UPDATE – First Schumer Rules Amendment Defeated – House Managers Attempt To Rectify Inherent Impeachment Flaws…

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is attempting to rescue two legally and structurally deficient articles of impeachment rushed from the Lawfare community in the House of representatives.   However, in his first effort to introduce new documents and force the Trump administration to hand over new executive branch information, related to President Trump foreign policy decisions and delayed foreign aid to Ukraine, the Schumer amendment was defeated.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moved to table the amendment, dismissing the request, and won a floor vote as all republican senators stayed united 53-47.

It is anticipated that Schumer will next move for another amendment making the same request for new State Department documents the House committees did not seek.

The primary reason Chuck Schumer has to make this ridiculous effort for more evidence, is how the House never established their ability to enforce subpoenas via “Judicial Enforcement Authority”.  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.

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.

The House was not issuing subpoenas, it was issuing letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production.  Recently the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion.


BACKSTORY – Last year House Democrat leadership took a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they would not hold a House impeachment authorization vote.   As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance.


“Lawful subpoenas”, literally require an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word.  The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry, and charged the House Judiciary Committee with the authority therein.

Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempted to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) were only sending out request letters. The compliance was discretionary based on the outlook of the recipient.

Nancy Pelosi did not have the vote or political capital to start by initiating a full House impeachment authorization.  Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings had to rely on the duplicity of the media to help them hide their scheme; and the media complied.

Speaker Pelosi & Lawfare’s impeachment scheme could only succeed with a compliant media protecting it.  The media was entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct.

If the media would have ever asked questions the fraud would have collapsed.

Adam Schiff had to hide his hearings because the foundation of the impeachment fraud was to create a public impression.  There was no structural impeachment process or guideline being followed.  The committee leadership used the closed door hearings to leak information to the media to create a needed narrative.

A legislative “letter” or demand request needed to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There was no penalty that can be associated with the House demands because the Legislative Branch did not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they worked through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been 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, a power made possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  However, that level of elevated House authority required a full House authorization vote, and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee as empowered.

In 2019 the Legislative Branch was NOT expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose.  So that raised the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the constitutional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims. 

There was NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House did not create a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.  

The House needed to vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee would have gained judicial enforcement authority.  That would have created a penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. This was the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plan was designed for public consumption; she/they were creating the illusion of something that did not exist.  The purpose of all their fraudulent impeachment activity was to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intended to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process was destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege.

The Lawfare impeachment road-map was designed to conflict with the constitution. It was a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their sketchy impeachment plan, not a flaw.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies changed House rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi and Lawfare changed House impeachment rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi/Lawfare changed committee rules (SEE HERE); and in doing so they removed House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did.  However, what Lawfare and Pelosi could not change was The U.S. Constitution, which they were destined to collide with.

Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ could not supersede the constitutional separation of powers.  She was well aware of this.  Nancy Pelosi could not decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

Pelosi’s impeachment scheme required a compliant media to support her construct…

they did.

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Lawfare, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

242 Responses to UPDATE – First Schumer Rules Amendment Defeated – House Managers Attempt To Rectify Inherent Impeachment Flaws…

  1. AustinHoldout says:

    I wonder if the White House will make the procedural argument to dismiss based on the Senate lacking jurisdiction because the House never jumped through the hoop of starting an “impeachment inquiry?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Retired IG says:

    Happy Belated 65th Birthday Dutchman. Feeling sure you will have many returns of the day if you are able to heal thyself. And thank you Sundance for again posting the FACTS about how an Impeachment is to be conducted under the CONSTITUTION.
    Received my copy of the book “Profiles in Corruption ” by Peter Schweizer very early today. Started reading it in the hour or more it took to drink the stuff prescribed for an exam tomorrow, With the effect the book had on my spirit, I probably didn’t even need to drink that stuff. Absolutely sickening. And I’ve only read the part re Kamala Harris, and now am reading re Corey Booker.
    I can’t wait for his next book on Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Maxine Waters, etal.
    Threatened these people are (said by the voice of Yoda in Star Wars) by Trump is an understatement . There is no exponent (9th degree doesn’t handle it).
    Bringing our country back from being ruled by money and power grubbing freaks back to the RULE OF LAW, and under an ETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT.
    What a freak show scam this Impeachment Parade is. It should instead be a trial to IMPEACH FOREVER, PELOSI, SCHIFF, NADLER and anyone related . NOT ANOTHER US TAXPAYER RED CENT should be spent PAYING FOR THIS BULLSHIT. DO YOU KNOW WE ACTUALLY PAID FOR NANCY”s PENS? Trust me on this one. Taxpayer dollars.

    Liked by 2 people

    • LouisianaTeaRose says:

      Good luck with your scope, friend!!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • lftpm says:

      Separation of Powers runs a bit deeper than presented here. Suppose Congress and the President demanded SCOTUS’s deliberation records and justices’ and their clerks’ notes on a case. The two branches could not compel SCOTUS to turn them over.

      Suppose SCOTUS and the President agreed that a Congressman should be removed from office. Only each house of Congress has the authority to remove one of its members. Even the Senate cannot remove a Representative, or vice versa.

      Richard Nixon was a lackey of David Rockefeller and the globalist banking cartel. I believe that he conspired with them to weaken the Executive Branch. For example, why did he incriminate himself on tape? Why did he not burn the tapes when his staff revealed their existence, but before Congress subpoenaed them? Even while SCOTUS was deliberating ordering their turnover, he could have burned them. Or even afterward. He established the precedent that if Congress and SCOTUS together ruled against a presidential records-privacy (Executive Privilege) claim, then the President had no privacy. At the same time, the judiciary maintained its absolute records-privacy privilege, as did the House and Senate.

      There is nothing stopping a crooked future Congress and SCOTUS from deciding that the President does not enjoy plenary authority over foreign policy or national security. The GAO already declared that the President violated a statute by holding-up payment to Ukraine that Congress ordered, i.e. assigning foreign policymaking power to the Congress, which would turn upside down over 200 years of Constitutional order.


  3. ms doodlebug says:

    They’ve finally adjourned! After watching this all day I am worn out from making my dogs (and TV) listen to my opinion. However…watching the dems get put in their place multiple times was worth it. 53 to 47! What a nice combination of numbers!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Chilidog says:

    This case is so shallow the dems can’t go 20 minutes without repeating themselves. That was painful to watch. I think I’m going to bow out and just catch the highlights until it’s over.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Jim Raclawski says:

    Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
    – Justice Brandeis, Olimstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
    xxxxxxxxxx. very well said…. and what we have to deal with today… is that our elected representatives have real problems with…..

    the bedrock of self governance…. fundamental requirements that must be at all times possessed as integral components of our elected representatives…. way too many have no LIDMAC (loyalty … integrity … discretion … morals … and character)

    what’s brought us to this point in history is because so many “statesmen” and employees of our federal permanent administrative state …… lack mastery of them—or even a nodding acquaintance with their shadows….
    it is not melodramatic to say that THIS specific point in time is unlike any previously endured. there is no basis for construction of our present dilemma from some past period we survived….. a friggin COUP has been ongoing for President Trump’s entire term…. the ONLY thing keeping the operation intact…. the grand and glorious LEGACY MEDIA … the enemy of the Republic… the enemy of the people…. completely complicit… an active participant…. fully witting…..
    the battle has yet to be fully realized by “Joe 6pak…”. the entire question as to the outcome remains in doubt. ….

    Liked by 2 people

  6. glissmeister says:

    I just watched a clip of Chief Justice Roberts reprimanding both sides. It was extremely disturbing to watch. Our chief judicial officer spoke of no concern about the honesty of the presenters. He spoke of no concern about good faith or the lack of good faith in the presentations or presenters comments.

    Instead, Chief Justice Roberts reprimanded both sides about their lack of fealty to provincial decorum and demeanor. It was as if to say: Content be damned; say nice things nicely or else your honesty, your accuracy, your truthfulness and your good faith will otherwise be punished should you fail to do so.

    It was a deeply disturbing thing to observe such a powerful man more concerned with vanities than truth. Perhaps I misunderstood his superiority and his greatness, but it sure did sound to me like archetypical snobbery where provincial vanities and hs pretensions of decorum were ever more sacred and always more important than honesty, accuracy, truthfulness or good faith.

    I heard the words of a man accustomed to sleepwalking through lawlessness and serial maladministration. I heard devotion to indecency in the name of decency.

    If the Chief Justice meant something different, he should have said it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dad's son says:

      It is darkly fitting that Roberts “presides” over the worst political perversion in American history.

      Roberts’ painfully obvious machinations on 0bamacare destroyed my healthcare, and so far have cost me almost $100,000 in additional premiums out of my own pocket, which could have gone toward buying a house.

      Roberts also destroyed my faith in the Supreme Court, taught to me in school.

      Add that to the census citizenship question, and Roberts has also demographically sunk our country.

      Roberts is a corrupt worm at the heart of a very bad apple.

      He will go down in infamy as an amoral betrayer of the nation, and in my opinion the worst justice in the history of SCOTUS, due to his obvious perfidy. I respect Ginsburg much more, for at least the courage of her convictions, craven though they may be. Roberts is a fraud. He likely belongs in jail, if the rumors of blackmail over his illegally adopted kids are true, he should have resigned long ago.

      Instead, he certainly acts blackmailed, after the manner in which he flipped on 0bamacare.

      That day, I was shocked speechless that Roberts thought it was OK to force Americans to buy a product because they were breathing, and that it was going to be a long, horrible trainwreck of a ride before Barack 0bama was done vandalizing our institutions and traditions..

      After all I have seen from him, Ocaam’s Razor now tells me that it was no coincidence that he “botched” the 0bama oath of office. Something had to be done in secret, obviously.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Roger Duroid says:

        Yes, that SOB sabotaged the citizenship question over a pure BS reason. They most certainly have something on him. Can not be trusted, hope he has NO input on this fiasco other than sitting there in his black robe.


        • X XYZ says:

          Roberts is a Bush appointee and he is of the same mindset that the Bushes had. He’s certainly no conservative, he’s more like a RINO.
          Occam’s Razor? It might be as simple as that.


        • 1stgoblyn says:

          That ‘something’ has to be more than the illegal way he adopted his children b/c that is all out there in the public spotlight; everyone already knows that, so what else did he do to be subject to their blackmail. For he certainly must be.


    • Beau Geste says:

      This is the guy who appointed the FISC judges, who completely failed their only duty, which is a heavy, heightened to protect civil rights of the unrepresented defendants unknowingly assaulted by DOJ/FBI deceit, mafeasance and misfeasance. Not one, but 4 separate judges appointed by Roberts signed and extended the deceptive, secret Star Chamber FISA Warrant on a low-level CIA/FBI fake “target” to politically spy on the entire republican Party and its elected President. 4 in a row !!! of robert’s “picks” signed warrants under color of law for deceitful political spying. 18 USC 242. The FISC knew that the GOP and its President were the real target, not the named “target”. But nevertheless, these 4 character-picks of roberts, secretly and repeatedly facilitated this tainted political spying. The FISC was forced to admit by Admiral Rogers that 85% of DOJ/FBI 702 spying under its watch was not legal. FISC has not disciplined the DOJ/FBI deceivers, or withdrawn their tainted FISA which protects the deceivers. That roberts might now be “sleepwalking through lawlessness and serial maladministration” would not be surprising based on the behavior of his FISC picks.

      So Gilssmeister, you are correct that attention to your values of character, good faith, and honesty, may not be valued by roberts.

      Liked by 1 person

      • amazed treetop downlooker says:

        Isn’t he a traitorous crook who deserves to be thrown head first from the top of the Washington monument, NO ?


    • zekness says:

      Yes,. It is a strange moment to witness. It speaks volumes about the true nature of “supremacy” of the courts doesn’t it!??

      If SD has located this defect..a fatal flaw by any legal measure why hasn’t the Senate immediately give to solid grounds and guns to floor an immediate dismissal?

      I’m reading this and I’m having serious problems reconciling what is the point of even allowing one spent moment of time even debating peripheral substance?

      Why ARE we even discussing it ..at all.

      Seems to me for reasons by I can’t quite pull together (yet) why the Senate seems to have elevated this fraud Gambit to the stage? Is there some other political gain in winning this case by examining the fraud in a Senate “trial”.?

      Isn’t the risk doing that give wheels and the designed confusion for the media to feed from?

      I’m not seeing any reward superior to those risks by allowing this corrupted setup to go one inch, one moment, and farther than it deserves.

      What am I missing?

      Surely the Senate must realize this is never going to be acceptable..it’s a scuttle boat dragging the bottom.

      Why go to the trouble even arguing whether to save it or not?

      Just mark it with a hazard buoy…and announce the notice to Mariners: here lies a headstone! Travel not, you!

      Liked by 1 person

    • eguthr3 says:

      Yes, I’m concerned about Justice John Roberts too, because I believe he’s been compromised by the former administration. Remember Obama’s NSA mass surveillance program? Do you think it is at all possible that they used that program to gather intelligence evidence against a judge or a Supreme Court Justice? Robert’s did a 180 on Obamacare. First, he said it was unconstitutional and a few months later he suddenly said it was, then he disappeared for two weeks and nobody knew where he was. That sent up some red flags for me. I believe Robert’s is a member of the deep state, so that’s my concern but maybe and hopefully with the cameras there and the public watching he’ll keep it honest. REMEMBER the democrats and the deep state play very dirty political games and nothing is off limits to them, even murder.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ms doodlebug says:

      I didn’t see it the same way. I saw a SCOTUS Justice calling for civility in the proceedings. Since it was Nadler’s comments that had been called out, it was directed to all but served especially as condemnation of comments such as Nadler’s.


      • Dad's son says:

        But that’s the POINT here – that Roberts should NOT have directed his comments to all. It was NADLER who so slanderously accused the Senate Republicans of “covering up the president’s crimes!” Nadler deserved everything he got and much more; the Chief Justice should have come down on him like a ton of bricks.

        Instead, Roberts pulled the same cowardly, risk-averse “equivalence” gambit that my mother used to fall back on when my one spoiled, rotten brother, her favorite, would cause cause chaos behind her back.

        Brother would let me work for days on a plastic or balsa-wood model – then as soon as I finished it, he would destroy it before Dad even got home from work to see it. I took to hiding my models and he would seek them out and break them. He would poke me with table knives under the table at dinner. He would sneak downstairs at night at steal all of the marshmallow “charms” out of our treasured box of Lucky Charms cereal.

        Everytime I would bitterly complain to my mother, she would do nothing and would tell Dad, when he returned home dead-tired from work, “They’ve ALL been bad!” Dad got so tired of trying to figure it out, receiving no help from his wife who was actually witnessing the bad behavior, and would use the belt on all of us – hoping that collective punishment would at least kick in.

        Today, Dad is gone and our family is broken, because Mom still favors the one son, even though he has moved on to bigger things that are actual crimes, so far uncaught and unpunished. She won’t allow any criticism of him.

        All the preceding is a simile to explain that Roberts’ having no spine and refusing to call out, on its own merits, Nadler’s atrocious behavior, shows that we are cursed with a weak, spineless reed-in-the-breeze of a Chief Justice. Roberts has lost all right to any respect, and so now his lack of spine and “even-handed” dressing-down of the parties does nothing to address the cloud of EVIL now standing in the well of the U.S. Senate. I bet it stinks in that room. Roberts’ dereliction of duty in refusing to drop the heaviest hammer on the FISC corruption makes him complicit in the dynamiting of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment to the Constitution.

        Roberts’ lack of integrity and Jello-like convictions are a serious, weighty factor abetting the real-time destruction of our Republic which we are watching today.

        God help us all. God save the Republic. When, oh Lord, will these liars be struck down from their proud and vain ways? When?

        Liked by 1 person

        • ms doodlebug says:

          As much as we mght want a slapdown of Nadler, Justice Roberts has to be a neutral observer and mediator of these proceedings. He can’t appear to be taking sides. Still, I feel sure Nadler understood that it was his own behavior and comments being rebuked.


  7. DiogeneseVindicated says:

    So if the Senate were to vote to subpoena documents would that gain them the judicial enforcement authority they seek?


    • rikowshay says:



    • eguthr3 says:

      ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Let me explain why… Congress’ power to issue subpoenas, while broad, is not unlimited. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. And, that’s what is happening here in the mock impeachment farce. But remember Nancy and the demonRats in their House committee’s DID NOT follow the Constitution impeachment rules and procedures. They didn’t go through our legal system to issue “real” subpoenas. A court clerk or a prosecutor can issue a subpoena, but they must show cause, some kind of proof and evidence to obtain one, which they DO NOT HAVE. The Supreme Court has stated that, in order for Congress to issue a subpoena, it must be to further some “legitimate legislative purpose.” It’s the same thing with a warrant, but you need a judge to issue one AND THEY WOULD NEED PROOF. In addition, Congress can ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor, to bring criminal charges against a witness who refuses to appear. There is a criminal law that specifically prohibits flouting a congressional subpoena. Meaning it would be odd, structurally, because it would mean the Trump administration would be acting to enforce subpoenas against themselves. So, that’s why the administration staff ignored their “faux” subpoenas, so they were just sending letters to appear, and letters hold no legal weight nor penalty. I think the demonRats are hoping that the public is ignorant that allows them to pretend all of this is legal. If they want those documents, then they have to show cause, proof and any evidence to obtain a subpoena. The demonRats have Zip-a-dee-doo-dah. Don’t you think if they had something, they would’ve issued “real” subpoenas? I hope that answers your question.

      Liked by 1 person

    • usmcvmfa314 says:

      No authority to subpoena anything or anyone according to what Sundance points out in this article. No legal standing under the constitution. Begs the question: Why is teh Senate even entertaining the unofficial impeachment trial to begin with? No vote in the House to make it official means it is just what Tump has been calling it, a hoax.


  8. eguthr3 says:

    Clearly, the democrats did not hold a fair trial in the House, it was anything but. They denied him due process, ignore the Constitutional impeachment rules and procedures. They had to vote on changing their committee rules to allow all those false allegations leveled by former employees was nothing more than hearsay, who could NOT show proof of a crime when they allowed the republicans to question their witnesses. Even their ludicrous claims at the very beginning about their whistleblower witness was in danger when his identity was unknown. If anyone put him in danger, then it was by the hands of Adam Schiff who had forgot to redact his name from the transcript, that was up on the internet for 6 hours until someone pointed out their mistake. Oops!

    Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues kept saying that Trump could prove his innocence at any time, that’s not a defendant’s job to prove their innocence, it’s up to the prosecutors to prove that a crime was committed, and it’s why we have the Miranda warning as a defendant cannot bear false witness against themselves. Trump’s older sister, Maryanne Trump Barry is an attorney and a former United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

    Their claims that when President Trump withheld the funds was illegal but that was wrong. Trump has a certain leeway to uphold funds up to a certain day, such as 30 days to release them that’s legal and legitimate. For the Ukraine, that date was September 30, 2019. When did Trump release them? September 12th. So, the demonRats got nothing, zip, nada. As for the GAO, they have accused EVERY PRESIDENT of the misuse of their constitutional powers, they have 45 days to release their findings and it took them FOUR MONTHS to release them, that just so happened to coincide at the same time Pelosi was signing her name and delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Coincidence? I don’t believe in coincidence but especially political ones.

    Our whistleblower laws do not protect the identity of the whistleblower. Federal employees are protected from retaliation for reporting legal violations or government waste or fraud by the government agencies they work for. Federal employee whistleblowers are protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA) and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. The law does not compel an organization to protect the confidentiality of a whistleblower. However, it is considered best practice to maintain that confidentiality, unless required by law to disclose it.

    But if the whistleblowers identity must remain pristine then why didn’t they protect Adam Lovinger? Lovinger worked at the Office of Net Assessment under the Director James H. Baker, who played a prominent role in the Russian collusion hoax. Adam Lovinger complained internally that ONA was awarding sweetheart contracts for academic-type studies, regarding two separate contractors. One was Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG), whose president is Jacqueline Newmyer. Newmyer was Chelsea Clinton’s “best friend” and the other contractor was Stefan Halper, a Washington national security figure who worked as an FBI informant against the Trump campaign. Halper failed to document the research he did as a contractor on four Pentagon studies worth $1.6 million.

    Baker suspended Lovinger without pay claiming Lovinger removed classified documents and lost his TOP SECRET security clearance. The Department of Defense inspector general’s report exposes loose contracting practices at the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA) — the same kinds of problems reported by analyst Adam Lovinger. So, why wasn’t Adam Schiff or Pelosi concerned about this whistleblower? Adam was a Trump supporter who exposed the Obama pentagon and DoD corruption and made secret payments to Halper AND Chelsea’s best friend, Jacqueline Newmyer.

    My final thoughts… the democrats are NOT looking for the truth, for 3 years they have been in search of a crime.

    O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s