The timing, purpose and narrative engineering here are transparent in the extreme.
Tonight the New York Times (Schmidt and Haberman) write an article claiming to have exclusively gained portions of a transcript of a John Bolton book manuscript that was given to the White House National Security Council for pre-publication review.
Of course The Times attempts to frame the narrative around the need for John Bolton to testify in the Senate Impeachment Trial… all too transparent in motive. Timed to work around the House fraud; impeachment article construction without Judicial review for subpoenas; and timed to bolster House managers’ unconstitutional demand for Bolton as a Senate witness. ADD: POTUS Responds:
However, setting aside the nothing-burger details of the book as leaked, the leak itself might now reconcile an earlier event.
Remember the issue a little more than a week ago when the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is said to be under a security-related investigation?
(more…)
Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the fraudulent construct of the House impeachment articles. Ratcliffe highlights how the ‘whistle-blower’ (CIA Eric Ciaramella) and the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, have conflicting testimony in the House and that’s why Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff will not release those transcripts. WATCH:
(more…)
Several days ago we anticipated a potentially important point we hoped would start the impeachment defense for President Donald Trump. Today, attorney Patrick Philbin delivered. The issue is a critical constitutional component that needed emphasis, and it is good to see pundits finally starting to realize the significance.
White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explains why House subpoenas were illegitimate: the subpoena power was never authorized; the initiating subpoena power was never voted on.
.
Additionally, and specifically by design, absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no constitutional pathway or process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. Make no mistake, this was a pre-planned purposeful trick within the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare road-map.
The House motive here, the forethought within their design, is very important now because it explains why they are vociferously demanding witnesses in the Senate. The House plan was to work around the ability of the executive branch to go to court. The managers are now attempting to execute that plan, along with a manufactured political talking point, in the Senate trial.
The House intended for this to unfold exactly as it is happening.
(more…)
As 21 different state attorneys general noted earlier today, there are several reasons why the impeachment effort is unconstitutional. These are not process arguments; they are factual arguments central to the constitutional framework of our government.
The failure of a full House vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to pursue evidence -via enforceable subpoenas- was a defect by design of Nancy Pelosi’s decision to initiate an impeachment inquiry by her decree, not an authorizing vote. White House lawyer Patrick Philbin explains the legal issue; this could be the lead argument in the defense case when it starts. [Video prompted to 03:20]
.
CTH noted this structural issue last August, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings. None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.
(more…)
President Trump’s co-lead counsel, Jay Sekulow, discusses his perspective on the opening arguments for the House impeachment case. As Sekulow notes, so far the House appears to be attempting to leverage impeachment for a difference in foreign policy outlooks:
(more…)
It is not a process argument, but rather a matter of constitutional preservation.
Twenty-one State Attorneys’ General submit a brief to the Senate (full pdf below) in support of complete rejection for the House articles of impeachment.
…”If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers’ design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers”…
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson along with twenty additional State AG’s, submit a 14-page briefing (download here) to the United States Senate warning of the danger of not rejecting a purely partisan political impeachment effort. The Attorneys’ General note the current impeachment proceedings are “fundamentally flawed as a matter of constitutional law.” Their concerns are echo points starting to be realized by Senators.
During a press conference in front of the U.S. Capitol Wednesday, South Carolina AG Alan Wilson said the group was urging the Senate to “reject these articles” as a matter of constitutional law. WATCH:
(more…)
Texas Senator Ted Cruz appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo for a lengthy discussion of the upcoming senate impeachment trial. Senator Cruz does not currently support subpoenas for witnesses; however, if the full senate votes to call prosecution witnesses Cruz would support reciprocal witnesses for President Trump.
Senator Cruz walks through the anticipated process including the “scheduling order” or senate rules within the impeachment process. Twelve hours of prosecution, twelve hours of defense, sixteen hours of senator questioning, and then possibly a vote.
(more…)
A response to the formal summons from the Senate, notifying the Executive Office of the President of impeachment proceedings, was due at 6:00pm ET today. The White House has responded [WH pdf link – and embed below] with a seven-page position answer.
[Via White House] THE HONORABLE DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREBY RESPONDS:
The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election—now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.
I’m skipping any further discussion of Pam Bondi because, quite frankly, while she may be considered a member of President Trump’s team, if we are honest about her background –particularly in the Zimmerman case fraud– there’s nothing good to say.
Bondi was the Florida AG and convinced Gov. Scott to appoint a special prosecutor. Bondi picked her campaign manager, Jacksonville state attorney, Angela Corey; who constructed a fraudulent witness against the accused. AG Pam Bondi specifically knew Witness #8 was manufactured. In ’12/’13 Pam Bondi attempted to frame a transparently innocent man.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz appears on Fox News for a discussion of his role in the upcoming senate impeachment trial of President Trump. Mr. Dershowitz states he will be presenting the constitutional argument against the entire premise for the insufferable impeachment. WATCH:
(more…)
Trey Gowdy appears on Fox to discuss the anticipated points and counterpoints, accusations and defenses, and strategy within the upcoming impeachment trial.
Today it was also announced that President Trump’s defense team added Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray, Pam Bondi and Jane Raskin. Those five will join Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow who are the primary defense lawyers.
(more…)