Good grief it’s taking the republicans f.o.r.e.v.e.r to explain to the American electorate what is going on behind the thoroughly corrupted political impeachment process.  In this interview John Ratcliffe finally explains why the “official impeachment inquiry” is not being run by the House Judiciary Committee that holds impeachment jurisdiction.
Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process.  It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction.  {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} to understand why.
The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment, is not within the jurisdiction of either committee.  So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.  WATCH:
[wpvideo CXPRpWpN]
(more…)

Chuck Todd is fully vested in defending the overall CIA and FBI efforts in the 2016 election.  Throughout his “reporting” Todd has been one of the biggest defenders of corrupt political behavior by the intelligence apparatus and John Brennan.
Today, amid media marching orders that must be retained, Senator Ron Johnson appears on Meet The Press and Chuck Todd angrily confronts any effort to reveal the corruption.

As customary President Trump reminds everyone about the big picture.
The reason the DC system -writ large- is going bananas is because selling the influence of political office for financial gain is the custom and currency of DC affluence.

In the larger picture the severe reaction from DC is not about Joe Biden, but rather the accepted familiarity of what Joe Biden selling office represents….

Representative Jim Jordan was present during a closed-door interview with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Kurt Volker.  Jordan appears on ABC to debate George Stephanopoulos over the carefully selected excerpts, and subsequent spun narrative, by House democrats and media.
Notice ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Fox’s Chris Wallace repeat the same defensive talking points in a united effort to protect the customary behavior of DC politicians who sell their political influence for personal financial gain.
At the heart of the matter, the selling of influence is the process that must be protected. The process of gaining wealth by selling influence is how/why most DC Senators and corrupt politicians run for the office.  President Trump is spotlighting this; hence the fury of the backlash from those the DC industry.

Representative Chris Stewart (R-Utah) of the House Intelligence Committee debates the insufferable Chris Wallace over the issues of corruption in the swamp.
Obviously the tradition of politicians selling their office for financial gain political hits a nerve with Wallace who must defend the practice in order to defend the swamp.  The level of pearl-clutching pretzel logic by Wallace is off-the-charts…. In essence, all corruption must be accepted while politicians are running for office.

Several years ago the architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, admitted on camera the Democrats who were assembling healthcare legislation were “relying upon the stupidity of the American voter”….  Fast forward to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019 and her “official impeachment inquiry” by decree; she’s doing the exact same thing.
Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn’t exist.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.
In the last week you’ve probably heard the media sell a narrative that Speaker Pelosi’s House Committee teams are sending out subpoenas to the State Department and White House.  However, has anyone actually looked for those “subpoenas”, or read the language of the written communication from those committees’?
Using the House Oversight Committee as the example (because that’s the one most cited and all of the letters are formatted identically), take a careful look at how they frame their undertaking.
As you read this, remember: these carefully chosen words come from the Lawfare Alliance:
(more…)

Everything about this short news segment has to be devastating to democrat candidates, party leadership, DC politicians and the DNC as a whole.  CNN went to Michigan to interview striking United Auto Workers (GM) about the current state of politics and impeachment of President Trump.  Man-o-man, do the results cut the legs out from the professional political apparatus.
First, in a seismic overall political shift the striking UAW workers support President Trump, not democrats.  Why?  Because President Trump has been calling out GM CEO Mary Barra for not negotiating a win/win.  There is no economic reason for a strike.  Second, the striking workers can see through the insufferable political agenda of the Democrats.  This outcome is devastating to the democrats overall.

House Judiciary Rep. John Ratcliffe rightly calls-out the unprecedented sketchy nature of a unilateral impeachment process.  The CIA ‘whistle-blower’ is a material witness in the intelligence committee investigation.  The witness had undisclosed contact with the House intelligence committee prior to filing a complaint.  The Intelligence Community Inspector General did not know about the whistle-blower contact with the committee.
This sketchy assembly of activity makes the HPSCI a fact-witness to their impeachment investigation; a constructed conflict that cannot be allowed. Ratcliffe is correct here:

The inspector general for the Intelligence Community is Michael Atkinson. He is very sketchy.  Atkinson was previously legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD during the ‘stop-Trump’ tenure of John Carlin and Mary McCord. As a result, Atkinson was a participant in the weaponizing of the DOJ-NSD via FISA abuse, along with NSA database exploitation and tenuous FARA legal theories used to target political opposition.
In short, Atkinson seems dirty.  At the very least he hangs around dirty characters.
Today, according to Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge, ICIG Michael Atkinson testified the anti-Trump CIA ‘whistle-blower’, likely to be Michael Barry, did not inform Atkinson that Barry and his legal team already contacted staff working for HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff when he submitted his complaint.  More sketchy.

After he took the complaint, ICIG Michael Atkinson then changed the rules for the ICIG office allowing a second-hand hearsay complaint to be processed.  Again, sketchy.
According to New York Times reporting earlier this week, the ‘whistle-blower’ (likely CIA operative Michael Barry) first tried to push the hearsay claims to CIA management through a colleague.  Fearing CIA management would not take the gossip seriously “the officer then approached a democrat House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump.”  Chairman Schiff never told anyone.
Buckets of sketchy.
(more…)

The Federalist was able to gain a copy of the opening statement delivered to congress by Ambassador Kurt Volker.  The statements made by Volker support the outline put forth by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani surrounding the initial contact and purposes.
The statement by Volker directly undercuts the narrative spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and his attempt to create an impeachment narrative.  Here’s the statement:
[scribd id=428765582 key=key-qZmOFCD6kgjIcMuJBR94 mode=scroll]
.
The outline by Volker supports the original story as told by Rudy Giuliani.
(more…)