The background protestations, grumbles and sounds of the insufferable Chuck Todd while his ‘Share Blue’ talking points are being deconstructed is actually a little funny.
In this interview Senator Rand Paul explains the pragmatic policy of withdrawing 50 U.S. troops from Northern Syria to avoid them becoming victims to a cross-border incursion by a NATO ally, Turkey, while the ridiculously pontificating European collective does nothing except criticize the U.S. for not defending their interests.  Chuck Todd is flummoxed.
Additionally, Senator Paul creates a ‘splodey head when the conversation turns to the Ukraine and Rand Paul points out the hypocrisy of Democrats trying to impeach President Trump for political foreign policy the Democrats initiated.  Quite Funny:

.
On the Saudi troop support, Rand Paul misses the bigger picture of a simple policy that President Trump is maintaining. Remember during the 2017 Trump visit to the 50 nation Arab-American Summit, President Trump asked them to “drive out” the extremists within political Islam and said the U.S. would support their efforts.
The Arab coalition has been doing exactly what President Trump requested; the GCC confrontation with Qatar was a specific outcome of that request. The U.S. troops to support the ongoing “drive out” is simply President Trump keeping his word with Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Salman (MbS). [Big Picture Here]
(more…)

Well, this was entirely predictable.  First the impeachment strategy needed the anonymous CIA gossiper to testify.  Then it leaked about how HPSCI Chairman Adam Shiff and his Lawfare staff actually created the “gossiper’s” silly third-hand complaint to an inspector general; who then changed ‘gossip’ rules to allow second and third-hand hearsay.
It was all becoming more brutally sketchy, and the impeachment jenga blocks were tenuous at best.  As a result, republicans were going to inquire about how the CIA gossiper constructed his complaint; and then the complaint attorney’s started saying the gossiper would not appear in person, but rather write more complaint letters instead of testifying.
The shift from sketchy testimony to “Dear Sir” letters was ridiculous in the extreme. So what happens next?  Well, this is predictable…. Chairman Adam Schiff now says there will likely be no gossiper testimony because now he doesn’t need it.  [@4:52 video]

[Transcript]  REP. SCHIFF: You know and I think initially, before the president started threatening the whistleblower, threatening others calling them traitors and spies and suggesting that you know we used to give the death penalty to traitors and spies and maybe we should think about that again. Yes we were interested in having the whistleblower come forward. Our primary–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Not anymore?

(more…)

President Trump rallied last night in Louisiana to support a challenge to incumbent Democrat Governor John Bel Edwards. The goal is to hold JBE under 50% and force a run-off against a republican challenger.
The national Democrats have made this race a referendum on the Trump impeachment agenda, saying if JBE can win in Louisiana then it proves Trump is weak enough to be impeached.
Mr. Edwards has tried not to make this a national referendum.
If President Trump and the Republican challengers, U.S. Representative Ralph Abraham and businessman Eddie Rispone, can hold Edwards to less than 50%, then one of them will challenge Governor Edwards in a state-wide runoff for the governor position.
  UPDATE: Mission Accomplished.  John Bel Edwards has been held under 50% and will face Republican businessman “Eddie” Rispone in a run-off to decide the governors race.

(more…)

White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller appears with Jesse Watters to discuss the ongoing impeachment efforts and the political agenda of those within the administrative state who are opposed to President Trump.

(more…)

There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.
Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.
Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]
With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.
Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.
(more…)

House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes discusses former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifying to her friends in congress during the Democrats’ “chaotic circus” of an impeachment inquiry.

(more…)

A report from the Wall Street Journal outlines a request by lawyers for the fake CIA ‘whistleblower’ that ultimately spells doom for the entire phony construct of the impeachment construction by anonymous complaint.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting the anonymous gossipers’ lawyers are now requesting official impeachment testimony by letters not an in-person appearance.  If this is accurate such a request speaks directly to the abject stupidity of the claim:

WASHINGTON—Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person, according to people familiar with the matter.
The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. The intelligence committees haven’t yet responded to the inquiry about potential written testimony, the people said.

(more…)

The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.
There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.
It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight.  However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8.  The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose. 
There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.
(more…)

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the media pushing her narrative the impeachment effort would have already failed.    In this interview Judiciary committee ranking member Doug Collins states the un-American inquiry is likely to backfire.

(more…)

Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Sean Hannity to discuss the manipulated one party procedures within Pelosi’s impeachment program.

.
Speaker Pelosi cannot engage the courts for support against the Executive Branch because the House has not created their judicial authority.  As a result of their lack of a vote to initiate the House “impeachment inquiry” there is no penalty for non-compliance behind any committee subpoena.
Attempting to compel testimony that crosses through the separation of powers; and goes even further in an attempt to penetrate the firewall around executive privilege; requires the House -or a committee therein- to carry “Judicial Authority“.
(more…)