serving brothers on the National Security Council staff.

Bolton is behind Impeachment Theater in more ways than one. The article states that Bolton in fact hired both of the Vindman twins. It also goes on to make some interesting observations about Bolton's MO which--from everything I've read--sounds in character and the author seems to have the background to know whereof he speaks:

Joseph Duggan is ...is a former White House speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush.

Excerpts:

Rick Scott--Yes!

This is great--sets just the right tone:

I’ve been held hostage with 99 other people in the U.S. Capitol. Why? Because the Democrats hate @realDonaldTrump and are trying to cover up @JoeBiden’s corruption.

Watch the full story ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/MdFvHl5lb5

— Rick Scott (@ScottforFlorida) January 28, 2020

UPDATED: Roberts, CJ--What A ...

Somebody please pull the plug on this!

Sources say Roberts was told an attempt to censor any questions about the whistleblower in general would be rebuked by recorded Senate vote, at which point Roberts retreated and communicated that he would instead censor any mention of the whistleblower's name.

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 30, 2020

UPDATE 1: As we know, Roberts has once again abused his power by obstructing a United States senator in the performance of his duties:

The suppression of one of the most important stories in Washington history--the impeachment "whistleblower"--is breathtaking. The Supreme Court has now joined Congress, the Washington press corps & social media (Facebook & Youtube) in the censorship-cum-cover-up. #BackInTheUSSR!

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) January 30, 2020

I suspect Roberts will end up regretting this.

UPDATE 2: Professor Jonathan Turley weighs in. If you got him to comment anonymously, I suspect he'd say that this wasn't a very smart move by Roberts--guarantees ill will on the part of the majority party in the Senate: