The American Empire And Its Enemies

Most of us live within what we consider to be a republic. In that republic the citizens vote and elect representives who will pass laws, carry out the executive functions of government, and appoint judges to administer the law. All three of these "branches" of our constitutional order are charged with upholding the Constitution.

Of course, that outline is increasingly seen to be hopelessly simplistic. For conservatives it's an ideal to be restored. For "progressives," it's an instrument of oppression that stands in the way of a fundamental transformation of American society (Obama's words)--this constitutional order is to be resisted and ultimately overthrown.

The Impeachment Theater, flowing from the Ukraine Hoax, has revealed a different America--one that few of us truly feel that we belong to: the American Empire. For most Americans our foreign policy is intended to safeguard our security at home, not to police the world in the name of a non-national ideology of Globalism. And yet, what's being revealed in the Impeachment Theater is that there exists a confederation of interests--both within the government as well as outside (but very much connected with) the government--that view America as an empire. These interests are broadly bi-partisan--think: Uniparty, as sundance at CTH famously says. They are also broadly "progressive," even among the non-Dem members. Their focus on Empire is designed to "fundamentally transform" the world in the interests of a global order of their making, just as the progressive project on the domestic front is to transform American society in fundamental ways. The two projects are, of course, closely related, as we see in the growing effort to bind American domestic life to globalist norms, regulations, and laws. This effort even enjoys significant support within the progressive wing of our legal establishment and judiciary.

In these terms, Impeachment Theater is all about waging a scorched earth war against the enemies of the progressive transformation of America. Those enemies are personified in Donald Trump. Because Trump's rise and governance has been strictly in conformity with our recognized constitutional order, the forces of progressivism have obtained little traction in their "resistance" to Trump and to his conservative vision. Thus, we have--in contrast to all previous impeachments--the remarkable spectacle of serial coup attempts being run against a president, based in foreign policy rather than in domestic politics. This dynamic is what has forced this confederation of globalist interests to emerge into the open.

Did The Russia Hoax Go All The Way Up To Obama?

I'll keep this brief. I've never made any secret of my belief that in any bureaucratic setting nobody takes a risky action without some notion that somebody else has their back. Or, to put it another way, without some notion that they'll be able to shift the blame. Like so much in bureaucracies, this defies reality--in this case gravity. Despite best efforts, blame for prosecutable events gets shifted upward, rather than settling downward, because everyone has something on the next person above them.

With that in mind, read what John Solomon had to say on that score to Maria Bartiromo. The transcript at TGP made some important mistakes and omitted some important, though brief, portions. I've corrected that:

Maria Bartiromo: How far up the ladder do you believe this entrapment went in the Obama administration?

John Solomon: Most counter intelligence investigations are always briefed to the president. I would love to see the PDBs [President's Daily Briefs] of President Obama be released, anything having to do with Russia going back to the summer of 2015. I believe that's the most important time frame to begin looking at. It’s impossible that John Brennan didn't know about most of the key activities. And it's obvious that the Attorney General would have to know, working with the FBI. So, far more senior officials than the names we've been talking about. We keep talking about Strzok, and Page, and Priestap. There's another layer here that's escaped scrutiny and questioning. Hopefully, after the IG report comes out we'll get some of those answers.

UPDATED: Did Vindman Falsify Trump's April Call With Zelensky?

The reason for the White House's release of the President Trump's first phone call on April 21, 2019, with the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is now coming into focus. According to the Washington Examiner,

The White House is blaming Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for misleading reporters about the contents of an April 21 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

At the time of that first phone call a "readout" or summary of the call was provided to the press. The "readout" was prepared, according to the White House, by the NSC's "Ukraine expert"--which can only mean Alexander Vindman. According to that "readout", Trump

"underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption."

However the just released transcript of the conversation reveals that Trump said none of those things. The call was basically an exchange of congratulations and pleasantries, with Trump assuring Zelensky that high level US officials would attend Zelensky's inauguration, and inviting Zelensky to visit Washington, D. C.

What's the significance of this? It appears that Vindman--who is scheduled to testify publicly next week--was putting into Trump's mouth an affirmation of "Interagency" Ukraine policy, to try to box Trump into a position that may not have been his own policy. But that was all invented by Vindman, who is almost certainly the source for Eric Ciaramella's "whistleblowing".

The affirmation of "unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders" would naturally put Trump in direct conflict with Russia. The claim that Trump had made such an affirmation, as witnessed by the provision of a "readout" in those terms to the press, would make it more difficult for Trump to deal freely with Putin.

The "commitment to work together with President-elect Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption," might seem at first glance to be unobjectionable. However, in context, that could be construed by the "Interagency" to authorize continued support for George Soros funded NGO "anti-corruption" activist groups--whose true aim was to smear Soros' competitors in Ukraine. (Cf. Impeachment Theater #2, and The Swamp Of Ukraine Corruption--And The Dems)

If Trump strayed from the "Interagency" policies, damaging leaks could be fed to the press, claiming that Trump was overturning policy that had been settled by his own administration. Now we also see why Trump approved the policy to place these call transcripts on a separate secure server.

This could make for interesting "theater" when Vindman testifies next week.

Other sources:

White House releases transcript of first Trump-Zelensky call

Summary of earlier Trump-Zelensky call released


UPDATE 1: I've been reviewing the testimony of Timothy Morrison, who replaced Fiona Hill in July, 2019, as head of the NSC Eastern Europe desk--meaning, Morrison succeeded Hill as supervisor of Alexander Vindman. Without getting into extracts from the transcript of Morrison's testimony, a certain consistent theme re Vindman jumps out:

1. During the transition of leadership, Morrison and Hill discussed the current status of the Eastern Europe desk, strengths and weaknesses--and personnel.

2. Hill told Morrison that she had concerns about Vindman's "judgment," obviously meaning that he exercised bad judgment and that Vindman was suspected of being a leaker.

3. Morrison testified that Vindman--who testified that "chain of command" was important to him--repeatedly failed to stay within the "chain of command".

4. Morrison was admonished not to provide a full answer to questions regarding examples of Vindman's disregard for the "chain of command" for the specific reason that a full answer might lead to identifying the "whistleblower".

5. In other words, Morrison is in possession of information that would show that Vindman was sharing information with Eric Ciaramella that Ciaramella was not entitled to have.

UPDATE 2: More from the Morrison transcript. Vindman was "not included", i.e., was excluded from foreign trips and was not allowed at meetings on certain (unspecified) policy areas, because of his "bad judgment" on who to share information with. Morrison also made sure that he never spoke with Vindman one-on-one. He was always careful to have someone else present when he spoke with Vindman.

Does Matt Taibbi Grok Bill Barr?

Maybe!

Taibbi has a new article out and the title and subtitle speak volumes:

Deval Patrick’s Candidacy Is Another Chapter in the Democrats’ 2020 Clown Car Disaster

The entrance of the former Massachusetts governor into the presidential race is more proof the party has no clue where the votes are

No clue where the voters are? They could ask Trump--or just listen to Trump! But they're too pround, or arrogant, to do that.

This is interesting. Compare what Taibbi says in the following excerpt with what Bill Barr said in his barn burner--as legal-historical-constitutional analysis goes--address to the The Federalist Society.

First Barr:

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic. 

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?

And now Taibbi:

The Times said Patrick’s policy prescriptions place him “closer to the ideological center than to the left.” In another story about Patrick and Bloomberg, the Times explained that both men “believe there is room in the race for a more dynamic candidate who is closer to the political middle than Mr. Biden’s two most prominent challengers, Ms. Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders.” 

People like Bloomberg and Patrick seem to believe in the existence of a massive electoral “middle” that wants 15-point plans and meritocratic slogans instead of action. As befits brilliant political strategists, they also seem hyper-concerned about the feelings of the country’s least numerous demographic, the extremely rich. A consistent theme is fear (often described in papers like the Times as “concern”) that the rhetoric of Warren and Sanders might unduly upset wealthy folk. 

“I don’t think that wealth is the problem. I think greed is the problem,” Patrick told CBS This Morning. He added that “taxes should go up on the most prosperous and the most fortunate,” but “not as a penalty.” 

What does that mean? Should we impose higher taxes on the rich but include a note from the IRS saying, “It’s not because we don’t love you”? 

Along with an alarmingly high number of press figures, politicians like Patrick seem to be trapped in an “electability” concept that hasn’t made sense since the Reagan-Bush years. Outside of a few spots on the Upper East Side and in Georgetown and L.A., the “center” has been gone a long time. 

From Donald Trump to Sanders to Warren, the politicians attracting the biggest and most enthusiastic responses in recent years have run on furious, throw-the-bums-out themes, for the logical reason that bums by now clearly need throwing out. 

America’s political establishment has created vast inequities not only in the economy, but in criminal justice (where street crime is heavily punished, but white collar crime is not), war (it’s mostly not the sons and daughters of politicians and CEOs getting killed in overseas conflicts), health care (where much of the population lives in fear that getting sick will trigger bankruptcy), debt forgiveness (Wall Street bailout recipients got to write off losses, but people suffering foreclosures and student loan defaults are ruined), and other arenas. 

You can’t capture the widespread discontent over these issues if you’re running on a message that the donor class doesn’t deserve censure for helping create these messes. It’s worse if you actually worked — as Patrick did — for a company like Ameriquest, a poster child for the practices that caused the 2008 financial crisis: using aggressive and/or predatory tactics to push homeowners into new subprime mortgages or mortgage refis, fueling the disastrous financial bubble.

OK, obviously Barr and Taibbi would differ on policy prescriptions, I think. But--the common thread is the demise of "rule of law" in America. The Dems don't get that. Trump does, and he's living that demise through Impeachment Theater.

AG Barr's Originalist Critique Of The "Resistance"

Yesterday Bill Barr presented an important analysis of the state of Executive authority--the Article II powers of the President--in modern America. Barr did this in the form of an address to the Federalist Society which was attended, among other prominent persons, by Brett Kavanaugh. The address is over an hour in length--a video and transcript can be found at CTH. I'm slightly more than halfway through the text, so am in no position to give an overview of the whole. However, I present below some excerpts which are directly relevant to the so-called "Resistance" to the government of the United States.

Yes, I meant that--resistance to the government of the United States. Barr begins his analysis by tracing the general outlines of the conceptual framework of the Executive authority within our constitutional order, as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution in proper historical context. In doing so, he leaves no doubt that what we are faced with is an attempted overthrow of that constitutional order. Should Pelosi's attempted assertion of pre-eminence of the House over the Executive--the only nationally elected Branch of government--succeed, there is no doubt in my mind that "progressives" would go on to assert their pre-eminence over the Judicial branch as well.

I have, in the past, asserted that Barr is committed to the originalist view of the Executive power as "unitary" under the Constitution, inhering in the single person of the President. Barr's analysis in this address is a powerful expression of that view, and fully justifies my impatience--which I have not attempted to hide--with the notion that Barr is somehow a creature of the Establishment, a creature of Executive branch subordinates and agencies, more interested in protecting their prerogatives than the institution of the Presidency.

It is reassuring that a key adviser to President Trump is so articulate in presenting this principled view to the President.

Herewith, some excerpts that give a flavor for Barr's critique of the "Resistance", which arises especially from the Legislative Branch. These selected remarks bear directly upon not only the attempted coup of the Russia Hoax and its continuation in the Mueller Witchhunt, but also upon the current Impeachment Theater in the House. Barr leaves no doubt as to his support for this President, and for Donald Trump's principled governance in the face of outrageous and unprinicpled attacks on our constitutional order. He also demonstrates a broad grasp of the field of battle in our current crisis.

*********

Legislative Encroachments On The Executive Authority Under The Constitution

• As I have said, the Framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling between the Congress and the President. Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.

Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.

A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process. The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the President from building a functional government.

Yet that is precisely what the Senate minority has done from his very first days in office. As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times. It is reasonable to wonder whether a future President will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.

Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.

Of course, Congress’s effective withdrawal from the business of legislating leaves it with a lot of time for other pursuits. And the pursuit of choice, particularly for the opposition party, has been to drown the Executive Branch with “oversight” demands for testimony and documents. I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its Legislative Power. But the sheer volume of what we see today – the pursuit of scores of parallel “investigations” through an avalanche of subpoenas – is plainly designed to incapacitate the Executive Branch, and indeed is touted as such.

The costs of this constant harassment are real. For example, we all understand that confidential communications and a private, internal deliberative process are essential for all of our branches of government to properly function. Congress and the Judiciary know this well, as both have taken great pains to shield their own internal communications from public inspection. There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process. That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people.

In recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by Congress in the area of executive privilege. The Executive Branch and the Supreme Court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in Executive Branch decision-making necessarily means that some communications must remain off limits to Congress and the public. There was a time when Congress respected this important principle as well. But today, Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.

One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.

Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?

For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.

Recommended Read: The Brennan Dossier

Aaron Mate has written an excellent review of what is known about John Brennan's outsized role in probably the biggest and most dangerous political scandal and hoax in American history--a hoax that has torn at the very fabric of our Constitutional order: The Russia Hoax. Mate's article appears today at Real Clear Investigations: The Brennan Dossier: All About a Prime Mover of Russiagate. It's a long but very readable summary, and I recommend that anyone interested in these matters follow the link and read it for themselves.

I had originally thought of attempting to summarize the article, but I became convinced that it's so compelling that a summary simply couldn't do it justice. Nevertheless, I will present three key excerpts.

The first sets the tone for the Russia Hoax and, in an understated way, describes the enormity of what Brennan was so instrumental in pulling. Of course this in no way excuses or lessens the culpability of his many enablers and active collaborators, who set the health of the American body politic at naught:

In the waning days of the Obama administration, the U.S. intelligence community produced a report saying Russian President Vladimir Putin had tried to swing the 2016 election to Donald Trump. 

The January 2017 report, called an Intelligence Community Assessment, followed months of leaks to the media that had falsely suggested illicit ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin while also revealing that such contacts were the subject of a federal investigation. Its release cast a pall of suspicion over Trump just days before he took office, setting the tone for the unfounded allegations of conspiracy and treason that have engulfed his first term.

The ICA's blockbuster finding was presented to the public as the consensus view of the nation's intelligence community. As events have unfolded, however, it now seems apparent that the report was largely the work of one agency, the CIA, and overseen by one man, then-Director John Brennan, who closely directed its drafting and publication with a small group of hand-picked analysts. 

Nearly three years later, as the public awaits answers from two Justice Department inquiries into the Trump-Russia probe’s origins, and as impeachment hearings catalyzed by a Brennan-hired anti-Trump CIA analyst unfold in Congress, it is clear that Brennan’s role in propagating the collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA. A close review of facts that have slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception.  

... 

The Trump-Russia collusion theory was not propagated by a few rogue figures. Key Obama administration and intelligence officials laundered it through national security reporters who gave their explosive claims anonymous cover. Nevertheless, Brennan stands apart for the outsized role he played in generating and spreading the false narrative.

The second one paragraph excerpt illustrates just what an utter scoundrel--is there any other word?--Brennan is. But, again, this is not intended to in any way lessen the culpability of his many enablers and active collaborators. One of those enablers and collaborators could only have been Barack Obama himself, who was undoubtedly privy to Brennan's plotting (read how Brennan's missives were directed straight to the Oval Office, bypassing all normal channels):

Marie Yovanovitch And Foreign Service Officer Nerd Behavior

Larry Johnson has a somewhat amusing blog today: Understanding the Foreign Service Officer Nerd Behavior. He begins like this:

A group of lions is called a "pride." A group of crows is called a "murder." A group of geese is called a "gaggle." So what do you call a group of Ambassadors? A pomposity.

After detailing his personal experiences in that regard, he expresses confidence that Marie Yovanovitch will live up to the norms for a member of the "pomposity."

From what I have seen of tomorrow's witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person ...

  Jordan Schachtel confirms that for us:

In back and forth with GOP counsel, Yovanovitch ties her personal ambassador rank to US national security interests, essentially saying that she was so important to US policy that firing her would damage America itself. Her perceived level of self-importance is truly astounding.

— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) November 15, 2019

During her opening statement today, Marie Yovanovitch, who never served in the military or in combat, compared herself to two Navy SEAL veterans who were killed defending a Benghazi outposts whose security requests were rejected by bureaucrats like her. Disgusting.

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 15, 2019

UPDATED: The Roger Stone Verdict

It seems almost pointless to multiply words over this when Mike Cernovich seems to understand the big picture here, and can place it in perspective:

Roger Stone was prosecuted more aggressively than Jeffrey Epstein, that tells you all you need to know about the rule of law in America.

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) November 15, 2019

UPDATE: Another excellent example--rule of law? Not so much:

Yovanovitch, an ostensibly serious person, as well as an ambassador, will face zero consequences for blatantly lying about Burisma and Biden.

Meanwhile, Roger Stone, a joker with no formal role or responsibilities, is going to jail because he fantasized about imaginary sources. https://t.co/7xdoMVjtde

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) November 15, 2019

If James Clapper is a free man, then Roger Stone should not be in jail

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) November 15, 2019

Oh No! Does This Mean Schiff's Been Lying All Along?

The idea that Eric Ciaramella has been receiving death threats has always been absurd, thus requiring that his identity remain The Biggest Secret Ever. Well, maybe not absurd, if the death threats came from Dems who are clearly desperate that he not be cross examined. But absurd if we're to suppose the threats came from GOPers, who would like nothing better than to cross examine Ciaramella and would gladly provide him with round the clock security in order to have that opportunity.

This is funny, and shows what happens when you deal with nut cases like Mark Zaid and Ciaramella--they go off narrative and expose your game:

BREAKING: The "whistleblower's" attorney has privately informed HPSCI staff that his client, a CIA officer, has not received credible threats, as Schiff has suggested;and he is not at personal risk since he nonetheless has been assigned a government security detail for protection

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

No credible threats, but government security detail provided nevertheless? Who knew obtaining a government security detail was seemingly so easy? Hmmm. Could it be that the security detail is to shield Ciaramella from any inquisitive reporters? It's all a lot of nonsense:

Schiff says can't reveal name of "whistleblower" & can't let him testify b/c it would expose him to dire threats. So why aren't you shielding the identities of the witnesses who've echoed the info in his complaint? His pal Vindman is PUBLICLY testifying next week. #RedHerring

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

Sadly, this sounds about right:

Republicans r aiding & abetting Schiff's coverup of his role in #Whistlegate by allowing selves to be intimidated by Schiff into silence re "whistleblower's" identity & continuing to self-censor over name.His partisan motivations continue to hide w him in the shadows of anonymity

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

Losing

Via FR:

Poll: 53% of Black Voters, 60% of Other Minority Voters Say Media Are Trying to Help Impeach Trump

CNS News ^ | November 14, 2019 | Craig Bannister 

But, 53% of black voters and 60% of other minorities, compared to 51% of whites, said reporters are trying to get Trump rather than report the news fairly. 

What’s more, 58% of voters who say they are watching impeachment news “very closely” believe that most journalists are trying to help impeach the president, while only 34% say they’re just trying to report unbiased news.(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

This can't possibly be what most Dems had in mind for Impeachment Theater.




UPDATE 1: Thomas Lifson has been all over this. It turns out--will anyone be surprised to learn this?--that the Dem mantra shift from Quid Pro Quo to Bribery was dictated by ... focus groups! That from an impeccable Dem source:

“The shift came after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘extortion’ or ‘bribery’ was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct. According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found ‘bribery’ to be most damning.”

Impeachment by focus group--what a concept!

Confirmed: FISA Report Release 'Imminent'

Per The Hill and numerous other outlets yesterday afternoon:

Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec confirmed to The Hill that Barr had been asked about Inspector General Michael Horowitz's probe into the warrant to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during a press conference in Memphis, Tenn.

"It's my understanding that it is imminent," Barr said. "A number of people who are mentioned in the report are having an opportunity to right now to comment on how they're quoted in the report, and after that process is over — it should be very short — the report will be issued." 

... 

Republican senators have also indicated that the report could be coming soon.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tweeted on Tuesday that it might come out "next week when they said it would."

 "Next week when they said it would." IOW, agree with him or disagree with him, but Barr is a man of his word. He means what he says and says what he means.

UPDATED: Impeachment Theater #2

This was enjoyable--Greg Gutfeld, on porno for Dems:

Why didn't I think of that? Perfect!

And then there's this:

HUGE! EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: Documents Released by Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office Reveal MILLIONS Funneled to Hunter Biden and the John Kerry Family

H/T Thomas Lifson at AmThinker: Ukraine and the fine hand of George Soros. Lifson links to Toensing and diGenova with Lou Dobbs, and what they have to say expands on what I've been saying about Soros. I've gone over, corrected, and expanded the Grabien transcript:

Lou: Let’s go to Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani, I love the fact he’s defending the president in an op-ed. All the work that he's has done. I hear all the testimony today, at least, from those who want to quiet him, and quiet the president, and try to, stating this, that they think this is outrageous that people should have truth and justice in far away places like Ukraine. Giuliani and the president think the opposite. What do you think, Victoria? 

Toensing: That's what Rudy Giuliani has been doing since he has begun representing the president. I know, because he [Giuliani] called me in February of this year telling me what he had just discovered about Ukraine, and about the people [garbled] had come to him and telling him, "These people in Ukraine were helping to frame the president." And he said, "I can't represent him, because I have to represent the president," and he [Giuliani] asked me to represent him. That's how I got involved in it all. But, you know, our sweet little ambassador [Marie Yovanavitch] went around and told everyone not to talk to us when we went there, and so did George Kent. He flew into Kiev to do that. You can't blame the president for being mad at Ukraine! They were part of the cabal against him, from the day he was elected. 

Lou: You know what? I hafta tell you, as I watch it, I’m sitting there thinking, These are two earnest--and I'm going to give them credit for being well intentioned--public servants. But for all the world it was because they weren’t in this special super duper irregular chain and no one had patted them on the back or had a sip of tea with them. That’s what they seemed upset about! It was outrageous to me that they have this sort of petty reaction to not being in the irregular chain as well as the regular chain. And it didn’t seem either were actually disturbed by it. George Kent is a separate issue, though, in this, and his motives seem peculiar to me. John Solomon reported back in March--and I wanna get this right--that George Kent had pressured Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation into ANTAC, the Anti-Corruption Action Center that George Soros group sponsored. This is a complicated deal here. And it seems he wanted to keep an investigation of Ukrainian corruption with limits on it, even as he answered questions today. Your thoughts, Joe? 

diGenova: Well, there's no doubt that George Soros controls a large part of the career Foreign Service of the United States State Department. He also controls the activities of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs, work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine, and Kent was part of that. He was a very big protector of Soros. His testimony today shows this kind of stern, kind of discomfort with not being included in certain discussions. But the truth is, George Soros had a daily opportunity to tell the State Department through Victoria Nuland what to do in Ukraine. Soros ran it. He corrupted FBI officials, he corrupted Foreign Service officers. And the bottom line is this--George Soros wants to run Ukraine, and he’s doing everything he can to use every lever of the United States government to make that happen. For business interests, not for good government! 

Toensing: His organization is not anti-corruption, it's anti-competitor. It goes after people who compete with George Soros in the name of anticorruption. 

Lou: It was an interesting moment, with George Kent under questioning on that, in the way that he walked right up to the boundary but wouldn’t go so far as to say this should be a comprehensive investigation of these activities that of course is precisely what the president of the United States made clear to President Zelensky that he wanted, bringing in the U.S. Justice Department to work with the Ukrainian authorities and government.

Listen to the video to catch the voice inflections by following the link to AmThinker.