There are three current court cases that touch upon whether the House “impeachment inquiry” is following a constitutional process.

♦The first case is the House Oversight effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court; outcome pending.
♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was also stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, could also go to SCOTUS]
♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC has asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has announced she will deliver her ruling on Monday, November 25th:

WASHINGTON DC – […] “The Judiciary Committee anticipates holding hearings after HPSCI’s public hearings have concluded and would aim to obtain Mr. McGahn’s testimony at that time,” the committee wrote, referring to the impeachment inquiry hearings led by the House Intelligence Committee. “Thus, there is an urgent need for final resolution of the matter now pending before this Court.”

(more…)

The Supreme Court has halted a lower court ruling that granted the Committee on Oversight and Reform access to President Trump’s tax returns.  However, that’s not necessarily the lede.
The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers. The House issued a subpoena in February for eight years of the president’s tax returns, which the Committee then later argued was part of the September House impeachment investigation.

All of the surrounding court rulings are predicated on accepting a constitutional process for an official impeachment investigation is underway.  However, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that will likely challenge that assertion.  To wit, within the buried lede to the background issue we find this paragraph:

On Monday, Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered. (link)

(more…)

Amid increased calls from House Republicans to force the testimony of the CIA “whistleblower”, today the Washington Post, the primary outlet for CIA misinformation and public relations, began shaping the “whistle-blower” as a hero.
Because the overall effort involves multiple parts of the deep state apparatus, to see through the construction it is important to note which media outlet holds equity for agency talking points within the coup.  The Washington Post is primary PR for the CIA and IC writ large. The New York Times is primary PR for the FBI; and CNN is primary PR for the State Dept.  This pattern has been consistent throughout.

Over time it has become clear the first confidential human source for the CIA Ukraine dossier, written by CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella and also known as the “Whistleblower report”, is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman a Ukraine expert inside the National Security Council on assignment from the Dept of Defense intelligence unit.
Within his deposition the ideology of Lt. Col Vindman is clear. Vindman’s mission focus was/is to shape U.S. policy toward Ukraine (and by extension NATO) regardless of the actual policy view of President Trump.  Within his deposition Vindman admitted to giving countermanding instructions to his Ukraine counterpart two weeks after understanding opposite policy objectives from his commander-in-chief.
During his deposition Lt Col Vindman also admitted -with considerable angst and attempts to deflect from his legal advisors provided by the Dept. of Defense- that he was intentionally usurping the chain of command in an effort to follow his own ideological agenda; and perhaps that of his DoD leadership.
(more…)

Here’s the opening statement from HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes:

The House Intelligence Committee will begin holding public hearings to impeach President Donald Trump today at 10:00am EDT.  The hearings are carefully scripted, organized and planned. Day One begins with Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent.  To support the Democrat impeachment effort all major media networks are carrying the event live, and promoting their anticipation of drama.
Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff has threatened severe punishment if any member of congress speaks publicly about the CIA helping to organize the ‘whistleblower‘ effort.
Mr. Taylor currently serves as the Chargé D’affaires for the U.S. State Department in Ukraine. Mr. Kent serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State.  Both State Dept. officials disagree with President Trump’s foreign policy which they hope will lead to his removal from office.
Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – CSPAN Livestream – HPSCI Livestream

HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes has sent a letter to HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff formally requesting his testimony prior to the public impeachment hearings next week.
On its face this might seem like a stunt; and it might indeed be dismissed by Adam Schiff; however, at the heart of the issue is something quite serious and quite factual.  There is mounting evidence the entirety of the Pelosi, Lawfare-Schiff proceeding is a collaborative event that includes the coordination with a CIA ‘whistleblower’.
Specifically because the issues in/around the originating ‘whistleblower’ have become a risk to the effort, and in a complete reversal from the original premise, Adam Schiff is now refusing to present testimony from the originating whistleblower.   Nunes is now engaging in a process with the goal make the political coordination self-evident:

(Source – pdf)

(more…)

With impeachment headlines absorbing most attention, there is a quiet background story happening in DC where re-authorization of the USA Freedom Act is needed prior to expiration on December 15th. Techno Fog points out the bulk NSA data collection and FISA(702) surveillance programs are part of this reauthorization.
Just yesterday, November 6th, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the reauthorization.  “Senators expressed their displeasure Wednesday with the Trump administration’s inability to answer questions about the National Security Agency’s collection of data records” (link). Which begs the question:

Is the current Inspector General report on FISA abuse being delayed due to the need for congress to reauthorize the very same programs the IG is about to criticize?

For context to this question, and considering the potential for some surprising revelations within the IG report on FISA, it is worth noting the Office of the Director of National Intelligence held back the the findings of FISA Judge James Boasberg that strongly criticized the FISA-702 process for a year.
The Judge Boasberg report was written in September of 2018 but not released (redacted) until last month.
(more…)

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT – Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack sends a letter to Flynn’s defense team today containing a stunning, almost impossible to comprehend, admission of a mistake central to the claims of the prosecution.  In March 2018 the FBI presented notes taken by agents Pientka and Strzok, now they say they made a ‘mistake’.
For almost two years the DOJ misidentified, misattributed, and never corrected that the authors of the Flynn interview notes were actually reversed.  All of the notes attributed to FBI Agent Peter Strzok actually were taken by FBI Agent Joseph Pientka, and vice-versa:

(LINK)

What kind of f**kery is this?  The DOJ never confirmed the authorship of the FBI notes that are central to the FD-302, upon which the entire prosecution claim of Flynn lying to investigators is based? …Seriously?
(more…)

In the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, his lawyer Sidney Powell previously filed a motion to compel (MTC) Brady material from the prosecution (here).  Because the MTC raised stunning, potentially game-changing, legal and ethical issues the prosecution requested the opportunity to file a surreptitious reply to the court; a “surreply”. (here)
Judge Sullivan directed the prosecution to file their surreply, and then granted the defense the opportunity to file a sur-surreply, a response to the prosecution’s last argument. Today Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed that response (full pdf below).

Having read thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands, of legal filings, motions and court documents presenting arguments of material consequence, this sur-surreply to the arguments of the prosecution is artful in its succinct intent of getting to the nub of it.
What makes this articulate reply to the court so effective, in addition to the declared truth within it, is how it is written to both Judge Emmet Sullivan and the public.  This is a motion deserving of a read by anyone who has followed the travesty of the Flynn inquisition in detail or in summary. Do not cheat yourself out of the enjoyment; read it.
The response to the prosecution argument cuts through the chaff and countermeasures and identifies the ridiculous and necessary schemes played by the prosecution, starting with their preposterous position that Flynn’s plea did not require the government to provide exculpatory, Brady, evidence.  Page One:
(more…)

I’m going to attempt to remove the legal linguistics and explain what appears to be a highly predictable process most are ignoring.
BASELINE – After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff…. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hired Douglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.
♦On October 25th DC Judge Beryl Howell granted the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) request for legal authority to receive 6e grand jury material underlying the Mueller report.
Additionally, within the Howell decision she officially recognized the HJC effort was predicated on a constitutional impeachment process.
In essence Howell’s opinion granted the HJC with “judicial enforcement authority.”
♦The DOJ moved to appeal the decision and requested a “stay” pending appeal.  Judge Howell rejected the “stay” motion.
The DOJ appealed to the DC Court of Appeals.  A panel of three judges issued an “administrative stay”, blocking enforcement of the Howell ruling while the appeal was reviewed.
The temporary administrative stay was granted to freeze the status quo while the court considers whether to grant a longer stay that would remain in effect until the DOJ appeal is argued or decided (deadline tomorrow).  The outcome is pending.  Judge Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge of the DC Appeals court.
(more…)