Representative Andy Biggs appears on Fox News to discuss the next two weeks.  The Democrats are rushing to impeach President Trump prior to the Christmas recess.

• December 1st – Deadline for White House response for participation in “groundwork” hearing.
• December 2nd – Schiff’s HPSCI Impeachment Committee presents draft report.
• December 3rd – HPSCI Committee votes on impeachment report.
• December 4th – HJC “groundwork” impeachment hearing at 10:00am.
• December 6th – Deadline for White House response for participation in HJC Impeachment Hearing.
• December 6th – Deadline for House Republican witness list.
• December 9th – Hearing to deny House Republican witnesses.
• December 13th – House recesses for Christmas break?

(more…)

Candidate Trump was framed for stealing a horse; President Trump was subsequently accused of trying too hard to avoid hanging for it. Prosecutor Mueller eventually conceded that Trump didn’t steal the horse; however, by then the focus was on Trump’s efforts to avoid the hanging.  Eventually Mueller testified; it surfaced there was never a horse to begin with… Impeachment was stalled.   Prosecutor Jerry Nadler is attempting to resurrect a legal theory that President Trump can still be hung for attempting to avoid the hanging, even if there was no horse theft.   Yup, that’s were we’re at.
Earlier Friday House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler sent another letter to the White House outlining a December 6th deadline for executive participation in the coup by impeachment.  The chairman also sent ranking member Doug Collins a similar letter asking for rebuttal witnesses by December 6th.  In anticipation of Nadler denying the republican rebuttal witnesses he has scheduled a committee hearing on the republican complaints for December 9th [yes, same day as IG Horowitz report release].

Both of these requests, along with the prior “groundwork hearing” request, come from the HJC before the judiciary committee has received the House Impeachment Inquiry report from Adam Schiff’s HPSCI partisan impeachment committee.  Apparently the HJC knows the report content from Schiff’s committee; which means there will be no full committee review by any republican members of the bunker basement impeachment group.
(more…)

In the past several days; and in anticipation of an inspector general report/release tasked to look into the FISA processes of the prior administration; I have been assembling a file, a series of reminder questions, that peer into the heart of the 2015/2016 FISA surveillance.  Today, is another reminder…  [*ahem* Sidney Powell, please note]

Left to right: Kathryn H. Ruemmler, President Obama, Lisa Monaco and Susan Rice.

Knowing what we know now, consider this long forgotten letter from Susan Rice’s lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler.  Ms. Ruemmler is currently the global co-chairman of the Latham & Watkins white collar criminal defense practice; she formerly served as White House Counsel to President Obama.  Ask yourself: how do these paragraphs reconcile?

[Feb 23, 2018] The memorandum to file drafted by Ambassador Rice memorialized an important national security discussion between President Obama and the FBI Director and the Deputy Attorney General. President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
[…] While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent public testimony.
Ambassador Rice was not informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation, and she only learned of them from press reports after leaving office. (link)

How could Ms. Rice be aware of a “national security compromise”, “particularly surrounding Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn” after a “briefing by the FBI”, if she was not briefed on the existence of an FBI investigation”?
See the problem?
(more…)

Following the IG report draft review by the principals within the DOJ/FBI small group under investigation more leaks are submitted to the New York Times in an effort to get out ahead of the scheduled publication of the final report on December 9th.

One note before content review:  The highly structured obfuscation within how these leaks are being released, in combination with the lawyers representing the principals, explains why there was such a lengthy delay after the principal review phase.
Each principal can provide feedback for inclusion in the report; however, all feedback added to the report generates an IG rebuttal.  Keep this in mind because these leaks are the “feedback” and the leakers have no idea what the IG “rebuttal” will be.  The more the principals’ obfuscate and justify conduct to the IG in their feedback, the stronger the rebuttal to that feedback will be in the final report.
The New York Times latest narrative effort is intentionally obtuse with the word “spy”:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

(more…)

House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler, together with Lawfare contracted impeachment agents Barry Berke and Norm Eisen (pictured below), are attempting to reframe a collapsing impeachment and pull-in White House participation.
Chairman Nadler has announced a December 4th hearing with a panel of democrat selected constitutional lawyers and legal ‘experts’, to discuss the procedural framework of an impeachment process. As Nadler states: “Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct”. So the HJC initial objective to build their narrative is to explain what the impeachment process is about.
This is transparently an attempt by Nadler/Lawfare to give legitimacy to an illegitimate political exercise. The hearing purpose is framed as a trap to pull the White House in, and thereby create the optics of constitutional legitimacy.  Strong caution is advised and I would not be surprised to see the White House refuse to participate.  Here’s why:
With the House investigative portion of resolution 660 complete, per Adam Schiff and a yet invisible report from the HPSCI committee submitted, either the House Judiciary should follow their own process or not.  The White House and the minority have not even seen the one-sided report mandated by the House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.
My advice to the White House would be to respond to Nadler’s letter by informing him the House “Impeachment Report” authorized by resolution 660 has not yet been delivered; therefore, without a basis for the HJC to consider the validity of the first phase, it would be presumptuous to engage in a second phase framework exercise without the origination material described by the House Democrats’ own procedure.
The HJC is putting the proverbial illegitimate cart before the invisible horse.  Hammer them with this ! How can the HJC construct a hearing on the framework of impeachment without the results from the impeachment inquiry report?
(more…)

Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher has really been put into a narrow gauntlet by a military command structure that does appear to be attempting retaliation and retribution against a warrior out of spite.  It is a remarkable dynamic and very troubling to see two high ranking military leaders seeming to rebuke the civilian command structure.

.
Purely my opinion; but I would feel much less nervous about the stability of our military leadership if Navy Secretary Richard Spencer and Rear Adm. Collin Green resigned.  Rogue military leadership is troubling in the framework of our constitutional Republic.
(more…)

At 8:15pm last evening Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett posted a supportive article for the CNN (Manu Raju) news exclusive that outlined an “FBI Official” who was under criminal investigation as an outcome of the inspector general review of FISA.
The original WaPo article by Devlin Barrett noted the FBI official was actually a “line-level” lawyer who worked “under FBI Agent Peter Strzok.”
At 12:15am, the WaPo article was significantly edited, two more journalists (Ellen Nakashima and Matt Zapotosky) were added to the byline.  Unfortunately, no explanation or notation of the changes were given.

~ Above: 8:15pm Washington Post Screen Grab prior to 12:15am edit ~

However, that said, the edit(s) help to identify the identity of the FBI lawyer.  The updated article removed the references to Peter Strzok, and identifies the line-level lawyer thus:

[…] The person under scrutiny is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the agency, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.
The employee was forced out of the FBI after the incident was discovered, two U.S. officials said. Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said. (link)

If you have followed the case closely, the intentional removal of Peter Strzok in combination with the explanation of the lawyer’s FISA responsibilities; and in combination with prior reporting of FBI lawyer 2; it seems pretty obvious the line-level lawyer was Kevin Clinesmith.
(more…)

Representatives Elise Stefanik and Steve Scalise discuss the partisan effort to remove President Trump through a one-sided impeachment effort.

.
Within the interview Ms. Stefanik notes the outside money pouring in to her district in a concerted effort to remove her from office.  The link to support her IS HERE
(more…)

Representative Jim Jordan appears with Bret Baier to discuss the last two weeks of impeachment testimony.  Baier, the evolving human cabbage patch doll, attempts to protect the DC impeach narrative.

.
Jim Jordan is exceptional. At the conclusion of todays testimony Jordan also held a brief press conference (below).
(more…)

Listening to the pearl-clutching from State Department foreign service officers; and looking at the circular laundry operation where DC politicians send taxpayer funds overseas and then use networks, friends and families to capture those same funds for their own personal financial benefit; while overlaying how much Hillary Clinton corruption the U.S. Justice Department, State Department and intelligence community hid in the 2016 election; the big picture emerges.
When politicians in Mexico or Afghanistan accept bribes we call it corruption, but when DC politicians participate in the exact same process we call it “lobbying”. It is no wonder the Clinton Foundation starts losing money as soon as the political influence over policy no longer exists. It is also no surprise why those same donors hate President Trump.

In the larger picture it is clear the Obama administration weaponized institutions of government to target their political opposition. It is also increasingly clear a Hillary Clinton administration would have further monetized the U.S. government.
President Obama’s team used the IRS, DOJ, CIA, FBI and State Dept. to target their opposition. The intelligence apparatus was weaponized; one small example that scratches the surface is the FBI/NSA FISA(702) database exploitation. Black files on DC politicians, private sector groups and individuals facilitating leverage, and we are still seeing the ramifications.
(more…)