Opening Argument – Patrick Philbin Explains an Unconstitutional Origin to The House Impeachment, And Why It Matters…

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.

CTH noted the 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.

(Source)

“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.

Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and their Lawfare staff’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 exactly that.

Mary McCord joined the House effort to impeach President Trump; as noted in this article from Politico:

“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.”

“That’s why you’re seeing lawyers come out and being very willing to put in extraordinary amounts of time and effort to litigate these cases,” she added. (link)

Former DOJ-NSD Head Mary McCord is currently working for the House Committee (Adam Schiff) who created the impeachment scheme.

National Security Council resistance member Alexander Vindman starts a rumor about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, which he shares with CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (a John Brennan resistance associate). Ciaramella then makes contact with resistance ally Mary McCord in her role within the House. McCord then helps Ciaramella create a fraudulent whistle-blower complaint via her former colleague, now ICIG, Michael Atkinson….

…And that’s how this entire Impeachment operation gets started.

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Lawfare, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

245 Responses to Opening Argument – Patrick Philbin Explains an Unconstitutional Origin to The House Impeachment, And Why It Matters…

  1. freepetta says:

    Just read that Mr. Philbin was one of James Comey’s lieutenants. That kind of shocked me.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. sundance says:

    Liked by 7 people

    • Nigella says:

      Cold anger…. It’s hard to not be furious and incredulous that this could be taking place in America

      Liked by 14 people

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      The Dems and some RINOs will shut up on calling the witnesses stuff when more corruption is exposed on Monday and Tuesday by Trump’s legal team. They will be scared Shiftless. Today was just a taste of what is to come

      Liked by 20 people

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      Liked by 17 people

    • freepetta says:

      What Chucky? Are you doing too much mescaline?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Eric says:

      If this is their “strategy”, it sucks.

      They got blown out of the water today.

      Liked by 10 people

    • Somebody says:

      They want the chief justice to sign the subpoenas for their witnesses. They see that as the ultimate authority. Clearly they know they can control Roberts.

      If by chance enough squish R’s voted for witnesses could POTUS appeal to the full supreme court? Doesn’t Roberts control their docket?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Debra says:

        Exactly THIS.

        ‘Oh, Chief Justice, NOW that the president’s counsel has informed us that our ‘subpoenas’ needed judicial approval, we request that those ‘subpoenaed’ be brought to bear witness now.’

        Like

    • Boots says:

      If I had Twitter:

      “Hey Chuck! If you’d waited for the courts to decide on your lawsuits for witnesses and documents instead of jumping the shark, you”d have had them. Not the Senate’s job to assist your illegal coup. When Trump wins in 2020 he’ll put you in jail where you belong.”

      Liked by 3 people

      • lemontree says:

        They thought they would lose that fight. With every representative up for re-election I don’t think they wanted to take that loss. So they passed it to the Senate, the cowards.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Somebody says:

          It appears they saw the senate as a short cut. I’ve heard several of them say we need witnesses and we’ll have the chief justice decide who is relevant and have the chief justice of the supreme court issue the subpoenas.

          That seems to be their plan. They seem to feel Roberts decisions are the end all be all. The squish’s better hold tight and not vote for witnesses. That’s a hurdle that must be overcome by the D’s. If 4 of them cave, then we end up in a constitutional crisis and the senate turns into a circus.

          Like

    • The failure of the entire House to even vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry, but instead proceeding as if pretending such a vote had occurred, introduces a fundamental legal defect by the fact that due process has not not been *actually* followed, but instead due process has been ignored and circumvented.

      That *colossal* legal defect should legally nullify and invalidate the entire impeachment effort as an unconstitutional violation of due process. That abuse of process that is still ongoing has nullified and made moot every action following that neglected House impeachment inquiry authorization vote, involved in an unconstitutional process. The entire legal pathway for impeachment has been sabotaged from the outset in a way that removes its fundamental legal basis. That legal defect cannot be rehabilitated ex post facto. Oops we forgot to follow the constitution is not a credible excuse for such a brazen failure to follow due process.

      As for this half baked sham impeachment, that turkey is done, stick a fork in it.
      The entire impeachment should be dismissed for being facially legally insufficient
      for having violated due process.

      Liked by 11 people

      • trapper says:

        “That legal defect cannot be rehabilitated ex post facto.”

        Exactly!!!! No amount of witnesses can bootstrap this unconstitutional “impeachment” into legitimacy. Such an effort amounts to attempting to INITIATE a precedurally proper impeachment in the Senate to cure the fatal defects of the articles voted out of the House. Can’t do it that way. NO constitutional basis for it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cboldt says:

        FWIW, the House did eventually “authorize” impeachment stuff. It did so on Oct 31, which is AFTER the (fake) subpoenas described in the DOJ/OLC letter were issued.
        Until H.Res.660 passed, the House was silent as to what to do about and with its impeachment power.
        The legal issue in this OLC letter has yet to be tested in court. Just like the ICIG was out of his jurisdiction in the first place, also covered in an OLC/DOJ Letter, that one on Sept 3.

        Like

      • donna kovacevic says:

        I am not a lawyer, a banker I am, but have a question. I watched Judge Janine and she had Ted Cruz on and he said he would favor witnesses not dismissal? What was that all about, thought he was a Constitutional Lawyer, does he not know what you just commented on Adios Traidora?

        Like

        • Ted Cruz knows due process has not been followed, so why he wants the FARCE impeachment process to be continued to an impeachment TRIAL “on the merits” is incredible. This FARCE is like knowing a person was falsely arrested using a falsified warrant but OPINING there should be a trial anyway to provide sensational theater drama and entertainment and suspense.

          Like

        • Cruz very well KNOWS the proper remedy for a failure of due process is DISMISSAL of the entire tainted proceeding and returning the “case” to the originators for a complete “do over” to “get it right” next time. Such a DISMISSAL could be done “with prejudice” to DENY the FALSE ACCUSERS the “right” to even bring again the same bullshit charges, and that kind of DISMISSAL generally calls bullshit the bullshit it is.

          Like

      • The Demon Slick says:

        You can go back further to the corrupt origin of the weaselblower complaint. The house majority colluded with the cia, icig Atkinson and nsc to initiate an illegal complaint. Then they violated their own rules. I think it’s clear that laws were broken to get it started. Not just process violations, but violations of criminal statutes. It’s a conspiracy to commit sedition and perjury.

        Like

    • De Oppresso Liber says:

      Schumer gets away with spewing his treasonous bile, only due to the treasonous compliance of a willing and equally treasonous media estate.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 55praises says:

      Excuse my language, but bull….Asking Senators to reward the prosecution with witnesses and documents that the House committees were too cowardly to try harder to get! The House decided to abuse the Constitution with its rules that denied the president due process, and are now hoping to obfuscate the issue by claiming that the president’s own lawyers laid the groundwork for more witnesses and docs?!? Not buying it!

      It’s flawed from the get-go. No amount of massaging will make that go away. Add to that the additional statements by the House’s own interviews, brought out this morning….vote to acquit with extreme prejudice…today!

      Liked by 1 person

    • nigelf says:

      Then they should have done it properly in the House if they thought they needed more witnesses. Too bad so sad.

      Like

  3. freepetta says:

    So how much of the damage done to PDJT is he responsible for?

    Like

  4. guybee55 says:

    So, how can Trump be charged with obstruction if they have no power to ask for the papers or witnesses?

    Liked by 11 people

    • Patricia Weir says:

      I submit to you that if President Trump vetoed a bill, the radicals would impeach him for “obstruction of congress”. That’s how severe their TDS is. Incurable.

      Liked by 4 people

    • trapper says:

      Exactly! The cops send you a polite, nicely worded note, inviting your employees to the police station for a little chat over coffee and cookies. You send a note back that says “Sorry. Everybody’s too busy.” So they try to arrest you for obstruction? Doesn’t work that way. But that is exactly what they are trying here.

      These guys are all too cute by half. Smart as a whip, all of them, and capable of spinning these elaborate schemes. But none of their plans work. So … maybe the’re not so smart after all?

      Like

  5. cbjoasurf says:

    Members of :
    DOJ, FBI, CIA, FISC, House & Senate Democrats
    GUILTY OF:
    18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious Conspiracy.
    Plain & Simple

    Liked by 17 people

  6. LouisianaTeaRose says:

    Your assessment earlier last fall about this strategy was and remains spot-on, Sundance!

    I certainly expect the defense to drill down on this sinister component of the strategy…Jay Sekulow may have been teasing this up during the House “presentation”….if that’s what you call a shitburger-on-a-plate-with-House-fries-on-the-side….Lawfare wants jalapenos on theirs….put the toilet paper in the freezer….

    Liked by 5 people

  7. Dank says:

    Can any of these people who corruptly wasted the time & resources of our government be punished?

    Liked by 7 people

    • lemontree says:

      They literally used tax payer money for influencing an election. They got away with it with the Mueller investigation and are doing it again with this impeachment scam. And it’s all on our money. I’d love for Trump to send the DNC the bill.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. Dances with Wolverines says:

    The Senate should be able to see through this scheme and the dangers to the separation of powers it entails and act accordingly which is a straight up acquittal and possibly a censure of the House Leadership.

    Liked by 12 people

    • Nigella says:

      I pray you are right

      Liked by 4 people

    • Palafox says:

      Maybe weakening the presidency is just what they want.
      Politburo.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Charles Currie says:

      It’s not that they don’t see through it, they don’t care. The means justify the end. They could have called for a vote on day one and the outcome would have been no different than what it will be at the conclusion of the sham trial.

      Like

    • GB Bari says:

      The Senators have known what the scheme is all about for months if not years.

      Too m any of them are only looking at this through the lens of their own seat of power and the potential impact on their bank accounts of voting either way.

      They ALL should see clearly that a fast dismissal / acquittal is not only the obvious response to this sham, but it’s also in their best interests. However, we don’t know what back room deal$ may have been $truck.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Fred Witt says:

    This is an important point.

    There is no legal, valid, impeachment that occurred in the House (the only place it can occur under the Constitution).

    For tactical and political reasons, the House did not vote to authorize the full judicial impeachment process. Without such a vote, the House did not gain judicial enforcement authority.

    The non-impeachment by the House is fatally defective. Legally, it does not exist.
    This fatal defect lasts forever. It cannot be cured.

    This fatal defect can be raised at any time and on appeal, with only one result: case dismissed in two minutes.

    Liked by 14 people

    • johneb18 says:

      Can a legal appeal such as this one be made to the Chief (in)Justice to dismiss (with prejudice?) And also to declare that the entirety of the record was not given to the Senate, since the Atkinson transcripts were classified ‘secret’ by the lying, leaking Adam Schiff, and should be produced publicly forthwith, or be held in contempt?

      Liked by 1 person

    • ganesh says:

      I am not sure that is correct.

      The defect resides in the failure of the full House to authorize and give powers of enforcement to the House “Impeachment Inquiry”. Therefore they have no subpoena power. And results in “letters” to voluntarily show up. And may even cast some doubt on what evidence and testimony was gathered by the committee.

      And it may cast some doubt on the object of the President’s obstructing.

      The impeachment vote in the house was a separate matter. The House and only the House can vote to impeach the President.

      Art. 1 Sec 2, “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment”.

      It doesn’t say how they have to do it, though there has been a lot of argument that the House should at least follow its own rules. Debateable.

      So I would argue that the Articles of Impeachment are validly constructed, but nonsense. That nevertheless has to be defended.

      Furthermore, the Defense could argue the “evidence” such as it was, presented by Schiff, is all suspect, particularly if it was derived from the “Impeachment Inquiry”.

      Finally, as the Articles themselves contain no “crime” of misuse of power, as there is no such thing, and no “object” of obstruction (as in the body of Sundance’s argument above), logically, they can be dismissed out of hand.

      But this is not a logical process. It is a political process. Held on the grand stage of MSM with comments from the boxes (interwebs). And the President should have his Defense make the most of this moment to grind these self-important little turds (“SILT”s) into fertilizer.

      Liked by 7 people

    • John Allan Wilson says:

      But! There has been an impeachment and now to challenge the validity of the action goes well beyond the deliberations of the Senate. Myself, I sense a years long battle to reverse the impeachment separate from the actions of the Senate.

      Like

    • cboldt says:

      You are wrong, Fred. H.Res.660 (passed Oct 31) invoked House authority going forward.
      That creates a problem for all of nearly all the (fake) subpoenas, because they came before Oct 31.
      The articles themselves are “valid” in the sens that the House stands behind them. Unlike pre-Oct 31 subpoenas, which did not have the House standing behind.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      For tactical and political reasons, the House did not vote to authorize the full judicial impeachment process.

      Maybe their track record of FAILURE guided the decision, as impeachment resolutions had been brought to the floor multiple times:

      H.Res 646 Dec 2017 and Jan 2018
      H.Res.13 March 2019
      H.Res.257 March 2019
      H.Res.396 May 2019
      H.Res.498 July 2019

      None could pass….so NO WAY would they be able to get a full house vote to open formal impeachment proceedings.

      Nancy “solved” that problem with a press conference and a Mr. Microphone.

      Professional politicians use Mr Microphone for impeachments

      Like

  10. gsonFIT says:

    dems think Judiciary would have taken to long to rule on legality of their subpoenas and this might not have given Nancy enough time to hold articles in her purse for 30 days and make the entire country pay attention to her.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      No…..it would have slowed down or perhaps thwarted the Impeachment inquiry itself.

      In fact……they would still be stuck in the investigative stage waiting for court rulings on witnesses and evidence.

      IOW: They wouldn’t even have the Articles yet. Doubtful they would even have them before election day.

      Which is exactly what they told was the whole point of ignoring the courts.
      Hey……they CAN tell the truth. Call Ripley.

      Like

  11. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Liked by 12 people

    • swampfox999 says:

      Politically and for history’s sake the final vote should relate to a proposition/ judgment that includes the following. A vote that makes it clear that (1) the “impeachment” is null and void because of the House’s failure to follow the proper Constitutional process and the House’s denial of due process to President Trump, (2) the charges are unconstitutional and don’t allege any impeachable offense, and (3) President Trump is not guilty of committing any offense alleged by the unconstitutional impeachment charges.

      Liked by 3 people

      • zekness says:

        I fully agree with this.

        particularly with the (3) “not guilty”.

        it very important the senate “try” this case with a permanent conclusive verdict with the correct legal language.

        Anything short of this, would ..again..elevate….incorrectly…illogically…and unfairly…the preposterous ridiculous and plainly fraudulent allegations of “impeachment” the dems have attempted to manufacture.

        It’s not simply important to do this to protect the defendant…but to correctly make it clear for a politically precedence consideration: this will not be tolerate…it will be treated similarly and actualy trial verdict will always be NOT GUILTY when dealing with such gimics and fraudulent allegations supported by non-existing evidence..for actions that are not in fact unlawful….for allegations that were framed as crimes, but in fact are not crimes…and for impeachment procedures that violate the basic due process and fairness standards afforded any defendant,up to and including POTUS.

        The president is not above the law, they say..

        THe President is NOT BELOW THE LAW…I say…and we should really think about that rather than the first. It’s times to expose this impeachment…from all sides and stop allowing the House DIMS to hide behind the process as something special and exotic…A political device must follow the basic concepts we ALL follow.

        If not…then just burn it all down…because nothing matters if political impeachment really can mean, do whatever you would like to do…to anyone..for any reasons.

        that IS NOT what the founders, framers, the constitution or any interpretation of this very special remedy allowed for.

        this trial must end with a NOT GUILTY verdict.

        period…end of story…

        then we can hold the actual trial that matters…and blow the democrats sideways 2020 election!

        Like

    • joshashland says:

      Liked

      Like

  12. hokkoda says:

    He whole scheme is like trying to back-date a search warrant. “Oh, sorry about that illegal search and seizure! That just proves why we need a search warrant o justify our abuse of power and lying.”

    Well, since none of the coup plotters’ plans have worked so far outside of committees and Chambers where they already hold a majority, I’m not seeing much of a threat. House Managers tried the bold rhetorical trick of calling jurors out as CO-conspirators, which will no doubt help them win votes. [/sarc]

    Democrats in the Senate are powerless. Republican voters are incensed, enraged. That’s not a mix which delivers witness votes.

    Game over, folks. The acquittal will happen before the Super Bowl at this rate.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Orville R. Bacher says:

    An Impeachment founded in deceit, a continuance of the (so-far) bloodless coup, and the back-of-their-hand to the American Public. How has America come to dancing to the tune of this Creepy Jester, wrapped in the skin of the Democratic Party and the Media.
    Any Republican Senator that fears the paper monster, that is now the Democratic Party, deserves the contempt that their political enemy affords them.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Valid point.

    Liked by 7 people

  15. Why would ANY Senator accept this unConstitutional construct? Especially after Jerry Nadler got up and called all the Senators corrupt if they don’t vote to oust President Trump? Accusing them all of being stupid?

    Even the Democrats have to be insulted by this crap!

    And Sundance, you’re absolutely right about the media…. they’re partners with the Democrats. Journalism is absolutely as dead as a door nail!

    Liked by 6 people

    • Doppler says:

      Yesterday, the NewsHour lionized their founder, Jim Lehrer, who died Thursday. As part of their eulogizing, they recited several times Jim’s rules for reporters, and how all the more junior people there had memorized them. What was shocking to me was how many of those rules the Newshour now violates every program, in their coverage of the President. E.g., reciting the Dem talking point that Trump’s only motive in asking for an investigation was to secure help from a foreign government in the 2020 elections, and dismissing everything about Biden’s corruption as “without evidence,” and about Ukraine’s involvement as contradicting the IC’s determination that it was Russia that interfered (as if two couldn’t both interfere, or as if they were in on the Dem plan to use Ukrainian resources to create the impression that Russia interfered, and got the IC to validate that hoax). That tariffs would drive up consumer prices. Etc. Etc.

      Liked by 5 people

  16. Reserved55 says:

    Here’s Chuckie

    Liked by 1 person

  17. All Too Much says:

    ‘…And that’s how this entire Impeachment operation gets started.’

    And that’s why the Atkinson transcript is locked up.

    Liked by 7 people

  18. nigelf says:

    This where the Senate needs to dismiss these two articles on the grounds that they’re unconstitutional and warn them if there’s a next time they better get it right or they won’t even accept them in the Senate.

    Liked by 5 people

  19. BigTalkers says:

    Unfortunately for the House Dems, an odd thing happened during the advancement of their Impeachmrnt scam…

    The American people figured out on their own that their President was being unfairly targeted over doing nothing more than his job.

    As a result, he became a sympathetic figure to millions who hadn’t thought about him much one way or the other.. And we’re seeing that reflected now in his rising poll numbers!

    Liked by 14 people

    • felipe says:

      Big: Another odd thing that just happened, and I don’t think has fully percolated for most people, are the multiple admissions coming out about the rigged FISA court process regarding Trump and others. I wonder whether anything else will drop on this in the next 2 days.

      Like

  20. Michael Kunz says:

    Begs a question to me, is it an actual legal impeachment?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Ackman419 says:

    As I understand this, Pelosi didn’t ask for a vote BECAUSE she expected the media to carry water for the Dems, leading to some kind of public opinion court demanding witness and document evidence?
    I know the articles are BS. And a formal House impeachment would have allowed PDJT to defend himself by proxy. But couldn’t Pelosi have avoided the “feature” by going the high road?
    She wouldn’t have assured impeachment, but she’d have given her proxies a legal leg in the senate.
    The Dem strategy which SD has laid out (I believe 100%) was doomed to fail in an honest Senate.
    Is the strategy based on the fact that a legit inquiry in the Hiuse would have gone sour, and never made it to the Senate? Not to mention the cross examinations of witnesses would have been embarrassing?

    Like

    • Ackman419 says:

      Was Pelosi just gambling that some GOPe senators could be turned?
      If that’s what she had all this riding on, she is as myopic as she appears.
      She was willing to bet that Senators would commit career suicide if offered enough.

      Like

      • TarsTarkas says:

        Yes. It only takes three to make it 50-50 and then Roberts breaks the tie. However being insulted by Schiff and Nadler didn’t help their cause. Both are so convinced that Trump has to be removed and that anybody who balks at it for any reason whatsoever is a traitor.

        However it is still not out of the question. Any Republican squish who doesn’t vote for more witnesses will be targeted like they were Mr. or Mrs. H reincarnated.

        They have to balance that if they DO vote for more investigation and/or witnesses they were be targeted like they were Donald Trump.

        Like

  22. Jederman says:

    When you try to pull a scam like this and it fails (is exposed as a deliberate fraud) there MUST be a penalty, the “poena” associated with that failure. You should not be able to walk back to your corner without receiving a serious azz stomping.

    The first penalty if for those deranged house “managers” to be flamed without mercy in front of the entire senate by PT’s legal team. Call them out. Next, pursue ALL legal avenues against individuals involved, to include the lawfare slugs.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. Bogeyfree says:

    Surely the Senators see that if they allow witnesses, the Senate will forever become the monkeys of the House.

    Step 1) Meaning going forward impeachment’s will now occur in a Committee with fabricated accusations as their evidence to always limit due process of the President or Judge

    Step 2) Transfer Impeachment articles to the Senate

    Step 3) And use the monkeys in the Senate to secure witnesses to support the House’s fraud and fabrication

    Step 4) With no due process, any President AND Judge the left doesn’t like can and will be impeached.

    Senators will become the new windup Monkey toy!

    Liked by 3 people

  24. Brian Carey says:

    I’m not surprised that Sundance has chosen this testimony first, as he had covered this issue a while ago and cuts to the chase immediately in dismissing the entire impeachment process as flawed ab initio. The Articles of Impeachment are not valid, let alone as without merit of a crime upon which to impeach at all. By the time the defense has concluded, I’d expect the President to have been exonerated and the House shown guilty as the perpetrators of the ‘sham impeachment’ President Trump has stated it was all along. The defense should expose House criminality that deserves honest investigation once this scam it thrown out as the only ‘good’ outcome should be in legal precedent as a deterrence to try pulling a stunt like this again.

    Liked by 4 people

  25. scrap1ron says:

    So, this obstruction of Congress charge is not an impeachable offense because the proper Constitutionally legal vehicle to address what is or is not executive privilege is through the courts.
    They knew they couldn’t win that in the court, but with the media covering up their lies they hope to win it in the court of public opinion. It seems to me that the only significant portion of people who are changing their minds are those who now support President Trump and MAGA.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ackman419 says:

      Yes. I see that too.
      This strategy is mind boggling.
      We have talked about desperation from the Dems. This is what it looks like legally.
      We will gain independents from all this.
      It is reall an all or nothing moment for the Blue Team.

      Liked by 2 people

  26. Frankie says:

    Chucky’s drug of choice is Preparation H.

    Like

  27. Mike in a Truck says:

    When this is over a Special Courts Martial should be convened with Vindman as guest of honor.

    Liked by 5 people

    • “In the forgoing case of Lieutenant Colonel blah-blah-blah……is the way the result of a Courts Martial is started………or it was when I was typing them. (ex Battalion Courts & Boards clerk!)

      Like

  28. Balls, large and small, available for viewing in the upcoming days.

    Like

  29. John17milw says:

    If witnesses are debated, there should be a strong threat that the first witness will be the whistleblower, but only after the IG transcript is released.
    As for Schiff, he actually is the first witness once the Senators start asking written questions. Don’t know if he sees that coming.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. Wethal says:

    Prediction: the Dems will dismiss this argument as one of a “legal technicality.”

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Sammy Hains says:

    Today proves the Derp State exists, and Adam Schiff is its leader.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Adam Schiff isn’t the leader of squat. He’s a foot soldier following orders.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Sammy Hains says:

        Who is the Head Derp, then?

        Like

        • Ackman419 says:

          I’d venture it is Soros.
          He’s the most visible and influential globalist I can think of.

          Like

        • Eric says:

          It’s those running the global economy. It’s why multinationals across the world are freaking out over the nationalist populist wave that is embracing the world.

          Schiff? He’s an idiot. This nitwit didn’t even game-plan for the possibility that the President could release the transcript. And when the President did, Schiff still couldn’t adjust his script (and hence his bogus readout of the call in front of Congress).

          We’re not dealing with a smart man here.

          Schiff want’s Feinstein’s seat. He will probably get it because of the morons in California.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Sammy Hains says:

            “Schiff? He’s an idiot. This nitwit didn’t even game-plan for the possibility that the President could release the transcript.”

            “We’re not dealing with a smart man here.”

            Right. Which is why I appointed him Derp leader.

            Like

  32. WuFlu Crew says:

    Yes, the flawed underpinnings of the Lawfare/Pelosi impeachment activities are clear. What was step two when it reached the inevitable constitutional objections? Or, no need for one? The damage has been done. If this is the case, then it shows most assuredly that Pelosi is a tactician. Not a strategist.

    What a terrible charade.

    Like

  33. thedoc00 says:

    There is an even broader issue of failure to act in accordance with the constitution that has been overlooked and is the very reason the Senate needed to reject the Articles of Impeachment as Constitutionally flawed.

    The House was within its authorized powers to conduct an impeachment process to generate Articles of Impeachment for vote on the floor of the House. the major flaw, even beyond the subpoena process, was the the utter failure of the House to make available that evidence which was collected for the vote on the Articles. The Democrat leadership of various House Committees involved do not get to selectively pick and choose words and phrases, a to weave a narrative supporting a “guilty” finding that is proven to be preconceived by 3 years of Democrat Congressional public proclamations. The further compound this sin by delivering Articles of Impeachment minus nearly all the evidence that was gathers under the Democrat House’s own rules. For if statements by first hand Republican participants in the depositions by the House Committees is even partially true, the Democrat Impeachment Managers suppressed and withheld exculpatory evidence gathered in support of the current Articles of Impeachment to influence both the House Vote on the Articles and then the Senate Vote during Trial.

    There is no need for further evidence nor witnesses because the Democrat Committees have gathered evidence, under their own flawed rules, that should have stopped the Impeachment Process in the House if the verdict was not already preconceived.

    The only additional, NOT NEW, materials which should even be considered for introduction is the evidence unconstitutionally, suppressed and withheld by the Democrat Impeachment Managers.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ganesh says:

      “The House was within its authorized powers to conduct an impeachment process to generate Articles of Impeachment for vote on the floor of the House.”

      Yes, but where in the constitution does it say they have to have evidence? I agree their failure to produce complete and accurate evidence is outstandingly dubious, particularly exculpatory evidence or statements, but the Articles of Impeachment may still be validly constructed. Particularly if the Articles of Impeachment themselves do not contain any evidence gathered by the “volunteer” committee.

      Utter nonsense I agree but that is what appears to have been done here.

      Footnote: actual articles of impeachment, as:

      (annotated by CNN) – https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeachment-articles-annotated/

      (annotated by NYT) – https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/10/us/politics/articles-impeachment-document-pdf.html

      Whre are the crimes? And where are the facts? The House could have just made all this up?

      Liked by 1 person

      • GB Bari says:

        I think you are correct. The House has sole power of impeachment but it also makes its own internal rules where the Constitution is silent. What is compelling here is precedent along with normal rules of jurisprudence generally followed in the Senate, despite impeachment being a “purely political” process. IMO, “purely political” is not an inarguable license to violate fairness, ethics, or the Constitution.

        Like

        • jwwjr says:

          Where does it say in the US Constitution that the House can impeach for “purely political” reasons? Has the US Supreme Court ever weighed in on the definition of “sole power” as it relates to the impeachment text in the Constitution? Does one think the Founders would have given the House the ability to impeach the chief executive, but deny that executive the same basic protections afforded all US citizens as articulated in the Constitution! The House is not allowed to waterboard witnesses for impeachment testimony, even though they have the “sole power” of impeachment. Their “sole power” enables them to decide (or not) to affirmatively vote to proceed through an impeachment process, but they can’t violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights to execute that process. This issue needs to be litigated at the appropriate time (soon) by the President’s team. I would have hoped that would have been the first step, but they are proceeding otherwise.

          Liked by 1 person

          • GB Bari says:

            Where does it say in the US Constitution that the House can impeach for “purely political” reasons?

            It doesn’t. Neither did I.

            Like

  34. Zorro says:

    Smucky could be put in his place by a functioning media. Smucky has “overwhelming evidence” but is crying for his witnesses.

    Like

  35. Magabear says:

    The House may have planned for this to unfold exactly as it happening, but it was a really bad plan. It’s akin to a coach drawing up a football play that requires the opponents defensive backfield to all slip and fall down while you throw a pass to your wide open receiver.

    The demonrats plan may have gotten their shampeachment ball into the political red zone, but they’ve run out of downs and timeouts and Team PDJT now has the ball. Game all but over.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Wethal says:

      “The House may have planned for this to unfold exactly as it happening, but it was a really bad plan.”

      One theory I’ve read (can’t remember where), that Pelosi knew that this was a terrible idea, but she was not only being pushed to it by the left wing caucus, but she also decided to let them have their way, knowing it would crash and burn.

      Sure, it could damage Trump and some GOP senators running for re-election, but it could also squash AOC and the other lefties, shut them up, and help Pelosi move the part towards the center.

      A variation on H. L. Mencken’s, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Give the Squad what they want good and hard and see how they like the results.

      However, given Pelosi’s public speeches in the last few months, I doubt she has the intellectual ability to be so devious.

      Like

    • simplewins says:

      As Mike T said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face”. Today the dims got punched in the face.

      Like

  36. paintbrushsage says:

    House democrats were busy looking for a short story after the Mueller report fell flat. They are constitutionally lazy. The clipped out due process to try to keep their story intact and deliver it by Christmas. It is good to see the Constitution treated with the respect it deserves by the White House legal team.

    Philbin’s dialectic exposed Schiff’s mendacity

    Liked by 1 person

  37. With all the bad actors in this debacle, where in the hell are the court proceedings for these bad actors?! We continue to observe bad actions by vile creatures in the government, but it seems there is nothing done to punish them. Without punishment, does this not encourage them and others to do further evil? Moreover, we continually hear of the “rule of law” spewed all over the place, but we fail to see the true rule of law put into action. I am disgusted with it all! I want my country back!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “Without punishment, does this not encourage them and others to do further evil?”

      Of course it does.

      Ecclesiastes 8:11 KJV

      Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

      Like

  38. Bogeyfree says:

    Time for Convention of States where we secure 34 States who vote for…….

    1) Congressional Term Limits

    2) All Articles of Impeachment’s can only proceed to the Senate with a full House vote

    3) 2/3 majority required to pass Articles of Impeachment in a full House vote (forces bipartisan support and ends impeachment harassment)

    Congress will never do this on their own so it is time for We the People to take over for their failings.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. lemontree says:

    The Democrats in the House loved to talk about them being a co-equal branch of government but they are only one half of that branch. They can’t act alone although they sure come off that way. Trying to bully the Senate was not a smart strategy.

    Like

  40. tav144 says:

    My prediction is that they will dismiss the obstruction of Congress article so as to set the precedent that the Senate will not entertain articles of impeachment that do not follow constitutional and due process procedural requirements of fundamental fairness; and vote for witnesses to be heard on the abuse of power article of Impeachment. The interesting thing about it is that they MUST dismiss the first article to preserve and protect constitutional separation of powers, but in doing so they MUST then show the House exactly HOW it should have been done….by allowing both sides the opportunity to call their own witnesses, cross examine freely the other sides witnesses, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    • coastermomohio says:

      I agree with the reasoning for dismissing the obstruction article but see no reason they need to set some kind of example of proper procedure by allowing witnesses. They simply use the transcripts/videos of the witness testimony in the House and show that those witnesses do not prove abuse of power. In other words, they shoot down both articles but for different reasons. Both are flawed. They have no case. And they are stupid if they think allowing witnesses or new evidence will buy them any favor from their enemies – or prove how “adult” they are.

      Like

      • tav144 says:

        Yes I actually agree with you. Both articles are deficient. Both should be dismissed. However for political reasons I think they actually may allow some latitude for witnesses, and if they do, it puts them in the position of be extremely fair on who is allowed to be called and how many witnesses each side are allowed to call.

        Like

  41. Ackman419 says:

    I listened to today’s arguments, at my leisure.
    It was a perfect refutation of the the secondary argument of the Articles
    It was wise to avoid the whispy abuse of power, the primary article, and doubly wise to attack the real charge of Obstruction.
    The abuse charge is nothing. I doubt we’ll even hear the Defense address it for very long, if ever.
    As has been pointed out innumerable: How can you obstruct an investigation of a crime which did not occur?
    Our Patriots did well today. I’m looking forward to the Monday arguments.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Those weren’t subpoenas–they were “Do us a favor” subpoena-flavored bunko notes, purposely designed to be rejected in order to generate a process crime.

    Which is fitting–this whole process IS a crime.

    Like

  43. evergreen says:

    No need for witnessss when the existing facts are available.

    Premier among them is the IC IG’s testimony being withheld by Schiff. No need to bring that testimony to bear. Mr. Kitchen sink is for some reason withholding one particular, relevant appliance. Never mind. We can infer it.

    Good enough to covict the prosecution as a bunch of corrupt, conniving weasels. And, oh by the way, the DOJ will take a crack at this after the trial…with a president who has walked through impeachment unscathed…and pissed.

    Like

  44. Tiffthis says:

    Can the senate just make a rule that they won’t accept impeachment articles that don’t contain actual crimes? Jeez, why are we even here?

    Like

    • cboldt says:

      It’s a bit like Marbury v. Madison. The court looked at the complaint, studied it, dissected it legally in light of conflicting legal authorities, then decided ….
      It did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lester Smith says:

      Look when it comes down to it republicans and old school dems they do not want to call witnesseses. Two risky, can’t take a chance. A town full of corruption will be not let the light of day expose their dirty deeds. Trumps lawyers made a short of the dems bow. They brought up the three dem senators who threaten the Ukraine about playing ball with Mueller. If you noticed trumps lawyers mentioned names and referenced their letter but held back their threats. I believe holding back the dems treats was an intentional and a message don’t go their or the beans will spell. Listen to Graham no witness why? No Biden why. He says oversight needs to investigate guess what the dems are in charge of over sight. Graham is talking out his azz. He’s as dirty as all the rest. The senate wants this over buried and lock the filed. Trump and his lawyers no that a little reminder goes along way. Both party’s will use this schiff show to advance their own best interests. They could care less about us, America or president Trump. This crap will end by next weekend. Then Nutty Nancy will keep this crap show going until they meet their goal or are voted out of power.

      Like

  45. MrTuvok says:

    «None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.»

    «The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry»

    «Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority),»

    «There was no structural impeachment process or guideline being followed.»

    «In 2019 the Legislative Branch was NOT expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose.»

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

    «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.»

    «Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’»

    «absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’»

    I respectfully submit that the author repeats himself/herself too much. It makes the article less readable.

    Like

  46. sarasotosfan says:

    The Republicans should not give away any of their allotted time. They will move many independents into their column if they use their time properly.

    Mention of antitank Javelin Missles brings us very close to discussing Burisma. I am not sure we want to tell the people of Ukraine just what their prior administration had in mind.

    Like

  47. MitchRyderDetroitWheels says:

    San Fran Nan did what was needed to get this to a vote….that was her job. Her handlers believe they can count on the rhino’s to flip on The Donald. I’m not sure she/them are wrong. With azzholes like Mitt anything can happen. The two ugly women from Alaska and Maine can’t be counted on either. The goal all along may been to get over 50 to convict so they can bash The Donald all the way until the election. I would think the sane people don’t give a dayum if they get 50 or 51. We understand just how sorry these rhino’s are now and then.

    Like

    • TarsTarkas says:

      It takes two-thirds to convict. the 50 is to get more witnesses in and thus bypass the House’s refusal to get legitimate subpoena power by substituting the Senate’s lawful subpoena power.
      I hope not. Because if they pull it off it could get very ugly very fast.
      If they fail, they will be accused of coverup, but they need to realize that they’d be treated like s**t in the general election anyway.

      Like

  48. dustahll says:

    Trump team, of professional and talented lawyers, destroyed the cobweb façade that Adam S.
    constructed in days and hours. Ripped to shreds and exposed Shiff as a liar
    the rest of the show is to inform the public, the show is over. in my view

    Like

  49. Zachary Navarre says:

    Schumer and company must have missed the part of the Presidents defense today where they laid out EXACLTY why what Trump did was not only legal, but 100% in alignment with current government policy and with the desires of the American electorate to have their tax dollars be used judiciously.

    Anyone who watched even 10 minutes of the Defense today (it doesn’t even matter WHICH 10 minutes) knows that nothing Trump did was illegal or even wrong.

    I am so disgusted by what is going on with our “representatives” and our taxes.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Brutalus says:

    Trump pulled the rug under them when he released the transcript…he set the narrative early…think of the mischief that would be going on around this if Trump hadn’t short sheeted them

    Liked by 1 person

    • Brutalus says:

      I mean, Schift was out there at the press conference still dry humping the transcript, trying to explain what each line “really” meant….this phone call was always supposed to be this nebulous thing they could throw anything out about it…it still would have been lame…but with the transcript out, they were always chasing this…Trump is outplaying them…and they arent used to it

      Like

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